Terrance Callan, «Use of the Letter of Jude by the Second Letter of Peter», Vol. 85 (2004) 42-64
Assuming that 2 Pet 2,1–3,3 is dependent on Jude 4-18, this essay describes in detail the way the author of 2 Peter has used Jude’s material. It is clear that the author of 2 Peter has not simply incorporated Jude, as is sometimes asserted. Rather, 2 Peter has thoroughly reworked Jude to serve its own purposes. 2 Pet 2,1–3,3 is best described as a free paraphrase of Jude 4-18. The relationship between the two texts is similar to the relationship between 1 Clem 36.2-5 and Heb 1,3-13.
Use of the Letter of Jude by the Second Letter of Peter 57
refers back to the language of 2 Pet 2,2 and anticipates a similar
statement in 2,21. Jude 11 says that the opponents abandoned
themselves to Balaam’s error for the sake of gain. The author of 2 Peter
replaced “abandoned themselves to error†with “have erredâ€, using a
verb cognate to the noun “error†found in Jude 11. The author then
explained how they have gone astray with the phrase “having followed
the way of Balaamâ€. This phrase is patterned on Jude 11’s statement
that the opponents followed the way of Cain. The author of 2 Peter
then transformed Jude 11’s statement that the opponents acted for the
sake of gain in following Balaam into a description of Balaam as one
“who loved the gain of wrongdoingâ€. To this 2 Peter added 2,16,
describing the rebuke of Balaam for his transgression. Jude says
nothing about this.
Thus 2 Pet 2,10b-16 is a thorough revision of Jude 8b-11. In 2 Pet
2,10b-11 the author separated the final clause of Jude 8 from the
preceding two clauses and joined to it a revised version of Jude 9. In 2
Pet 2,12 the author followed Jude 10 more closely, though still making
substantial changes. The author of 2 Peter added 2,13-14, making
some use of Jude 12. In 2 Pet 2,15 the author used one of the three
elements of Jude 11. He expanded upon it and developed it further by
the addition of 2 Pet 2,16. From a rhetorical point of view, one can say
that here and in the following section of 2 Peter, the author reworked
a portion of Jude that attempted to prove Jude’s thesis, into a
digression in which the author of 2 Peter denounced his opponents (42).
4. Jude 12-16 / 2 Pet 2,17-22
1,12 Ou|toiv eijsin oiJ ejn tai" ajgavpaij 2,17 ou|toiv eijsin
'
uJmw'n spilavde" suneuwcoumenoi v
ajfovbw", eJautou;" poimaivnonte",
nefelai a[nudroi uJpo; anemwn
v phgai; a[nudroi kai; oJmivclai uJpo;
jv
paraferomenai, devndra fqinopwrina;
v laivlapo" ejlaunovmenai,
akarpa di;" ajpoqanovnta ejkrizwqevnta,
[
1,13 kuvmata a[gria qalavssh"
ejpafrivzonta ta;" eJautw'n aijscuvna",
ajstevre" planh'tai
oi|" oJ zofo" tou' skotou" eij" aijw'na oi|" oJ zofo" tou' skotou" tethrhtai.
v v v v v
tethrhtai.
v
1,14 Proefhvteusen de; kai; touvtoi"
e{bdomo" ajpo; ∆Ada;m ÔEnw;c levgwn: ijdou;
h\lqen kuvrio" ejn aJgivai" muriavsin aujtou'
(42) Watson, Invention, 48-49, 114-115.
FOLLOW US