The literary correspondence between the books of 2 Peter and Jude is unmistakable. Determining the type of literary correspondence between the two books and in which direction the dependency flows offer an important issue for analysis. A proper understanding of literary dependence not only provides insight into issues such as authenticity but also has the opportunity to illuminate the meaning of the respective texts. The following essay asserts that 2 Peter depends on Jude, not due to issues involving correspondence or authenticity, but due to the nature of the polemic of 2 Peter. The analysis first identifies a few areas of overlap between the content of the two books and then analyzes several similarities and differences between their structure and vocabulary. Next, the essay addresses how an investigation of authenticity relates to the discussion of literary dependence. Finally, a close examination of syntax and the canonical relationship between the two books ensues, which assists in revealing how literary dependence may inform the interpretive process.
Correspondence
Certain similarities between Jude and 2 Peter suggest a literary correspondence between the two books. Richard Bauckman offers four explanations for the striking resemblance between Jude and 2 Peter: Jude could be dependent on 2 Peter; 2 Peter could be dependent on Jude; both could be dependent on a common source; or both could share joint authorship.[1] Bauckman explains that the differences in style make joint authorship implausible, and although a common source is possible, the complications associated with the hypothesis make literary dependence more likely.[2] Accordingly, the following essay focuses primarily on the direction of dependency: whether Jude is dependent on 2 Peter or 2 Peter is dependent on Jude. The following provides several examples of content, structure, and vocabulary relevant to both Jude and 2 Peter that may assist in determining the direction of the literary dependency.
A careful reading of Jude and 2 Peter reveals a clear relationship between the content of the two books. First, according to Jude 4, certain opponents “secretly slipped in among you” who “deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord” (New International Version). Likewise, the opponents in 1 Peter 2:1 “secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord.” Second, Jude 5-7 references three Old Testament stories, including the Israelites’ deliverance from Egypt, the story of fallen angels, and the Sodom and Gomorrah episode, all three serving as examples of punishment. Similarly, 1 Peter 2:4-9 references the Old Testament stories of fallen angels, Noah, and Sodom and Gomorrah.
Third, both Jude 8-10 and 2 Peter 2:10-12 accuse their opponents of slandering celestial beings, asserting that even stronger beings, such as angels, would not engage in such slanderous activities and suggesting that their opponents are like animals. Fourth, Jude 11 and 2 Peter 13-16 accuse their opponents of following the ways of Balaam. Fifth, Jude 12-13 metaphorically describes the opponents as “clouds without rain, blown along by the wind…for whom the blackest darkness has been reserved forever.” Second Peter 2:17 uses similar language, describing the opponents as “springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them.” Sixth, Jude 14-16 and 2 Peter 2:18 both highlight the boasting of their opponents. Finally, Jude 17-19 and 2 Peter 3:1-3 request their listeners to remember the apostles’ words who prophesied that in the last days, scoffers will come and “follow their own evil desires.” The similarities between the content of the two books are striking and prompt interpreters to investigate the possibility of literary dependence. A straightforward comparison of content does provide evidence for literary dependence but, unfortunately, does not provide conclusive evidence of the direction of that dependence.
An analysis of literary dependence must also consider the structure of the passages under investigation. Mark Mathews makes two relevant structural observations. First, Mathews explains that 2 Peter 2:4-10a offers an example of poorly constructed grammar since the author writes an unwieldy conditional sentence that begins with an introductory protasis followed by six inconsistent protases resulting in a series of structural lapses.[3] On the other hand, Jude 5-8 provides clarity and concision that surpasses the comparable 2 Peter passage.
A second observation pertains to the description of the opponents in 2 Peter 2:10 and Jude 8. Mathews notices that in 2 Peter 2:10, the writer breaks up the threefold malfeasances by concatenating fleshly desires and rejection of authority to the end of the unwieldy conditional sentence, and then the author comments on blasphemy as an additional appendage.[4] Alternatively, Jude 8 provides a tight construction that succinctly states that the ungodly individuals “pollute their own bodies, reject authority, and heap abuse on celestial beings.” Unfortunately, the distinction between the clumsily structured language of 2 Peter and the neatly constructed argument of Jude can provide evidence of literary dependence in either direction. On the one hand, Mathews asserts that it is more likely that Jude would have utilized 2 Peter and edited the material into a more coherent structure.[5] On the other hand, Richard Bauckham states, “The most important literary reason for preferring 2 Peter’s dependence on Jude” is that Jude 4-18 “has been composed with exquisite care, whereas the corresponding parts of 2 Peter . . . are by comparison more loosely structured.”[6]
Vocabulary offers another set of clues that may assist in determining literary dependence. A few examples relating to vocabulary should suffice to highlight the differences between the two books. First, the vocabulary between 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 provides certain similarities. David Jones recognizes that both 2 Peter and Jude utilize the term ἄγγελος concerning fallen angels, whereas, more commonly, the New Testament uses the term δαιμόνιον for a fallen angel.[7] Furthermore, both 2 Peter and Jude utilize the term ζόφος, which, according to Jones, would be unlikely for both writers to use absent of literary dependence due to the rarity of the word.[8] Another relevant vocabulary example is that Jude 6 uses the term δεσμός, which is a common term for chains, while 2 Peter 2:4 uses σειρά, which is a hapax legomenon. The UBS Editorial Committee contends that 2 Peter likely replaced the more familiar word used by Jude (δεσμός) with the less common term (σειρά) due to its elegance, which supports 2 Peter’s dependence on Jude. Still, Mathews believes that it is just as likely that Jude recognized the rarity and potential confusion that the term σειρά could cause and thus replaced it with the more common term, which supports Jude’s dependence on 2 Peter.[9] In short, to conclusively determine the direction of literary dependence based solely on content, structure, and vocabulary is unlikely.
Authenticity
An investigation of the authenticity of Jude and 2 Peter may assist in explaining literary dependency. Biblical authenticity refers to a multi-faceted approach to the genuineness and reliability of the text. Authenticity often hinges upon examining specific aspects of the text, which include, but are not limited to, authorship, historical accuracy, originality, and coherence. Joseph Mayor summarizes modern scholarship’s view by stating that 2 Peter “was not written by the author of 1 Peter. . . . We conclude, therefore, that the second Epistle is not authentic.”[10] According to Michael Kruger, the argument that 2 Peter is pseudonymous rests upon problems surrounding external attestation, style, and doctrine.[11] More specifically, external attestation comes under suspicion due to early Church Fathers and certain Reformers questioning the following: the canonicity of 2 Peter; the style of 2 Peter, which does not seem to align with 1 Peter; and the doctrine of apostate angels alluded to in 2 Peter and Jude, which cause concern for many interpreters. Although the canonicity of Jude has also been questioned, the availability of evidence explaining the reasons for the suspicion is lacking in comparison to 2 Peter.
The relevance of the authenticity debate, particularly the issue of pseudonymity to literary dependence, rests on dating and chronology. For example, if a later pseudonymous author wrote 2 Peter after the book of Jude, then Jude could not have utilized the content of 2 Peter. Furthermore, if the Apostle Peter were the author of 2 Peter, then that would open the possibility that the book was written before Jude, and, accordingly, Jude could have utilized the content of 2 Peter. Alternatively, if Jude came before 2 Peter, then the possibility exists that 2 Peter depends upon Jude, which aligns with the current consensus. Dating also plays into the analysis. For instance, if the interpreter dates Jude after the life of Peter and presupposes that 2 Peter depends on Jude, then Peter could not have authored 2 Peter.
The determination that 2 Peter is pseudonymous is far from conclusive. First and foremost, 2 Peter 1:1 states that Simon Peter wrote the book of 2 Peter for righteous believers. Furthermore, P. H. R. van Houwelingen points out that the epistle also shows the author as having the qualities of an apostle when he states he was an eyewitness (2 Pet 1:16), defends Scripture (2 Pet 1:20-21; 3:16), warns against error (2 Pet 2:1-22; 3:3-7), and provides a unity of content in the letter that includes Christology (2 Pet 1), ethics (2 Pet 2), and eschatology (2 Pet 3).[12] Accordingly, it is reasonable to maintain the authenticity of 2 Peter.
The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude
Also, the book of Jude also identifies its author in Jude 1:1: “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James to those who have been called.” Although other options exist, and some scholars assume Jude is also pseudonymous, Peter Davids asserts that the most likely author of Jude is Judas, Jesus’s younger brother (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3).[13] If Jude is Jesus’s brother, then the book was likely written before AD 66, and if Peter wrote 2 Peter and were martyred under Nero as espoused by church tradition, then 2 Peter would have been written before AD 68, the year Nero died.[14] Furthermore, Peter attests to familiarity with other New Testament letters (2 Pet 3:16); thus, it would be reasonable to suggest that Peter was familiar with Jude or that Jude was knowledgeable of Peter’s letters. In sum, the authenticity of both 2 Peter and Jude is likely; Peter and Jude are likely the authors of 2 Peter and Jude, respectively, and the dating of the two books is before the death of Nero. Accordingly, from the perspective of authorship and dating, the interpreter can only say that 2 Peter may have been dependent on Jude or that Jude may have been dependent on 2 Peter.
Interpretation
Although a straightforward comparison of content, structure, and vocabulary alongside an analysis of authenticity and authorship does not provide the evidence necessary to determine the direction of dependency, a closer examination of syntax and the canonical relationships between the books may assist. The purpose of the book of Jude is to encourage his readers to fight for their faith in light of the ungodly and immoral individuals who have infiltrated their community (Jude 3-4). The aorist verb παρεισέδυσαν solidifies the present reality of the ungodly infiltrators. However, when Peter describes the false teachers, he uses the future tense verb παρεισάξουσιν to predict the arrival of the destructive heresies (2 Pet 2:1). Terrance Callen contends that the shift in tense provides evidence that Peter used Jude’s situation as a historical precedent, adapting the content to serve as an argument against the opponents that Peter’s audience faced.[15] Making the argument in the other direction would be less likely. In other words, using a past reality as an argument to predict a potential future outcome is far more powerful and credible than using a past possibility to argue a current reality.
Further syntactical evidence occurs when comparing Jude 10 with 2 Peter 2:12. When comparing his opponents to “irrational animals,” Jude uses the present passive indicative φθείρονται, which, contra the New International Version, is best rendered as “they are being destroyed” (Jude 10). When Peter compares the false teachers to animals, he uses the future passive indicative φθαρήσονται, which suggests that, like the unreasoning animals, “they too will perish” (2 Pet 2:12b). The point is that, according to Callan, 2 Peter “transformed Jude’s critique of present opponents into a prediction that opponents will arise in the future.”[16] If Callan is correct, then the more grandiose, less structured, or possibly Asiatic style of 2 Peter may be due to Peter’s desire to elaborate on the content of Jude for polemical purposes to convince his listeners to beware of the dangers of the heretical teachers. Accordingly, the direction of literary dependence is likely from Jude to 2 Peter. Furthermore, by 2 Peter utilizing Jude to warn his readers, the literary dependency provides insight into the interpretive process by encouraging the exegete to consider the present reality of Jude’s opponents in juxtaposition with Peter’s predictions associated with the false teachers.
Conclusion
Although the identification of content similarities, the performance of structural analysis, and the execution of vocabulary comparisons are necessary aspects of any investigation of literary correspondence, determining conclusively the direction of literary dependence between 2 Peter and Jude solely from such activity is difficult. Likewise, the issue of authenticity may also assist in determining the direction of literary dependence between 2 Peter and Jude, and, for some scholars, the lack of authenticity is the determining factor upon which literary dependence rests. However, asserting that either book is pseudonymous is not determinative, and it is just as likely that the books were written by the Apostle Peter and Jude, the brother of Jesus, as documented in their respective first chapters. Instead, by investigating syntax and canonical correlations, it becomes evident that Jude was likely addressing a situation of ungodly individuals. At the same time, Peter utilized Jude’s current reality to predict a similar outcome to his readers experiencing the potential deception of false teachers. Accordingly, it seems reasonable that 2 Peter depends on Jude due to the nature of his polemic as a warning against what will happen if the believers succumb to the deception of the false teachers.
__________________________________
[1] Richard Bauckham, Jude-2 Peter, ed. David Allen Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker, and Ralph P. Martin, vol. 50, Word Biblical Commentary (Zondervan Academic, 2014), 141.
[2] Bauckham, 50:141–42.
[3] Mark Dewayne Mathews, “The Literary Relationship of 2 Peter and Jude: Does the Synoptic Tradition Resolve This Synoptic Problem?,” Neotestamentica 44, no. 1 (2010): 59.
[4] Mathews, 60.
[5] Mathews, 61.
[6] Bauckham, Jude-2 Peter, 50:142.
[7] David W. Jones, “The Apostate Angels of 2 Pet. 2:4 and Jude 6,” Faith and Mission 23, no. 2 (2006): 24.
[8] Jones, 25.
[9] Mathews, “The Literary Relationship of 2 Peter and Jude,” 63.
[10] Joseph B. Mayor, The Epistles of Jude and II Peter (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), cxxiv.
[11] Michael J Kruger, “The Authenticity of 2 Peter,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42, no. 4 (December 1999): 645.
[12] P. H. R. van Houwelingen, “The Authenticity of 2 Peter: Problems and Possible Solutions,” European Journal of Theology 19, no. 2 (2010): 125.
[13] Peter H. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 9–10.
[14] Peter H. Davids, 2 Peter and Jude: A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco: Baylor University, 2011), xviii–xxi.
[15] Terrance Callan, “Use of the Letter of Jude by the Second Letter of Peter,” Biblica 85, no. 1 (2004): 44.
[16] Callan, 62.
Bibliography
- Bauckham, Richard. Jude-2 Peter. Edited by David Allen Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker, and Ralph P. Martin. Vol. 50. Word Biblical Commentary. Zondervan Academic, 2014.
- Callan, Terrance. “Use of the Letter of Jude by the Second Letter of Peter.” Biblica 85, no. 1 (2004): 42–64.
- Davids, Peter H. 2 Peter and Jude: A Handbook on the Greek Text. Waco: Baylor University, 2011.
- ———. The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.
- Houwelingen, P. H. R. van. “The Authenticity of 2 Peter: Problems and Possible Solutions.” European Journal of Theology 19, no. 2 (2010): 119–29.
- Jones, David W. “The Apostate Angels of 2 Pet. 2:4 and Jude 6.” Faith and Mission 23, no. 2 (2006): 19–30.
- Kruger, Michael J. “The Authenticity of 2 Peter.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42, no. 4 (December 1999): 645–71.
- Mathews, Mark Dewayne. “The Literary Relationship of 2 Peter and Jude: Does the Synoptic Tradition Resolve This Synoptic Problem?” Neotestamentica 44, no. 1 (2010): 47–66.
- Mayor, Joseph B. The Epistles of Jude and II Peter. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979.
