Jude & 2 Peter

I. Introduction

What happens when critics question authority? Sometimes they base their critique on evidence, sometimes on ideology. The latter encourages manipulation of the facts, even the creation of conspiracy theories out of whole cloth without any concern for the facts in the case. And, along with fanciful trains of thought, practitioners of such often live in a "counter-culture" whose ways scandalize.

Contrarians are not new. They even plagued the early Church. The authors of Jude and Second Peter addressed particular teachers who threatened to divide local churches with heterodox messages and sexual excess.

Overview

II. Dating: Jude 80-100 CE, Second Peter 90-110 CE

A. Authors and Audience

1. Jude

Like 1 Peter and James, the author of Jude demonstrated a cultured Greek that indicated he spoke it as a first language and he had a Hellenistic education. A native of Galilee would have, at best, spoken Greek as a second language and a much rougher writing style.

2. Second Peter

Unlike Jude, the author of Second Peter wrote in a stiffer style of Greek. He tried to emulate good style with longer sentences but they meandered and caused confusion for the reader. While someone who spoke Greek as a second language could have written the letter, many other factors argued against Peter as its author.

3. Audience

Both letters addressed unnamed audiences. It's more likely they were addressed to particular communities than as missives to a universal Church. However, the authors spoke to post-apostolic conditions. Both mentioned the time of the apostles in the past tense (Jude 1:17-18; 2 Pet 3:2-4) The author of Second Peter even indicated controversies that arose from the Pauline letters (2 Pet 3:14-16); these verses point towards a developing network of scribes that copied texts for general distribution. He also argued against "scoffers" who criticized believers for their assertion of the Second Coming (2 Pet 3:3-4), then defended the view with the doctrine of divine patience (2 Pet 3:8-9). He acknowledged the existence of a previous missive ("this is my second letter to you"; 2 Pet 3:1)

B. Similarities between Jude and Second Peter

Over the centuries, scholars have noticed the striking similarities between the two letters. Themes closely aligned in Jude 1:4-16 and 2 Pet 2:1-18. Both letters covered the problem of heresy in the early Church. Both raised the same objections to the deviant teachings. Both used the same arguments against their proponents. A summary of the texts is below.

Since scholars have not found any thematic sources outside these two letters, they assume one depended upon the other. But, which one was the original? Which one was the copy? Jude included two interesting references from apocryphal texts that were missing in Second Peter. The first came from a possible connection with the Assumption of Moses:

Michael, the archangel, when contending with the devil and arguing about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him an abusive condemnation, but said, "May the Lord rebuke you!"

Jude 1:9

Second Peter generalized the statement.

...whereas angels, though greater in might and power, don't bring a railing judgment against them before the Lord.

2 Peter 2:11

The second reference was a quote from 1 Enoch 1:9.

About these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their works of ungodliness which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

Jude 1:14-15 (1 Enoch 1:9)

Second Peter did not include any mention of this passage.

Many scholars argue Second Peter depended upon Jude for two reasons. First, it was easier to reduce texts in editing than it was to expand them and add details. Second, writings in the post-apostolic era tended to shun materials of legend from apocryphal sources due to the problem of non-canonical Christian and Gnostic texts.

C. The Heresy Itself

Because of the similarities between Jude 4:16 and 2 Pet 2:1-18, we can surmise the general outlines of the controversy in question. Two items stand out. First, the heretics shifted the focus away from the centrality of Christ in salvation (Jude 1:4; 2 Pet 2:1). They even went so far as to question the validity of Second Coming (2 Pet 3:8-9). Yet, they were members of the community (Jude 1:4, Jude 1:12; 2 Pet 2:1). How could the heretics claim the title of "Christian?"

The opening to the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas (120-150 CE) might give us a clue.

These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymus Judas Thomas wrote down.

The Gospel of Thomas was a book of sayings that didn't include any mention of the Passion or the Resurrection. It claimed salvation came from the "wisdom" contained in the sayings themselves.

The word "Didymus" in the book's introduction meant "twin." According to some legends, Thomas was the twin brother of Jesus. So, who else would Jesus reveal his "secret" teachings to? His other self, his twin brother. While we do not know if the heretics were devotees of the Gospel of Thomas, their disruptive place in the community did point to something in common with that writing. The false teachers claimed authority based upon alternative sources. They challenged the legitimacy of local leaders because they asserted a "secret and better" teaching than what was preached openly in the assembly (Jude 1:19; 2 Pet 2:1). No wonder the authors questioned the worth of the heretics' teachings (Jude 1:10, Jude 1:12-13; 2 Pet 2:12).

This led to the second item, the sexually libertine nature of the heretics' lifestyle (Jude 1:8, Jude 1:16; 2 Pet 2:10, 2 Pet 2:17-19). Ever since St. Paul preached freedom from the Law (Gal 5:1), many in the community perverted his thought as an excuse for excess (see 1 Cor 5:11, 1 Cor 6:12-20). This movement continued throughout the post-apostolic era often connected with eating meat offered to idols (see Rev 2:14, Rev 2:20). While neither freedom from the Law nor the consuming of meat sacrificed to idols seem to be connected with the heresies discussed in Jude or Second Peter, the parallels were striking. In every case, the activity of the libertines scandalized the community, thus dividing it and casting dispersion on its leadership.

D. Dating

While both authors claimed apostolic status, we can reasonably question their legitimacy. The quality Greek of Jude argued against a Galilean source. The comments on the Pauline letters and the previous Petrine missive brought the timing of Second Peter into question. It appeared the author wrote it when the scribal network in the Church had already developed. It also seemed to depend upon Jude due to its editing.

Then, there was the heresy itself. While neither letter really described its content, both were concerned with the effects it had upon the faithful. Its false teachers claimed to be good members in standing within the community yet divided local church members with the authority of "secret yet authentic" sources. In addition, they preached and/or conducted sexual practices which also caused scandal.

Yet, Second Peter also addressed one criticism of the heretics. They questioned faith in the Second Coming since it had not occurred. Its author encouraged readers to consider delay as an act of divine mercy and to actively anticipate the end times.

When take all these factors into consideration, we can reasonably date Jude first in the post-apostolic era (80-100 CE) when anticipation for the end times had reached a fever pitch and when some proto-gnostic movements were taking root. We can date Second Peter later in the era (90-110 CE).