The Letter of Jude and the Second Letter of Peter : A Theological Commentary [1 ed.] 9781481309233, 9781481309196

Citation preview

The Letter of Jude and the Second Letter of Peter

This page intentionally left blank

The Letter of Jude and the Second Letter of Peter A Theological Commentary

Jörg Frey Translated by Kathleen Ess

BAYLOR UNIVERSITY PRESS

© 2018 by Baylor University Press Waco, Texas 76798 All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing of Baylor University Press. Cover Design by Trudi Gershinov Cover image: St Jude and St Peter, detail of the rood screen, St Helen’s Church, Ranworth, Norfolk, UK (tempera on wood), English School (15th century) / St Helen’s Church, Ranworth, Norfolk, UK / Photo © Neil Holmes / Bridgeman Images Originally published in German as Der Brief des Judas und der zweite Brief des Petrus, THKNT 15/2 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt GmbH, 2015) with the ISBN 978-3-374-02391-2. © 2015 This book has been cataloged by the Library of Congress with the ISBN 978-1-4813-0919-6. This ebook was converted from the original source file. Readers who encounter any issues with formatting, text, linking, or readability are encouraged to notify the publisher at [email protected]. Some font characters may not display on all ereaders. To inquire about permission to use selections from this text, please contact Baylor University Press, One Bear Place, #97363, Waco, Texas 76798.

Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper with a minimum of 30 percent recycled content.

CONTENTS

Preface to the English Edition xiii Translator’s Preface xv Preface to the German Edition xvii Abbreviations xix Introduction to the English Edition xxxi Jude

1

Introduction 3 Commentary 57 Second Peter 161 Introduction 163 Commentary 247 Bibliography 433 Index of Ancient Sources 483 Index of Names 512 v

This page intentionally left blank

EXPANDED TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface to the English Edition xiii Translator’s Preface xv Preface to the German Edition xvii Abbreviations xix Introduction to the English Edition xxxi 1. Unexpected Paths with Jude and 2 Peter xxxii 2. The Context of Scholarship xxxiv 3. What to Expect in the Present Commentary xxxvi 3.1 The text and its problems xxxvi 3.2 Reading these epistles in their own right xxxvi 3.3 Reading the two epistles separately xxxvii 3.4 Polemical clichés and the real image of the opponents xxxviii 3.5 Reconsidering the varieties of pseudonymity xxxviii 3.6 Jude’s place in the history of early Christian theology xxxix 3.7 Scriptural interpretation and Jewish traditions xxxix 3.8 The place of 2 Peter in the history of early Christianity xl 3.9 The interaction with Greek philosophy and cosmology xl vii

viii



Expanded Table of Contents

3.10 Glimpses into the formation of the New Testament canon xl 3.11 Critical questions and hermeneutical problems xli 3.12 Theology of Jude and 2 Peter xli

Jude

1

Introduction 3

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Preliminary Remarks 3 On Textual and Canonical Evidence 6 Language and Style 10 Sources and Use of Scripture 12 Literary Form and Structure 16 Author, Date, and Location 21 6.1 On the identity of the sender named Judas in Jude 1 21 6.2 On the question of the letter’s authenticity 25 6.3 The fragile implementation of the authorial fiction and the authority of the fictitious author 30 6.4 Date of composition 31 6.5 Place of composition 32 7. The Opponents and the Situation of the Addressees 33 7.1 Textual evidence 34 7.2 Theses of scholarship 36 7.3 The image of the opponents and the theology of the author 41 7.4 Classification in the history of theology 42 8. The Intention of the Letter and Aspects of the Theology of Jude 44 8.1 Scripture and early Christian tradition 44 8.2 Faith and the argument from tradition 46 8.3 God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit 47 8.4 The angels and their significance 49 8.5 Soteriology and eschatology 49 8.6 Ecclesiological aspects 51 8.7 On the theological significance and theological value of Jude 51 9. Jude and the Canon of the Catholic Letters 54 Commentary 57 0. The Title 57 I. The Prescript (vv. 1-­2) 57 II. The Body Opening: Occasion and Purpose of the Letter (vv. 3-­4) 64



Expanded Table of Contents 

ix

III. The Proof of the False Teachers’ Condemnation (vv. 5-­19) 77 1. The First Series of Paradigms from Scripture (vv. 5-­7) 77 Excursus: On the text of Jude 5 79 2. The Application of the Three Paradigms to the Opponents (vv. 8-­10) 93 3. An Exclamation of Woe and the Second Series of Paradigms (v. 11) 103 4. The Polemical Application of These Paradigms (vv. 12-­13) 108 5. Enoch’s Prophecy of Judgment (vv. 14-­15) 118 Excursus: The book of Enoch and its dissemination 119 Excursus: The ‘apocryphal’ quotation and the early Christian canon 122 Excursus: On the Vorlage and the text of the quotation in Jude 14-­15 124 6. The Application of the Prophecy of Enoch to the Opponents (v. 16) 129 7. The Reminder of the Prophetic Words of the Apostles (vv. 17-­18) 132 8. The Application to the Opponents (v. 19) 137 IV. The Paraenetic Closing of the Letter Body (vv. 20-­23) 140 Excursus: On the text of vv. 22-­23 140 V. The Closing Doxology (vv. 24-­25) 154 Second Peter 161 Introduction 163 1. Preliminary Remarks 163 2. Attestation and Canonical Acceptance 167 2.1 Textual attestation 167 2.2 Reception in the second century CE? 168 2.3 Reception in the early church and the continuing skepticism of the text 171 2.4 Humanism, Reformation, and the beginnings of modern criticism 173 3. Text 175 4. Language and Style 175 5. Literary Unity, Use of Sources, and Literary Context 178 5.1 Literary unity 178 5.2 Sources and intertextual references 179 5.2.1 The letter and other early Jewish traditions 179

x

Expanded Table of Contents







6. 7. 8.

9. 10.

5.2.2 The relationship with Jude 182 a) Overarching observations 186 b) Detailed observations on the usage of Jude in 2 Peter 2:1–­3:3 187 5.2.3 The relationship to 1 Peter 192 5.2.4 The Pauline Epistles and their collection 194 5.2.5 The canonical Gospels (especially Matthew) 196 5.2.6 The relationship of 2 Peter to the texts of the Apostolic Fathers 199 5.2.7 The relationship to other texts of the second (and third) century ascribed to Peter 201 5.2.7.1 The Apocalypse of Peter and the question of the literary relationship with 2 Peter 201 5.2.7.2 The Kerygma Petri 206 5.2.7.3 Second Peter and other apocryphal Petrine literature of the second and third centuries 208 5.2.8 Further Christian literature 208 5.2.9 Pagan texts and discourses 209 Literary Form and Structure 210 6.1 Literary form 210 6.2 Structural outline 210 Author, Date, and Location 213 7.1 The author and the problem of pseudepigraphy 213 Excursus: On the particular form of the pseudepigraphy in 2 Peter and its assessment 217 7.2 Date of composition 220 7.3 Addressee congregations and place of composition 221 The Situation of Composition and the Position of the Opponents 224 8.1 The profile of the opponents 224 8.1.1 Textual evidence 225 8.1.2 Scholarly positions 228 8.1.3 Assessment 231 8.2 The implied situation of the community 232 The Intention of the Author and Aspects of His Theology 233 9.1 The biblical God as historically powerful, as creator, sustainer, savior, and judge 233 9.2 Christ, the God and Savior, and his ‘glory’ 235 9.3 Soteriology and faith 237 9.4 The questionable ecclesiology 240 9.5 The limited pneumatology 241 9.6 Eschatology 241 The Canonical Function and Significance of 2 Peter 243



Expanded Table of Contents 

xi

Commentary 247 0. The Inscriptio 247 I. The Letter Opening 247 1. The Extended Prescript (1:1-­4) 247 1.1 The prescript proper (1:1-­2) 249 1.2 The extension of the prescript (1:3-­4) as an introduction to the proem 256 2. The Proem (1:5-­11) 269 II. The Letter Body 282 1. The Body Opening (1:12-­15): The ‘Testament’ of Peter 282 Excursus: Jesus’ prophecy of death to Peter and its background 287 2. The Authority of the Witness to the Glory of Jesus Christ and the Reliability of the Prophetic Word (1:16-­21) 292 2.1 The authority of Peter as eyewitness to the divine glory of Christ (1:16-­18) 293 Excursus: The relationship to the synoptic and nonsynoptic transfiguration tradition 294 2.2 The authority and reliability of the prophetic word (1:19-­21) 301 Excursus: On the interpretation of 1:20-­21 307 3. The First Argumentative Section: The False Teachers and Their Liability to Judgment (2:1-­22) 313 3.1 The introduction of the opponents as false teachers doomed to damnation (2:1-­3) 314 3.2 The power of God to judge the unrighteous and save the pious (2:4-­10a) 324 3.3 The corrupt nature of the “false teachers” (2:10b-­22) 337 a) The rebellious insolence of the false teachers (vv. 10b-­11) 338 b) The comparison with irrational animals and their destruction (2:12-­13a) 341 c) The seductive licentiousness and sinfulness of the false teachers (2:13b-­14) 344 d) Balaam as a cautionary example (2:15-­16) 349 e) Two metaphorical characterizations (2:17) 352 f) The seductive power of the false teachers (2:18-­19) 354 g) The worsened state of damnation brought about by the false teachers (2:20-­21) 359 h) Dog and swine: a polemical composite proverb in closing (2:22) 362 4. The Second Argumentative Section: The Reliability of the Promise of the Parousia and Judgment (3:1-­13) 365

xii

Expanded Table of Contents

4.1 4.2

The scoffers and their objection (3:1-­4) 366 Excursus: A Jewish apocalyptic source behind 3:4? 377 The refutation of the opponents’ claims (3:5-­13) 384 a) The refutation of the argument of the world’s permanence (3:5-­7) 386 Excursus: The motif of the cosmic conflagration and its reception in Judaism and early Christianity 394 b) The discussion of the argument that the Parousia has not yet occurred and the notion of a “delay” (3:8-­10) 400 Excursus: On the problem of an imminent eschatology and delayed Parousia in early Christianity and in New Testament scholarship 406 Excursus: On the text-­critical problem of 3:10d 409 c) Ethical consequences and the hope for a new world (3:11-­13) 413 III. Letter Closing 418 1. The Closing Admonition with Reference to Paul (3:14-­18a) 419 Excursus: On the significance of the comment about Paul in 3:15b-­16 427 2. The Closing Doxology (3:18b) 431

Bibliography 433 Sources 433 1. Biblical Texts and Translations 433 2. Ancient Judaism 434 a) Anthologies 434 b)  Individual Editions 435 3. Early Christian Texts 436 a) Anthologies 436 b)  Collected Works 437 c)  Individual Editions 437 4. Greco-­Roman Literature 438 a) Anthologies 438 b)  Individual Editions 438 c) Inscriptions 439 Reference Works 439 Commentaries on Jude and Second Peter 440 1. Commentaries from the Early Church and Medieval Period 440 2. Commentaries from the Reformation Period up to 1800 441 3. Modern Commentaries (Selected) 441 Literature Surveys 444 Monographs and Articles 444 Index of Ancient Sources 483 Index of Names 512

PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION

J

ude and 2 Peter are enigmatic writings, in many respects. They pose many problems that have been discussed but not yet solved by the limited number of scholars focusing on these writings at the margins of the New Testament. The two texts are somewhat bewildering for those who love Paul and his gospel of grace, and they may be inspiring for those who love strong words against the ungodly. But who are the ‘heretics’ accused in these letters? Are they simply libertines, or can we arrive at a more precise portrait? What were the issues at stake between the authors of the two letters and their opponents? And what is the relation between these letters and other viewpoints within and beyond the New Testament? A close reading of the texts within their wider literary and theological context can provide unexpected glimpses into early Christian debates and traditions of the first and early second centuries. The present commentary aims at a more precise historical and theological understanding of these two ‘minor’ Catholic Epistles. It is a full-­scale historical and critical commentary and also the most extensive work on these two letters in recent scholarship. Therefore, I am particularly grateful that the work that was originally published in German can now appear only three years later in an English translation and thus reach a much wider audience all over the world. I am grateful to Carey Newman, the director of Baylor University Press, for his enthusiasm and confidence in my work, and for the excellent staff at the press for all their support at every stage of the production. And I am particularly grateful for Kathleen Ess, who has done a tremendous job in translating xiii

xiv

Preface to the English Edition

the complicated German text into smooth and readable English. It is a pure pleasure to collaborate with such a thoughtful and knowledgeable translator. Before and after the release of the German version, there have been many conversation partners, colleagues, ministers, students, and friends who shared with me their appreciation and their criticism. I would like to dedicate this volume to two of them, who are specialists in the field as well as good friends: Tobias Nicklas and Thomas J. Kraus. It is these human relationships that make academic work lively and enjoyable and inspire further scholarly and spiritual insights that originate from dialogue with the texts and with friends. Jörg Frey Zurich, October 2017

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

I

t has been an honor and a pleasure to translate Jörg Frey’s insightful, erudite, and illuminating commentary, which has greatly deepened my appreciation for these marginal New Testament texts. I hope that the present volume will be a substantial contribution to the conversation about these two letters in the English-­speaking world. As anyone who works with languages ancient or modern knows, there is no such thing as a perfect translation, and the present volume is certainly no exception. I have attempted to strike a balance between precision in conveying the meaning, flow of ideas, and tone of the German, and readability and clarity of thought in English. For those passages where I have failed in that attempt, I apologize to the reader in advance. A couple of specific issues should be noted. First, the name of the sender in the prescript of Jude is Ἰούδας—­the same in Greek as all the ‘Judases’ who appear elsewhere in English translations of the New Testament. Unlike in the tradition in English translations, there is no distinction made in German between this name in the letter of Jude and the name “Judas” everywhere else. I have therefore chosen to use the name “Judas” when referring to a person or literary figure, including the fictive author of Jude, while maintaining “Jude” when referring to the text itself. I hope this helps to avoid rather than compound confusion. Second, the German term Vergänglichkeit has generally been rendered as “perishability,” “destruction,” or “ruin,” but in certain contexts, “transience” or xv

xvi

Translator’s Preface

“impermanence” are preferable. It should be borne in mind that this is the same concept in the original. Unless otherwise noted, quotations from German sources have been translated without reference to existing translations. In the case of older sources, such as Luther, the original text is presented in parentheses. Translations of ancient sources are generally noted. Where they are not, the translations of Greek and Latin texts are my own, based on the source language while taking the German rendering into account. Translations from other ancient languages are translated from the German. Biblical quotations other than from Jude and 2 Peter generally rely on the NRSV (or NETS for the Septuagint) unless there is a particular point being made that does not come through in those translations. My thanks are due above all to Jörg Frey for entrusting me with the translation of his work and for his consistently helpful review of the texts; and, of course, to Carey Newman and the excellent team at Baylor University Press for their patience and support throughout the process. Kathleen Ess Calgary, October 2017

PREFACE TO THE GERMAN EDITION

T

he two letters that are found in the biblical canon in the name of Judas and of Peter, as his second letter, have long been treated in scholarship with disinterest. Although this has changed in recent years, they are still considered to be marginal, theologically impoverished, and dubious. This commentary seeks to confront such disregard and map out the achievements of these texts in their respective situations without suppressing the substantive theological questions that emerge with these concepts. In their linguistic and literary form, in the subtle manner of employing Old Testament and early Jewish traditions, and in the connections with current challenges, each in its own way, these texts have much to offer that is deserving of careful consideration. I agreed to write this commentary when I was called to a position at the University of Jena seventeen years ago. The work on these texts has granted me unimagined discoveries, and its composition is linked with various places: My work began in Jerusalem, where I experienced ecumenical hospitality in the Dormition Abbey; I discussed partial results in South Africa, where I was invited to several conferences. Work was propelled intensely in Greifswald, where I enjoyed the freedom to write as a fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study (Alfried-­Krupp-­Kolleg). I am very grateful to all my hosts and companions along the way, above all to the undergraduates, doctoral students, postdoctoral associates, and colleagues who discussed the texts in seminars in Munich and Zurich and contributed a great deal through their questions and critiques. In the preparation of the manuscript, Nadine Ueberschaer, Cindy Studer-­Seiler, xvii

xviii

Preface to the German Edition

Benjamin Schließer, and Veronika Niederhofer have made crucial contributions, and Thomas J. Kraus and Jens Herzer looked over my commentary in the final stages. Thanks is due to the editors for their patience with my work, and likewise—­last but not least—­to the long-­standing ‘soul’ of the publishing house, Annette Weidhas, whose steady reminders about the commentary spurred me on time and again. Jörg Frey Zurich, May 2015

ABBREVIATIONS

1. Biblical Texts Old Testament Gen

Genesis

Exod

Exodus

Lev

Leviticus

Num

Numbers

Deut

Deuteronomy

Josh

Joshua

Judg

Judges

Ruth

Ruth

1 Sam

1 Samuel

2 Sam

2 Samuel

1 Kgs

1 Kings

2 Kgs

2 Kings

3 Kgdms

3 Kingdoms

4 Kgdms

4 Kingdoms

1 Chr

1 Chronicles

2 Chr

2 Chronicles

Ezra

Ezra

Neh

Nehemiah xix

xx Abbreviations 1. Biblical Texts (cont.) Esth

Esther

Job

Job

Ps/Pss

Psalms

Prov

Proverbs

Qoh (or Eccl)

Qohelet (Ecclesiastes)

Song

Song of Songs (Song of Solomon)

Isa

Isaiah

Jer

Jeremiah

Lam

Lamentations

Ezek

Ezekiel

Dan

Daniel

Hos

Hosea

Joel

Joel

Amos

Amos

Obad

Obadiah

Jonah

Jonah

Mic

Micah

Nah

Nahum

Hab

Habakkuk

Zeph

Zephaniah

Hag

Haggai

Zech

Zechariah

Mal

Malachi

New Testament Matt

Matthew

Mark

Mark

Luke

Luke

John

John

Acts

Acts

Rom

Romans

1 Cor

1 Corinthians

2 Cor

2 Corinthians

Gal

Galatians

Eph

Ephesians

Phil

Philippians

Abbreviations 1. Biblical Texts (cont.) Col

Colossians

1 Thess

1 Thessalonians

2 Thess

2 Thessalonians

1 Tim

1 Timothy

2 Tim

2 Timothy

Titus

Titus

Phlm

Philemon

Heb

Hebrews

Jas

James

1 Pet

1 Peter

2 Pet

2 Peter

1 John

1 John

2 John

2 John

3 John

3 John

Jude

Jude

Rev

Revelation

2. Early Jewish Texts Apoc. Ab.

Apocalypse of Abraham

As. Mos.

Assumption of Moses

2 Bar.

2 Baruch (Syriac Apocalypse)

Bar

Baruch

3 Bar.

3 Baruch (Greek Apocalypse)

4 Bar.

4 Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou)

1 En.

1 Enoch (Ethiopic Apocalypse)

2 En.

2 Enoch (Slavonic Apocalypse)

1 Esd

1 Esdras

2 Esd

2 Esdras

4 Ezra

4 Ezra

Gk. Apoc. Ezra

Greek Apocalypse of Ezra

Jos. Asen.

Joseph and Aseneth

Jos.

Josephus

A.J.

Antiquitates judaicae

B.J.

Bellum Judaicum

C. Ap.

Contra Apionem

Vita

Vita

xxi

xxii Abbreviations 2. Early Jewish Texts (cont.) Jub.

Jubilees

Jdt

Judith

L.A.B.

Liber antiquitatum biblicarum (Pseudo-­Philo)

L.A.E.

Life of Adam and Eve

Let. Aris.

Letter of Aristeas

m.

mishnah

1 Macc

1 Maccabees

2 Macc

2 Maccabees

3 Macc

3 Maccabees

4 Macc

4 Maccabees

Mart. Ascen. Isa.

Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah

Odes Sol.

Odes of Solomon

Philo

Philo of Alexandria

Abr.

De Abrahamo

Aet.

De aeternitate mundi

Agr.

De agricultura

Cher.

De cherubim

Conf.

De confusione linguarum

Congr.

De congressu eruditionis Gratia

Contempl.

De vita contemplativa

Decal.

De decalogo

Det.

Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat

Deus

Quod deus sit immutabilis

Ebr.

De ebrietate

Fug.

De fuga et inventione

Gig.

De gigantibus

Her.

Quis rerum divinarum heres sit

Leg. 1, 2, 3

Legum allegoriae I, II, III

Legat.

Legatio ad Gaium

Migr.

De migratione Abrahami

Mos. 1, 2

De vita Mosis I, II

Mut.

De mutatione nominum

Opif.

De opificio mundi

Plant.

De plantatione

Post.

De posteritate Caini

Abbreviations

xxiii

2. Early Jewish Texts (cont.) Praem.

De praemiis et poenis

Prov.

De providentia

QG 1, 3, 4

Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 1, 3, 4

Sacr.

De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini

Sobr.

De sobrietate

Somn. 1, 2

De somniis I, II

Spec. 1, 2, 3, 4

De specialibus legibus I, II, III, IV

Virt.

De virtutibus

Pirqe R. El.

Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer

Pss. Sol.

Psalms of Solomon

Q

Qumran CD

Damascus Document

1QapGen

Genesis Apocryphon

1QHa

Hodayota or Thanksgiving Hymnsa

1QM

Milḥamah or War Scroll

1QpHab

Pesher Habakkuk

1QS

Serek Hayaḥad or Rule of the Community

1QSa

Rule of the Congregation (appendix a to 1QS)

1QSb

Rule of the Blessings (appendix b to 1QS)

4QCommGen A

Commentary on Genesis A, formerly Patriarchal Blessings

4QEnoch

Enoch

4QMidrEschat

Midrash on Eschatology

4QMMT

4QHalakhic Letter

4QpIsa

Isaiah Pesher

4QpNah

Nahum Pesher

4QTest

Testimonia

11QMelch

Melchizedek

11QT

Temple Scroll

Sifre Num

Sifre Numbers

Sib. Or.

Sibylline Oracles

Sir

Sirach

Sus

Susanna

T. Ab.

Testament of Abraham

T. Job

Testament of Job

T. 12 Patr.

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

xxiv Abbreviations 2. Early Jewish Texts (cont.) T. Ash.

Testament of Asher

T. Benj.

Testament of Benjamin

T. Dan

Testament of Dan

T. Iss.

Testament of Issachar

T. Jud.

Testament of Judah

T. Levi

Testament of Levi

T. Naph.

Testament of Naphtali

T. Reu.

Testament of Reuben

T. Zeb.

Testament of Zebulun

b.

Babylonian Talmud

y.

Jerusalem Talmud

Tg.

Targum

Frg. Tg.

Fragmentary Targum

Tg. Mic.

Targum Micah

Tg. Neof.

Targum Neofiti

Tg. Ps.-­J.

Targum Pseudo-­Jonathan

Tg. Yer.

Targum Yerušalmi

Tob

Tobit

t.

Tosefta

Wis

Wisdom of Solomon

3. Early Christian Texts Acts John

Acts of John

Acts Paul

Acts of Paul

Acts Pet.

Acts of Peter

Acts Paul Thec.

Acts of Paul and Thecla

Acts Thom.

Acts of Thomas

Apoc. Pet.

Apocalypse of Peter

Barn.

Epistle of Barnabas

1 Clem.

1 Clement

2 Clem.

2 Clement

Clem. Recogn.

Clementis quae feruntur Recognitiones

Did.

Didache

Diogn.

Epistle to Diognetus

Ep. Apos.

Epistle to the Apostles

Ep. Clem.

Epistle of Clement to James

Abbreviations 3. Early Christian Texts (cont.) Gos. Heb.

Gospel of the Hebrews

Gos. Naz.

Gospel of the Nazarenes

Gos. Pet.

Gospel of Peter

Gos. Thom.

Gospel of Thomas

Herm.

Shepherd of Hermas

Mand.

Mandate(s)

Sim.

Similitude(s)

Vis. Ign.

Vision(s) Ignatius of Antioch

Eph.

To the Ephesians

Magn.

To the Magnesians

Phld.

To the Philadelphians

Pol.

To Polycarp

Rom.

To the Romans

Smyrn.

To the Smyrnaeans

Trall.

To the Trallians

Ker. Pet.

Kerygma Petri

Mart. Pol.

Martyrdom of Polycarp

Minucius Felix

Minucius Felix

Oct.

Octavius

Pol. Phil.

Polycarp, To the Philippians

Prot. Jas.

Protevangelium of James

Ps.-­Clem. Hom.

Pseudo-­Clementine Homilies

4. Texts of the Early Church Aristid. Apol. Athen. Leg. August. Civ. Clem. Alex.

Aristides Apology Athenagoras Legatio pro Christianis Augustine De civitate Dei Clement of Alexandria

Adumbr.

Adumbrationes in epistulas canonicas

Ecl.

Eclogae propheticae

Exc.

Excerpta ex Theodoto

Hyp.

Hypotyposes

xxv

xxvi Abbreviations 4. Texts of the Early Church (cont.) Paed.

Paedagogus

Protr.

Protrepticus

Strom.

Stromateis

Didym. Comm. Job Epiph. Pan. Euseb. Hist. eccl. Praep. ev. Hippol. Antichr.

Didymus of Alexandria (Didymus the Blind) Commentarii in Job Epiphanius Panarion (Adversus haereses) Eusebius of Caesarea Historia ecclesiastica Praeparatio evangelica Hippolytus De antichristo

Comm. Dan.

Commentarium in Danielem

Haer.

Refutatio omnium haeresium (Philosophoumena)

Trad. Ap.

Traditio apostolica

Iren. Haer. Jer.

Irenaeus Adversus haereses (Elenchos) Jerome

Epist.

Epistulae

Jov.

Adversus Jovinianum

Vir. ill. Justin 1, 2 Apol. Dial. Lactant. Inst. Origen

De viris illustribus Justin Martyr Apologia i, ii Dialogus cum Tryphone Lactantius Divinarum institutionum Origen

Cels.

Contra Celsum

Comm. Jo.

Commentarii in evangelium Joannis

Comm. Matt.

Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei

Comm. Rom.

Commentarii in Romanos

Hom. Exod.

Homiliae in Exodum

Hom. Jer.

Homiliae in Jeremiam

Hom. Jes. Nav.

Homiliae in Jesu Nave

Princ.

De principiis

Abbreviations 4. Texts of the Early Church (cont.) Tatian Or. Graec. Tert.

Tatian Oratio ad Graecos Tertullian

Apol.

Apologeticus

Bapt.

De baptismo

Cult. fem.

De cultu feminarum

Jejun.

De jejunio adversus psychicos

Pud. Theoph. Autol.

De pudicitia Theophilus of Antioch Ad Autolycum

5. Greek and Roman Texts Arist.

Aristotle

Cael.

De caelo

Eth. nic.

Ethica nichomachea

Metaph.

Metaphysica

Mete.

Meteorologica

Pol.

Politica

Cicero

Cicero

Fin.

De finibus

Nat. d.

De natura deorum

Tusc.

Tusculanae disputationes

Corp. herm.

Corpus hermeticum

Diod. Sic.

Diodorus Siculus

Diog. Laert.

Diogenes Laertius

Epict.

Epictetus

Diss. Hesiod Theog. Homer Il. Od. Juv. Sat. Lucian Alex.

Dissertationes Hesiod Theogonia Homer Ilias Odyssea Juvenal Satires Lucian of Samosata Alexander the False Prophet

xxvii

xxviii Abbreviations 5. Greek and Roman Texts (cont.) Plato

Plato

Ion

Ion

Leg.

Leges

Phaed.

Phaedo

Phaedr.

Phaedrus

Tim.

Timaeus

Pliny

Pliny the Younger

Ep. Pliny Eld.

Epistulae Pliny the Elder

Nat. Plut.

Naturalis historia Plutarch

Adv. Col.

Adversus Colotem

Cohib. ira

De cohibenda ira

Def. orac.

De defectu oraculorum

Mor.

Moralia

Phil.

Philopoemen

Pyth. orac.

De Pythiae oraculis

Sera

De sera numinis vindicta

Symp.

Symposiacs

Tranq. an.

De tranquilitate animi

Sen.

Seneca (the Younger)

Nat.

Naturales quaestiones

Sext. Emp.

Sextus Empiricus

Strabo

Strabo

Geogr.

Geographica

Tac.

Tacitus

Theophr.

Theophrastus

6. Modern Texts and Editions ABD

Anchor Bible Dictionary

ACA

Antike Christliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, vol. 1: Evangelien und Verwandtes, 2 parts, Tübingen 2012 (Markschies/Schröter/Heiser)

BA

Griechisch-­deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, 6th edn. (Bauer/ Aland)

Abbreviations

xxix

6. Modern Texts and Editions (cont.) BDAG

Greek-­English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edn. (Bauer/Danker/Arndt/Gingrich)

BDR

Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (Blass/ Debrunner/Rehkopf )

BHS

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia

CIG

Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum

ECM

Novum Testamentum Graecum. Editio Critica Maior, 2013

EDNT

Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament

GCS

Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten [drei] Jahrhunderte

IBM

The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum

IG

Inscriptiones Graecae

IG2

Inscriptiones Graecae. Editio minor

IGR

Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes

IK

Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien

LCL

Loeb Classical Library

LSJ

A Greek-­English Lexicon, 9th edn. (Liddell/Scott/Jones)

NA27

Nestle-­Aland Greek New Testament, 27th ed.

NA

Nestle-­Aland Greek New Testament, 28th ed.

28

NHC

Nag Hammadi Codices

NTApo6

Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, 6th edn.

NW 1/2

Neuer Wettstein. Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus, vol. 1/2

NW 2/1–­2

Neuer Wettstein. Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus, vol. 2/1–­2

OTP

The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

PG

Patrologia Graeca

PL

Patrologia Latina

TWNT

Theologische Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament

WA

Martin Luthers Werke Weimarer Ausgabe

WA DB

Martin Luthers Werke Weimarer Ausgabe Deutsche Bibel

This page intentionally left blank

INTRODUCTION TO THE ENGLISH EDITION

B

iblical studies is an international enterprise, as the Bible is read worldwide in different churches and various ethnic, social, and academic contexts. The interaction between these different contexts is often difficult, as cultural presuppositions vary, and different languages hinder a free exchange of ideas. In some areas of biblical studies, we can even observe a continental drift in European and North American scholarship and their respective debates. Bridging the gaps between the various scholarly communities and their approaches is therefore a particularly praiseworthy endeavor. Over the last several years, Baylor University Press has increasingly made an effort to facilitate the communication of European and, in particular, German scholarship in the American context, not only with its BMSEC series but also with a number of other Bible commentaries and monographs. I am particularly grateful to Baylor University Press and its director, Carey Newman, who was eager to initiate and support not only the translation of my collection of essays on John1 but also a translation of my commentary on the two often-­neglected Catholic Epistles Jude and 2 Peter from the German commentary series THKNT,2 which now complements the translation of Reinhard Feldmeier’s commentary on 1 Peter from the same series.3 This commentary 1 Frey, Glory. This is the translation of a selection of the German essays of Frey, Herrlichkeit, supplemented by four more recent articles. 2 Frey, Brief. 3 Feldmeier, First Letter of Peter; cf. idem, Brief.

xxxi

xxxii

Introduction to the English Edition

aims at a new evaluation of these largely underestimated writings at the margins of the New Testament and, especially for 2 Peter, promotes a new perspective that also calls for a reconsideration of the relationship between canonical and noncanonical texts. 1. Unexpected Paths with Jude and 2 Peter As a New Testament scholar from the Protestant (Lutheran) tradition, raised in the Pietistic context of southern Germany (Württemberg) and trained in the theological faculty of the University of Tübingen, especially by the late Martin Hengel (1926–­2009), I am deeply convinced that biblical exegesis is not merely a philological or historical discipline but is ultimately tasked with serving the church or the community of readers of the Bible. But this necessarily implies a critical stance: if biblical texts are situated in the world from which they originate, they are somewhat distanced from the readers of today, so they cannot be simply (ab)used in support of current ideologies or opinions about Christian faith or morality. Furthermore, the plurality of viewpoints within the Bible or even just within the New Testament also demands a critical theological verdict concerning the significance and the limits of biblical statements. This becomes particularly obvious when we are required to imagine biblical authors critically opposed to one another regarding the concepts of faith and works, freedom and ethical demands, or eschatological perspectives. The Catholic Epistles are particularly challenging in this respect, as they represent in part a line of thought that is critically opposed to Paul or the Pauline school, or directed against opponents who might have appealed to Paul or his letters in support of their own views. It is, therefore, no coincidence that Protestant scholarship has often scorned these epistles, following Martin Luther’s criticism of James and Jude, and marginalized them as ‘early Catholic,’ a decline from the lofty heights of the Pauline understanding of the gospel, and a regression into unsavory polemics. Others, however, have still been able to find the epistles useful in their powerful fight against heretics or their struggle for a moral lifestyle they might consider to be threatened by too much ‘Pauline’ freedom from the law. From the beginning of my scholarly career, I have been devoted to the study of the Johannine writings, in particular the Gospel of John and—­as a Lutheran—­to the understanding of Paul, who is certainly the most challenging early Christian author. Apart from that, I was trained to understand the New Testament against the background of Second Temple Judaism, in particular the Septuagint, early apocalypticism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Thus, when I was asked by Udo Schnelle, the editor of the THKNT, to prepare a commentary on Jude and 2 Peter, I could not imagine where the work with those ‘marginal’ New Testament texts would lead me. The series was, owing to its roots in



Introduction to the English Edition

xxxiii

the East German context, not one of the major commentary series but rather devoted to informing pastors and students in a more condensed and decidedly theological presentation of biblical texts. The publisher’s aim for this volume was also to replace the last commentary written by Walter Grundmann,4 an East German scholar and minister whose past in Nazi Germany, including anti-­Jewish indoctrination and support for the idea of an ‘Aryan’ Jesus, had made his later scholarly work, including his commentaries, suspect, so that it was considered urgent to replace Grundmann’s work. When I accepted the invitation in 1998, I was an inexperienced young professor and felt flattered to be asked to write for such a distinguished series, but admittedly I had never felt a particular affinity for these two letters before. In retrospect, I must admit that I have been humbled by the sheer amount of surprising new insights I gained and by the unexpected paths I was led down during the years of preparing the commentary. However, things took their time. In 1998 I had just been freshly hired at the University of Jena in East Germany. But owing to my increasing duties at the University of Munich from 1999, and then since 2010 at the University of Zurich as the managing editor of the WUNT monograph series and in many other projects, I had to postpone the work with Jude and 2 Peter, which was carried out in different phases at various places, and so that it was able to mature and develop with time. During that time, my work benefited from various conferences and book projects (e.g., on the understanding of pseudonymity and pseudepigraphy in antiquity5 and on moral language and the ethics of language in the New Testament6), by helpful discussions in the research seminars in Munich and Zurich, and finally in stimulating conversations with my friends and colleagues Tobias Nicklas and Thomas J. Kraus. A crucial inspiration that ultimately changed my views on 2 Peter was provided by the excellent dissertation by Wolfgang Grünstäudl, written under the supervision of Tobias Nicklas.7 The “New Perspective” on 2 Peter was then presented at the University of Nijmegen (NL) in April 2016 in my Radboud Prestige Lectures, which are published, together with responses by other leading scholars in the field, in a 2018 Brill volume.8 Over time the commentary grew far longer than originally anticipated, and I am grateful to the editors and the publisher of the commentary series for not 4

Grundmann, Brief. Frey et al., Pseudepigraphie. 6 van der Watt and Zimmermann, Moral Language. 7 Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus. 8 Cf. Frey, “Second Peter in New Perspective.”

5

xxxiv

Introduction to the English Edition

forcing me to abridge the historical considerations and the exegesis. After a long period of scholarly neglect, the debate on these two epistles has become more lively in the last two decades, as they have been rediscovered as rich objects of study with regard to their Greek style and rhetoric, their reception of the Scriptures and of Jewish traditions, their interaction with Greek philosophy and cosmology, and their place within the history of early Christian thought in the early second century. Finally, taking the textual and historical problems seriously revealed more nuts to crack and tricky details to explain in these two relatively short epistles, especially since the new commentary was meant to go beyond the foremost German commentaries by Anton Vögtle and Henning Paulsen9 and argue convincingly for solutions that differ from the majority of English commentaries, which are still more conservative in their general views, under the lasting influence of R. J. Bauckham’s magisterial work from 1983.10 2. The Context of Scholarship The scholarly assessment of Jude and 2 Peter has been and still is heterogeneous. European Protestant scholarship traditionally held a very negative view of both writings. Many scholars considered them to be products of ‘early Catholicism,’ an alleged tendency in the postapostolic period in which the Christian message was fixed in formulaic phrases and institutional authority, whereas the liberty of faith and the truth of the gospel of the earliest Pauline period were increasingly suppressed.11 In this scholarly tradition, the epistles were mostly read in opposition to Paul and his theology, and there is no question that Paul’s views were generally preferred theologically. Roman Catholic authors, by contrast, still tried to ‘rescue’ at least 2 Peter as an important testimony to authentic faith in the Petrine tradition. While the denominational divide has decreased in recent decades, there is still a large gap between European critical scholarship and a number of North American exegetes who are still reluctant to accept that the two epistles are pseudonymous and from a rather late period, and defend or even presuppose their ‘authenticity.’ However, none of those defenders of the authorial tradition has been able to achieve the subtlety of Bauckham’s argument, who did his utmost in arguing for an early date for both epistles, although with regard to 2 Peter he was only able to attempt to support a relatively early date near the end of the first century and had to admit that the elaborate language and style of the 9

Vögtle, Judasbrief; Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter. 11 This was most influentially expressed by the Tübingen scholar Ernst Käsemann, who published a devastating critique of 2 Peter: “Apologie.” 10



Introduction to the English Edition

xxxv

letter make it improbable that the epistle was actually written by Peter himself.12 None of Bauckham’s conservative followers could add any valid arguments to his effort. Even so, while the debate about authenticity or pseudonymity has been stuck at an impasse of contrary basic ‘beliefs,’ scholarship has developed much more refined tools in recent years, especially concerning the types and aims of pseudonymous writings. The time has come, therefore, not only to admit that the epistles are most likely pseudonymous but also to understand more properly the character and implications of the authorial construction and the historical contexts in which such letters were produced. In view of more recent scholarship on pseudonymity in ancient texts, we are faced with far more than a simple choice between ‘truth’ and ‘forgery.’ The task is rather to understand why an author chose to ascribe his writing to a particular authority and how such a text could be received and contribute to the issues of its time and context. It is also time to leave behind the old judgments about the theology of these writings, which were primarily derived from the direct contrast with Paul. We should rather assess their own legacy, in their own time and context, reimagine the problems they were responding to, and evaluate their suggestions and solutions in their own right. There is much to discover if we leave aside the prejudices and familiar interpretive traditions in order to take a fresh look at these texts in their literary and historical contexts. There have also been a number of attempts to read these two epistles with ‘new’ methodological tools, from postcolonial perspectives or within the context of ancient or modern concepts of rhetoric.13 But as all these attempts ultimately draw on certain literary and historical judgments, it is still our primary task to illuminate the many philological and historical issues of the background, origin, meaning, and aims of the texts before other reading strategies or perspectives can be employed. The present commentary, therefore, focuses on the ‘classical’ methods that have proved themselves in the reading of ancient texts, including biblical writings, in order to get a clearer view of their historical meaning, with brief summaries of their ‘theology.’ The theological and ethical difficulties or a certain uneasiness we may feel in view of these texts should not be suppressed or pushed aside. There is no need to ‘rescue’ them. They only deserve to be read in their own context and in their own right, without being measured against other texts. Reasonable and responsible deliberations about their meaning for the church today can only be made against such a background. 12

Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 158. Cf. the collections Webb and Davids, Reading Jude; and Webb and Watson, Reading Second Peter. 13

xxxvi

Introduction to the English Edition

3. What to Expect in the Present Commentary For the purpose of introduction to the readers, I will summarize in twelve brief points what characterizes the present commentary and where it suggests new or possibly unfamiliar ways of understanding these two epistles.14 3.1 The text and its problems First of all, it is clear that a scholarly commentary must be based on the Greek text. In the area of the Catholic Epistles, however, the textual problems are more difficult than in most other New Testament writings. In general, there are fewer early manuscripts, and therefore their quality cannot be assessed as easily as that of the manuscripts of the Pauline Epistles or the Gospels. In particular, the letter of Jude presents two almost unsurmountable textual problems (in Jude 5 and Jude 22-­23), and there are also fiercely debated textual issues in 2 Peter (in particular 2 Pet 3:6 and 3:10). In the present commentary, these problems are discussed in separate sections, with reference to the ‘new’ text suggested in the new Editio Critica Maior from the Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Münster, which is also adopted in the twenty-­eighth edition of Nestle-­Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece and the new edition of the Greek New Testament edited by the Bible Societies. In some instances, I will advocate for a clear rejection of this ‘new’ text and the underlying decisions of the Nestle-­Aland committee. Especially in 2 Peter 3:10, the new text suggested by the committee is based on a completely arbitrary decision—­namely, inserting a negation which is not attested anywhere in the Greek manuscripts, which results in the meaning of the phrase being totally inverted. The problem with this is that Bible translators and commentators who cannot enter the specialized textual debates will helplessly adopt this newly fabricated version. In the present commentary, I argue for a rejection of the bold conjecture in 2 Peter 3:10 and show a more plausible way to understand the version with the best textual attestation, as was preferred through the twenty-­seventh edition of Nestle-­Aland. 3.2 Reading these epistles in their own right Although Jude and 2 Peter probably represent a tradition that reacts critically against some tendencies in Paul or the Pauline school, they should not be read 14 Cf. also other articles finished and published after the German edition of the commentary. Apart from the publication referenced above in n. 8, mention should be made of Frey, “Fire and Water?”; idem, “Holy Tradition”; idem, “Hermeneutical Problems.”



Introduction to the English Edition

xxxvii

only in comparison with Paul and his theology. Such a reading all too easily provokes a negative judgment of these writings as a backslide from the genuine understanding of faith or an example of ‘early Catholicism.’ If these writings originate from a later period and from a community situation different from that of Paul and his letters, we must cautiously seek out their proper background and situation and their own concept of Christian faith and Christian life, in order to consider their own answers in their own thinking and to understand how these ideas were made plausible to their addressees. Before we come to a verdict on these ‘marginal’ New Testament writings, they deserve to speak with their own voice. From this perspective, Jude will not be reduced to its solemn polemics and damnation of opponents, since it also shows a distinctive spiritual interest in its addressees. Likewise, 2 Peter will not be reduced to a failed defense of a problematic concept of eschatology but will also be illuminated as an innovative negotiation between biblical tradition and philosophical cosmology by a well-­educated author who is obviously more capable of entering into discourse with his learned contemporaries than most other New Testament writers. The distinctive qualities of these texts will be demonstrated, without concealing their hermeneutical problems,15 and although the conceptual differences from Paul are obvious, they can be studied as interesting glimpses into the debates of the late first or, rather, early or middle second century. 3.3 Reading the two epistles separately It has been customary to interpret Jude and 2 Peter together in a book-­length commentary, owing to the fact that there is a close literary connection between the two. This is more appropriate than combining the interpretation of the two ‘Petrine’ epistles or of James and Jude. But this close literary connection, more precisely the extensive use of Jude in 2 Peter, does not necessarily suggest that both epistles originate in the same milieu, advocate the same theology, answer to the same problems, or refute similar opponents. While exegetes have often assimilated the two epistles in their interpretation, the present commentary seeks to cautiously distinguish their tradition-­ historical backgrounds, their respective addressees, and the respective situations and problems each epistle responds to. The interpretation becomes much more precise if it is conceded, for example, that the delay of the Parousia, which poses a problem in 2 Peter, is not an issue in Jude, and that the discourse about the relevance of the angels, which is central in Jude, is not the focus of 2 Peter. Greater precision in this respect also helps to determine the respective place 15

Cf. also Frey, “Hermeneutical Problems.”

xxxviii

Introduction to the English Edition

of the two letters in certain early Christian discourses and integrate them into the development of early Christian theology. 3.4 Polemical clichés and the real image of the opponents With regard to the accusations against the opponents, we are faced with the problem that the polemics against opponents often employs polemical clichés. We can even observe that 2 Peter adopts vilifying phrases from Jude, which were of course originally directed against Jude’s opponents, and reuses them with very different opponents in view. Polemical clichés can be taken from biblical traditions (e.g., from the Psalms or the Prophets or from the use of negative paradigms such as Cain, Balaam, or Jezebel), but as the comparison with the polemics of rabbis, church fathers, or ancient philosophical schools demonstrates, there is a common stock of accusations that encompasses a wide range, from arrogance and insolent speech through deception and dishonesty to various forms of sexual immorality. In order to illuminate more precisely the issues between the authors of these texts and their opponents, the present commentary will critically distinguish between charges that are likely to be polemical clichés and those that appear to be particular to a certain epistle and thus help to reconstruct the issues at stake.16 The opponents of both epistles are thus characterized more precisely and not merely pictured as lawless people or libertines, as they were in most earlier commentaries. This more detailed image of the opponents may also help to understand the thinking hidden behind the polemical rejection of the epistles. We have to imagine that the opponents likely considered themselves to be true Christians, and possibly read Paul’s letters, deriving their argument from them. We must also consider that the opponents whom these letters reject or even damn were not the ungodly swine that the authors would have us believe, rendering the rough polemics of the authors and their total disparagement of their opponents subject to some skepticism. 3.5 Reconsidering the varieties of pseudonymity This leads to the wider field of evaluating and interpreting pseudonymous texts. Whereas earlier scholarship often put the issue as a simple alternative between orthonymity or ‘authenticity’ and pseudonymity, understood as a kind of forgery, more recent scholarship has demonstrated the wide variety of pseudonymous constructions in antiquity as well as the many and diverse intentions and implications in pseudonymous compositions. There are even large differences 16

Cf. also Frey, “Disparagement.”



Introduction to the English Edition

xxxix

between the authorial constructions within the New Testament (e.g., between Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, and 2 Timothy, or between James and 2 Peter). It is therefore an open question for any given text whether the author wanted to write in continuity with a ‘school,’ conceal his real name (and for what reason), ‘deceive’ his addressees, or simply write within a well-­known and (at least to some extent) accepted literary convention. In contrast with many earlier works, the present commentary aims to understand more precisely the aims and implications of the respective authorial constructions. It also takes into consideration that in a pseudonymous construction, not only the image of the author but also the images of the addressees, the opponents, and the situation presented are to some extent fictional, so that the whole composition needs to be interpreted in this context. 3.6 Jude’s place in the history of early Christian theology From the considerations sketched above, it is possible to locate the two epistles more precisely within the history and traditions of early Christianity. In contrast with R. J. Bauckham’s placement of Jude within the Palestinian or Jewish Christian mission of the relatives of Jesus,17 the present commentary takes as its starting point the suggestion that the epistle is located “between Enoch and Paul.”18 More specifically, it represents a tradition that is strongly influenced by Enochic and apocalyptic thought, particularly concerning the importance of the angels, and is opposed to tendencies that dismiss the angels as irrelevant, as seen in Paul and the Pauline school (especially in Colossians). If this perspective is correct, the opponents who are condemned as ungodly sinners in Jude might be Christians with views similar to Colossians’ rejection of any veneration of angels, thus representing a concept of faith which is completely repudiated in Jude. 3.7 Scriptural interpretation and Jewish traditions The present commentary provides a thorough survey of Jewish exegetical traditions that may lie behind the reception of biblical examples and figures in Jude as well as in 2 Peter. It discusses the relevance of Enochic traditions in early Christianity and the canonical status of the book of Enoch (1 Enoch), the early Jewish interpretations of the biblical stories about the Watchers and the flood, or of figures such as Cain or Balaam as negative examples. In this light, Jude and 2 Peter are interpreted as sources within a rich tradition of scriptural interpretation. 17

Bauckham, Relatives. Cf. Heiligenthal, Henoch; see also Frey, “Epistle of Jude.”

18

xl

Introduction to the English Edition

3.8 The place of 2 Peter in the history of early Christianity The commentary also suggests a “new perspective”19 on 2 Peter, situating this text more precisely within the history of early Christianity. The key insight here concerns the literary relationship between 2 Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter. Unlike most previous interpreters, including Bauckham, I follow the argument of Grünstäudl and consider 2 Peter a literary reaction to the Apocalypse of Peter.20 In the latter, Peter’s martyrdom is regarded as the starting point of the eschatological fulfillment, and this can explain the skeptical view of the “scoffers,” mentioned in 2 Peter 3:4, that the “fathers” have already died, but the promise of Christ’s coming has not and will never come to pass. By contrast, 2 Peter defends the eschatological expectation while rejecting any kind of ‘scheduled expectation,’ and this ‘correction’ of earlier views that had been distributed under the name of Peter may also explain why the letter boldly adopts an authorial construction that presents the epistle as a testament of Peter written shortly before his death. The new historical location of 2 Peter in Alexandria in the mid-­second century can better explain a number of passages and situates the epistle in close proximity to the writings of the apostolic fathers (2 Clem., Hermas), or even Justin Martyr. 3.9 The interaction with Greek philosophy and cosmology Scholars have often perceived a particular degree of ‘hellenization’ in both epistles, but more strongly in 2 Peter. The present commentary reexamines these views and seeks to determine in greater detail how 2 Peter, alongside its adoption of earlier (and partly ‘Petrine’) apocalyptic traditions, not only employs Hellenistic phrases and ideas but even enters into a debate with contemporary cosmological concepts.21 Especially in its adoption of the idea of a cosmic conflagration, 2 Peter presents a creative negotiation between Stoic thought and biblical tradition that is unique within the New Testament. 3.10 Glimpses into the formation of the New Testament canon Both Jude and 2 Peter provide important insights into the development of the collection of the Catholic Epistles as well as the formation of the biblical canon. Jude still presupposes a rather open canon in which even Enoch can be quoted as one of the prophets, and when the author of 2 Peter omits the quotation from 1 Enoch, it is unclear whether he does so because of a more developed 19

Cf. also Frey, “Second Peter in New Perspective.” See Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus. 21 Cf. also Frey, “Fire and Water?” 20



Introduction to the English Edition

xli

awareness of canonicity or for various other reasons. If the “new perspective” suggested in this commentary is valid, the ‘canonical’ image of Peter as presented in 2 Peter partly draws on an ‘apocryphal’ image (from Apoc. Pet.). This reveals that there is an overlap between canonical and apocryphal conceptions, and a clear-­cut demarcation between canonical and noncanonical writings is inappropriate. When the closing section of 2 Peter even draws on a collection of Paul’s epistles and comments on the concord of Paul with his own (i.e., ‘Peter’s’) view, the epistle paves the way for a canonical alignment of Paul and Peter, epistles and gospel tradition. However, we must consider whether the relation between these two figures is really one of canonical harmony, or whether the passage is rather an attempt to appropriate Paul from a different perspective, the perspective of the author of 2 Peter. 3.11 Critical questions and hermeneutical problems This ultimately leads to critical questions that cannot be ignored in a commentary on these two writings. Are the opponents in Jude really causing a schism (Jude 19) or is it rather the author who seeks to cause a schism at a time when the community is still united (Jude 12)? Are the views of 2 Peter really in harmony with Paul (2 Pet 3:15-­16) or is this a mere assertion in the face of actual differences in soteriology and ethics? Are the opponents vilified in these two letters really so ungodly and close to destruction as the authors claim? How would things sound if we could listen to the other side? And what can we say about a ‘Christian’ ethics of speech, when the ‘others’ are said to be like pigs and unclean dogs (2 Pet 2:22)? Although it is clear that Jude and 2 Peter are better than their reputation among some scholars would suggest, the hermeneutical and ethical problems of both letters cannot be ignored.22 The present commentary thus approaches them quite openly when this seems appropriate. 3.12 Theology of Jude and 2 Peter Finally, whereas previous commentaries have neglected the theology of these two letters, this volume presents a summary of their main theological convictions at the end of each introduction. From the image of God, Christology, and scriptural interpretation, to ethics and eschatology, the views of each letter are summarized, before the verse-­to-­verse exposition starts.

22

Cf. Frey, “Hermeneutical Problems.”

xlii

Introduction to the English Edition

With these features, in which the present commentary goes beyond most previous commentaries, I hope to provide readers with a more precise historical understanding of these two letters and enable a deeper and more nuanced theological reading. I am well aware that some of the paths taken in this commentary will be unfamiliar to many readers, but I am looking forward to an open discussion, which can only lead to further clarification of these enigmatic and often neglected writings.

Jude

This page intentionally left blank

INTRODUCTION

1. Preliminary Remarks Jude, whose 457 words make it the fourth shortest text of the NT (after 3 John, 2 John, and Phlm), has been subject to contradictory assessments. While a few decades ago the short letter could still be described as the most neglected book in the NT,1 it has received greater interest in recent years;2 Jude is a good object for rhetorical studies (for which its brevity and style is well suited),3 a witness to the reception of Jewish traditions, and an interesting example of early Christian scriptural interpretation.4 In addition, the letter is an important source 1 Rowston, Neglected Book, 554–­63; cf. Albin, Judasbrevet, 133–­43 and 714: “perhaps the least known and used text of the NT”; Bauckham, “Jude: An Account,” 3792 speaks of “scholarly contempt,” “scholarly neglect,” and “ignorance of Jude.” See most recently Ahrens, “Marginalie,” 39–­49. 2 This is documented in the literature surveys in Heiligenthal, “Judasbrief,” 129, and P. Müller, “Judasbrief,” 267, and the number of more recent commentaries and articles as well as at least a few monographs, most recently Reese, Writing Jude; Wasserman, Jude; and Blumenthal, Prophetie; as well as the edited volume Webb and Davids, Reading Jude. 3 On this, see Watson, Invention; J. D. Charles, “Artifice,” 106–­24; idem, Strategy; Wendland, “Comparative Study,” 193–­228; Joubert, “Persuasion,” 75–­87; Reese, Writing Jude; Brosend, “Excess,” 292–­305. 4 On this, see especially the commentary by Bauckham and his monograph, idem, Relatives, 179–­234: “Jude’s Exegesis”; Heiligenthal, Henoch; further Busto Sáiz, “Carta”; Wolthuis, “Jewish Traditions”; J. D. Charles, “ ‘Those’ and ‘These,’ ” 109–­24; idem, “Source-­Material,” 130–­45; idem, “Tradition-­Material,” 1–­14; Joubert, “Past,” 56–­70; Davids, “Traditions,” 415–­22.

3

4

Jude: Introduction

for the history of Christian theology at the end of the first or beginning of the second century.5 This newfound appreciation is rarely applied to the letter’s actual content, although more recent research strives to eschew the theological contempt for Jude and to recognize the letter as an independent and thoughtful reaction to the challenges of a specific community situation.6 This is also a result of the ecumenical expansion of the exegetical discussion, whereby the sharp criticism of Jude was primarily a proprium of Protestant exegesis entirely oriented toward Paul, which subjected the tendencies that can be discerned in this text (as well as in other late writings of the NT) to radical criticism with the catchphrase ‘early Catholicism.’ This criticism was expressed particularly harshly by Ernst Käsemann, who saw the πίστις that was “handed down once and for all” (v. 3)—­which he interpreted as “the doctrine of the faith”—­as indicating “the presence of church tradition” in contrast to the doctrine of the spirit in emerging Christianity: “Here the spirit no longer works through the tradition among other things, but has been subsumed by the tradition, and therefore . . . the church office of instructor possesses the ‘spirit of the office’ . . . in short: the boundary of emerging Christianity has been crossed and early Catholicism has been established.”7 Wolfgang Schrage followed this verdict, judging that Jude led its shadowy existence in exegesis and theology “not unjustly,” and this was due “not to its modest scope . . . but rather to its humble theology,” as it contained “not much more than severe polemics against heretics, which furthermore indulged largely in indignations, insults, and threats of punishment more than in theological discussions and did not actually confront its opponents.” On the other hand, “the kerygma,” the Christian proclamation, is “not developed” and the letter’s Christology comes across as “quite formulaic.”8 The harshest condemnation is expressed by Siegfried Schulz, who sees in this letter only a furious polemic against heresy, in which “the ecclesial-­orthodox tradition of instruction [maintains] a highly disconcerting eschatological dignity” and “the synergy of faith and works” is taught, while “the proclamation of the salvific Christ is only taken into account in the doxology.”9

The classification of Jude as part of an ‘early Catholicism’ has “rather hindered than promoted” the perception of Jude’s distinct character and message.10 Yet 5 See U. B. Müller, Theologiegeschichte, 23–­26; Hahn, “Randbemerkungen,” 209–­18; Sellin, “Häretiker,” 206–­25; Heiligenthal, Henoch; Thurén, “Hey Jude!,” 451–­65; Gerdmar, Rethinking; Frey, “Judasbrief.” 6 So Vögtle, Judasbrief, 111: “The anti-­heretical pamphlet is certainly not all that meager theologically.” See also Hahn, “Randbemerkungen,” 209–­18, and P. Müller, “Judasbrief,” 289, who maintains that “despite its brevity and polemical tone [Jude has] an abiding theological significance.” Especially positive is Buono, “Golden Letter.” 7 Käsemann, Kanon, 220–­21; cf. also idem, “Apologie,” 154. 8 Schrage, “Zweite Petrusbrief,” 223. 9 Schulz, Mitte, 292–­93. 10 P. Müller, “Judasbrief,” 288. Cf. J. D. Charles, Strategy, 53: “Given the ‘early Catholic’



Preliminary Remarks

5

theological disregard for this text can be traced back further in Protestant exegesis, ultimately to the legacy of Martin Luther, who placed Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation unnumbered at the end of the first German edition of the NT, the Septembertestament of 1522, and so—­beyond the affront to Heb and Jas—­illustrated the lesser rank of these four texts within the NT canon. In his “Preface to the Epistles of Saint James and Jude,”11 Luther described Jude as “an unnecessary epistle” (eyn unnotige Epistel), which was not to be counted among the main books that were fundamental to faith, adducing philological and historical-­critical observations as justification. Luther recognized the parallels between Jude and 2 Pet and evaluated them in terms of literary dependence; Jude was deemed to be merely an abridgement of Second Peter (and therefore “unnecessary”). Luther observed that the author was already looking back on the apostles (v. 17) (that is, was writing at a later time) and that he cited proverbs (v. 14) and stories (v. 9) that are not in Scripture, which was also why the text’s acceptance was disputed among the fathers of the early church. Finally, he mentions the tradition that the apostle Jude was not active in the Greek-­speaking region but went to Persia and so did not even write in Greek (which is implicitly an argument against the letter’s authenticity12). These critical observations, in a concentration unusual even for Luther, led him to contest the full canonical validity of the text, whereby this judgment—­as for Jas as well—­was not based primarily on the historical doubts that had in part been expressed already in the early church, but rather on the substantive contrast with the Pauline gospel that was accepted as central, or with the fundamental principle of “what promotes Christ” (was Christum treibet), which for Luther in fact determined the canonicity of a text.13

Even in Protestantism Luther’s critical assessment of the canonicity of Jude “had only a few followers until J. D. Michaelis.”14 Roman Catholic exegesis had in any case always endeavored to achieve a more positive assessment of Jude and of “its theological statements, especially those about the binding nature of the ‘teaching’ ” and to understand even the polemical passages as legitimate “criticism of actual grievances in the early Christian communities.”15 In line with this bias, the reader is quite naturally inclined to (1) fail to appreciate that Jude’s style of argumentation is at home in apocalyptic Jewish-Christian circles, (2) neglect the positive argument of the letter (e.g., vv. 3, 17, 20-­23) while focusing on the writer’s denunciations, and (3) ignore the pastoral concern the writer exhibits for his readers.” 11 WA DB 7:386; cf. also Luther’s sermons on Jude in WA 14:75–­91. 12 Luther follows tradition in presupposing that the letter is ascribed to Judas the apostle rather than the brother of the Lord. 13 Cf. also Kümmel, “Notwendigkeit,” 292: “Luther always maintained the unevangelical character of James and Jude.” 14 Kümmel, Einleitung, 378. Not until later Protestant criticism are the aftereffects of Luther’s negative assessment felt; on this, see Kühl, Briefe, 297. 15 Heiligenthal, “Judasbrief,” 122.

6

Jude: Introduction

tendency, conservative interpreters who reject the pseudonymous classification of the text16 largely agree with impartial Catholic exegetes whose judgments are based on historical criticism.17 But more recent Protestant exegesis has also taken pains to engage with Jude in a more nuanced manner and to understand its “abiding theological significance.”18 Especially considering the stylistic quality of the text and its rhetorical arrangement, some interpreters have found in Jude nothing less than a literary work of art.19 In addition, the text offers a number of text-­critical, semantic, tradition-­historical, and theology-­historical challenges, which are still far from being sufficiently resolved, making this letter interesting for scholarship—­regardless of one’s estimation of its theological value. 2. On Textual and Canonical Evidence The text of Jude20 is attested in the two early papyri, 𝔓72 (P.Bodm. VII–­VIII, third to fourth century)21 and (for vv. 4-­5, 7-­8) 𝔓78 (P.Oxy. 2684, third to fourth century), both of which exhibit a fairly free form of the text.22 𝔓72 is the oldest witness to the complete text of Jude. A later papyrus (𝔓74 = P.Bodm. XVII, seventh century), which contains fragments of Acts and the Catholic Letters, provides a high-­quality text closely related to Sinaiticus. 16

So already in 1906 the monograph by F. Maier, Judasbrief. On this, see Heiligenthal, “Judasbrief,” 121–­22. 17 Thus the commentaries by Schelkle (Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief) and Vögtle (Judasbrief), but also Schnackenburg, Botschaft, 252. 18 Cf. P. Müller, “Judasbrief,” 289; cf. also Hahn, “Randbemerkungen,” 209–­18; see also the commentary by Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, and—­with a relatively early dating—­the commentaries by Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, as well as Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude. The significance of the present in Jude’s theology is addressed programmatically in Reese, 2 Peter and Jude, 105–­14. 19 J. D. Charles, “Artifice,” 124: “indeed a work of art.” Cf. idem, Strategy; Watson, Invention. 20 See the comprehensive presentation of the attestation in the Editio Critica Maior (ECM) and the even further improved list of witnesses and variants, with an independent reconstruction of the text, in Wasserman, Jude, 104–­232. On the manuscripts of Jude, see K. Aland, Text, 199–­229; Junack and Grunewald, Die Katholischen Briefe. In addition to the detailed older study by Albin, Judasbrevet, 143–­631, who provides a helpful compilation of citations of Jude in the church fathers, see the monograph by Landon, Text-­Critical Study, which advocates definitively for text-­critical eclecticism in view of the textual problems of Jude, as well as the major new work by Wasserman, Jude, with a new reconstruction of the text that corrects the ECM, and a detailed text-­historical commentary. 21 The symbol 𝔓72 denotes only those sections of P.Bodm. VII–­VIII in which Jude and 1–­2 Pet are attested. 22 The text of 𝔓72 and 𝔓78 is reproduced in Comfort and Barrett, Text, 479–­500 and 612. On the discussion of 𝔓72, see also the older works by E. Massaux, “Texte”; and Kubo, 𝔓72 and Codex Vaticanus; idem, “Textual Relationships”; Mees, “Papyrus Bodmer VII.”



On Textual and Canonical Evidence

7

Discussion of the text of Jude was reinvigorated after the Bodmer papyri were revealed, but the serious problems primarily in vv. 5 and 22-­23 could not be solved even with the new witnesses. Rather, this shows that there were already uncertainies surrounding the text of Jude at an early stage and that various attempts were made to emend it.23 With regard to canonical acceptance the two early papyri have little to say: 𝔓78 is a piece of papyrus from a miniature codex that was possibly used as an amulet24 and the rest of its contents are unknown. 𝔓72 is a small codex, probably for private rather than ecclesiastic use, which was a collection of writings containing various other non-­ canonical texts in addition to 1 Pet, 2 Pet, and Jude.25

In the question of attestation to Jude’s canonicity, we must distinguish between evidence for mere awareness of the text and indications of its ecclesiastic, authoritative usage. But the reception of Jude in 2 Pet26 perhaps only twenty to thirty years after the composition of the text,27 which is almost unanimously accepted in more recent scholarship, documents not only knowledge of but also the ‘usefulness’ of the polemics in Jude for the author of 2 Pet. This further indicates that Jude was preserved and probably also passed on by its addressees—­that is, that its message was favorably received at least among a portion of its readership. In the texts of the so-­called Apostolic Fathers and also in the writings of the apologists in the late second century, the use of Jude cannot be demonstrated,28 although this is hardly surprising given the brevity of text. However, at the end of the second century there is a clear and widespread reception of the text: the 23

For analysis of the text-­critical problems see the excursus on the text of vv. 5 and 22–­23. On this, see the detailed discussion in Wasserman, Jude, 51–­72. 25 The codex contains: the birth of Mary (P.Bodm. V), the apocryphal third letter to the Corinthians by Paul (P.Bodm. X), the eleventh ode of Odes Sol. (P.Bodm. XI), Jude (P.Bodm. VII), Melito’s paschal homily (P.Bodm. VIII), a fragment of a hymn by Melito (P.Bodm. XII), the Apology of Phileas (P.Bodm. XX), Pss 33 and 34 (P.Bodm. IX), both letters of Peter (P.Bodm. VIII). On the papyrus, see Wasserman, “Papyrus 72”; idem, Jude, 30–­50; B. Aland, “Textkritik und Textgeschichte”; Nicklas, “Lebendige Text.” 26 On this (and other opinions), see the introduction to 2 Pet below, pp. 182–­92. 27 If 2 Pet should be dated to the second half of the second century, as Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, suggests with substantial arguments, then this span of time would be longer, but 2 Pet would still be the oldest attestation of the use of Jude, prior to Clement of Alexandria. 28 The structural analogies between vv. 22-­23 and Did. 2.7 and the parallel usage of γογγύζειν and βλασφημεῖν in Did. 3.6, like in Jude 8-­10, 16, cannot prove a literary relationship (against Grundmann, Brief, 20); nor do the points of contact between Jude 2 and the salutatio of Pol. Phil. as well as the prescript of Mart. Pol. (where the triad of mercy, peace, and love is employed) indicate literary dependance, but simply an extensive liturgical distribution of this formula. The parallels in Barn. 2.10 and 3.4 (cf. Jude 3-­4), 2 Clem. 16.2 (cf. Jude 21) and in Athenagoras (Leg. 34), cited by, e.g., Bigg, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 307–­8, and F. Maier, Judasbrief, 63–­64, are also too vague to demonstrate a use of Jude (see also Chaine, Les épîtres catholiques, 261–­62). 24

8

Jude: Introduction

Muratorian Fragment,29 which probably originated around 200 CE somewhere in the west, identifies the letter in its list of recognized texts in a series with 1–­2 John, while still lacking other NT texts such as Heb, Jas, 1–­2 Pet, and 3 John. Clement of Alexandria not only cited Jude (Paed. 3.8.44; Strom. 3.2.11), but also wrote a commentary on it,30 and Origen mentioned it as a letter by the brother of the Lord that “encompasses only a few lines, but is filled with the strong words of heavenly grace” (Comm. Matt. 10.17). Tertullian uses the letter in Carthage as a work by the “apostle Judas,” in order to justify the prophetic authority of the book of Enoch cited in v. 14 (Cult. fem. 1.3). The fact that Irenaeus does not mention the letter “could be a coincidence.”31 Probably with the exception of Syria, where the small Catholic Letters (2 Pet, 2–­3 John, Jude) were unknown for a longer period of time,32 Jude must have been uncontested in the church around 200 CE. However, in Caesarea, perhaps because of its geographical proximity to Syria, Origen and later Eusebius show an awareness that Jude was not accepted by everyone.33 Although they accept the letter as canonical themselves, these two both include the letter among those writings that were (by some) contested (antilegomena), “which are nevertheless recognized by many” (Euseb., Hist. eccl. 3.25.3; cf. 2.23.25). A motive for contestation might have emerged in the course of the growing rejection of ‘apocryphal’ traditions like the Enoch tradition.34 29

Muratorian Fragment, l. 68. See the translation in: NTApo 6 I, 29 [Eng. p. 36] or ACA 1/1:118–­20; on the recent discussion of the late dating supported by Hahneman, Muratorian Fragment, see criticism in Markschies, Theologie, 229–­36; Verheyden, “Canon Muratori.” 30 See the text fragments in GCS Clem. Alex. 3:203–­9. 31 So Leipoldt, Geschichte, 1:235. 32 Not, however, in Palestine, where an acquaintance with the Catholic Letters (and awareness of the occasional challenge to their status) is attested by Origen and Eusebius. Cf. Leipoldt, Geschichte, 1:243ff.; Metzger, Kanon, 209–­13; Siker, “Canonical Status.” On the Peshitta, see below. 33 In referring to Jude, Origen is able to add the qualification: “if one wanted to admit the letter of Jude” (Comm. Matt. 17.30). Such phrases occur elsewhere in references to disputed texts, e.g., traditions from Gos. Heb.; cf. Origen, Comm. Jo. 2.12 (GCS Origen 4:67) and Hom. Jer. (GCS Origen 3:128). Origen’s own judgment, however, is clearly positive (Comm. Matt. 10.17; cf. also Comm. Rom. 3.6; 5.1; Princ. 3.2.1). 34 In addition to the fact that Enoch was not generally accepted (anymore) among Jews, the overly mythological worldview of the work likely also played a role. Jerome and Augustine cite the use of the Watchers narrative among the Manicheans as an argument against Enoch (see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 1:102). Furthermore, the narrative of the fall of the Watchers lost its significance for the question of the origin of evil in favor of the narrative of the fall of man, which is chronologically earlier (since it is ‘set’ in Paradise) and was dominant in later Jewish apocalypticism (4 Ezra, 2 Bar.) and already in Paul (Rom 5), as well as the even earlier etiology of evil in the assumption of Satan’s ‘fall’ before time began (see Dochhorn, “Motif,” 481–­82). On the reception of Enoch, see further the excursus on Jude 14, below, pp. 122–­24.



On Textual and Canonical Evidence

9

The Enoch quotation in Jude 14 was already omitted in the reception of Jude in 2 Pet (which is why criticism of this citation was unable to affect 2 Pet in the same way). While Tertullian could cite Jude as a witness to the prophetic authority of Enoch, Jerome, and later Bede, considered the quotation a reason to reject Jude “because it accepts testimonies from the book of Enoch, which is apocryphal, it is rejected by many.”35 But these arguments did not prevail. In the fourth century, Didymus of Alexandria used Jude as a canonical text without hesitation,36 and when Athanasius of Alexandria mentioned it in the list of canonical texts in the thirty-­ninth of his Festal Letters in 367 CE, for large parts of the church in the East and West this gave validity to the work. The Syriac Church alone presented and still presents an exception. Here Jude (like 2 Pet and 2–­3 John) was disputed until the sixth century; these letters are not included in the Peshitta and were first adopted in the revision of the Syriac bible created in 507–­508 CE, the Philoxenian version, and in the later Harklean version. But since these were accepted only in the West Syrian (‘Monophysite’) region and even here were unable to gain acceptance over the Peshitta,37 even today Jude is not included in the official lectionary in the East Syrian (Nestorian) churches, and in the West Syrian tradition has only a ‘quasi-­canonical’ status.38 Through the Middle Ages, the doubts of the ancient church were forgotten,39 until their memory reemerged in humanism. They are apparent in Erasmus, then Faustus Sozzini, and Thomas de Vio (Cajetan).40 Martin Luther took up the arguments of the ancient church and added to them with the ‘literary-­critical’ assumption that Jude is an excerpt of 2 Pet, as well as other theological arguments that were ultimately crucial to his criticism of the text’s authenticity.41 While Luther’s criticism was truly shared by 35

Et quia de libro Enoch, qui apocryphus est, in ea assumit testimonia a plerisque reicitur (Jer., Vir. ill. 4); this is adopted by Bede (PL 93:129; Eng. trans. in ACCS 11:255) and connected with an extensive argumentation against Enoch and for Jude. 36 Didym., Comm. Job, vol. 4/1 (Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 33/1:342.13–­14), where Jude 16 is quoted. 37 Cf. Siker, “Canonical Status,” 315–­18 on the relationship of the manuscripts, 326–­27 on the citation among the Syriac fathers. 38 So Siker, “Canonical Status,” 329; cf. Metzger, Kanon, 209–­13. 39 Even Isidore of Seville, who was aware of the rejection of the Catholic Letters, is silent about Jude (see Leipoldt, Geschichte, 2:4–­5). 40 On this, see Kümmel, Das Neue Testament, 11; in detail Leipoldt, Geschichte, 2:16, 21 (on Erasmus); 31 (on Sozzini); 36–­37 (on Cajetan). 41 On this, see Leipoldt, Geschichte, 2:64–­65, 74–­76 (there also the later critical statements about Jude; cf. WA 14, 75–­91).

10

Jude: Introduction

only a few of his students,42 the four NT texts that he placed unnumbered at the end in a low-­German edition of the bible in 1596 were even designated as “Apocrypha,”43 and the same is true of the Swedish Gustav Adolf Bible of 1618.44 Other reformers followed the position of Erasmus and ascribed minimal canonical authority to Jude as one of the seven texts disputed in the ancient church.45 Conversely, the Council of Trent sought to extinguish such criticism “root and branch”46 by defining Jude as a letter “of the apostle Judas” in the decree De canonicis scripturis and imposed anathema on those who would reject this teaching.47 The treatment of Jude by Hugo Grotius leads straight to the modern discussion. Grotius sharpened the criticism of the early church and the humanist period with bold historical and philological hypotheses: he regarded the phrase “brother of James” (v. 1) as a later interpolation and ascribed the letter to Judas the bishop of Jerusalem from the time of Hadrian.48 The question of canonicity was less important for Grotius. Johann David Michaelis then explicitly connected canonicity with apostolicity; this was to be proven philologically—­and was consequently answered in the negative for Jude.49 In that the question of canonicity was now a matter of philological and historical criticism,50 the level of the modern discussion had been reached, in which the debate about the theological value of Jude inevitably did not come to an end; rather, especially in Protestantism, “allegedly historical-­critical scholarship and the Lutheran heritage [formed] an alliance,” bringing predominantly negative evaluations of Jude.51

3. Language and Style The language of Jude was praised as early as Origen. In his opinion, the text is “short, but full of flowing words of heavenly grace” (Comm. Matt. 10.17). An eye 42 On this, see Leipoldt, Geschichte, 2:94 (on Urbanus Rhegius); 121–­26 (on the so-­called Centuriators of Magdeburg). 43 On this, see Leipoldt, Gechichte, 2:95–­96. 44 On this, see Albin, Judasbrevet, 131. 45 Thus, according to Leipoldt, Geschichte, 2:127–­31 and 142–­43, Johannes Brenz and Martin Chemnitz as well as Johannes Oekolampad and Wolfgang Musculus. 46 So Leipoldt, Geschichte, 2:46–­47. 47 On this authorial tradition, see below, pp. 24–­25. 48 Grotius, Adnotationes, 1151; J. D. Michaelis, Einleitung, 2:1490–­91, 1501. Cf. Kümmel, Das Neue Testament, 32; further Leipoldt, Geschichte, 2:156. 49 On this, see Kümmel, Das Neue Testament, 82, 86. In substance as well, the judgment by Michaelis is quite negative, see J. D. Michaelis, Einleitung, 2:1501: “If one looks at . . . the content of the letter, one can hardly do otherwise than become doubtful of its divine status; as fine as it seemed to Origen, so objectionable has some of it been to more recent [readers]. Whoever might want to dispute the Christian religion will quite gladly leave it to us as canonical, as written by the apostle of Christ.” 50 Thus for example in Haenlein, Epistola Judae. 51 Thus the harsh but factually appropriate judgment in Albin, Judasbrevet, 713, who offers an astonishing anthology of negative assessments (op. cit., 133–­39).



Language and Style

11

for Jude’s elaborate style has been sharpened primarily in recent scholarship through observations about the rhetorical arrangement of the text,52 but its high level can also be discerned in simple observations. The vocabulary of 227 words, with a total length of only 457 words, is particularly rich and varied in this brief letter.53 In view of its brevity, it exhibits an impressive number of hapax legomena: fourteen words occur only here in the NT (ἀποδιορίζειν, ἄπταιστος, γογγυστής, δεῖγμα, ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι, ἐπαφρίζειν, μεμψίμοιρος, παρεισδύνειν, σπιλάς, φθινοπωρινός, φυσικῶς, ἐκπορνεύειν, πλανήτης, ὑπέχειν), and only four of these (ἄπταιστος, ἐκπορνεύειν, πλανήτης, ὑπέχειν) also occur in the LXX, thus the rest derive from ‘extrabiblical’ linguistic usage.54 There are three further words that are not hapax legomena only because they occur once more in 2 Pet, being adopted from formulations in Jude (ἐμπαίκτης, v. 18 and 2 Pet 3:3; συνευωχεῖσθαι, v. 12 and 2 Pet 2:13; ὑπέρογκος, v. 16 and 2 Pet 2:18).55 In addition, Jude contains a particular concentration of ‘rare’ words.56 The author thus commands great skill in varying his vocabulary, using synonyms and antonyms,57 but is equally able to create coherence and emphasize specific semantic connections with rhetorical effectiveness through the repetition of individual terms (ἀσεβεῖς/ἀσέβεια, ὑμεῖς/ὑμᾶς/ὑμῖν, τηρεῖν/φυλάσσειν, τινές/ οὖτοι, κύριος, ἅγιος, σάρξ/ἐπιθυμία, ἀγάπη/ἀγαπητοί, ἔλεος/ἐλεεῖν, πλανή, πας).58 The author has methodically arranged his text. The number of phraseological or syntactic Semitisms is surprisingly limited in view of the dense reception of biblical material. By contrast, sophisticated Greek phrases like πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιεῖσθαι (v. 3), προκεῖσθαι δεῖγμα, δίκην ὑπέχειν (v. 7), κρίσιν ἐπενέγκειν (v. 8), τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα (v. 10) are stylistically striking, as is the effective use of strong metaphors from nature (e.g., in v. 12: “waterless clouds”). Syntactically, the text exhibits an avoidance of parataxis and 52 See especially the works of J. D. Charles, “Artifice”; idem, Strategy; Watson, Invention; Joubert, “Persuasion.” 53 According to Knoch, Petrusbrief, 153, this is “the highest percentage of varied word usage in the NT.” For comparison: Paul’s Phlm at a length of 335 words has a vocabulary of only 141 words; 1–­3 John, with a vocabulary of 302 words, have a total length of 2,601 words (cf. Morgenthaler, Statistik, 164). 54 This accords with the observation that phraseological or syntactic Semitisms are rather rare in Jude (aside from the quotation in vv. 14-­15). Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 6, identifies the following examples: ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου, v. 5; οὐαὶ αὐτοῖς, v. 11; ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ τοῦ Κάϊν ἐπορεύθησαν, v. 11; θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα, v. 16; ὀπίσω + gen., v. 7. 55 Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 6; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 9; Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 41. 56 Cf. Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 138. 57 See a list in J. D. Charles, “Artifice,” 113–­14. 58 See a list in J. D. Charles, “Artifice,” 111–­12.

12

Jude: Introduction

good usage of subordinated participles or particles (μέν/δέ, vv. 8, 10, 22-­23) as well as careful use of conjunctions in order to structure lines of argument logically.59 There is also an effective application of parallelism and triadic forms, which are not found in such concentration in any other biblical text.60 In addition, the skillful use of rhetorical figures such as paronomasia, alliteration, assonance, homoioteleuton, rhythm, and wordplay is notable. We can point first simply to the π-­alliteration in v. 3 (Ἀγαπητοί, πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμενος . . . περὶ . . . γράψαι . . . παρακαλῶν ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι τῇ ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ . . . πίστει), which is paralleled in the NT at best, if at all, in Heb 1:1. Such stylistic figures reveal the author’s literary skill.61 The same can be observed in the careful grouping of biblical paradigms (vv. 5-­7, 11) or the precise juxtaposition of the addressees (ὑμεῖς) and the opponents (οὖτοι).62 Alongside Luke and the authors of Jas, Heb, and 2 Pet, the author of Jude thus belongs among the most adept authors of the NT—­his work is “indeed a work of art.”63 The observation of these instruments of literary-­rhetorical composition gives cause to abandon the long predominant scorn for Jude as nothing but an exemplar of insipid polemic. While the letter’s argumentative content may raise critical questions, linguistically its author is one of the more sophisticated among NT authors. 4. Sources and Use of Scripture The high level of language and style is associated in the author of Jude with a very detailed knowledge of Scripture and early Jewish traditions,64 which are subtly evaluated and connected with precision to the problems of the author’s present. The use of pagan Greek texts, which has been proposed on occasion,65 cannot be demonstrated. It is striking, however, that the only verbatim quotation in the short text is not taken from the canonical books of the OT, but rather from Enoch, whose 59

On this, see J. D. Charles, “Artifice,” 112. See the table in J. D. Charles, “Artifice,” 122. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 6, observes: “It must be an individual stylistic preference.” 61 So J. D. Charles, “Artifice,” 114–­15, with a list of stylistic devices. 62 J. D. Charles, “Artifice,” 120–­21. 63 J. D. Charles, “Artifice,” 122. 64 On this, see the comprehensive discussion in the chapter “Jude’s Exegesis,” in Bauckham, Relatives, 179–­234; and, more briefly, idem, “Jude: An Account”; further Heiligenthal, Henoch; Busto Sáiz, “Carta”; Wolthuis, “Jewish Traditions,” 21–­41; J. D. Charles, “Source-­ Material”; idem, “Tradition-­Material”; Davids, “Traditions,” 415–­22. 65 So, for example, Oleson, “Echo,” and J. D. Charles, Strategy, 162–­63; Cozijnsen, “Critical Contribution.” Cf. criticism in Frey, “Judasbrief,” 199–­200. 60



Sources and Use of Scripture

13

proclamation of judgment in vv. 14-­15 is quoted as the prophecy of Enoch—­that is, as an inspired, ‘quasi-­canonical’ statement. Alongside this, v. 9 exhibits the use of another haggadic tradition, which the author probably derived from Ass. Mos., also an apocalyptic text. Beyond this, the author takes up examples from biblical salvation history (Cain, the angel marriages, Sodom and Gomorrah, Exodus and the wandering in the desert, the rebellion of Korah, and Balaam), whose specific form repeatedly reveals a fundamental awareness of postbiblical Jewish motifs of interpretation (especially in vv. 6, 7, 11). There are also linguistic resonances with prophetic and wisdom texts. The question of which textual form of the OT might have been available to the author—­which is also relevant to the issue of authorship—­has predominantly been answered in scholarship to the effect that the author used the LXX. Although there are no clear quotations, the linguistic style, for example, ἐκπορνεύειν ὀπίσω in Jude 7,66 suggests a use of the LXX. R. J. Bauckham cannot deny a familiarity with common Greek renderings of OT expressions, although he tries to provide evidence that the author was instead familiar with the Hebrew Bible and translated this into Greek himself.67 But this cannot be proven, as there are no explicit quotations from biblical texts. The occasional deviation from the vocabulary of the LXX is hardly a significant point for such a linguistically competent author, especially since he only alludes to biblical contexts freely. Furthermore, the evidence in vv. 12-­13 cannot support Bauckham’s suggestion of dependence on the Hebrew text for the echoes of Prov 25:14 and Isa 57:20, based on the grounds that the LXX does not contain the sense taken up here. The allusion to Prov 25:14, for example, follows the plural ἀνεμοί of the LXX against the MT, and the powerful metaphor of the waves foaming with their own shameful deeds does not owe its effectiveness to a slavish adherence to the biblical text.68 Bauckham’s suggestion that the author himself translated the quotation of 1 En. 1:9 from the Aramaic is likewise unjustifiable. The striking departures from the only extant codex containing a Greek text of this passage of Enoch (from the sixth century) do not require that the quotation is the author’s own translation; rather, they can also be explained by assuming a different Greek verision of the text, which may have been available to the author.69 Linguistically, there are no compelling reasons to situate the author in a primarily Semitic milieu. 66 ἐκπορνεύειν is one of the four NT hapax legomena in Jude that occur in the LXX. It is the only one that within literature up to the second century CE is only attested in the LXX, where it is connected with ὀπίσω in twenty-­six of forty-­four cases. The expression is “a strong argument for Jude using the Septuagint” (so Gerdmar, Rethinking, 47). 67 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 7. 68 A few manuscripts of the LXX also attest to this text, which is otherwise reflected only in the MT, cf. J. Ziegler, Isaias (Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum 14), 336. Thus there is no need to suppose that the image is taken from 1 En. 67:5-­7, as does Osburn, “1 Enoch 80:2-­8.” 69 See below, pp. 124–­27. That there must have been Greek forms of the text of 1 En. in

14

Jude: Introduction

It is significant that the author simply calls to mind the biblical paradigms he cites briefly and in a high concentration (v. 5), rather than recounting and explaining them in detail. This presupposes that his addressees also had a deep knowledge of Scripture as well as the apocryphal traditions (e.g., in v. 9). The reception of the paradigms is formulated so transparently for the addressees’ own situation that these appear to be related to the present circumstances throughout, and thus serve to justify the judgment of the false teachers that the author intends to proclaim. With this intention he relates God’s previous activity in the history of Israel typologically to the current situation, or to the activity of God in the judgment of the ‘scoffers’ (v. 18) anticipated in the near future. This creates a structure of ‘scriptural paradigm–­application to the opponents’ which characterizes the entire section of vv. 5-­16 (or 5-­19) and is repeated several times. E. E. Ellis and Bauckham70 see a parallel to the Jewish method of midrash in this structure. “Midrash” here is used in a general sense of the application of Scripture to one’s own present time, not in the sense of the specific form of rabbinic midrashim. More specifically, Bauckham points to parallels in the ‘thematic midrashim,’ or, better, ‘thematic pesharim’ from the Qumran library.71 In fact, the conviction that OT texts are related ‘prophetically’ to the present provides a striking correspondence with the scriptural interpretation of the Qumran community and that of early Christianity (cf. already 1 Cor 10:6, 11). The transition from the biblical paradigm to its application (vv. 8, 12, 16) is marked in Jude with a temporal change (from the past to the present tense) and οὖτοι, which refers deictically to the opponents (vv. 8, 10, 12, 16, 19).72 early Judaism and early Christianity is attested by the existence of Greek Enoch texts in the Qumran library, specifically among the texts of cave 7 (on this, see Muro, “Greek Fragments”; Puech, “Sept fragments”), as well as the references to Enoch among the church fathers. On the attestations, see Schürer, Vermes, and Millar, History, 261–­64. The composition of 2 En. also presupposes that the Enoch tradition was transmitted in a Greek form (see Böttrich, Henochbuch, 808–­9). 70 Ellis, “Prophecy,” 221–­26, who wants to classify Jude as “a midrash on the theme of judgment” (226); following Ellis also Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 4–­5. Most recently Blumenthal, Prophetie, has adopted this thesis. 71 These texts, such as the midrash on Eschatology (4QMidrEschat = 4Q174 and 4Q177, which were for a long time referred to as Florilegium and Catena A, respectively) or the famous Melchizedek text (11QMelch), do not offer commentary that follows a biblical text in order, like the ‘consecutive’ pesharim (e.g., 1QpHab, 4QpNah, etc.), but rather work with a selection of passages determined thematically, which are then interpreted in terms of the present time. On the ‘thematic pesharim’ cf. Steudel, Midrasch zur Eschatologie, 182ff. 72 Ellis, “Prophecy,” 225; Bauckham, Relatives, 184–­85. The form that occurs here is significantly different from the formulaic ‫פשרו‬ (“its interpretation is”) employed in the Qumran pesharim.



Sources and Use of Scripture

15

Similar “demonstrative explanations”73 occur in apocalyptic texts and occasionally in pesharim from Qumran. Yet these correlations are not sufficient evidence to situate the author historically in Palestinian Judaism (or Jewish Christianity). Unlike the Qumran pesharim, Jude does not understand Scripture only as prophecy (cf. only the explicit Enoch quotation in vv. 14-­15); rather, the predominant understanding is of the biblical episodes as typological prefigurations of the events anticipated in the eschaton, which is now coming to pass, and in particular the judgment of the opponents. In correlating biblical history with the eschatologically interpreted present, Jude is more generally located in the sphere of Jewish apocalypticism and (apocalyptically influenced) early Christian scriptural interpretation as a whole.

It is difficult to show a use of other early Christian writings in the short letter. The letter’s opening suggests that the author knows James and deliberately alludes to it74 in order to associate himself with the authority of James, the brother of the Lord, or his letter. Further connections with Jas can be demonstrated in addition to the analogies in the inscriptio in Jude 1 par. Jas 1:1. The reference to the false teachers as ψυχικοί in Jude 19 is reminiscent of Jas 3:15, where the wisdom of other teachers is characterized as ψυχική. Jude 22-­23 connects with the conclusion of the paraenesis in Jas 5:19-­20 (though in a situation with much more conflict), and Jude 21 is at least reminiscent of Jas 2:12ff. Considering that Jude presupposes a very different situation than Jas, the appeal to this text at the beginning and at the end of the letter and the absence of an epistolary closing in both letters are noteworthy. Further correlations can be seen in the relatively good linguistic stylistic level75 and possibly in the fact that Jude (like Jas) could be traced back to a milieu that “distanced itself from a particular form of Pauline influence.”76 Thus the author’s presentation of himself as “brother of James” manifests a particular association with tradition that is related not only (or only indirectly) to the person, but also or even primarily to the letter attributed to the brother of the Lord.77

A use of Pauline texts78 or other NT writings cannot be demonstrated (which of course does not rule out the possibility that the author or his addressees knew 73

Bauckham, Relatives, 203, with reference to Himmelfarb, Hell, 45–­67. On this, see Hahn, “Randbemerkungen,” 216, 218; J. D. Charles, Strategy, 74–­77 (who points to corresponding vocabulary); Frey, “Judasbrief,” 203–­4.; skeptically, but without a convincing alternative, Bemmerl and Grünstäudl, “Wahlverwandtschaften.” 75 On this, see J. D. Charles, Strategy, 74ff. 76 So Hahn, “Randbemerkungen,” 216; on Jas, see further the literature surveys by Hahn and P. Müller, “Jakobusbrief,” 58–­59, and Avemarie, “Werke”; more cautiously Konradt, “Jakobusbrief ”; Niebuhr, “New Perspective.” 77 So also Richards, “Status,” 237. 78 On this, see already the argumentation in F. Maier, Judasbrief, 38ff. The opposition in v. 19 of ψυχικοί–­π νεῦμα ἔχοντες is also reminiscent of Jas 3:16 as well as Jewish wisdom theology, rather than suggestive of a derivation from 1 Cor 2:13-­16; 15:44ff. (cf. also Frey, 74

16

Jude: Introduction

these texts). The literary relationship with 2 Pet (which this commentary views as being dependent on Jude) will be discussed in detail in the introduction to 2 Pet. (See below, pp. 186–­92.) 5. Literary Form and Structure The beginning of the text clearly identifies Jude as a letter; superscriptio, adscriptio (v. 1), and salutatio (v. 2) are congruent with the conventional epistolary prescript and also follow older models such as the superscriptio of Jas 1:1 or the Pauline form of the salutatio. An actual epistolary closing, however, is lacking (as in Jas), and in its place (as in 2 Clem.) is a doxology (vv. 24-­25). Yet this does not call into question the epistolary form, since the doxology does not just draw from liturgical language, but also offers an indication that the author intended the letter to be read aloud during worship. The fact that the (implicit) author in v. 3 (γράφειν, γράψαι) explicitly reflects on the act of writing and repeatedly speaks directly to his addressees (vv. 3, 5, 17, 20) also accords with the epistolary character of the text. Even with the prominent use of topoi, the quite specific situational reference (vv. 3-­4, 12, 22-­23) shows that the text is not a general treatise and thus not a ‘catholic’ letter in the proper sense of the word,79 but rather a text written to a specific community of addressees, or a limited circle of communities, whose situation must have been known to the author. He thus need only mention specific circumstances en passant (such as the opponents’ participation in the community’s meals in v. 12) and can leave the theological profile of the opponents vague enough that great problems arise in attempting to reconstruct it. The author expects that his ‘orthodox’ addressees knew who he was talking about and what the οὗτοι said and did. It must remain open whether the real author was himself known to the communities, since (if one presumes a pseudonymous composition) he does not emerge as an independent person anywhere in his text.80 It has occasionally been suggested that “Judasbrief,” 200–­203). When Sellin, “Häretiker,” 209–­10, proposes that a certain understanding of the Pauline teaching of justification is the basis for the allegation that the opponents perverted the grace of God in debauchery, this may well be illuminating for situating Jude within the history of theology, but it is purely speculative to suggest that the language of a κρίμα already written down (v. 4) is drawn from a statement such as Rom 3:8, which must have been “known among the opponents, author, and addressees” (211). 79 Thus rightly Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 3; P. Müller, “Judasbrief,” 274. However, the question of what then unites the corpus of ‘Catholic Letters’ historically and theologically is more complex, see Schlosser, “Corpus”; Wall, “Theology.” 80 Conversely, the absence of concrete author-­audience relationships can only be explained on the basis of a pseudepigraphal composition and under the assumption that there were



Literary Form and Structure

17

the professed author “Judas” was known to the addressees or (perhaps at an earlier period) maintained a relationship with them.81 Yet this is also doubtful; nothing indicates existing or previous connections between the addressees and Judas, or a mission originating with him, which is striking when compared with the deutero-Paulines and the Pastoral Epistles. If such connections existed, the author could have easily alluded to them in some form.82

The more specific classification of the epistolary type depends upon the evaluation of the substantive intention of the text (in particular vv. 3-­4). If one considers that Jude is directed at community members regarded as ‘orthodox,’ the ἀγαπητοί (vv. 3, 17, 20), who in the present situation are to be reminded of and led to take the necessary steps, then the text does not appear as just a “polemical tract”83 but rather as a pastoral letter of exhortation (γράψαι ὑμῖν παρακαλῶν, v. 3).84 This situational pointedness and the pastoral intent are not canceled out by the stereotypical character of polemic; rather, this stylization serves to classify the views of the false teachers within an overarching framework and thus to interpret the current situation in terms of ‘salvation history’ and eschatology.85 The possible reception of this text raises several questions. Was the letter meant to be read in a community assembly, as is presumed for the other NT letters beginning with the Pauline correspondence? This would be supported by the closing doxology in vv. 24-­25. However, if the opponents were also present at these meetings (and meals), as v. 12 indicates, the communicative situation becomes more complex. Are they also meant to hear everything, and is the message of the judgment already pronounced upon them intended to motivate them to repentance after all? In this case, there would be a similar structure to the statements about the impossibility of a ‘second repentance’ in Heb. But the author also seems to actually rule out the possibility of the opponents’ salvation. Or should we rather suppose that the letter was sent to a smaller circle of no previous relationships between the fictive author “Judas” and the addressee communities, which the letter could otherwise have drawn on. If one assumes that the real author is Judas, the brother of the Lord, the lack of any further points of contact with this figure and his activity becomes entirely nonsensical. 81 Thus most recently and firmly Blumenthal, Prophetie, 106. 82 The author has chosen the little-­k nown pseudonym “Judas, the brother of James” (and not, for example, a name from among the twelve disciples) because he apparently seeks to associate his letter with the person or the letter of James, and perhaps also sees his opponents as being in line with those confronted in Jas. On this, see below, p. 21ff. 83 Frankemölle, 1. Petrusbrief, 2. Petrusbrief, Judasbrief, 127; see criticism in P. Müller, “Judasbrief,” 274, that this “does not do justice to the clearly recognizable intention of the letter to edify the congregation.” 84 Cf. P. Müller, “Judasbrief,” 275. J. D. Charles, Strategy, 23, sees in Jude an “epistolary ‘word of exhortation.’” 85 Hahn, “Randbemerkungen,” 214–­15; cf. P. Müller, “Judasbrief,” 275.

18

Jude: Introduction

community members whom the author regarded as ‘orthodox’ and was not read in the presence of the opponents or the entire community assembly? This could be indicated by the fact that the letter consistently speaks about the opponents, but not to them. It is in any case difficult to determine how the vehement attempt to create distance (which apparently did not yet exist) between the addressees and these opponents86 could fit in this context, and what effects it had on the congregation(s) concerned.

As far as the epistolary pattern goes, the outline of Jude is relatively clear—­the prescript (vv. 1-­2) and the closing doxology that takes the place of an epistolary closing (vv. 24-­25) consitute the frame. The literary structure of the letter body is more difficult to define. In his dissertation, which is entirely guided by classical rhetoric, D. F. Watson sought to identify Jude as a work of deliberative rhetoric.87 After the prescript (which he characterizes as a “Quasi-­Exordium”),88 he sees v. 3 as an exordium and v. 4 as a narratio. The probatio (vv. 5-­16) with its three proofs (vv. 5-­10, 11-­13, 14-­16) is followed in vv. 17-­23 by a two-­part peroratio (vv.  17-­19: repetitio; vv.  20-­23: adfectus). The closing doxology (vv. 24-­25) is in turn classified as a “Quasi-­Peroratio.” The difficulty of integrating the specifically epistolary frames into the schema prescribed by the genre of (political) speech shows that the approach from the perspective of ancient rules of rhetoric is too one-­sided89 and discounts the epistolary elements of Jude, which are by no means restricted to the frame alone. The application of rhetorical schemata also has interpretative consequences; according to Watson’s analysis, the “main propositions”90 of the text are formulated in v. 4, and so the negative concern for combating the opponents is brought distinctly to the fore. Against this, E. R. Wendland has objected that vv. 3-­4a are united by π-­alliterations and that vv. 20-­23, which are fundamental in terms of text 86 Ultimately the author himself practices what he accuses the opponents of in v. 19: he wants to create a schism, or separate those regarded as ‘orthodox’ from the opponents. On this, see Frey, “Autorfiktion,” 695. 87 Watson, Invention, 79. Differently Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 27, who instead sees the use of forensic rhetoric here because of the emphasis “on crime and punishment.” By contrast, Joubert, “Persuasion,” 79, designates Jude an “epideictic discourse.” With this, all categories of ancient oratory are under discussion. This demonstrates the difficulty of identifying the pragmatics of the text more precisely by means of ancient rhetorical categories. 88 See the structure in Watson, Invention, 77–­78. For criticism of this approach see especially Wolthuis, “Rhetorician”; cf. also Wendland, “Comparative Study,” 211–­12, who combines classical rhetoric with modern rhetorical theories and brings into play—­though not very convincingly—­a strict concentric structure in which the woe oracle in v. 11 would be at the center. Osburn, “Discourse Analysis,” 309, also suggests a chiastic structure, where vv. 8–­16 as a whole constitute the central unit. 89 P. Müller, “Judasbrief,” 272. Cf. also Gerdmar, Rethinking, 94–­106, who maintains that Jude follows the ‘rules of rhetoric’ just as little as does 2 Pet. 90 Watson, Invention, 77.



Literary Form and Structure

19

pragmatics, present a strong reference back to v. 3.91 With a combination of rhetorical and epistolographic considerations, H.-­J. Klauck has proposed92 that vv. 3-­4 should be evaluated together as the body opening, which serves the function of a proemium. The body middle then extends through vv. 5-­16 before a two-­part body closing follows in vv. 17-­23, whereby vv. 17-­19 point back to v. 4, while vv. 20-­23 refer more strongly to v. 3. The circular structure thus achieved confirms the dual function of vv. 3-­4.93 Bauckham takes a different approach on the basis of his thesis about Jude’s midrashic character. For Bauckham, the argumentation from Scripture and its application to the opponents (vv. 5-­19) are central. This section is framed by the appeal directed to the addressees in v. 3 and then vv. 20-­23; the ‘background’ for the central section is first formulated in v. 4 and then the ‘midrash’ is explicated in vv. 5-­19. This midrash itself is structured in an initial line of argument with three OT types (vv. 5-­7) and their interpretation (vv. 8-­10), a second part with three further types (v. 11) and their interpretation (vv. 12-­13), the prophecy of Enoch (vv. 14-­15) with its interpretation (v. 16), and the prophecy of the apostle (vv. 17-­18) with its interpretation (v. 19). Although the designation of the text as a ‘midrash’ and other implications of Bauckham’s thesis are problematic, he rightly observes that the polemic in vv. 4 and 5-­19 is attached to the paraclesis—­that is, the admonitions to fight for the traditional faith (vv. 3, 22-­23), to “build up” in faith, to remain in the love of God, and to await the mercy of Christ (vv. 20-­21).94 The pragmatic aim of the entire argument is found in vv. 20-­23, and this formulation of the goal points back to v. 3b. This demonstrates that the main message of the letter appears prior to v. 4.95 Its concern is thus by no means exclusively negative with reference to the heretics, but includes the paraclesis of the faith articulated in v. 3, which is then taken up again and explicated in vv. 20-­23.

For an outline of the letter body, the observations on the linguistic structure and the use of particular words and leitmotifs must be seen in interplay. Fundamental to this is the shift between the introduction of statements drawn from biblical or other traditions and their polemic application to the opponents, consistently denoted with οὗτοι.96 Insofar as vv. 17-­19 also contain this 91

Wendland, “Comparative Study,” 208. Klauck, Briefliteratur, 260. 93 An even more complex structure has been proposed most recently by Blumenthal, Prophetie, 143–­45, who largely adopts the aforementioned observations, but ultimatly decides on a concentric structure, with the prophetic woe of v. 11 as the center. However, as is often the case for suggested concentric structures, not all ‘correlations’ are equally convincing, and so ultimately a simpler structure that better integrates the linear movements of the text is more plausible. A structure with four micro-­chiastic units (vv. 1-­4; 5-­11; 12-­20; 21-­26) was recently proposed by Heil, 1 Peter, 296–­302. 94 So also P. Müller, “Judasbrief,” 275. 95 Against Watson, Invention, 77; cf. Wendland, “Comparative Study,” 208. 96 In this, v. 9 with its haggadic tradition and vv. 12­­-­13, which resonate somewhat with biblical and Enochic motifs, are grouped among the applications, respectively. Verse 9 connects 92

20

Jude: Introduction

structure, these verses still belong to the main body of the letter, rather than the paracletic closing. On the other hand, the theme of memory introduced in v. 5 and repeated in v. 17 leads to a contrast between a first section presenting paradigms of the judgment already written down (i.e., scriptural examples), and a (shorter) second section, in which this judgment is associated with the oral prophecy of the apostles about the emergence of the scoffers.97 Verses 20-­23 exhibit a different structure no longer determined by the organizing οὗτοι. This section is linked with vv. 17-­19 by the direct address in v. 20, but in substance points back to v. 3, and thus to the paraclesis directed to the readers. These observations produce the following proposed structure:

I. Epistolary Prescript (vv. 1-­2) v. 1a superscriptio v. 1b adscriptio v. 2 salutatio II. Letter Body (vv. 3-­23) vv. 3-­4 Body opening v. 3 Thematization of the act of writing and the paraclesis for the faith v. 4 Thematization of the occasion: false teachers vv. 5-­19 Demonstration of the condemnation of the false teachers (reference to v. 4) vv. 5-­16 Demonstration from Scripture: the opponents as doomed to judgment vv. 5-­10 First series of paradigms and application vv. 5-­7 Three paradigms vv. 8-­10 Polemic application vv. 11-­13 Second series of paradigms and application v. 11 Three paradigms vv. 12-­13 Polemic application vv. 14-­16 Climax: Enoch’s prophecy and application vv. 14-­15 Enoch’s prophecy v. 16 Polemic application

with v. 8 through δέ and the catchword βλασφημεῖν, and offers a contrasting example to the statement in v. 8. Verse 10 with its polemic connects to the examples in vv. 6-­7 and continues the application begun in v. 8; the οὗτοι in v. 10 thus simply picks up on the word from v. 8, so that vv. 9-­10 cannot be regarded as an independent unit of paradigm and application; rather, vv. 8-­10 form a single unit. 97 This juxtaposition is indicated linguistically by the inversion created by v. 5 (ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς) and v. 17 (ὑμεῖς δέ . . . μνήσθητε).





Author, Date, and Location

21

vv. 17-­19 Demonstration from the words of the apostles: the opponents as eschatological phenomenon vv. 17-­18 The words of the apostles v. 19 Polemic application vv. 20-­23 Body closing: paraclesis for the faith (reference to v. 3) vv. 20-­21 Admonition to remain in faith vv. 22-­23 Admonition on interactions with those influenced by the false teachers III. Closing Doxology in Place of Letter Closing (vv. 24-­25)

6. Author, Date, and Location In discussing the issue of authorship we must differentiate between the question of which Judas is referred to in Jude 1 or the superscriptio, and the question of whether the letter was penned by this Judas, and thus is ‘authentic.’ 6.1 On the identity of the sender named Judas in Jude 1 Verse 1 identifies the author as a certain “Judas,” the “brother of James.” Among the five people named Ἰάκωβος98 identified in the NT, at least after the martyrdom of the son of Zebedee (Acts 12:2-­3), there was only one significant and widely known James—­namely, the brother of the Lord; thus Judas here must refer to the one mentioned as the third among the brothers of Jesus in Mark 6:3, and the fourth in Matt 13:55, of whom nothing more is recounted.99 98

This includes two members of the circle of twelve: the son of Zebedee and brother of John (Mark 1:19; 3:17 par.), who was executed under Agrippa I in the year 44 CE (Acts 12:2-­3), and James the son of Alphaeus, who is not otherwise noteworthy (Mark 3:18 par.); further, James the brother of the Lord (Mark 6:3 par.), who first came to believe in Jesus after Easter (1 Cor 15:7) and took over leadership of the community in Jerusalem at the latest after the death of James the son of Zebedee in the 40s (Gal 1:19; 2:9, 12; Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18); as well as—­quite marginally—­James the Less (Mark 15:40 par.) and James the father of Judas the apostle (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). This last James, however, has gained significance in the history of ascription and exegesis of Jude, in that for a long time people wanted to attribute the letter to the apostle Judas as one of the twelve disciples (on this, see below, pp. 24–­25). 99 In 1 Cor 9:5, Paul does mention the missionary activity of the brothers of Jesus, without identifying Judas explicitly. James, who at the time of composition of 1 Cor was the leadership of the Jerusalem community, cannot have been the one Paul has in mind here. He was rather stationary in his activity and only engaged people outside of Jerusalem by way of messenger (cf. Gal 2:12; Acts 15:1). This indirectly supports the idea of missionary activity by the other brothers of Jesus (so Bauckham, Relatives, 59), of whom little else is known. The testimony of Julius Africanus about the work of Jesus’ relatives (δεσπόσυνοι) as itinerant missionaries in Palestine (Euseb., Hist. eccl. 1.7.14; see Bauckham, Relatives, 61ff.) is in historical terms not unproblematic.

22

Jude: Introduction

The next piece of information about Judas comes from the Jewish Christian author Hegesippus (ca. 180 CE), whose account of an episode during the last phase of Domitian’s reign (i.e., ca. 95 CE) is extant (in Euseb., Hist. eccl. 3.20.1–­6; cf. 3.35.5–­6). We are told that the emperor persecuted the descendants of David; two great-­nephews of Jesus,100 the grandsons of Judas “who is said to be a natural brother of the Lord” (3.20.1), were denounced as being of Davidic ancestry, brought from Galilee to Rome, and presented to the emperor. In the interrogation, they confirmed their Davidic descent, but showed themselves to be entirely harmless politically. They were only farmers who owned a thirty-­nine-­acre piece of land, which they worked in order to support themselves and pay their taxes. In answer to the question about Christ and his βασιλεία, they are said to have responded that it was “heavenly and angelic” and would “appear at the end of the age, when Christ will come in glory to judge the living and the dead” (3.20.4). Full of contempt, the emperor released them as “worthless people,” but afterward they were given positions of leadership in the church as witnesses and relatives of the Lord,101 and lived until Trajan’s time.

This comment shows, at least, that the blood relatives of Jesus were still known and had a certain level of influence in the Palestinian communities around the end of the first century. At the same time, however, it suggests that Jesus’ brother Judas himself had at this time already long since passed away; otherwise further information about him would surely have been mentioned. Other figures with the same name do not come under consideration: (a) It is implausible that the referent is an otherwise unknown Judas with a brother by the name of James,102 and (b) the suggestion proposed already by Hugo Grotius that he should be identified with the Judas103 named in the ancient list of Jerusalem bishops,104 who in the Apostolic Constitutions (7.46) is called “(son) of James,” “fails because we know 100

Other sources give their names, which Eusebius likely omitted: Zoker (= Zachariah) and James (cf. Bauckham, Relatives, 97–­98). 101 According to Euseb., Hist. eccl. 3.25.5–­6, Hegesippus might have read “in every church,” which likely meant the communities in Palestine or Galilee; cf. Bauckham, Relatives, 96–­97. 102 Appel, Einleitung, 123, suggests that the author is a simple Christian who sought to associate himself with Jas by means of the identity as “brother of James,” on the assumption that his text was addressed to the same community as Jas. Harnack also, after he had initially considered the entire address to be a later addition (Harnack, Lehre der zwölf Apostel, 106n22), assessed the phrase “brother of James” as a gloss intended to lend authority to the text of an otherwise unknown author (idem, Chronologie, 467–­68). Cf. also Henshaw, Literature, 389; against this, Kümmel, Einleitung, 377. 103 Thus already Grotius, Adnotationes, 1151. Cf. Streeter, Primitive Church, 178–­80, who, however, arbitrarily excises ἀδελφός; further Adam, “Erwägungen,” 46; G. Klein, Apostel, 100. 104 See the list of bishops in Euseb., Hist. eccl. 4.5.3–­4; 5.12.1–­2; Epiph., Pan. 66.22–­23; cf. also the Armenian transmission of the apocryphal letter of James to Quadratus; on this, van den Broeck, “Brief ”; and Bauckham, Relatives, 70ff.



Author, Date, and Location

23

nothing about whether his brother was named James.”105 (c) The same applies to the ‘other’ Judas among the twelve disciples mentioned in some lists of disciples, who in Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13 is introduced as the son of a certain James and is perhaps to be identified with “Judas, not the Iscariot” mentioned in John 14:22.106 (d) Likewise, identifying this Judas as Judas Barsabbas, introduced as the coworker of James in Acts 15:22, is philologically untenable since it requires ἀδελφός to be interpreted in the sense of “coworker.”107 (e) Finally, there is no indication in the text that the choice of the name “Judas” was due to the identification, later attested primarily in the Syriac tradition, of the ‘apostle’ Judas with Judas ‘Didymus’ Thomas, who is understood to be a “twin brother” and “double” of Jesus;108 nor is there any evidence to support the—­even more complicated—­suggestion that the phrase “brother of James” was used in place of “brother of the Lord” and intended to disguise the origin of the text in order to ascribe the letter to that Judas Thomas and oppose the gnostic tradition of Thomas originating in Syria.109 Aside from the fact that the classification of the opponents in Jude as gnostic is quite improbable, such an intentional opposition would hardly have been carried out with this sort of timid ascription. There is nothing in the text to indicate that its sender should be called Thomas. In addition, the interpretation of the disciple whose epithet is “twin” (Gr. δίδυμος; Aram. ‫ )תאומא‬as Jesus’ “twin brother” is a later development,110 which can initially be detected in Syria,111 but can hardly be presupposed for Jude, which was likely located in Asia Minor.

The only remaining option, therefore, is Judas the brother of the Lord. Jude claims to be written by this brother, which is explicitly articulated for the first time by Origen (Comm. Matt. 10.17), but must have been apparent for the first readers. However, the specification “brother of James” does not necessarily indicate a direct acquaintance with Jesus’ relatives (and thus Palestine), but 105

Kümmel, Einleitung, 377. On this identification with the ‘apostle’ Judas, which was predominant in the later tradition, see below, pp. 24–25. 107 This thesis (proposed by Ellis in “Prophecy,” 226–­36; idem, Making, 292) is manifestly in the interest of integrating Jude with the mission of James and thus enabling an early date. 108 Against Vielhauer, Geschichte, 593–­94. This is contradicted by the association of this Judas with James, which specifically points to a different Judas. 109 So the adventurous speculation of Koester, Introduction, 252; cf. criticism in Bauckham, Relatives, 32–­36. 110 So the criticism in Bauckham, Relatives, 32–­36 and 173. The identification “is known at an early date only in the east Syrian area, appearing elsewhere only in much later works under the influence of the Acts of Thomas” (op. cit., 33); cf. further Klijn, “Judas Thomas”; Gunther, “Meaning.” On the Thomas tradition, see most recently Frey, “Thomas,” 14–­17; in detail Janßen, “Evangelium des Zwillings,” 223–­31. 111 So in the Greek fragment of Gos. Thom., P.Oxy. 654, 2–­3, where, however, the name Judas is not preserved and is amended following the text of the Coptic translation; cf. NHC II 32.11–­12. The name Judas Thomas then appears widely in Acts Thom., as well as in the Abgar legend (Euseb., Hist. eccl. 1.13). 106

24

Jude: Introduction

rather an indirect acquaintance mediated by the early Christian tradition of James (or the letters ascribed to him). The authority of “Judas” is derivative, determined by way of the person or the letter of James, and is only secondarily the authority of a ‘brother of the Lord.’ For the reception of the text, this recollection of James was at least as significant as the attribution to Judas, the brother of Jesus. By referring to the brothers of Jesus, the author, like the author of James, invokes Palestinian Jewish Christianity,112 whose proximity to the beginnings of Christianity is intended to support the substantive proximity to Christian origins and thus the authority of the message presented here.113 To a certain extent Judas becomes a ‘second James,’ and through association with his authority the letter ascribed to him also found its place in the series of the Catholic Letters.114 However, a different identification was established at an early stage in the tradition, which was then almost always maintained. Probably since Tertullian, who referred to the author of Jude as “apostle” (Cult. fem. 1.3), this Judas has been regarded as one of Jesus’ twelve disciples. To this end, the author was identified with Ἰούδας Ἰακώβου, named in the list of apostles in Luke 6:14-­16 and Acts 1:13 (whereby the genitive was then interpreted as “brother of James” rather than “son of James”). This Judas “(son) of James” appears in these two apostle lists in the place occupied by Thaddaeus (v.l., Lebbaeus) in Matt 10:3 and Mark 3:18. With the intention of harmonizing the apostle lists, since Origen this “Judas Thaddaeus” was seen as one and the same person (Comm. Rom. praef.), and was then identified with the “brother of the Lord” (who, however, for christological or mariological reasons was regarded as just a stepbrother, as in the Protevangelium of James, or later only a cousin of Jesus). Since the disciple from the circle of twelve, James the son of Alphaeus, was analogously identified with James the brother of the Lord (or later “cousin of the Lord”),115 the ‘apostle’ Judas could also be seen as the “brother of James.” This complex tradition, rendered even more convoluted by occasional additional identifications of Judas with other apostles such as Addai,116 Thomas,117 or Simon the Zealot,118 is reflected in expansions of 112

Hahn, “Randbemerkungen,” 216. With regard to the geographical location of the author and his addressees, this detail must therefore be evaluated with great caution. 114 Lührmann, “Briefe,” 71. 115 For the western church, Jerome brought about the acceptance of this identification as well as of Judas’ status as apostle and cousin of the Lord. On this, cf. Zahn, Brüder und Vettern Jesu, 322ff., on criticism of the Judas hypothesis, 344ff. 116 This relies on the equation of Addai with Thaddaeus. 117 Cf. John 14:22 v.l. and parts of the Syriac tradition. 118 Thus in the Old Latin textual witnesses or, e.g., in the Decretum Gelasianum, where “Judae Zelotis apostoli epistula una” is named among the Catholic Letters (cf. Lührmann, “Briefe,” 68). 113



Author, Date, and Location

25

the heading in the manuscript tradition, where Jude is sometimes entitled “Letter of the Holy Apostle Judas.”119 This view of ‘apostolicity’—­rather than the ascription to the “brother of Jesus”—­was presupposed by the humanists and Martin Luther, and in part criticized; it was enshrined as doctrine at the Council of Trent and not subject to criticism until relatively late.120 In NT introductory scholarship (in connection with the assumption of ‘authenticity’) this view was first corrected in favor of a reference to the brother of the Lord in 1836 by K. A. Credner.121

6.2 On the question of the letter’s authenticity Although Jude’s ‘apostolicity’ (in the sense of its composition by an apostle from the circle of twelve) was still supported by some scholars (united by a lectureship in Rome) in the twentieth century,122 the academic discussion can be limited to examining the question of authenticity as a question of the text’s connection to the brother of the Lord, since the address of the text clearly points to this figure and there is no justification for identifying this Judas with the apostle or another person of the same name. The discussion of whether it is possible that the text was composed by this Palestinian Jewish Christian and blood relative of Jesus suffers from the fact that we know very little about this Judas. This opens up a broad scope for proposals from supporters as well as opponents of such an ‘authenticity.’ Although the majority of critical commentaries since ca. 1960 regard Jude as a pseudepigraphon,123 conservative authors regularly advocate for the possibility of authenticity by arguing for a relatively early date, a Palestinian Jewish Christian character of the text, and its deep association with the tradition of ‘relatives of the Lord.’124 Most recently and with great erudition, Bauckham compiled all the possible arguments 119 So cod. L and in deviation 049 as well as multiple minuscules. Cf. also Bede (PL 93:123). See the collation on the inscriptio in Wasserman, Jude, 132–­33. 120 The first detailed contradictory argument was presented in 1821 by Jessien, De authentia, who regarded this Judas as a nonapostolic cousin of Jesus. 121 Credner, Einleitung, 612. Herder provided a fundamental impetus in this direction in his text Ueber die Briefe zweener Brüder Jesu from 1775. On this text, see Frey, “Herder,” 59–­61. 122 Cf. for example the argumentation in F. Maier, Judasbrief, 32n4 and 176ff. 123 Until ca. 1960, according to Bauckham, Relatives, 174, the majority of authors still supported authenticity (see the list of representatives of both positions there). 124 Aside from the works of Bauckham, which will be discussed below, relatively influential works are J. A. T. Robinson, Redating, 193–­94, as well as the works of Ellis, “Prophecy,” 226–­36; idem, Making. Cf. most recently the commentaries by Moo (2 Peter, Jude), Schreiner (1, 2 Peter, Jude), Brosend (James and Jude), and Davids (Letters of 2 Peter and Jude), who, however, do not add anything to Bauckham’s arguments.

26

Jude: Introduction

but was ultimately unable to refute the evidence that speaks in favor of a postapostolic context (v. 17) and against the Galilean brother of Jesus: a) Bauckham asks why an author would adopt the pseudonym of such an obscure figure as Judas. Could he not have found better, more well-­known figures to pseudepigraphically author the text (e.g., again, James, or Peter as in 2 Pet)? At the least, would he not have had to identify Judas as the “brother of the Lord,” and does this ‘modest’ introduction not precisely support authenticity?125 However, it is difficult to shed light on the ‘psychology’ of a pseudonymous author. To the extent that the choice of the pseudonym “Judas, brother of James” implies the (derived) authority of James, it is anything but nonsensical. b) Bauckham maintains that the mission of Jesus’ brother Judas was probably directed toward Jews but was not necessarily limited to Palestine. He could also have gone into the diaspora126 and written a letter with a destination there. However, this is no more than a possibility. Even the tradition of Julius Africanus (Euseb., Hist. eccl. 1.7.14) only says that the “relatives of Jesus” (δεσπόσυνοι) spread from Nazareth and Cochaba into the rest of the country (i.e., probably Palestine including Transjordan).127 There is no mention of a ministry in regions beyond this. c) With regard to the date, Bauckham calculates that the youngest brother of Jesus, if he were born around 10 CE, could have still been alive around the year 90 CE, and so the later dating of the text accepted by the majority does not necessarily imply its inauthenicity.128 But this is no more than a possibility, and the fact that at the time of Domitian Judas’ grandchildren were already attracting attention according to the note from Hegesippus (Euseb., Hist. eccl. 3.20.1–­6) does not support the notion that Judas was still alive at this time. d) The only difficulty that Bauckham concedes arises from the language of Jude. While he does make an effort to show that the author read the OT in Hebrew and Enoch in Aramaic, the problem of the (nearly) literary Greek style remains. Whether, as Bauckham would like, this can be explained by more recent work on the presence of Hellenistic language and culture in Palestine129 and whether such a degree of hellenization is plausible for a member of the family of Jesus remains open. In any case, Bauckham does not want to decide against the authenticity of Jude based on the linguistic argument alone.130 125 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 14: “The description of Jude as ‘brother of the Lord’ only is much more easily explicable on the hypothesis of authenticity than on that of pseudepigraphy.” 126 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 14. 127 On this, cf. Bauckham, Relatives, 61. 128 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 15. However, Bauckham does not consider such a late date to be necessary. 129 Cf. especially Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus; idem, “Hellenisierung”; idem, “Jerusalem.” See also J. D. Charles, Strategy, who despite the skillful linguistic form that he extols in Jude maintains an early date and ‘authenticity’; see criticism in Frey, “Judasbrief,” 186n27. 130 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 16: “It would be unwise to consider this extremely uncertain question of language an insuperable obstacle.”



Author, Date, and Location

27

e) In his monograph on Judas and the relatives of Jesus, Bauckham points to the reception of early Jewish haggadic traditions as well as Enoch and As. Mos., which suggest a Jewish Christian author (but these texts do not exclude the possibility of a Hellenistic Jewish Christian author).131 Further, Bauckham adduces observations on midrashic exegesis and exegetical techniques like the gezera shawa, which in his view indicate a Palestinian Jewish author. Finally, he wants to show that the designation of Jesus as μόνος δεσπότης in v. 4 reflects not only the Palestinian designation of Jesus as δεσπότης in the sense of the messianic ruler,132 but also the claim of the relatives of the Lord (δεσπόσυνοι) as “royal family.”133 Bauckham ultimately claims to find confirmation of this trend to safeguard messianic sovereignty in the Lucan version of Jesus’ genealogy, which he idiosyncratically combines with the chronological schema of the Apocalypse of Weeks in Enoch and based on this Enochic influence again traces back to Judas the brother of Jesus and his circle.134 These combinations—­which are erudite, but highly speculative—­maintain for Bauckham the possibility that Jude was written by an author who was not only influenced by Palestinian Jewish traditions, but also represented claims like those found in later traditions about the ‘relatives of the Lord’ and their leadership in Palestinian Christianity up to the era of Bar Kochba.

However, the thesis of Jude’s composition by the brother of Jesus faces a number of weighty and, in my view, insurmountable obstacles. Some elements of the text are difficult to align with a date before or around 70 CE, as proposed by supporters of authenticity; instead, they point clearly to the postapostolic period. These difficulties can be illustrated by the interpretation of these passages by those who support authorship by the brother of the Lord. a) The first issue is the retrospective view of the apostles and their prophecy aimed at the present eschaton in v. 17. With this statement the author falls out of his own fiction of being a contemporary of the apostolic period.135 Bauckham maintains that, according to v. 17, only the prophesies, not the apostles themselves, belong to the past. One need not assume that the apostles had already passed away or dispersed at the time of composition; rather, according to v. 18 (“that they said to you”), those who heard the apostles—­that is, the first converts of the respective communities—­are still alive.136 This somewhat subtle argument, however, is contradicted by the fact that the way in which the author speaks of the “apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ” indicates a later phase in the development of the church. An examination of the history of the term 131

So Vögtle, Judasbrief, 6–­7. Cf. Bauckham, Relatives, 302–­7. 133 Bauckham, Relatives, 306. 134 Bauckham, Relatives, 315ff., 364. For criticism of this reconstruction, see also Vögtle, Judasbrief, 6; P. Müller, “Judasbrief,” 285–­86. 135 For Luther (WA DB 7:386) this already suggested an origin with a postapostolic author. On the fragility of the temporal structure in Jude, see Frey, “Autorfiktion,” 691–­92. 136 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 103; idem, Relatives, 170–­71. 132

28

Jude: Introduction

ἀπόστολος and its usage137 reveals a general concept that is relieved of all historical specificity, which leaves the usage in Paul or even Luke far behind, and is paralleled only in references to the “apostles and prophets” as a foundation (Eph 2:20) or to “the apostles” as a “corporate unit,”138 for example in 1 Clement or Ignatius. Verse 17 looks back on the time of the apostles, which is already seen as an early period of Christianity that is constitutive and in a certain sense normative. Jude participates in the struggle over the orientation toward this norm of the early ‘apostolic’ age, which characterizes the postapostolic period. b) Further evidence of a later date is the reference to the “faith passed down once and for all” (v. 3b), as well as the admonition to “build yourselves up upon your most holy faith” (v. 20), in which the content of faith becomes a norm transmitted at the beginning (cf. 1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:12) by which the faithful of the later period are to be guided. The argument from tradition associated with this notion and the clearly emphasized motif of “reminding” the addressees are likewise most closely paralleled in the period of the third Christian generation. Linguistically as well, the association of ἅπαξ with the transmission of the faith represents a secondary development in contrast to the christological use of ἅπαξ (Rom 6:10; 1 Pet 3:18; Heb 7:27; 9:26, 28). c) The instructions for dealing with heretics or with church members affected by them in vv. 22-­23 also have their closest parallels in the later texts of the NT, such as 1–­2 John, Rev, and the Pastoral Epistles, as well as Ignatius. This applies regardless of the specific assessment of the opponents’ position. d) The closing doxology and its individual elements are best paralleled in the doxology in Rom 16:25-­27, which is text-­critically secondary, as well as in the doxologies of the Pastoral Epistles, 1 Clem., and other writings from around or after 100 CE.139 e) It is not easy to refute the note from Hegesippus about the grandsons of Judas the brother of Jesus at the time of Domitian, though its specific features (such as the personal interrogation by Domitian) are certainly legendary.140 Had Judas been alive at the time of Domitian, he himself rather than his grandchildren would have been an object of interest to the emperor. This supports the notion that at this point—­around the end of the first century—­he was already long dead.

137

On this, see in general Frey, “Apostelbegriff,” and 174–­76 on Jude. So Vögtle, Judasbrief, 8; cf. P. Müller, “Judasbrief,” 286. 139 Cf. Deichgräber, Gotteshymnus, 28–­29. This late period is indicated by the introductory τῷ δυναμένῳ, the plerophoric string of phrases, the extended statement of time in reference to three temporal modes, and the use of the doxology as the letter closing. The counterarguments in Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 120, are unconvincing, since the Christian parallels he cites are mostly from the later period. 140 Against Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 14–­15. 138



Author, Date, and Location

29

f) If one further considers that the letter of Jude already refers to Jas (likely also pseudepigraphal),141 which at the earliest can be dated to ca. 80 CE,142 its composition by the brother of the Lord becomes very improbable from a chronological perspective as well. g) Of course the elaborate use of the Greek language also fits poorly with a Galilean villager from a simple family.143 The argument of language cannot really decide the question of authorship, since it cannot be ruled out that a Palestinian Jew(ish Christian) had good knowledge of Greek; on the other hand, linguistic observations are more objective than theology-­historical constructions or speculations about a possible lifespan. In sum, the evidence that Jude stylistically is among the best writings of the NT and leaves most authors, including Paul, far behind in vocabulary, rhetorical subtleties, and effective imagery, and that the scriptural references are also rather reminiscent of the LXX, while a direct adoption from the Hebrew or Aramaic (Enoch) cannot be demonstrated, speaks overwhelmingly against authorship by the brother of Jesus.

This chronological, substantive, and above all linguistic evidence renders composition by the brother of the Lord extremely improbable, if not impossible, and the assumption that one of his students wrote the letter in his name144 is an implausible workaround with the transparent goal of ‘saving’ the substantive correctness of the authorial claim, at least to some degree. Historically and textually it is more plausible to see the author as a relatively well-­educated, hellenistically influenced Jewish Christian who was familiar with biblical and early Jewish traditions as well as with the Greek language, and who deliberately sought to associate his rhetorically effective letter of exhortation with the better-­k nown figure of James and the letter ascribed to him. He chose the pseudonym of this James’ ‘little brother’ in order to exhort the addressee congregation(s) in a significantly more precarious situation than the one addressed by the author of James, while creating a link with the tradition represented by that letter. Whether the author originated in Palestine—­as has traditionally been suggested145—­can hardly be determined with certainty, 141

See Hahn and P. Müller, “Jakobusbrief,” 59–­6 4; differently Hengel, “Jakobusbrief,” who takes Jas as authentic and anti-­Pauline; cautiously also Niebuhr, “New Perspective,” who sees the discussion as “entirely open” (1031). 142 Cf. Vielhauer, Geschichte, 580: “between 80 and 130”; Schnelle, Einleitung, 467: “end of the first century”; Burchard, Jakobusbrief, 7: “the last decade of the first century”; Popkes, Jakobus, 69: “around the turn from the first to the second century.” 143 So Kümmel, Einleitung, 377. 144 So Chaine, Les épîtres catholiques, 281; Cantinat, Épîtres de Saint Jacques, 286; Reicke, Epistles, 19; cf. Bauckham, “Jude: An Account,” 3819: “the hypothesis of a Greek speaking secretary is always available”; but, see idem, Relatives, 177. 145 Differently Heiligenthal, Henoch, 156ff., who wants to see the author as a “Jewish-­ Christian representative of Antiochene theology.”

30

Jude: Introduction

though the tradition he draws on clearly places him in a line that traces back to Palestine and Palestinian Jewish apocalypticism. 6.3 The fragile implementation of the authorial fiction and the authority of the fictitious author Jude is therefore a pseudepigraphon. Its pseudepigraphal construct or authorial fiction, however, is—­in comparison with 2 Pet or the Pastoral Epistles, for example—­quite restrained; indeed, it appears practically “timid.”146 There are no biographical details of the fictive author, and even in v. 1 Judas can only be identified indirectly. Beyond this there are no further references to this figure and his particularities; any explicit reference to the ‘family of Jesus,’ to Palestinian tradition, or a specific Jewish Christian standpoint (such as in the position on the law) is lacking. The addressees are not associated with a ministry of the brother of the Lord, and the letter’s closing contains only a doxology rather than any personal greetings (vv. 24-­25). Nevertheless, the vagueness of the authorial fiction does not imply a lack of authority: the direct address to the addressees in vv. 3, 5, 12, 17, 20-­23 shows the author to be an authoritative figure who has direct knowledge of the faith “given once and for all” (that is, the original faith [v. 3]), and the power to admonish the addressees on the basis of this foremost authority (v. 4). Nevertheless, the author—­unlike the author of 2 Pet—­speaks to the situation of his addressees from the perspective of a contemporary. The false teachers who make the letter necessary have already wormed their way into the communities (v. 4), their sinful activities (vv. 8, 11) and their presence at the communal meals are described as current (v. 12), rather than predicted, for example, in the form of a prophecy. This contemporaneity and knowledge of the addressees’ situation is claimed by the superscriptio and v. 1 for the fictive author, Judas. Yet in this authorial fiction there is a tension between the actual perspective of the author and the perspective suggested by the selected pseudonym as the authority of the early period of emerging Christianity—­but this is not discussed further in the text. The incoherence or fragility147 of the authorial fiction is especially evident in v. 17, where “Judas” admonishes his addressees to “remember” the words “that were prophesied by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.” With this, the apostles (or at least their words) are characterized as an object of the past; their prophetic announcement of the emergence of “scoffers” in the eschaton (v. 18) is to be taken in reference to the opponents who have now appeared. On the one hand “Judas” is introduced as a person from the initial period of the movement, 146

So Vielhauer, Geschichte, 593. On this, see Frey, “Autorfiktion,” 691–­93.

147



Author, Date, and Location

31

and on the other hand he speaks to the addressees as a contemporary. His relation to the apostles, who were contemporaries of James (and Judas) and have only prophesied the present situation, remains unclear. There is nothing to suggest that Judas looks back on the apostles as an old man or the last remaining member of the first generation of witnesses. Rather, the author reveals a postapostolic standpoint with this shaky temporal structure; he thus ‘betrays’ himself as a member of the third generation of the Jesus movement148—­on this point we will see a more consistent practice in 2 Pet. The authorial fiction of Jude is not consistently maintained. Apparently the authority claimed by the real author to warn of the “scoffers” derives primarily from Scripture and its examples (including Enoch) as well as the apostles’ announcement that is in agreement, and less from the claimed authority of the pseudepigraphal author. Jude’s pseudonymous authorial fiction provides a relatively weak authorization—­its strength lies in its affiliation with the line (and tradition) of James, and in the reception of scriptural examples. At the same time, vv. 17-­18 show that the author regarded his own present as that end period in which the coming of the Kyrios for the judgment was not far off and therefore maintenance of faith and the salvation of those who could be saved was all the more urgent. 6.4 Date of Composition There is a wide range of suggestions for the date of Jude,149 from the 50s of the first century to the second half of the second century, depending upon decisions regarding authorship, the literary relationship to Jas and 2 Pet, as well as the assessment of the opponents and their place in the early history of theology. Where the authenticity of Jude is accepted, early dates are proposed, as for J. A. T. Robinson150 or Ellis,151 who seeks to trace the letter of Jude to the mission of James, the brother of the Lord (d. 62 CE), and Judas, and thus arrives at a date between 55 and 148

Supporters of authenticity try to avoid this consequence by postulating that the apostles did speak in the past, but could have still been alive at the time of the text’s compostion, or that only certain apostles—­namely the founders of the addressee communities—­are meant here (so Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 103–­4). However, this is nothing more than a forced salvage attempt. Nothing indicates that the apostles were still alive; instead, the use of the term shows clear traces of the postapostolic period, in which the image of “the apostles” in hindsight is generalized and glorified and is thus able to become the undisputed norm of Christian origins (so in Eph, 1 Clem., and Ign.). 149 See the overview in Bauckham, “Jude: An Account,” 3812–­13. 150 J. A. T. Robinson, Redating, 193–­94, maintains that Jude is to be dated prior to 70 CE due to the lack of any reference to the destruction of the temple. He specifically proposes that the text was composed around 61 CE, i.e., before Peter’s death, since he sees Jude as commissioned by Peter (who, he suggests, wrote 2 Pet a little later). 151 Ellis, “Prophecy,” 226–­36; idem, Making, 292.

32

Jude: Introduction

65 CE. Under the assumption of authenticity, dates up to ca. 80 CE have generally been proposed. Where Jude is ascribed to a student of the brother of Jesus, a date around 90 CE could still appear to be possible.152

If one accepts the pseudepigraphal nature of the text, the time of its composition can hardly be determined precisely. The reference to Jas in the prescript renders composition before the end of the first century improbable. The terminus ad quem, by contrast, is the composition of 2 Pet, which drew on the ‘refutation of heretics’ in Jude and for its part can hardly have been written before the year 125 CE, and should likely be situated much later (see below, pp. 220–21). A rough timespan for dating Jude is thus found in the years 100–­120 CE. 6.5. Place of Composition With regard to the place of composition, too, the text allows little more than speculation. The letter is aimed at a limited circle of communities (perhaps just a single community), in which “Judas,” “brother of James,” was seen as an authority, possibly due to familiarity with Jas. There is no indication of a link between these communities and the previous mission of Judas the brother of Jesus, or a mission of James. If one accepts pseudonymity and a late dating for Jude, then there is nothing to support a location in Palestine. It is not necessary to connect this text with the location of Jas (which is equally difficult to determine).153 A composition in Alexandria, occasionally proposed154 primarily due to the reception of Jude in Clement, cannot be substantiated. Substantively there are hardly any positive arguments for this. In addition, around 200 CE Jude was recognized not only by Clement, but also by Tertullian in Carthage and in the (likely Roman) Muratorian Canon, and so no argument for a particular region of composition can be derived from the early attestation in Clement.155 Yet some elements support the notion that the discussions touched on in Jude point to the effects of the Pauline mission, suggesting that the author—­as perhaps the author of Jas did before him—­engaged with developments in this area. This (and the corresponding problematic situation in Colossians) perhaps indicates an origin in Asia Minor,156 but there can be no certainty on this point. 152

Reicke, Epistles, 19; see also Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 15, with an argument for the possibility that Judas could have lived until the year 90 CE. 153 Cf. Popkes, Jakobus, 69, “cannot be solved.” 154 Cf. Gunther, “Alexandrian Epistle”; cautiously also Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 45. 155 The earliest level of reception is 2 Pet, but this is equally difficult to locate, and certainly does not necessarily entail a regional connection with Jude. 156 So Heiligenthal, Henoch, 165; Schnelle, Einleitung, 495.



The Opponents and the Situation of the Addressees

33

7. The Opponents and the Situation of the Addressees The most difficult question in the interpretation of Jude is that of the identity and profile of the opponents. The problems here are grounded in the stereotyping nature of the author’s polemic, which makes it difficult to determine which allegations truly apply to the teaching and behavior of the opponents and which are just polemical topoi, both in the biblical paradigms and in the polemical accusations. It would be wrong, however, to deny any reference to specific opponents.157 As is the case for nearly all NT letters, the basic problem of inferring possible opponents lies in the fact that only one half of the communication is available to us, while the opponents remain anonymous (τίνες ἄνθρωποι, οὗτοι) and are not conversation partners but rather the object of a distanced and polemically skewed communication about them. In reconstructing the ‘implied’ as well as the real opponents, therefore, there is a constant danger of “mirror reading”158—­that is, assuming that the respective opponents did not adhere to or disputed everything that the author affirms, emphasizes, and defends. This often leads to one-­sided images and historically false conclusions.

In the case of Jude, the disqualification of the opponents as paradigmatically godless people (ἀσεβεῖς) is particularly sharp, and all the evidence supports the notion that they did not see themselves in the categories presented here and that the author employed in part polemical stereotypes.159 Methodologically, then, it must be noted that the image of the opponents in Jude—­just as much as the authorial fiction—­is a construction, and thus the “encoded opponents” and their “real-­life counterparts” must be differentiated.160 Thus the references to the opponents must be examined with a view to whether they reveal a specific profile. This profile can then be compared with the theology of the author that is discernable in the letter, and if this produces a certain degree of coherence, it might be a plausible image of the opponents.161 Accusations that are potentially ‘mere’ polemical topoi should be regarded with some skepticism. Only on this basis can a classification within early Christian 157

This view is found in Wisse, “Epistle” (on this, see below, p. 38). Cf. J. M. G. Barclay, “Mirror-­Reading”; further Berger, “Gegner.” 159 On this, see Frey, “Autorfiktion,” 695–­96. A selection of such ‘polemical trends’ is presented in du Toit, “Vilification,” 405–­10; among these are hypocrisy and falsehood, arrogance and hubris, avarice and greed, sexual misconduct, debauchery, empty words, a seductive influence on others, and liability to condemnation. 160 Du Toit, “Vilification,” 404. 161 Of course one must also consider that this can only be reconstructed in fragments. 158

34

Jude: Introduction

history of theology or even an identification with groups known from elsewhere be discussed.162 7.1 Textual evidence Throughout the letter, those addressed as “called” (v. 1) and “beloved” (vv. 17, 20) are sharply distinguished from the opponents, who are not addressed directly or identified by name anywhere (v. 4: τινες; v. 8 and often: οὗτοι). While the former will be preserved to the end (vv. 1, 24), the eschatological damnation of the latter is certain (v. 4). However, v. 12 presupposes that these opponents are present at the communal meals and so belong to the community (in a way the author disapproves of)—­an actual division has thus not (yet) taken place.163 According to v. 4, the opponents have approached or joined the addressee communities from the outside (“crept in,” παρεισέδυσαν).164 In addition, vv. 22-­23 reveal that the opponents have influenced others in the communities and gained followers, which suggests that they have presented themselves as teachers and should perhaps—­if the statement in v. 4 is not just a polemical topos—­be regarded as itinerant teachers or prophets. The remaining statements are predominantly polemical and should be viewed with some skepticism; from their own point of view at least, the allegation that the opponents have caused divisions (v. 19) might have been presented differently. If there was no open schism (v. 12), it is more likely the author himself who seeks to create a dissociation between the addressees and the opponents. The other allegations can be roughly arranged as follows: a) Godless/non-­Christians: According to the judgment of the author, the false teachers are altogether “impious” people (vv. 4, 14-­15) who deny the master and Lord Jesus Christ (v. 4) and reject his dominion or sovereignty (v. 8). Ultimately they are described as (mere) psychics, “who do not have spirit” (v. 19), which does not just deny them an elite possession of spirit, as is often suggested, but rejects their identity as Christian altogether. b) Verbal offense/blasphemy and scoffing: In addition there are allegations in reference to the words of the opponents—­they are blasphemers (vv. 8, 10) and scoffers (v. 18), they speak haughtily (v. 16) and grumble about or contradict God (v. 16; cf. v. 11). 162

Cf. similarly Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 46; P. Müller, “Judasbrief,” 283. They would not themselves have agreed with the blanket label as “godless” or “impious” (vv. 4, 15; cf. 18) and “scoffers” (v. 18). 164 This may also have been a polemical topos, which the author uses to drive a wedge between the addressees and the opponents and emphasize their outsider status (cf. Gal 2:4); on this, see Wisse, “Epistle,” 143. 163



The Opponents and the Situation of the Addressees

35

c) Moral transgressions/impurity: Specific moral-­e thical allegations are identified—­t he opponents live according to their own impious desires (vv. 16, 18), they pervert God ’s grace into licentiousness (v. 4), bring about shameful deeds (v. 13), “defile” or pollute the f lesh (v. 8), and lead others to “defilement” (v. 23). d) Self-­interest: There is also the suspicion of self-­interest—­they tend (as shepherds) to themselves (v. 12) and act for their own benefit (v. 16; cf. 12). e) Metaphorical expressions complement and deepen this: the opponents not only fail to bring the expected fruit (v. 12), but as “crags” place others in danger of shipwreck (v. 12). They are ultimately compared in their capacity for knowledge or understanding with unreasoning animals (v. 10).

Nearly all of these accusations have parallels in other texts that polemically attack divergent groups, and so at least to some extent could be polemical topoi used to discredit the opponents165 without actually corresponding with the opponents’ behavior or teaching. This must be taken into account with regard to the accusations against the opponents as being godless, blasphemers, and people who deny or pervert the truth, but also regarding the allegation of moral (above all sexual) transgressions and the reference to haughtiness or self-­interest. Particularly the moral denigration of the opponents may serve the purpose of influencing “the addressees affectively toward . . . a certain opinion of the opponents.”166 The notion that this serves as more of an “accompanying gun” accords with the observation that the ethical admonitions of the author in vv. 3, 20-­23 “nowhere [contain] ethical-­moral instructions,” but rather focus on religious aspects (faith, prayer, God, Holy Spirit).167 That is to say, we must reckon with a great deal of exaggeration and ‘supplemental’ accusations in the moral and above all sexual allegations. By contrast, it is difficult to classify the charge that the opponents are “dreamers” (v. 8). Likewise, the claim that the opponents blaspheme the δόξαι—­that is, probably the angelic powers (v. 8)—­is especially striking and relatively unusual, suggesting that this brings us closer to the profile of the opponents. Before this can be established in greater detail, however, the most significant theses in scholarship must be considered.

165 Cf. Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 46; Brosend, “Excess,” 302–­3. On the individual polemical topoi, see du Toit, “Vilification.” On criteria for distinguishing between topics and real accusations, see also Berger, “Gegner,” 380. 166 So Blumenthal, Prophetie, 157. 167 Blumenthal, Prophetie, 157.

36

Jude: Introduction

7.2 Theses of scholarship a) The classic view regarded the opponents as gnostics,168 which was often connected in substance with libertinism and the assumption of forbidden sexual practices.169 This classification, which ultimately traces back to the interpretations of the church fathers,170 connects observations in the text with the presupposition that a more or less developed gnostic system already existed, which then served to explain, for example, the libertinism combated in Jude. Arguments in this vein are, in particular, the alleged distinction between pneumatics and psychics in v. 19, the rejection of the world derived from v. 16, the disregard for celestial intermediate beings manifest in vv. 8, 10, the opponents’ denial of the Parousia drawn from v. 18, a magical-­sacramentalistic teaching drawn from v. 12, the antinomian tendency from v. 12 in connection with an allegedly gnostic libertinism, as well as a divergent Christology or even the teaching of the demiurge (grounded in the interpretation of δεσπότης as the Creator God).171 Such an interpretation is contradicted not only by the fact that the gnostic systems that the church fathers combated cannot be presupposed until into the second century, according to recent research,172 but also that almost none of the aforementioned passages can be read in the way described above—­v. 19 does not offer a gnostic doctrine of grades of existence, nor does v. 18 represent a denial of the Parousia, or v. 12 a gnostic sacramental doctrine. “Grumblers who wrestle with their fate” (v. 16) need not do so on the basis of a gnostic rejection of the world, nor is disrespect for 168 Heiligenthal, Henoch, 133, speaks of a “scholarly stereotype.” Pfleiderer, Urchristentum, 509–­10, thought he could connect the opponents with the Carpocratians (cf. also Spitta, Brief, 503n1); Th. Barnes, “Marcosian Heresy,” pointed to the Marcosians; other authors refrained from designating a specific group. On older scholarship, see F. Maier, Judasbrief, 9n2; in addition the monograph by Werdermann, Irrlehrer; in more recent commentaries a gnostic classification is still supported by Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 151–­52; Grundmann, Brief, 18–­19; Schrage, “Zweite Petrusbrief,” 224; Frankemölle, 1. Petrusbrief, 2. Petrusbrief, Judasbrief, 125; Seethaler, 1. und 2. Petrusbrief, Judasbrief, 127. Cf. further Vielhauer, Geschichte, 590; Marxsen, Einleitung, 237; Kümmel, Einleitung, 375–­76; Gnilka, Theologie, 439. 169 Here the fantasy of learned exegetes occasionally bears strange fruit. Among the sometimes very detailed suggestions are “orgies . . . which involved lewd activities” (Werdermann, Irrlehrer, 83); “sexual excesses after the fashion of the Sodomites” (Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 41); “homosexual debaucheries . . . in which the false teachers receive their ecstatic revelations” (Vielhauer, Geschichte, 591–­92). 170 Cf. Schelkle, “Judasbrief,” 302. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 3.2.10–­11) held that Jude was written prophetically about the Carpocratians. 171 On this combination, see Heiligenthal, Henoch, 133–­34. 172 On this, see the foundational discussion in Markschies, “Gnosis/Gnostizismus,” 1049–­50; in detail idem, Gnosis. When 1 Tim 6:20, which is perhaps contemporaneous, speaks of “falsely so-­called knowledge (γνῶσις),” this need not refer to a system of thought that corresponds with later heresiological texts.



The Opponents and the Situation of the Addressees

37

angelic beings typically gnostic. Finally, δεσπότην in v. 4 refers to Christ, and here, too, there is no indication of a gnostic concept of the demiurge nor a gnostic Christology. Only the charge of antinomianism or libertinism remains, which—­if it can be applied to the real opponents—­a lso faces problems when explained with the help of Gnosticism, as recent research has shown. The original gnostic texts from Nag Hammadi have shown that the ethical orientation of gnostic thought was more often ascetic and only occasionally libertine.173 On this point, the church fathers’ accounts of gnostics also contain polemical topoi. The hypothesis that the opponents in Jude are gnostics must therefore be abandoned. For this reason, some interpreters today only speak of an emerging Gnosticism, without developed systems,174 but this reveals above all the weakness of this religous-­historical model.

b) A second popular model, which is employed where the opponents are not regarded as gnostics, classifies them as libertines and antinomians.175 Most of these authors differ very little from supporters of the gnostic thesis in the analysis of the text, but they strive to understand the dispute “within the framework of the early Christian controversy over the Pauline gospel.”176 According to these scholars, the opponents’ teaching is based on a misunderstood version of the Pauline teaching of freedom, a liberal way of life due to the pagan background of the opponents, an elitist claim to possession of the spirit (v. 19), or such a claim justified by visionary revelations (v. 8).177 Bauckham speaks of “charismatics who, on the basis of their understanding of grace, rejected all moral constraint and authority.”178 Davids sees the accusation as focused on “immorality and rebellion.”179 In terms of the history of theology, such a libertinism can be situated either with Paul’s Corinthian interlocutors or in the Wirkungsgeschichte of Pauline theology.180 Groups such as the Nicolaitans mentioned in Revelation might also serve as parallels.181 Textually, the statement about the perversion of the grace of God into debauchery (v. 4) 173

Cf. Sellin, “Häretiker,” 207n5. So still Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 49. Viljoen, “Living,” 514, also speaks of “some kind of proto-­g nosticism.” 175 Thus the older commentaries by Kühl, Briefe, and Bigg, Critical and Exegetical Commentary (who sees the opponents of Jude and of 2 Pet as the same) and more recently especially the commentaries by Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 11, Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 413–­14, and Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 22. 176 Heiligenthal, Henoch, 138. 177 See the accounts in Heiligenthal, Henoch, 135–­39. 178 Bauckham, “Jude: An Account,” 3811. 179 Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 21. 180 Renan, Saint Paul, 300–­303, wanted to see Balaam (v. 11) as a code name for Paul, supposing that the letter was written against him (during his lifetime!). 181 Gerdmar, Rethinking, 324–­42 tries to situate Jude, 2 Pet, and Rev in a similar context. 174

38

Jude: Introduction

as well as the ethical allegations collected above have been cited in support of such a libertinism. The blaspheming of the angels (vv. 8-­10), which cannot be connected with libertinism with no further consideration, is incorporated in this interpretation, for example by Bauckham, through an understanding of the angels as “guardians of the law and of the moral order of the world.”182 However, with this interpretation there is a risk that precisely those accusations that might have the strongest character as topoi become the key to this understanding.

c) Frederik Wisse supports a radical counterposition, no longer seeking to ascertain any specific profile of the false teachers due to the continuously dominant use of topoi. Wisse therefore rejects any specific reference to real heretics. In his view, the author only wants to inform his addressees about the appearance of the enemies of God in the last days using an inventory of traditional (biblical and Pauline) heretical attributes and motivate them to vigilance in view of the approaching Parousia.183 However, this one-­sided interpretation of the evidence in support of a mere topos and against an actual reference is unconvincing, because neither the reasons for adopting traditional topoi nor the deviations from them are explained,184 and because the proposed purpose of writing does not make sense in a way that can be reconciled with vv. 3-­4.

d) Anton Vögtle in his commentary has sketched the opponents primarily as deniers of the Parousia. They are scoffers (v. 18) who “rejected the Parousia of Christ at the judgment.”185 Vögtle wants to see the reason for this denial neither in the attempt to justify a libertine way of life nor in a present-­tense understanding of the resurrection (cf. 1 Tim 2:18; 2 Clem. 9.1), but rather in the dissidents’ elitist claim to possess the spirit, on account of which they also saw themselves as elevated by the spirit above moral constraints.186 Both main points of Vögtle’s argument, however, are vulnerable to critical scrutiny. While Jude 18 does indicate an element of understanding the present eschatologically and some degree of an imminent expectation of the Parousia, this by no means implies e contrario that the opponents denied these positions and that this even constituted the specific core of their teaching. Instead, this interpretation appears to be imposed on Jude on the basis of 2 Pet 3:3ff. It remains unclear exactly what constituted the 182

Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 11–­12; idem, “Jude: An Account,” 3811. Wisse, “Epistle,” 142–­43. Cf. also Brosend, “Excess,” 303. 184 Cf. Heiligenthal, Henoch, 140; Hahn, “Randbemerkungen,” 214n30. 185 Vögtle, Judasbrief, 95. Vögtle’s approach is adopted by Hoppe, “Evangelium im Widerstreit” (cf. idem, “Parusieglaube”) and most recently broadly developed in the dissertation by Blumenthal, Prophetie, 148–­75. Here, too, the opponents’ main point is found in the rejection of belief in the Parousia and eschatological judgment, which can then of course be associated with certain ethical implications. 186 Vögtle, Judasbrief, 95–­96; cf. 93; cf. also Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 31–­32. 183



The Opponents and the Situation of the Addressees

39

“scoffing” of the “scoffers” (v. 18) in Jude and whether any concrete object underlies this topos at all. However, methodological considerations preclude a premature analogy between the opponents of Jude and those of 2 Pet. Vögtle also presents a one-­sided ‘mirror reading’ of v. 19 with regard to the opponents’ pneumatic awareness as well; the fact that the author calls the opponents “psychics” who do not have the spirit can be interpreted against the backdrop of Jas 3:15187 and does not require ascribing to the opponents an elitist claim to possession of the spirit in order to make sense in turn of the denial of the Parousia.

e) Klaus Berger offers quite an idiosyncratic classification of the opponents as Jewish Christian representatives of an exorcistic practice. As evidence Berger refers to the Qumran curse text 4QBerakhot (4Q286–­290), which attests to a collective curse of Belial (cf. also 1QS II, 4–­18), a process like the one that is rejected in the example in Jude 9. From this Berger concludes that the opponents supported “a collective exorcistic practice” of banning the impure, on the basis of which they then felt that they were above purity laws and, above all, were no longer in need of the soteriological function of Christ.188 The opponents were thus “supporters of a program of offensive purity . . . without christological turning points”189 and they justified this practice on visionary-­charismatic grounds. The author of Jude, in Berger’s view, did not understand their position and saw it simply as pagan manticism. With the inference from v. 9 (which only serves as an example within the polemic of vv. 8-­10), Berger also practices ‘mirror reading’ much too directly, ascribing to the opponents whatever the text rejects. The Qumran text he adduces, or the curse practices of the Qumran community altogether, provides no viable support for this position, just as any classification of the opponents as Jewish Christian is difficult to justify. The polemical topos of “pollution” can hardly be explained in the context of Jewish purity halakah.

f) Roman Heiligenthal has moved the discussion forward methodologically by differentiating between topoi and specific references in the polemical statements, and has located the point of conflict between the author and his opponents in the dispute over the teaching about angels. Heiligenthal sees in Jude a “Christianized strand of the Enoch tradition,” which he then, like Berger, locates in Jewish Christian or, more precisely, Christian Pharisaic 187

There is no direct reference to 1 Cor 2:14. Berger, Theologiegeschichte, 311. 189 Berger, Theologiegeschichte, 312. The notion that this reflects an archaic position from the synoptic-­Pauline sphere of tradition, in which the soteriological function of Christ did not yet (!) have a central status in soteriology (Theologiegeschichte, 313, with reference to Rev 12 and Herm.), is pure speculation that is not historically justifiable. 188

40

Jude: Introduction

circles, who sought “to defend [this tradition] against the assimilating tendencies of other types of Christians.”190 In his view, the opponents are skeptics more strongly characterized by popular philosophy (but at the same time positioned within the Wirkungsgeschichte of Pauline theology),191 who according to v. 8 denied the reality of the angelic powers, which the author vehemently supports, and at the same time on the basis of their skepticism took a negative position toward ‘external’ purity laws. The dispute between the author and his opponents should therefore be understood as a ‘mirror image’ of the discourse attested in Col. The opponents of Jude represented a position approaching that of the author of Col, while the recognition of powers, which is challenged in Col, approaches the position of Jude. This hypothesis combines significant insights with problematic assumptions. The observation that the key point of the conflict lies in the dispute over the teaching about angels is very noteworthy, as this point—­unlike many others—­cannot be explained as a polemical topos. In addition, the discussion is moved forward by the reference to corresponding arguments in the Wirkungsgeschichte of the Pauline tradition, in which the question of the significance of angels became a point of contention. On the other hand, the classification of Jude’s position as “Christian Pharisaism” is questionable. The teaching about the angels is not unique to the Pharisees, and the notion that the reference to “pollution of the flesh” in vv. 8, 23 should be attributed to Jewish purity halakah or Pharisaic positions is hardly plausible. Rather, this allegation in v. 8 is only an expansion of the allegation of “blaspheming” the angels, and v. 23 is concerned with avoiding contact with the unrepentant. Purity and pollution are probably understood metaphorically here. There is no indication of an appeal to specifically Jewish categories of (ritual) purity practice.192

That the core of the dispute probably does lie in the teaching about angels is confirmed in the works of Gerhard Sellin, Henning Paulsen, and Peter Müller. Sellin sees the opponents as itinerant teachers “who experience ecstasies caused by the spirit in which they are exalted above the angels and disregard angels and cosmic powers, probably in historical continuity with the theology of Col and Eph. Appealing to Paul, they are antinomians and exclusively emphasize χάρις and pneuma.”193 In his commentary, Paulsen questions the identification of the opponents with itinerant charismatics suggested by v. 4,194 but confirms 190

Heiligenthal, Henoch, 63, 94. Cf. further Berger, “Jesus als Pharisäer.” According to Heiligenthal the opponents are “Christian pneumatics from the Pauline tradition” who were influenced by pagan skepticism. “For them, the Pauline teaching of salvation was an opportunity to overcome their fundamental position of skepticism and at the same time to be able to maintain essential foundational convictions and ways of life. . . . In terms of community practices they defend a lifestyle that fits in with pagan society rather than distancing from it” (Heiligenthal, Henoch, 149–­50). 192 On this, see the more detailed discussion in Frey, “Judasbrief,” 192–­94. 193 Sellin, “Häretiker,” 224. 194 Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 47. 191



The Opponents and the Situation of the Addressees

41

the observation that the key point of the conflict must be found in the teaching about angels, while the accusations of “godlessness” or of sexual transgressions should be considered mere polemical topoi. The opponents’ failure “therefore hardly lies in the ethical realm, as Jude wants to suggest, but rather in their deep skepticism about the status of angels, which for the author is beyond any doubt.”195 In his literature survey, Müller observes with great clarity, “The only clearly tangible accusation is that the opponents κυριότητα δὲ ἀθετοῦσιν δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν (v. 8). They behave presumptuously in that they disregard authorities and celestial powers, of which they of course understand nothing (v. 10), even when they appeal to dreams (brought by the spirit) and visions (v. 8). For in fact, from the perspective of Jude, in this they simultaneously deny ‘the sole ruler and Lord Jesus Christ’ (v. 4) as well as the sole God and Savior (v. 25).”196 Only in this issue of honoring the celestial powers is it possible “to penetrate the stereotyping polemics.”197 Apparently the author did not want to describe to opponents’ positions in detail, but only to underscore “the fundamental evil of their godlessness . . . in several attacks,” and on the other hand he apparently must have seen “the opponents’ contempt for and denial of the celestial powers as a distinctive mark of their godlessness.”198 7.3 The image of the opponents and the theology of the author This interpretation has the advantage that it locates the core of the dispute exactly where a fundamental theological concern of the author probably also lies; his recourse to Enoch, which holds quasi-­canonical status and remains the only text quoted by the author, attests to the importance of angelology in the author’s theology. Finally, v. 9 also draws on an example from the world of the angels. Thus angelology certainly constitutes a decisive point for the author.199 For the author, in the tradition of Enoch, angelic beings have a protological and eschatological significance; they are part of earthly and heavenly world events and at the same time guarantors of the order of the world. To verbally denigrate them or even deny their significance is equivalent to a sacrilegious violation of boundaries, as represented in v. 6 in the angels’ association with the daughters of men, or in v. 7 with the crimes of the Sodomites against the visiting angels. By contrast, Michael’s behavior is noted as exemplary in v. 9; according to the Jewish tradition adopted here, in contrast to another angelic 195

Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 49. P. Müller, “Judasbrief,” 284. 197 P. Müller, “Judasbrief,” 284. 198 P. Müller, “Judasbrief,” 284. 199 Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 47–­48. 196

42

Jude: Introduction

being—­namely, Satan—­Michael did not allow himself to get carried away in disparaging βλασφημία, but left the judgment of Satan to God. This indicates the level of dignity enjoyed by celestial beings in the author’s view. Conversely, the refusal to acknowledge the angelic powers constitutes a sacrilegious “transgression of the position allocated to human beings”200 and thus an act of impiety. Other questions can be given only fragmentary answers. Jude does not clearly indicate whether this refusal to acknowledge the angelic powers should be attributed to a general skepticism or to visionary-­charismatic experiences (cf. v. 8), and whether this was connected —­possibly by appealing to Paul201—­ with antinomian or even morally libertine features, or whether the relevant allegations are related to the opponents only in a very limited way as stereotypes of polemics against heretics. In any case, the author depicts the opponents as people whose transgression of boundaries with respect to the recognition of the powers in the cosmic order not only signifies their arrogance, indeed, their denial of Christ and of God, but must also bring with it a moral collapse. 7.4 Classification in the history of theology It is especially difficult to classify these opponents, who can only be so vaguely described, within the spectrum of movements in early Christian theological history. It is clear that neither a gnostic (or ‘early gnostic’) designation nor a classification within a Jewish Christian perspective is sufficiently demonstrable from the text. A number of arguments support locating the conflict over the recognition of angelic powers within the framework of the Wirkungsgeschichte of Pauline theology: a) When the gift of glossolalia is understood as being gifted with the “tongues of angels” in the Corinthian congregation (1 Cor 13:1)—­an interpretation that Paul takes in a thoroughly positive manner202—­this pneumatic practice also constitutes the justification for a new self-­understanding in which those who have been gifted could themselves appear to be in the realm of the angels or even raised above them. b) Already for Paul, the “rulers, authorites, and powers” (ἄρχαι, ἐξουσίαι, δυνάμεις) are discussed as inferior powers that will be subject to Christ at the eschaton (1 Cor 15:24). In 1 Cor 6:3, Paul also employs the idea that the faithful 200

Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 65. Sellin, “Häretiker,” 209–­10, points to v. 4 and to allegations that were already brought against Paul (Rom 3:8). In the deutero-­Pauline tradition as well, χάρις is strongly emphasized (Eph 2:7-­9)—­which could be suspected for the opponents on the basis of v. 4. The notion that the phrase εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα in v. 4 drew on the Pauline statement “their condemnation (κρίμα) is just,” as Sellin (210) holds, is difficult to corroborate. 202 Paul himself has of course also had such ecstatic experiences, without ascribing a similar theological weight to them (cf. 2 Cor 12). 201



The Opponents and the Situation of the Addressees

43

will even sit in judgment over the angels at the eschaton, and mentions this so casually that one must assume this expectation was familiar to the congregation.203 Soteriologically, it is significant that no salvific function is ascribed to these powers, so that they cannot speparate us from Christ and God (Rom 8:38)—­they bear neither negative nor positive relevance for the faithful, and therefore deserve neither fearful awe nor subservient veneration. c) In the deutero-Paulines, the tendencies toward christological weakening of the ἄρχαι, ἐξουσίαι, and δυνάμεις—­apparently for good reason—­are further strengthened; these powers are part of the creation ruled by Christ (Col 1:16; 2:10; Eph 1:21), indeed they are stripped of their power by Christ’s triumph (Col 2:15). Thus any “worship” (θρησκεία) of angels that could be manifest in ascetic practices or a specific calendrical piety (Col 2:16)204 is superfluous and inappropriate (Col 2:18); it would be a relapse to the conditions prior to Christ’s victory over the powers. This ‘philosophy’ (which likewise only allows a fragmentary reconstruction), which the letter to the Colossians combats, combines what are probably Jewish (Col 2:16; cf. perhaps 2:11) and pagan elements.205 This was probably a piety “that considers itself to be dependent upon angelic powers as intermediaries between the divine and the human spheres.”206 They guard the celestial sphere and control access to it, so that compliance with certain rituals of self-­denial (asceticism, fasting) and festivals could be crucial for entry into the heavenly world.

d) There is certainly no correlation between the position of the author of Jude and the ‘philosophy’ disputed in Col; on the other hand, an attitude such as the author of Col expresses, especially if it was associated with a popular-­ philosophical ‘enlightenment’ attitude, could appear from a point of view like that presented by the author of Jude as a brazen denial of the cosmological and eschatological significance of angels and the order they guarded and represented.207 This could imply further allegations—­whoever denies the divine order of 203

So Roose, Mitherrschaft, 264. This statement is unique within Pauline theology (however, cf. later Acts Paul 2.6), and probably draws on Dan 7:22 (LXX, θ). 204 Wolter, Kolosser. It remains doubtful whether a cultic invocation or summoning of angelic powers should also be presupposed here (op. cit., 160–­61). 205 On this cf. Arnold, Syncretism; Wolter, Kolosser, 155–­63; van Kooten, Cosmic Christology, 135–­46, who emphasizes the middle-­Platonic element. 206 Wolter, Kolosser, 147. 207 The ‘mirror-­image’ positioning of Jude and Col, proposed by Heiligenthal, Henoch, 120, is therefore probably incorrect. More likely is Sellin, “Häretiker,” 221–­22: “Colossian philosophy of course has hardly anything to do with the orthodox author of Jude. But there could well be lines of connection between the author of Colossians, who polemicizes against those who worship angels, and the heretics of Jude.”

44

Jude: Introduction

the world will also in their arrogance deny the sovereignty of God and Christ (v. 4) and ultimately forget all moral standards. e) It is entirely plausible that the accusation of perverting grace could reflect a “dispute over the Pauline legacy,”208 even if one does not reckon with an explicit reference to Rom 3:8 in v. 4.209 Jude’s connection to Jas, which very likely also—­although not exclusively—­deals with phenomena in the sphere of Pauline theological influence, can also be brought as a supporting argument. Other occasionally mentioned arguments for classifying the opponents within the conflict over the legacy of Pauline theology210 are less compelling; while the antithesis between ψυχικός and ­π νεῦμα (v. 19) or πνευματικός is directly attested in the NT only in 1 Cor 2:14 and 15:44, 46, it can also be interpreted from the perspective of Jas 3:15. The parallels in the typological appeal to the cautionary example of the desert generation (Jude 5; cf. 1 Cor 10) proves nothing. The argument from tradition (Jude 3, 17, 20) has parallels in the deutero-­Paulines, but this reflects a common phenomenon of the postapostolic period. Finally, the reference to 2 Pet 3:15-­16, which explicitly discusses the Pauline legacy, also proves little for the situation of Jude. There remain here, then, the relatively fragile and uncertain arguments from the catchword χάρις and the dispute over veneration of angels.

8. The Intention of the Letter and Aspects of the Theology of Jude Given the brevity of the text and the difficulty of reconstructing the original communication situation, one can only describe the “theology” of the text or its author fragmentarily. Nevertheless, individual features can be cautiously identified,211 as the text places strong theological accents, especially in the framing sections. 8.1 Scripture and early Christian tradition First of all, it is striking that the author employs scriptural arguments with a concentration that is unique in the NT. In this, alongside the Torah (from which the author takes his biblical exempla), the Prophets, and the Psalms (which he also implicitly references), Enoch appears to have the status of a prophetic and 208

Sellin, “Häretiker,” 211. This view is taken in Sellin, “Häretiker,” 211. 210 Cf. Schnelle, Einleitung, 499. 211 On this, cf. Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 51–­52; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 111–­14; Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 28–­32; Hahn, “Randbemerkungen”; idem, Theologie, 744–­45; Schnelle, Theologie, 614–­16; Martin, “Theology,” 75–­81; J. D. Charles, Strategy, 167–­71; Heiligenthal, Henoch, 95ff., 158ff. 209



The Intention of the Letter and Aspects of the Theology of Jude

45

thus ‘inspired’ text. Even the biblical figures and episodes, which the author only briefly cites and evaluates entirely for the sake of his own argumentative concern, indicate that alongside the biblical text, and beyond it, themes and motifs from contemporary Jewish interpretation are presupposed. There is apparently not yet a delimited ‘canon’ of texts—­this seems to be significant for early Christianity as a whole. The only verbatim quotation, the prophecy of Enoch (1 En. 1:9), is understood here in reference to Christ and as a prophecy of Christ’s Parousia, in line with the prophetic scriptural interepretation of early Christianity. In this christological interpretation of Scripture (here, Enoch) the author rests on early Christian hermeneutics just as much as he does in the typological reference of events in biblical salvation history to his own present time, understood as the eschaton. The testimony of Scripture and the oral testimony of the apostles—­at least with respect to the message of judgment pronounced upon the impious—­are in agreement. It is noteworthy that the author does not argue from the Torah as life instructions that must be observed. This may confirm, on the one hand, that the author is not concerned primarily with ‘ethics’; on the other hand, it could also be an indication that for the addressee communities (and not only for the opponents, but also for those directly addressed by the author) the specifically Jewish Christian question of Torah observance was overcome long ago. The metaphor of purity, too, is used not in the sense of purity halakah as practiced concretely, but in a figurative sense for ethical topoi. These observations might also confirm the letter’s situation within the Pauline/ post-­Pauline stream of tradition; at the least, they show that despite the intensive connection to Jewish traditions and theologoumena and to the Jewish Christian tradition of (the letter of) James, the author and his congregations themselves must not have maintained a Jewish way of life.

Alongside scriptural argumentation, the argument from the early Christian tradition of faith is weighty.212 This is conveyed, first, in the fact that ‘apostolic’ traditions appear alongside Scripture in the course of the argument (v. 17). However, the “words of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ” are not cited verbatim, and there is no suggestion that they were ascribed a status analogous to that of Scripture213—­nevertheless, they appear in an affirming role alongside the biblical paradigms of judgment and the prophecy of Enoch. 212

In this, however, the paradigms of later discussions in controversial theology about text and tradition must not be imposed on Jude. 213 Such a thing would still be unthinkable, even for the words of Paul in the Pastoral Epistles. The tendency toward being treated as equivalent to the words of Scripture can be demonstrated only for the words of Jesus, and even that occurs exclusively in John, where the fulfillment of Jesus’ words is noted in the same way as the fulfillment of the words of Scripture (John 18:9, 32).

46

Jude: Introduction

8.2 Faith and the argument from tradition In particular, the argument from tradition is manifest in the language of faith. The addressees are to stand up for the “faith handed down to the saints once and for all” (v. 3b) and build themselves up upon their “most holy faith.” These phrases show a characteristic feature of the postapostolic era, which called for an orientation toward the earliest period of Christianity, which had become normative.214 The faith that was once imparted and accepted by the addressees must be faithfully preserved and defended against errors, and Jude serves to shore up the identity of the community and to demarcate it against alleged corruptions. It is unmistakable that this language of faith refers to a faith with defined substance, to the fides quae creditur. Such a concept of faith is by no means new in the postapostolic period, but was already an important element in Paul’s letters. On the other hand, in the author’s worldview, the content of faith that is to be preserved cannot be separated from the existential performance of faith, of prayer, loving care for others, and practiced hope (vv. 20-­23). The author’s intention would be misunderstood if one were to suggest that he was only concerned with the archival preservation or mere acceptance of a certain body of tradition.215 There is no presupposition here of a fixed confession of faith or even a fixed written form of the traditional faith. Although it is clear that specific traditions—­in particular those of angelological content—­are particularly close to the author’s heart, the main issue here is a dynamic process of struggle over the original identity of the Christian faith in the context of specific challenges and in view of the eschatological situation in which the author finds himself. The polemic of Käsemann and other Protestant exegetes discussed at the beginning of this introduction as well as the allegation of an ‘early Catholic’ principle of tradition therefore fall short. Nevertheless, the understanding of faith in Jude in fact differs significantly from that of the Jesus tradition as well as the concept of faith found in Paul and John.216 In contrast to the opponents, however, the author sees himself as a defender of the original, true, and “most holy” faith, which has been renounced by the opponents. In this he does lay claim to the authority of a figure from the beginnings of the movement (and from a line of tradition that is critical of Paul), but 214 On this, see Hahn, “Randbemerkungen,” 211: the understanding of tradition presupposes the awareness that “the ‘apostolic’ period has definitively come to an end.” 215 Unlike Jude, 2 Pet later refers to an existing collection of Paul’s letters; cf. also Vögtle, “Schriftwerdung.” 216 Hahn, Theologie, 745.



The Intention of the Letter and Aspects of the Theology of Jude

47

not to apostolic authority. For him, the apostles are already figures of the past whose words he can appeal to.217 8.3 God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit Statements about God are found at the beginning and end of the letter. In the prescript (v. 1), “God the Father” is named, in whom the addressees are loved, and at the end comes the solemn doxology in praise of the one God, “our savior” (v. 25). Despite the gravity of the judgment, which is justified by Scripture, positive titles for God are dominant—­the God who spans the ages (v. 25), whose activity in the history of Israel is attested by Scripture, is “the Father” who meets the addressees with mercy and love; they are “beloved in God” (v. 1; cf. 17, 20) and should be fully aware of this love (v. 21). God is the origin of their calling (v. 1) and the author of their salvation (v. 25). God also has the power to preserve them as blameless until the eschaton and then “set [them] before God’s glory in exultation” (v. 24)—­that is, the salvation of the faithful rests on and consists in the one God (v. 25), the loving Father. Despite its ‘high’ Christology, this letter is theocentric. The emphasis on the oneness of God is entirely in line with Jewish and early Christian tradition, but this does not preclude aspects of the divine nature and action from being expressed in reference to Christ.218 In v. 25 God appears as the recipient of all praise and as the author of salvation, which occures “through Christ,” and so Christ appears as the mediator of salvation and ‘agent’ of divine salvific action. Yet God and Christ appear alongside one another more strongly in ‘binitarian’ phrases in the prescript (v. 1) and in v. 21, and v. 4 refers one after the other to the “grace of God” and the dominion of Christ, although the unusual title of God as the “only master” could refer to Christ (see below on this passage). Finally, the biblical title κύριος points to Christ already in vv. 5 and 8, and then in v. 14, with a reinterpretation of the Enoch prophecy; it refers very clearly to the Christ of the Parousia, who has the divine authority to hold judgment (v. 14) and will meet the addressees with an acquittal. In this respect, Jude represents a ‘high’ Christology, in which divine functions are ascribed to the exalted Christ, or Christ who will come at the Parousia.219 Some of these acts of God are also ascribed to Christ. According to v. 1 he is likely the one who preserves the faithful, and at the eschaton it is he who will judge the godless and meet the faithful with mercy and save them for eternal 217

There are parallels here with 1 Clem.; see Hahn, Theologie, 745. Against Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 30, who sees here a clear distinction from 2 Pet. 219 Aside from the question of the timepoint of the judicial decision, the transfer of the power of judgment to Christ is parallel to statements in John 5:22, 27. 218

48

Jude: Introduction

life (v. 21). Thus the activities of God and of Christ are interlaced. Further, Christ is the “only master” (v. 4) and Lord, whom the (fictive) author serves as a “slave” (v. 1) and whose life-­determining sovereignty is to be acknowledged by all believers (v. 8), while the opponents slander it to their own doom. Although the idea that this Lord was already at work in the history of Israel is not expressed openly in v. 5 (if Ἰησοῦς is not accepted as the original reading), it is suggested by the transparent reference to the κύριος,220 and the early textual variants, which read Ἰησοῦς, attest to this very transparency of the biblical statements as referring to the actions of the (preexistent) Christ.221 Thus the notion of Christ’s preexistence certainly does not seem to be foreign to this author—­despite his emphasis on the oneness of God. In general, divine titles related to sovereignty such as κύριος (v. 14; also v. 5) and δεσπότης (v. 4) refer to Christ, such that—­as in other late NT texts—­Christ is discussed as a divine figure. Particularly signifcant here is the title δεσπότης, which especially emphasizes Christ’s lordly, authoritative function. By contrast, Christ’s earthly activity, his death on the cross, and his resurrection are not mentioned even once in Jude—­although in view of the brevity of the letter this can hardly be taken as evidence of a deficient Christology. Christ’s soteriological significance is clearly expressed (v. 25). However, the main emphasis of the letter lies on Christ’s eschatological function in the context of Parousia and judgment. The (Holy) Spirit is only mentioned twice. When Jude 19 asserts that as apostates and godless people the false teachers “do not have the spirit,” this presupposes the notion from emerging Christianity that the faithful possess the spirit—­perhaps through baptism (which also goes unmentioned in Jude). This corresponds with the statement in v. 20 that the addressees should “pray in the Holy Spirit.” This shows that the author has access to a large stock of early Christian statements about the spirit, without this being evident in the short letter.222 Conversely, the denial of participation in the spirit amounts to a denial that the opponents are Christians. In addition to the ‘binitarian’ statements about God and Christ, the admonition in vv. 20-21 contains a striking series of statements about the “Holy Spirit,” God, and “our Lord Jesus Christ.” This is somewhat parallel to other triadic statements such as Matt 28:19 or John 16:13-­15. However, a more 220

On this, see below, p. 85. Cf. also Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 31. The same phenomenon occurs in the christological interpretation in v. 14 of the statement that of course refers to God in 1 En. 1:9. 222 In this there is also a distinction from 2 Pet, where statements about the spirit were probably deliberately avoided. 221



The Intention of the Letter and Aspects of the Theology of Jude

49

detailed consideration of the relation between these three does not appear here, and unlike the fourth gospel,223 for example, there is no ‘personal’ understanding of the spirit. 8.4 The angels and their significance If it is correct that the dispute with the opponents is anchored in the teaching about angels, or the author sees the crucial deficiency in their teaching as a neglect of or even contempt for the celestial powers, this suggests a high regard for angels in the author’s theology that is perhaps unique within the NT. Even more so than in Rev, where the elements of the celestial world are tremendously important for the text’s “construction of reality,”224 and in clear contrast to the ‘disempowerment’ of powers and principalities in the Pauline/ deutero-­Pauline or Johannine traditions, the understanding of the angels becomes a decisive criterion here, drawing on traditions from Enoch and other early Jewish texts. In this the author is not concerned with the ‘reality’ of the heavenly world, which for him is beyond question, but rather with appropriate behavior toward the authorities appointed by God. Regardless of whether the opponents’ contempt for the angels derives from an ‘enlightened’ Hellenistic skepticism about what is invisible (cf. v. 10) or from theological reflections on the implications of Christ’s victory (cf. Col/Eph), for the author their verbal or practical disparagement constitutes sacrilegious disrespect (vv. 8-­10, 16) and—­justifiably or not—­is also a sign of contempt for Christ’s sovereignty (v. 8), indeed, a godlessness whose consequences, including in morality, can ultimately only be fatal. This high regard for the angelic powers might be based on their traditional function as intermediaries between the divine and the human spheres as well as guarantors of world order (v. 5), which is documented in various ways in Enoch. This explains why so many moral accusations are associated with the accusation of blaspheming the angels. 8.5 Soteriology and eschatology225 The overarching eschatological orientation of the text is unmistakable, although this does not allow any conclusions to be drawn about a contrasting position held by the opponents. The emphasis on judgment is not just due to the author’s argumentative concern but is part of his overall view, which is fundamentally inspired by the Enoch tradition. 223

On this, see Frey, “Windbrausen,” 149–­51; idem, “Klimax,” 471–­75. On this, see the foundational discussion in Tóth, Kult. 225 On this, cf. Webb, “Eschatology,” as well as most recently Frey, “Judgment,” 494–­503. 224

50

Jude: Introduction

The pseudonymous author sees himself as living in the end times (v. 18), which according to the ‘apostolic’ tradition he recounts will be characterized by the emergence of scoffers and impiety. Conversely, the appearance of such false teachers in the context of the author’s apocalyptic worldview confirms this assessment of his times,226 and intensifies the imminent expectation of the Parousia and judgment. There is no indication of a ‘problem of delay’ here. The opponents’ position on the Parousia and judgment remains unclear—­it does not seem that they explicitly denied these things, as is found in 2 Pet.227 Two main features define the soteriology of Jude. First, the solid soteriological dualism stands out, which Jude derives from Jewish and Christian apocalyptic tradition. The final judgment has a twofold outcome: it will bring eschatological salvation to those who have been chosen and proven themselves in faith, while the impious must reckon with the judgment of damnation. The act of judgment and its consequences are not described in detail, but it would not be misguided to place what the author has in mind in the context of the Enoch tradition. Yet this has been christianized: the power of judgment is transferred to the κύριος interpreted christologically—­that is, Christ of the Parousia. He will reveal the guilt of the impious (v. 15) and meet the faithful with salvific compassion. This brings us to the second characteristic of the soteriology of Jude: the salvation of the faithful is not granted definitively until the eschaton (v. 21), and until that point one can only hope and wait. The faithful can know that they are called, beloved, and preserved (vv. 1-­2), but there is still the possibility that they might waver or even stumble (v. 24), and despite being preserved by God (v. 25) it is still necessary to prove themselves, to maintain the faith that has been passed down (v. 3), and demonstrate ethical fortitude (v. 23) in order to stand before God’s glory at the eschaton in victorious exultation (v. 25). This type of soteriology has parallels in Rev or Matt, for example, while Paul (and even more clearly John the evangelist) understands salvation much more strongly as a gift that has already been given. However, while the church appears in Matt as a ‘corpus permixtum’ in which weeds and wheat grow together and will not be separated until the judgment at the eschaton (Matt 13:24-­30; cf. Matt 25:31-­46), the author of Jude urges an immediate separation from those whom he views as “godless,” since their presence and further activity in the congregation could lead other members to apostasy and loss of salvation (cf. v. 12). 226

Cf. the analogous assessment of time in 1 John 2:18ff. Differently Blumenthal, Prophetie, who sees this denial as the key issue in the dispute with the opponents, but goes too far in downplaying the problem of the angels. 227



The Intention of the Letter and Aspects of the Theology of Jude

51

8.6 Ecclesiological aspects Jude is extremely reticent with respect to ecclesiology. No reference to church offices or structures can be found either on the part of the author or the addressees.228 Standing up for the traditional faith is the task of all true believers, not just those who hold specific offices. The Judas whom the author claims to be is neither an apostle nor does he hold an ‘office,’ but rather is defined only by his membership in the family of Jesus, and there is no implication in either v. 8229 or the example of Korah’s rebellion in v. 11 that the opponents rebelled against church authorities.230 The letter is probably addressed to a specific community, or perhaps a regional circle of communities. The appeal to Judas the brother of Jesus does not suggest an actual orientation toward ‘the church at large,’ but rather a connection with its origins in Jerusalem, which are represented in Jas and to a certain extent in the Petrine tradition, while Paul’s relation to these origins was always rather strained. The orientation toward the brother of Jesus is associated in v. 17 with the reference to “the apostles,” who are cited here without names—­that is, as a collective entity from the earliest period of Christianity. This corresponds with Jude’s place in history. It remains unclear what form the meals mentioned in v. 12 took,231 and what the criteria were for participation in them. It is only evident that the opponents took part in these meals, although in the author’s view, as “godless” people they did not truly belong. This suggests that the addressees and the false teachers under discussion here had previously maintained untroubled fellowship in their (worship and) meals. It is the author who initiates the effort to bring about a schism, in order to protect those who maintain the faith in its traditional form against deception and apostasy. That the responsibility for this schism is then attributed to the opponents (v. 19) results from the logic of the polemic. 8.7 On the theological significance and theological value of Jude In some respects, the letter is better than its reputation in traditional (especially Protestant) exegesis. It is not so theologically meager as some have 228 This constitutes an important argument against the ascription of the text to some unified ‘early Catholicism.’ In this Jude is significantly different from other texts of the later period, such as the Pastorals, even if there are parallels in the understanding of the traditional faith or the necessary period of probation. 229 Cf. this interpretation of the δόξαι in Jude 8 by, among others, J. A. T. Robinson, Redating, 190–­91; G. L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, 168, Cedar, James, 252, or Desjardins, “Portrayal,” 91–­94. 230 These are simply examples of the judgment of the impious. Their transgressions cannot be applied to the real opponents. 231 There is no explicit eucharistic terminology here. Nevertheless, the use of the term ἀγάπη does not necessarily imply that this took the form of a full meal distinct from the Eucharist.

52

Jude: Introduction

supposed,232 but its weight within the canon is still rather limited and it is no coincidence that the brief, abstruse, and extremely polemically pointed body of the letter is not often read or preached.233 Only the letter opening, the final admonitions, and the closing doxology offer more positive points of departure that are not defined by the polemic. The importance of Jude lies, first of all, in that, in connection with Jas, the letter attests to a line of tradition that stands alongside the synoptic, Johannine, and Pauline/deutero-­Pauline traditions (or in critical engagement with the last),234 and—­at least formally in its ascription—­upholds the orientation toward the ‘Jerusalem’—­that is, Palestinian Jewish origins of Christianity. In this, Jude is a witness to the plurality of early Christianity at the beginning of the second century, and to the unbroken significance of early Jewish, apocalyptic traditions even in Greek form and among likely Gentile Christian congregations. The subtle literary arrangement and precise, pointed use of Scripture deserve appreciation, but a lasting challenge is presented by the fact that Jude is able to cite as prophetic and inspired a text that was not accepted in either the Hebrew or the Greek or Latin canon. Contrary to exegetes’ widespread scorn, it must further be noted that Jude is not a polemical pamphlet. Rather, it claims to be a pastoral effort to urge adherence to the original identity of the faith (vv. 3-­4, 20-­23), whereby the author is not simply concerned with doctrinal teaching, but with a lively practice of faith. The addressees are admonished specifically—­and with reference to the love of God—­to a compassionate effort for the sake of uncertain fellow Christians. Of course, the reference to the faith that has been passed down—­that is, the ‘argument from tradition’—­introduced in v. 3 is a weak and ultimately unsuitable means for shoring up the community’s identity in the face of new challenges,235 especially if the traditional faith does not exist in the form of a verifiable formulation, creed, or body of texts.236 Since such a foundation is 232

Cf. Vögtle, Judasbrief, 111. Jude is entirely absent in the lectionary of the Evangelical-­Lutheran Church in Germany. Even for Michaelmas, other texts are felt to be more useful than Jude 9—­certainly with good reason. See also Brosend, “Excess,” 303: “There is a reason why Jude does not occur in the Sunday lectionary, at least in my community. It is harsh.” 234 A classification within a Petrine school or tradition is also hardly tenable (against Soards, “Petrine School,” and most recently Chatelion Counet, “Pseudepigraphy”), since there is no discernable proximity to 1 Pet, and only the author of 2 Pet draws heavily on Jude. 235 On this, Frey, “Apostelbegriff,” 176, and 149–­79 for detailed discussion of the various means of preserving identity in late NT texts. 236 Second Peter is at least able to refer to a collection of Paul’s letters, i.e., interpretation and misinterpretation can then be verified against texts. This indicates hermeneutical progress. 233



The Intention of the Letter and Aspects of the Theology of Jude

53

still lacking in Jude, there remains only the (presupposed) consensus of the addressees, or the author’s own (pseudonymously claimed) authority and the discrediting of the opponents. The author does pursue this with rhetorical skill, but also with extreme harshness and excessive use of polemical stereotypes. The extent to which there were grounds for such allegations in the opponents’ way of life must remain open. It cannot be ruled out. However, a substantial portion of these accusations are likely topoi of general polemic against heretics and pure defamation.237 The personal denigration of the opponents goes even further; they are denied not only possession of the spirit (v. 19), but also human reason (v. 10)—­an extremely harsh insult in view of the opponents’ apparently unquestioned belonging in the community thus far. They are “impious” people whose destruction has long since been established, rendering any conversation with them superfluous. Their disagreement in teachings and perhaps also ethics is not only expanded in apocalyptic categories, but simultaneously tied to serious personal defamation. Even with the nature of ancient (and modern) polemics taken into account, this raises the question of whether such attacks are in keeping with the spirit of Christ.238 Theologically, further questions arise. The author’s insistence on the significance of the angels and the celestial powers does not indicate any positive reflection on the relationship between these powers and Christ as discussed in the Pauline/deutero-­Pauline tradition. In addition, the relation between the required probation of the faithful and the preservation by God that has been promised and experienced remains unclear, and despite the author’s effort to emphasize the addressees’ soteriological status, Jude’s soteriology is unable to effectively reassure the addressees of their salvation. Certainly one cannot expect all of these theological questions (which are likewise posed to the other NT writings) to be clarified in such a short text. Yet this ultimately confirms that Jude does not belong among the primary witnesses of the NT, but instead, with its peculiar theology and pointed polemical argumentative interest, remains 237

Brosend, “Excess,” 304, characterizes the text as an “excess of rhetoric” and “exercise in rhetorical overkill.” By contrast, numerous (primarily evangelical) commentaries attempt to somehow ‘salvage’ the moral accusations, as for example Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 22, who does acknowledge their nature as topoi, but argues that the addressees must have somehow recognized which group the author was fighting against, and that the allegations must therefore contain a certain element of truth. The argumentation becomes quite straightforward in Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 414, who simply postulates that if one accepts Scripture as inspired, one must also accept that the author’s spiritual judgment of the opponents as “godless” is justified. When such arguments are used, any further theological reflection is rendered obsolete. 238 So Brosend, “Excess,” 304: “The entire letter of Jude is an ad hominem attack unworthy of the faith in whose name it was written.”

54

Jude: Introduction

peripheral. The fact that the text was adopted into the NT canon—­perhaps taken ‘in tow’ with Jas—­cannot be explained by the authorial fiction, nor by the theological weight of the text, nor by its use by 2 Pet (which itself was disputed even longer); rather, it is one of the most astonishing phenomena in the history of the NT canon. 9. Jude and the Canon of the Catholic Letters The question of Jude’s canonical status also emerges in view of its final position within the collection of the Catholic Letters. However, the compilation of this group of texts is a complex historical process that even today has not been fully clarified,239 inasmuch as, on the one hand, an expansion of a small collection of three letters (Jas, 1 Pet, 1 John) into a collection of seven is likely,240 and on the other hand 2–­3 John were from the outset probably not transmitted without 1 John. The history of these letters’ transmission and collection can possibly be distinguished here from the history of their ‘canonical’ recognition; Jude was accepted and commented on at an early stage (by Clement of Alexandria) and mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment, while the testimony of manuscripts and ‘canonical lists’ paints a more ambiguous picture for the collection of the corpus of the Catholic Letters for a while longer. Notwithstanding these unresolved historical issues, we can examine the internal ‘grammar’ of the subgroup, or the corpus of the ‘apostolos’—­that is, Acts and the Catholic (or non-­Pauline) Letters.241 On this, Robert Wall has in particular pointed out the importance of the closing doxology in Jude 24-­25, which brings the whole group to a close.242 Second Peter was appended to 1 Pet (cf. 2 Pet 3:1), while Jas and its counterpart Jude frame the collection in its final form. For the sequence James–­Peter–­John, Gal 1:9 could have been significant, while Acts might be relevant for the framework of these figures in their interaction with one another and their association with Paul.243 In relation to Paul, especially James (and ‘following’ him, Jude) seems to serve as a counterweight and guarantor of the original tradition, so that the corpus of the letters of James (and Jude), Peter, and John as a whole was then able to 239

On this, see most recently Schlosser, “Corpus.” Amphilochius of Iconium attests to the coexistence of both groupings for the group of ‘catholic’ letters until around the year 400 (Iambi ad Seleucum 310–­13). On this, see Schlosser, “Corpus,” 4–­5; in further detail, see Andreas Merkt in his introduction to the first volume on the ‘Catholic Letters’ in Novum Testamentum Patristicum 21 (Merkt, Petrusbrief). 241 So Wall, “Theology,” 60. 242 Wall, “Theology,” 71. 243 Wall, “Theology,” 55–­59. 240



Jude and the Canon of the Catholic Letters

55

function as a canonical counterweight to the previously developed corpus Paulinum. The corpus that is framed by the figures of James and Judas (who was after all the “relative of the Lord”) thus allowed for an independent point of access to the tradition about the origin and to the original faith. In particular, the connection with the collection of Paul’s letters is made explicit in 2 Pet 3:17, in such a way that expertise in the interpretation of Paul’s letters is claimed for ‘Peter’ as the eyewitness, and in so doing ultimately strengthens the canonical organization of gospel tradition and apostolic letters. In this context, the Catholic Letters as a whole address the issue of connection with the tradition of Christian origins and the testing that occurs in suffering or in one’s way of life, with a view to the coming evaluation at the final judgment.244 At the end of the corpus, Jude (as the preceding letters had done in different ways) provides this connection to the original, traditional content of faith, the perspective of probation, and the prospect of Christ’s arrival for judgment and for salvation from the fire (v. 23). The solemn doxology in vv. 24-­25 once again directs its gaze toward the aim of God’s community for those who emerge as blameless in God’s presence, and so provides the canonical transition to the final book in the NT canon, which is placed at the end analogously to the arrangement of the LXX as a prophetic book—­namely, Rev.

244

See the overview in Wall, “Theology,” 61–­71.

This page intentionally left blank

COMMENTARY

0. The Title [(Letter) of Judas]

The inscriptio ΙΟΥΔΑ (ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ) (“(Letter) of Judas”) probably does not belong to the original text of this letter. It did not become necessary until the text was disseminated beyond the circle of the original addressees and incorporated into a collection of writings. The earliest literary witness for this inscriptio is P.Bodm. VII–­VIII (𝔓72), where it already appears in the form “letter of Judas.” Later manuscripts contain further expansions, for example, “catholic (letter),” “of the brother of James,” “of the holy apostle,” and many others.2 These are all derived in part from the text itself and in part from later traditions. The original text, however, begins with the prescript (v. 1). I. The Prescript (vv. 1-­2) (1) Judas, servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to those who are called, who are beloved in God the father and preserved by Jesus Christ: (2) may mercy and peace and love abound for you! 1

Wasserman, Jude, 240, assumes that the title originally contained the genre designation “letter” and was shortened to ΙΟΥΔΑ in the collection of the Catholic Letters. 2 On this, see the ECM and the complete compilation of variants in Wasserman, Jude, 132–­33. 57

58

Jude: Commentary

Jude begins with an opening that is congruent with the standard model of the ancient letter—­namely, the prescript (vv. 1-­2)—while it lacks a corresponding epistolary closing (as in Jas) and the letter ends instead with a doxology (vv. 24-­25). In accordance with convention, the prescript consists of the identification of the sender (superscriptio) in the nominative case, the address (adscriptio) in the dative, and the greeting (salutatio), although unlike Jas 1:1 (cf. Acts 15:23; 23:26), which has an infinitive (χαίρειν), the greeting is formulated here—­as in all other NT letters—­in an independent clause. This form, first used in early Christianity by Paul, follows the model of early Jewish letters,3 in which the greeting in particular takes the form of a blessing.4 As is already the case in Paul, all three elements are embellished with expansions in Jude. Thus the sender and addressees are qualified in more detail. 1 The prescript begins with the pseudonymous identification of the sender: “Judas” (Ἰούδας) is the Greek form of a biblical (Gen 29:35) name “Yehudah” (‫)יהודה‬, which was especially popular beginning with the Maccabean period.5 This identification is further specified by two additions: “servant of Jesus Christ” is found in Pauline prescripts (Rom 1:1; Phil 1:1), and is modified in Jas 1:1 and 2 Pet 1:1, though the word order varies. In Jude 1, as in Jas 1:1, δοῦλος is emphasized (and contrasted with ἀδελφός) due to its final position in the clause. This phrase derives from the Jewish honorific title “servant of God,”6 but in Christian usage it implies the notion of belonging to the “Lord” Jesus Christ. It can denote Christians in general (1 Cor 7:22-­23; Eph 6:6), as well as those who serve in a particular function (Col 4:12; 2 Tim 2:24). Like in Jas 1:1, this attribute is at the same time an expression of the authority with 3

Cf., e.g., Ezra 5:7 (LXX 2 Esd 5:7); Dan 3:31 (Dan 4:1 θ); 2 Bar. 78:2; as well as the letters of Bar Kochba; see Alexander, “Epistolary Literature,” 588–­95; Fitzmyer, “Aramaic Epistolography,” 31–­36; Taatz, Frühjüdische Briefe; Klauck, Briefliteratur, 181–­226; Doering, Letters, 406–­15. 4 Cf. 2 Bar. 78:1: “Grace and peace be with you!”—­analogously all undisputed Pauline letters: Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:3; Phil 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1; Phil 3. 5 Between Judas Maccabeus and the NT we know at least ten people with this name (see Lunceford, “Judas,” 748); from the NT, in addition to the brother of Jesus (Mark 6:3) and the ‘traitor’ Judas Iscariot, there is another among the twelve, Judas the son of James (Luke 6:14-­16; Acts 1:13; cf. John 14:22), Judas Barsabbas (Acts 15:22-­23), and a Judas in Damascus (Acts 9:11). Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names, 1:112–­25, identifies 179 people named Judas for the period from 300 BCE to 200 CE. 6 This is attested in Judaism and early Christianity for Israel as a whole (Ezra 5:11; cf. Isa 41:8-­10) and for prominent figures: Abraham (Ps 105:42), Moses (Neh 9:14; Rev 15:3; Jos., A.J. 5.39), David (Ps 89:3), Daniel (Dan 6:20); it is applied to Christians (1 Pet 2:16; Rev 7:3; 1 Clem. 60.2), Christian prophets (Rev 1:1; 10:7; 11:8; 22:6), or the apostle (Titus 1:1), and used in conjunction with Christ in Jas 1:1: “servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.” On the Jewish background and the Pauline reception of slavery imagery, see Byron, Slavery Metaphors.



Jude 1-2

59

which the letter claims to be written. Its fictive author Judas is a servant and delegate of Christ, and it can be presumed that the real author who writes under this pseudonym sees himself analogously. In contrast to Paul’s claim for himself, the title of apostle is not asserted for “Judas” (as for “James” in Jas 1:1).7 Which Judas this is meant to refer to is clarified by the addition of “brother of James.” Since there is no further specification, at least this “James” must have been a figure known to the addressees. Given that there is only one pair of brothers with the names Judas and James known in early Christianity (Mark 6:3 par. Matt 13:54-­55), and that James the ‘brother of the Lord’ achieved the most widespread prominence due to his leadership of the Jerusalem community (after the death of James the son of Zebedee recounted in Acts 12:3), his participation in the apostolic council (Acts 15:13; Gal 2:9, 12), and then his martyrdom (Jos., A.J. 20.197–­203; Euseb., Hist. eccl. 2.23), only this James can be meant here.8 This identifies “Judas” as a brother of Jesus by birth, of whom nothing further is known. It is probable that he, like his brother James, did not become a follower of Jesus until after Easter, and he might have been among the missionizing brothers of Jesus whom Paul mentions in 1 Cor 9:5. The identification of “Judas” with Jesus’ brother first occurs explicitly in Clement of Alexandria (although only in the Latin edition of his text by Cassiodorus)9 and then with certainty in Origen (Comm. Matt. 10.17), but it must have already been evident for the first readers. This is especially true if Jude 1 presupposes the letter of James as known to his audience, as suggested by the word order of  Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος. Against the background of Jas 1:1, the identification of the sender in Jude 1 becomes clear. Why does the text identify Judas only as “brother of James” rather than “brother of the Lord” (1 Cor 9:5)? Speculations have been manifold, and unfruitful.10 The phrase should certainly not be understood as an expression 7 The restriction of the title “apostle” to the twelve disciples corresponds not only with the Lukan usage in Acts, but probably also with a practice that reaches farther back to Palestinean communities or possibly the Jerusalem congregation. As the testimony of Hegesippus (in Euseb., Hist. eccl. 2.23.4) and the Pseudo-­Clementines shows, later Jewish Christianity also did not designate James the brother of the Lord as an apostle, perhaps because this title had become far too closely associated with Paul. 8 On James, see Hengel, “Jakobus”; Pratscher, Jakobus; Painter, Just James. 9 Clem. Alex., Adumbr., Lat. recension (GCS Clem. Alex. 3:206–­9). 10 Zahn, Einleitung, 2:93, with other supporters of authenticity sees this as a sign of Jesus’ brother’s modesty. Grundmann, Brief, 24, claimed that “the status of Christ Jesus as lord removed all familial relationships from him”; by contrast, Schrage, “Zweite Petrusbrief,” 227, suggests that the appeal to a blood relationship with Jesus would have been regarded as offensive.

60

Jude: Commentary

of humility; quite the contrary, it implies a specific claim to authority11 grounded in the connection with a central figure of the early Palestinian church. The legitimacy of the author is thus ‘derived.’ This suggests rather that the Judas referred to here had no particular previous significance for the addressees.12 If the author sought to claim him as an authority, this was best achieved by way of association with the more prominent James. This would legitimate Judas “as a second James, so to speak, as a similarly authoritative figure from the beginnings” of Christianity.13 The choice of this pseudonym and its identification is therefore a sign of the influence of James (and the letter of James) as much as it is an indication that the author of Jude was well aware of “the postapostolic situation”14 in which he wrote (see v. 17). The addressees are named in the dative. Here it is first of all striking that, unlike in the Pauline letters, there is no more specific identification in terms of a local or house church. Yet there is also (unlike in Jas 1:1 and 1 Pet 1:1) no indication that the addressees were dispersed in a large area and that Jude should thus be regarded as a circular letter. Despite the ‘open’ address, the text is thus directed toward a specific community or a limited group of communities in a specific situation (see vv. 3-­4); it is neither a “diaspora letter”15 nor a truly “catholic” letter. The quite general characterization of the opponents, largely through the use of topoi in vv. 4, 8, 10-­12, 16, does not contradict the idea that the author wrote with specific people in view. Since the addressees likely knew them, there was no need to describe them more precisely. In addition, it is a standard feature of polemical style that opponents are not identified by name, nor are their ideas dignified with a thorough, substantive discussion.

In the relatively brief, but still significantly embellished, adscriptio the recipients are addressed in terms of what defines their soteriological status. The primary term is κλητοί, “those who are called,” which alludes to the act of mercy in 11

This claim thus appears as a supplement to the designation “servant of Jesus Christ,” which of course conveys fundamental legitimation for every Christian proclaimer. 12 Despite the comment by Hegesippus about his grandsons (Euseb., Hist. eccl. 3.20.1–­6; on this, see above, p. 22) Judas does not appear to have played a prominent role even after the death of his brother James (62 CE). 13 Vögtle, Judasbrief, 17. 14 Hahn, “Randbemerkungen,” 216–­17; cf. Vögtle, Judasbrief, 17. 15 Schnider and Stenger, Studien, 34, classifies Jude (as well as 1 Pet and 2 Pet) among letters to the Jewish diaspora. This may be appropriate for 1 Pet, as well as Jas, but not for Jude, which knows this form, but has a more specific audience, such that Jude cannot be viewed as a diaspora letter; cf. Tsuji, Glaube, 18–­38 (above all 32–­33); most recently, with a thorough discussion of Jas and 1 Pet, T. Klein, Jakobusbrief; Doering, Letters, 430–­63.



Jude 1-2

61

divine election. This designation is found in Pauline prescripts (Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2), then in the inscriptio of 1 Clem. as well, and is grounded in a broader use of language of “calling” (to discipleship; to salvation; to the banquet) in various NT traditions (cf. Mark 2:17 par.; Gal 1:15-­16; Rom 8:28; Matt 22:3-­9, 14; Rev 19:9). The calling of the addressees is explicated theologically and christologically with two verbs in a ‘binitarian’ phrase (i.e., closely uniting God and Christ):16 the addressees are “beloved in God the father”17 and “preserved by” (or even “for”) Jesus Christ. In the OT, it is Israel that is not only “called” (i.e., chosen) but also “beloved”;18 the agent of love here is always the God who chose the people (Deut 7:7-­8; Jer 31:3; Hos 11:1; 14:4; 2 Bar. 78:3). In the LXX, ὁ ἠγαπημένος becomes a title for Israel (Deut 32:15; 33:5, 26; 2 Chr 20:7; Ps 28:6; Isa 5:1; 44:2; Bar 3:7), and in the prayer of 3 Macc 6:11, the members of the people of God are “your [i.e., God’s] beloved.” In Paul, the term is used to denote the congregation (1 Thess 1:4; cf. 2 Thess 2:13; Col 3:12), and the usage in Jude is analogous.

Those who are called are God’s “beloved.” Here, the ἐν (unlike ὑπό) has both a causative and locative sense; the addressees are thus “beloved by God” as well as “secure and enveloped within God’s love.”19 According to v. 21, the addressees should remain, or “preserve themselves” in this love of God.20 The notion that God’s love, demonstrated in the calling, has a present and abiding significance is expressed by the perfect participle. This ‘theological’ attribute is connected with a ‘christological-­soteriological’ one, which is also articulated with a perfect participle—­that is, as a present reality. In addition to being loved, the addressees are also “kept” or “preserved.” The precise translation here, however, is difficult. The dative Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ can designate the subject of preservation in the sense of a dative of agent (“preserved by Jesus Christ”),21 but the sense of a dative of advantage (“preserved for Jesus Christ”) is also 16

This is not a reference to the spirit (by contrast cf. 1 Pet 1:2), which is not mentioned until vv. 19-­20. See Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 243. 17 A variant likely inspired by 1 Cor 1:2b reads ἡγιασμένοις, to the “sanctified.” 18 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 25–­26 traces all three verbs to the servant songs in Isa 40–­55. Cf. also Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 38–­39. Such a concrete point of reference can hardly be assumed for Jude. 19 Grundmann, Brief, 24. 20 Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 37, rightly points to the parallels in Johannine language of being and remaining “in” God (cf. John 17:21; 1 John 2:24; 3:24; 4:13, 15-­16). Especially in 1 John 4:16 “remaining in God” is connected with the notion of the love of God. On this motif, see the detailed discussion in Scholtissek, In ihm. 21 This usage is rare in the NT, but the phrase is unique in any case, and the author’s use of language is too idiosyncratic to enable a decision based on other texts.

62

Jude: Commentary

possible. Most commentators prefer the latter based on the fundamentally eschatological orientation of the text,22 but here it is “not really clear” in what sense the statement should be understood: is this a preservation or preparation “for the Parousia,” or “for a future fellowship with Christ”?23 Substantively, such an assurance occurs in the letter closing (v. 24), with the parallel verb φυλάσσειν. The notion of “preservation” of the faithful as “blameless” until the eschaton, which is found already in 1 Thess 5:23, appears frequently in late NT texts (cf. John 17:15; 1 Pet 1:5; 2 Tim 4:7-­8). However, this eschatological dimension is not yet explicit here in the beginning of the letter; the other occurrences of τηρεῖν in Jude do not produce a uniform context of meaning,24 and thus do not suggest a clear decision for the usage here. It is therefore preferable to render the statement as parallel to ἐν θεῷ πατρί without a teleological orientation and not impose here the notion of preservation “from stumbling” until the eschaton, expressed in v. 24.25 Jude reckons with Christ’s engagement in history (cf. v. 5) and in the present, and so he can certainly serve as the agent of preservation, which then of course aims at the Parousia.

The preservation of the addressees is affirmed as a present reality. They have experienced this in the history of their faith or of their community, and the author takes this preservation into account in the current challenges that will be discussed in what follows. As much as it is imperative that the addressees must prove themselves until the eschaton, the indicative of salvation—­the assurance of the love granted by God and Christ and of being kept within the sphere of this love—­nevertheless stands at the beginning of the text. Precisely in view of the present danger, the adscriptio speaks of the addressees’ soteriological status,26 which is grounded in Godself, God’s love that calls, and in the loving preservation by the Lord Jesus Christ. The calling of the addressees defines their present and—­as the author anticipates—­also their future; they are loved 22

In detail Wohlenberg, Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 279–­81; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 17–­18; Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 53; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 26. Likewise the Luther Bible (revision 1984) and the Einheitsübersetzung (which is misleading, however, in the paraphrase “destined and preserved for Jesus Christ” [“für Jesus Christus bestimmt und bewahrt”]—­“ destined and” should be omitted here; cf. Frankemölle, 1. Petrusbrief, 2. Petrusbrief, Judasbrief, 131). 23 Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 38. 24 Verse 6a is concerned with “preserving” the cosmic order, v. 6b with the Watchers “being kept” for eschatological judgment, and similarly v. 13. By contrast, v. 21 speaks of “keeping oneself ” (i.e., “remaining”) in the love of God. Although three of these occurrences have an eschatological sense, that sense is not uniform. 25 So already Theophylactus (PG 126:88); among more recent commentators also Mayor, Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter, 18; Reicke, Epistles, 194; W. Barclay, Briefe, 199; Arichea and Hatton, Handbook, 9; Reese, 2 Peter and Jude, 2933; Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 430–­31. 26 The comment in v. 3 therefore cannot be meant as entirely unreal.



Jude 1-2

63

and will be preserved from stumbling (cf. v. 24), and at the same time they are admonished to preserve themselves in the love of God and to await the mercy of Christ (v. 21). For the author, the indicative and imperative, the gracious work of God and Christ on the one hand and one’s own responsibile conduct on the other, are not contradictory. However, the indicative of salvation is superordinate to the imperative not only rhetorically but also substantively. The admonition that the author will articulate is meaningful only on the basis of the addressees’ soteriological standing established here. 2 In the same sense, the blessing, the salutatio, also applies to the addressees, assuring them of “mercy” (cf. v. 21), peace, and love (cf. vv. 1, 21) from the start. Formally, this salutatio differs from the ‘Hellenistic’ form used in the prescript of James (Jas 1:1), where the greeting is only expressed with an infinitive (χαίρειν). Instead, Jude follows the so-­called oriental form in which the greeting is expressed in an independent nominal sentence. This corresponds with the Pauline letters, but it is more closely related to the salutatio of the Pastorals (1 Tim 1:2; 2 Tim 1:2) and the Petrine letters (1 Pet 1:2; 2 Pet 2:2). The greeting “mercy and peace” ultimately connects with Jewish epistolary conventions (cf. 2 Bar. 78:2), but the style of liturgical prayer and blessing formulas also seems to resonate here.27 In the third position, “love” as the final reason for God’s salvific action constitutes one of the leitmotifs of Jude (cf. vv. 1, 3, 12, 17, 20-­21). As a passivum divinum the passive form of πληθύνειν likewise points to God, through whom these salvific goods should “abound” for the addressees, whereby the optative πληθυνθείη (cf. 1 Pet 1:2; 2 Pet 1:2) leaves the blessing in the mode of a wish.28 The love of God was already mentioned in the adscriptio; God’s mercy has established the addressees’ soteriological status, and is expected—­as the “mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ”—­at the eschaton. The assurance of “peace,” an intact relationship among the community, adopts the most common Jewish greeting formula. This triadic formulation is also a stylistic feature of the text.29 With this salutatio, the addressees are assured of God’s ‘overflowing’ salvific activity in their threatening situation. The dangers discussed in what follows 27 This is evident in the parallels with the salutatio of the letter of Polycarp (Pol. Phil. inscr.) and the Martyrdom of Polycarp (Mart. Pol. inscr.), where the triad of mercy, peace, and love occurs in the same form, without requiring the assumption of a literary dependence on Jude. Cf. also Gal 6:16 (in a letter closing). On the comparative material, see Berger, “Apostelbrief,” 191–­204, and U. Heckel, Segen, 282n8, who points further to the blessing in the marriage ceremony in Tob 7:12 [MS S]; and Blumenthal, Prophetie, 79–­81. 28 On the nature of NT blessing formulas as wishes, see U. Heckel, Segen, 261ff. For εἰρήνη ὑμῖν πληθυνθείη, see already Dan 4:1 Theodotion; LXX 4:37c; 6:26 Theodotion. 29 See J. D. Charles, “Artifice,” 122.

64

Jude: Commentary

can already be imagined based on some formulations.30 But this does not mean that the letter’s opening is already “polemical.”31 Rather, with this blessing the author expresses his conviction that the addressees will experience God’s salvific action even in their situation and will withstand the danger described in the remainder of the letter. II. The Body Opening: Occasion and Purpose of the Letter (vv. 3-­4) (3) Beloved, though I made every effort to write to you about our common salvation, I was compelled to write to you exhorting you to contend for the faith that was handed down to the saints once and for all. (4) For certain people have slipped in, who were written down long ago for this32 judgment (of damnation): (they are) impious, for they pervert the grace of our God into debauchery and deny our only master and Lord Jesus Christ.

After the formal letter opening, the corpus of the letter begins in vv. 3-­4 with a direct address to the audience, discussion of the act of writing, and the articulation of the theme, or the occasion and purpose of writing. According to v. 4, the occasion is clearly the appearance of the false teachers mentioned here. The purpose of the letter, though, is already articulated in v. 3. In view of the danger faced by the community, the author wants to exhort his addressees to “contend” for the faith and thus resist the false teachers. Given this structure it is hardly possible to differentiate between v. 3 as exordium and v. 4 as narratio33 and to locate the main proposition of the text in v. 4 alone. Rather, this includes v. 3 and thus the reminder about the faith.34 This opening, which combines polemical and paracletic elements, thus corresponds with the closing of the corpus in vv. 17-­23. 3 The letter body begins with the direct address to the audience as “beloved.” This is common in Christian letters, especially in the postapostolic period,35 30 On mercy cf. the admonition in vv. 22-­23, on peace, the schisms mentioned in v. 19 (cf. vv. 4, 15), and on love, the selfish conduct mentioned in vv. 4, 12. 31 So Frankemölle, 1. Petrusbrief, 2. Petrusbrief, Judasbrief, 131. 32 This refers to the judgment that is expressed in what follows, which characterizes the opponents as “godless” or “impious.” On this, see the following commentary as well as Knoch, Petrusbrief, 177. 33 So Watson, Invention, 77. 34 Cf. Wendland, “Comparative Study,” 208; Klauck, Briefliteratur, 260. See also above, pp. 18–19. 35 Cf. Rom 12:19; 2 Cor 7:1; 12:19; Heb 6:9; Jas 1:16, 19; 1 Pet 4:12; 2 Pet 3:1, 8, 14, 17; 1 John 2:7; 3:2, 21; 4:1, 7, 11; 1 Clem. 1.1; 7.1; 12.8; 21.1; 24.1–­2; 35.1; 36.1; 50.1; 53.1; see also 1 En. 91:3.



Jude 2-4

65

although it is unusual in the opening of a letter body. This address, which will return later in v. 17 and v. 20, takes up the motif of (God’s) love from vv. 1-­2 and now brings this love to bear on the communication between the (fictive) author and his audience. They are addressed as “God’s beloved” (v. 1b) and thus—­in the author’s eyes—­true believers,36 which from the outset sets them worlds apart from the “certain people” mentioned in v. 4, the “impious” or “godless.” At the same time, the author indicates with this address that his letter is motivated by loving care for the addressees. Thus the address unites the author and addressees and aims to encourage the sympathy of the latter. It is intended to motivate them to comply with the exhortation (vv. 3b, 20-­23). In light of cultural-­anthropological hypotheses about the categories of “honor” and “shame,” which were fundamental to every form of discourse in the ancient Mediterranean world, Jerome Neyrey interprets Jude as a discourse about the honor of Jesus, or of ‘Judas.’ According to this analysis, the author presents himself as an official who cares for the well-­being of the community from a distance, guides them in times of crisis, and fends off the false teachers’ ‘attack’ on his own authority and on Jesus’ honor (vv. 4, 8).37 As much as these observations are deserving of consideration, the cultural-­anthropological perspective only helps a little in precisely grasping points that are crucial for understanding the letter. In any case, the author is not primarily concerned with societal “honor,” but rather with the matter of faith, with specific dogmatic or ethical points of contention, even if these are only somewhat explicated in the letter—­in the style of ancient polemics. In addition, the (fictive) author Judas is not an official who is ‘responsible’ for the communities being addressed; indeed, there is no indication of any particular ‘office.’ Furthermore, the theme of judgment or salvation touches on a dimension that transcends the anthropological discourse of “honor” and “shame.” A purely cultural-­anthropological interpretation therefore necessarily falls short.

The participle clause in v. 3 is a crux interpretum, as the various attempts at translation reveal. The difficulty lies in the interpretation of the participial phrase σπουδὴν ποιούμενος and thus in specifying the syntactical and logical relation between the author’s eagerness to write about the common salvation, which is conveyed first, and the necessity (ἀνάγκη) or the decision to write the addressees in exhortation, mentioned second (with a finite verb). This point determines the extent to which Jude is only a letter of exhortation (and not a letter about the “common salvation”) or to what degree the discussion of salvation or Christian faith is also part of the main theme of the letter. 36

Vögtle, Judasbrief, 19. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 51–­52; cf. the introduction to these categories in Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 3–­4; also Malina, Welt. 37

66

Jude: Commentary

Rendered literally, the participial clause reads: “making every effort to write to you about our common salvation.” Temporally, the construction is defined by the finite verb in the aorist (ἔσχον), which looks back upon the act of writing from the perspective of the reader with the sense of an epistolary aorist.38 a) The clause is often interpreted as adversative or temporal, in the sense of a substantive opposition or of a temporal succession between γράφειν (pres. inf.) and γράψαι (aor. inf.), especially since the two infinitives have different objects. The explanation of the supposed opposition then procedes on the assumption that in view of an unexpected event the author has abandoned his original intention of writing a general lesson about Christian salvation, and has instead composed a letter of exhortation.39 But the proposed reasons for such a change of heart remain speculative and unconvincing. It is hardly plausible that an author would want to write a general presentation of the Christian message of salvation around the end of the first century under the name of Jesus’ brother Judas. In addition, v. 4a does not suggest that the author has heard about the intrusion of the false teachers only recently—­indeed, not until after deciding to write. The “change-­of-­plan hypothesis” is thus “pure conjecture.”40 Furthermore, the present participle ποιούμενος is not prior to but rather simultaneous to the finite verb ἔσχον. It is therefore grammatically and substantively dubious to presume an opposition between the two actions denoted with γράφειν, in the sense that the intention mentioned first would have been unfulfilled and replaced with another. b) Where the two verbs are taken in reference to the writing of the present letter, there are occasionally imprecise renderings.41 The version of the Einheitsübersetzung is logically unsuccessful, taking the participle in a causal sense: “since I am anxious . . . I find it necessary.”42 Instead, a temporal or modal understanding is probably better, in the sense: “while” (or “by”) “preparing myself with every effort . . . I found myself 38

So Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 28. For this aorist a translation in the past or present tense is possible (“I was compelled”/“I am compelled”). Cf. also Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 157. 39 Thus the Luther Bible (revision 1984): “nachdem ich ernstlich vorhatte, euch zu schreiben . . . , hielt ich’s für nötig . . .” (“after I seriously intended to write to you . . . I considered it necessary . . .”); cf. the commentaries, among others, of Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 147– ­48; Grundmann, Brief, 19 (imprecisely rendered in the translation, cf. 25); Frankemölle, 1. Petrusbrief, 2. Petrusbrief, Judasbrief, 132; Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 245; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 29 (only in the comments). Older representatives are named in Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 39. 40 Thus rightly Vögtle, Judasbrief, 21. 41 So Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 53, where the participle is not rendered with a finite phrase and thus the connection is left unclear. 42 “Da es mich sehr drängt . . . , halte ich es für notwendig.” The rendering in Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 38–­39, is philologically incorrect in taking the finite verb phrase ἀνάγκην ἔσχον in a causal sense: “I was most eager . . . to write you; for I had the urge . . . to exhort . . .” A better causal interpretation is found in Schlatter, Briefe des Petrus, 80: “Since I am making every effort to write to you about our common salvation, it became necessary for me . . .”



Jude 3

67

compelled.”43 One need not assume that the author had a different kind of letter in mind and then changed his plans if there is no strict opposition between, on the one hand, the “common salvation,” the given faith and salvation at the final judgment (v. 23), and on the other the admonition to contend for this faith and to prove oneself ethically. Beyond this, considering that the terms used here follow a rhetorical convention of epistolary openings, in which σωτηρία as “well-­being” is frequently mentioned and the term ἀνάγκη is common,44 one ought to beware of overinterpreting this passage. c) The most plausible solution is thus a relatively weak concessive interpretation of the participial clause. With the reference to “common salvation” the fictive author “Judas,” as a figure from the early period, alligns himself with his addressees. He wants to express his ‘positive,’ salvific intentions with regard to the “beloved,” before beginning his harsh admonition.

In the adscriptio (v. 1b) and the salutatio (v. 2) the author has already written about the common salvation that unites all who are truly faithful; now he speaks further of “faith” (vv. 3b, 21), of the “love of God” and the mercy of Christ that is to be anticipated (v. 22), and finally of the preserving, protective power of God (v. 24). The comments about salvation, however, cannot be left unclouded, because the current situation requires admonition as the order of the day. The comment that the author “wanted to make every effort” at the same time shows how much the (fictive and real) author is concerned by the danger to the addressees. The term σωτηρία in the present context should not be understood in the mundane45 sense suggested by the epistolary convention; rather, it is simultaneously influenced by the LXX (Isa 45:17; 46:13; 52:7, 10; Wis 5:2; Pss. Sol. 16:5) and employed in early Christianity—­already in Paul46—­in the sense of eschatological salvation. The term is then used, primarily in the later texts of the NT, as a summary designation for the salvation received and hoped for in the Christian faith.47 The hope for this salvation, which according to the author’s conviction will not be transmitted definitively and permanently until Christ’s 43 This is the alternative solution in Frankemölle, Jakobus, 132; cf. also Knoch, Petrusbrief, 171, and Schrage, “Zweite Petrusbrief,” 228. On a modal solution, see von Soden, Hebräerbrief, 167. 44 On this, see Koskenniemi, Studien, 78–­87, adopted in Thurén, “Hey Jude!,” 456; Horrell, Epistles, 117. 45 Cf. BA, s.v. “κοινός: ἡ κοινὴ σωτηρία” denotes “the security of the state”; cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 31. The term is also given more substance here than in common epistolary topoi (against Thurén, “Hey Jude!,” 356). 46 Cf. 1 Thess 5:8-­9; 2 Cor 6:2; Rom 1:16; 10:1, 10; 11:11; 13:11; Phil 2:12. 47 Cf. John 4:22; Acts 4:12; 16:17; Eph 1:13; 2 Thess 2:13; 2 Tim 2:10; 3:15; Heb 1:14; 2:3, 10; 5:9; 6:9; 9:28; 1 Pet 1:5, 9-­10; 2 Pet 3:15.

68

Jude: Commentary

Parousia (vv. 1, 21, 24; cf. 1 Pet 1:5), unites the author and his addressees.48 But since this is “the salvation granted in common to all”49 the shared hope also necessitates paraclesis, the exhorting, admonishing intervention that will perhaps save some people from ruin (v. 23). In this respect, the author’s harsh warning about the danger to the “faith” is also closely connected substantively to the theme of the “common salvation.” The goal of this paraclesis50 and thus the goal of the letter is expressed as ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι τῇ . . . πίστει. Like the simple ἀγωνίζεσθαι (cf. Luke 13:2; 1 Cor 9:25; Col 4:12; 1 Tim 4:10; 6:12; 2 Tim 4:7), this composite verb, intensified by ἐπί, takes up the image of the contest (ἀγών); this was employed in the Hellenistic world to represent the struggle for the virtues, primarily in Stoic philosophy but also in ancient Judaism,51 and was widely used in early Christianity in Paul and in later texts.52 The addressees are to contend “for the faith.”53 In order to define the ‘concept of faith’ underlying this statement, the remainder of the letter must be consulted to determine what this combative engagement is supposed to involve. Verses 20-­23 contain a series of appeals that explain the aim articulated in v. 3. There, the author speaks of building up the community in faith, remaining in the love of God, and maintaining hope. With this the author identifies dimensions of the faithful life that go far beyond a polemical resistance to the false teachers or an apologetic defense of tenets of the faith. In addition, vv. 22-­23 speak of caring for more or less gravely threatened fellow Christians, with a care that is merciful and aims at salvation. Only against this background can we consider what it means when the author speaks of the ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστις, the “faith given to the saints once and for all.” 48

This does not consider that there are differences between the author and other early Christian witnesses (such as Paul) in the understanding of this σωτηρία. The essential point is instead that this σωτηρία unites all Christians (cf. Titus 1:4: “our common faith”). 49 Schlatter, Briefe des Petrus, 80. 50 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 28, rightly connects this passage with other NT statements in which παρακαλεῖν occurs in the first person; cf. Mullins, “Petition”; Bjerkelund, Parakalô. 51 Cf. Sir 4:28; Wis 4:2; 2 Macc 13:14; 4 Macc 11:20; 17:10-­16; Philo, Agr. 112, 119; 4 Ezra 7:92, 127–­28; 2 Bar. 15:7-­8. 52 Cf. Rom 15:30; 1 Cor 9:24-­27; Phil 1:27-­30; 4:3 as well as in the post-­Pauline period Col 1:29–­2:1; 4:12-­13; 1 Tim 6:12; 2 Tim 4:7; Heb 10:32; 1 Clem. 2.4; 5; 7.1; 35.4; 2 Clem. 7; 20.2; Barn. 4.11. See Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 31; further Pfitzner, Agon Motif; Poplutz, Athlet; Brändl, Agon. There is no connection with the form of a struggle between the sons of light and the sons of darkness attested in the War Scroll from Qumran (1QM and some 4Q fragments; against Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 150; Grundmann, Brief, 26). The issue here is not a battle ‘against’ anyone, but a fight ‘for’ the faith. 53 τῇ . . . πίστει is to be understood here as a dative of advantage.



Jude 3

69

This question is greatly burdened by its history in controversial theology. For example, for Käsemann precisely the discussion of the πίστις “given once and for all”—­ understood as “doctrine”—­is an indication of Jude’s ‘early Catholic’ character. Here, the “church office of instructor [has become] the proprietor of the ‘spirit of the office,’ ”54 which for Käsemann stands in stark contrast to earliest Pauline Christianity. In substantive agreement but with the opposite value judgment, K. H. Schelkle asserts in his commentary that “the Catholic principle of tradition . . . [appears to be] almost fully developed” here. The church is “entrusted with caring for the faith . . . It can only unfold the content of faith that has been entrusted.”55 But with Vögtle one must recognize in these statements an “overemphasis on the πίστις formulation in v. 3c” among both Catholic and Protestant exegetes. It is therefore “better to refrain . . . from formulations that all too easily evoke the notion of an organized office of instruction for the church as a whole. Precisely in this respect, the letter does not have much to offer.”56 Neither the fictive author Judas nor the real author of the text indicates functions of a ‘church office’ in any form, and the structure of the congregations being addressed remains entirely unclear. In determining the text’s understanding of faith, options that are grounded primarily in dogmatic distinctions rather than in the text itself must be avoided.

It is clear that πίστις here primarily denotes a content of faith (fides quae creditur), or a faith defined by its content, not the act of faith (fides qua creditur) as such, since the latter could not be described as “given,” let alone “given once and for all.” On the other hand, vv. 20-­23 show that the content of faith denoted by πίστις here cannot be separated from the existential implementation of faith and understood in this limited sense as pure “doctrine.” Despite the obvious differences from the Pauline language of πίστις, a strict dichotomy cannot be constructed here. Paul’s understanding of πίστις is not without a definition in content,57 and the Pauline “gospel” is to be maintained and preached unaltered precisely in its content.58 One can ask whether the concept of πίστις in Jude approaches Paul’s concept of “the gospel”—­namely, the Christian message of salvation,59 which is endangered in multiple respects by the teaching and praxis of false teachers. 54

Käsemann, Kanon, 220–­21. Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 150. 56 Vögtle, Judasbrief, 24–­25. 57 In Gal 1:23 πίστις is equivalent to the “gospel” that is proclaimed; cf. also 1 Cor 16:13; Gal 3:23, 25; 6:10; Phil 1:25; cf. Col 1:23; Eph 4:5. On this, see Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 32–­33. 58 Cf. Gal 1:6-­9; cf. 1 Cor 3:10. 59 So Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 33. 55

70

Jude: Commentary

On the other hand, it is clear that Jude participates in the “changes in the understanding of faith in early Christianity”60 and in this reveals himself as a witness to the postapostolic period.61 This can be seen in that ἅπαξ, which referred only to Jesus’ salvific death initially (Rom 6:10; 1 Pet 3:18; Heb 7:27; 9:26, 28) and additionally in Heb (6:4; 10:2) was used in reference to the granting of this salvation in baptism, is now transferred to πίστις, the content of faith, which is discussed as being “handed down once and for all,” and is therefore unsurpassable and binding. This shows the author’s effort to orient the faith of his own time toward the ‘apostolic’ early period; this had become the benchmark and ‘Judas’ appears here as its representative. The endeavor to maintain the original (‘apostolic’) form of the faith characterizes in various ways practically every development in the period of the third Christian generation. In the face of new challenges this was a matter of necessity and should not be assessed eo ipso in the sense of a ‘decadence theory,’ which has been associated with the label ‘early Catholicism.’ The recipients of this tradition, discussed here as πίστις, are identified as the “saints.” This does not refer to anyone other than those who are “called” in v. 1 (cf. Rom 1:7: κλητοὶ ἅγιοι)—­that is, the community of Jesus Christ, and thus not a specific group such as the apostles or certain officials. Thus all Christians are called upon to contend for the unadulterated preservation of the faith.62 Jude does not speak of ecclesial offices and officials; only the fictive author Judas and thus a figure from the normative early period makes an appearance as an authoritative instructor, whereas the actual author claims no such function for himself. Instead, the paraclesis for the faith is issued in the name of Judas the brother of the Lord—­that is, a figure from the early period to a community of the third generation. This community has already received the content of faith transmitted through a long tradition. On the other hand, the text does not indicate (even in v. 20) that this “traditional faith” should be understood 60 Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 54; cf. the excursus in Knoch, Petrusbrief, 174–­75. 61 Hahn, “Randbemerkungen,” 210–­11; Horrell, Epistles, 117. 62 When Käsemann, Kanon, 220–­21, speaks here of an “ecclesial teaching position,” he imposes conditions from the Pastoral Epistles, which he likewise interprets with anachronistic concepts (on this, Hahn, “Frühkatholizismus”). It must be borne in mind that at approximately the same period as the Pastoral Epistles other theological approaches support different models of ecclesial structure, and thus they by no means indicate a development that applies to the church as a whole. See, for example, on the development of church structures in Rome, P. Lampe, Christen, esp. 334ff., and on the coexistence of differently structured congregations in Ephesus, see Trebilco, Early Christians; Tellbe, Christ-­Believers.



Jude 3-4

71

as formulaically complete ‘material.’63 It is not ‘defined’ or described in more detail, but rather the author appears to expect that his addressees are well aware of it and know how to preserve it through dissociation from the positions of the opponents. Ultimately, the contention for the “faith” demanded of the addressees is not limited to the dogmatic-­polemic or intellectual-­apologetic dimension; it includes active care for fellow Christians and one’s own existential fortification (vv. 20-­23). Thus what ἡ πίστις expresses in an abbreviated fashion in v. 3 cannot be restricted to the aspect of fides quae creditur, although this aspect is in the foreground here. 4 The significance of this substantive aspect is evident in the challenge posed by the opponents whom the author attacks. They have made it necessary for him to write his letter in its present form, and the fight for the faith demanded in v. 3 should in particular be manifest in overcoming the present danger both externally and internally. In a style that is somewhat disconcerting for the reader of today, but was common in ancient polemics,64 the opponents are introduced from the outset only as “certain people”65 rather than by name—­that is, ‘shady figures,’ described with polemical topoi, and thus given a clearly negative connotation. The critical judgment that because of this anonymity there is no real engagement with the opposing side’s positions is a modern argument determined by the ideal of a ‘fair’ discussion in which the opposition should also be given a voice. This ideal (which even today is often unrealized) can hardly transfer to antiquity. Since only one side of a two-­sided conversation is generally preserved in the NT letters, any reconstruction of the discussion for today’s readers must remain uncertain. It would be quite helpful if an author would describe his opponents more precisely or even quote their theses.66 But this is not necessary in the communication intended for the addressees. Furthermore, it is probably inherent to (ancient and modern) polemics that one does not want to dignify the opponents with an identification by name or even a thorough presentation of their views, and that their position is instead depicted as inacceptable 63

Against Grundmann, Brief, 26. For comparison one may cite not only the polemics in other early Christian letters, but also the religious polemics between various groups in early Judaism (such as in the Qumran texts), or between rival philosophical schools in the Greco-­Roman world. On this, see du Toit, “Vilification”; Johnson, “Anti-­Jewish Slander”; Colpe, “Formen der Intoleranz”; or on Epicurean polemics, Rehn, “Vomunt.” 65 On the impersonal τινες for opponents see 2 Cor 10:12 and Gal 1:7; cf. also 1 Tim 5:24. 66 Cf. 2 Pet 3:3-­4, which, however, is preceded by a thorough defamation of the opponents (on this, see Frey, “Disparagement”). Opponents’ positions are not quoted comprehensively until the ‘academic’ discussion in Origen, Cels. Here the opposing position was available in written form, enabling Origen to refer to it directly. 64

72

Jude: Commentary

through distortion or polemical topoi (such as “impiety,” “licentiousness,” etc.). This phenomenon also occurs in Jude, which presents significant problems for reconstructing the opponents’ position.

Initially, the author gives the impression that these “certain people” have “slipped in” to the communities from the outside. This could indicate that they are itinerant preachers, which are frequently attested in early Christianity (Matt 7:15; 2 John 10; 3 John 5-­8, 10; 2 Tim 3:6; Did. 11–­12; Ign. Eph. 9.1).67 On the other hand this might also be a polemical topos68 insinuating that the opponents have a ‘vagrant’ nature and denying them the status of belonging among the addresees. In the composite verb παρεισέδυσαν, the prefix παρ-­ suggests that the false teachers had crept in “through a side door, so to speak”—­that is, in secret and surreptitiously (cf. Gal 2:1; 2 Pet 2:1; Barn. 2.10; 4.9; as well as 2 Macc 8:1). As outsiders and newcomers they have “no right to exist in the congregations.”69 The disqualification of the opponents begins already as soon as they are mentioned. Thus the historical question as to whether they were in fact itinerant teachers cannot be answered; rhetorically the phrase aims at marking (or even creating) the distance between the community of the truly faithful and the opponents, who (in the author’s view) are of an entirely different nature. Next, these unnamed “certain people” are characterized by four polemically effective attributive modifiers.70 All four belong to common polemical topoi.71 They are (a) pre-­destined for damnation, and they are (b) impious in that they (c) “pervert the grace of God in debauchery” and (d) deny the sovereignty of Jesus Christ. Right at the outset the opponents’ eschatological condemnation is asserted, and proving this assertion will be an essential concern of the author in what follows. The aforementioned “people” have “long since been earmarked for this κρίμα.” Here the κρίμα denotes “the judicial verdict in the negative, the condemnation at the final judgment.”72 The referent of the demonstrative τοῦτο, which normally points back in the text (anaphoric), raises some questions since a corresponding judgment has not yet been mentioned. Beyond this we must consider which (written) judgment this is meant to refer to. The adverb πάλαι 67

So Sellin, “Häretiker,” 221–­24. So du Toit, “Vilification,” 406; Thurén, “Hey Jude!,” 458. 69 Vögtle, Judasbrief, 26. 70 The triple ἀ-­alliteration at the end of each of the three clauses is striking: ἀσεβεῖς . . . ἀσέλγειαν . . . ἀρνούμενοι. 71 See the compilation in du Toit, “Vilification,” 405–­10, there with the categories “prone to judgement,” “moral depravity,” “inflated self-­esteem.” 72 Vögtle, Judasbrief, 26. 68



Jude 4

73

together with the prefix προ-­suggests a temporal sense; the condemnation has been written down in advance73—­that is, for those it applies to it is already irreversibly established. What is the author referring to here? There are essentially three possibilities: heavenly books or tablets,74 OT/early Jewish,75 or early Christian76 prophecies of judgment. Early Christian prophecies can be ruled out since the reference in v. 17 does not point to a text, but rather to the unspecified words of the apostles, and no reference to other early Christian texts is discernable. The author could rather “have in mind the long since past registration of the false teachers in heavenly books or tablets of judgment,”77 as is attested not least in the tradition of Enoch. However, such heavenly books are mentioned neither in v. 4 nor in Jude as a whole, so it seems simpler to consider statements of judgment such as those adopted from various areas of tradition in vv. 5-­16. Among these, alongside the OT examples in vv. 14-­15, the quotation from 1 En. 1:9, which ends the series of textual references, stands out.78 This suggests that among the authors who wrote down the judgment “long ago,” Enoch occupies a prominent position, especially since he traditionally served the function of scribe (of righteousness; 1 En. 12:3-­4; 15:1). The reference of τοῦτο thus remains unclear. It cannot be understood anaphorically, but where it is used cataphorically (pointing to what follows), the antecedent normally follows immediately.79 A direct reference to vv. 14-­15 or even v. 6 is thus improbable. The most plausible option is a reference to the designation of the false teachers as “impious,” which already implies the judgment of such “impious” people expressed 73

Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 35; cf. Acts 1:16; Rom 15:4; Eph 3:3. Cf. 1 En. 81:4; 89:61ff.; 106:19; 108:7; T. Levi 14:1; T. Ash. 7:5; 2 Bar. 24:1; Rev 20:12. Cf. Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 39; Grundmann, Brief, 28–­29; Schrage, “Zweite Petrusbrief,” 222–­23; Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 250–­51. The legal practice of proscription lists in which the condemned were registered is considered by Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 159. 75 However, no reference text is mentioned explicitly. Osburn, “1 Enoch 80:2-­8,” 299–­300, idem, “Discourse Analysis,” 290, refers to 1 En. 67:10, but nothing in the text is reminiscent of this verse. 76 Zahn, Einleitung, 2:91–­92, sees here and in v. 17 a reference to 2 Pet 2:3 and thus a support for his assumption of the priority of 2 Pet. Sellin, “Häretiker,” detects a reference to Rom 3:8, but for this he must assume an extensive reinterpretation. 77 Vögtle, Judasbrief, 26. Cf. also Mayor, Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter, 25–­26. 78 Vögtle, Judasbrief, 26–­27; Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 438. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 36, also sees the prophecy of the apostles included here, but it is doubtful that the πάλαι can be applied to them. 79 Cf. BDR §290.4; see also Sellin, “Häretiker,” 210n11. 74

74

Jude: Commentary

later.80 In any case, the judgment of the Watchers used as a paradigm in v. 6 serves already in Enoch as a model for the fate of blasphemers of a later age (1 En. 10:14). In this respect “Judas” can rightly assert that the judgment of such “impious” people was already established in writing long ago, in order to then fittingly cite the proclamation of judgment from 1 En. 1:9, in which the word stem ἀσεβ-­returns in abundance.

For this reason, the opponents are now described in a concise, effective characterization hurled in a single word: “impious” (ἀσεβεῖς).81 As such the judgment of condemnation that has already been fixed in writing applies to them, which is then illustrated in vv. 5-­7, 11, 14-­15 with examples from the history of Israel (or from Scripture). Against the background of the LXX and especially the word of judgment from 1 En. 1:9 quoted in vv. 14-­15, the label “impious” denotes all sorts of misconduct;82 the “impious” are contrasted with the “righteous” (so also in 1 En. 1:9; frequently in the T. 12 Patr.), and the term corresponds with other descriptions like ἄδικοι, ἄνομοι, or ἁμάρτωλοι—­that is, “wickedness” in the sense of an ethically reprehensible way of life in general (cf. also Rom 1:18; 1 Pet 4:18; 1 Clem. 14.15; 57.7–­8; Barn. 10.5; 11.7; 15.5).83 The charge is explicated here in two ways, first morally with the term “licentiousness” (ἀσέλγεια), then theologically or christologically with the motif of  “ denying” Christ’s sovereignty. Both issues are meant to make evident the impiety and condemnation of the opponents. Yet both remain too general and topical to reveal any more specific circumstances. The first accusation, that the false teachers “pervert the grace of our God into ἀσέλγεια,” could suggest that the opponents interpreted the gospel as antinomian and thus abused the message of grace for licentiousness—­a charge that had already been brought against Paul in certain circles (cf. Rom 3:8). The word ἀσέλγεια appears in vice lists,84 where the specific notion of sexual licentiousness often resonates (Rom 13:13; 2 Cor 12:21), and 2 Pet 2:7, 18 also 80

Bauckham points out that the attributes in v. 4 are closely connected with the following statements derived from Enoch by keywords (κρίσις, v. 6, 15; ἀσεβεῖς, ἀσεβεία, ἀσεβεῖν, once each in v. 15). This would result in the τοῦτο referring to the following ἀσεβεῖς and, beyond this ‘verdict,’ to the other statements of judgment drawn from the Enoch tradition in vv. 6 and 14-­15 (see Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 37; cf. also Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 56–­57). 81 The term might already be inspired by the quotation from 1 En. 1:9 cited later. 82 On this, see Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 38. 83 The connotation of the language of ἀσέβεια is thus clearly of a Jewish nature and differs from pagan Greek usage. 84 Mark 7:22; Rom 13:13; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 4:19; 1 Pet 4:3; cf. Wis 14:26; 3 Macc 2:26; Herm. Vis. 2.2.2; 3.7.2; Herm. Sim. 9.15.3.



Jude 4

75

takes Jude’s statement in this sense. This aspect resonates once again when vv. 8a and 23b speak further of “defilement of the flesh.” However, every time it appears in Jude the allegation of “licentiousness” has the character of a topos, and so its ethical basis in reality can hardly be ascertained. The more important point, perhaps, is that this “licentiousness” results from a perversion of χάρις. The opponents are thus Christians who have experienced the “grace of our God”85 (that is, according to general Christian conviction the forgiveness of sins granted in baptism) and possibly even attached a high importance to it,86 but now—­at least in the author’s view—­they abuse this “grace” in a licentious way of life.87 Whether such an allegation has a real basis in the lifestyle or teaching of the opponents must remain unanswered. They appear to be so in the author’s eyes, and he uses this strong allegation in order to label the opponents’ teaching and way of life as unacceptable from the outset and thereby fundamentally discredit the opponents themselves. If one does not take the statement entirely as merely a polemical topos, then it is plausible to understand the opponents’ position in terms of a more liberal attitude toward the law or particular elements of the law, perhaps in the Pauline tradition,88 or even as a programmatic libertinism. There were, after all, precisely within the sphere of influence of Pauline theology, tendencies that understood the message of God’s grace as liberation from all earthly constraints and regulations, which could lead to ethical indifference (cf. 1 Cor 5:1-­6; 6:12-­20; 10:23). Thus it would be plausible if this accusation—­ in connection with the disregard for the angelic powers (v. 8)—­a lso had a concrete point of reference in the opponents’ teachings and way of life, even if the author’s harsh polemic makes it impossible to discern the actual theological justification of such a position. The second concretization of the opponents’ “impiety” goes even farther and makes it clear that the accusations are in any case not limited to the ethical-­ moral level.89 The “impious” ones “deny the sole ruler and our Lord Jesus Christ.” Thus the author is likely also concerned with ‘confessional issues,’ whereby it can be assumed that the opponents’ denial was by no means open and intentional, but rather, in the author’s view, inferred from their other misapprehensions (e.g., the failure to acknowledge the angels or a libertine way of life). 85

With this phrase the author again aligns himself with his addressees. Sellin, “Häretiker,” 209, points to the parallel in Eph 2:7-­9, where χάρις is heavily emphasized (cf. also Rom 3:23-­24). 87 Sellin, “Häretiker,” 211. Schlatter, Briefe des Petrus, ad loc., aptly comments that they turn “the grace that binds us to God” into “a grace that allows us the fulfillment of our self-­will and its sinful desire.” 88 Sellin, “Häretiker,” 211. 89 This is the interpretation in Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 11–­13, 39. 86

76

Jude: Commentary

This last statement in v. 4, however, is text-­critically uncertain and difficult to interpret. It is certain that the end (with word order that varies slightly in the manuscripts) reads καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν (“and our Lord Jesus Christ”). Before this the text reads “and the (v.l.: “our”) one master (δεσπότην; v.l.: δεσπότην θεόν).” Here the reading δεσπότην is not only better attested by 𝔓72 and 𝔓78 as well as Codex Sinaiticus, but it is also the more difficult reading. Then one could translate: “and deny the only master and our Lord Jesus Christ”90 or, better, “and deny our only master and Lord Jesus Christ.”91 The addition of θεόν would then be a clarification of an understanding that δεσπότην refers to God the father, not to Christ. But this very reference is at issue. Does δεσπότην mean God, resulting in a binary formulation (“God and Christ”)? Or does this title (and thus the entire statement) refer to Christ, the one master (δεσπότης) and lord (κύριος)? In support of a ‘theocentric’92 interpretation, it can be observed that δεσπότης in the LXX, Josephus, and Philo normally refers to God; Josephus even uses the phrase ὁ μόνος δεσπότης three times;93 and early Christianity adopted this usage, primarily in prayers and liturgical formulas.94 This could suggest the same sense for Jude 4, and the Syriac translation then also disambiguates by adding “God.”95 However, the first text to draw on Jude clearly takes the passage in relation to Christ in 2 Pet 2:1.96 Bauckham, who supports a christological reference for δεσπότην, points to the discussion of members of Jesus’ family as δεσπόσυνοι (i.e., those who belong to the δεσπότης), which is attested in the Palestinian author Julius Africanus (in Euseb., Hist. eccl. 1.7.14), implying that—­at least in Palestinian Jewish circles—­Jesus was referred to as ὁ δεσπότης.97 In addition, Bauckham argues, when taken in reference 90

So Grundmann, Brief, 25; Frankemölle, 1. Petrusbrief, 2. Petrusbrief, Judasbrief, 133; Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 54 (who, however, interprets this in line with the christological reading). 91 So Knoch, Petrusbrief, 171, 176; cf. Schlatter, Briefe des Petrus, 82; Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 148; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 19; cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 28. 92 So Frankemölle, 1. Petrusbrief, 2. Petrusbrief, Judasbrief, 133. The language of “theocentric”/“christocentric,” however, introduces an inappropriate dichotomy. 93 Jos., B.J. 7.323, 410; A.J. 18.23. 94 See Luke 2:29; Acts 4:14; Rev 6:10; 1 Clem. 7.5; 8.2; 9.4; 11.1; 20.8, 11; 24.1, 5; 33.1–­2; 36.2, 4; 40.1; 48.1; 51.1; 56.16; 59.4; 61.1–­2; Did. 10.3; Barn. 1.7; 4.3; Herm. Vis. 2.2.4–­5; Herm. Sim. 1.9; Diogn. 8.7; Justin, 1 Apol. 61.3; cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 39. 95 A linguistic parallel occurs in the Similitudes of Enoch in 1 En. 48:10: “they have denied the lord of spirits and his anointed”—­but it is doubtful that this can explain the formulation chosen here, the “only master” (cf. Vögtle, Judasbrief, 28). 96 In the doxology in Jude 25 μόνος modifies God (cf. John 17:3) and 2 Pet 3:18 also interprets that differently, but this cannot prove anything for Jude 4. Nor does the observation that Jude otherwise speaks of God and Christ in multiple two-­part formulations (vv. 1, 21, 25) require that δεσπότην should be taken in reference to God—­especially since just such a two-­part statement results in the sequence of the final two accusations in v. 4. 97 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 39; cf. idem, Relatives, 61­– ­62, 358–­59. Since Bauckham ascribes Jude to the Palestinian brother of Jesus, he wants to see this as an expression that



Jude 4-5

77

to Christ, this designation takes up even more strongly the imagery of the master of the house and his servants, attested in the synoptic parables (Mark 13:27; Luke 13:25; cf. Matt 10:25; and 2 Tim 2:21).98 The grammatical evidence appears to be more conclusive than these somewhat far-­fetched parallels: since there is no article before the second substantive (κύριον), the most plausible understanding is to take the article before δεσπότην in reference to both substantives, so that the entire expression τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν in fact refers to Christ.99 Then one must translate: “and deny our only master and Lord Jesus Christ.” The author of 2 Pet then also documents this reading when in 2 Pet 2:1, drawing on Jude 4 and employing the early Christian imagery of ransom, he disambiguates with the formulation “the master who bought them,” clarifying the christological reference. This means that Jude probably already uses the title μόνος δεσπότης, which was used as a divine title in Judaism and earliest Christianity, as well as the language of the “lord” (κύριος) in v. 14 in reference to Christ, which indicates a ‘high’ Christology that ascribes divine titles to Christ. As “lord” and “master” Christ is a figure of divine authority for the author of Jude.

If these considerations are correct, then the first concrete form of “impiety”—­ namely the perversion of God’s grace—­is understood theologically, while the second form speaks entirely of Christ. The allegation thus suggests that the opponents do not allow Christ to be the lord and “master” of their life in compliance with the relation of ownership between Christ and those who belong to him. Their “impiety”—­which in the author’s view has been proven by their practices100—­consists in perverting the grace of God and denying the true sovereignty of Christ, which ought to also define one’s way of life, and because of this impiety they are doomed for damnation in accordance with the judgment that has long since been set in writing. III. The Proof of the False Teachers’ Condemnation (vv. 5-­19) 1. The First Series of Paradigms from Scripture (vv. 5-­7) After the introductory identification of the occasion and purpose of this espistolary communication, v. 5 begins the dispute with the opponents; using a brings us especially close to the author’s milieu. But as an argument for a christological reference of δεσπότην this is only appealing within the framework of his authorial hypothesis. 98 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 39. 99 So Vögtle, Judasbrief, 31; Hahn, “Randbemerkungen,” 212n16; Wasserman, Jude, 253. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 39, however, himself mentions the objection that the article before κύριος is occasionally omitted. 100 The notion that the denial of God is documented in one’s way of life is frequently attested in ancient Judaism and early Christianity, cf. 1 John 2:22-­23; Titus 1:16; 2 Clem. 17.7; in substance also Matt 7:21-­23; see Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 40.

78

Jude: Commentary

series of examples from the history of Israel (vv. 5-­7; cf. also v. 11), the author presents proof that a verdict of damnation is already fixed for such people as the opponents. Only after this, in vv. 14-­15, does the author turn to the theme of the judgment itself in the quotation of Enoch. However, the discussion is not with the opponents themselves; rather, the communication takes place exclusively among those who are “called” (v. 1) and the “saints” (v. 3). It is presupposed that these addressees ‘are on the right side’ and—­being preserved by Christ (v. 1)—­will comply with the author’s admonition. They should be motivated to distance themselves from the false teachers. For this reason they are “reminded” (v. 5) of something that is in principle already known to them, from which they must now draw conclusions—­namely, the knowledge that the divine judgment of people such as the aforementioned opponents has long since been established (v. 4a). To this end there is now a succession of biblical statements about divine judgments, which repeatedly incorporate wording that can simultaneously be taken in reference to the opponents. The episodes from biblical salvation history can thus be read as paradigms for the divine judgment that, in the author’s view, is also in store for the opponents. Thus present and past are interwoven in the text,101 which results in an impressive argument but makes it difficult to identify precisely what is meant in each case. Three examples (vv. 5-­7) citing the judgments of the desert generation, the fallen angels, and Sodom and Gomorrah are followed by the first application to the opponents (v. 8), which then precedes another traditional example as proof of the divine power of judgment, before the verdict about the false teachers is articulated in v. 10. (5) But I want to remind you, although you know everything once and for all, that the Lord saved a people from the land of Egypt, but the second time destroyed those who were not faithful, (6) and preserved the angels, who did not preserve their own domain but abandoned their own dwelling place, for the judgment of the great day with eternal bonds under darkness, (7) just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, because they committed fornication and went after different flesh in a way similar to these (angels), (now) lie as a model, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.

The condemnation of the opponents is initially substantiated with three biblical examples, which were already joined together in Jewish wisdom tradition in a series of cautionary examples, first in Sir 16:7-­10 and then in other texts (CD II, 17–­III, 12; 3 Macc 2:4-­7; T. Naph. 3:4-­5; m. Sanh. 10:3). In these, with the exception of T. Naph. 3:4-­5, the order of the examples is chronological, whereas 101

So Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 59.



Jude 5-19

79

in Jude 5-­7 the apostasy of the Exodus or desert generation (v. 5) comes first and is then associated with the references to the fallen angels (v. 6) and to Sodom and Gomorrah “and the surrounding cities” (v. 7). This speaks against the idea that the text simply adopts a preexisting pattern. Rather, this scriptural reception is approached very precisely in accordance with the author’s intention: the sinful groups identified in the biblical episodes are understood not just as cautionary examples for divine punishment of sins, but more specifically as prophetic types of the condemned opponents. The addressees should recognize that the judgment foretold for such people as the opponents has fallen upon those who were guilty of an equivalent transgression on multiple occasions in biblical history. Excursus: On the text of Jude 5 The beginning of this section presents immense textual problems, and the translations and commentaries thus offer a contradictory picture. These problems have not been satisfactorily resolved and can only be treated in terms of a well-­founded decision. Jude 5 is a clear piece of evidence for the fact that the ‘original text’ of the NT no longer exists,102 and that even the oldest extant textual witness for this passage, the papyrus 𝔓72, provides only an apparent change for the worse.10 It is therefore necessary to presen the text-­critical arguments here. The prevailing majority of manuscripts have the reading εἰδότας ὑμᾶς ἅπαξ τοῦτο ὅτι ὁ κύριος. Alongside this, Aland’s collation of Greek textual variants presents a total of thirty-­one different readings for v. 5.104 Two of the issues can, in my opinion, be determined with relative certainty. First, the ὑμᾶς offered in brackets in the NA27 text is probably a secondary addition on the grounds of the lectio brevior rule,105 and second, against τοῦτο, which is the reading in the Majority text, among others, the reading πάντα should also be regarded as more original.106 The remaining problems center around two questions: (a) What is the original position and the original reference of ἅπαξ? Does it belong at the beginning of the sentence (εἰδότας ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι . . .), and thus modify εἰδότας πάντα, or within the ὅτι­clause and thus parallel with τὸ δεύτερον? (b) What is the subject of the ὅτι clause: θεός, κύριος, or even Ἰησοῦς (meaning Jesus, or Joshua)? The most important readings for these questions (with select witnesses) are: 102

More recent textual critics only discuss the “initial text” (Wasserman, Jude, 122–­23). On this, see Wasserman, Jude, 265–­66. 104 For a list of variants and an analysis of the manuscript evidence, see K. Aland, Text, 1:205–­9; see also ECM 4/1:409–­11 (ad loc.) and Wasserman, Jude, 148–­49. Cf. also Albin, Judasbrevet, 597–­600; Landon, Text-­Critical Study, 70–­77; Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 161–­62; Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 60; Blumenthal, Prophetie, 47–­52. See further Osburn, “Jude 5”; Bartholomä, “Jesus,” as well as Thiele, Epistulae catholicae, 416–­17, on the Old Latin tradition. 105 So also in detail Wasserman, Jude, 256–­58. 106 So also Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 162; and Wasserman, Jude, 260–­62. From this point the variant πάντας can be explained as an emendation. 103

80

Jude: Commentary Reading

Attestation

1

ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι Ἰησοῦς

A, B, 33, 81, 2344, pc, it, vg, aeth, Origen, Jer., Cyril

2

ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι κύριος

(not attested in Greek) only Syriac in Ephraemi

3

ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι (ὁ) θεὸς

C2, 623, vgms, Clem. Alex.

4

ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι θεὸς Χριστός

𝔓72 (correction)

Subvariant: ἅπαξ πάντας ὅτι θεὸς Χριστός

𝔓72

ἅπαξ τοῦτο ὅτι ὁ κύριος

L, 049, Majority text*

Subvariants: ἅπαξ τοῦτο ὅτι κύριος

some minuscules

τοῦτο ἅπαξ ὅτι ὁ κύριος

K, 056, some minuscules

6

πάντα ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἅπαξ

1241, 1739, 1881, pc, it, cosa, bo; Or1739mg

7

πάντα ὅτι κύριος ἅπαξ

‫א‬, Ψ

Subvariant: πάντα ὅτι ὁ κύριος ἅπαξ

C*, 630, 1505, pc, syh

5

8

πάντα ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἅπαξ

1243, 1846, pc, it, vggmss, syph, arm, Clem. Alex. (?)

* On this, see the detailed list in K. Aland, Text, 205ff.; in addition Osburn, “Jude 5,” 108.

ad a) The decision to put ἅπαξ in the first position modifying εἰδότας is supported by somewhat better external attestation, and the consideration that in this position ἅπαξ accords in substance with the statement in v. 3 and with the motif of the ‘reminder’ at the beginning of v. 5 (cf. v. 17).107 A transposition could be likely if copyists sought to create a parallel with τὸ δεύτερον. Of course, ἅπαξ (“[only] once”) does not really correspond precisely with τὸ δεύτερον (which would require “the first time”).108 An author as stylistically confident as the author of Jude would probably have chosen a different expression (e.g., τὸ πρῶτον). The reading “once . . . the second time” could therefore be a secondary development, with ἅπαξ originally referring to εἰδότας and serving to characterize the knowledge that had been given to the addressees “once and for all.” ad b) The question of the subject of the ὅτι clause is much more difficult to answer. It is clear, first, that θεός is certainly not original given its weak attestation. The reading θεὸς Χριστός, attested in the oldest witness, 𝔓72, shows a secondary attempt to combine θεός and Χριστός.109 Thus two possibilities ultimately remain, and it is difficut to 107

Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 162; against NA27. Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 43; Wasserman, Jude, 260. 109 This implies that there was also a tradition with Χριστός as subject. 108



Jude 5

81

decide between them: κύριος and Ἰησοῦς, the latter reading being attested in A and B. This decision is made on text-­critical as well as substantive and syntactical grounds. In his commentary, Paulsen has made the most thorough attempt to justify the reading Ἰησοῦς,110 and this is now also favored by the new Editio Critica Maior and with it the text of the twenty-­eighth edition of Nestle-­Aland.111 This reading is in fact the most strongly attested. In addition, it is argued that Ἰησοῦς is the lectio difficilior and thus fundamentally preferable. Paulsen sees further support in the early christological interpretation of the OT Joshua narrative on the basis of the Joshua-­Jesus typology.112 Arguing from tradition-­history, he refers to a Joshua Targum (though this is difficult to date)113 that mentions a struggle of Israel “for the second time,” and this second time refers to an eschaton that corresponds with the primeval age.114 However, there is no convincing bridge from this phrase to the τὸ δεύτερον in Jude 5. The claim that “everything supports the reading Ἰησοῦς”115 is therefore hardly justified. In substance, this argument is contradicted by the fact that, strictly speaking, Joshua cannot be regarded as the agent of the salvation of the Israelites from Egypt, even less so of the downfall of the desert generation or the incarceration of the Watchers mentioned in v. 6.116 The reading is thus not just difficult, but virtually nonsensical.117 Even the proven rule of lectio difficilior cannot necessitate the assumption that a substantively 110

Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 60–­61. In this vein also Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 61–­62; Wikgren, “Problems”; Fossum, Kyrios 51. See also Jesus; Osburn, “Jude 5”; Bartholomä, “Jesus”; Blumenthal, Prophetie, 50–­ Metzger, Commentary, 726: “Critical principles seem to require the adoption of Ἰησοῦς which admittedly is the best attested reading among Greek and versional witnesses . . . Struck by the strange and unparalleled mention of Jesus in a statement about the redemption out of Egypt (yet compare Paul’s reference to Χριστός in 1Cor 10.4) copyists would have substituted (ὁ) κύριος or ὁ θεός.” 112 This is first attested in Barn. 12.8–­10, then in Justin, Dial. 120.3; Clem. Alex., Paed. 1.60.3 (GCS Clem. Alex. 1:123); Origen, Hom. Exod. 11.3 (GCS Origen 6:254–­55); Origen, Hom. Jes. Nav. 1.1 (GCS Origen 6:288); Jer., Jov. 1.21. Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 60n56 refers to Philo, Mut. 121, where Philo interprets the changing of Joshua’s name in Num 13:16 as Ἰησοῦς σωτηρία κυρίου. 113 Cf. Fahr and Glessmer, Jordandurchzug. 114 Cf. Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 60–­61, with reference to Fahr and Glessmer, Jordandurchzug, 65–­72. The text reads: “Take instruments of war—­swords and lances—­t wo instruments for Israel’s struggle for the second time . . . and rebuke the Israelites upon a hill, the hill of rebuking.” In substance, however, this Targum hardly offers a connection with the events discussed in Jude 5. 115 Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 61. 116 The subject of v. 5 is of course also the subject of v. 6. Fossum, Kyrios Jesus, 228–­29, thus suggests that to the author’s mind Jesus as the “angel of the Lord” is the destroyer of Sodom and Gomorrah. Osburn, “Jude 5,” 112, refers to 1 En. 69:26-­29, where the Son of Man sits in judgment over the angels. See criticism of this in Bauckham, Relatives, 310–­11; Landon, Text-­ Critical Study, 72–­74. 117 So Wasserman, Jude, 266: “a difficult reading to the point of impossibility.” 111

82

Jude: Commentary

impossible text is original, especially for an author with the linguistic-­stylistic ability of precise expression. The reading κύριος is thus not simply “an emendation.”118 The often-­debated question of whether the preexistent Christ can be imagined as the agent of the actions mentioned in vv. 5-­7 is unable to deliver a decisive argument. This suggestion is possible, since this sort of typological interpretation of biblical history is found in 1 Cor 10:1-­13 and John 12:41 as well as 1 Pet 1:11; Heb 11:26; and then Barn. 12.8–­10;119 however, the preexistent Christ is not otherwise called “Jesus.”120 Beyond this, a christological interpretation is by no means precluded for the reading κύριος. κύριος refers to Christ in Jude 4, 17, 21, 25, and certainly also in the quotation in v. 14 in a reinterpretation of the text quoted from 1 En. 1:9, where of course God is the agent. The reading κύριος makes the text transparent for a christological interpretation. The fact that the reading κύριος (along with ὁ κύριος) is ultimately better attested than Ἰησοῦς and, secondly, that all other textual forms can be explained on its basis justifies a final decision for this reading. The replacement of κύριος with Ἰησοῦς would have then lent itself to a copyist who was inspired by the scribal observation of the (Greek) homonymy between the OT Joshua and Jesus, but was not concerned with the problem that Joshua could not function as the agent of the episodes mentioned in v. 6. The earliest certain evidence of this combination occurs probably somewhat after Jude in the Epistle of Barnabas (12.8).121 However, this typology cannot be presupposed for the author of Jude since it does not make sense with v. 6, which is syntactically connected to the same subject. The text that is likely the most original and can best explain the many variants thus has ἅπαξ in the earlier position and κύριος as the subject: ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι (ὁ) κύριος. Whether the article before κύριος is original122 or an addition, such that the text originally read εἰδότας ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι κύριος,123 can be left open.124

5 The series of examples are introduced by the phrase that now follows and speaks to the audience with respect to their knowledge, which was given to them “once”—­that is, is both permanently valid and complete (πάντα).125 Thus 118

Against Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 61. Cf. Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 60; Osburn, “Jude 5,” 112; Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 40. 120 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 43; where this name is used (2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:5-­6; Heb 2:9), the incarnation is in view. 121 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 43. 122 So Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 162. 123 So Wasserman, Jude, 255, 266. 124 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 43, also supports the reading κύριος (although the question of the article remains unclear). Albin, Judasbrevet, 597–­600 and Wasserman, Jude, 148, 262–­66, also arrive at the same reconstructed text without the article before κύριος. There is no Greek witness for the reading without an article; this text form only exists in a Syriac version in Codex Ephraimi. 125 Cf. Rom 15:14-­15; 1 Thess 4:9; 1 John 2:21, 27. 119



Jude 5

83

what is said here is nothing new, but rather the tradition from the beginning of Christianity, part of the original content of faith, in which the addressees participate (cf. 1 John 2:7). This reflects respect for the addressees, but also their obligation to follow the author in what he “reminds” them of and to draw the appropriate conclusions. Through the proclamation of the apostles (v. 17)—­ that is, in their foundational tradition—­the community has everything that it needs in order to live the salvific faith, to remain in it, to recognize erring tendencies and to resist them. Thus there is no need for additional ‘revelations,’126 nor does ‘Judas’ seek to offer any. He restricts himself to recalling the words found in Scripture (vv. 5-­16) and in the proclamation of the apostles (vv. 17-­19). This is signifcant for the image of the presumed addressees. For the following examples, which are alluded to only very briefly, the author can apparently expect an extensive knowledge of Scripture, which by no means encompasses only the ‘core narratives’ of the Bible, but also narrative traditions from early Jewish texts, which have not entered into either the Hebrew canon or the Septuagint.

Memory is a traditional principle of OT and Jewish faith,127 where it is primarily connected with God’s salvific acts and the commandments associated with them. In early texts of the NT, the word group μιμνήσκεσθαι κτλ. is rare (Rom 15:15), although the reminder of the Jesus event naturally occurs in the proclamation of the gospel, the Eucharist (1 Cor 11:25; Luke 22:19), and then in writing down the tradition as well. Not until later texts is this idea explicitly emphasized, above all in John (John 2:17, 22; 12:16; 14:26; remembering Scripture and Jesus’ words as the work of the spirit), and differently in Heb 10:32; Rev 3:3 (remembering the beginnings of the community) and 2 Thess 2:5 (remembering the word of the apostle). Jude 5, 17 and then 2 Pet 1:12-­13; 3:1 stand in this tradition.128 The present reminder of the episodes from Scripture serves to turn the history into a warning—­of the behavior (of the “impious”) in the present and of the punishment that has been pronounced upon them and has already taken place ‘exemplarily’ in history (cf. 1 Cor 10:11). The biblical examples are 126

One can consider whether the opponents claimed something like this (cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 48). A similar tendency to go beyond what was previously taught seems to be found, e.g., among the opponents in 2 John 9, and the author of the Johannine letters likewise admonishes the audience to remain in the truth that was once received (1 John 2:27 and elsewhere). 127 Cf. Deut 5:15; 7:18; 8:2, 28; Ps 105:5; Isa 44:21; Mal 4:4; Jub. 6:22; 2 Bar. 84:2, 7-­9. Cf. further Stuhlmacher, “Anamnese”; earlier Bonnard, Anamnesis; Dahl, “Anamnesis”; Roloff, “Anamnese.” 128 Cf. Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 153. On 2 Pet 1:12-­13, see also Zmijewski, “Paradosis”; Riedl, Anamnese, 153ff.

84

Jude: Commentary

employed here in the manner already practiced by Paul in 1 Cor 10 or then in Heb 3:7–­4:11 for cautionary purposes as well as to affirm the reality of the judgment of the “impious” that has already been written down. The notion that the series of paradigms was based on an older paraenetic compilation129 seems rather doubtful, especially since the selected examples are precisely aimed at the present situation and the intended message. However, the events mentioned in vv. 5-­7 are attested in various combinations in early Jewish texts (Sir 16:7-­10; Jub. 20:2-­7; CD II, 17–­III, 12; 3 Macc 2:4-­7; T. Naph. 3:4-­5; m. Sanh. 10:3)130 and were probably used in a similar manner in Christian paraenesis as a warning against sin and apostasy (cf. Luke 17:26-­29). A few examples demonstrate such use: the desert episode is adopted by Paul in 1 Cor 10:1-­11 as a warning that took place ‘for us’; Balaam and Jezebel appear in Rev 2:14, 20 as archetypes of seducers; and the Egyptian magicians “Jannes and Jambres” appear in 2 Tim 3:8-­9 as archetypes of false teachers. There,131 as with the reception of Balaam in Rev, Jude, and 2 Pet, elements of postbiblical Wirkungsgeschichte are incorporated.

The first paradigm of the judgment of the “impious” that has been proclaimed long ago adopts an example that is often used for the punishment that follows sin132—­namely, the fate of the desert generation, which according to Num 14 (cf. 26:64-­65) because of their faithless complaining was doomed to die in the desert, and thus (after being saved from Egypt and at the Red Sea) was not saved “for a second time.” The phrase τὸ δεύτερον refers to an assumed but unexpressed πρῶτον. This does not just articulate the fact that God first saved a people from Egypt and then let those who had no faith die in the desert, denying them entry into the promised land.133 Rather, there could be a more subtle reference to the Israelites’ lack of faith, which is recounted repeatedly in the Exodus narrative. According to the biblical account, the first faithlessness of the people at the Red Sea (Exod 14:10-­12) was not punished, 129

Thus the suggestion by Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 46; see also Davids, “Traditions,” 416. On this, cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 46, who presents a synopsis of the sequence of episodes and points out that the episodes used in Jude consitute the core of the ‘traditional’ list—­or are simply used the most often. A direct dependence on a specific early Jewish text or model, however, cannot be demonstrated. Bauckham likewise speculates (ibid.) only transmission via Christian paraenesis. On the Jewish sequences of paradigms, see further Berger, “Hartherzigkeit,” 27–­42; Schlosser, “Les Jours.” 131 The names of the Egyptian magicians Jannes and Jambres are not attested biblically and first appear in early Jewish tradition (CD V, 17–­19; references to the episode are also found in 4QDa [= 4Q266] 3 II, 6 [partially restored]; 4QDb [= 4Q267] 2 2; 6QD 3), see further Euseb., Praep. ev. 9.8, and Origen, Comm. Matt. (GCS Origen 11:250), where an apocryphon by this name is attested. On this, Pietersma, Apocryphon; idem, “Jannes and Jambres.” 132 Cf. Ps 95:8-­11; Sir 16:10; CD III, 7–­9; 1 Cor 10:7-­11; Heb 3:7–­4:11. 133 τὸ δεύτερον does not simply mean “then” (so Grundmann, Brief, 33). 130



Jude 5

85

but ‘answered’ with rescue from the Egyptians, while the (repeatedly) recurring faithlessness in Num 14:2, 11134 “at the second time” (of divine intervention in history)135 provoked God’s righteous anger and despite Moses’ intercession (Num 14:13-­14) resulted in the death of the desert generation (with the exception of Joshua and Caleb).136 All this is implicitly already to be taken in reference to the addressees and the opponents; they too were once saved by the “lord” from the ‘spiritual Egypt,’ but in the case of (renewed) faithlessness, they too will be destroyed (by the “lord”) in the judgment.137 The indefinite κύριος may thus initially—­as in the OT text—­denote God as the one who acts upon God’s people in history. Yet the term can already easily be read as a christological reference here.138 This becomes clear at the latest when in v. 14 the exalted one, as the one who comes for the Parousia and judgment, is designated as κύριος. It would probably be an overinterpretation to suppose that the author saw the preexistent Christ as the agent of the events recounted in Scripture. While this would not be unthinkable to the desert episode (cf. 1 Cor 10), it would be unusual for the punishment of the angels and the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah. Regardless of this, a ‘high’ Christology is already presumed according to v. 4, where the divine title μόνος δεσπότης likely refers to the κύριος Jesus Christ. Yet the accent in Jude lies on Christ’s sovereignty and status as ruler, not on the temporal aspect of preexistence. The intention of the text is more precisely to establish a correspondence between the recounted acts of judgment by the κύριος in history and the judgment of the impious that is expected from the coming κύριος, such that God’s activity in the history of Israel, in the present time of the addressees who are loved by God and preserved by Christ, and in Christ’s Parousia for judgment and salvation, ultimately constitutes a single unit. After κύριος clearly referred to Christ in v. 4, the term in v. 5 acquires at least a christological ‘connotation’139 (which copyists then ‘disambiguated’ by changing the text to Ἰησοῦς, perhaps influenced by a scribal Joshua-­Jesus typology).

For Christian paraenesis, the paradigm implies the warning that those who have once been saved (by God or Christ) can by no means be secure against the 134 Here the LXX in Num 14:11 reads: τίνος οὐ πιστεύουσίν μοι. In Jude 5 μὴ πιστεύσαντας could allude to this. Cf. also Deut 9:23; 32:20. 135 So Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 256. 136 In this vein Spitta, Brief, 321–­22; further Berger, “Hartherzigkeit,” 36. 137 Cf. Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 256; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 50; Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 48. 138 The question of whether especially v. 5 is a ‘theocentric’ or ‘high-­christological’ text imposes an inappropriate dogmatic dichotomy on the interpretation. 139 Cf. Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 31: “At least the juxtaposition of the term ‘Lord’ in Jude 4 and 5 suggests that the same person is in view (especially since Jude never clearly uses ‘Lord’ for God) and that Jude is reading the Exodus account in terms of Jesus.”

86

Jude: Commentary

approaching judgment in the case of a renewed faithlessness or apostasy, but rather—­like the desert generation—­must expect condemnation. Alongside this stands the conviction that those called and loved by God will be preserved by Christ (v. 1) until the end (vv. 24-­25).140 But the “impious,” who transgress the boundaries of the divine order, abuse God’s grace for licentiousness, and thereby deny the sovereign dignity of the κύριος Jesus Christ, must face the judgment of this κύριος. 6 The second example of divine judgment takes up the episode of the relations between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” from Gen 6:1-­4, but in substance draws on the interpretation of this tradition of the so-­called fall of the angels (Gen 6:1-­4) in the Book of the Watchers (1 En. 1–­36), where this episode is broadly expanded. The example of the Watchers or of the giants occurs relatively frequently in early Jewish series of paradigms.141 The narrative of the fall of the Watchers (1 En. 6–­11) constitutes the core of the Book of the Watchers (1 En. 1–­36), which after the Astronomical Book (1 En. 72–­82) is the second oldest portion of the Enoch tradition, and likely stems from the third century BCE.142 The narrative of the Watchers is found at its core, a mythological narrative that takes Gen 6:1-­4 as a starting point and explains the origin of evil in the world through the ‘fall’ of the Watchers.143 In this text, which probably combines two strands that were once independent in terms of tradition-­history,144 it is recounted that in the days of Jared (Gen 5:18), two hundred angels under Semyaz and Azaz’el descended (= ‫ )ירד‬to Mount Hermon and took human wives, which led to the birth of giants who stripped the earth bare, ultimately killed one another, and thus filled the earth with injustice. In addition to these illegitimate relations, it is further said of the angels that they taught humanity pharmacological and magical knowledge, the art of metalworking (weapons and jewelry), and other cultural technologies such 140 The tension between this assurance of salvation (for the addressees) and the warning of judgment in the case of apostasy is not fully resolved (cf. analogously 1 Cor 10:1-­12). 141 Among the aforementioned paradigm series, Sir 16:7; Jub. 20:5; and CD II, 17–­18 (always in connection with the Sodomites) as well as 3 Macc 2:4 present the Watchers or the giants as a cautionary example. 142 The oldest Aramaic manuscript from Qumran, which attests to parts of the Book of the Watchers (4QEna), originates in the first half of the second century BCE and could be a copy of a manuscript that dates back to the third century BCE (cf. Milik, Books, 140–­41; Uhlig, Henochbuch, 479). Thus as the oldest document of early Jewish apocalypticism, the Book of the Watchers dates back far into the third century BCE. The Qumran findings were thus of crucial significance for scholarship, for it is now clear that this trend is not a product of the Maccabean crisis, but arose long before that; on this, see Frey, “Bedeutung,” 26–­29. 143 Delcor, “Le mythe”; Collins, “Origin of Evil”; Stuckenbruck, “Origins of Evil.” On the interpretation of the Watcher narrative, see the foundational discussion in Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 1:37–­57 and 165–­275; and most recently Bachmann, Welt. 144 On this, see in detail Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 1:165–­72. The Azaz’el material shows a particular affinity with the Greek myth of Prometheus (op. cit., 171).



Jude 5-6

87

that the world turned to godlessness. For this destructive work, the Watchers were bound under the earth for seventy generations (1 En. 10:12), until the day of their judgement. The Watchers’ ‘children,’ the giants, ultimately killed one another, and the spirits that emerged from them after their violent death became demons, who continue to create evil in the world—­for example, by causing illnessess (1 En. 15:8-­16:1; Jub. 10). The tradition of the Watchers is taken up in numerous early Jewish texts within the broader Enoch tradition, and beyond it.145 The rabbinic interpretation understood the “sons of God” as human beings; the interpretation as angelic beings is continued in Christian reception, fostered not least by Jude. However, the narrative soon lost its function of explaining the existence of evil. In the first century CE, reference to the fall of Adam had long since replaced the Watcher myth for this purpose (see e.g. 4 Ezra 7:118), but the Enoch apocalyptic tradition was nevertheless continued in numerous motifs (visions of the throne of God, journeys to heaven, concepts of judgment) and later adopted in Christian texts.146

The author of Jude is directly dependent upon the depiction in the Book of the Watchers (which he even quotes in v. 14)147 when in v. 6 he mentions that angels “did not preserve their own realm but abandoned their own dwelling place,” thus by transgressing the boundaries established for them behaved blasphemously and ‘impiously.’ Jude thus apparently shares the traditional conception of angelic beings who occupy an ἀρχή (cf. Rom 8:38; cf. Col 1:16; 2:15; Eph 1:21; 3:10; 6:12)—­that is, a position of celestial or ‘cosmic’ power or rule that has been granted to them. This idea is widely attested in the Enoch tradition,148 as well as in the literature of Qumran;149 it 145 Cf. 1 En. 86–­88; 106:13-­17 and Jub. 4:15, 22, further the Book of the Giants attested in Qumran, as well as 2 En. 18. Beyond the Enoch tradition see Sir 16:7; CD II, 16–­20; 1QapGen ar II, 1; 4Q180–­181; T. Reu. 5:6-­7; T. Naph. 3:5; 2 Bar. 56:10-­14; also Philo, Gig. 6–­18 and QG 1.92, as well as the Targumim on Gen 6:1-­4. On later reception, see Reed, Fallen Angels; Wright, Origin; and Losekam, Sünde. 146 On this, see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 1:82-­109; VanderKam, “Enochic Motifs.” 147 There is no need to assume dependence upon the Greek myth of the Titans (i.e., Hesiod, Theog.; see Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 51), although the parallelism between the myths of the Watchers and the Titans were also observed by Hellenistic Jewish authors (cf. Jos., A.J. 1.73; Jdt 16:6; Sib. Or. 2.231); this connection is not made clear until 2 Pet, which is more strongly Hellenistic (2 Pet 2:4), not yet in Jude 6. 148 In what is probably the oldest section of this tradition, the ‘astronomical’ book (1 En. 72–­82), the angels who are set over the seasons are not identified by name (1 En. 80:6; 82:10-­ 20); in Jub. 2:2 meteorological phenomena and other events are ascribed to the activity of angels. In 1 En. 6:7-­8 (Greek version) ἀρχή is used for twenty leaders of ten angels each who are identified by name; cf. 1 En. 61:10. In 2 En. 20:1 and T. Levi 3:8 the term ἀρχαί denotes a certain rank of the hierarchy of angels. 149 Cf. 1QM XII; 1QHa IX, 11 (= Sukenik I, 11); and in particular the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, which present a sort of angelic liturgy, there with the term ‫“( ראשים‬chiefs”); see 4Q403 1 II, 11 and 20–­21; 4Q405 23 II; 4Q405 8–­9, 5–­6; on this, Aune, “Archai,” 78.

88

Jude: Commentary

is likewise presupposed, for example, in Paul (Rom 8:38; 1 Cor 15:24),150 but there it is suppressed for christological reasons. Christ, through whom all things exist (1 Cor 8:6), also prevails over the cosmic powers, which will ultimately be stripped of power (1 Cor 15:24). According to 1 Cor 6:2-­3, the faithful will even sit in judgment over the angels. Therefore—­like all “worldly powers” (Gal 4:3)—­they cannot separate the faithful from the love of God in Christ (Rom 8:38). Religious veneration of these powers is therefore out of the question. In contrast to such ‘deference’ to cosmic powers, which is also evident in the Hellenistic environment, the tendency toward disempowering these forces is intensified in the deutero-­Pauline tradition (Col 1:16; 2:15; and Eph 1:21; 3:10). Through the Christ event these powers are radically demoted; Christ as triumphator puts them on public display (Col 2:13-­15)—­they are of no significance for the faithful. Yet exactly this argumentation reveals that some ‘worship’ of cosmic powers was practiced in the post-­Pauline congregations—­probably by associating Jewish Christian elements with pagan folk religion.151 In other early Christian circles the Jewish angelological concepts appear to have been maintained more consistently.152 The author of Jude attests to the reception of such concepts, and the opponents, whom he accuses of slandering the δόξαι (v. 8), could have represented—­somewhat analogously to the position of Col and Eph—­an awareness of superiority over the heavenly powers.153

Taking up the tradition of the fall of the Watchers, v. 6 speaks of angels who “did not preserve” the position of sovereignty entrusted to them (including its boundaries) and “abandoned their own dwelling place.”154 At least from Gen 6:1-­4, the addressees will have been familiar enough with this context that they would already make the association with the traditional connotation of sexual congress between angelic beings and human women—­that is, “different flesh” (v. 7). However, the crucial point for Jude is that the judgment of damnation is already fixed for these blasphemous angelic beings. According to 1 En. 12:4 and 15:3, Enoch is the herald of this judgment of the Watchers 150 Cf. K. Weiß, “ἀρχή,” 391. In 1 Thess 3:13 Paul expects that, along with the Parousia of Christ, his court (Jewish: ‘the saints,’ cf. Jude 14) will also appear; according to 1 Thess 4:16, the archangel (Michael) will appear at the eschaton (cf. Dan 12:1-­2). 151 Cf. Arnold, Syncretism; Wolter, Kolosser, 155–­63. 152 See the angelology of Rev (on this, see Michl, Engelvorstellung; Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration), but also Papias (in Andreas of Caesarea, Commentary on the Apocalypse 34.12); Justin, 2 Apol. 5.2, etc. 153 See above in the introduction, pp. 43–­4 4. 154 This formulation takes up exactly the interpretation of the Book of the Watchers according to which the ‘sin’ of the angels consists in the transgression of the boundaries set for them through the creation, or God’s order—­specifically, the boundary between angels and human beings (which is left unclear in Gen 6:1-­4): the “foreign” flesh, from the angels’ perspective, is human. Verse 7 has an analogous transgression of boundaries in view in the episode of the Sodomites—­now from the perspective of the people of Sodom who assault angels.



Jude 6

89

“who have abandoned the high heaven.” This formulation resonates in Jude 6, where it is said of these angels that they are “preserved for the judgment of the great day with eternal bonds under darkness”—­that is, they are now already imprisoned in the ‘underworld’ and preserved for their final punishment. Thus their destruction does not come immediately (unlike in other OT episodes such as the flood, or the rebellion of Korah), but only on the day of judgment. This aspect renders the narrative of the Watchers particularly valuable as an example for the author of Jude. Here we find a judgment of damnation, which will not be carried out until the eschaton but whose outcome is already determined for those concerned, just as v. 4 claims is the case for the opponents. The individual components of v. 6 are variously attested in the traditions about the Watchers. The Aramaic fragments found in Qumran have brought to light an exact parallel to the languge of the “great day” of judgment, which was unattested in the Greek fragments and the Ethiopic translation that were previously available155 (but cf. 1 En. 22:11; 84:4). Fetters or chains are mentioned explicitly in the Similitudes (1 En. 54:3), in the Greek version of 1 En. 14:5, and then in Origen, Cels. 5.22.156 The language of “eternal” fetters is derived from 1 En. 10:5 (“he shall dwell there forever”) and 14:5 (“bind you for all eternity”);157 “eternal” or “forever” here is equivalent to the time until the end of the world and the “great day” of judgment. 1 En. 10:4-­5 speaks of the binding of Azaz’el and his being held in a hole in the desert, covered in darkness (σκότος). When Jude chooses a different term here and speaks of being held ὑπο ζόφον, he adopts a phrase commonly used for the underworld in Greek poetry,158 which is also employed in the Sibyllines (Sib. Or. 4.43).159 The reception of Palestinian Jewish angelological traditions thus occurs in a sophisticated linguistic register,160 without any demonstrable explicit connection to Greek mythology. According to 1 En. 10:12, the binding of the other leader, Semyaza, and his companions is to take place “for seventy generations under the hills of the earth” and in reference to all blasphemers 10:14 adds: “if someone should be burnt up and destroyed, he will from now on be bound together with them until the end of all generations.”161

Thus already in 1 En. 10, the preservation of the Watchers under the earth until the judgment is regarded as a model for the fate of other impious people, 155

The Ethiopic text of 1 En. 10:12 reads only “bind them for 70 generations under the hills of the earth until the day of their judgment and of their end”; 4QEnb ar IV, 11 reads “until the great day”; see Milik, Books, 175. 156 On this, see Uhlig, Henochbuch, 537. 157 Trans. following Uhlig, Henochbuch, 527, 537–­38. Cf. also Jub. 5:10. 158 Homer, Il. 21.56; Od. 11.57, 155; 20.356; Hesiod, Theog. 729. 159 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 53. 160 This is also seen in the choice of the adjective ἀΐδιος, which is synonymous with αἰώνιος (v. 7), but varies stylistically (cf. 4 Macc 10:15). 161 Following Uhlig, Henochbuch, 529–­30.

90

Jude: Commentary

and precisely this aspect determines the use of the paradigm by the author of Jude. This—­a longside the announcement of judgment in 1 En. 1:9, cited in Jude 14—­is the best and in some sense the only scriptural evidence for the predetermined judgment of damnation against the opponents. It is said that the sinful angels are “preserved” for the judgment in 2 En. 7:2; 18:4, or T. Reu. 5:5. In this, the choice of the perfect τετήρηκεν in Jude 6 can be explained as corresponding with the use of τηρεῖν at the beginning of v. 6 (τηρήσαντας). The angels are “preserved” because they did not “preserve” their domain;162 thus in accordance with the talionic principle, the punishment fits the crime. Conversely, there is a contrast to v. 1: whereas the addressees as faithful people remain preserved for Christ and can hope for his mercy (v. 21), the judgment of the impious—­for which the judgment of the Watchers serves as a model—­has already been determined and is certain to come at the eschaton. 7 The third example is closely linked with the preceding by a comparative ὡς. It is the episode of the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah recounted in Gen 19, which was taken up widely already in the OT and then in early Jewish and early Christian theology.163 The fate of these two cities and their neighboring towns164 thus became the most common paradigm of divine punishment.165 The connection of these two paradigms in vv. 6 and 7 is striking; ὡς makes a comparative connection, and the phrase τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις establishes a correlation between the respective crimes, which is apparently the main concern for the author. The inhabitants of the cities thus “in a way similar to these”—­the aforementioned Watchers166—­“committed fornication and went after different flesh.”167 Such a correlation between the sin of Sodom and that of the angels is only established in early Jewish literature in a single passage, 162

So Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 53. Cf. already Deut 29:23; Isa 1:9; 13:19; Jer 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Lam 4:6; Hos 11:8; Amos 4:11; Zeph 2:9; Sir 8; 3 Macc 2:5; Jub. 16:6, 9; 20:5; 22:22; 36:10; T. Ash. 7:1; T. Naph. 3:4; 4:1; Philo, QG 4.51; Jos., B.J. 5.566; and in the NT Matt 10:15; 11:24; Mark 6:11; Luke 10:12; 17:29; Rom 9:29. Cf. Loader, A Tale of Two Cities; Newman, “Lot in Sodom”; Feldman, “Sodom and Gomorrah”; Tigchelaar, “Sodom and Gomorrah”; on the Targumim, see García Martínez, “Sodom and Gomorrah.” 164 This refers to Admah, Zeboiim, and Zoar, although according to Gen 19:20-­22 the latter was saved from punishment at Lot’s request; cf. further Deut 29:23; Hos 11:8; and Wis 10:6. 165 See references in n. 163 above. 166 Grammatically, τούτοις, which as a masculine form cannot refer to the grammatically feminine cities (αἱ πόλεις) of Sodom and Gomorrah, should clearly be taken as referring to the Watchers mentioned earlier. 167 The καί between ἐκπορνεύσασαι and ἀπελθοῦσαι should probably be understood as explicative, rather than additive (as though there were two distinct crimes here). 163



Jude 6-7

91

in T. Naph. 3:4-­5, where it is said with reference to both that they altered or exchanged “the order of their nature.” What is meant by the desire for “different flesh,” in which the sin of the Sodomites and the crime of the Watchers are alleged to be similar, and how can this be understood in connection with the opponents being attacked here? In Jewish tradition the sin of Sodom was usually regarded as a violation of hospitality and hatred of foreigners,168 pride and selfishness,169 or sexual licentiousness in general.170 In the present context, the author can hardly have in mind homosexual behavior,171 although the Sodom episode was also interpreted in this way in Hellenistic Judaism.172 Instead, the desire for “different flesh” seems to refer to sexual relations between angels and human beings, which is understood here as the ‘obverse’ of the Watchers’ association with the daughters of men (cf. Gen 6:1-­4) and, as in T. Naph. 3:4-­5, as an unparalleled reversal of the natural order. Such a notion is attested in Gen 19:5, although in the biblical narrative Lot wants to protect his guests from the evil desire of the Sodomites, offers them his daughters as a substitute (Gen 19:8), and is ultimately preserved by the power of the “men” who were staying with him against the fury of his wicked contemporaries, and led to escape. Whether Jude presumes that the Sodomites actually consorted with the heavenly guests or only that they desired this is unimportant. The inhabitants of Sodom, like those other angels, did not adhere to the order established for them in that they licentiously “went after other flesh.” However, in the biblical account only the Sodomites are charged with this crime. Since, according to Gen 19:24-­25, Gomorrah and the surrounding area is affected by the 168

Cf. Wis 19:14-­15; Jos., A.J. 1.194; Pirqe R. El. 25. Cf. Ezek 16:49-­50; 3 Macc 2:5; Jos., A.J. 1.194; Philo, Abr. 134; Tg. Ps.-­J. on Gen 13:13 and 18:20. 170 Cf. Jub. 16:5-­6; 20:5; T. Levi 14:6; T. Benj. 9:1. 171 Against Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 259. Cf. already Oecumenius ad loc. (PL 119:712). 172 Cf. in this vein for example Philo, Abr. 135–­136; Mos. 2.58; QG 4.37; Jos., A.J. 1.194. While in Gen 19:5 the “men of Sodom” seek the “men” (in fact angels) who stopped in to Lot’s house in order to “know” them (‫)ידע‬, this cannot be unambiguously interpreted as sexual, nor does such an understanding appear in the Hebrew Bible (see Willi-­Plein, Genesis, 92). The formulation of the LXX (συγγίγνομαι) probably has a stronger sexual connotation (see LXX Gen 39:10; Jdt 12:16; Sus 1:11, 39; cf. Septuaginta Deutsch, Erläuterungen und Kommentare 1:189), but it is also not entirely clear (see Harl, La Genèse, 179). Perhaps the LXX was able to suggest the interpretation in Josephus and above all Philo, but neither Gen 19:5 nor any other reference to Sodom in the Hebrew Bible identifies the aspect of homoerotic relations with sufficient clarity. On this, see Loader, A Tale of Two Cities, Newman, “Lot in Sodom.” Jude 7 also does not indicate this aspect. 169

92

Jude: Commentary

destruction, sinfulness must also apply to these cities; the punishment that has already occurred is justified by the sinfulness of these cities as well, although the particular desire for angels (or “different flesh”) is not ascribed to them anywhere in the tradition.

It is difficult to say what conclusions can be drawn from this with respect to the opponents. Certainly the author selected and formulated his examples such that they could clearly allude to the positions and transgressions that the opponents are accused of. Yet it is hardly possible to interpret the offenses derived from the examples directly as accusations of the opponents.173 Since v. 8 specifically speaks of the defilement of flesh, there must be an implied accusation of sexual licentiousness in some form, which cannot be identified more specifically. But this could also be purely a polemical topos. However, the common point of the examples cited in vv. 6 and 7 is a disregard for the boundary drawn between angels and humans and thereby a violation of divine regulations.174 With regard to the opponents, this point should be linked with the accusation of “blasphemy” or disregard for the angels (v. 8), not with specific forms of illegitimate sexual behavior. On the other hand, this aspect is clearly too specific to refer simply to deviation from the “faith handed down once and for all” (v. 3) or a generally “impious” way of life. The choice of these three examples thus serves to further clarify what characterizes the community members being attacked in Jude: a blasphemous lack of respect for angelic beings that disregards the established boundaries. By contrast, the traditions about the angels (e.g., from the Book of the Watchers) are particularly important to the author. For the author’s argumentative interest, it is essential that Sodom and Gomorrah are also able to serve as clear testimony to the reality of divine punishment of the impious. For this reason, the present tense is used to say that the cities now “lie as an example” (πρόκεινται) and “suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” The events narrated in Genesis as long past are thus recollected paraenetically. This formulation is also based on a conventional interpretation of the biblical episode, which was repeatedly interpreted in early Jewish texts as a cautionary example (3 Macc 2:5: παράδειγμα) for future generations. According to Wis 10:7, the depravity of the cities in this region is still manifest in the smoking desert, and Josephus and Philo also refer to the sign of the divine fire.175 According to some traditions the prison of the 173

“We can hardly speculate that they desired sexual relations with angels—­even in their ‘dreams’ (v 8)” (Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 54). 174 So Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 54. According to Sellin, “Häretiker,” 217, the defilement of the flesh consists in this very point: “It has nothing to do with sexuality.” Cf. also Klijn, “Jude,” 243; differently Vögtle, Judasbrief, 45n62. 175 Jos., B.J. 4.483; Philo, Mos. 2.56; Abr. 141.



Jude 7-10

93

fallen angels is located just below the sulphurous region of the Dead Sea.176 Thus the author is able to point to the fact that these cities, or the evidence of their destruction, now lie as a (cautionary) example, “suffering the punishment of eternal fire.”177

Sodom and Gomorrah are a warning sign that is palpable to the addressees at least literarily and in light of the biblical tradition is manifest in situ—­indeed, they serve as a model of the impious who have fallen victim to the judgment of damnation. As such, together with the two other biblical examples of the desert generation and the Watchers, they vividly display the reality of judgment. This is not just a prophetic threat to the licentious and unfaithful (v. 4), but rather in the examples cited—­most clearly in the present sign of the destroyed cities—­it is vividly presented as fact for the purpose of warning the addressees. 2. The Application of the Three Paradigms to the Opponents (vv. 8-­10) (8) Nevertheless, these dreamers similarly also defile the flesh, reject authority, and slander the glories. (9) But Michael the archangel, when he was disputing with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, he did not dare to bring a slanderous judgement but said, “Let the Lord rebuke you!” (10) But these people slander everything that they do not know, and what they understand by nature like the unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed.

In this section, the biblical examples, understood typologically, are connected to the opponents. The linguistic signal for the shift in perspective toward the opponents is the demonstrative οὗτοι in v. 8 (and again in vv. 10, 12, 16, 19), with which the author brings back into view the false teachers, who were introduced in v. 4 but not discussed directly since then. The catchword holding this polemical passage together is βλασφημία or βλασφημεῖν—­that is, the issue of “blasphemy” or “slander,” which unites the accusations against the opponents raised in vv. 8, 10 and the counterexample in v. 9. The brevity and use of topoi in these formulations, however, creates great difficulties for any attempt to more specifically identify the accusations and to precisely classify the opponents in theological terms. 8 This verse is connected with the preceding through the adverb of comparison ὁμοίως and the adversative μέντοι, whereby the activity of the opponents is juxtaposed to the biblical paradigms. Despite178 the vivid examples of judgment 176

1 En. 67:4-­13; Origen, Cels. 5.52. The phrase πυρὸς αἰωνίου (cf. 1QS II, 8; T. Zeb. 10:3; 3 Bar. 4:16; 4 Macc 12:12; Matt 18:8; 25:41) should probably be taken as modifying δίκην. 178 The rendering with “indeed” (Grundmann, Brief, 32) does not convey this aspect; on the other hand the sense of μέντοι cannot be reduced to a mere emphasis (against Vögtle, Judasbrief, 48). 177

94

Jude: Commentary

over the impious who live in faithlessness and licentiousness, “these ones”—­ the aforementioned, anonymous “certain people” (v. 4)—­behave sinfully “in a similar way,” and thus bring the established judgment upon themselves. Three allegations are mentioned, which do not, however, directly correspond to the three paradigms in vv. 5-­7. Such series of three also exhibit a stylistic preference of the author.179 Before these three statements about the opponents, however, they are labeled polemically as “dreamers” (ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι).180 It is particularly difficult to interpret this characterization. Leaving aside some entirely unreasonable interpretations,181 there remains an understanding of the designation as a general polemical topos or metaphorical circumlocution for the opponents’ spiritual state; as “dreamers” they do not adequately anticipate the revealed reality of the faith or the reality of the divine act of judgment.182 Beyond this, a technical usage is probably meant to resonate in this term,183 with an allusion to dreams as a medium of revelation and perhaps as a means of legitimating certain teachings. ἐνυπνιάζεσθαι “can denote an authentic revelation”184 (cf. Dan 2:1; Joel 2:28 = Acts 2:17; and 1 En. 85:1), but in the LXX it is employed more frequently for the dreams of false prophets (Deut 13:2, 4, 6; Isa 56:10; Jer 23:25; 36:8; cf. Jer 23:32; Zech 10:2; 1 En. 99:8). This could be a specific reference to the opponents’ practice185 or their prophetic claim,186 but of course it cannot be unambiguously clarified whether they in fact sought to legitimize themselves or their teachings by ecstatic visionary experiences (cf. 2 Cor 12:1-­3; Col 2:18), or the author simply seeks to dismiss them as false prophets with the label “dreamers.” The inference of a prophetic claim by the opponents also remains uncertain, and since the profile of the addressee comunities is unclear, it is difficult to classify the activity of the opponents in a specific category 179

Cf. J. D. Charles, “Artifice,” 122–­23. The participle ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι should not be taken predicatively in connection with the following verb μιαίνουσιν (against J. H. Elliott, I–­II  Peter, Jude, 165), but in its position after οὗτοι as the subject of all three following statements and as a polemical designation of the opponents. 181 Thus firstly the assumption that the author wanted to accuse the opponents of erotic dreams in which they defile themselves (Desjardins, “Portrayal,” 101–­2), which is already contradicted by the syntax (see previous note). The thesis that “dreamers” refers to the Jewish group of the Essenes (so Daniel, “Esséniens,” based on the derivation of the label Ἐσσαῖοι from the Aramaic ‫חזין‬ = seer) is also far-­fetched, since the Aramaic original text of Jude postulated by Daniel is impossible on linguistic grounds; secondly, the designation of the Essenes is much more likely derived from ‫חסיא‬/‫( חסי‬see Frey, “Essenerberichte,” 49–­50); and thirdly, for “seers” in Greek one would rather expect ὁρῶντες (Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 56). 182 Schlatter, Briefe des Petrus, 86. 183 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 55; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 49. 184 Vögtle, Judasbrief, 49. 185 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 56. 186 Thus decidedly Blumenthal, Prophetie, 167–­68. 180



Jude 8

95

(teachers, prophets, etc.). A reference to v. 19, where the opponents are denied possession of the spirit, can also be taken in terms of a specific pneumatic claim by the opponents only by means of a problematic ‘mirror reading.’187 Thus this characterization of the opponents as “dreamers” could also simply be formulated from the perspective of the author, who from the outset denies these people any claim to truth, and later denies them possession of the spirit in general. Regardless of whether they presented themselves as teachers or prophets, or only presented their view within the community (which according to 1 Cor 14 could also be called prophetic), their viewpoint is false and deviates from the faith handed down once and for all (v. 4).

The dismissive characterization of the opponents as “dreamers” is followed by three allegations, which denote specific elements of their teaching and practice. Hardly coincidentally, the first statement in this series speaks of “defiling the flesh.” This language of “defiling” or pollution occurs in the tradition in connection with the Watchers, who “defiled” themselves with human women (1 En. 7:1; 9:8; 10:11; 12:4; 15:2-­3; 69:5), as well as the Sodomites (Jub 16:5). The verb μιαίνω, which is initially found in the context of Jewish purity practice, occurs only late in the NT and (except for John 18:28) otherwise only in a metaphorical sense for faithlessness or a “defiled” conscience (Titus 1:15; cf. Heb 12:15). The use of the verb here is likely inspired by its usage in the Book of the Watchers, whereby the connection with σάρξ indicates a more physical, sexual connotation188 apparently intended by the author. The opponents are accused of practicing (and perhaps also teaching) ‘libertinism,’ which includes sexual dimensions. Yet because of the nature of such accusations as topoi, it must remain open whether and to what degree this allegation has any real basis in the opponents’ way of life; a correlation with the activity of the Sodomites (or even of the Watchers) is unjustifiable.189 The second and third allegations are even more difficult to interpret. The opponents “reject authority” (κυριότης) and “slander the glories” (δόξαι). What do these terms mean, and what behavior can be discerned behind this description? The term κυριότης could denote human political or religious authorities, which is unlikely here. It can also refer to hierarchies of angels (Col 1:16; Eph 1:21; Mart. Ascen. Isa. 2:2; Apocalypse of Zephaniah according to Clem. Alex., Strom. 5.11.77), although in Col 1:16 and Eph 1:21 it occurs in the plural. The use of the singular here could support a third option—­namely, a reference to the (sole) authority of God (Did. 4.1) or of Christ (Herm. Sim. 5.6.1). In 187

The difficulty here is also seen by Blumenthal, Prophetie, 173. Cf. Sib. Or. 2.279; Herm. Mand. 4.1.9 and Herm. Sim. 5.7.2; with reference to σῶμα T. Ash. 4.4; on this, see Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 56. 189 The notion of homosexual practices (Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 65) is misguided here (as in v. 7). 188

96

Jude: Commentary

this case, there would also be a reference back to the language of κύριος in v. 5, which is taken up again in v. 14. The opponents would therefore be charged with rejecting the sovereignty of the κύριος, which connects with the accusation of denying Christ as the only lord expressed in v. 4. It is perhaps unnecessary to see these two interpretations as exclusive alternatives, inasmuch as the author probably would have seen the denial of the order guaranteed by the angels as a denial of the authority of the κύριος and disregard for his commandments.190 It remains unclear whether this was concretely a non­compliance with individual customs or commandments, or a corresponding teaching. The last of the accusations, “slandering the glories” (δόξαι) can be taken more clearly in reference to angelic beings. The term δόξαι occurs in LXX Exod 15:11 and its Hebrew equivalent ‫ נכבדים‬is attested for angelic beings in the Qumran texts,191 as well as in apocalyptic (T. Jud. 25:2; 2 En. 22:7; Mart. Ascen. Isa. 9:32) and gnostic texts.192 Aside from 2 Pet 2:10, which adopts, modifies, and interprets the present statement, “slander” of the angels is not mentioned elsewhere in the NT. What position or praxis could this refer to? The wide-­ranging discussion on this point has been complicated in particular because interpreters have differentiated between various kinds of angels—­with implications for the respective religio-­historical classification of the opponents.193 But in the evaluation of these statements it must always be kept in mind that the dispute is “substantively also grounded in the author’s own high regard for the angels,”194 and the accusations against the opponents are to a certain extent a reflection of the author’s theology, unique in early Christianity (and strongly influenced by the Enoch tradition). From his point of view, the opponents commit a blasphemous transgression of the divinely established order (cf. vv. 6-­7) when they “slander” (βλασφημεῖν) angelic beings. This need not, however, denote a curse; the sense of verbal defamation is entirely sufficient here.195 In the author’s view, the opponents verbally disparage the honor and dignity of “glories.” 190

Differently Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 65, who sees an aversion against angelic powers in both phrases of v. 8. 191 Thus in group-­specific texts 1QpHab IV, 2; 1QHa XVIII, 10; 4QpNah 3–­4 II, 9, and in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, which are particularly rich in terms of angelology, 4Q400 2 2 and 4Q401 14 I, 8, as well as in the Noah text 1Q19 3 3. 192 Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 57. 193 See the extensive discussions in Vögtle, Judasbrief, 51–­59; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 57–­59. 194 So Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 65. 195 Cf. BDAG s.v.: “speak irreverently of, blaspheme.”



Jude 8

97

It is first of all unlikely that Jude polemicizes against “slander” in relation to ‘fallen angels’ (that is, demonic powers)196 since these would be undeserving of veneration in the author’s view as well, and in addition, δόξα does not refer to a sinister power anywhere in Jewish and early Christian texts. Thus we can dismiss the notion that the opponents underestimated the power of evil197 or did not take the demonic powers in paganism (e.g., with regard to participation in idol feasts) seriously enough.198 A reference to gnostic “archons”199 must also be rejected as this would presuppose a gnostic-­dualistic system that was already broadly developed, which cannot yet be demonstrated for the period of Jude’s composition and probably first came into existense in the course of the second century.200

Other possibilities are more deserving of consideration; the opponents could have employed magical practices (charms, curses, etc.), and thus presented themselves as having power even over the angelic world.201 However, with the exception of the rebuke quoted from Zech 3:2 (or As. Mos.), there is no indication of such a practice by the opponents that could have then affected the addressee community as a whole, and it is doubtful that such a negative conclusion can be drawn from the positive example in v. 9. It is therefore more plausible to presume an attitude whereby they—­for whatever reason—­saw themselves as elevated above angelic beings in general, which is certainly evidenced in early Christian tradition (cf. 1 Cor 6:3; Col; Eph). This would at the same time have called into question theologoumena that the author considered to be especially fundamental.202 His own high regard for the angels as mediators of the law, which is clearly apparent from the reception of Enoch (cf. Jub. 1:27-­29; Jos., A.J. 15.136; Gal 3:19; Acts 7:38, 53; Heb 2:2), as powers of the world (cf. Gal 4:3, 9; Col 2:8), and guardians of its regulations203 could have been questioned by the 196 So, however, Sickenberger, “Engels-­oder Teufelslästerer.” The liturgical cursings of Belial and his followers attested in Qumran (1QS II, 5–­18; 4QBerakhot, among others) are also unable to justify the assumption that the opponents were former Essenes who had cursed the fallen spirits (so Szewc, “Doxai”). The example from v. 9 must not be evaluated with such a ‘mirror reading.’ 197 Werdermann, Irrlehrer, 33. 198 Barrett, “Things,” 139–­41. 199 Vielhauer, Geschichte, 591; Schmithals, Neues Testament und Gnosis, 145; Frankemölle, 1. Petrusbrief, 2. Petrusbrief, Judasbrief, 136. 200 On the inconsistency of the gnostic hypothesis, cf. in detail Vögtle, Judasbrief, 53–­54; on the question of the development of gnostic systems, see Markschies, “Gnosis/Gnostizismus”; idem, Gnosis. 201 So Grundmann, Brief, 36; Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 167. 202 Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 66: “Whoever esteems the angels in the manner of Jude must by necessity attack different, foreign thinking as heretical.” 203 This concept is first attested in the Astronomical Book, the oldest portion of Enoch

98

Jude: Commentary

opponents, which may in itself have appeared to the author as a transgression of the established boundaries, as hubris, and in its verbal form as “blasphemy.” In the interest of emphasizing the lack of piety204 manifest in such a transgression of boundaries, the author suppresses the christological or creation-­theological grounds (cf. Col 2:18) that were possibly the basis for the opponents’ skepticism regarding the faith in angels he represented, and characterized their position as impious disrespect and blasphemy, a disregard for the established order of the world, which would naturally lead to other moral failings, indeed, to the breach of all ethical barriers. Criticizing the theses of a (proto-­)gnostic or antinomian205 classification of the opponents supported in most scholarship, Vögtle has attempted a unified interpretation of the κυριο-­terminology in the context of the three allegations of v. 8. In his view, the connection of the first allegation of defiling the flesh with the two others results from the fact that the opponents—­like the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah—­initially committed sexual sins, but “instead of fearing the punishment of God, they nullify the divine power of rule (that is, the power of judgment) that is to be exercised by the Parousia-­Christ and slander the glories (that is, the angels of judgment).”206 The accusation of blaspheming the angels and the rejection of Christ’s authority are thereby closely connected with the accusation of licentiousness, on the one hand, and with the eschatological orientation of Jude on the other. In disputing the reality of the final judgment the opponents ultimately appear as “dreamers”—­that is, as false prophets.207 While this interpretation is able to logically connect the three quite different accusations of v. 8, it is only feasible if the rejection of faith in the Parousia is regarded as the core of the opponents’ false teaching, which cannot be demonstrated based on the text of Jude itself, but is rather brought in from 2 Pet.208 In addition, especially for the sexual allegations, it is likely that the author draws on polemical topoi, which do not necessarily correspond with the practices and teachings of the opponents.

In contrast to such an interpretation, it must be acknowledged that we can hardly achieve a more precise specification of the accusations from these topoi, and that at best it is possible to systematize the author’s portrait of the opponents, but not its real basis in their activity. The core of the accusations is therefore the disparagement of celestial powers, which for the author were inviolable as guarantors of the divinely established order, and whose “slander” (1 En. 72–­82), on this, see Albani, Astronomie. 204 So the literal sense of ἀσέβεια, also in the pagan world. 205 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 56–­59; Kistemaker, Peter and Jude, 384; cf. U. B. Müller, Theologiegeschichte, 25. 206 Vögtle, Judasbrief, 57. Cf. most recently also Blumenthal, Prophetie, 319–­21. 207 So Vögtle, Judasbrief, 59. 208 See the argumentation above, pp. 38–­39.



Jude 8-9

99

probably appeared to him simultaneously as a rejection of Christ’s authority and as a moral ‘breach.’ 9 This “blasphemy”—­that is, the (verbal and practical) attack on the position of heavenly entities, who participate in God’s glory—­is in the author’s view an impious crime that must be punished. Yet those who commit this crime are not subject to retaliation by the angelic powers, but solely and exclusively to punishment by the Lord. This notion is attested by a briefly inserted example drawn from Jewish apocalyptic tradition, which opens interesting tradition-­ historical perspectives, but only serves a limited function in the line of thought in Jude itself.209 This alludes to an episode that was widespread in Jewish Christianity and the early church, but is no longer extant in its original context in As. Mos.210 We have only an incomplete Latin copy, which does not contain the conclusion of the text. From later witnesses the context can be roughly reconstructed:211 against the backdrop of the tradition that Yahweh buried Moses, but that no one knows his place of burial (Deut 34:5-­6), the LXX—­in order to avoid the anthropomorphism this presents—­changes this to “they buried him” (i.e., he was buried), which Philo then associates with angelic powers as the agent (Mos. 2.291). This appears to have been the case in various traditions212 in which the devil disputes with the angel Michael over the right to the body of Moses. According to one version, in support of his claim the devil points to the fact that Moses killed and buried an Egyptian (Exod 2:12), and was thus a murderer. According to another (probably later) tradition, he claimed that as the lord of matter he could also command the body of Moses, which Bauckham probably rightly traces to later discussions surrounding Gnosticism. Some texts also attest to Michael’s answer to the devil, which takes up a scriptural quotation from the parallel biblical scene in the OT—­namely, Zech 3:2: “The Lord rebuke you!” In the end, Michael appears to claim the right to Moses’ body and to bury him at an unknown location.213 The tradition sketched here occurs in various forms in the sources, some of which are quite late.214 The oldest references are found in Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and 209

On these traditions see in detail Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 67–­76; idem, Relatives, 235–­80; on As. Mos., see Laperoussaz, “Testament”; Tromp, Assumption, esp. 270–­85 on the lost ending. 210 That the episode alluded to in Jude 9 originates here was already observed by Clement of Alexandria (GCS Clem. Alex. 3:207.24); also Origen, Princ. 3.2.1; Didym., In epistola Judae (PG 39:1825), refer to As. Mos., which they apparently knew, as a source for Jude. 211 On this, see the excursus in Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 65–­76, as well as Tromp, Assumption, 270–­85. 212 On the differentiation of the traditions, cf. alongside Bauckham’s commentary also idem, Relatives, 235–­80. 213 Cf. Tromp, Assumption, 285. This conclusion to the episode is not recounted in most witnesses to the tradition. 214 Cf. the English translation and information on the editions in Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 67–­76.

100

Jude: Commentary

Didymus the Blind.215 At the same time, the tradition corresponds with other comparable texts such as the scene of judgment in Zech 3:1-­5, where the heavenly prosecutor, “Satan,” accuses the high priest Joshua, who is the representative of Israel and stands before the “angel of YHWH” (Zech 3:1). However, it is not the “angel of YHWH” but rather YHWH (or the κύριος) who silences the accuser, and does so with the words “The Lord rebuke you, Satan! Indeed, the Lord rebuke you” (ἐπιτιμήσαι κύριος ἐν σοί). This sentence is then taken up in the (certainly later) narrative of the death of Moses, although as a statement by the archangel Michael, who opposes Satan. From there it is adopted in Jude 9. Another scene of dispute between the devil and the angel of the Lord is found in the book of Jubilees. In Jub. 17:15–­18:16 the ‘sacrifice’ or ‘binding’ of Isaac is recounted within a scene that draws on Job 1–­2 , in which Abraham’s faith is assessed in the heavenly tribunal. The accuser is “Prince Mastema” (Satan). Abraham is saved by the appearance of the angel of the presence (Jub. 18:9-­11; cf. Gen 22:11-­12), while Mastema is shamed (Jub. 18:12). This episode is then found in the rabbinic tradition, where it is said (Yalqut Rubeni 43:3): “When Isaac was bound, there was a debate between Michael and Satan. Michael brought a ram to free Isaac, but Satan wanted to keep him off so that Isaac should be sacrificed.”216 Here the angel is identified with Michael. A somewhat different tradition occurs in the text 4QVisions of Amram (4Q543–­549), an Aramaic text that probably dates back to the third century BCE and in terms of genre belongs to testamentary literature.217 Here Amram, the grandson of Levi and father of Moses, sees in a vision two figures who “rule over all the sons of Adam” quarrelling over him; one of the two is dark and terrible, rules over darkness, and is called Melki-­resha’ (“king of wickedness”). The other, whose face is friendly and rules over the realm of light, could be named Melchizedek, but unfortunately the name is not extant. However, other Qumran texts (e.g., 11QMelch) closely associate Melchizedek with the archangel Michael. This strictly dualistic tradition, which is certainly pre-­“Essene,”218 shows that the scene of Moses’ end had parallels in older narratives219 in which in a dualistic form an archangel (Michael/ Melchizedek) and an antagonist (Satan/Melki-­resha’) confront one another and debate over the right to individual human beings.220 While the choice is left to Amram in 4QVisions of Amram (4Q544 1 12: “Which of us do you choose . . . ?”), in other contexts the guilt or innocence of a person is crucial, so that the “angel of the Lord,” or Michael, then appears as an advocate for the righteous person (the high priest Joshua, Abraham, Moses) and in the name of God refutes the claims of the accuser. This connection is also present in the tradition of Moses’ fate adopted here. 215

See above, n. 210. On this, see Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 65; Chaine, Les épîtres catholiques, 311. 217 On the question of genre, see Frey, “Origins,” 359–­62. 218 On this, see Frey, “Different Patterns,” 316–­22. 219 Cf. Berger, “Streit des guten.” 220 The Palestinean Jewish texts are normally not concerned with the “soul,” but particularly the body, the corpse of Moses. 216



Jude 9-10

101

For the interpretation of Jude, the form of the tradition is less relevant than its adoption in the present context. Apparently the author was concerned with showing that even the highest of created beings, the archangel Michael, when confronting the devil “did not dare to bring a judgment of slander (κρίσις βλασφημίας)”—­that is, a judgment that would have contained a βλασφημία (namely, a verbal disparagement, accusation, or even condemnation)—­but instead humbly left him to the “rebuke,” a judicial rejection of God. The crucial point for the author is apparently “Michael’s restraint . . . and his handing over judgment to the authority of God.”221 Thus even for Michael, to pronounce his own judgment on Satan/the devil (understood here as an angelic being and member of the celestial realm) would thus have been a transgression of his sphere of authority, an insubordinate act. This example is thus intended to show that the “blaspheming” or “slandering” (βλασφημεῖν) of heavenly powers that the opponents apparently engaged in is an act of arrogance, something that not even Michael as the highest archangel presumed to do, even in a situation in which he faced his counterpart, the devil, where if such a pronouncement were ever appropriate, it would be here. Would this conduct not admonish earthly beings to abstain from indulging in judgments of the angelic powers? The contrast with Michael’s exemplary behavior highlights the folly of their actions. At the same time, the choice of this example, which is drawn from a Jewish apocalyptic text not adopted in the Hebrew or Greek canon and tellingly again deals with the world of the angels, shows where the author himself derives his standards and arguments. The adoption of the tradition from As. Mos. in v. 9 (alongside the quotation of Enoch in v. 14 and other connections with the Enoch tradition) documents the apocalyptic influence on the author and the significance and specificity of his angelological ideas. 10 With the resumption of οὗτοι from v. 8 after the contrasting example in v. 9 the polemic against the opponents continues explicitly. In this, both structurally and substantively, v. 10 still belongs to the polemical application of the three biblical examples (vv. 8-­10), which are united by the motif of βλασφημεῖν, while v. 11 then begins anew with an exclamation of woe and new biblical examples.222 The application is brought to a close with a precisely constructed223 antithetical parallelism: “What they do not know, they slander” and “what they understand by nature, by this they are destroyed.” 221

Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 68. The caesuras inserted in NA27 before v. 10 and v. 12 are too rigidly guided by the word οὗτοι. NA28 has rightly done away with them. 223 Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 169. 222

102

Jude: Commentary

The connection with v. 9 is also antithetical; whereas the archangel knew whom he confronted and nevertheless did not dare to pronounce slander, the false teachers slander entities that they do not know (ὅσα . . . οὐκ οἴδασιν βλασφημοῦσιν). Not only do they behave arrogantly, they are at the same time ignorant. This paves the way for the final polemical statement in v. 19, in which the opponents are denied the πνεῦμα and thus absolutely any spiritual capacity for judgment. Yet already here the generalizing ὅσα stretches the significance into a coarsely polemical attack; the opponents slander “everything that they do not know.” With this statement the false teachers should be fully discredited in the eyes of the addressees; at the same time, in connection with v. 5 there is a contrast with the addressees, who themselves have all (necessary) knowledge. They need not listen to the ignorant “dreamers,” they need only remember (or be reminded by the author about) the knowledge transmitted to them. The second section of the verse brings a further polemical expansion, which is not very precisely formulated and is therefore probably intended to be all the more general: “but what they understand by nature, like unreasoning animals, by this they are destroyed.” Both the adverb φυσικῶς and the comparison with “unreasoning animals” make it clear that the capability this refers to is entirely negative, one that is purely natural and instinctive, unreasoning and ‘animalistic.’ In the context of this text, one could see this as a reference to the “defilement of the flesh” that was denounced in v. 8, rendering this an accusation of an amoral way of life, which would now be compared in a harshly polemical tone with the instinctual behavior of unreasoning animals.224 It is more plausible, however, to interpret the accusation in terms of the opposition between animal nature and human (or spiritual) reason.225 The opponents’ arrogance reveals their ignorance—­they understand nothing of the angelic powers, indeed nothing of ‘spiritual’ matters at all (cf. v. 19). The accusation is polemically effective precisely in its generality. When teachers, who perhaps even regarded their teachings as legitimized by spiritual experiences, are characterized in this way, this presents the harshest conceivable disqualification of their being. Those who claim to stand above the angels are in truth below the standard of human reason, on the same level as unreasoning animals. The final clause succintly asserts the actual fate of such people: by that which they know in accordance with their nature—­just like unreasoning animals—­they are destroyed. It is once 224

Most interpreters since Clement of Alexandria (Adumbr., ad loc.) think of sexual licentiousness. This is suggested by v. 8a, but is not supported in v. 10 itself. 225 Discussion of the ἄλογα ζῷα occurs frequently when the contrast with human reason is meant to be emphasized (Wis 11:15; 4 Macc 14:14, 18; Jos., C. Ap. 2.213; A.J. 10.262). In 4 Ezra 8:29-­30 sin is compared with the behavior of animals. On this, see Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 63.



Jude 10-11

103

again unclear what this means exactly. Exegetes have been all too happy to fill this void with reference to uncontrolled impulses and thus once again sexual behavior.226 But the accusation remains generic and presents only a very general connection to the accusations of debauchery (v. 4) and defilement of the flesh (v. 8).227 The opponents are and live as φυσικοί, and v. 19 will characterize them as ψυχικοί; in their ignorance and their way of life they show no intuition for the spiritual dimension (cf. 1 Cor 2:6-­16) and by this “they will be destroyed,” as it is concisely expressed with a view to their eschatological judgment. Like the faithless people of the desert generation or the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, they bring judgment upon themselves; like the disobedient angels, the judgment of damnation is held ready for them, and at the eschaton they will be destroyed by it. With this, the first polemical line of argument against the false teachers, vv. 5-­10, comes to an end. But the text continues without a recognizable caesura in an exclamation of woe, which is followed by three further biblical examples, articulated more briefly, and their polemical application. 3. An Exclamation of Woe and the Second Series of Paradigms (v. 11) (11) Woe to them, for they have walked the path of Cain and given themselves over to the deceit of Balaam for the sake of payment and are destroyed by the insubordination of Korah!

11 The following presentation of three more biblical examples is intended to identify more precisely the seductive activity of the false teachers and to point out once again their fate as established by God. They are introduced with a rhetorically effective stylistic device, an exclamation of woe, resulting in the form of a “prophetic threat,”228 which consists of an introductory woe and a threefold explanation. This leads climactically to the third part, the proclamation of doom, followed by another polemical characterization of the opponents—­not truly an application of the biblical examples—­with οὗτοί εἰσιν. But this characterization in vv. 12-­13 is not the first clear connection to the opponents; rather, the three examples in v. 11 already clearly refer to them, as seen in the οὐαὶ αὐτοῖς, which points back to the οὗτοι from vv. 8, 10. Grammatically, too, the opponents are the subject of the three brief statements drawn from biblical examples. These examples are thus formulated with the opponents in view even more closely 226 So among others Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 43; Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 159; Grundmann, Brief, 37; Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 64. 227 Thus rightly Vögtle, Judasbrief, 62; also Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 68. 228 Knoch, Petrusbrief, 183. On the form-­historical classification and interpretation of the woe in the OT, Pseudepigrapha, and NT, see Blumenthal, Prophetie, 278–­96.

104

Jude: Commentary

than those in vv. 5-­7. However, here too we must ask precisely in what respect these examples contribute to the author’s argument or refine his image of the opponents. The introductory “woe” has many precedents in OT prophetic books (Isa 5:8, 11, 18, 20-­22; 10:1; Amos 5:7; Mic 2:1; Nah 3:1; Hab 2:9, 15) and in the NT (Matt 11:21; 18:7; 23:13, 15-­16, 23, 25, 27, 29; Luke 6:24-­2 6; 11:42-­4 4, 46-­47, 52; 22:22; Rev 8:13), as well as in the Enochic literature, above all in the so-­called Letter of Enoch (1 En. 94:6-­8; 95:4-­6; 96:4, 6-­8; 97:7-­8; 98:11-­15; 99:1-­2 , 11-­15; 100:7; 103:5). It could be used in various constructions as a proclamation of judgment and as a lament over the fate of sinners. The “woe!” is often followed by a justification in a ὅτι clause, which specifies the approaching judgment or—­as is the case here—­the type of sins as an explanation. The construction of “woe!” with a dative (“woe to them!”) is due to the fact that the author is not addressing the opponents directly, but rather proclaiming the woe about them.

‘Judas’ announces the judgment of the opponents in a prophetic style and with a prophetic claim. For this he selects three ‘prototypes’ of the opponents from biblical tradition—­namely Cain, Balaam, and Korah—­who ought to clearly reveal their sinfulness and condemnation (v. 4). The compilation could be traditional, as the three do occur in a text of the Tosefta (t. Sotah 4:9) as a group of notorious sinners, but all three are also found individually in other early Christian texts as prototypes of false teachers or opponents.229 In the woe and the selection of examples it becomes clear that the judgment of the opponents is fixed. In a performative mode of speech, the author effectively calls out: “Woe to them!” The “woe to them!” is first followed by the reference to Cain: “for they have walked upon the path of Cain.”230 In the LXX πορεύεσθαι (ἐν) τῇ ὁδῷ often denotes ethically following in a certain ‘path of life’ or lifestyle,231 and so an ethical-­moral charge could resonate here as well. However, this is not in the foreground; concrete offenses are not identified. In particular, the concern here is not the fratricide recounted in Gen 4. Cain was only able to become a 229 Cf. Cain in 1 John 3:12, 1 Clem. 4.1–­7; Balaam in Rev 2:14 and 2 Pet 2:15-­16; and Korah in 1 Clem. 51.3–­4 (cf. 2 Tim 2:19). It is noteworthy that 2 Pet 2 only adopts and expands the reference to Balaam from the present compilation, while omitting Cain and the rebellion of Korah. 230 The aorist ἐπορεύθησαν should be understood as ingressive; the opponents are now on this path. 231 Cf. LXX 3 Kgdms 15:26, 34; 16:2, 19, 26; 4 Kgdms 8:18, 27; 16:3; 2 Chr 11:17; 21:6; Ezek 23:31 (see Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 80).



Jude 11

105

paradigm for the opponents of Jude through postbiblical haggadic traditions that formed around his figure. These traditions are unmistakably presupposed here.232 In the postbiblical tradition of Judaism, Cain is regarded not only as the first killer (cf. Gen 4:8), but also as the prototypical sinner and tempter into sin (Wis 10:3; Philo, Post. 38–­39; Jos., A.J. 1.61). He is accused of envy and brotherly hatred (T. Benj. 7:5; cf. 1 John 3:11; 1 Clem. 4.7) as well as greed, selfishness, and violence (Jos., A.J. 1.60ff.; Philo, Sacr. 52; Det. 32, 78). The Targumim then depict him as a typical atheist, who—­unlike Abel—­brazenly denies judgment and justice in the next eon, rewards for the righteous and punishment for sinners, and even the existence of the judge and thus becomes the prototypical apostate and heretic.233 When this tradition began cannot be determined with certainty, but it is quite likely that the author already knows elements of this later elaboration of the image of Cain, especially since already in Philo Cain is “the model and master . . . of the egoistic, spiritually dead person lost in the material world who rebels against God.”234

As a paradigm of judgment, Cain is only somewhat suitable because the punishment imposed on him according to Gen 4:14-­15 is specifically moderated. But the three biblical paradigms in v. 11 convey a different accent than those of vv. 5-­7. While there the concern was the certainty of the judgment imposed on the opponents, here the opponents seem to correspond with the biblical prototypes in impious conduct and its seductive effect. To this end, the paradigmatic sinner and atheist Cain is cited first, followed by Balaam and Korah, figures who could rather be viewed as false teachers who tempt others into sin and rebellion. The second example in this triad is Balaam. The short note about him echoes aspects that go beyond Num 22–­24 and derive from postbiblical Jewish tradition.235 232 On Cain in the Jewish tradition, see Ginzberg, Legends, 1:105–­18; Aptowitzer, Kain und Abel; Grelot, “Targums”; Vermes, “Versions”; Bassler, “Cain and Abel”; García Martínez, “Eve’s Children”; Najman, “Cain and Abel.” 233 On this, see Vermes, “Versions,” 98: according to Tg. Yer. 1, Tg. Neof., and the Tosefta on the Targum (all on Gen 4:8) Cain says: “There is no judgment, there is no judge, there is no other world, there is no good reward for the righteous and no punishment for the wicked,” whereas Abel acknowledges all these things. 234 Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 43. 235 Cf. Ginzberg, Legends, 3:354–­82; Karpp, “Bileam,” 362–­66; Kuhn, “Βαλαάμ,” 521–­23; Vermes, “Story”; Baskin, Counsellors, 75–­114; Greene, “Balaam. Prophet, Diviner, and Priest”; idem, “Balaam as Figure and Type”; idem, Balaam and His Interpreters; Moore, Balaam Traditions; Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait of Balaam”; Rösel, “Propheten”; Heiligenthal, Henoch, 44–­51.

106

Jude: Commentary

According to the biblical account, Balaam (MT: ‫;ב ְל ָעם‬ ִ LXX: Βαλααμ) specifically refused to curse the Israelites for the reward offered by Balak (cf. Num 22:18; 24:13), and instead blessed them through the spirit of God (Num 24:2), or at Yahweh’s prompting (Num 24:3-­4, 15-­16); other OT passages, however, also speak of a curse that was at least intended or even carried out (Deut 23:5; Josh 24:9-­10; Neh 13:2), which God then turns into a blessing. Num 31:16 ultimately mentions foreign women cunningly tempting Israel into idol worship on Balaam’s advice. Following this, the image of Balaam is depicted much more negatively in postbiblical Jewish tradition than in the account of Num; he is seen as the paradigmatic instigator of licentiousness and idol worship even before the rabbinic period. Already Philo, who depicts Balaam as a diviner, characterizes him as an “impious” man (ἀσεβής, Migr. 113), who cursed Israel in his soul (Migr. 113–­114; Conf. 159), falsified the prophecy inspired by God (Mut. 203), did not, as an earth-­bound being, see the angel of God, despite his visions (Deus. 181; cf. Num 22:31), and was ultimately destroyed (Mut. 204; Deus. 183; cf. Num 31:8). As in Philo (Mos. 1.295–­301) Balaam also appears in the Liber antiquitatum biblicarum as a tempter into idol worship (18.13),236 and in rabbinic literature the brief note that he was with the kings of Midian when they were killed by the Israelites (Num 31:8) is explained such that he was there to collect his payment for the death of twenty-­four thousand Israelites caused by his tempting (b. Sanh. 106a; Num. Rab. 22:5; Sifre Num 157). Balaam is called “the blasphemer” (Tanhuma Buber ‫ בלק‬69a, 70a; m. Avot 5:19; b. Zebah. 116a), and—­unlike other non-­Jews—­he has “no share in the future world” (m. Sanh. 10:2; b. Sanh. 105–­6). His disciples are characterized by “an envious eye, a greedy mind, and an arrogant spirit; they are going to hell” (m. Avot 5:19).

This postbiblical Jewish development of the biblical image of Balaam was taken up in early Christianity; Rev 2:14 names Balaam as a prototype of temptation into licentiousness and idol worship. Of course, the virulent problem of meat sacrificed to idols at issue there (cf. 1 Cor 8-­10) is not under discussion in Jude 11. Only the two aspects of fraud (i.e., the false or seductive teaching) and greed are mentioned here.237 With regard to the profile of the opponents, this comment, which is not entirely clear syntactically, can only be used to a limited extent. It is certain that the opponents themselves follow a falsehood (πλανή) and should probably also be characterized as teachers of erroneous views—­that is, as seducers. It remains uncertain whether this can also be connected with Balaam’s blindness to the angel of God (as in Philo) or with the attribute “impious” (ἀσεβής), also used in Philo. The readers were probably meant to draw such connections on the basis of their prior knowledge, and would certainly have been aware of Balaam’s death (Num 31:8) as punishment for his crimes. 236 Interestingly, the image of Balaam in Josephus (A.J. 4.102–­158) is more positive; on this, see Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait of Balaam.” 237 Thus the parallel references to Balaam in Rev 2:14, Jude 11, and 2 Pet 2:15-­16 also do not imply a common group of opponents, as Gerdmar, Rethinking, 291–­92, tries to conclude.



Jude 11

107

In addition, the reference to payment ascribes a self-­interested attitude to the opponents, which will be expressed as a direct accusation in v. 12a. However, the accusation of self-­interest and greed is also a polemical topos, and little can be deduced from it with regard to the actual opponents. In any case, the passive form of the verb ἐκχέω makes it clear that in the author’s view the opponents have “completely given themselves over” to ‘following’ Balaam.238 The reference to Balaam therefore supports the characterization of the opponents as false prophets (v. 8a) and ignorant people (v. 10a) who are not guided by God’s spirit (v. 19) and will ultimately be destroyed due to their sinful and seductive behavior. The third biblical example draws on the figure of Korah (Κόρε), who appears in Num 16:1 as the leader of a rebellion against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness.239 ἀντιλογία is the term used in the LXX to render the place name “Meribah” (“quarrel”), which refers to the ‘grumbling’ of Israel in the desert; ὕδωρ ἀντιλογίας (LXX Num 20:13) is the water of contradiction.240 Following this the opponents are described as “quarrelers” who are destroyed in the rebellion of Korah. The complex narrative of Num 16, which is probably based on a struggle over priestly privileges in the postexilic period,241 is effective above all in the impressive closing in Num 16:32-­33, 35, according to which the rebels together with their households were swallowed by the earth and their followers destroyed by the fire of God. This event is often presented in later tradition as a cautionary example of divine judgment.242 In postbiblical Judaism, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram became paradigmatic deniers of the law.243 Their rebellion (Num 16:3) is connected with the immediately preceding command about fringes on clothing (L.A.B. 16.1; Tg. Ps.-­J. on Num 16:1-­2), and so Korah could appear in general as one who contradicts God’s commandments. In m. Sanh. 10:3 Korah serves as a paradigm for the judgment of God in this and the future world. Later rabbinic tradition even ascribes to him the heresy of Minim—­that 238 However, this does not change the fact that the concern here is with assertions about past behavior, or a demonstration of guilt. It is unjustified to understand the verbs entirely in the sense of a statement about the future (against Boobyer, “Verbs”); on the discussion, see Blumenthal, Prophetie, 294–­95. 239 Other aspects that are associated with the name and the tribe of Korah, such as important psalms (Pss 42:44-­49; 84–­85; 87–­88), or indicate the significance of this family in Israel (see Hutton, “Korah”; Wanke, Zionstheologie) are not taken into account here. 240 Cf. Deut 32:51; 33:8; Pss 80:8; 105:32. 241 According to Num 16:3-­4 Korah and his followers dispute Aaron’s priesthood, and according to 16:9-­10 they seek the priesthood themselves. The episode in Num 16 reflects the interest in disempowering the Korahites, who later appear only as doorkeepers and temple bakers, i.e., in subordinate functions (1 Chr 9:19, 31; 26:1, 19); cf. Gese, “Zur Geschichte,” 147–­58. 242 Sir 15:19; Jos., B.J. 5.566; L.A.B. 57.2; 1 Clem. 4.12; 51.4; Prot. Jas. 9.2. 243 See the collection of the haggadah in Ginzberg, Legends, 3:286–­300.

108

Jude: Commentary

is, the conception that God had only given the Decalogue, while the Torah with all the other commandments was “not from heaven.”244 The aspect of schism in the community is also connected with the rebellion of Korah and his followers (Tg. Neof. on Num 16:1; 26:9; Tg. Ps.-­J. on Num 26:9). Korah is regarded in general as an instigator of, and tempter to, disobedience against God or false teaching, and early Christian tradition adopted this.245

The examples meant to confirm the condemnation of the opponents and the woe over them are able to be drawn together in a relatively uniform message. Cain stands at the beginning as the paradigmatic sinner and—­probably already—­as a denier of God and God’s righteousness. With Balaam, the aspect of deception and temptation is clearer. And Korah, with whom the aspect of opposition against God’s commandments stands out, is probably placed at the end because in this example the element of punishment is particularly significant. This punishment, which in the case of Korah and his followers is of course not withheld until the eschaton but takes place immediately and is narrated vividly in Num 16:31-­35, is emphasized by the final position of the verb ἀπώλοντο.246 This second series of paradigms, therefore, like those of vv. 5-­7, also serves to underscore the condemnation of the false teachers that is prefigured in Scripture, although the paradigms here serve more strongly to characterize the opponents as sinners and seducers. The aspect of temptation or of false teaching is expressed even more strongly and independently in the polemical application in vv. 12-­13. 4. The Polemical Application of These Paradigms (vv. 12-­13) (12) These are the ones who feast together with you as dangerous crags at your love feasts and graze themselves without fear—­waterless clouds driven astray by the winds, autumnal, fruitless, twice dead, uprooted trees, (13) wild waves of the sea foaming up their own shameful deeds, wandering stars for whom the gloom of darkness for eternity has been preserved.

12 In vv. 12-­13 there now follows once again a direct reference to the opponents, which is distinguished from v. 11 by the demonstrative οὗτοι as well as a peculiar metaphorical linguistic form.247 The series of metaphorical characterizations 244

Thus a haggadah in the Palestinean Talmud (y. Sanh. 10:27d–­28a). See further references in Vermes, “Decalogue,” 172–­73; see Ginzberg, Legends, 6:100–­101n566. 245 This is seen in the quotation from Num 16:5 in 2 Tim 2:19. Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 83: “The allusive character of the reference . . . suggests a well-­established tradition.” 246 Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 84, who points out that the ‘actual’ sequence ought to be ‘Cain–­Korah–­Balaam.’ 247 On metaphor in Jude, see Frey, “Retter,” 133–­34; Magaß, “Semiotik”; on vv. 12-­13, see especially Osburn, “1 Enoch 80:2-­8.”



Jude 11-13

109

also aims at the proclamation of judgment, the eternal darkness (vv. 13-­14), for the opponents. The text of v. 12 presents a few problems, but the reading ἀπάταις is clearly influenced by 2 Pet 2:13,248 and the reference here is to ἀγάπαι, love or community feasts. Further conjectures249 are unnecessary, and even the difficult σπιλάδες (“cliffs”) can be understood metaphorically in the context.

First of all, the polemical attack contains one of the few indications in this text from which something can be gathered regarding the situation in the addressee communities: the mention of “agape feasts”—­that is, meals, at which the opponents “feast together.” They apparently participate in the life of the communities, including in their feasts, which was likely a matter of course for them, but for the author, who sees them as impious and disputes their membership in the community, it appears as an act of shamelessness that leaves them all the more liable to judgment. Historically, this note indicates that apparently there was not yet a separation between the addressees who are preserved by Jesus Christ (v. 1) and the opponents.250 Rather, the author appears to want to bring about such a separation with his writing when he exhorts the addressees to contend for the faith. The community feasts are denoted here (for the first time in early Christianity and uniquely in the NT) with the term ἀγάπη,251 and are thus characterized as a celebration of the love of God experienced in Christ252 as well as an expression of the loving fellowship of the community. This is also an indication of the social dimension of the community meals, in which the wealthy contributed from their fortune so that the poorer could eat their fill.253 The history of early Christian feasts can only be reconstructed very hypothetically, since sources are largely lacking for the early period, and there were likely differences 248 This reading makes it possible to be rid of the notion of the heretics’ participation in the communal meals, which also aggravated later copyists (against Kilpatrick, “Love-­Feast,” 162, who argued for the originality of ἀπάταις in Jude and 2 Pet). 249 Against Whallon, “Should We Keep.” 250 The situation is thus significantly different from that of the first letter of John (1 John 2:18ff.), where the secession of the false teachers must have already happened. 251 On the term ἀγάπη, cf. further Ep. Apos. 15; Acts Paul Thec. 25; Clem. Alex., Paed. 2.1.4; Strom. 3.2.10; Tert., Apol. 39; Jejun. 17; Minucius Felix, Oct. 31; see also the depiction of Christian meals in Pliny, Ep. 10.96.7. The oldest formula for the agape feasts is found in the church order of Hippolytus (Trad. ap. 47). 252 Cf. the use of ἀγάπη in Jude 2, 21 and the designation of the addressees as ἠγαπημένοι in v. 1, which clearly shows the origin of love in God’s action. 253 This is already clear in the oldest literary witness to a celebration of the Eucharist (1 Cor 11:17-­34), on this, see Theissen, “Soziale Integration.”

110

Jude: Commentary

between various communities or even regions.254 It is probable that the earliest feasts we can reconstruct consisted of a regular meal connected with a celebration of the Eucharist (cf. 1 Cor 11:17-­34; Acts 2:46; 20:7-­11). The latter was then gradually distinguished from the former in the second century, so that “agape” only denoted the regular meal (cf. Justin, 1 Apol. 67). However, since Ignatius still uses the term ἀγάπη to include the Eucharist (Ign. Smyrn. 8.2; cf. also Ep. Apos. 15), this cannot be ruled out for the usage in Jude.255 But precisely in this point there can be no certainty, since the short text is silent on the matter and there are no indications of eucharistic activity.

How should the meals in the addressee communities be characterized? The use of συνευωχεῖσθαι, which is also employed for regular meals by Philo (Spec. 4.119), Josephus (A.J. 1.92), and Clement of Alexandria (Paed. 2.2.25.1; 2.7.60.1),256 makes this element relatively certain. In addition, the intensive use of Scripture in Jude suggests that the addressees were familiar with it—­that is, that the community assemblies, which were likely held on a regular basis, probably weekly, also included a verbal portion with scriptural interpretation and teaching, and were thus “assemblies of meals and words.”257 In addition, v. 20 shows that ‘pneumatic’ phenomena such as prayer inspired by the spirit or prophetic-­inspired verbal contributions (cf. 1 Cor 14) must have been known and probably also had a place in the community assembly. It remains unclear whether the high regard for the angels, which the opponents criticized, was expressed in this context as worship.258 It can be established that in the addressee communities of Jude, “as in the Pauline congregations, the meal and the verbal portion constituted a single unit.”259 The more detailed form of the service, its sequence, specific office holders, or even a possible interpretation of the eating and drinking remains unclear, and therefore it cannot be determined whether the form of the meal can be called ‘eucharistic’ or even ‘sacramental.’260 In any case, the designation “agapes” here does not denote a meal that is to be differentiated from the ‘eucharistic’ celebration, but rather refers in substance to the 254

Cf. foundational discussions in Lietzmann, Messe und Herrenmahl; Kollmann, Ursprung; Wick, Gottesdienste; Schröter, Abendmahl; Stein, Mahlfeiern, there 214–­39 on Jude. 255 So Horrell, Epistles, 124; Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 68–­69. 256 See the references in Stein, Mahlfeiern, 217; and there further references for the use of the unprefixed εὐωχεῖσθαι. 257 Stein, Mahlfeiern, 216–­17. 258 So Stein, Mahlfeiern, 218–­19, with reference to T. Job 48:2-­3. 259 Stein, Mahlfeiern, 220. 260 There is no evidence in this context of a commemoration of Jesus’ death in this short letter, but no negative conclusion can be drawn from this silence. On the terminological problematic, see Kollmann, Ursprung, 133–­34, 149.



Jude 12

111

ideal of love, which ought to define the gathering of the community (cf. 1 Cor 13) and its life as a whole.261 The author’s criticism is not directed at a false understanding of the Eucharist or a specific dietary conflict, such as the introduction of ‘false’ meals that were unacceptable to Jewish Christians,262 inasmuch as the opponents were more likely Gentile Christians.263 Also, unlike in 1 Cor 11, there is no specific misconduct being denounced, such as holding an excessive meal or separating into their own group; rather, the problem is precisely the opposite—­namely, the opponents’ indiscriminate “eating together” with others, their presence and participation in the community assembly, not only at the meal but of course at the following gathering, which in the author’s conviction necessarily poses a danger for the faith of the other community members. This is understandable if they spread their divergent views in this very context, possibly even in ‘prophetic’ statements during worship,264 so that the difference in faith and the dangerously destructive power of their attitude must have emerged here. It is possible that their criticism of veneration of the angels could be understood as a “disruption of pneumatic inspiration,”265 and it must, in any case, have appeared as an arrogant and presumptuous attitude, which also threatened to ‘infect’ other community members and thereby destroy the existing tradition and practice of faith in the community. The author thus saw the apparently still existent worship community as deeply disturbed, so that he felt compelled (v. 3) to radically dissociate the opponents and resorted to the rhetorical tool of polarization to a degree nearly unparalleled elsewhere in the NT. First, the opponents’ “eating together” is denounced as illegitimate and parasitic by the use of the rare verb συνευωχεῖσθαι with the sense “feast,” “enjoy a banquet.”266 This need not indicate a particularly intemperate manner of dining 261 If, as Stein, Mahlfeiern, 222–­28, 237, speculates, the reference to their meals as agapes situates the communities of Jude within the spectrum of influence of Pauline theology (cf. 1 Cor 13), then one could cautiously envision a eucharistic behavior (transmitted in the Pauline tradition) here as well. 262 The question of meat sacrificed to idols, which is highly relevent, e.g., in Rev (and there connected in Rev 2:14 with the ‘teaching of Balaam’), must not be imposed on the text here. Cf. Stein, Mahlfeiern, 231; against Bigg, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 335; Wick, Gottesdienste, 357. 263 So Stein, Mahlfeiern, 231: “because of their origin in pagan mainstream society” they were “unfamiliar with the specifically Jewish practice of piety in angel veneration.” 264 Thus one can probably speak of a ‘prophetic’ claim by the opponents, but only insofar as communication during worship services as a whole was understood as an event determined by the spirit and thus ‘prophetic.’ 265 So Stein, Mahlfeiern, 230. 266 Vögtle, Judasbrief, 67.

112

Jude: Commentary

(which would then potentially implicate the entire community). The concern here is rather that they participate in something they are not entitled to, from which they have already separated themselves inwardly by their faithlessness and perhaps also by their actions. Through their presence and their conduct the opponents act selfishly (as the phrase ἑαυτοὺς ποιμαίνοντες, “grazing themselves,” then underscores) and in so doing endanger other community members. In this context, the understanding of σπιλάδες is especially difficult.267 Many commentators and translators understand σπιλάς in the same sense as σπίλος, as “stain, wrinkle” (Eph 5:27; 2 Pet 2:13) and then on analogy to 2 Pet (σπίλοι) see the opponents as σπιλάδες, “stains.”268 This understanding is supported by the use of the verb σπιλοῦν in v. 23 as well as the reception of this metaphor in 2 Pet 2:13. Yet this sense of σπιλάς, which perhaps only emerged due to confusion with σπίλος, is extremely rare and aside from the lexicon of Hesychius269 is only attested in a single nonreligious text from the fourth century CE.270 By contrast, σπιλάς normally denotes a cliff or reef, which in a dangerous position on the coast can cause shipwreck.271 The usage of such a metaphor after v. 11 is not obvious; it is rather audacious and requires some effort from the audience, although the danger of shipwreck was ever present in the ancient Mediterranean world (cf. simply Paul in 2 Cor 11:25 and Acts 27:39-­41),272 and in the context of metaphorical language, which clearly emerges in vv. 12b-­13, this creates a sensible meaning:273 the false teachers—­especially when they participate in the community assemblies—­are dangerous cliffs, insofar as an encounter with them can bring about a shipwreck in faith. This, in turn, means that distancing oneself from them in a complete physical separation is absolutely necessary to avoid dangerous encounters. Thus since the ‘normal’ sense of the word does not produce an entirely nonsensical statement, this meaning is preferable to the rendering as “stains.”274

The presence of false teachers in the community assemblies thus represents a hidden danger in the eyes of the author, which—­like a reef hidden 267 See the thorough list in Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 85–­86; further, the discussion in Reese, Writing Jude, 112–­14. 268 Thus already the Vulgate (maculae); see, e.g., Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 44; Knoch, Petrusbrief, 180; Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 69. 269 There, however, with a passive sense: μεμιασμένοι (“defiled”). 270 Pseudo-­Orpheus, Lithica 614; cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 85; Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 71. 271 BA, 1522–­23; Spicq, Notes, 2:809–­11. 272 On this, see Börstinghaus, Sturmfahrt. 273 Cf. deSilva, “Jude,” 213. 274 Thus rightly Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 85; also Vögtle, Judasbrief, 67. The author’s good Greek does not require the assumption that σπιλάς in v. 12 and σπιλοῦν in v. 23 are to be intepreted in conjunction with one another.



Jude 12

113

underwater—­could be a detriment, a spiritual shipwreck, to other community members who come into contact with these people,275 because they—­like Cain, Balaam, and Korah—­not only harbor their own misguided beliefs, but also lead others astray into their false faith or faithlessness, and thus to their doom. It is not entirely clear what the adverb ἀφόβως (“without fear”) modifies. The majority of commentators and translators connect it with συνευωχούμενοι, but unlike in 1 Cor 11:27-­29, the aspect of the ‘distinction’ of the Lord’s supper from a ‘normal’ meal or an impending judgment in the case of an ‘unworthy’ enjoyment is not in view here.276 A consistent word order results if the participle is in the final position in both phrases. This also supports the suggestion that the adverb ἀφόβως modifies the following ἑαυτοὺς ποιμαίνοντες.277

The second accusation against the opponents is thus that they “fearlessly graze themselves.” This loosely echoes the shepherd imagery of Ezek 34:2, 8, which around the end of the first century was already a widespread image for leadership of the church.278 However, there is nothing to indicate a conflict over church offices or leadership roles.279 At best it could be concluded that the opponents themselves occupied leadership roles and served as role models in the community, and now abused these positions for self-­interested purposes. Yet such a conclusion must remain uncertain; the metaphor applies generally to the role of the opponents, and the negative formulation in Ezek 34:2-­3 being drawn on here only allows the conclusion that, in the author’s view, the opponents did not serve the salvation of the community with their teaching, but on the contrary were primarily concerned with their own well-­being. Thus the accusation of selfishness that already resonated in the comment about Balaam in v. 11 is repeated here. The opponents secure a comfortable life for themselves, 275

The metaphor of the shipwreck is also taken up in other early Christian texts (cf. 1 Tim 1:19 and Barn. 3.6), and so it can be expected that the implications of the image were understood. 276 An awe with regard to the special meal is not in view here; at most, a fearful awe of the reality of divine judgment and of the sovereignty of the Kyrios, which the opponents disregard, would be fitting. 277 Bigg, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 335; Schrage, “Zweite Petrusbrief,” 323; Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 271; Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 171, 173n4; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 67. 278 Cf. Acts 20:28; Eph 4:11; 1 Pet 5:2; John 21:16 and Ign. Phld. 2.1; Ign. Rom. 9.1. On the history of shepherd imagery in early Christianity, see U. Heckel, Hirtenamt, 43–­107. 279 Against Bigg, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 335, who thinks of insubordination toward community leaders and eating meat sacrificed to idols (which is probably drawn from Rev 2:14). Especially if κυριότητα . . . ἀθετοῦσιν in v. 8 is to be taken in reference to Christ or the angels, and not human authorities, an internal ‘conflict with authority’ cannot be postulated.

114

Jude: Commentary

potentially eat at the community’s expense, and through false teaching expose the community to the danger of spiritual shipwreck. In this way they bring about doom not only for themselves, but for others as well. These relatively concrete allegations are followed by four linguistically skillful metaphorical characterizations of the opponents, which represent the entirety of the created world as four parts280 in reference to the four elements air, earth, water, and fire,281 or the four regions of sky, earth, air, and sea.282 The terms draw loosely on biblical formulations, but seem to have even clearer parallels in the Enoch tradition. In the Astronomical Book (1 En. 72–­82) and then in the Book of the Watchers (1 En. 1–­36), there is the underlying conviction that the created world follows the divine order (1 En. 2:1–­5:4), but that this will crumble “in the days of sinners” (1 En. 80:2),283 which then leads to cosmic changes. In a series of these motifs of eschatological phenomena (1 En. 80:2, 3, 6), three of the four images from Jude 12-­13 occur (lack of rain, lack of fruit, and alteration in the path of the stars), in even the same sequence.284 Other phenomena mentioned in the same series, however, are disregarded here. It is likely that the author was inspired by such a sequence, but only selectively adopted it and expanded it with a fourth image (the foaming waves). The suggestion by C. D. Osburn that this image is also drawn from the Enoch tradition, insofar as 1 En. 67:5 describes the place of punishment for the fallen angels as a ravine with raging waters,285 is implausible. The passage in question is found in an entirely different section of Enoch—­namely, in the Similitudes, whose connection with the Astronomical Book in the first century CE is not certain—­and also contains thematic connections with 1 En. 80.286 More likely is Bauckham’s suggestion that the author also viewed the images in 1 En. 80 through the lense of 1 En. 2:1–­5:4—­that is, the passage immediately following the prophecy of judgment in 1 En. 1:9-­10, quoted in Jude 14. Here we find the images of raining clouds (1 En. 2:3), fruit-­bearing trees (1 En. 5:1), the seas that fulfill their duties (1 En. 5:4), and the heavenly lights that follow their laws and do not alter their paths (1 En. 2:1). They all bear witness to God’s cosmic regulations and thus stand in contrast to the conditions “in the days of sinners”—­that is, the 280

Cf. Ezek 1:5, 18; 7:2; 37:9; Rev 4:6-­8; 7:1. So already Bengel, Gnomon, ad loc. 282 So Bauckham, Relatives, 191. 283 On the concept of order and the cosmic consequences of sin in the Astronomical Book of Enoch (1 En. 72–­82), see Albani, Astronomie, 99ff. 284 Cf. Osburn, “1 Enoch 80:2-­8 ”; Bauckham, Relatives, 192ff. 285 So Osburn, “1 Enoch 80:2-­8.” 286 Bauckham, Relatives, 199n45. 281



Jude 12

115

eschaton—­in which the crumbling of this order or the corruption of the world will be visible (1 En. 80:2),287 and which are now associated with the work of the opponents.

A simple adoption of the given material cannot be suggested here. As in vv. 5-­7 and 11, the author has independently adapted traditional elements and with considerable linguistic skill created a framework that serves his argumentative purpose.288 This linguistic skill can be seen in the rare vocabulary as well as the arrangement, in which four different fields of imagery are strung together densely, whereby all four phrases effectively characterize the opponents as false teachers and thus deepen the biblical paradigms of v. 11 and the polemical statements of v. 12a. In this, the connection with the Enoch material shows that the opponents are consistently seen against the backdrop of apocalyptic and above all Enochic statements about apostasy or impiety in the eschaton. Thus despite their particular poetic form vv. 12b-­13 are anything but an extraneous element in the argumentation of Jude. The first metaphor touches upon the sphere of the air: the opponents are called “waterless clouds” (νεφέλαι ἄνυδροι), “driven astray by the winds.” This echoes phrases from Prov 25:14 (“clouds . . . without rain”)289 and Wis 5:14 (“scattered/blown by the wind”) as well as 1 En. 80:2.290 But unlike in vv. 5-­7, 11 or v. 14, this is not a typological or prophetic application of biblical circumstances, and no great significance should be ascribed to this resonance. Rather, the text adopts an image from nature that is immediately understandable in a coastal region—­clouds come in from the sea, yet initially they bring no rain, but are driven along by the wind before precipitating at some point. This image expresses the deceptive nature of the opponents, who promise something they cannot give291 since their teaching is based on deceit (v. 11) and ignorance (v. 10). 287

Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 90–­91; cf. idem, Relatives, 191–­94 (with the observation that 1 En. 2:1–­5:4 is associated with 80:2-­7 already in 1 En. 101:1-­3). 288 Bauckham, Relatives, 190: “The four metaphors from nature . . . constitute a highly skilful composition.” 289 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 87, wants to see the Hebrew text in the background here; it alone articulates the element “without rain,” but on the other hand the plural ἀνεμοί occurs only in the LXX of Prov 25:14, not in Wis 5:14. The allusions to Scripture are so free that the author’s specific Vorlage cannot be determined. 290 1 En. 80:2 (some MSS): “And the rain will be held back, and the heavens will hold (it) fast” (trans. following Uhlig, Henochbuch, 664). 291 It is questionable whether further facets can be read from this image, such as the aspect of instability or of conforming with the current opinions and wishes of people (so Knoch, Petrusbrief, 185). παραφερόμεναι does not denote “being driven hither and thither” (against Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 69), but rather only being swept along by a current of air or water, the clouds being driven forward.

116

Jude: Commentary

The second metaphor applies to the sphere of the earth. The false teachers are addressed in an ornate sequence as “autumal, fruitless, twice dead, uprooted trees.” The image of the barren tree292 is likewise a conventional, easily understood metaphor in which the deceptive character of the false teachers is expressed. The fruits that they promise do not grow.293 With the hyperbolic δὶς ἀποθανόντα (“twice dead”) the author goes beyond the sphere of the image; the false teachers are beyond salvation and irreversibly dead, torn up root and branch.294 13 The third metaphor draws on the sphere of water: the opponents are “wild waves of the sea, foaming up their own shameless deeds.”295 This could allude to Isa 57:20, where the impious are compared with the relentlessly surging sea, although the notion that the waters toss up mire and mud occurs only in the Masoretic Text, not in the LXX.296 However, no argument can be made for the use of the Hebrew text here, since the language of this metaphor is also relatively freely formed and its meaning is immediately clear. As the foaming sea washes up what is hidden within it, so too does that which the opponents bring forth reveal what lies within them; this discharge is “shameful” and abhorrent—­without being identified in any detail. Thus with the phrase ἐπαφρίζοντα τὰς ἑαυτῶν αἰσχύνας the author achieves a moral disqualification of his opponents that is highly effective in its vividness. The closing metaphor touches upon the sphere of the sky and takes up a familiar image from ancient astronomy: the false teachers are wandering stars (ἀστέρες πλανῆται)—­that is, they are compared to the planets, whose elliptical orbits were perceived in the ancient world as irregular and which, according to 292 Cf. the imagery of trees and fruits, widely attested in biblical texts (Ps 1:3; Jer 17:6; Wis 4:3-­5; Sir 6:3) as well as in the Gospels (Matt 3:10 par. Luke 3:9; Matt 7:17-­19 and [of the fig tree] Luke 13:6). The metaphor of the fig tree also occurs in Jas (3:12). On the connection with false teachers or false prophets, see Matt 7:17-­29; Matt 12:33 par. Luke 6:43-­45. 293 It is not important here whether one understands “autumnal” in the sense that the trees are bare after the harvest season, or whether it should be taken in reference to the harvest season, when fruit would actually be expected (see Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 87–­88). This latter aspect is suggested by 1 En. 80:3. 294 The metaphor of felled or uprooted trees or branches is likewise conventional: cf. Wis 4:4; Matt 3:10 par. Luke 3:9; Matt 7:19; John 15:2-­6. If the δίς could be interpreted in the context of the discussion of a “second” death attested in Rev 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8, then this phrase would clearly refer to the eschatological ruin that is already established for the opponents. 295 Against Wasserman, Jude, 291–­94, who argues that ἀπαφρίζοντα should be read here instead of ἐπαφρίζοντα, against the ECM. 296 Cf. Bauckham, Relatives, 198–­99, who points out that Isa 57:19-­21 could also have been received through the exegetical lens of Enoch (1 En. 1:8-­9; 5:4).



Jude 12-13

117

the explanation of the Enoch tradition, are a sign that the order of the cosmos is crumbling “in the days of sinners” (1 En. 80:6; 82:6).297 With reference to the false teachers, this image is also immediately illuminating—­stars that deviate from their path are the model for teachers who wander on erroneous paths and thereby mislead others. The final clause then brings the sentence to a close in an unambiguous proclamation of judgment: “for whom the gloom of darkness has been preserved for eternity.” This statement is probably inspired by other passages of the Enoch tradition, according to which stars (which for their part represent the fallen Watchers) are thrown into the darkness of the abyss and held captive there (1 En. 18:15-­16; 88:1; cf. 10:4-­5).298 There is thus a close parallel with the statement about the Watchers in v. 6, who are preserved (τηρεῖν) by God “with eternal fetters under darkness” for the judgment, while now the deepest darkness is in turn “preserved for eternity” for the wandering stars—­that is, the false teachers. With this closing to the series of ‘cosmic’ metaphors, which once again takes up the Watcher paradigm of v. 6, the profound condemnation of the false teachers becomes clear. In the older Enoch tradition the darkness is only a temporary fate for the fallen angels, who will ultimately be thrown into the fire at the final judgment (1 En. 90:24; cf. 10:6, 13; 21:7ff.), and this idea is presupposed in v. 6 with respect to the Watchers. On the other hand, Jewish tradition also contains the notion of eternal darkness as the final doom of the impious (Tob 14:10; 1 En. 46:6; 63:6; Pss. Sol. 14:9; 15:10), and the two concepts are occasionally associated with one another (1 En. 103:8; 108:14; 2 En. 10:2; Sib. Or. 4.43; 1QS II, 8; IV, 14).299 The latter is probably also presumed here. The Enoch material is adopted in an independent manner here as well.

The four nature metaphors in vv. 12b-­13 bring the second polemical section, which began in v. 11 with the woe and the three biblical examples, to an effective close. In contrast to vv. 5-­10, this section is more focused on the seductive influence of opponents, who as false teachers lead the communities to shipwreck (v. 10a) and to their doom, but the announcement of the judgment ‘preserved’ for them is found once again at the end. While the biblical examples apply the fate of the atheist Cain, the seducer Balaam, and the rebel Korah to the opponents in a very abbreviated manner, with the message that they perish due to their 297

π λανῆται also takes up the word used for error or deceit in v. 11 in connection with Balaam. 298 Cf. Theoph., Autol. 2.15: The planets are “an image of those who have withdrawn from God and abandoned [God’s] law and commands.” 299 Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 90. “Unlike the true Christian teachers who are to shine like the stars in heaven (Dan 12:3), the misleading light of the false teachers will be extinguished in darkness for ever.”

118

Jude: Commentary

actions, vv. 12-­13 with their dense imagery point more strongly toward the activity of the opponents in the community and ultimately aim at their general moral disqualification. Here the various images are not brought together in a coherent pictorial world, but their polemical effectiveness is achieved through the dense juxtaposition of the attributes. The rhetoric of the woe in connection with the brief visual biblical images, as well as the sequence of striking metaphors from nature, demonstrate how well Jude is able to employ elements of visual rhetoric.300 In the free adaptation of the statements from Enoch about the eschatological reversal of the cosmic order, which is especially clear in the final image of the wandering stars, the activities of the false teachers are placed within the eschatological framework, which will be further strengthened in the prophecy of judgment from Enoch (vv. 14-­15) and the prophecy of the apostles cited later (v. 18). 5. Enoch’s Prophecy of Judgment (vv. 14-­15) (14) But the seventh after Adam, Enoch, also prophesied for them, saying: “See the lord comes with his holy myriads, (15) to make a judgment concerning everyone and to convict all impious people concerning all the works of impiety in which they have been impious and concerning all the hardnesses that impious sinners have spoken against him.”

The threat of judgment, already expressed in v. 4 and intensified in vv. 11-­13, is now further increased in a third section by the verbatim quotation of Enoch’s prophecy of judgment, which is the only quotation in the entire letter. This consitutes the culmination of the section of Jude that announces the judgment of the impious (vv. 5-­16) “written down long ago” (v. 4) by drawing on Scripture. While previously only paradigms of the divine judgment of the false teachers were cited with a typological reference to the opponents, here the threat of punishment is sounded in literal language—­namely, as an announcement of the Parousia of the Kyrios, the exalted Christ, whose coming will bring judgment for the opponents. 14 Unlike the previous paradigms, this last reference to the judgment recorded in Scripture begins with a direct attack on the false teachers; to them (τούτοις) applies the prophecy that is now cited from Enoch. In contrast to the paradigms mentioned only briefly in vv. 5-­7 and 11, this is not only quoted verbatim, its introduction is also solemnly expansive; through the verb προεφήτευσεν (“prophesied”) what is quoted in the following is qualified as an inspired statement spoken with a view to the future (1 En. 1:2), a statement aimed at the eschatological present (cf. vv. 17-­18) of the author and his addressees, and thus applies directly to the opponents who are labeled as “impious.” In addition, not 300

On this, see also Webb, “Function,” 129–­34.



Jude 13-15

119

only is the name of this prophet given, but also his special position in biblical salvation history is mentioned—­Enoch is “the seventh after Adam.”301 With this the author takes up an expression from 1 En. 60:8, although the detail could be derived from Gen 5:4ff. The emphasis on the number seven also appears to substantiate the special authority of Enoch’s prophecy.302 Excursus: The book of Enoch and its dissemination The book of Enoch, extant in its entirety only in the Ethiopic translation (and thus known as the Ethiopic Apocalypse),303 came into existence in a complex development of tradition304 from early beginnings in the Astronomical Book305 (1 En. 72–­82; likely fourth century BCE) and the Book of the Watchers (1 En. 1–­36; third century BCE). It takes as its starting point the figure of the ‘antediluvian’ patriarch named in Gen 5:21-­24 who, because he was pious, is said to have been ‘taken’ to God, and already because of his biblical age of 365 years was associated with astronomical or calendrical wisdom and cosmic geography, achieving significance as a heavenly scribe and visionary of the heavenly world and the eschaton. Without always being able to clarify which form of a text or book can be presupposed, the Enoch traditions were already received in the second century BCE in Sirach (Sir 44:16; 49:14) and Pseudo-­Eupolemos.306 Jubilees draws intensively on the authority of Enoch, and the library of Qumran attests to all portions of 1 En. except the Similitudes (1 En. 37–­71),307 as well as to the 301 Enoch’s position as the seventh is also emphasized in 1 En. 93:3 = 4QEng 1 III, 23–­24; Jub. 7:39; Lev. Rab. 29:11; Philo, Post. 173. The agreement with 1 En. 60:8 shows that the author probably also knew the Similitudes of Enoch, 1 En. 37–­71 (cf. VanderKam, “Enochic Motifs,” 36), which are unattested in Qumran and thus form the latest section of 1 En. On the dating, see now Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 2:58-­63. 302 In Mesopotamian parallels and in Berossus, a journey to heaven and a special cosmic position are ascribed to others who are seventh, cf. Kvanvig, Roots, 232. The Enoch tradition, based on its oldest core, the Astronomical Book (1 En. 72–­82), respresents a chronological organization oriented around the number seven (on the theological implications, see Albani, Astronomie). 303 Cf. the German translation by Uhlig, Henochbuch, as well as the thorough commentary of Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, or Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2; Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–­108. 304 On this, see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 1:25–­26; in detail VanderKam, Growth. 305 On this, see Albani, Astronomie, and now Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2. 306 Cf. Walter, Fragmente, 137–­43. In Pseudo-­Eupolemus Enoch is regarded as the inventor of astrology. 307 See Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 1:9–­12; see the edition in Milik, Books; on the significance of the Qumran discoveries for dating the Book of the Watchers and for the question of the beginnings of apocalypticism, see Frey, “Bedeutung,” 26–­29, 50–­51.

120

Jude: Commentary

Book of Giants.308 Reception in the Wisdom of Solomon309 and in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs310 as well as the composition of the second Slavonic Apocalypse311 (2 En., only transmitted in its entirety in Church Slavonic) attest to the spread of the Enoch tradition in the Jewish Diaspora. However, only small portions of the Ethiopic Apocalypse are also extant in Greek, and beyond the only extensive Greek manuscript, the Codex Panopolitanus (Akhmim Codex) from the late sixth century, we have only small papyrus fragments and quotations in the chronography of Georgios Synkellos,312 as well as Latin and Syriac quotations and a Coptic fragment. The Book of Giants is found later in Manichaeism.313 This all demonstrates the spread of Enoch traditions in Greek-­speaking Judaism and thus also explains its influence in early Christian tradition. References to Enoch were fostered in early Christianity particularly because the Similitudes (1 En. 37–­71) speak of the ‘Son of Man’ as a messianic figure exalted to heavenly glory and entrusted with the eschatological judgment, which was able to be read in the sense that Enoch had spoken “about the Lord.”314 In addition, the myth of the fall of the Watchers (1 En. 6–­16) and Enoch’s journey to heaven (1 En. 17–­36) with information about the heavenly world, the heavenly temple (1 En. 14), angels, places of punishment, and paradise, as well as astronomical, chronological, and above all eschatological teachings, were able to be used in many ways, and the figure of Enoch as being ‘taken up’ by God (Gen 5:24) and as a sage with knowledge of the heavenly world gave rise to speculative continuation of the story.315 Beyond Jude, Enoch appears in Heb 11:5 as a model of faith (for which reason he was taken up to God); he is also able to be regarded as admonishing repentance in a typological adoption of the age of the flood (cf. Luke 17:27-­28).316 Outside the NT, the book of Enoch is received in 308 Stuckenbruck, Giants; idem, “Book of Enoch,” 12, gives a list of further texts attested in Qumran that indicate an influence of the early Enoch tradition: thus in Aramaic, the Aramaic Levi Document, the Testament of Qahat (4Q542), the pseudo-­Daniel texts, the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen), the Words of Michael (4Q529), as well as, from the Hebrew texts, the Pesher on the Periods (4Q180–­181), the Pesher on the Apocalypse of Weeks (4Q247), the Exhortation on the Flood (4Q370), the Songs of the Sage (4Q510–­511), and 11QApocryphal Psalms. This impressive list shows the broad influence of Enochic traditions in ancient (Palestinian) Judaism. 309 Cf. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 1:78-­79. 310 On this, cautiously, Stuckenbruck, “Book of Enoch,” 16. 311 See the translation in Böttrich, Henochbuch. The dissemination of the book is now attested by the discovery of a Coptic text of 2 En.; see Hagen, “No Longer ‘Slavonic’ Only.” 312 On this, see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 1:12-­14; Berger, “Henoch,” 477–­78. Cf. the Greek text in Black, “Apocalypsis,” 419–­22. On the date of the Akhmim Codex, see van Minnen, “The Greek Apocalpyse of Peter,” 23–­24. 313 Henning, “Henochbuch.” 314 So Tert., Cult. fem. 1.3; cf. VanderKam, “Enochic Motifs,” 51–­52. 315 On this, see VanderKam, “Enochic Motifs,” 88–­97; cf. also idem, Enoch. 316 On this, see Berger, “Henoch,” 530. On the reception of Enochic motifs in other NT texts, see Stuckenbruck, “Book of Enoch,” 15–­16, and particularly on Rev, Stuckenbruck and Mathews, “Apocalypse.”



Jude 14

121

1 Clem. 19–­20317 and cited as “scripture” only a little later in Barn. (4.3; 16.5); Justin, who is familiar with Enoch material (2 Apol. 5.2), refers to him as an uncircumcised righteous man (Dial. 19:3), and Irenaeus names him as an example for the righteous, who without law and circumcision pleased God (Haer. 4.16.2), and as a witness for the resurrection (5.5.1).318 Not least, Tertullian argues for the authority of the book of Enoch by referring to the quotation in Jude 14, although he is aware that it is contentious (Cult. fem. 1.1–­3). Since the book was no longer satisfactory for developing dogmatic views (above all in Christology), it was suppressed in the context of the imperial church beginning in the third or fourth centuries; Jerome (Vir. ill. 4) calls it “apocryphal,” and Augustine, who knew Enoch traditions from his Manichaean period, clearly expressed that the book did contain some truth, but could not claim canonical authority (Civ. 15.23). The transmission of this material was thus interrupted in the imperial church tradition, so that the complete texts are no longer extant in Greek or Latin, but only in Ethiopic (and in the case of 2 En., Church Slavonic). In Judaism as well, the suppression of apocalyptic traditions after the destruction of the temple led to the Enoch tradition being marginalized by the Rabbis, and it was only carried forward in special circles in the form of Merkabah and Hekhalot mysticism (3 Enoch/ Sepher Hekhalot, among others).319 The book of Enoch was just as well known in Egyptian Christianity as it was in Alexandrian Judaism.320 There, Barn., Clement, Origen, and Anatolus of Alexandria (third century) all quote the book, and the papyrus P.Oxy. 2069 from the fourth century, as well as the Akhmim Codex (Codex Panopolitanus) from the sixth century, attest to the Greek text, while other fragments also provide evidence of a Coptic text of material from the first (and now also the second) book; in addition, there is a Coptic Apocryphon of Enoch.321 Even after Enoch had fallen into disrepute in Orthodox circles, it remained respected, not least among less philosophically sophisticated church members and in folk piety,322 and above all outside the imperial church. Its popularity and belovedness in Egypt at a time when the evangelization of Ethiopia was taking place and the biblical texts (probably in the fourth to sixth centuries CE) were translated from Greek into Ethiopic (Ge’ez)323 must have contributed to its sig317

In 1 Clem. 9.3 Enoch appears within a series of examples. Berger, “Henoch,” 532–­33, and 524–­42 in detail on NT and Patristic reception. Further Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 1:82-­100, and most recently Stuckenbruck, “Book of Enoch,” 17–­21, and 21–­39 on the Ethiopic reception. 319 On this, see Schäfer, Übersetzung. An awareness of the older Enoch tradition is, however, still discernable, such as in Tg. Ps.-­J. on Gen 6:1-­4 and in b. Nid. 61a and Yoma 67b (see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 1:81). 320 For Alexandrian Judaism, cf. Wis and perhaps also the composition of 2 En. See the material in Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 1:103, as well as Pearson, “Enoch in Egypt.” 321 On this, see Berger, “Henoch,” 481; Pearson, “Fragments.” 322 Cf. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 1:103. 323 On the translation and recension, which was likely a multistep process, see Ullendorf, Ethiopia and the Bible; Uhlig, Henochbuch, 485–­90; see also Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 1:107. 318

122

Jude: Commentary

nificance for Ethiopic Christianity. Its reception in the Ethiopic church benefited from the fact that it was introduced there at a time when the influence of the rabbinic delimitation of the OT canon was felt as little as were the philosophical influences that led to many elements of the mythical worldview of Enoch being called into question in the Mediterranean realm.324 The conception of the world in this work may also have particularly appealed to Ethiopic readers of the fifth and sixth centuries.325 In any case, the book greatly influenced theology, liturgy, and piety in Ethiopia326 and became the basis of the religious calendar there.327 As a representation of the origins of evil and the world of angels, as a compendium of knowledge about heaven, earth, and ages, and as a prophecy of the coming of Christ and the creation of the new temple of the church, it achieved canonical status, which after some debate was established in the fifteenth century under Emperor Zar’a Ya’qob.328 In the Ethiopic biblical manuscripts it stands alongside other books that are regarded elsewhere as ‘apocryphal,’ such as Jub., the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah, and the Paraleipomena Jeremiou (4 Bar.).329 Excursus: The ‘apocryphal’ quotation and the early Christian canon The fact that Jude quotes Enoch as a prophetic writing, and the question as to whether the author was actually able to regard this text as ‘holy Scripture’ and consider the traditions transmitted in it as ‘true’ or even ‘canonical’ has led interpreters from the early church until the present to various conclusions. While Tertullian (Cult. fem. 3) argued for the authority of Enoch on this basis, Jerome’s criticism of Jude (Vir. ill. 4) is grounded in the explicit reference to Enoch, which is omitted in 2 Pet. The point of contention, also for many modern interpreters with biblicistic tendencies, is based on the fact that a text is quoted within the NT in the style of a prophetic and thus authoritative scripture, but which belongs to neither the Hebrew nor the Greek nor the Latin canon of the OT—­though it does enjoy canonical status in Ethiopia. The question of which ‘canon’ of texts the NT authors presuppose touches upon traditional fundamental issues of biblical theology. Those who are concerned with a clearly demarcated, formal ‘scriptural foundation’ must be vexed by the observation, confirmed not least by the discoveries at Qumran,330 that the OT canon (both the Hebrew and then even more so the Greek) was not finalized until relatively late, and—­as is also true of the NT canon—­was not entirely fixed in its margins for quite some time. But there is no avoiding the hermeneutical implications of this fact. Since 324

On this, see Stuckenbruck, “Book of Enoch,” 21–­22; and Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 1:18–­19. Thus the deliberations in Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 1:107–­8. 326 On this, see in detail Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 1:104–­8. 327 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 1:106; cf. Neugebauer, Ethiopic Astronomy, 109–­11. 328 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 108; cf. Wendt, “Kampf,” 111–­13. Stuckenbruck, “Book of Enoch,” 23–­25, however, points out that the book is not contained in all modern Ethiopic editions of the Bible and is also absent from some canonical lists. See also Baynes, “Enoch and Jubilees.” 329 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 1:107. On the Ethiopian biblical canon, see Cowley, “Canon.” 330 See in detail Frey, “Kanon” (and further literature there). 325



Jude 14

123

Jude 14-­15 contains the only quotation in the entire letter, and Enoch is emphasized as a prophet more than any other text or author cited, it cannot be denied that at least Jude regards Enoch as an authoritative text. The phenomenon of citing ‘apocryphal’ traditions (or those that later became ‘apocryphal’) does not just occur in Jude; in 1 Cor 2:9, Paul introduces a sentence as ‘Scripture’ (καθὼς γέγραπται)331 that has a parallel in Mart. Ascen. Isa. (11:34), and could possibly be explained as drawn from the pseudo-­Philonic L.A.B. (26:13), if one does not presume that various prophetic passages were freely combined.332 And when Mark 10:19 presents a formulation from LXX Sir 4:1 in enumerating the commandments of the Decalogue, this is just one example among many of a quotation that is not derived from the contents of the (later) ‘Hebrew Bible,’ but from the additional texts contained in the LXX.333 Yet even more than in these passages, the quotation from 1 En. 1 serves in Jude 14 as the authoritative basis for a central theological statement. Beyond this, Enoch is of fundamental significance for many other statements in Jude (vv. 6, 12-­13). Taken together, these observations indicate that at the time of and within emerging Christianity a finalized canon of Jewish scriptures did not yet exist. The term “canon” is in any case anachronistic—­it was first used in the fourth century in synodal resolutions in reference to normative lists of texts, rendering its application to Jewish texts at the time of emerging Christianity problematic.334 Early Christianity entered into this relatively open ‘canonical’ situation; the NT speaks of “the Law and the Prophets” (Matt 7:12 and elsewhere), or “the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44) without these entities being precisely demarcated, and it was apparently unproblematic in the first century to quote texts that later became apocryphal. A stronger tendency toward demarcation does not emerge until a little later in the opposition to gnostic textual production, and perhaps in the adoption of the idea of a narrowly defined NT canon, first implemented provocatively by Marcion around 140 CE. This then also affected texts of Jewish origin such as Enoch. Whereas Barn., probably ca. 130 CE, still did not hesitate to quote Enoch as Scripture (Barn. 4.3; 16.5), about seventy years later Tertullian knows of Christians who did not accept the book “because it is not admitted in the Jewish Torah ark” (Cult. fem. 1.3.1). But while the NT canon had largely taken on its final form in the fourth century (with the exception of, e.g., the Syriac and the 331

Cf. also the parallels 1 Clem. 34.8; 2 Clem. 11.7; Mart. Pol. 2.3. So, e.g., Hübner, Biblische Theologie, 2:124. Cf. also Heb 11:37, where the Mart. Ascen. Isa. is presupposed, 2 Tim 3:8, which refers to Jannes and Jambres, or Herm. Vis. 2.3.4, where Eldad and Modad is cited. 333 In Titus 1:12 even the Cretan priest Epimenides, counted by some as one of the seven sages, is quoted as a prophet; cf. also the quote in Acts 17:28. 334 Cf. Frey, “Kanon,” 22–­24. Jewish witnesses mention that a book “renders the hands unclean,” i.e., is holy (m. Yad. 3:5), “is spoken in the Holy Spirit” or must be “hidden.” Influenced by the evidence of the Qumran texts, recent scholarship has begun to speak of a ‘canonical process,’ which begins early with the redaction and collection of texts, but comes to an end only much later through demarcating rulings. 332

124

Jude: Commentary

Ethiopic churches), ambiguities still remained in the canon of the Christian OT (the LXX and the Vulgate) until definitive rulings about the canon were ultimately made in the Reformation period—­by way of the Council of Trent and the Reformed (but not the Lutheran) confessional tradition.

The great depiction of the theophany in the opening chapter of the Book of the Watchers in 1 En. 1:4-­9 presents a description of the eschatological coming of God,335 who will appear in the company of the heavenly host (v. 4), demolish mountains (v. 6), and let everything on earth perish (v. 7), and then hold judgment over all people—­God will bring peace and blessing to the righteous and elect (v. 8) and sinners will be destroyed (v. 9). The climax of the scene is the announcement of judgment upon the wicked (v. 9), although at the end of the text the universality of judgment is once more emphasized in the conviction of “all flesh” for all evil deeds and all arrogant and harsh words.336 This announcement of the coming of the κύριος for judgment is cited here as “prophecy” and thus as “scripture”; the question of the textual Vorlage here raises a few problems. Excursus: On the Vorlage and the text of the quotation in Jude 14-­15 The text of 1 En. 1:9 survives in several versions. In addition to the complete Ethiopic version of Enoch there is not only a Greek version (of 1 En. 1:1–­32:6a) in Codex Panopolitanus (end of the sixth century; = P) found in a tomb at Akhmim337 and Latin quotations in Pseudo-­Cyprian338 and Pseudo-­Vigilius,339 but also a very fragmentary Aramaic text from one of the Enoch manuscripts from Qumran (4Q204 = 4QEnc 1).340 Due to the discoveries of Aramaic Enoch manuscripts, which can be traced paleographically to the early second or even third century BCE,341 the question of the original language, age, and development of the Enoch tradition as well as the beginnings of Jewish apocalypticism have been placed on new footing. At the same time, these 335 1 En. 1:4-­9 for its part takes up a series of biblical theophanic depictions such as Deut 33:1-­3; Jer 25:31; Mic 1:3-­4, as well as Isa 66:15-­16 (on this, see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 1:143, 149) and can be read as an ‘aggregate’ of biblical theophanic statements. 336 This universal expansion could be influenced on the one hand by Gen 6–­9, and on the other by Jer 25:30-­31 and Isa 66:15-­16, where the judgment of “all flesh” is announced (see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 1:149). 337 This is the same codex that is the (only) witness to fragments of Gos. Pet. as well as Apoc. Pet. On this, see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 1:12; idem, “Manuscripts”; on the codicological evidence, see van Minnen, “Akhmîm Gospel of Peter”; on dating the Enoch manuscript, idem, “Apocalpyse,” 23–­24. 338 Pseudo-­Cyprian, Ad Novatianum (Opera Omnia 3/3, Appendix, 67). 339 Pseudo-­Vigilius, Contra Varimadum 1.13 (PL 62:363), who ascribed the quotation to Judas. 340 4QEnc 1 I, 15–­17 (see Milik, Books, 184 and Pl. IX). 341 So 4Q208 = 4QEnastra according to Milik, Books, 7, 273. Also 4Q201 = 4QEna can be traced to the first half of the second century (Milik, Books, 140).



Jude 14-15

125

finds revived the question of the textual form that was available to the author of Jude, since the quotation in Jude 14-­15 does not agree with any of the surviving texts of 1 En. 1:9-­10. On this new foundation of sources, C. D. Osburn and R. J. Bauckham have argued that the author of Jude created an independent translation from the Aramaic,342 which for Bauckham is meant to support the assumption of a Palestinian author, but the arguments are not compelling343 and in view of the very fragmentary Aramaic text much must remain speculative: a) In the introductory ἰδού Jude differs from P (ὅτι) and agrees with the Ethiopic text and Pseudo-­Cyprian, and R. H. Charles already regarded this variant as original;344 thus ‫ ֲא ֵר י‬or ‫ ֲא ֵר י ָהא‬would be reconstructed in Aramaic,345 which could be rendered as ὅτι ἰδού and thus explain both textual variants.346 However, it is by no means necessary to assume that the author of Jude produced his own translation. b) The aorist ἦλθεν, which differs from P (ἔρχεται), is usually translated in the present (“he comes”) and explained as a literal rendering of a Semitic perfectum propheticum.347 But this phenomenon is rarely attested in the Aramaic text, and ‫יהיבת‬ in Dan 7:27,348 which is usually cited as the only evidence, is dubious, since ‫ יהב‬is not an imperfect. A participle ‫( אתה‬whose consonants accord with the perfect) could be conceivable in Aramaic and explain the translation with ἔρχεται as well as ἦλθεν.349 But this translation-­Aramaism also need not come from the author of Jude. c) The phrase ἐν ἁγίαις μυριάσιν αὐτοῦ differs significantly from P (σὺν ταῖς μυριάσιν αὐτοῦ καὶ ταῖς ἁγίαις αὐτοῦ), whereby the ἐν appears to be a rather schematic 342

Osburn, “Christological Use,” 340; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 96; see most recently also Mazich, “Lord.” 343 See the textual synopses in Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 95; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 74–­75; Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 75–­76; Uhlig, Henochbuch, 509. 344 R.  H. Charles, Enoch, 275; so also Black, “Maranatha,” 195: “It is a definite possibility that ἰδού should be restored in the Aramaic text.” Cf. also Osburn, “Christological Use,” 335–­36; VanderKam, “Theophany,” 147–­48, who points to the targumic rendering of the Heb. ‫כי הנה‬  in Mic 1:3 (one of the base texts for 1 En. 1:4-­6) with ‫ארי הא‬. 345 The reading preferred in Milik, Books, 186, of ὅτι and the Aramaic reconstruction ‫כדי‬ is unfounded. Cf. Knibb, Enoch, 2:59; Black, Enoch, 108. Cf. the rendering of Mic 1:3 in Tg. Mic. 1:3. 346 So Mazich, “Lord,” 278; cf. also Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 1:143. 347 The widespread psychologizing explanations of such a linguistic phenomenon, such as the reference to certainty about the arrival, are problematic. More productive is the observation that the perfect and imperfect do not primarily express a reference to time, but rather the aspect of an action. 348 Mazich, “Lord,” 279; see Black, “Use,” 10; Rosenthal, “Grammar,” 60. See, however, further evidence from Qumran in Schattner-­R ieser, L’araméen, 117. 349 This should then be reconstructed as ‫“( ארי הוא אתה‬behold, he comes”) or even in good Imperial Aramaic with ‫ הוה‬+ ptc.: ‫“( ארי יהוה אתה‬behold, he will come”), which could then easily be read by a translator as a Tetragrammaton and rendered with κύριος (suggested to me by Schattner-­R ieser).

126

Jude: Commentary

rendering of an Aramaic ‫ב‬.350 The significantly longer textual form in P, which differs from all other witnesses, possibly derives from a combination of two early Christian interpretations of Zech 14:5.351 d) At the end of the quotation the Aramaic text is unfortunately extremely fragmentary. The reference to “proud and harsh” (‫ )רברבון וקשין‬words in 4Q204 1 I, 17 corresponds with 1 En. 5:4 (Eth. and P), and in Jude, which mentions only “harsh” words (τῶν σκληρῶν), could be incorporated substantively in v. 16 (ὑπέρογκα).352 But this also does not imply an independent translation, but rather at most attests to the author’s intense connection to the Enoch tradition.353 Some of the peculiarities of the quotation in Jude 14-­15 appear to be determined by a deliberate interpretation by the author. Thus the subject κύριος could have been introduced by the author himself, rendering the depiction of the theophany a prophecy of the Parousia of Christ. The phrase καὶ ἐλέγξαι πάντας τοῦς ἀσεβεῖς, which should be preferred to the reading καὶ ἐλέγξαι πᾶσαν ψυχήν offered in NA27 and in the ECM (= NA28),354 shortens the text of the Aramaic and Ethiopic traditions and of P, bringing the focus of the statement onto the ἀσεβεῖς355 whose condemnation the author is proclaiming. Bauckham himself admits at the end of his argument “that Jude knew the Greek version,” and thus cannot rule out the possibility that the text of P (from the sixth century) is a further development of the Greek translation used by the author of Jude, or that the translator of this version was a Christian who knew Jude.356 An indepenent translation of the Aramaic by the author of Jude himself therefore cannot be demonstrated. The explanation that he drew on a Greek version of Enoch that was available to him (and does not agree with the text in P) is still the most plausible option. The author has modified the tradition that he inherited and connected it with his own intended message. This was useful to him because the judgment of the impious is 350 The Aramaic text in 4QEnc 1 I, 15 probably reads [‫]ברבי] את קדיש [הי‬. The editions mostly (following the Ethiopic and P) conjecture ‫ עם‬instead of ‫( ב‬see Milik, Books, 186). Jude could, however, be an indication of an original ‫ב‬. 351 So Bauckham, “Note,” 136–­38; Dehandschutter, “Pseudo-­Cyprian,” 115. 352 So Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 96; Dehandschutter, “Pseudo-­Cyprian,” 119. According to Berger, “Henoch,” 530, “in contrast to the Ethiopic version . . . the role of the harsh or impious words must in any case be asserted here.” 353 Against Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 96. Aptly Mazich, “Lord,” 281n12: “The possibility exists that Jude was using a ‘better’ Greek manuscript of 1 Enoch than that which is known today” (namely P). 354 Cf. Wasserman, Jude, 301–­4; so also Schrage, “Zweite Petrusbrief,” 232; Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 176; Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 275; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 94; Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 78; differently Vögtle, Judasbrief, 78–­79. In Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 73, 76, the translation and the Greek text diverge. The attestation in 𝔓72 and ‫א‬ is hardly better than the attestation for the reading πάντας τοῦς ἀσεβεῖς. The text form ἐλέγξαι πᾶσαν ψυχὴν περὶ πάντων τῶν ἔργων ἀσεβείας is syntactically quite forced, and the emphasis on the “impious” accords with the author’s purpose. 355 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 94. 356 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 96.



Jude 14-15

127

expressed here strikingly and in a way that summarizes other theophanic statements in the OT, and “the theophany/christophany is announced with an explicit reference to the involvement of the angels.”357 The author’s modifications to the quotation are instructive.358 First, where the logical agent God (1 En. 1:3) is not explicitly identified in the tradition, the author introduces the subject κύριος, which has no equivalent in the Aramaic, Greek, or Ethiopic Enoch traditions.359 Since in the present context κύριος is to be interpreted in reference to Christ, whose Parousia the author sees as announced here,360 in the adaptation there is a shift in the grammatical subject. In addition, it is striking that the focus on the impious (ἀσεβεῖς) is strengthened, where in the Ethiopic and Greek texts the mention of the impious brings the proclamation of judgment to an impressive close.361 This emphasis could also be the reason for incorporating the quotation, which thus presents the most striking argument in the series of statements about the judgment of the ‘impious’ that has been “written down long ago” (v. 4). Here the author shortens the text of 1 En. 1:9 such that not “all flesh” but only the impious are convicted in view of their impious deeds and harsh words. There is no reference to ἐλέγχειν with respect the righteous (i.e., the addressees)—­they are not mentioned again until v. 21, when it is said that they can expect “mercy” at Christ’s Parousia. Thus the form of the statement quoted by Jude, more systematically than in 1 En. 1, first speaks of the judgment of “all flesh” and then of the conviction of all the impious in view of their deeds and words, while—­like in the Vorlage—­ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς, “impious sinners,” stands poignantly at the end.

Introduced by the signal for attention “behold,” the quotation speaks of the coming of the κύριος, who for the author is clearly the Lord Jesus Christ (v. 2; cf. 5, 6), whose Parousia in the author’s view has been prophesied by Enoch.362 As the one who comes at the Parousia, Christ plays the role of judge, which in the OT and Jewish tradition belongs to God alone. This judicial function 357

Heiligenthal, Henoch, 81. On this, Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 76–­77; Heiligenthal, Henoch, 81ff. 359 Cf. 1 En. 1:4. Only Pseudo-­Vigilius reads “veniet Dominus,” but he also ascribes the quotation to Judas, and thus certainly presumes knowledge of the text of Jude. 360 The aorist is not to be read in the psychologizing sense of certainty about what is to come (so, e.g., Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 276: “intended to underline the certainty of God’s action by dramatically envisaging it as already accomplished”), but rather as rendering a Semitic perfect or perhaps a participle (see above, n. 347). The Greek aorist is not a true past tense, but rather an expression of aspect: the action denoted is captured in its entirety without any actual temporal reference (cf. aptly Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 79). 361 The Aramaic text is not extant at the end. 362 Such an interpretatio christiana of OT theophanic statements occurs frequently in the NT. Cf. 1 Thess 3:13 = Zech 14:5; 2 Thess 1:7 = Isa 66:15; Rev 19:13, 15 = Isa 63:1-­6; Rev 22:12 = Isa 40:10. In all of these passages, the OT statements are integrated into the Christian notion of the Parousia. A reference to God, supported by Frankemölle, 1. Petrusbrief, 2. Petrusbrief, Judasbrief, 139, without justification, as well as by Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 176, is untenable. 358

128

Jude: Commentary

of Christ is also implied in v. 21, when the addressees are told to “expect the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ.” In ascribing the divine authority of judgment to the coming Christ, Jude—­like other late NT texts—­clearly represents a high Christology. For substantive reasons (and because this is ‘translation-­Greek’) the aorist ἦλθεν should not be taken in reference to a past arrival, but should rather be rendered as ‘timeless’;363 thus the Parousia—­as in other early Christian statements—­is understood as being accompanied by an immense host of angels, just as was traditionally included in depictions of the appearance of God,364 and which now becomes just as much a ‘stock’ element of the Parousia of the Kyrios who will come like God.365 Already 1 Thess 3:13 hinted at the notion that the coming of Jesus would take place “with all his saints.” In keeping with apocalyptic tradition these “saints” or “holy ones” are angelic beings,366 who are presented here (following Deut 33:2; cf. Dan 7:10 and elsewhere) in “myriads”—­that is, in countless numbers. This expectation is also connected with the eschatological significance of the angelic beings, perhaps even their participation in the event of judgment, which in the author’s conceptual world makes the opponents’ ‘disparagement’ of the angels so intolerable. 15 As the quotation continues, the coming of Christ brings with it the judgment of all people. It can hardly be denied that in the author’s mind all people, including the faithful, will face a ruling in the judgment, but the faithful can expect Christ’s mercy (v. 21) while the impious will receive their verdict of damnation. The emphasis here lies solely on the latter—­unlike in the full text of 1 En. 1:4-­9.367 The stem ἀσεβ-­is used four times in the quotation. Therein lies a significant connection to the ‘previously written down’ judgment of the impious mentioned in Jude 4, and in turn the statement of v. 4 is rendered definitive with 363 Cf., e.g., the aorists in Luke 1:51-­54. Caution is required here, in contrast to the psychologizing explanations offered with the ‘perfectum propheticum’ (e.g., Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 276; also Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 164). 364 Cf. Deut 33:2 (the linguistic background for the usage in 1 En. 1:9); Zech 14:5; Dan 7:10; Heb 12:22. 365 Cf. also Matt 16:27; 25:31; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26; 2 Thess 1:7. 366 “Saints” or “holy ones,” ‫קדושם‬, occurs in Zech 14:5; Dan 4:10; 7:10; 8:13; in almost all sections of Enoch (1 En. 12:2; 14:23, 25; 39:5; 47:2; 57:2; 60:1; 61:8, 10, 12; 65:12; 69:13; 81:5; 102:3; 106:19), as well as very often for angelic beings in the Qumran literature; see especially the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, which are very interested in angelology, but also 1QS XI, 8; 1QSb I, 5; III, 26; IV, 23; 1QM I, 16; X, 12; XI, 1, 8, etc. 367 The abbreviation of “and to destroy all the impious and to convict all flesh” into “and to convict all the impious” enables the author to take the notion of conviction exclusively in reference to the impious, i.e., the opponents; on this, see Bauckham, Relatives, 210.



Jude 14-16

129

the quotation from the text of Enoch. In a rhetorical amplificatio368 the impious nature of the opponents is emphasized as blatantly obvious. According to the announcement of the conviction of all the godless, their impiety is then developed with regard to their godless deeds and harsh words.369 In both clauses the πάντων is striking,370 emphasizing in the strongest possible terms the number of offenses and thus the inescapability of conviction at the judgment. This applies directly to the opponents, who were previously accused of sinful deeds (vv. 4, 8) and words (vv. 8, 10). They are the ones who will suffer this judgment according to Enoch’s prophecy. The close of the quotation is thus the poignant phrase ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς, “sinful impious people” or “impious sinners.”371 This statement, which is generalized but implicitly refers to the opponents, is now applied to them once again with an explicit identification (v. 16). 6. The Application of the Prophecy of Enoch to the Opponents (v. 16) (16) These are grumblers, complainers who live according to their own desires and their mouth says arrogant things when they flatter people for (their own) benefit.

16 The author uses the exclamation as a point of departure for the following application in order to “affirm with a staccato list of allegations that the opponents . . . are to be identified with the impious sinners mentioned in the prophecy of Enoch.”372 The οὗτοι used as a structural marker in vv. 5-­19 makes it clear that now the opponents are once again explicitly under discussion (as in vv. 8, 10, 12-­13), although the quotation in vv. 14-­15 was also explicitly associated with them through the introductory προεφήτευσεν δὲ καὶ τούτοις. At the same time οὗτοι creates a close connection with the aforementioned “impious sinners”; the characterizations appear as an explication of the impious deeds and words, as a demonstration of the opponents’ impiety. It is striking, however, that the 368

This is created by the repetition of the term; see Watson, Invention, 65. In 1 En. 5:4 (cf. 1 En. 27:2; 101:3) the “harsh words” discussed here are associated with the attribute of “hardheartedness” (cf. Ps 95:8), which is traditionally the cause of the downfall of the desert generation described in v. 5 (cf. Ps 95:10-­11; 106:24-­25; Num 14) and the ‘backtalk’ of the Korahites mentioned in v. 11 (see Bauckham, Relatives, 212). The author has by no means used this quotation superficially, but rather in a very considered manner and taken full advantage of the exegetical connections that could arise from this quotation and its context in 1 En. 1–­5. 370 πᾶς occurs a total of four times in the Enoch quotation. The πάντων before τῶν σκληρῶν is lacking in the Ethiopic version and in Codex Panopolitanus. The insertion—­perhaps by the author—­serves to further emphasize the number of offenses; cf. Watson, Invention, 65–­66. 371 Here Jude agrees with the Greek version of Codex Panopolitanus. The Aramaic text is unfortunately not extant. 372 Vögtle, Judasbrief, 79; cf. on the rhetoric Watson, Invention, 66. 369

130

Jude: Commentary

author here focuses more on the aspect of sins in word, or slander, which was mentioned second in v. 15.373 The opponents thus appear as “impious sinners” first through the fact that they are “grumblers” who—­as it is often rendered—­“complain about their lot in life” (γογγυσταὶ μεμψίμοιροι).374 Although γογγυστής is otherwise unattested in the NT and the LXX, the verb γογγύζεῖν (“mutter,” “grumble”) and the corresponding substantive γογγυσμός clearly point to the “grumbling” of Israel in the desert375 and her hardheartedness,376 an attribute that also appears in 1 En. 5:4 and 1 En. 1:9 (“harsh words”). The reference to grumbling at the same time creates an implicit reference back to v. 5, where the ruin of the desert generation was cited as a paradigm for the impending judgment of the impious, as well as the “contradiction” of Korah and his followers mentioned in v. 11 (Num 16:11). Just as they fell victim to judgment, so too will the opponents addressed here fare, who as “grumblers” and thus impious people are implicated in Enoch’s prophecy. It is more difficult to interpret the rare adjective μεμψίμοιροι, a term that with the element -­μ οιρ-­calls to mind moira and thus an aspect of the pagan concept of fate.377 The term is applied to Israel’s grumbling in the desert in Philo (Mos. 1.181), and it can denote “skepticism about fate and God’s action”378 and thus those who “complain about their fate,” but also simply dissatisfied or ‘querulous’ people, who needlessly find something negative in everything and complain about it.379 Ultimately, it remains unclear what the opponents grumbled about or whom they blamed for it.380 Their criticism of the author’s or his 373 Here, too, the accusations are amplified with biblical references and are in part topoi, such that inferences of concrete transgressions are difficult. 374 Syntactically one could take μεμψίμοιροι as an adjective modifying the predicative noun γογγυσταί; Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 177, take a different view, however, assuming here two independent substantives alongside one another. The participial clause κατὰ . . . πορευόμενοι is subordinate to οὗτοί εἰσιν. 375 Exod 15:25; 16:2-­12; 17:3; Num 11:1; 14:2, 27, 29; 17:6, 20; Deut 1:27; Ps 106:25; CD III, 8; 4 Ezra 1:15-­16. 376 Cf. Ps 95:8. 377 The term is otherwise unattested in the LXX and the NT, and is even absent among the apologists, but is attested in “Classical and Hellenistic” literature (Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 45; cf. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 77, who cites Theophr., Characteres 17.1 and Plut., Cohib. ira 461b and Tranq. an. 469a). 378 Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 77. 379 Cf. LSJ, s.v. “faultfinding,” “criticizing,” “querulous”; cf. also Arichea and Hatton, Handbook, 46: “ ‘saying that others are wrong’ or ‘finding fault with others.’” 380 It is not very plausible that this is concerned with social relations, i.e., that the opponents lamented their poverty. Just as unconvincing is the conclusion, based on this statement and the mention of Korah’s ‘backtalk’ in v. 11, that the opponents grumbled against community officials, and it is even less justified to see here a gnostic tendency, such as a revolt against the



Jude 16

131

addressees’ theological position, such as their faith in angels, could likewise be characterized with this catchword as unnecessary and destructive malevolence. However, the polemic remains generic; impious sinners are people who rebel against and malign God’s or Christ’s authority, or the traditional faith, with haughty words. The faithlessness of the desert generation was already referenced in v. 5 as a paradigm for the opponents’ punishable behavior, and Philo even uses the same term for their grumbling. With the accusation that the opponents are “grumblers” and “complainers,” not further specified, the author establishes that the opponents are similarly guilty of faithless and harsh words against God or Christ and thus are to be identified with the “impious sinners” of Enoch’s prophecy of judgment. Just as vague but easier to interpret is the third accusation (which will be reiterated in v. 18) that the opponents “live according to their own desires.” This repeats the accusation of an immoral way of life already expressed in vv. 4, 8, 10, without making clear specifically what constitutes their errors. This accusation—­the only one in v. 16 that goes beyond the realm of sins in word—­seems to be employed as a topos, and so a precise basis for it can hardly be ascertained, nor is the substantive connection of this aspect with the other allegations discernable. The fourth accusation returns to verbal transgressions—­the opponents “say arrogant things” just as the Enoch quotation reproached them for “hardnesses” in their speech.381 The term ὑπέρογκα occurs in Dan 11:36 θ’ with regard to the speech of Antiochus, the enemy of God (λαλήσει ὑπέρογκα). With reference to false teachers one can compare As. Mos. 7:9 (os eorum loquetur ingentia), a text that the author probably knew (cf. v. 9). The arrogant words of the opponents are thereby positioned alongside the boastful speech of the OT enemies of God—­namely, Pharaoh (3 Macc 6:4), Sennacherib (3 Macc 6:5; 2 Bar. 63:3), Nebuchadnezzar (2 Bar. 67:7), and Antiochus (Dan 7:8, 20; cf. Rev 13:5).382 Through this characterization, their pompous and hubristic nature—­with which they slander the power of celestial beings as well as the authority of Christ—­and thus ultimately their impiety become undeniably clear. This is connected with the final accusation, which takes up again the aspect of self-­interest already addressed in v. 11 (Balaam) and v. 12 (participation in the community meals)—­the opponents “flatter people for (their own) benefit.” The phrase θαυμάζειν πρόσωπον or πρόσωπα used here is the common demiurge (see the discussion in Vögtle, Judasbrief, 79–­81). 381 Cf. further 1 En. 5:4: “great and harsh words”; cf. 1 En. 27:2; 101:3. 382 On this, cf. Heiligenthal, Henoch, 84–­86.

132

Jude: Commentary

rendering in the LXX of ‫ נׇ ָשא ָפנִ ים‬383 where the aspect of wrongfully accepting an advantage resonates repeatedly. In the present context this sense could specifically refer to the aspect of teaching.384 The opponents spread their teaching in the community assemblies, but not with pure intentions (cf. Luke 20:21); they refrain from reproaching inappropriate behavior and flatter individuals (perhaps the wealthy) in order to enjoy certain advantages themselves. Perhaps the opponents in fact found a hearing precisely among the more prosperous community members, so that the accusation of self-­interest could be explained on these grounds.385 But this too remains unspecified, and this accusation is also a common polemical topos. Thus, the polemical application of the Enoch prophecy remains relatively unfruitful for the concrete image of the opponents. The essential point here is that with these accusations the author seeks to demonstrate that the opponents are among those whose impiety was already addressed by Enoch in his prophecy and whose conviction and punishment by Christ should be expected at the Parousia, when he will appear with the host of his “saints.” 7. The Reminder of the Prophetic Words of the Apostles (vv. 17-­18) (17) But you, beloved, remember the words that were foretold by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, (18) that they said to you: “at the end of time there will be scoffers, who live according to their own impious desires.”

With a renewed address to his readers—­who have not been directly addressed since v. 5—­the author transitions from the reminder of biblical and traditional paradigms and words (vv. 5-­16) to the reminder of the words of the apostles, which correspond in substance (vv. 17-­19). Although this direct address marks the beginning of a new segment, the short section with its reference to the prophecy (also) spoken by the apostles is still connected with the longer discussion from scriptural traditions. Alongside the “previously written” (προγεγραμμένοι, v. 4) proclamation of judgment, which culminates in the Enoch quotation, there is now the “previously spoken” (προειρημένων, v. 17) prophecy of the apostles, which is likewise directed toward the present eschatological period of the author and his addressees. The concern here is that the current situation of the emergence of false teachers and their judgment has been announced in advance in two testimonies, as it were—­namely, Scripture and the apostolic prophecy. 383

LXX Deut 10:17; 28:50; 2 Chr 19:7; Job 13:10; 22:8; Prov 18:5. Thus the suggestion in Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 100. It is rather unlikely that the author had in mind a Christian ‘court of law’ (against Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 84). 385 So Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 178. 384



Jude 16-18

133

It is therefore inappropriate when interpreters, influenced by rhetorical schemata, see v. 17 as the beginning of the text’s peroratio.386 The exhortation of the addressees does not begin until the next direct address in v. 20, while in vv. 17-­19, as many times before in vv. 5-­16, a final paradigm or prophecy from tradition is presented and related to the opponents with οὖτοι (v. 19).

17 The address to the readers with the phrase ὑμεῖς δέ, ἀγαπητοί marks a break in the letter. It also reaches back to the address used already in v. 3 of the readers as “beloved” (by God, cf. v. 2), and thereby returns to a warm tone for addressing the ‘orthodox’ readers after the biblical paradigms and polemical allegations. This is connected with the imperative μνήσθητε: “remember!” With this the author again takes up the issue he mentioned in v. 5: he is concerned with reminding his readers of known facts—­among them, alongside the fact of the impending punishment of the impious presented from Scripture in vv. 5-­7, is the knowledge transmitted orally387 to the addressees about the phenomena of apostasy and false teaching that will appear “at the end of time.” This reflects the value of oral tradition that was still vital at the beginning of the second century.388 With the reference to “the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ” the author departs terminologically from the authorial fiction that underlies the letter, and betrays himself as a member of the third generation of early Christianity.389 Those who want to locate Jude at an early period of the church as an authentic text by the brother of the Lord generally offer quite contorted arguments here. For example, Bauckham (Jude, 2 Peter, ad loc.) suggests that the formulation only presupposes that the instruction of the apostles lay in the past, but they themselves could still be alive at the time of Jude’s composition, and that ἔλεγον ὑμῖν (v. 18) shows that the original recipients of the instruction were still alive and among the addressees of the letter. Furthermore, in Bauckham’s view, the formulation does not refer to a collective of (twelve?) apostles, but only those apostles who founded the church(es) to whom Judas is writing, and it is 386

Against Watson, Invention, 67–­76; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 86; against this, cf. rightly Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 3–4. 387 Cf. ῥήματα, προειρημένων, and ἔλεγον (see Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 79). 388 Another important witness to this high regard for orality is Papias of Hierapolis, who wrote around 130 CE and according to a fragment transmitted in Euseb., Hist. eccl. 3.39.3–­4 specifically valued the “living, abiding, oral word” and therefore collected the traditions of the apostles and presbyters. 389 Interestingly this was already observed by Martin Luther, who for this reason did not want to ascribe the letter to the apostle (!) Judas (WA 14:88): “This saying probably also indicates that this epistle is not of Saint Jude the apostle, for he does not count himself among the other apostles, but speaks of them as of those who have preached long before him, and so it is likely that another pious man wrote the epistle, who read the epistle of Saint Peter and took this saying from it.” Cf. already Pseudo-­Oecumenius (PG 119:720): “From this it is clear that he wrote these things very late, after the apostles passed away” (Ἐκ τούτου δὲ δῆλον, ὅτι ἔσχατον μετὰ τὸ παρελθεῖν τοὺς ἀποστόλους ἔγραφε ταῦτα).

134

Jude: Commentary

only natural that as their contemporary he would emphasize their authority (similarly Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, ad loc.). But this argument is hardly plausible; the wording specifically does not indicate that particular persons from among the twelve apostles or another group of missionaries or church founders were in view—­otherwise a connection between these apostles and the addressees would be marked.390 The author of Jude not only identifies his own time as a period that is distinct from the ‘apostolic’ beginnings of Christianity (cf. also v. 3), he also speaks of “the apostles” of Christ in a way that does not convey any concrete idea of individual persons, but rather regards “the apostles” as a uniform collective. This generic language differs significantly not only from the Pauline concept of ‘apostle,’ but also from the Lukan discussion of “the twelve” as eyewitnesses and guarantors of the original tradition, whereas its closest parallel is found in Eph 2:20; 3:5 and then among the Apostolic Fathers391—­that is, in texts of the third or even fourth Christian generation in which the image of the apostles is relieved of nearly all historical specificity and retrospectively glorified, and thus is able to become an uncontested norm of the beginnings of Christianity.392 With its image of the apostles as well as the reference to what has been foretold by the apostles and to the faith that was handed down “once and for all,” Jude participates in the struggle over the ‘apostolicity’ of faith in the postapostolic period.393

18 With the somewhat unusual formulation ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου χρόνου,394 which occurs only here in the NT (cf. the plural ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων in 1 Pet 1:20),395 the author speaks to his own and his addressees’ present time. Without any 390

Historically, the twelve apostles seem to have lost significance in Jerusalem quite quickly, where it is well known that the leadership function transferred to James the brother of Jesus. Thus we cannot presume that the relationship between the brothers of Jesus and the twelve apostles was entirely without tension. The apologetic construction by Bauckham is also untenable in this respect. 391 Barn. 5.9; 1 Clem. 42.1–­2; 44.1; Ign. Trall. 2.2; 3.1, 3; 7.1; 13.2; Ign. Magn. 6.1; 7.2; 13.1–­ 2; Ign. Phld. 5.1; 9.1; Ign. Smyrn. 8.1; Pol. Phil. 6.3; 9.1. 392 On this, see Frey, “Apostelbegriff,” 99ff. (on 1 Clem. and Ign.); 166ff. (on Eph). 393 On this, Frey, “Apostelbegriff,” 174–­76. 394 There is a plethora of varying formulations in the textual tradition, but the decision in NA28 to assume the shortest phrase (without του̃) as original is probably correct. 395 The term corresponds with the more frequently used phrases ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων (1 Pet 1:20), ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν (Dan 10:14; Heb 1:2; 2 Pet 3:3) or ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν (LXX Dan 2:28-­29, 45) or also ἐν ἡμέραις ἐσχάταις (LXX Dan 11:20; Jas 5:3), or ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48), all of which take up the Heb. ‫באחרית‬ ‫“( הימים‬at the end of days” = in the eschaton). The latter, i.e., the term ‫ אחרית הימים‬functions in the Qumran texts virtually as a technical term for the eschaton: see CD IV, 4; VI, 11; 1QSa I, 1; 1QpHab II, 5–­6; IX, 6; 4QMidrEschat III, 2, 12, 15, 19; V, 3; IX, 10, 14; X, 5, 7; XI, 7; XII, 6; 4QMMT C 15, 22; 11QMelch II, 4 and elsewhere (on this, see Steudel, “‫אחרית הימים‬ in the Texts from Qumran”; cf. also 2 Bar. 6:8; 41:5; 78:5). In early Christianity the various Greek equivalents denoted the coming of Christ in the past (Heb 1:2; 1 Pet 1:20; 2 Clem. 14.2; Mart. Ascen. Isa. 9:13; cf. Heb 9:26); the present (Barn. 4.9; Ign. Eph. 11.1; cf. John 2:18) as well as the still-­pending future (Jas 5:3; 1 Pet 1:5; Did. 16.2–­3; Mart. Ascen. Isa. 3:30).



Jude 17-18

135

chronological specification, this is characterized as the eschaton. For this the author points to a prophecy of the apostles (which is not identified in any more detail), thereby providing his own message with additional legitimation and urgency. At the same time the notion offers aid to the addressees so that despite the problems that have emerged they might not despair, but rather hold fast to the faith transmitted once and for all, since the apostolic proclamation had already anticipated these difficulties and the appearance of false teachers. This figure of argumentation is only plausible, however, in the context of specific apocalyptic thinking that not only accepts the phenomenon of prophecy in general, but also shares a specific understanding of time and history, according to which a great hardship (cf. Dan 12:1-­3) is to come at the eschaton, as well as false teachers, schisms, and apostasy. But such ‘knowledge’ about the necessity of the appearance of false teachers, apostasy, and schisms in the last days before the eschaton is widely attested in the early Christian tradition, where it adopts Jewish apocalyptic motifs.396 This notion is already found in Paul (1 Cor 11:18-­19), then in the synoptic eschatological discourses (Mark 13:22-­23) and logia of Jesus (Matt 7:15), through to the agraphon attested in Justin (Dial. 35.3): “There will be schisms and divisions” (ἔσονται σχίσματα καὶ αἱρέσεις). However, the motif first appears with frequency in the late texts of the NT,397 where the emergence of false teachers or other difficulties can even become signs of the times in which one’s own present can be recognized as the “final hour” (1 John 2:18). The ‘quotation’ of the apostles presented here is otherwise unattested (2 Pet 3:3 being dependent upon Jude 18) and need not trace back to a specific saying that was circulating; for the author’s argumentation it is sufficient if it is recognizable as a summary of the earliest Christian (and thus ‘apostolic’) warning against false teachers. Against this backdrop, the ‘orthodox’ addressees should recognize in the appearance of the false teachers that the eschaton—­and thus also the announced judgment of the impious—­is imminent and that it is therefore urgently necessary to contend for the traditional faith (v. 3). The adoption of this apocalyptic tradition is thus connected with an announcement about time, although a specific emphasis on the proximity of the Parousia or an inference regarding the opponents’ position cannot be derived from this. The false teachers foretold by the apostles are specifically described, on the one hand, as ἐμπαῖκται (“scoffers”) and, on the other, drawing on the accusation 396

A period of lawlessness and apostasy before the eschaton occurs in the Apocalypse of Weeks in 1 En. 93:9-­11, 14; similarly in Jub. 23:19, 21; CD XIX, 5–­7; 1QpHab II, 5–­10; Pss. Sol. 17:11-­14 and 2 Bar. 48:38. 397 Cf. Matt 24:11, 24; Acts 20:29-­30; 1 Tim 4:1; 2 Tim 2:3ff.; 3:1-­9; 1 John 2:18; further Did. 16.3; Mart. Ascen. Isa. 3:30; Apoc. Pet. (A) 1; Sib. Or. 2.165–­166; Ps.-­Clem. Hom. 16.21.4.

136

Jude: Commentary

from v. 16 and only slightly varied here, as people who “live according to their impious desires.” The characterization of the opponents as “scoffers” draws on biblical language,398 although the object of the scoffing or verbal denigration is not specified here. Second Peter 3:3-­4 then takes up this statement, although in a different situation and as a description of other opponents, who probably call into doubt the hope of the Parousia. It is an inappropriate imposition on the text, however, when interpreters transfer this identification to the opponents being confronted here and thereby interpret Jude from the statements of 2 Pet.399 Instead, the traditional opposition employed in wisdom literature between scoffers and the pious likely underlies this verse, resulting in simply a general polemic—­the scoffers are those who “disparage and ignore religion and morality”400 and who therefore brazenly conduct themselves against God and Christ or their authority (cf. vv. 15-­16). The accusation thus remains generalized and topical, but it can be taken as a soft reference to the verbal disparagement of angelic beings as a particular form of arrogant and insolent speech. Anything more specific—­especially in a saying that is traced back to “the apostles”—­is not to be expected. Equally topical is the accusation repeated in a slight variation of v. 16 that these scoffers (that is, the opponents) live according to their own desires. The connection with v. 16 initially strengthens the notion that the false teachers who were foretold by the apostles and appear in the present (end) time are also those who will be condemned by the judgment prophesied by Enoch and anticipated with the Parousia of Christ. To reinforce this connection, going beyond v. 16, these scoffers are additionally qualified with τῶν ἀσεβειῶν; their life according to their own desires is not only selfish and contrary to the authority of God and of Christ, but these desires themselves are now described as “impious”401—­they lead to those “impious deeds” that the prophecy of Enoch spoke of; indeed, they mark the men themselves as “impious” (v. 15). The announcement of the apostles thus corresponds with the prophecy of Enoch, so that the message of the letter ultimately rests on two witnesses that agree in substance: the scriptures (culminating in Enoch) and the oral saying of “the apostles.” 398

However, the lexeme ἐμπαίκτης occurs only once in the LXX (Isa 3:4), without a corresponding term in the MT. But cf. the language of “scoffers” (‫)ל ץ‬ ֵ in Pss 1:1; 119:51; Prov 1:22; 9:7-­8; 13:1 and elsewhere; further 4 Ezra 7:79, 81. 399 Against Vögtle, Judasbrief, 89; Hoppe, “Parusieglaube,” 436; Blumenthal, Prophetie. Jude confronts different opponents than 2 Pet, and the eschatological orientation of the letter cannot be taken to imply that the opponents denied that eschatology. 400 Vögtle, Judasbrief, 88; cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 104. 401 Cf. further Herm. Vis. 3.7.3; cf. already T. Iss. 6:12; T. Jud. 13:12.



Jude 18-19

137

8. The Application to the Opponents (v. 19) (19) These are the ones who cause a schism, psychics who do not possess the spirit.

19 For the final time a traditional statement—­here the proclamation of the apostles—­is related to the opponents by means of the stereotypical οὗτοι in v. 19. These are the ones of whom the apostles spoke, and so their present now appears as the foretold end of days. Here two further polemical allegations are introduced: the opponents are those “who cause a schism” (οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες) and are “psychics who do not have the spirit.” With this—­definitively and climactically—­they are denied their belonging in the community, their Christian identity. The rare verb ἀποδιορίζειν402 is difficult to interpret. In Aristotle (Pol. 4.4 [1290b 25–­2 6]) it is used in the sense of “make distinctions, classify.”403 However, a more general sense is more probable here (like the simple composite verbs ἀφορίζειν and διορίζειν): “separate,” “divide,” or—­referring to the community—­“cause schisms.”404 This is about the “schismatic nature of the opponents.”405 The accusation is thus first that they endanger the unity of the community and are thereby culpable of violating a widely attested ideal of earliest Christianity (cf. 1 Cor 1:10-­11; Eph 4:5; John 17:21). Even if an open dissociation or separation has not (yet) taken place as v. 12 suggests, the author sees this process as internally dictated and accuses the opponents of having brought about a separation that already exists unseen and is eschatologically valid through their divergent attitude of faith or their impious words and deeds—­a separation between the truly faithful and themselves as scoffers (v. 17) and impious people. This corresponds in substance with the comment already made at the beginning (v. 4) that the opponents have crept in from outside and are thus of a nature foreign to the community. From the perspective of the opponents the situation would likely be presented differently, and this thought was probably also surprising for the addressees, as the unity of the community was at least outwardly maintained 402

Cf. Arist., Pol. 4.4.8 (1290b) as well as Corp. herm. 3.2a, where the division between the upper and lower parts of the world is described. 403 Only if this sense could be presumed could it be taken in reference to the consequences of introducing a teaching of levels of Christian existence (pneumatics, psychics), as, e.g., Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 182, speculate; see by contrast Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 81; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 105. 404 So Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 105, also Vögtle, Judasbrief, 93n30. 405 Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 81.

138

Jude: Commentary

at the community meals (v. 12). One could rather accuse the author of bringing about a schism with his letter, since he wants the addressees to distance themselves from the intruding teachers.406 On the other hand, he probably saw this intended distancing as simply implementing what in his view already in fact existed and what eschatologically, with regard to judgment, was irrevocably valid. The last accusation presents an effective closing: the opponents are “psychics who do not have the spirit.” It is often concluded from this polemic that the opponents themselves boasted of possessing the spirit exclusively or of pneumatic qualities, possibly in conjunction with visionary revelations (v. 8), or that they even disparaged other community members in this regard,407 but methodological caution is required against such inferences. Certainly itinerant prophets and teachers could have legitimized their mission with the spirit, but the author himself probably draws the terminology used here from established tradition. The opposition between the “pneumatic” person who is receptive to God’s spirit and the “psychic” person who is deaf to this spirit is encountered in 1 Cor 2:13-­16 in the conflict with a wisdom teaching taken up in Corinth, probably of Hellenistic Jewish origin,408 and it is also found in Jas 3:15, where the claim of a wisdom that causes controversy is described as earthly (ἐπίγειος), psychic (ψυχικός), even demonic (δαιμονιόδης), while true wisdom comes from above, is pneumatically inspired (cf. Wis 6–10).409 This dualism drawn from Helle406

This accusation is articulated very critically in Aichele, Letters, 27–­28, who ultimately alleges that the author could not tolerate diversity in the community and thus sought to cleanse it (see the chapter: “A paranoid gospel: Jude and the abolition of difference,” op. cit., 24–­39). 407 An analogue might be found in the configuration of the Corinthian congregation, where those who are “strong” in their monotheistic awareness of God disparaged other community members, who were more scrupulous with regard to eating “meat sacrificed to idols,” as “weak” (1 Cor 8:1–­11:1; on this, see Gäckle, Starken, 110–­291). 408 The antithesis ψυχικός–­π νευματικός occurs again in an eschatological context in 1 Cor 15:44, 46, suggesting that this terminology was predetermined for Paul by the Corinthian position. On this, see M. Winter, Pneumatiker, 230–­31, and Sellin, Streit, 183, who argue that this is based on a dualistic interpretation of LXX Gen 2:7—­a lthough the human being as a whole is a “living soul” (ψυχὴ ζῶσα), without the life-­g iving πνεῦμα being breathed into him he is perishable and only ‘earthly,’ or ψυχικός (1 Cor 2:15). With this the dichotomy is sketched out at least in substance. 409 On this connection and the striking agreement between Paul and James in the usage of ψυχικός as a term of opposition in demarcating various kinds of wisdom (James) or capacity for knowledge (Paul), see Blumenthal, Prophetie, 169–­73.



Jude 19

139

nistic Jewish wisdom theology,410 which the author might have know at least from Jas 3:15, is used as a final disqualification of the opponents. They are “unspiritual” in their knowledge and teaching, defined purely by earthly concerns, and their insufficient ability to understand spiritual matters is revealed precisely in their disavowal of celestial powers (cf. v. 10). With this closing disqualification of the opponents it is clear that they are in truth not Christians, but “impious.” They do not belong in the community, but are in reality foreign elements who have “crept in” (v. 4), whose eschatological fate is fixed, whose presence poses a danger to the addressees (v. 12), and whom the latter must regard as a phenomenon of the eschatological schism—­blamed upon the opponents themselves—­a nd thus as a sign of the turmoil of the end times. It is doubtful that anything more specific about the profile of the opponents can be drawn from these polemical statements. Older exegesis had extrapolated a gnostic influence in the opponents especialy from the reception of the dichotomy ψυχικοί–­π νευματικοί (or here ψυχικοί–­π νεῦμα ἔχοντες). But this would require that the author (similarly, probably, to Paul in 1 Cor) adopted slogans from the opponents,411 who would have then set themselves apart as pneumatics in contrast to the other community members designated as ‘mere’ psychics and caused divisions through such a ‘doctrine of ranks.’ However, there is no evidence for this suggestion, and a developed gnostic thinking in the vein of differentiation between pneumatics, psychics, and hylics (“material”) or choics (“made of earth”) cannot be presumed for the period of Jude’s composition. Furthermore, if the terminology derives from wisdom theology and the author was possibly inspired in his wording by Jas 3:15, then an inference for the profile of the opponents is impossible.

In the consonance of biblical testimony (culminating in the Enoch prophecy; vv. 5-­16) and the words of the apostles (vv. 17-­19) the impious character of the opponents and their liability to judgment has become clear. The addressees can only distance themselves from such people, and the whole polemical section of the letter leads up to motivating them to the necessary contention for the traditional faith. 410 Cf. Sellin, Streit, 188n172; further Burchard, Jakobusbrief, 159–­60; Popkes, Jakobus, 249–­50; Frankemölle, Jakobus, 2:541–­4 4. 411 Cf. further Pearson, Terminology, 13: “The term seems to be one that the heretics (probably Gnostics) used to apply to non-­g nostic Christians.” Against this Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 81, who maintains that “such a reception of an opposing catchphrase [does] not really emerge.” See the detailed discussion in Vögtle, Judasbrief, 90–­91.

140

Jude: Commentary

IV. The Paraenetic Closing of the Letter Body (vv. 20-­23) (20) But you, beloved, by building yourselves up upon your most holy faith [and] praying in the Holy Spirit, (21) preserve yourselves in the love of God awaiting the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ for eternal life. (22/23) And snatch some people from the fire, but for those who dispute have mercy in fear, though you despise the garment stained by the flesh.412

With the renewed address to the readers as “beloved” (vv. 3, 17) the author now begins the closing paraclesis, which corresponds structurally with the exhortation to contend for the traditional faith in v. 3. In general, vv. 20-­21 resume a series of elements from vv. 1-­3:413 being preserved by Jesus (v. 1) corresponds with the exhortation here to preserve themselves (v. 21); the love of God (vv. 1-­2) is mentioned again here (v. 21), as is the mercy (ἔλεος) of Christ (v. 21; cf. v. 2), faith (v. 20; cf. v. 3), and in conjunction with the latter, the aspect of holiness (v. 20), which was used in v. 3 as a label for the faithful. This thematic resumption demonstrates how thoughtfully Jude has been composed; but this is not simply a repetition. Rather, what was ascribed to the addressees indicatively in the letter opening is now the object of the paraenesis. In this, the conflict with the intruding false teachers remains in view. However, there is significant uncertainty here about the original text, due in part to the substantive difficulties of the statements being made. The passage is “undoubtedly one of the most corrupt passages in New Testament literature.”414 Thus the text-­critical discussion must precede the commentary on vv. 22-­23. Excursus: On the text of vv. 22-­23 The text-­critical problems of this statement are even more complex than those of v. 5 and cannot be conclusively resolved.415 There are thirty-­nine different variants attested in the Greek tradition alone.416 First, we must distinguish between a two-­part and a three-­part textual form. 412

The Greek textual form translated here (which will be justified in the excursus on vv. 22-­23) is: καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάσατε διακρινομένους δὲ ἐλεεῖτε ἐν φόβῳ μισοῦντες καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένον χιτῶνα. 413 See the table in Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 93. 414 Osburn, “Jude 22-23,” 139. 415 Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 185ff., thus offer an exegesis of two possible textual versions, a shorter and a longer form, alongside one another. 416 See the list in K. Aland, Text, 215–­20; further Osburn, “Jude 22-­23.” See the helpful breakdowns in Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 108–­10, and Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître,



Jude 20-23 Text

Translation

141 Attestation

Two-­part variants: οὓς μὲν ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάσατε διακρινομένους δὲ ἐλεεῖτε ἐν φόβῳ

snatch some from the fire, but on those who doubt/dispute have mercy in fear

Subvariant: . . . without ἐν φόβῳ

𝔓72

Clem. Alex., Jer., syph, sa*

οὓς μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακρινομένους

convict those who doubt/dispute,

οὓς δὲ σῴζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες ἐν φόβῳ

but save others, snatching them from the fire in fear

οὓς μὲν ἐλεᾶτε διακρινόμενοι

have mercy on some by distinguishing,

οὓς δὲ ἐν φόβῳ σῴζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες

but save others in fear by snatching (them) from the fire

οὓς μὲν ἐλεᾶτε διακρινομένους σῴζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες

have mercy on those who doubt/ dispute, save (them) by snatching them from the fire,

οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ

but on others have mercy in fear

C

K, L, P, S, + Majority text

B

Three-­part variants: οὓς μὲν ἐλεᾶτε διακρινομένους

have mercy on those who doubt/ dispute,

οὓς δὲ σῴζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες

save others by snatching them from the fire,

οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ

and have mercy upon others in fear

οὓς μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακρινομένους

convict those who doubt/dispute,

οὓς δὲ σῴζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες

save others by snatching them from the fire,

οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ

have mercy upon others in fear

‫א‬

A

* On this, see Osburn, “Jude 22-­23,” 139–­4 0.

In this situation, it is virtually impossible to make any progress with external arguments from attestation, and the text-­critical decision can ultimately only be made based on considerations of substance and ‘internal grounds’ for the development of the individual variants. A few considerations should be mentioned first of all: Substantively this sentence is concerned with the community’s treatment of those who are more or less strongly influenced by the false teachers. Though its imagery is difficult to understand, the participial clause μισοῦντες καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένον χιτῶνα (“also hating the garment stained by the flesh”) is textually 185–­88. See also the thorough argumentation in Wasserman, Jude, 320–­31.

142

Jude: Commentary

uncontested, and indicates that the ‘most dangerous’ group is mentioned at the end—­that is, that this is a rhetorical climax in two or three parts.417 The verbs ἁρπάζειν (“snatch up”), σῴζειν (“save”), ἐλεεῖν or ἐλεᾶν (“feel pity,” “show mercy”), and ἐλέγχειν (“convict”) are correlated in different arrangements with various groups (“some”/“others” or the διακρινόμενοι). In connection with v. 9, διακρινόμενοι probably refers to people who get involved in a discussion or dispute—­that is, argue against a rebuke.418 It is likely that each line contains a finite verb in the imperative. Other relatively certain elements are ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάσατε (which is then shifted in many manuscripts and transformed into a participial phrase: ἁρπάζοντες) and ἐλεεῖτε ἐν φόβῳ. In addition, the two three-­part readings transmitted in codices A and ‫ א‬appear to be secondary; the repeated ἐλεᾶτε in ‫ א‬does not seem appropriate to the presumed climax. The same applies to the reading in B, which differs from ‫ א‬only in that it does not offer οὓς δέ before the second finite verb σῴζετε. The readings presented in A, B, and ‫ א‬must therefore be ruled out. The same probably also applies to the versions in C and the Majority text, in which the finite ἁρπάσατε is rendered as a participle and replaced or augmented with the ‘less ambiguous’ verb σῴζετε. Altogether, the ‘disambiguating’ addition of σῴζειν could have increased the number of finite verbs—­that is, of groups involved—­from two to three. Thus a two-­part form is likely to be more original,419 and would be difficult to explain from a three-­part text.420 The notion that the three-­part form should be considered original because the (relatively imprecise) parallel in Did. 2.7 has three parts is thus unjustified.421 Depending upon its position, διακρινομένους could designate one of the groups being addressed or—­taken in reference to the ‘orthodox’ (then in the nominative διακρινόμενοι)—­it could refer to the testing or discernment required in the context of repentance. The former is probably original. These considerations provide good arguments for the originality of the reading attested in 𝔓72, which is further supported by Clement and a few other witnesses: καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάσατε διακρινομένους δὲ ἐλεεῖτε ἐν φόβῳ μισοῦντες καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένον χιτῶνα. 417

So von Soden, Hebräerbrief, 209; Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 84. On the discussion of the meaning of the word see Spitaler, “Doubt,” with strong arguments that doubt is not the issue here. See further the discussion below ad loc. 419 This cannot be refuted by the argument that the author otherwise likes to use triads. 420 So Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 110; differently Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 83. 421 Against Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 84. 422 So also Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 108–­10 and Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 86. Bauckham also points out that even before the discovery of 𝔓72 this reading was supported in the commentaries of Moffatt, General Epistles, 244, and (with a slight variation) Bigg, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 340–­42. 418



Jude 20-23

143

This reading is supported not only by its brevity, but also by the fact that all other variants can be explained relatively well on its basis.423 This shows once again (as in v. 5) that the ‘great’ and otherwise text-­critically high-­quality codices ‫ א‬and B already present a heavily retouched text, while the oldest witness 𝔓72, which clearly offered a secondary reading for v. 5, is probably the most original textual witness here.

The admonition of the addressees first takes place with a four-­part sentence (vv. 20-­21), in which three participles modify the only finite verb τηρήσατε in v. 21. The author’s central concern is apparently ‘preserving’ the addressees in the love of God—­that is, that they remain in the traditional faith, which the addressees should fight to safeguard (v. 3). In a second sentence the admonition then turns to the task articulated in v. 3 of contending for the faith—­namely, how to treat (probably two) different groups of community members who are strongly influenced in various ways by the thinking of the false teachers. While some can and should (just barely) be saved, for others there remains only the possibility of a merciful but distant treatment “in fear,” since engaging with them apparently brings with it the danger of ‘infection.’ There is no more mention of the false teachers themselves—­they are already regarded as lost beyond redemption, and only separation from them is possible. 20-­21 The sentence of vv. 20-­21 constitutes a paraenetic unit and takes up four relatively conventional motifs of early Christian paraenesis. Two triads are noteworthy here:424 the first, third, and fourth elements articulate the traditional triad of faith, love, and hope (cf. 1 Cor 13:13), while the second, third, and fourth also speak of the Holy Spirit, God, and Jesus Christ (in that order). Like in 1 Cor 12:4-­6, John 16:13-­15, or Matt 28:19, this passage speaks of God, Christ, and the Spirit as a triad (but not yet as trinity!) with a certain differentiation between the three. This reveals the author’s compositional care, as does the concentrated incorporation of motifs from vv. 1-­3. The logic of the connection between the three participles and the imperative τηρήσατε is not entirely clear. A modal understanding is probably correct philologically, but it should be kept in mind that in other paraenetic sections of the NT (Rom 12:9-­19; Eph 4:2-­3; Col 3:16-­17; Heb 13:5; 1 Pet 2:18; 3:1, 7-­9; 4:7-­10) participles are also used in an imperative sense,425 and so these four admonitions have often been understood as a parallel sequence of four injunctions.426 However, syntactically the main emphasis is on the explicit imperative 423

Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 110. On this, Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 112; Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 92–­93. 425 So Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 112–­13. However, the suggested derivation of this linguistic form from a Hebrew or rabbinic Jewish usage is far-­fetched. 426 Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 83. 424

144

Jude: Commentary

τηρήσατε, which constitutes the “heart of the entire paraclesis.”427 The concern, then, is that the addressees, who are beloved by God and preserved by Christ (v. 1), now also “preserve” themselves in the love of God—­that is, actively remain in that which was given to them once and for all. From the indicative there now follows the imperative, the admonition is grounded in the affirmation, in the addressees’ salvific status (vv. 1-­3), but the preservation admonished here is apparently necessary in order for the addressees to be able to stand blameless before the Christ of the Parousia at the eschaton (v. 24). However, this connection is not discussed further and it remains unclear precisely how the author understands the relationship of faith and abiding, preservation, probation, and the ultimate acquisition of salvation. After the address to the readers, the first motif of the paraclesis adopts the traditional early Christian motif of the community as a “building” or temple,428 which was occasionally used already in the earliest Christian paraenesis for ‘building up’ the community429 or other fellow Christians.430 In the present context, this is concerned less with the process of building up than with the notion that the addressees should stand and remain upon the proper ground—­they should “build themselves up upon their holiest faith.” Here, unlike in the older passages that use the building metaphor, this ground is not Christ (1 Cor 3:11), nor “the apostles and prophets” (Eph 2:20), but rather the faith that was given to the addressees once and for all (v. 3) and which (because of its divine origin) has the attribute of ‘holiness’431—­the greatest dignity and changelessness. It would be a mistake, however, to regard this ‘state of faith’ as purely doctrinaire and formulaically rigid. Nor can an individualistic restriction be assumed.432 Rather, the addressees as a community of the faithful are spoken to in the plural. They should—­collectively and in combative opposition to the “scoffers”—­remain upon the foundation of the “holy” faith that was once transmitted, and stand up for other, endangered community members with pastoral care and in the practice of daily life. This first participial admonition is followed asyndetically by the second: the addressees should “pray in the Holy Spirit”—­that is, let prayer support them 427

Vögtle, Judasbrief, 99. 1 Cor 3:9-­17; 2 Cor 6:16; Col 2:7; Eph 2:20-­22; 1 Pet 2:5; Ign., Eph. 9.1; Barn. 4.11; 6.15; 16; Herm. Vis. 3; Herm. Sim. 9. 429 1 Cor 8:1; 10:23; 14:4-­5, 12, 26; 2 Cor 12:19; 13:10; Eph 4:12, 16, 29; 1 Pet 2:5. 430 1 Thess 5:11; 1 Cor 8:10; 14:17; used reflexively in 1 Cor 14:4. 431 On “holy faith” see Acts Pet. 8 (cited in Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 113). 432 Vielhauer, Oikodome, 143, thinks that this “no longer [refers] to building up the community . . . but to ‘building up the religious character’ of the community members.” Against this Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 83n204. 428



Jude 20-21

145

as they remain and stand firm in the faith. Constant or regular prayer thus appears as a power or a means with which to maintain the addressees upon the foundation of the faith and within the ‘realm’ of the love of God. In early Christian literature, the phrase “in the Spirit” characterizes speaking or acting as “inspired by God” or “under the control of the Spirit.”433 In reference to prayer, this implies that the spirit brings forth the prayer, purifies it, or brings it into harmony with God’s will. This could refer to prayer in worship, which in 1 Cor 12–­14, for example, is regarded as an event of prayer and speech guided by the spirit—­but this is not compelling here, and the formulation is more comprehensive. Despite the striking parallels with 1 Cor 14, which mentions “praying in the spirit” (vv. 15-­16) and “building oneself up” ([ἐπ]οικοδομεῖν ἑαυτόν, v. 4), there is no reason to assume here a specific reference to glossolalic prayer.434 προσεύχομαι includes “all forms of prayer,”435 without any specific form coming to the fore. Thus in a striking parallel (likewise participial) formulation (προσευχόμενοι ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ ἐν πνεύματι) Eph 6:18 admonishes prayers of supplication and intercession “in the spirit,” and according to John 4:23-­24 God can in general only be truly and properly worshiped “in the spirit.” Altogether, according to a widespread conviction, Christian prayer is grounded in the gift of the Holy Spirit and is enabled by the Spirit (cf. Rom 8:14; Gal 4:6), and its practice is supported and conveyed by the Spirit (Rom 8:26-­27).436 When—­likewise conventionally—­the “Holy Spirit” is mentioned here, in context this simultaneously creates a close connection with the preceding reference to the “holiest” faith and the faithful who are described as “holy” (v. 3). The exhortation to prayer is also grounded in the salvific status that was ascribed to the ‘orthodox’ addressees in vv. 1-­3. Prayer is a hallmark and a consequence of the salvific state, an imperative that necessarily follows from the preceding indicative. On the other hand, the contrast with the opponents is evident; in v. 19 the author attested that they “do not have the spirit” and in their nature are earthly, indeed comparable to unreasoning animals in their capacity for insight (v. 10)—­whereas the addresees who are steadfast in the faith should “pray in the spirit” and are thus connected with the heavenly world, and in the author’s view perhaps even with the angels. 433

Mark 12:36 par.; Matt 22:43; Luke 2:27; 4:1; Acts 19:21; Rom 8:9; 1 Cor 12:3; Rev 1:10; 4:2; 17:3; 21:1; Barn. 9.7; Mart. Ascen. Isa. 3:19. 434 This was suggested by Dunn, Jesus, 245–­46; Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 95; but, cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 113. 435 Vögtle, Judasbrief, 100. 436 It is probably not wrong to regard these formulations within the sphere of influence of the Pauline tradition.

146

Jude: Commentary

There now follows—­in an imperative, the only finite verb in the sentence—­the command that the addressees “preserve themselves in the love of God.” Here with τηρεῖν a verb is used that practically has the significance of a leitmotif throughout the text. While God “preserves” for judgment the angels who did not “preserve” proper order (v. 6) and in turn “preserves” eternal darkness and keeps it ready for them (and the other impious; v. 13), the faithful, who are beloved by God, are “preserved” by Jesus Christ (v. 1; cf. 24) and should accordingly also “preserve” themselves in the love of God. The preservation by Christ affirmed at the beginning should thus also become the object of their own effort in response to the divine call (which correlates with the admonition to contend for the faith in v. 3), although the preceding reference to prayer achieved by the spirit probably implies an awareness that such preservation is not possible by one’s own power alone. The admonition is formulated in view of the danger that even the ‘orthodox’ community members could be ‘infected’ by the opponents and their teaching, abandon the traditional faith, and thus in the author’s view fall from their present salvific state and fail to reach eschatological salvation. The aim of the letter is specifically to prevent this, to enlighten the addressees about the character of the false teachers (vv. 5-­19) and rouse them to contend for the faith (v. 3) with regard to themselves (vv. 20-­21) and other community members, insofar as they are still amenable on this point (vv. 22-­23). But as much as the author expects that his addressees will remain “preserved” until the end (v. 24: there with φυλάσσειν), he nevertheless anticipates the possibility and the danger of apostasy. In this the author differs significantly from statements about the perseverance of the faithful in Paul437 or in the Johannine texts,438 whereas other NT texts such as Heb, Matt, or Rev certainly reckon with the real possibility of apostasy from faith or the failure to reach eschatological salvation. For those addressed here as “called” and “beloved” (vv. 3, 17, 20), however, the author expects that they will hold fast to the faith precisely because they are “beloved in God” and “preserved by Jesus Christ.” Despite the great difference from Pauline and Johannine soteriology, however, one cannot speak of ‘synergism’ in this conception of the relation between human and 437 On Paul, cf. Gundry-­Volf, Paul and Perseverance, differently Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy, who shows that the apostasy of individuals is also conceivable in Paul (1 Cor 10:1-­13; cf. also 1 Cor 5). 438 Cf. John 6:39, 40, 44; 10:28. Johannine predestinationism can of course only deal with the phenomenon of schism within the Johannine community by denying in 1 John 2:18-­22 that secessionists were ever truly Christian. But this is not far from the statements of Jude (v. 19).



Jude 20-21

147

divine activity, which is not considered in systematic detail here.439 The use of such heresiological categories would be anachronistic and inappropriate to the author’s thinking.

The ἀγάπη θεοῦ cited here thus should not be understood in the sense of love for God, but certainly as a genetivus subiectivus.440 It is the love of God itself, which God applied to the world in Christ (cf. Rom 5:5; 2 Cor 13:13; 2 Thess 3:5; Eph 2:4; John 15:9-­10; 1 John 2:5; 3:1; 4:10, 16), that enables the addressees to be “beloved.” Their “self-­preservation” can therefore ultimately only be a response to the foundational salvific act that originates with God; according to the soteriology of Jude, it is a response that is necessary for the faithful to prove themselves. Remaining in faith is part of faith, here not much differently than in John 13–­17, and in the present situation (Jude 3-­4) the admonition to remain and preserve oneself emerges as urgently required. This is the point in which faith must prove itself until the Parousia. This is connected with a final admonition, again expressed as a participial clause. Self-­preservation in the love of God and thus in salvation is associated with “awaiting the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ for eternal life”—­that is, with the confident hope for merciful acceptance at his coming. Those who hold fast to the traditional faith need not fear condemnation at the judgment, but can rather expect “mercy” (ἔλεος) and thus the ultimate granting of salvation, “eternal life,” and can therefore approach that day with joy and confidence (cf. 1 John 2:28; 4:17). There is no mention of ‘ judgment’ here or in v. 24; this term is only used with regard to the opponents who can expect punishment with the arrival of the Kyrios (vv. 4b, 6, 15). The mercy of Christ is nothing other than his forgiving care, as the addressees have already experienced it in the faith. It defines their life as the faithful and should (according to the salutatio in v. 2) continue to do so in abundance. In this respect this fourth admonition also presents a stark contrast to the opponents, who cannot look forward to such “mercy,” but rather anticipate the judgment of condemnation. The issue here is thus not the admonition to maintain the expectation of the Parousia (which—­unlike in 2 Pet—­is not mentioned in the entire text as being denied by the opponents); the author rather presupposes this expectation in his addressees. Instead, the concern here is what will be bestowed at the eschaton upon those who preserve and prove themselves in faith, or how the expectation of those who remain in God’s love is acquired. 439

Against Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 169. Thus most commentaries; see Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 113; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 100; Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 96. This is supported in v. 21 by the parallel with the “mercy of Jesus Christ” discussed in what follows. 440

148

Jude: Commentary

For this, the connection of προσδέχεσθαι with language of “mercy” is crucial. The former is a common term for eschatological expectation,441 the latter is traditionally part of the hope of the people of God442 and should be understood substantively against the background of biblical statements about God’s “covenant loyalty” (‫)ח ֶסד‬. ֶ 443 The emphasis lies not on ‘undeserved’ grace or even salvation from suffering; rather, it is on the positive, ‘benevolent’ behavior of the judge toward those who are able to appear before him blamelessly and unashamed (cf. 1 John 2:28; also Heb 4:16). However, this mercy that the addressees can expect here is not expected from God, as is usually the case, but rather from Jesus Christ, like in 2 Tim 1:18 and 2 Clem. 16.2.444 This once again confirms the christological interpretation of the theophanic statement of 1 En. 1:9.445 Jesus Christ is the Kyrios, to whom the judgment and the power over the gift of “eternal life” are transferred (cf. John 5:22-­23, 26-­27) and who—­at his expected arrival—­will carry out this eschatological duty. The four-­part paraclesis to the addressees is characterized by a great “pastoral warmth.”446 It articulates the “fundamental orientation of true Christians,”447 among whom the author counts his addressees, in direct contrast to the preceding disqualification of the opponents. At the same time the admonitions resume motifs from the letter opening (v. 1) and body opening (v. 3), so that vv. 20-­23 can be seen as “the climax of the entire letter.”448 The polemical disqualification of the false teachers is not an end in itself, but rather contributes to the pastoral interest of immunizing the addressees against the seductive power of their teaching and thereby motivating them to “preserve” themselves in the transmitted faith and to contend for this faith in their own context. These verses thus reveal the author’s positive pastoral interest—­despite the pervasive polemical harshness of the letter. At the same time, these statements (alongside v. 12) provide one of the few windows onto the spirituality of the congregation(s) being addressed, and the motifs employed here—­the triad of faith, love, and hope, the reference to the Holy Spirit and its connection with prayer, as well 441

Cf. Mark 14:43; Luke 2:25, 38; 12:36; 23:51; Acts 24:15; Titus 2:13; 2 Clem. 11.2. Other verbs are προσδοκᾶσθαι, ἐκδέχεσθαι, ἀπεκδέχεσθαι, or ἀναμένειν. 442 Cf. 1 En. 1:8; 5:6; 27:4; 2 Macc 2:7; Pss. Sol. 7:10; 8:27-­28; 10:4, 7; 14:9; 17:45; 2 Bar. 78:7; 82:2; 4 Ezra 14:34; Matt 5:7; 2 Tim 1:18; 1 Clem. 28.1. 443 Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 97–­98. 444 The fact that this statement is attested only in texs of the postapostolic period confirms what has been said about the theological location of Jude (cf. Vögtle, Judasbrief, 101). 445 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 114. 446 Vögtle, Judasbrief, 101. 447 Frankemölle, 1. Petrusbrief, 2. Petrusbrief, Judasbrief, 142. 448 Vögtle, Judasbrief, 101; cf. Bauckham, Relatives, 154.



Jude 20-23

149

as the imagery of the building—­offer indications that even this community (or these communities) are still located to a certain extent within the pool of light cast by Pauline thought. 22-­23 More specific instructions for this struggle follow in the textually and substantively difficult vv. 22-­23. For their part, these instructions are situated within the context of the various considerations about how to treat heretics that pervade the texts of the postapostolic period and of the Apostolic Fathers. I rely on the following textual form as the source text here: καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάσατε διακρινομένους δὲ ἐλεεῖτε ἐν φόβῳ μισοῦντες καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένον χιτῶνα.

The precise meaning of this passage is one of the most difficult problems in the exegesis of Jude, and these difficulties are likely to have led to the various textual emendations and systematizations, not least under the influence of the emerging ecclesial system of repentance.449 It is evident in the preceding text that the author regards the situation of the addressee communities very critically and sees great dangers even for those who remain within the traditional faith; this is expressed in the second line of the text (ἐν φόβῳ) and in the participial phrase that cryptically employs clothing imagery. It apparently cannot be assumed that the engagement demanded of the addressees—­namely, to keep their fellow Christians on the right path or to bring them back to it—­will be successful. The first line speaks of saving “some” fellow Christians, which, however, will be a narrow escape—­they can only be snatched by a hairsbreadth from the fire of judgment.450 This alludes succintly to OT texts: Amos 4:11 and Zech 3:2 speak metaphorically of a burning stick saved from the fire, in Amos 4:11 with reference to the Israelites who barely escaped destruction, and in Zech 3:2 as a statement about the high priest Joshua. On the basis of the words of Michael quoted in v. 9, which correspond with the angel’s rebuke to Satan in Zech 3:2, it is likely that the author had this passage in view.451 But the image of salvation “as through fire” is also found in Paul in 1 Cor 3:15. This imagery is clear even without the biblical background. 449

Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 110, points to this. Interpreters take various forms of the text as a basis here. 450 It is also unnecessary to speculate as to whether in the author’s view those concerned are already in the fire or only on the brink of it. A taxonomy of eschatological ideas cannot be presumed here—­especially in such a breif comment. 451 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 114–­15.

150

Jude: Commentary

This scene is apparently formulated with a view to those community members who have fallen victim to the spiritual or ethical influence of the false teachers. How this “snatching up” is meant to occur is not specified; the author must have presumed a certain knowledge about forms of community reprimand and repentance among his addressees (cf. Matt 18:15-­17, etc.). Insofar as those concerned follow the correction, through timely repentance they (just barely) escape the fire of judgment, which would otherwise fall upon them at the arrival of the Lord.452 It is clear that the fire refers to this and not some fire of testing453 or even purification454—­the idea of the fire of judgment or of hellfire is widespread in early Christianity, from the words of John the Baptist (Matt 3:10; Luke 3:17) and numerous Jesus logia (Matt 5:22; 13:40-­42; 18:8-­9; 25:41; Mark 9:47-­48; etc.), to the imagery of the Gospel of John (John 15:6) and statements such as Heb 10:27 or Rev 20:14-­15.455 The addressees should make an aggressive effort to snatch such fellow Christians from the fire—­that is, to “save” them from the impending judgment.456 With this demand, Jude stands in line with other NT writings (not just those of a later date) that in the face of given circumstances develop procedures for dealing with those fellow Christians who stray or are endangered, who should be dissuaded or won back from straying or ethical transgressions by correction and warning.457 The second line presents greater problems. This apparently speaks of a different group,458 which was probably introduced originally with διακρινομένους (in 452

The author thus—­unlike the auctor ad Hebraeos—­reckons with the possibility of a second repentance, which, however, can only be meant for those community members influenced by the false teachers, not for the false teachers themselves, who according to v. 12 are “twice dead” and are certain to be destroyed by punishment at the judgment (cf. Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 84). 453 This image is used in this way in the ‘test of fire’ in 1 Cor 3:13—­then differently in 1 Cor 3:15. 454 The aspect of purification is not in view here. The idea of a ‘purgatory’ first emerges later in early Christianity, in a rudimentary form in Clement of Alexandria and Origen; on this, see the comprehensive study by Touati, “Le Purgatoire.” 455 Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 101; on fire see the thorough discussion in von Kienle, Feuermale. 456 Cf. the usage of σῴζειν in other textual versions. 457 So already Gal 6:1; then in the Jesus tradition Luke 17:3 and above all Matt 18:15-­17, and in the later letters 2 Thess 3:15; 1 Tim 5:20; Titus 3:10; and Jas 5:19-­20; cf. Did. 2.7; 15.3; cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 115. 458 Differently Allen, A New Possibility, who wants to take all three lines in reference to one group of “doubting” people.



Jude 22-23

151

the accusative).459 However, the meaning of the middle verb διακρίνεσθαι is difficult to determine and remains disputed. A broad tradition in scholarship sees the verb διακρίνεσθαι in Jude 22 for various reasons as meaning “doubt,” so that (depending upon the textual basis) one of the two or three groups appears as “doubters.” This is based upon either an emphatic interpretation of the middle form (“to be uncertain, be at odds with oneself, doubt, waver”)460 or, in conjunction with other NT passages (Matt 21:21; Mark 11:23; Acts 10:20; Rom 4:20; 14:23; Jas 1:6), upon the assumption of a meaning specific to the NT,461 which is often assumed because the verb is frequently found in the context of “faith,” and “doubt” is regarded as an antonym to it—­without, however, any compelling semantic arguments.462 However, given the usage of the same middle verb in v. 9, it is more likely that the διακρινόμενοι are those who dispute the author’s view or those who are condemned (or have long since been judged).463 This can hardly refer to judgment by a community jurisdiction in a situation in which the false teachers themselves still participate in the community meals (v. 12); at most, it could be conceivable that this refers to people who stand under God’s judgment. This naturally includes the opponents who have been previously discussed, but it is hardly plausible that the community should still treat these people with mercy, after their presence has been so harshly condemned.464 It is most probable, therefore, that διακρινόμενοι denotes people who do not accept the admonition of the addressees positively (as does the first group), but contradict it, begin to quarrel, and thereby show themselves to be unteachable and unrepentant. Thus it is not the false teachers themselves, but those who ultimately follow the opponents’ teaching. Already in v. 9 the author used διακρίνεσθαι in the sense of “dispute”; this sense is also ultimately supported in vv. 22-­23 by the following clause with its clothing imagery. If the verb is understood in this way, this produces a coherent connection in vv. 22-­23 with Zech 3:2-­4 that—­even in the form of a brief allusion—­corresponds with the author’s scriptural usage.465

Those community members who oppose being corrected by the addressees (and thus by the author) and thereby prove to be undiscerning and unrepentant can 459 This linguistic form, in which διακρινομένους introduces the second line in place of a repeated οὓς, is of particularly good style and could thus correspond with the author’s high stylistic abilities more than the simpler strings of the other textual variants; on the discussion see Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 110. 460 BDAG s.v. Cf. BA, 370–­71, etc.; further evidence in Spitaler, “Doubt,” 201–­2 . 461 So also LSJ, s.v.; Harrington, “Jude and 2 Peter,” 221; Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 488. 462 On this, see the convincing criticism in Spitaler, “Doubt,” 203–­4. 463 Cf. the discussion in Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 115. If doubters were meant here, it would remain unclear why they should not be convinced or corrected, and why such a danger is anticipated for the addressees. 464 This is suggested by Spitaler, “Doubt,” on the basis of a three-­part chiastic reconstruction of the verse. 465 So Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 115.

152

Jude: Commentary

no longer be ‘saved’; they are destroyed in the fire from which the others were snatched up. The addressees are thus admonished to treat such people “in fear” with the requisite merciful compassion. The fear mentioned here could, on the one hand, be fear of one’s own defilement, but it is more likely the fear that is directed toward God and the reality of the divine judgment—­which would also once again produce a contrast to the false teachers, who seek their own advantage “without fear” (ἀφόβως, v. 12). The compassion required of the addressees even toward the unrepentant, as difficult as it may be, corresponds with the mercy they themselves have experienced and continue to experience (v. 2) and which they may expect from the coming Lord (v. 21; cf. Luke 6:36). It remains unclear specifically how this compassion ought to manifest itself; it may be in intercessory prayer, which is also possible in cases where attempts to persuade are unfruitful. However, Jude is silent on this matter. The final participial phrase is difficult to interpret. The tension between “mercy” and “hate” or “detest” (μισεῖν) suggests a concessive logical relation with the preceding clause. Although the addressees detest “the garment stained by the flesh,” they should meet these people with mercy. What is the “garment stained by the flesh”? It can be ruled out that this denotes the material body as a “dirty and impure gown” as in Acts Thom. 111, since neither the opponents nor even the author can be classified as gnostic and there is a specific differentiation here between garment and “flesh.”466 Does the staining simply superficially describe the garments of the itinerant teachers as dirty due to deficient personal hygiene?467 This is contradicted by the fact that v. 23 likely refers, not to the false teachers themselves, but to recalcitrant community members. A reference to the “garment stained by the libertine debaucheries”468 is only convincing if one regards the false teachers and their followers primarily as libertines, which is by no means compelling. A glance at the passage in Zech 3:2, which was already taken up in Jude 22, could explain the usage of clothing imagery; in Zech 3:3-­5 the high priest Joshua receives clean clothing in place of filthy clothing, symbolizing the forgiveness of sins. This indicates that the stained garment (cf. Rev 3:4) stands for the sinful nature of the people under discussion,469 without enabling the manner of staining to be specified 466 Vögtle, Judasbrief, 106. The citation by S. C. Winter, “Jude 22-23,” of parallels from the Book of Thomas the Contender from Nag Hammadi in order to—­quite anachronistically—­find the theme of sexual asceticism in Jude is far-­fetched. 467 So Sellin, “Häretiker,” 223–­24. 468 Schneider, Briefe, 129. 469 “ The ‘undergarment’ is mentioned here probably not so much because of its direct proximity to the skin, but rather because it is worn during the day, and thus in the usual time of interaction with one another” (Vögtle, Judasbrief, 107). When Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 116, wants to see concrete contamination with human excrement here, this does not bring us forward interpretatively. It is beyond doubt that the image is quite dramatic.



Jude 22-23

153

more precisely. However, going beyond Zech 3, there is reference to being stained by the “flesh” here. In this respect, it can be assumed that to a certain extent the author transfers the charge of debauchery, which he raised against the heretics (Jude 4, 10), to the community members who have been influenced by them, without this really being concretized.

It should be kept in mind that (as with the motif of “shipwreck” in v. 12) this is metaphorical language. In the context of this imagery, “hating” or “detesting” the garment expresses an extreme distancing. The addressees, who should greet those who stubbornly persist in dissension with Christian compassion, are simultaneously told that they can no longer maintain contact with such people, but should even despise their clothing, as an expression of their nature. This does not require a magical understanding of clothing (cf. Mark 5:27-­28; Acts 19:11-­12); rather, it is sufficient to know that daily interaction—­for example, in gestures of greeting, in offering hospitality and table fellowship—­leads to contact with clothing and this was therefore able to become a symbol for (physical and spiritual) contact as a whole. Ultimately this means that the addressees should only encounter those who are intractable in the face of admonition from an extreme distance, for the sake of their own (not so much physical as spiritual) integrity; in this situation, no further attempt at persuasion, no further discussion is appropriate, only the compassionate intercession in which the mercy of Christ is reflected. This attitude is reminiscent of Ignatius’ admonition (Smyrn. 4.1) against heretical groups in the community, who are described as “animals in human form”470 and with whom any contact is to be avoided; one should not receive them into one’s house and, if possible, should evade any encounter with them. Only intercession should not be abandoned since only this can bring about repentance, which Ignatius considers to be very difficult, but not impossible for Christ. The admonitions in the Johannine letters are also comparable. According to 2 John 10, teachers who bring the previously identified false teaching should not be given shelter or even greeted, since even a greeting (and the physical contact associated with it) signals fellowship with such teachers and could perhaps also encourage being influenced or even ‘infected’ oneself. First John 5:16—­probably with a view to apostates—­speaks of a “sin unto death,” for which even intercessory prayer is no longer recommended (because it could remain ineffective). Other instructions about dealing with intractable community members such as Matt 18:17; 1 Cor 5:11; or Titus 3:10 also advise dissociation.471

In a certain respect the admonition here takes up the one expressed at the end of Jas (5:19-­20), which encourages bringing those who are straying to repentance 470

Cf. 2 Pet 2:12, which further intensifies the comparison from Jude 10. On this, see Frey, “Disparagement.” 471 Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 105.

154

Jude: Commentary

in order to save them. For the author of Jude, however, the situation of his addressees is even more precarious. The opponents themselves can no longer be saved, and among the members of the addressee communities who have been influenced by them, some will not follow the admonition to repent, such that continued contact with them could also become a danger for the addressees themselves. In the end there remains only intercession “in fear”—­that is, in the knowledge of the gravity of the situation and of the judgment that is anticipated at Christ’s Parousia. At this point, however, we cannot avoid the critical issue of whether the author’s instructions reveal an overly fearful attitude, which does not reflect much faithful confidence and, alongside the reminder to remain in the faith once received and to actively preserve this faith, shows little trust in the positive argumentation for this position, engaging instead only in the heavy polemical disqualification of differently minded community members and recommending a fearful dissociation from them. Since we can only vaguely reconstruct their thinking, a more specific evaluation of the author’s approach and of his instructions is difficult. But the juxtaposition of serious polemics to ‘fear of contact’ points rather to a position of weakness. With all due respect for the letter’s pastoral intention and its rhetorical composition, the theological problems of this position cannot be overlooked. V. The Closing Doxology (vv. 24-­25) (24) But to the one who is able to keep you free of stumbling and to set you before his glory unblemished with great joy, (25) to the one God, our savior through Jesus Christ our Lord (belongs) glory, majesty, strength, and power before all time and now and unto all times. Amen.472

After the dense and ultimately nearly casuistically concrete admonitions, the letter closes with a solemn doxology that takes the place of a conventional epistolary closing. Liturgical forms resonate here, although the specific wording was probably the author’s own creation. At the same time the doxology indicates that the letter was meant to be read aloud in the context of worship among the addressee congregation(s).473 Like a spoken homily, it closes with a liturgical doxology.474 472

On the sharply divergent text in 𝔓72, see Wasserman, Jude, 331–­32. The closing of early Christian letters with a doxology likewise first occurs in the post­ apostolic period in Rom 16:25-­27, which is most likely textually secondary, in 2 Pet 3:18, 1 Clem. 65.2, Mart. Pol. 21 and Diogn. 12.9; in other letters, for the most part also rather late, a doxology is found before the closing greetings at the end of the letter body (Phil 4:20; 2 Tim 4:18; Heb 13:2; 1 Pet 5:11; 1 Clem. 64; Mart. Pol. 20.2). 474 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 121. 473



Jude 22-25

155

Formally, a doxology is normally composed of four parts: the identification of the object of praise in the dative (1), the catchword δόξα and/or other terms of praise (2), a formula of time or eternity (3), and the customary closing “amen” (4).475 All four elements are present here. The doxology begins (like Rom 16:25-­27; Eph 3:20-­21; and Mart. Pol. 20.2) with τῷ δυναμένῳ “to the one who is able,” which the author follows with an extensive expansion. The dative is picked up again in v. 25a with the phrase “the one God,” supplemented with the phrase “through Jesus Christ,” before a series of four laudatory nominatives, an eternity formula encompassing the three tempora, and the “amen” bring the doxology to a close.

24 The specific emphases of this doxology can be seen first of all in the extensive expansions to the introductory dative phrase. Following τῷ δυναμένῳ there are first two infinitives with which the doxological language approaches the substance of a prayer request or a blessing. God “is able” to (1) protect the addressees against stumbling or even falling, and ultimately (2) place them unblemished and in joy before God’s glory. Both statements continue what was said in vv. 20-­21 about the probation of the faithful until Christ’s Parousia, but now God is once again clearly expressed as the cause of salvation. God has the power “to preserve” the addressees (cf. John 17:11, 15; 2 Thess 3:3; 1 Pet 1:5 [φρουρεῖν]; Rev 3:10 [τηρεῖν]).476 The term ἀπταίστος, attested only here in the NT (but cf. 3 Macc 6:39), brings into play the common image of tripping, stumbling, or falling on the path.477 While the false teachers embody the danger that the faithful might fall along their way, and the addressees were previously exhorted to preserve themselves in the love of God (τηρεῖν), now in the doxological context the author articulates that God has the power to protect the addressees from stumbling and thereby enable them to remain in faith, to prove themselves, so that they will be preserved until the end (i.e., Christ’s Parousia). The adjective ἀμώμος (cf. Phil 2:25; Col 1:22; Eph 1:4; 5:27; 1 Pet 1:19; Rev 14:5) recalls the OT context of the unblemished sacrificial animal, which is not incorporated further here, although this word is associated with the cultic imagery of purity, which resonates with the notion of potential ‘defilement’ through the conduct of the false teachers touched on repeatedly in the letter. The expectation of the author is that, as long as they prove themselves accordingly in ethical and spiritual conduct, God is able to preserve the addressees “undefiled” until the eschaton, 475

Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 119; Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 106; in detail Deichgräber, Gotteshymnus, 25–­32. 476 It is striking that φυλάσσειν is used here rather than τηρεῖν, which is employed repeatedly elsewhere in the letter. This supports the idea that this should be differentiated from v. 1, where τηρεῖν first occurs. 477 Cf. the metaphor of shipwreck that underlies v. 12.

156

Jude: Commentary

so that they will appear before the δόξα, the radiance of God—­ultimately before God’s own presence478—­in the eschatological joy of those who achieve the goal as ‘victors.’479 What is expressed here about the power and might of God should once again be an affirmation for the addressees; by virtue of God’s activity—­the author is certain—­they will not fall and will remain blameless. Thus the confidence of the beginning of the letter is dominant at the end. 25 After these statements, which approximate a prayer of supplication, the repeated dative μόνῳ θεῷ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν takes up the doxology proper again. Here the statement μόνῳ θεῷ (“to the one God”/“to the one who alone is God”) incorporates the fundamental monotheistic tenet that is axiomatic in the Jewish tradition and was likewise adopted in early Christianity (John 5:44; 17:3; cf. Rev 15:4). The phrase occurs especially in doxologies, which emulate Jewish patterns of language particularly closely.480 The emphasis on God’s ‘sole’ divinity underscores the preceding thought that God has the power to help the faithful in their probation and thus ultimately in achieving eschatological salvation. This is reinforced by the title of “savior” (σωτήρ), which here refers not to Christ481 but, like in the (Hellenistic) Jewish tradition482 and occasionally in early Christianity,483 to God. In the present doxological context this Jewish language resonates and reinforces the theological foundation for the statement of salvation. Since the doxology appropriately applies to God (and not Christ), the reference to Christ is now added with a prepositional phrase διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. Interestingly, Jude on the one hand ascribes divine authority to the Christ of the Parousia, insofar as he will appear in judgment and mercy, and on the other hand does not yet use the title of savior to refer to Christ (as it will be used in 2 Pet), but in accordance with tradition in reference to God. This may also support the notion that the statements of the closing doxology are more traditional and based on the (liturgical) usage of the community. 478

Cf. 1 En. 104:1: ἐνώπιον τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου. ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει occurs in 1 En. 5:9; Luke 1:44; Acts 2:46; Mart. Pol. 18.3. That the victors will appear as a “cultically perfect sacrificial offering” (so Vögtle, Judasbrief, 109) is not expressed here. 480 Rom 16:27; 1 Tim 1:17; 2 Clem. 20.5; cf. 1 Tim 6:15-­16; 1 Clem. 43.6. 481 The title occurs in reference to Christ only once in early Chrsitianity (Phil 3:20). Not until the later period does this reference become more common: cf. Luke 2:11; John 4:42; Acts 5:31; 13:23; Eph 5:23; 2 Tim 1:10; Titus 1:4; 2:13; 3:6; 1 John 4:14; 2 Pet 1:1, 11; 2:20; 3:2, 18. On this, cf. Jung, ΣΩΤΗΡ, 263–­353; Karrer, “Retter”; Frey, “Retter.” 482 Cf. σωτὴρ ἡμῶν: LXX Pss 64:6; 78:9; 91:1; Pss. Sol. 8:33; 17:3; cf. further Isa 45:15, 21; Pss 23:5; 24:5; 26:1, 9; 61:3, 7; Wis 16:7; Sir 51:1; Bar 4:22; 3 Macc 6:29. See especially Jung, ΣΩΤΗΡ, 177–­230 (on the LXX) and 239–­61 (on intertestamental Judaism). 483 Cf. also Luke 1:47; 1 Tim 1:1; 2:3; 4:10; Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4; 1 Clem. 59.3. 479



Jude 24-25

157

It remains unclear whether the phrase should be taken to refer to the following laudatory attributes (in the sense that honor, and the like, is given to God through Christ),484 or whether a reference to the preceding σωτῆρι ἡμῶν is more appropriate (i.e., that through Christ God is our savior).485 Most early Christian doxologies point in the direction of the first option,486 but the second also exists at least in 2 Clem. 20.5,487 so that such an understanding is certainly conceivable, even if the syntactic connection with σωτῆρι ἡμῶν is somewhat rough. Such an imprecise reference is common in liturgical language. Substantive arguments—­such as that Christ could not be understood as the mediator of God’s honor “before all time”488—­are hardly compelling.489 On the other hand, the Pastoral Epistles, for example, offer a parallel to the notion that God’s status as savior is mediated “through Jesus Christ, our savior” (Titus 3:6). In addition, the letter opening (especially if, as argued above, Christ is the agent of the preservation of the faithful in v. 1) as well as the statements about Christ’s eschatological function for judgment and salvation (vv. 14-­15, 21) suggest that the phrase modifies σωτῆρι ἡμῶν;490 God is the originator of salvation, which in historical terms was set in motion through Jesus Christ, the Lord, and through him will be brought to completion eschatologically (in his Parousia). In doxological style there now follows a list of laudatory attributes: δόξα (“honor, glory”) occurs in nearly all doxologies (except 1 Tim 6:16; 1 Pet 5:11) and denotes the glory that belongs to God’s essence (originally the radiance associated with God). μεγαλωσύνη (“greatness, majesty”) is found in the doxology in LXX 1 Chr 29:11, one of the foundational OT sources for the attributes used in later doxologies.491 The term describes God’s cosmic supremacy492 and sometimes becomes a replacement term for Godself.493 κράτος (“strength, might”) is likewise often found in doxologies,494 and ἐξουσία (“power, authority”), 484

Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 124. Vögtle, Judasbrief, 110; Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 190. 486 Cf. Rom 16:27; Did. 9.4; 1 Clem. 58.2; 61.3; 64; 65.2; Mart. Pol. 14.3 (cf. 2 Cor 1:20; 1 Pet 4:13). 487 Cf. also Mart. Pol. 20.2, where there is the same ambiguity as in Jude 25. 488 So, e.g., Vögtle, Judasbrief, 110, who does not want to presume the preexistence of Christ for Jude. 489 Cf. 1 Clem. 65.2, which contains a similar statement. 490 Thus the ultimately decisive argument in Vögtle, Judasbrief, 110. 491 Cf. also Deut 32:3; Sir 39:15; Heb 1:3; 8:1; 1 Clem. 20.12; 61.3; 64; 65.2; Mart. Pol. 20.2; 21. 492 Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 293: “awful transcendence.” 493 Cf. 1 En. 5:4; Heb 1:3; 8:1; 1 Clem. 27.4; 36.2; 58.1. See Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 124. 494 1 Tim 6:16; 1 Pet 4:11; 5:11; Rev 1:6; 5:13; 1 Clem. 64; 65.2; Mart. Pol. 20.2. 485

158

Jude: Commentary

which rarely occurs in doxologies (only 1 Esd 4:40), denotes God’s power495 and authority as ruler. However, in the enumeration of doxological attributes, the precise differentiation of the respective semantic content is less important than the plerophoric expression of the honors bestowed upon God in abundance, which approximate in liturgical language a continuous stream of honors and, in this, imitate the unceasing praise of God that also takes place in the celestial realm, according to a widespread early Jewish and apocalyptic view (beginning with the trisagion in Isa 6:3).496 The concept of the ceaselessness of this praise as it is offered in the celestial realm by celestial beings,497 according to Jewish traditions on the basis of Isa 6:3, is expressed in the eternity formula encompassing the three modes of time. The attributes articulated here are not being ascribed to God now for the first time, and they are certainly not to be understood only in the mood of a wish;498 rather, they are inherent to God fundamentally and in all times, of which God is the Lord in God’s “greatness” (μεγαλωσύνη). In the present passage this formula of eternity is accentuated very independently: the πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος (“before all eons”) decidedly expresses499 a ‘time’ before all time—­that is, before the creation of the ages—­and thus articulates the eternity of God. The reference to the future dimension is expanded analogously. Instead of the usual εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων500 we also have here a formulation with πᾶς, which further reinforces the dimension of eternity—­εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας (“for all times”)501 (cf. Eph 3:21). Here, too, it becomes clear how the author arranged his wording quite independently, even where conventional schemata are given in biblical usage and in early Christian tradition. The closing “amen,” which is often found at the end of doxologies502 and probably traces back originally to the response (of the congregation) to the 495

LXX Dan 4:17; Sir 10:4; Luke 12:5; Acts 1:7; Rom 9:21; Rev 16:9; Herm. Mand. 4.1.11. On this, cf. especially the doxological sayings in Rev 4:8, 9-­11; 5:11-­12, 13; see detailed discussion on this in Schimanowski, Liturgie. 497 A key text for this is the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice found in Qumran and Masada, where angels are summoned to praise the greatness and glory of God and God’s kingdom, and they do so. 498 The absent copula should be filled in here with an “is” rather than a “be” (thus rightly Vögtle, Judasbrief, 110–­11). 499 There is a further intensification here in comparison with the πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων (“before the aeons”) of 1 Cor 2:7 or πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου (“before the foundation of the world”) of John 17:24; Eph 1:4; 1 Pet 1:20. 500 Rom 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 16:27; Gal 1:5; Phil 4:20; 1 Tim 1:17; 2 Tim 4:18; Heb 13:8; 1 Pet 4:11; Rev 1:6, 18; 4:9, 10; 5:13; 7:12; 10:6; 15:7; 19:3; 20:10; 22:5 (cf. however Eph 3:21). 501 Cf. only Eph 3:21. 502 Ps 40:14; 1 Esd 9:47; Tob 8:8; 3 Macc 7:23; 4 Macc 18:34; Rom 1:25; Gal 1:5; Eph 3:21; Phil 4:20; 1 Tim 1:17; 2 Tim 4:18; Heb 13:21; 1 Pet 4:11; 5:11; Rev 1:6. 496



Jude 25

159

doxology spoken liturgically,503 belongs here to the text itself.504 The author thereby anticipates the affirming response of the listening community, who are expected to respond appropriately to the doxology and beyond that to the message of the letter as a whole.505 Through the closing doxology, this message, including the admonition and the polemic, is given an effective confirmation at the end; in the laudatory acknowledgment of the power of God, which encompasses all time and is ultimately victorious, and of God’s Christ, the addressees should be reassured in their faithful status and follow the author’s instructions, including the admonition to remain in this faith. This, too, reveals the poignant, persuasive rhetoric of Jude.

503 Cf. 1 Chr 16:36; Neh 8:6; as well as Pss 41:14; 72:19; 89:53; 106:48 (always in the closing of ‘books’ 1–­4 of the psalter). 504 In other NT texts the manuscript tradition often secondarily added an “amen,” probably because of the liturgical reading tradition. 505 Vögtle, Judasbrief, 111.

This page intentionally left blank

Second Peter

This page intentionally left blank

INTRODUCTION

1. Preliminary Remarks The letters of Jude and 2 Pet are closely linked. These two letters display extensive thematic correlations and, according to the view now widely accepted in critical exegesis, they stand in a literary relationship—­namely, as will be shown, with 2 Pet dependent upon Jude. Nevertheless, the individual character of 2 Pet cannot be overlooked. Even though its author was able to agree with Jude on essential points and to take up its polemic against opponents for his own purposes, one must not presume that 2 Pet is directed against the same group of opponents, that it originates from a similar theological milieu, or that it represents the same theological interests as does Jude. Rather, within the NT, 2 Pet is “in terms of content, theology, and language” a “singular phenomenon.”1 Second Peter, like Jude, is among the texts most neglected by modern exegesis.2 The letter is widely considered to be the latest document of the NT, the latecomer in the canon, significantly later than some of the texts that did not 1

Kraus, Sprache, 2. In 1977 T. L. Fornberg (Church, 1) was able to declare that no monograph on this text had appeared for decades. Similarly, also in 2001, Kraus, Sprache, 1. This has changed thanks to the works by T. J. Kraus, Sprache (2001); M. J. Gilmour, Significance (2002); K. M. Schmidt, Mahnung (2003); Riedl, Anamnese (2005); Ch. Blumenthal, “Tag” (2007); Ruf, Propheten (2011); Grünstäudl, Petrus (2013); as well as the volume edited by R. L. Webb and D. F. Watson, Reading Second Peter (2010). 2

163

164

Second Peter: Introduction

become canonical.3 In addition, its theological substance is regarded by many as questionable,4 particularly in view of the bold authorial fiction and the polemic, which is unsurpassed in its harshness within the New Testament.5 Nevertheless, the letter offers important insights into Christian literary production of the second century, the reception history of the figure of Peter, the discussion of eschatology and cosmology, and the path to a canon that unifies Pauline and Petrine tradition, the gospel tradition, and the epistles. After doubts about this text had already been expressed in Christian antiquity and again in humanism, the historical-­critical discussion in the nineteenth century revolved primarily around introductory issues, the question of ‘authenticity’ and the age of the text, its relation to Jude, and the opponents. The discussion was rekindled in 1952 by Ernst Käsemann’s pronounced thesis that this text presents an—­admittedly failed—­“apologia for primitive Christian eschatology.”6 According to Käsemann, the doctrinal adherence to eschatological expectation documented a concrete misunderstanding, and represented the position of ‘early Catholicism,’ which was to be judged as a symptom of decline in comparison to earliest Christianity. As the “clearest witness to early Catholicism”7 in the NT, 2 Pet was thus pushed into the margins, indeed, beyond the borders of the canon that for Käsemann was determined theologically: 2 Pet was “the most questionable document of the canon.”8 Its author appeared to be a “defensor fidei,”9 yet the ‘faith’ being defended here was no longer an eschatological gift, but rather the doctrinal tradition of the church. The apocalyptic eschatology “dutifully” defended by the author was no longer the starting point for the whole theology; instead, it had become “the final chapter of dogmatic theology.”10 The conception of the apostle had also changed: “The messenger of the gospel has become the guarantor of tradition, the witness of the resurrection has become the witness of the historia sacra, the medium of God’s eschatological action has become the bringer of securitas.”11 3 Thus 1 Clem. and probably also the Ignatian Epistles, Barn., 2 Clem., and the work of Papias, perhaps also Gos. Thom. and (with Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus) Apoc. Pet. 4 Cf. von Soden, Literaturgeschichte, 237: “We owe no religious insights of value to the letter.” E. F. Scott, Literature, 224: “. . . the least valuable of the New Testament writings.” Further Schrage, “Zweite Petrusbrief,” 127, who asserts that 2 Pet is lacking in “theological depth and spiritual strength.” 5 On this, see Frey, “Disparagement”; on the authorial fiction, see Frey, “Autorfiktion,” 703–­11. 6 Käsemann, “Apologie,” 135. 7 Käsemann, “Apologie,” 157; cf. also 135: “from beginning to end a document of early Catholic outlook.” 8 Käsemann, “Apologie,” 135. 9 Käsemann, “Apologie,” 136. 10 Käsemann, “Apologie,” 149. 11 Käsemann, “Apologie,” 141.



Preliminary Remarks

165

With that, the judgment of this text stood firm for some time in German Protestant theology. Wolfgang Schrage summarized in his commentary: “In fact, its status and significance in the New Testament canon poses a largely unresolved problem for Protestant theology and for the church. It cannot be denied that the text contains theological viewpoints that, in their rigidity and insistence on absolutes, conspicuously conflict with both the core of New Testament statements and basic Protestant positions.”12 The harshest condemnation comes from Günter Klein: the author “presents his cause pitifully. . . . The disjointed multitude of arguments reeled off without interruption betrays an uncertainty that takes its defensive weapons wherever it can find them, a persuasiveness that convinces no one, because doubt itself gasps in its exertion. This defender of Christian hope has lost the ground under his feet, which can only be sustained by faith in the certainty of the future. With this he loses his standing in the New Testament.”13

To an even greater extent than is the case with Jude, exegesis falls into a confessional opposition: while Roman Catholic exegetes largely endeavored to explain the text as a testimony to authentic faith in the tradition of Peter,14 it has for that very reason been regarded in Protestant exegesis as a highly problematic representative of an ‘early Catholic’ perspective. Of course, the judgments cited above were by no means new, but rather rested on a long tradition of critical (Protestant) biblical scholarship, in which 2 Pet enjoyed little sympathy due to its character as a literary forgery and because of its severe polemic against heretics. Adolf Jülicher already judged in his introduction that the letter was “an artificial product” contrived in an ‘ivory tower’ and the NT text “least suited for canonization.”15 Hollmann and 12

Schrage, “Zweite Petrusbrief,” 122. G. Klein, “Petrusbrief,” 111; further 113: The author is an ostentatious “prince of the church,” who “gives way to sheer hate.” The epistle is an “unrestrained torrent of abuse, in which the fury of the underdog trembles . . . like a gruesome omen of the coming pyre.” Similarly, also Schulz, Mitte, 294–­306. It is astonishing how confession-­polemical clichés were incorporated in the interpretation of the text in the context of the early Catholicism thesis of the outgoing Bultmann school. 14 Thus in German scholarship the commentary by Schelkle, as well as the later commentaries by Knoch, Frankemölle, and Vögtle. See the detailed discussion of Käsemann’s criticism in Vögtle, Judasbrief, 272–­78. A strongly apologetic position is taken by Zmijewski (“Paradosis,” 169), who in the ‘reminder’ of the apostolic paradosis sees the author himself as following the apostle, “i.e., in the apostolic succession,” and concludes that, in this document as in the other pseudepigrapha, “the same spirit that Jesus himself had promised the apostles” is at work (Zmijewski, “Paradosis,” 171). Similarly, also Dschulnigg, “Ort,” 177: “His claim to be the executor of the testament of Peter . . . is proper against the background of Matt. And the church of the fourth century showed a reliable instinct for theological authenticity when it accepted [2 Pet] into the canon.” 15 Jülicher and Fascher, Einleitung, 224. 13

166

Second Peter: Introduction

Bousset openly admit their antipathy when they assert that 2 Pet is “of all the writings of the NT . . . the least likable.”16 That one could arrive at similarly harsh verdicts in the English-­speaking world as well is documented by, for instance, Edwin Abbott’s comment: “This Epistle is not Christian in spirit, much less apostolically Christian.”17 However, the persuasive power of this sort of dogmatically motivated condemnation was limited,18 and with the ecumenical opening and pluralizing of biblical scholarship, discussion of 2 Pet has also become more substantive and turned to new lines of questioning.19 Thus, recent decades have seen a series of studies advance the discussion of the text’s tradition and redaction history,20 language21 and rhetoric,22 intertextual references,23 fictional portrait of Peter,24 and position in the theological history of the second century,25 as well as its canon-­historical and canonical significance.26 The question of the canonicity of 2 Pet has also lost its sharp edge in theological discourse, at least as long as one does not link canonicity with the hypothesis of authenticity,27 which certainly cannot be maintained in this case. With this state of research, the letter can be read in a new, more appropriate manner without suppressing the problems that arise from its theological assertions, polemic, and bold authorial fiction. .

16

Hollmann and Bousset, Brief des Judas, 318. Abbott, “Appendix V,” 447. 18 On the criticism of Käsemann, see Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 151–­55, and Neyrey, “Form and Background,” who shows that the author’s arguments are by no means so disjointed as Käsemann thought. 19 The category of ‘early Catholicism’ that was central for Käsemann or the paradigm, characteristic of the Bultmann school, of the development of early Christian eschatology in terms of the ‘delay of the Parousia,’ have by now been largely abandoned, so that new spaces have also been opened up for the categorization of 2 Pet. On the problem of the delayed Parousia see Erlemann, Naherwartung; cf. also Frey, “Eschatology,” 26. 20 See especially Gerdmar, Rethinking; Ruf, Propheten. 21 Thus, in particular, Kraus, Sprache; Callan, “Style”; idem, “Syntax.” 22 Watson, Invention; Neyrey, “Form and Background”; Danker, “Decree”; on rhetorical aspects and reading methods see also the contributions in Webb and Watson, Reading Second Peter. 23 Thus, above all, Gilmour, Significance; and Ruf, Propheten. 24 Schmidt, Mahnung; Riedl, Anamnese; Frey, “Autorfiktion”; and Grünstäudl, Petrus. 25 Smith, Controversies; Ruf, Propheten; and most recently, above all, Wall, “Function”; idem, “Theology.” 26 On this see Wall, “Function”; Nienhuis and Wall, Reading, 130–­56 and 247–­76. 27 This correlation is found occasionally among evangelical authors, such that canonicity produces the necessity for an early dating or the presumption of Petrine authorship; likewise most recently also Berger, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 935. 17



Attestation and Canonical Acceptance

167

2. Attestation and Canonical Acceptance Attestation of 2 Pet in the early church presents greater difficulties than those found with Jude. While Jude was not called into question until later, in particular because of its citation of the apocryphal book of Enoch,28 the attestation of 2 Pet is weak, especially in the early period: “For the entire second century . . . in contrast to most other NT texts, extensive and secure evidence for the awareness or use of the second letter of Peter is lacking.”29 We may see in this not only a sign of its late composition, but perhaps also an indication that the new ‘Petrine’ letter was not received without reservation among its first readers.30 2.1 Textual attestation An important witness to the early reception of 2 Pet is the oldest extant textual witness, P.Bodm. VIII (𝔓72), a manuscript collection from the third or fourth century that documents 2 Pet together with 1 Pet and Jude (as well as eight other, mostly nonbiblical texts31) in Egypt, and whose free textual form already presupposes a certain history of the letter.32 This little collection may have served purely private purposes rather than being used in a congregational setting; on the other hand, the scribe includes marginal headings only for the text of 1–­2 Pet—­that is, he treats the Petrine epistles differently from the rest of the texts that he copied, which suggests a certain recognition of both (in contrast to Jude).33 In terms of reception in the church, the attestation of 2 Pet in the major majuscules of the fourth (‫א‬, B) and fifth (A, C, 048) centuries is significant, as are the Old Latin and Coptic versions.34 Yet some later manuscripts reveal an 28

See above, pp. 8–­9. Kraus, Sprache, 3, and see also 2–­8; and further, Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 162–­63; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 129–­31; Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 91–­92, as well as the (much too uncritical) list of witnesses in Bigg, Critical and Exegitcal Commentary, 199–­210; further Chaine, Les épîtres catholiques, 5–­12; Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 182–­84; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 162–­63; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 129–­31; and the critical discussion of the allegedly early witnesses in Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 187–­225. 30 Cf. Vögtle, Judasbrief, 129; Frey, “Autorfiktion,” 730. 31 On this, see above, p. 7n25; further, Nicklas and Wassermann, “Linien”; B. Aland, “Textkritik und Textgeschichte.” 32 Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 92; P. Müller, “Petrusbrief,” 314. 33 This could also apply to the Vorlage used by the scribe. Nicklas, “Lebendige Text,” 208–­ 9, brings the relative instability of the text of Jude in 𝔓72 as an argument for the idea that the scribe regarded Jude, in contrast to the Petrines, as noncanonical (220–­21). 34 An exception is found in the Syriac tradition, where the minor Catholic Epistles remained unknown even longer: only the three major Catholic Epistles (Jas, 1 Pet, 1 John) are 29

168

Second Peter: Introduction

unclear classification: thus 2 Pet is found in P.Michigan 3520, a Coptic manuscript from the first half of the fourth century, in a compilation with Qoheleth and 1 John; and the oldest Coptic textual witness of 1 Pet, the Crosby-­Schøyen Codex (third century?), does not appear to know 2 Pet, since it designates 1 Pet in the inscriptio and the subscriptio as the “Epistle of Peter.”35 2.2 Reception in the second century CE? Where the reception of 2 Pet begins, or when it is first demonstrable, is debated. Most texts from the second century that are occasionally mentioned in this debate36 do not furnish solid evidence. Parallel formulations in the Apostolic Fathers, such as 2 Clem. 16.3 (par. 2 Pet 3:10), Barn. 15.4 (par. 2 Pet 3:8), Pol. Phil. 3.2 (par. 2 Pet 3:15), do not offer sufficient grounds to presume usage of 2 Pet.37 Primarily under the influence of R. J. Bauckham,38 many scholars have accepted the hypothesis that the Apocalypse of Peter—­usually dated before the mid-­second century and situated by some more precisely in the Bar Kochba period (132–­135 CE)39—­is dependent upon 2 Pet. In this case, Apoc. Pet. would be a very lonesome witness for the knowledge of 2 Pet in the second century.40 found in the Peshitta, originating in the fifth century; the rest do not appear until the Philoxenian and Harclean versions in the sixth or seventh century. On this, see Metzger, Kanon, 209–­13; Siker, “Canonical Status”; further Merkt, Petrusbrief. 35 So Grünstäudl and Nicklas, “Searching,” 222–­23, with further references. 36 See the witnesses in Bigg, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 199–­210; most recently, Picirilli, “Allusions,” has attempted to show a reception in the Apostolic Fathers, but his study is imprecise and unconvincing. See, on the other hand, Gilmour, Significance, 115–­20, Ruf, Propheten, 591–­93, and Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 187–­205. 37 So, summarizing, Gilmour, Significance, 120. 38 See already Spitta, “Petrusapokalypse”; recently, in detail, Bauckham, “2 Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter”; previously already in his commentary: Jude, 2 Peter, 149. In agreement in the result, Kraus, Sprache, 390–­96; idem, “Petrus-­Apokalypse,” 78–­84. 39 In his commentary Bauckham still dates the text roughly between 110 and 140 CE (Jude, 2 Peter, 162); in view of the reasons given by Buchholz, Eyes, 408–­12, he suspects a date in the time of the Bar Kochba war (Bauckham, “Apocalypse of Peter,” 176–­94). The argumentation is based above all on the proclamation of a false messiah in Apoc. Pet. 2.4–­13. According to Bauckham this alludes to Bar Kochba, whereby his final defeat or elimination is not yet spoken of, but rather Enoch and Elijah are expected as instructors. In agreement, among others, Norelli, “Situation,” 34–­62; Marrassini, “Apocalisse,” 171. However, criticism of the Bar Kochba reference is found in Tigchelaar, “Liar”; Lietaert Peerbolte, Antecedents, 55–­61; Kraus, “Petrus-­Apokalypse”; Nicklas, “Christliche Apokryphen,” 33–­39; idem, “Insider.” 40 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 162: Apoc. Pet. “is very good evidence that at least one early second-­century writer knew and used 2 Peter, and is sufficient to rule out a late date for 2 Peter.” (See also 149.)



Attestation and Canonical Acceptance

169

Bauckham infers this dependence above all from the presence of parallels in two sequential segments of 2 Pet (1:10-­14 and 1:16-­18). He presupposes here that the depiction of the transfiguration of Jesus in 2 Pet 1:16-­18 is not dependent on the Synoptics,41 while he then wants to see an additional influence of 2 Pet in Apoc. Pet., which presumes awareness of Matt and reshapes the tradition of the transfiguration into a depiction of the revelation of the glory of the redeemed.42 The premise of this reconstruction, however, is inaccurate: 2 Pet (as a consequence of its genre) does not contain any direct references to the Gospels, yet it does contain “so many traces of textual reception, of allusions, or of the presupposition of synoptic passages . . . that an acquaintance with the synoptic tradition can hardly be denied.”43 Thus, a key argument for the dependence of Apoc. Pet. upon 2 Pet is eliminated.44 Ultimately, textual dependence in the opposite direction can more easily be made plausible (see below, pp. 201–­6).45

Justin (Dial. 82.1) presents a parallel between previous “false prophets” and contemporary, eschatological “false teachers,” and the lexeme employed there, ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι, occurs previously, or additionally, only in 2 Pet 2:1. Yet according to Justin (unlike in 2 Pet) these “false teachers” are foretold by Christ himself. The lexical parallel therefore cannot be taken as evidence of dependence.46 Nor can a literary reception of 2 Pet be demonstrated for the Acts of Peter, dated to around the end of the second century.47 The episode of the speaking dog in Acts Pet. 12 can hardly be interpreted as recollecting the statement 41

Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 205–­10; taken up in Bauckham, “2 Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter,” 302. 42 Bauckham, “2 Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter,” 302–­3. 43 Ruf, Propheten, 586 and, in more detail, 101–­23; cf. also R. J. Miller, “Attestation”; and Lee, Transfiguration, 138–­39. 44 So also Lee, Transfiguration, 162–­63. The connection between transfiguration and Parousia as well as the mention of a “holy mountain” (Ethiopic Apoc. Pet. 15) can be explained without 2 Pet 1:18 in the free reception of the transfiguration tradition in Apoc. Pet. Ultimately, one must agree with the critical judgment of Gilmour, Significance, 115: “Bauckham has failed to prove dependence of the Apocalypse on 2 Peter and so a terminus ad quem for the epistle is equally lacking.” Also Ruf, Propheten, 123, concludes on the transfiguration pericope: “The connections with the Apocalypse of Peter are so meager that no further conclusions should be drawn on this basis.” 45 On this, see Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 97–­143. 46 Contra Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 237. Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 206–­19, on the other hand, presumes a literary relationship, which he then interprets in terms of a dependence of 2 Pet on Justin; however, this can hardly be argued by reference to the points of contact in a single brief passage of Dial. 47 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 163, evaluates Acts Pet. as “a later, but certain, witness of 2 Peter’s existence” (see the list of parallels, idem, Jude, 2 Peter, 149). Kraus, Sprache, 386–­87, is in agreement; cautiously also Schmidt, Mahnung, 416.

170

Second Peter: Introduction

about Balaam’s donkey in 2 Pet 2:16, and the reference to the mountain of the transfiguration as the “holy mountain” in Acts Pet. 20 need not be a reception of 2 Pet 1:16-­18 but could instead be inspired by Apoc. Pet. 15.1.48 One passage in Theophilus of Antioch’s Ad Autolycum (2.13), in which the word of God (λόγος) is compared with a lamp in a dark place, might be a reception of 2 Pet 1:19,49 yet this, too, remains uncertain.50 Finally, the complete absence of clear references or allusions to 2 Pet among the major authors of the church near the end of the second century, not only in Tatian, but also in the voluminous works of Irenaeus and Tertullian,51 is significant. Furthermore, Clement of Alexandria probably did not write a commentary on the letter, and it remains uncertain whether he knew the text at all.52 Last, 1–­2 Pet are also lacking in the Muratorian Canon (which mentions Jude and even Apoc. Pet.).53 The evidence is thus relatively clear; whereas Jude was already quite widely attested and recognized around 200 CE, there are no secure witnesses to the reception of 2 Pet in the entire second century.54 48

Thus, convincingly, Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 113–­23. Thus, decidedly, Zahn, Geschichte, 312–­13. 50 Cf. Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 229–­32, who here also remains skeptical but indicates thematic proximities between 2 Pet and Theophilus (e.g., with regard to the doctrine of ekpyrosis, which he, however, does not evaluate in terms of a literary reception, but probably rightly as evidence that statements such as 2 Pet 3:10 were currently relevant in the second half of the second century). 51 On this most recently Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 226–­29. 52 On this, see most recently Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 240–­4 4. Zahn, Geschichte, 310–­11, suspects an awareness of the text—­but in comparison with 1 Pet still less acceptance. Eusebius’ note that Clement had written commentaries on Jude and the remaining Catholic Epistles (Hist. eccl. 6.14.1) cannot be interpreted in terms of Clement’s knowledge of 2 Pet. At least, Cassiodorus writes later that Clement had commented on 1 Pet, 1–­2 John, and Jas but not the other three Catholic Epistles (De institutione litterarum divinarum 1.8.4). Cassiodorus’ mention of Jas instead of Jude, which Clement did in fact comment on, could “be due to a careless mistake” (so Merkt, Petrusbrief, 49n188). 53 The dating and the character of the Muratorian Fragment have recently been disputed. But in my opinion the late date suggested by some authors into the fourth century is unconvincing (see Verheyden, “Canon Muratori”). It is, however, to be noted that this text does not offer “a pure list of biblical books” but “rather . . . a detailed introduction to the . . . received biblical books,” such that one cannot in a strict sense compare it with the later canon lists (Markschies, Theologie, 231–­32). One should therefore not give too much weight to the absence of the two (!) Petrine letters in this text, since 1 Pet was without doubt recognized in the church around the end of the second century. 54 Thus, already Chase, “Peter,” 806: “We do not find any certain trace of 2 P in the extant literature of the 2nd cent.” In agreement now Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 233, who specifies the evidence for the western hemisphere: the absence of 2 Pet in authors of the second and largely also of the third century “in North Africa, Italy, and the rest of western 49



Attestation and Canonical Acceptance

171

The absence of earlier testimony to reception cannot be explained by 2 Pet’s late composition alone. One may in addition consider that—­probably three generations after Peter’s death—­the “congregations that were the initial addressees, if they did not learn of its actual origin beforehand, still must have wondered why Peter’s farewell letter should first appear such a long time after his death.”55 If the initial recipients doubted its authenticity or recognized the pseudonymity,56 the delayed and rather limited reception can be understood. The fact that the letter might raise doubts among ancient readers, not least in view of the stylistic differences from 1 Pet, is shown by the plentiful testimony of the church fathers, from Origen to Jerome and Didymus (see below), who read the text not without skepticism. Yet there was apparently no need to reject the letter or even to suppress it, especially as it did not appear to be heterodox57 and could be a helpful witness in the fight for eschatological hope as well as in the opposition to the gnostic threat.58 In any case, it was kept and transmitted by the addressee congregations. A few generations later it was possible for “the late appearance of the letter to be forgotten”59 and for the letter to emerge as educational (Euseb., Hist. eccl. 3.3.1) and, as such, authoritative.

2.3 Reception in the early church and the continuing skepticism of the text The first author to refer to 2 Pet by name and thereby attest to it with certainty is Origen, but he simultaneously reveals that there was doubt as to its authenticity in his time. In the fifth book of the commentary on John, he writes that Peter has “left behind one accepted letter and perhaps also a second, but this one is disputed.”60 This does not indicate a rejection of the text, but it does show a Europe is a significant argument against any attempt that seeks to connect 2 Pet with Rome or even with a Roman Petrine tradition”. 55 Vögtle, Judasbrief, 129. A similar problem is found with the Pastoral Epistles, although there one could more easily assume that personal writings from Paul to his students emerged, as it were, out of their ‘estates.’ 56 Here it should not be ruled out that a portion of the (more educated) first recipients understood the pseudonymous form in terms of a literary prosopopoeia and as such were able to appreciate it aesthetically (on this, see below, pp. 217–­20). 57 Even Baum, Pseudepigraphie, 122, admits that, if they did not need to be regarded as heretical, pseudepigrapha could be ecclesiastically recognized in the early church. The opinion that texts recognized as pseudonymous would always have had to be condemned is untenable. For private reading, there were, in any case, fewer barriers, texts like the acts of various apostles or Prot. Jas. were popular in broad circles, and regulations of the church were first decided when one became aware of problems from certain ‘chance events’ (as, for example, bishop Serapion of Antioch’s reaction to Gos. Pet. shows, recounted in Euseb., Hist. eccl. 6.12.1–­6). 58 The testimony in Euseb., Hist. eccl. 3.3.1 points in this direction (see below). 59 Vögtle, Judasbrief, 130. 60 Origen, Comm. Jo. 5.3 = Euseb., Hist. eccl. 6.25.8; translation following Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 63. On this quotation, op. cit., 40–­43, and already Chase, “Peter.” In his

172

Second Peter: Introduction

clear reserve. This corresponds with the fact that Origen does not use the text in his extant Greek works (unlike 1 Pet).61 Eusebius presents 2 Pet among the antilegomena (Hist. eccl. 3.25.3) and explains in other passages that he had been taught that this letter did not belong in the series of biblical texts, “yet it appeared to many to be educational, such that they value it equally with the other texts” (Hist. eccl. 3.3.1). However, only 1 Pet is “authentic and generally accepted by the old doctors of the church” (Hist. eccl. 3.3.4). Eusebius thus still regarded 2 Pet as inauthentic—­unfortunately, he no more identifies his reasons for this than did Origen. Didymus of Alexandria (d. 398 CE) also cites 2 Pet as an authoritative text, but describes it as disputed in its authenticity, indeed as a forgery (falsatam), the reason for this being the difference in content between the cosmological statements in 2 Pet 3:5-­7 and Jesus’ teachings.62 Jerome, in contrast, introduces linguistic observations, namely the stylistic difference from 1 Pet, as grounds for the letter being rejected by many (Vir. ill. 1: propter stili cum priore dissonantiam). On the other hand, with the reconstruction that Peter used two different secretaries for 1 Pet and 2 Pet (Epist. 120.11), he found a path toward the acceptance of 2 Pet as an equally ‘authentic’ text, and thereby made an essential contribution toward its ultimate acceptance. The letter is then included in the canon lists in the thirty-­ninth of Athanasius of Alexandria’s Festal Letters (367 CE). But still at the end of the fourth century, Amphilochius of Iconium was able to write in a poem that some supported the acceptance of seven Catholic Epistles, others only of three (Jas, 1 Pet, 1 John).63 As with Jude,64 the Syriac church is an exception here: since only three Catholic Epistles were contained in the Peshitta (Jas, 1 Pet, and 1 John), the other four first entered into the series of canonical texts in the later editions of the Bible in the West Syrian region commentary on Matthew, Origen refers to 1 Pet as the “first letter of Peter” (Origen, Comm. Matt. 15.27). 61 The quotations in the texts translated by Rufinus into Latin, however, cannot be traced back to Origen with certainty, since the translator might have redacted the texts and potentially adapted them to the canonical situation of his own time. On this, see Chaine, Les épîtres catholiques, 6; and, in detail, Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 61–­74; and Grünstäudl and Nicklas, “Searching,” 223–­24. If the note in the Joshua homilies (Hom. Jes. Nav. 7.1 = GCS Origen 7:328) goes back to Origen, this could be evidence of an acceptance of both Petrine letters by the doctors of the church, but this passage is disputed as well; see Kraus, Sprache, 5n18; Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 66. Grünstäudl, op. cit., 71–­72, suggests that an original quotation (from 2 Pet 2:16) might appear in Origen, Princ. 1.8.4, but without a quotation introduction and only as an argument of other people, and thus not as an authoritative text. 62 Enarratio in epistulam II Petri, PG 39:1773–­74 (cf. 1742–­43). 63 Amphilochius of Iconium, Iambi ad Seleucum 310–­13. Cf. Leipoldt, Geschichte, 1:90–­92; Kraus, Sprache, 7. 64 See above, p. 9.



Attestation and Canonical Acceptance

173

(and maintained a lower status); in the East Syrian churches they were not adopted into the lectionaries at all.65

Even in the sixth century, Cassiodorus translates the commentary falsely attributed to Didymus the Blind In epistulas catholicas brevis enarratio, which clearly holds that the Second Epistle of Peter was forged (praesentem epistolam esse falsatam) and—­although it was widespread among congregations—­did not belong in the canon (non tamen in canone est).66 This overview shows that the acceptance of 2 Pet into the canon was more disputed than all other NT texts, even Rev, which was widely treasured in the second century and was only later criticized, above all in the East, on theological grounds. For 2 Pet, skepticism was present from the beginning, and it continued more persistently. 2.4 Humanism, Reformation, and the beginnings of modern criticism The memory of the early church’s doubt was lost in late antiquity and the medieval period, and first reappears in humanism. Erasmus mentions that the early church had disputed this letter and that 2 Pet differs from 1 Pet stylistically. In one passage he writes that some had doubted the author and suspected that a different author wanted to “present his own thoughts as Peter’s.”67 Cajetan attempted to weaken Jerome’s observation about the differences between 1 Pet and 2 Pet in order to regard the text as authentic.68 Martin Luther accepted 2 Pet as an apostolic work and on this basis criticized Jude as simply an excerption of 2 Pet.69 In contrast, following Erasmus, Karlstadt ascribed a lower status to 2 Pet, even though he accepted its Petrine origin.70 Nor did Johannes Oekolampad or Wolfgang Musculus confer full authority upon the text,71 and Johannes Brenz in effect excluded it from the canon in the Confessio Virtembergica as one of the seven texts that were contested 65

Cf. Leipoldt, Geschichte, 2:244–­49. On this, see Grünstäudl and Nicklas, “Searching,” 220–­21. 67 Leipoldt, Geschichte, 2:15–­16; Kraus, Sprache, 10. 68 Thus, Leipoldt, Geschichte, 2:40. 69 So in the “Vorrede auf die Episteln Sanct Jacobi und Judas” (see Leipoldt, Geschichte, 2:64; text at WA DB 7:386). It is questionable whether the criticism of 2 Pet 3:16 in the text Die ander Epistel Sanct Petri und eine S. Judas geprediget und ausgelegt can in fact be traced back to Luther himself (WA 14:73.20ff.: “And this is one of the verses that might move someone to believe that this letter was not St. Peter’s.” [“Und dis ist der sprüche eyner, die da ymant möchten bewegen zu halten, das diese Epitel nicht S. Peters were . . .”]). It may also have been introduced by the editor Caspar Cruciger, since it is missing in the transcript of the same sermon prepared by Rörer (so Leipoldt, Geschichte, 2:82). 70 Cf. Leipoldt, Geschichte, 2:109, 115. 71 Leipoldt, Geschichte, 2:142–­43. 66

174

Second Peter: Introduction

in the early church.72 Calvin, with Jerome, recognized the stylistic differences from 1 Pet and resolved the problem with the historical-­critical assumption that a student had written the letter at Peter’s behest,73 yet the text could be regarded as Petrine because “it contains nothing unworthy of Peter.”74

As was the case with Jude, here too the breakthrough into modern criticism occurred with Hugo Grotius, who connected stylistic and historical criticism with a new, audacious hypothesis: 2 Pet 3 could only have been written after the destruction of Jerusalem. On this basis Grotius suggested that 2 Pet 3:1 already looks back at 2 Pet 1–­2 as the first letter. The author of both letters, however, is not Simon Peter, but rather Simeon, the successor of James, the brother of the Lord, in Jerusalem (cf. Euseb., Hist. eccl. 3.32.1–­3), who certainly could have been an eyewitness to the life of Jesus; the words “Peter” and “apostle” were thus subsequently inserted in 2 Pet 1:1.75 With this, a new form of historical criticism was achieved for 2 Pet as well, criticism that reached beyond the old authenticity criticism and defined the modern discussion of the text. Another milestone was reached with Johann Gottfried Herder’s short but discerning text, Ueber die Briefe zweener Brüder Jesu (1775).76 Herder was the first to turn against the view, traditionally held since Luther, that Jude was dependent upon 2 Pet. Instead, according to Herder, the opposite was the case: Peter, who had known Jesus’ younger brother, had used the “brief, majestic” letter for his “richer, embellished afterimage.”77 Against Herder, Johann Salomo Semler78 classified both letters as inauthentic and—­ still fully in keeping with Luther—­understood Jude as an epitome of 2 Pet, as did Johann David Michaelis,79 who still regarded 2 Pet as authentically Petrine. In contrast, Eichhorn’s influential introduction followed Herder in the hypothesis of a reversed sequence: 2 Pet was dependent on Jude, Jude could still have been composed before the year 70 CE, but 2 Pet was inauthentic and later.

These divergent assessments help to understand why the questions of authorship and date were primarily discussed into the twentieth century, while the 72

See Leipoldt, Geschichte, 2:128. Leipoldt, Geschichte, 2:147. 74 Calvin, Commentarius in Petri, 441; cf. Kraus, Sprache, 10. 75 Leipoldt, Geschichte, 2:156; see also Zahn, Einleitung, 2:103; Kümmel, Das Neue Testament, 34–­35. 76 Herder, Briefe zweener Brüder Jesu. On this, see Frey, “Herder und die Evangelien,” 59–­61. 77 Herder, Briefe zweener Brüder Jesu, 529. 78 Semler, Epistolam II. Petri et epistolam Judae; see Zahn, Einleitung, 2:103. 79 Michaelis, Einleitung, 1475ff. (see Zahn, Einleitung, 2:103). 73



Language and Style

175

theological analysis of the text was rather neglected. On the other hand, modern criticism is able to draw on observations made in the early church for this text more than any other. With regard to the question of authenticity, there is currently a discrepancy between European critical scholarship, which almost without exception acknowledges the pseudepigraphal nature of the letter, and segments of Anglo-­ Saxon scholarship that are often open to the possibility of dating 2 Pet within the first century (and even its authenticity). 3. Text The text of 2 Pet does not present such serious text-­critical issues as that of Jude,80 but here, too, the number of ancient textual witnesses is relatively small and the transmission difficult in a few places (especially 2 Pet 3:10). Here, too, the oldest and most important witness is P.Bodm. VIII (𝔓72) from the third or fourth century, which, however, contains many unique variant readings.81 The most recent state of research is now represented in the ECM, which (also in NA28) differs from the text of the older edition (NA27) in ten locations (2:6, 11, 15, 18, 20; 3:6, 10, 16 bis, 18).82 Discussion of the text thus stands on new material footing, but in view of the difficult nature of the textual tradition, the debate has not come to an end,83 especially since the committee responsible for the text tends in some places toward bold conjectures that appear methodologically questionable and must realistically be opposed.84 4. Language and Style The language and style of 2 Pet have long been judged in various ways.85 The discrepancies indicate, for one thing, a lack of methodologically sophisticated stylistic comparisons but also result from the assessment of the text in 80

Cf. Kraus, Sprache, 12. Unlike for Jude, there are only a few specialized text-­critical studies of 2 Pet, but see most recently on 2 Pet 3:10 Blumenthal, “Tag”; Blumenthal, “Omikron.” 81 The siglum 𝔓72 properly designates only the sections P.Bodm. VII–­VIII in which Jude and 2 Pet are attested. The text of 2 Pet according to 𝔓72 is transcribed in Comfort and Barrett, Text, 490–­96. 82 On the divergences from NA27, which have multiplied further since the fascicle edition of 2000, see ECM 4/1:36*. The text of the second edition of the ECM also corresponds with 28th edition of the Nestle-­Aland. 83 See the discussion in Kraus, Sprache, 14–­17; further J. K. Elliott, Epistles. Blumenthal, “Tag,” now offers an instructive example of the argumentation against the ECM. 84 Thus below, pp. 391–­92 on 2 Pet 3:6 and the excursus on 2 Pet 3:10 on pp. 409–­11. See further also Blumenthal, “Tag.” 85 Cf. on the spectrum of assessments Kraus, Sprache, 23–­25.

176

Second Peter: Introduction

introductory research as a literary forgery, which has often been connected with negative value judgments regarding the letter’s style as well. Whereas scholars concede, on the one hand, an elaborate linguistic code,86 sophisticated literary Greek,87 or at least literary ambitions (“almost literary”88), many interpreters assess the same phenomena negatively as pomposity,89 pure pretension and part of the ‘forgery’ (“almost pseudo-­literary”90). Occasionally, scholars claim to have detected inaccuracies in linguistic usage or Semitisms,91 which in part—­and certainly unjustly—­was taken as an indication that the author had acquired Greek as a second language.92 According to Watson’s rhetorical analysis, the style of 2 Pet conveys the impression of “divine power”93; there is a “grand style” to be found here, “powerful in thought, impressive words being carefully selected.”94 Whether the style of the letter is appreciated positively or criticized as bombastic and pretentious appears at times to be a question of the overall assessment of the text.95

The exhaustive study of the letter’s vocabulary, syntax, and style by Thomas J. Kraus has placed this discussion on a significantly improved foundation. As a result, positive assessments have largely been confirmed, while the negative evaluations appear to be unfounded. The vocabulary of 2 Pet contains a large number of abstract substantives, including unusual forms,96 and furthermore, a use of composite forms significantly surpassing the usage common in the LXX and NT. These composites are employed in nuanced ways—­that is, with clear observance of the semantic difference between simplex and compositum97—­and appear in part to have been created ad hoc. The author possesses 86

Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 91; P. Müller, “Petrusbrief,” 315. Schenke and Fischer, Einleitung, 2:329n7. 88 Sidebottom, James, Jude, and 2 Peter, 96. 89 Jülicher and Fascher, Einleitung, 220; Vielhauer, Geschichte, 596. 90 Metzger, New Testament, 258; cf. Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 228: “at times pretentiously elaborate”; Moulton and Turner, Grammar, 4:142: “a striving after the pompous phrase.” 91 Thus Chase, “Peter,” 808: “The writer can hardly be defended against the charge of using words and phrases incorrectly.” Gerdmar, Rethinking, 64–­91 sees more Semitisms in 2 Pet than in Jude, but it is debatable whether, for example, all qualitative uses of the genitive can be so judged, since this phenomenon is also found in Greek usage and does not necessarily indicate the influence of a Semitic language. Gerdmar’s conclusion that 2 Pet is “more Jewish than Jude” (91) is certainly problematic. 92 Moulton and Howard, Grammar, 2:28; Martin, “Theology,” 135. 93 Watson, Invention, 79. 94 Watson, Invention, 144–­45. 95 Cf. Thurén, “Style,” 340–­41n65. 96 Kraus, Sprache, 288–­89. 97 Kraus, Sprache, 299. The α-­privatives likewise appear to have been employed in a nuanced and stylistically deliberate fashion (see 300–­309). 87



Language and Style

177

“the potential to form words himself (even neologisms) and then to fit these into the context accordingly.”98 The number of rare vocabulary is accordingly large: 2 Pet shows an even higher concentration of hapax legomena than does Jude, with the highest concentration among all NT texts of vocabulary that appears in only one text of the NT. Of these fifty-­six NT hapax legomena,99 thirty-­two are also absent from the LXX (though a few of them appear in other Greek recensions of the OT), and a further six appear only once in the LXX. Interestingly, seventeen of the NT hapax legomena are found in the Apostolic Fathers. Of the thirty-­t wo hapax legomena also lacking in the LXX, only fifteen are found in other Hellenistic Jewish authors.100 This shows an “orientation that tends toward classical and above all mundane usages and meanings of words, which . . . goes far beyond the biblical, Jewish Hellenistic, and early Christian domain.”101

Alongside the hapax legomena, a further twenty-­six vocabulary items occur that are found in only one other NT text.102 Strikingly, only four of these lexemes (ἀσεβεῖν, ἐμπαίκτης, συνευωχεῖσθαι, ὑπέρογκος) are used in only Jude and 2 Pet. This is notable in view of the close parallels between the two texts and the high concentration of hapax legomena also found in Jude; it is plausible to conclude that the author deliberately chose alternative formulations even where he drew from Jude, which shows the versatility of his means of expression.103 Two hapax legomena (ἐμπαιγμονή, παραφρονία) are attested only here in all extant Greek literature.104 Occasionally, the choice of words appears to be determined by a preference for unusual or literary words. Their use is for the most part appropriate, as, for example, with the mythological ταρταροῦν in 2:4, the onomatopoeic ῥοιζηδόν in 3:10, or in the formation of effective word pairs and repetitions—­a stylistic feature in which 2 Pet differs significantly from Jude and its “catchword technique.”105 98

Kraus, Sprache, 367. Cf. also Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 136: “fond of rather literary and poetic, even obscure words.” 99 See the lists in Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 135–­36; Chaine, Les épîtres catholiques, 15; and Kraus, Sprache, 328. For a discussion of the hapax legomena, see Kraus, “Hapax legomena.” 100 Kraus, Sprache, 246. See the detailed lists, 321–­45. 101 Kraus, Sprache, 347. Cf. the lists, 348–­60: sixteen further lexemes are common to two texts of the NT, eleven others to three further texts. 102 Kraus, Sprache, 347. 103 Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 136: “Few of 2 Peter’s rare words are likely to derive from sources. They belong to the author’s own words.” 104 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 136; cf. Kraus, Sprache, 323, 324. 105 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 137.

178

Second Peter: Introduction

The analysis of the syntax, here the application of articles, prepositions, particles, and pronouns, as well as verbal syntax confirms this result. Despite a few stylistic idiosyncrasies, the letter’s language use appears to be “grammatically correct and deliberate.”106 Unusual constructions like πᾶς . . . οὐ (1:20) cannot prove a direct Semitic influence on the author.107

Taken as a whole, the syntax and vocabulary of 2 Pet appear to be much less related to other NT texts than they are oriented toward literary models.108 The author possesses “very considerable linguistic abilities . . . , which furthermore indicate a familiarity with specific literature (classical texts, idiomatic phrases in inscriptions and papyri, abstractions from Hellenistic as well as Jewish apocalypticism).”109 However, some sentences are complex and ambiguous, especially where the author has changed the text of Jude or erased elements that were irrelevant for him (e.g., 2 Pet 2:10-­11; 3:3). In this regard, the author makes “great demands of his addressees through his style, his syntax, word formation, and choice of words.”110 What is syntactically correct need “be by no means easy and clearly understandable,” but rather “precisely the distinctive participial style” demands “close attention,” and sometimes “the logical relationships [are] not immediately apparent.”111 5. Literary Unity, Use of Sources, and Literary Context 5.1 Literary unity After the integrity of the text had been occasionally challenged in earlier research,112 today—­under the assumption of the pseudonymous composition—­ 106

Kraus, Sprache, 276. On this, see Kraus, Sprache, 203n701. Cf. ibid. on the phrase κατάρας τέκνα· (2:14), which precisely in the postposition of the nomen regens τέκνα differs from the Semitic word order (as in τέκνα θεοῦ). 108 Kraus, Sprache, 367. 109 Kraus, Sprache, 367. 110 Kraus, Sprache, 367. 111 Kraus, Sprache, 277. 112 These attempts were motivated in part by the interest in identifying apostolic fragments behind the present text. After Hugo Grotius had already designated 2 Pet 1–2 and 2 Pet 3 as separate (and both inauthentic) texts, Bertholdt (Einleitung, 6:3157ff.) declared 2 Pet 2 to be an interpolation dependent upon Jude, whereas chapters 1 and 3 were an authentic letter of Peter. Later, Geß (Christi Person, 2:412ff.) regarded 2 Pet 1:20b–­3:3a as an interpolation, and E. Kühl designated 2 Pet 2:1–­3:3 as an insertion under the influence of Jude, while the rest of the letter was not influenced by Jude (Kühl, Briefe, 346). These constructions (which were followed by a few further authors; on this, see Bauckham, “2 Peter: An Account,” 3715n15) clearly show the intention of saving the substantive authenticity of the text despite the observation of the literary dependence of the end text on Jude. Other authors suggested 107



Literary Unity, Use of Sources, and Literary Context

179

this is uncontested. In terms of form, the prescript, proem, and closing phrases show that the text was designed as a unit, which is further confirmed by the reception of Jude beyond chapter 2, as well as the high level of language throughout the text. In terms of substance as well, 2 Pet is not a conglomerate of disjointed arguments,113 but rather a “carefully composed and, in form and theme, internally coherent theological letter.”114 This is “noteworthy, because even where the author demonstrably uses traditions, he adheres to his plan redactionally not only in form but also in content.”115 The argumentation is, however, more coherent where the author does not draw on his sources, whereas some passages are left with ambiguities in the adaptation of his Vorlage in 2:1–­ 3:3 (on this, see below, pp. 187–­92). 5.2 Sources and intertextual references 5.2.1 The letter and other early Jewish traditions

Of the sources that 2 Pet presupposes, first and foremost is “Scripture,” which the author fundamentally takes as given and mentions in 1:20 (πᾶσα προφητεία γραφῆς) in the singular—­that is, in the sense of a unit (with no further qualification). With this he follows an older linguistic usage, found already in Paul. The “other writings” mentioned in 3:16 alongside Paul most likely refer primarily to ‘Old Testament’ texts.116 The author explicitly refers to “the prophetic word” (1:19; cf. 3:1)—­that is, the prophecy that was once (1:21: ποτέ) spoken and has been handed down in writing, but whose interpretation is controversial with regard to God’s eschatological activity. The author claims for these (but not necessarily for all texts) the idea of divine inspiration (1:21) and thereby presumes an implicit authorship of the Holy Spirit; source or fragment hypotheses: after Ullmann (Brief; already in 1821), following Grotius, had suspected a combination of several independent sources, Robson, Studies, dismantled the text into four fragments from the apostolic period, which an editor was then supposed to have pieced together as a letter. A final attempt at dividing the letter was undertaken in 1960 by M. McNamara (“Unity”). All these attempts are obsolete today. 113 So the charge by G. Klein, “Petrusbrief,” 111. 114 Frankemölle, 1. Petrusbrief, 2. Petrusbrief, Judasbrief, 76. 115 Frankemölle, 1. Petrusbrief, 2. Petrusbrief, Judasbrief, 76. 116 This perhaps includes other early Christian texts (such as, e.g., gospels) that are likewise misinterpreted by the “unstable”—­however, the primary point of reference is the OT texts. It remains unclear what 2 Pet might presuppose as ‘canon,’ so that the demarcation between ‘Old Testament’ and early Jewish texts (cf. Ruf, Propheten, 561–­69) is problematic. Since the author adopts the Scriptures in Greek (LXX), an orientation toward the Hebrew canon is inappropriate. It cannot be ruled out that the author (like the author of Jude) also regarded Enoch as Scripture, although he omits the quotation of 1 En. 1:9 contained in Jude 14-­15.

180

Second Peter: Introduction

“borne” (φερόμενοι) by this Spirit, human beings have spoken from God (ἀπὸ θεοῦ). The attribute “holy” (2 Pet 3:2) also brings the prophets themselves near to God. Through these signals, the content of the prophetic words or texts is presented as a message of special divinely attested authority, which the addressees must heed for the sake of a correct orientation—­indeed, for their salvation. In addition, the author refers to events and figures of the biblical salvation history: the creation (3:5), the fall of the angels (2:4), the flood (2:5; 3:6), Noah (2:5), Sodom and Gomorrah (2:6), Lot (2:7), and Balaam (2:15). The author introduces these elements in part in his reception of Jude and in part independently (Noah, Lot), or extends them in comparison with the original (Balaam), and he also presumes his addressees’ knowledge of them, at least in outline. The author’s independence in working with Scripture is shown in the restructuring of the series of examples from Jude 5-­7 (from three examples of judgment into a series of two examples of judgment and two of rescue) and the reduction of the three examples from Jude 11 to only one (Balaam). Explicit scriptural quotations, however, are not present. The only piece of text of some length are a few words from LXX Ps 89:4 (= MT 90:4) in 2 Pet 3:8; aside from this, there occur scant echoes of varying clarity.117 These range from the Torah (Num 24:17 in 2 Pet 1:19) and the Prophets (Isa 65:17 in 2 Pet 3:13; Hab 2:3 in 2 Pet 3:9, 12-­14) to Psalms (Ps 90:4 in 2 Pet 3:8) and Proverbs (Prov 26:11 in 2 Pet 2:22). In their language these allusions generally follow the LXX; no reference to Semitic text forms is demonstrable. Often, creative new associations are made with individual motifs, such as the rising of the morning star (Num 24:17 and possibly LXX Mal 3:20) in 1:19 and the hope of a new heaven and a new earth (Isa 65:17 and LXX 66:22) in 3:13.118 The authority of Scripture does not preclude a very independent reception. The biblical examples are likely meant to demonstrate the validity of the author’s point of view, and the further inclusion of ‘biblical’ language serves indirectly to characterize thoughts “as belonging to the world of the authoritative texts.”119 It is striking that the parallels of some biblical motifs (e.g., the series of examples in 2:4-­10) are found most often in late texts such as Sir (LXX), Wis, or 3 Macc. In addition, of course, ‘biblical’ diction continues beyond the LXX in Hellenistic Jewish and early Christian texts, and the elaboration of the motif of the “sinful angels” kept in “pits of darkness” extends far beyond Genesis and can ultimately be traced to the Enoch tradition (mediated by Jude).120 117

Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 138; and recently Ruf, Propheten, 561–­65. Cf. Ruf, Propheten, 564. 119 Thus Ruf, Propheten, 562. 120 See below, ad loc.; cf. Ruf, Propheten, 562. 118



Literary Unity, Use of Sources, and Literary Context

181

The more specific extent of the ‘Scriptures’ presupposed by 2 Pet, and hence also the ‘canonical consciousness’ that is often ascribed to the author, therefore remains open.121 This canonical awareness, which is supposedly already increased in comparison with Jude, has often been inferred from the fact that in his reception of Jude the author omits the Enoch quotation from Jude 14-­15, largely removes the traces of the Enoch tradition in Jude 6 and 12-­13 in 2 Pet 2:4 and 2:17, and renders unrecognizable the example of Michael and the devil, invoked in Jude 9, which can be traced back to an apocryphal Moses tradition.122 But such an assumption is anachronistic, even with a relatively late dating of the text in the second century.123 For despite the canonization process that was slowly progressing, there was no finalized canon of sacred texts in ancient Judaism in the first century CE and far into the second, and above all, the Greek collection of texts that was then adopted by the early church was far from being finalized.124 Even Enoch is alluded to until the end of the second century among Christian authors, including Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement, whereas reservations about this text are not found until Tert., Cult. Fem. 1.3, and Origen, Cels. 5.54, as well as Origen, Comm. Jo. 6.25, and likely did not circulate widely until much later.125 The omissions of the Enoch quotation from Jude 14-­15 and of the example from As. Mos. can be sufficiently explained by the possibility that the author—­even if he perhaps knew these traditions and understood the references in Jude—­could not presume that his intended readers did as well, or regarded them (above all Jude 9) as confusing for them, whereas knowledge, in outline, of the tradition of the fallen angels could be presumed.126 However, an autonomous reception of the Enoch tradition independent of Jude in 2 Pet is hardly demonstrable.

It is very doubtful that 2 Pet 3 incorporates a different Jewish apocalypse, as Bauckham suggests with his suspicion of a segment from the lost book of Eldad and Modad.127 In addition, the convergences with 4 Ezra, 2 Bar., or the parallels in the Ahiqar narrative with the proverb in 2 Pet 2:22, as well as agreements with the Balaam reception and other motifs in Philo show only that the author knows more traditions from (above all, Hellenistic) Judaism than scholars have 121

On this discussion, see most recently Mason, “Traditions,” 198–­200. Thus, e.g., still Grundmann, Brief, 104; Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 177, 220–­21; Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 227. 123 Rightly already Zahn, Einleitung, 2:104: “The suspicion that a Pseudo-­Peter took offense at the apocryphal citations in Jude and thus in part eliminated, in part blurred them . . . would presuppose a dogmatically anxious distinction of the canonical and the apocryphal, which especially with regard to OT texts cannot be demonstrated during the entire second century.” 124 See in detail Hengel and Deines, “Septuaginta.” 125 See also the excursus above, pp. 122–­24. 126 So Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 141. 127 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 140. The hypothesis rests on the reconstruction of a source from 1 Clem. and 2 Clem. and the quotation from Eldad and Modad in the Roman Shepard of Hermas (Herm. Vis. 2.3.4), which fits with Bauckham’s location of 2 Pet within a Roman Petrine tradition, but the hypothesis is shaky in all its components. 122

182

Second Peter: Introduction

sometimes wanted to admit,128 yet these could have already been transmitted within Christianity. By contrast, Qumran or rabbinic parallels remain sporadic and generalized. 5.2.2 The relationship with Jude

In the commentary on Jude it was already presupposed that Jude is not dependent upon 2 Pet but rather—­insofar as there is a literary relationship—­2 Pet upon Jude. This judgment, which is shared by the vast majority of scholars, is to be further substantiated here. It is evident that there are points of contact between the two texts. These are especially concentrated in 2 Pet 2:1–­3:3 but extend significantly beyond this section, as an initial overview already shows:   Points of contact between Jude and 2 Pet 2:1–­3:3 4: the “godless”

2:1-­3: the false prophets

5: the desert generation

 –­

6: the sinful angels

2:4: the sinful angels

 –­

2:5: the flood, punishment of the ancient world, rescue of Noah

7: Sodom and Gomorrah

2:6: Sodom and Gomorrah

 –­

2:7-­8: the rescue of Lot

 –­

2:9: implication

8: the opponents

2:10: the opponents

9: the example of the archangel Michael

2:11: the angels (general comparison)

10: comparison with animals

2:12: comparison with animals

11: Cain, Balaam, Korah

2:15-­16: Balaam

12a: “crags” (σπιλάδες)

2:13: blemishes (σπίλοι)

12b-­13: four metaphors from nature

2:17: two metaphors from nature

14-­15: quote from 1 En. 1:9

 –­

16: the opponents

2:18: the opponents

 –­

2:19-­22: further polemics

17: direct address: “beloved”

3:1: new beginning: “beloved”

17: prophecy of the apostles

3:2: prophecy of the apostles

18: scoffers in the end of time

3:3: scoffers in the last days

Apart from the segments of text that have no counterpart, with one exception (Jude 11, 12a par. 2 Pet 2:13-­16) the sequence of motifs is also the same in 128

So, e.g., Fornberg, Church, 147: “so little affected by Judaism.” Cf. now also Ruf, Propheten, 567–­69.



Literary Unity, Use of Sources, and Literary Context

183

this section (which already suggests a literary reception). Yet even beyond 2 Pet 2:1–­3:3 there are textual points of contact with Jude, although the sequence is not as well preserved:   Points of contact beyond 2 Pet 2:1–­3:3 3: πᾶσαν σπουδήν

1:5: σπουδὴν πᾶσαν

3: traditional faith

1:1: received faith

5: ὑπομνῆσαι . . . εἰδότας

1:12: ὑπομιμνῄσκειν . . . εἰδότας

24: ἀπταίστους

1:10: οὐ μὴ πταίσητέ ποτε

24: ἀμώμους

3:14: ἀμώμητοι

25: δόξα . . . καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας

3:18: ἡ δόξα καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς ἡμέραν αἰῶνος

Fundamentally different models present themselves to explain these findings:129 first, the conjecture that the two texts are based on a shared (a) oral130 or (b) written131 source; next, the assumption that (c) both letters were composed by the same author;132 and last, the assumption of literary dependence, traditionally in the form that (d) Jude was an adaptation (epitome) of 2 Pet, and then the assumption now supported by the majority that (e) 2 Pet literarily presupposes and incorporates Jude. Assumptions (a) and (b) have remained extreme outsider positions; the postulate of an oral homiletic or polemical model remains too vague to be verifiable. If one presumes a written source, then the question immediately arises as to why this should not be Jude, for if one removes the verses in which parallels are found in 2 Pet, there remains very little independent text that the author of Jude could have added to an alleged source.133 The stylistic differences speak against a common authorship (c),134 and in 129

See the discussion in Gilmour, Significance, 83. Thus Reicke, Epistles, 190; and G. L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, 62. 131 Lumby, “Epistles,” assumed a Hebrew or Aramaic source that both authors translated from; Robson, Studies, 52ff., regarded a “prophetic discourse” behind 2 Pet 1:20–­2:19 as the common source; Spicq, Épîtres, 197n1, suspected an anti­heretical tractate as the source of the two texts; similarly also G. L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, 50–­55, and most recently Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, 13–­14. 132 Cf. J. A. T. Robinson, Redating, 192–­95 (on this see below, nn. 134–­35) and, following him, Riesner, “Petrusbrief,” who want to assume Judas the brother of Jesus as the author of both texts; similarly, Smith, Controversies, 77. 133 Thus Kahmann, “Second Letter,” 106–­7; for this discussion, see also Thurén, “Relationship,” 451–­55; Hultin, “Relationships,” 37–­40. Apart from that, the extent of lexical agreements is much less than, e.g., between Matt and Luke. 134 The assessment found in J. A. T. Robinson, with reference to Mayor, Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter, xxvi–­l xvii, that the vocabulary and style of the two letters is 130

184

Second Peter: Introduction

addition the problem arises here as to why the two letters claim different (possibly pseudonymous) authors.135 Finally, the situation and profile of the respective opponents cannot be aligned in a way that the hypothesis of common authorship would require.

This leaves only the assumption of literary dependence, although the direction of usage is contested. Older research, extending to the early twentieth century, for the most part considered 2 Pet to be the earlier text and regarded Jude as an abridged adaptation of 2 Pet,136 whereby alongside Luther’s influence this perspective was motivated by the effort to thus maintain Petrine authenticity.137 Since the twentieth century, the reverse hypothesis has been dominant,138 and this question has been decided in favor of Jude’s priority through redaction-­ historical investigations in works by Fornberg, Neyrey, Bauckham, and others.139 indistinguishable (J. A. T. Robinson, Redating, 193; cf. Riesner, “Petrusbrief,” 131) must be considered untenable based on the precise study of vocabulary by Kraus (see Sprache, 369). 135 According to J. A. T. Robinson (Redating, 193–­94), Judas is supposed to have first sent a rushed letter in his own name, and then worked this up in a stylistically elaborated circular letter in the name of Peter. Thus, 2 Pet 3:1 would also refer to Jude. But this would also mean that Judas’ actual authorship must have been recognizable to the addressees, for which 2 Pet offers no evidence. The argument that the Hebraizing name Συμεών appears in the NT otherwise only in Acts 15:14 on the lips of James the brother of Jesus is ultimately untenable. Robinson, 194, considers this name to be a Palestinian Jewish family tradition; however, this form in Acts 15:14 is hardly based on the linguistic usage of the historical James, but rather on the literary composition of Luke, who wants to set a scene in which James’ words appear as Palestinian Jewish. 136 Before Luther, one can point above all to the commentary of Pseudo-­Oecumenius (PG 119:708, and elsewhere). This position was supported in the beginning stages of critical exegesis by Hugo Grotius, Johann Albrecht Bengel, Johann Salomo Semler, and Johann David Michaelis; from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, among others, by the commentators Plummer, General Epistles, 506–­7; Spitta, Brief, 381–­470; Bigg, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 216–­24; and Wohlenberg, Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, XLI–­XLIII. 137 It apparently seemed easier to presume that the less significant brother of Jesus drew from the prince of the apostles, or even to abandon the ‘authenticity’ of this nonapostolic text, than to admit that 2 Pet, with its wholesale claim to its status as an apostolic eyewitness, might have adopted passages from a nonapostolic text or indeed was a pseudonymous composition. 138 Thus, already in 1866, Weiss, “Frage,” 256–­64; further Abbott, “Second Epistle,” 139–­ 53; Chase, “Jude,” 802–­3; F. Maier, “Beitrag”; Mayor, Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter, i–­xxv; James, Second Epistle General, x–­xvi; Moffatt, General Epistles, 348–­352; Jülicher and Fascher, Einleitung, 220–­21; Chaine, Les épîtres catholiques, 18–­24. Likewise nearly all more recent commentaries: detailed argumentation in Grundmann, Brief, 102–­7; Fornberg, Church, 33–­59; Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 20–­24; Neyrey, “Form and Background” (diss.), 119–­67; idem, “Form and Background,” 407–­31; Cavallin, “False Teachers”; Klauck, Briefliteratur, 312–­14; Thurén, “Relationship”; and with a further improved set of tools, Wasserman, Jude, 73–­98, and Hultin, “Relationships,” 40. 139 Fornberg, Church, 33–­59; Neyrey, “Form and Background” (diss.), 119–­67; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 141–­43.



Literary Unity, Use of Sources, and Literary Context

185

But there have been repeated attempts to reverse these arguments or to keep the question open in order to leave room for the priority (and authenticity) of 2 Pet.140 Most recently, Anders Gerdmar has assumed Jude’s dependence on 2 Pet in his attempt to problematize the usual ascription of the letters to a Jewish Christian (Jude) or more strongly Hellenistic (2 Pet) milieu. Gerdmar evaluates Jude’s linguistic usage in terms of syntax as more correct141 and clearer than that of 2 Pet, and concludes that, in his adaptation of 2 Pet, the author of Jude made literary and theological clarifications in comparison with his source.142 Ultimately, Gerdmar locates both texts in a shared Jewish Christian apocalyptic milieu. However, his argumentation remains imprecise and implausible.143

Various aspects that play a role in this discussion are the dating of both texts, the argumentative structure and literary quality,144 the citation of apocryphal texts,145 and the extent of Jewish Christian or Hellenistic influence.146 Alongside some overarching observations, the details of the synoptic comparison that shed light on the nature of the dependence must be evaluated in determining the relationship between the texts.147 In this, overarching compositional observa140 The priority of 2 Pet is supported by de Ru, “De authenticiteit,” 8–­9; Crehan, “New Light”; Mathews, “Relationship”; see also Guthrie, Introduction, 919–­27, who ultimately leaves the question open. Behind this argumentation can also be found the desire to defend the authenticity of 2 Pet, yet some of its apologists even presuppose that the historical Peter adapted Jude (see, for instance, Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 419). 141 Gerdmar, Rethinking, 63. 142 Gerdmar, Rethinking, 123. A similar argument is made by Mathews, “Relationship,” who favors the priority of 2 Pet with the argument that Jude ‘improved’ the language of 2 Pet (as Matt and Luke did with the language of Mark). 143 On this, cf. the review by J. Frey; further, Frey, “Judasbrief.” 144 Both texts are arranged systematically. Owing to its great brevity, Jude is more concinnous, while 2 Pet is more verbose. These observations can be interpreted in either direction: either Jude brings the ambiguities of 2 Pet into greater clarity (Gerdmar, Rethinking, 123), or the higher literary quality of 2 Pet speaks for its posteriority (Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 22). Other arguments must be taken under consideration. 145 The omission of the Enoch quotation would only be an argument if a clear conciousness of canon could be presupposed in 2 Pet, but this appears to be anachronistic (see above, p. 181). The selection of biblical examples is rather to be explained in the context of each respective line of argument. On this problem, see Davids, “Pseudepigrapha.” 146 If one presupposes movement toward stronger hellenization in terms of the history of theology, this results for most interpreters in the priority of Jude. The attempt in Gerdmar, Rethinking, to problematize the categories ‘Jewish’ and ‘Hellenistic’ with this example, while indicating critical points, ultimately remains unfruitful with regard to the historical localization of both texts. 147 Cf. in detail Fornberg, Church, 33–­59; Kraus, Sprache, 369–­76; Klauck, Briefliteratur, 312–­14; Kahmann, “Second Letter”; Gilmour, Significance, 83–­91; Callan, “Use”; Wasserman, Jude, 73–­98.

186

Second Peter: Introduction

tions and detailed comparisons in the passage parallel to Jude, 2 Pet 2:1–­3:3, complement one another. a) Overarching observations Two passages display strong lexical agreement: Jude 13b // 2 Pet 2:17b and Jude 17-­19 // 2 Pet 3:2-­3.148 These two passages, like the sequence of motifs adopted almost in its entirety in 2 Pet 2:1–­3:3, clearly speak for a literary dependence. All other parallel verses contain fewer lexical agreements. The form of literary usage differs significantly from that found, for example, between Mark and Matt. The closest equivalent would be the relationship between Col and Eph. The fact that points of contact are not limited to 2 Pet 2:1–­3:3 but extend beyond this section, with less density and less exact maintenance of the textual sequence, speaks for the reception of Jude in 2 Pet, not vice versa. It would be difficult to explain if the author of Jude had adopted only one section of 2 Pet but omitted the second half of the polemic against the opponents (2 Pet 3:4ff.) and added little original material. It would be even less plausible if, in an epitome, the polemic against opponents was employed but the Petrine authorization done away with.149 Observations on compositional density support these conclusions. While Jude 4-­18 displays a tight composition in the series of four references to Scripture (including 1 En.) and one apostolic statement, each respectively applied to the opponents, the parallel segment in 2 Pet 2:1–­3:3 is more loosely structured. The new beginning in 3:1, which adopts the address to the readers as ἀγαπητοί from Jude 18, interrupts the connection found in Jude between the arguments from Scripture and apostolic prophecy, and brings the statements in 2 Pet 3:2-­3 (par. Jude 17­-­18) into the second larger polemical segment, whose theme is then introduced in 3:4 (without parallel in Jude). One ought not interpret this, however, to the effect that Jude creates a more concinnous structure from the looser 2 Pet. Rather, the reverse direction is more plausible: the argumentative structure of Jude is used, but incorporated freely into a new independent structure in 2 Pet. Likewise, a new beginning appears already in 2 Pet 2:10b owing to the insertion of τολμηταὶ αὐθάδεις, which splits up the double accusation of contempt for “authority” and “the glorious ones” (Jude 8), but rhetorically develops an entirely independent effect. Finally, the temporal configuration is significant. Whereas Jude describes the opponents as a contemporary phenomenon in the present tense and their intrusion in the aorist (v. 4), the appearance of the heretics in 2 Pet 2:1-­3 is discussed in the future tense, in accordance with the letter’s style and authorial construction. This fiction, however, is abandoned following the series of paradigms (2 Pet 2:4-­9), and from v. 10 the opponents are described in the present, as in Jude, until the mode of prophecy 148

Cf. Callan, “Use,” 42–­43. Cf. also Gilmour, Significance, 84: “If 2 Peter already existed, it is hard to imagine why Jude was needed. This same line of reasoning lends weight to the argument of Mark’s priority over Matthew and Luke.” 149



Literary Unity, Use of Sources, and Literary Context

187

is adopted once again with the new beginning in 3:1.150 This, too, is an additional indication that there is a deliberate restructuring for the sake of the altered authorial construction in 2 Pet. b) Detailed observations on the usage of Jude in 2 Peter 2:1–­3:3

The preceding observations already indicate that a detailed comparison reveals the distinctive nature of 2 Pet’s usage of Jude, which can thereby also be reasonably explained. This will be shown in the examples of a few further parallel passages.151 Jude 4 // 2 Pet 2:1-­3: In the introduction of the opponents we find some common vocabulary (τὸ κρίμα, δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι, ἀσέλγεια) and the correspondence between παρεισέδυσαν (Jude 4) and παρεισάξουσιν (2 Pet 2:1) as well as πάλαι (Jude 4) and ἔκπαλαι (2 Pet 2:3). Two further expressions—­namely, the rise of false prophets “among the people” and the reference to the ἀπώλεια, mentioned twice—­could be inspired by Jude 5.152 The differences here are instructive: while the author of Jude labels the “godless” as a phenomenon of his present time and explains the form of his letter with their appearance, the announcement of the opponents in 2 Pet, in accordance with the authorial fiction, occurs in the future tense. The opponents, who are simply called “godless” in Jude (perhaps in reference to 1 En. 1:9), are now more precisely identified as “false teachers” (ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι, which can be explained by the doctrinal opposition apparent in 2 Pet 3:3-­4). In contrast with their brief, relatively general introduction in Jude, the opponents are characterized with a more extensive polemic (2 Pet 2:1b-­3): in Jude, the expression μόνος δεσπότης is somewhat ambiguous and can in principle be taken in reference to God or Christ; in 2 Pet, with the omission of μόνος and with the soteriological addition καὶ τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς, the phrase now refers unambiguously to Christ. This distinction, too, would be difficult to explain with a reversed direction of reception. Finally, the proclamation of judgment in Jude refers to Scripture, in which the godless were “marked down in advance” (προγεγραμμένοι) for condemnation, whereas in 2 Pet 2:3 κρίμα and ἀπώλεια themselves become the subject, which prepares for the topos of God’s judicial efficacy or the dependability of the eschatological proclamations disputed by the opponents. Jude 5-­7 // 2 Pet 2:4-­9: A comparison of the first series of biblical paradigms in Jude 5-­7 with its counterpart in 2 Pet 2:4-­8 (as well as the rendering of Jude 8 // 2 Pet 2:10) reveals independent compositions and very different syntactic structures: whereas Jude provides three closely parallel examples for the judgment of the godless attested in Scripture and then applies these to the opponents, in a long conditional period 2 Pet contrasts two examples of judgment (vv. 4, 6) and two of rescue (vv. 5, 7-­8) in order to demonstrate the main clause (v. 9), that God is able to save and to condemn—­whereby 150

On this, cf. Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 92; also Frey, “Autorfiktion,” 710. Cf. especially Fornberg, Church, 33–­58; Kraus, Sprache, 368–­76; and Wasserman, Jude, 85–­94. 152 Cf. Fornberg, Church, 35; Watson, Invention, 173–­74; Callan, “Use,” 45. 151

188

Second Peter: Introduction

the latter is then applied in v. 10 to the opponents. Here, too, this comparison of the two periods as well as the fact that the examples in 2 Pet (unlike Jude) are cited following the biblical sequence only allows as plausible the explanation that 2 Pet stands at the end of the development.153 The author of 2 Pet leaves out the first, somewhat complex example from Jude 5,154 and instead introduces two positive examples (of rescue; 2 Pet 2:5, 7-­8: Noah and Lot). Unlike Jude, who emphasizes only the idea that the opponents are doomed to condemnation, 2 Pet contrasts this with the aspect of the rescue of the pious (cf. v. 9), and further expands the example of Lot in v. 8 with a ‘digression’ on the suffering of the righteous among the godless. Thus this series of examples already corresponds with the fact that the reliability of the proclamation of judgment and salvation is at stake in the eschatology discussed in 2 Pet 3. The concern here is not, as in Jude, the judgment of the godless alone, but rather the eschatology as a whole. In the adaptation of the paradigms from Jude 6-­7, the sins of the angels, like those of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah,155 which Jude had precisely described as a transgression of the boundary between angels and humanity, are formulated more briefly and generically: the precise statement about the angels’ transgression of their domain becomes the more general description “sinful,” and it is no longer of interest that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah “pursued different flesh in the same manner as these [sc., the angels]”—­that is, according to the conception of Jude, they committed an analogous sin of transgression of the boundaries established in the creation. Both groups function only as a cautionary example of the judgment of later godless people, and when in v. 10 the activity of the false teachers is then described as “pursuing flesh in desire of defilement,” the significant ἑτέρας from Jude 7 is omitted and thus the precise description of a particular offense becomes a general accusation of sexual licentiousness. Whereas precisely the angel episode in Jude 6 was arranged in close connection with formulations from Enoch literature (“great day,” “eternal chains”; see above, p. 89), these references are blurred in 2 Pet and in their place is introduced an allusion to the Greek myth of the Titans, most clearly in the lexeme ταρταρόω.156 This simultaneously reveals a cultural shift that cannot be ignored.157 Jude 8-­9 // 2 Pet 2:10-­11: Significant differences can be observed in the application of the paradigm series. Second Peter 2:10a adopts the elements of “defilement” (μιασμός) and “flesh” (σάρξ) from Jude 8 but forms an independent expression in 153 Cf. Kraus, Sprache, 371; Gilmour, Significance, 84: “It is easier to imagine Peter correcting and supplementing than the reverse scenario, namely Jude breaking up the existing sequence.” 154 With its temporal differentiation between a first and a possible second salvation, this seems poorly suited for the argumentation intended in 2 Pet. 155 Second Peter omits the “surrounding cities” (Jude 6). 156 Cf. Fornberg, Church, 51–­52; Pearson, “Reminiscence,” 75–­78 (with references); Callan, “Use,” 50. 157 Such a cultural shift is possibly evident with the lexeme σιρός, which could refer not only to hell but also to grain silos, not least the subterranean silos in Eleusis; on this, see Fornberg, Church, 52–­53; Kraus, Sprache, 336–­37.



Literary Unity, Use of Sources, and Literary Context

189

creating a connection with the πορεύεσθαι ὀπίσω from Jude 7. The ambiguous accusation in Jude that the opponents are “dreamers” is not adopted. The charge of contempt for “authority” and slander of the “glories” appears to be only slightly modified, although the double assertion of Jude 8 is split apart in 2 Pet by the accusatory exclamation τολμηταὶ αὐθάδεις, with which a new subsection begins in 2 Pet 2:10b. This, too, only permits the literary dependence of 2 Pet upon Jude. The expression τολμηταί is certainly inspired by οὐκ ἐτόλμησεν from Jude 9, just as κρίσις and βλασφημία are then adopted in 2 Pet 2:11. In addition, the clearly reduced interest of 2 Pet in angelological details can be seen in the reception of Jude 9 as well. The apocryphal example is generalized: instead of Michael’s dispute with the devil, 2 Pet speaks only of “angels,” who—­as opposed to the foolhardy opponents (τολμηταί)—­did not dare to speak a slanderous judgment against the δόξαι. If one does not know the mythological background from Jude 9, it remains unclear here which angels are meant, in what situation a “blasphemous” judgment could have been spoken, and above all who its object is. It can no longer be surmised from 2 Pet that the devil originally was behind the “against them” (κατ᾽ αὐτῶν). The removal of the angelological backgrounds that are central for Jude’s argumentation renders the original situation unrecognizable, so the angels serve only as a counterexample to the foolhardy false teachers. Here, too, the direction of literary dependence is entirely unambiguous. A later specification of the angelological details from the apocalyptic tradition would be entirely implausible. Jude 10-­12a // 2 Pet 2:12-­16: The following passage contains the only restructuring of the sequence, insofar as Jude 12a is incorporated in 2 Pet 2:13, and Jude 11 not until 2 Pet 2:15-­16. In general, 2 Pet offers the more extensive text: Jude 10 and 2 Pet 2:12 use the same words to compare the respective opponents with “unreasoning animals” (οὗτοι . . . ὡς . . . ἄλογα ζῷα) who slander what they do not know (Jude 10: ὅσα μὲν οὐκ οἴδασιν βλασφημοῦσιν // 2 Pet 2:12: ἐν οἷς ἀγνοοῦσιν βλασφημοῦντες); 2 Peter expands this with a long series of polemical topoi (vv. 13-­14) where “feasting together” (συνευωχούμενοι) is then mentioned, which 2 Pet 2:13 adopts from Jude 12. However, the concrete identification of the context—­the community’s agape feast (Jude 12: ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν)—­is replaced with the similar-­sounding ἐν ταῖς ἀπάταις αὐτῶν (“in their deceits”) and is thereby transformed into a general criticism from the arsenal of polemic against heretics. The alteration of the obscure metaphor of σπιλάδες (“crags”) into the crudely polemic σπίλοι καὶ μῶμοι (“stains and blemishes”) points in the same direction. In both cases, the direction of literary dependence from Jude to 2 Pet can be explained in terms of a removal of the concrete background present in Jude (communal meals) and a sharpening of the polemic through the skillful choice of a similar-­sounding word and a small addition to the text. From the very briefly formulated second series of biblical paradigms in Jude 11, 2 Pet 2:15-­16 adopts only the example of Balaam, which is expanded with the use of an independent haggadic tradition.158 Cain and the dispute of Korah go unmentioned. 158 Why Balaam appeared to the author as better suited than Cain cannot be determined with certainty. However, Rev 2:14 also shows that he was an especially popular example for false teachers.

190

Second Peter: Introduction

Yet in addition to the key words πλάνη and μισθός, which are associated with Balaam in Jude 11, 2 Pet also adopts the “way,” which in Jude is connected with Cain. This parallel, too, clearly confirms the use of Jude by the author of 2 Pet, as well as that author’s free and creative working method. Jude 12b-­13 // 2 Pet 2:17: The four images of nature compiled in Jude 12b-­13, which can possibly be traced back to Enochic inspirations, are adopted in 2 Pet only eclectically and in a modified manner. The obscure metaphor of the “waterless clouds” is transformed into the simpler image of the “waterless springs,” and from the statement that the clouds “are driven along by the winds,” 2 Pet creates a second image from nature: “mists that are chased by a storm.” These two images are able to illustrate the deceitful and inconstant character of the false teachers; however, the internal connection of the natural images from Jude is thereby no longer maintained—­2 Pet omits the fruitless trees, wild waves, and wandering stars. Nevertheless, the final sentence—­οἷς ὁ ζόφος τοῦ σκότους . . . τετήρηται (“for whom the gloom of darkness is reserved”), which in Jude 13 is closely connected with the image of the planets, is quoted verbatim and connected with the opponents such that the reference to the planets, originally taken from the Enoch tradition, can no longer be detected. Jude 16 // 2 Pet 2:18: While the Enoch quotation, which is of the greatest significance for the argumentation of Jude, is passed over in 2 Pet, the author is able to include its application to the opponents in the further course of his polemic: that the opponents speak bombastic nonsense (ὑπέρογκα)159 and live in desires contributes a few topoi to his polemic, to which then still more (2 Pet 2:19-­22) are added without reference to Jude. Jude 17-­18 // 2 Pet 3:1-­3: Adopting ἀγαπητοί, 2 Pet uses the renewed address to the readers from Jude 17-­18 to construct a much more extensive new beginning (2 Pet 3:1),160 which initiates the second main polemical section, focused on the topic of the Parousia. There are again thickly concentrated lexical agreements between Jude 17-­18 and 2 Pet 3:2-­3: the words τῶν ῥημάτων τῶν προειρημένων ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ κυρίου (Jude 17) are adopted exactly (with one minor transposition), yet in the use of this vocabulary the meaning is significantly altered through additions. Now the addressees are told to “remember” the words “of the holy prophets” and the “commandment of the Lord and Savior (spoken) through your apostles.” This alteration is required by the authorial construct: “Peter” cannot remind his addressees of the earlier words of the apostles, but only of the prophets and the commandment of the Lord. This change at the same time renders the construction syntactically somewhat unclear, since the commandment is associated with two genitives, the Lord and the apostles.161 This is followed by the transformation of Jude’s proclamation into an indirect quotation, whereby once again, with an extensive adoption and minor stylistic changes 159

Thereby the more stylistic verb φθέγγεσθαι is used instead of λαλεῖν. This becomes necessary because of the previous digressio; see Watson, Invention, 124–­26. 161 Callan, “Use,” 61: “The author of 2 Peter does not seem to have revised Jude thoroughly enough at this point.” 160



Literary Unity, Use of Sources, and Literary Context

191

to the formulation of Jude, it is established that “in the last days”162 “scoffers” will come, who “live in their desires” (ἐμπαῖκται κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῶν πορευόμενοι), before their teachings are introduced without further connection to Jude in 3:4.

These observations thoroughly confirm the direction of literary dependence from Jude to 2 Pet.163 The author of 2 Pet adopted material from Jude eclectically, in part streamlining that material and in part expanding it to include additional polemical elements or restructuring it; almost uniformly the author made free use of the material in accordance with his own concrete interests and modified the style through changes in vocabulary and syntax. The material from Jude is placed in a new framework—­that of a testament of Peter—­which required, for example, changes to the perspective of speech (2 Pet 2:1; 3:3). Further changes are determined by the concrete interests of 2 Pet: whereas Jude was concerned with demonstrating that the godless were doomed to condemnation, 2 Pet is concerned with examples of rescue and judgment, in which the reliability of the prophetic word of God becomes clear. To this purpose, the author omitted some of the biblical paradigms from Jude (e.g., the desert generation, Cain, Korah, and the Enoch quotation), streamlined others (the angels, Sodom and Gomorrah) or expanded them (Balaam), and added some examples of his own (Noah, Lot). Elements from Jude that were concretely connected with the profile of the opponents being fought there (Jude 6, 7, 9) are erased, so that in some passages the text becomes opaque and ambivalent; other obscure statements from Jude are disambiguated in 2 Pet (e.g., δεσπότης: Jude 4) or rendered more understandable (e.g., in the removal of the “crags” from Jude 12). In addition, the new beginnings in 2 Pet 2:10b and 2 Pet 3:1 break open Jude’s concinnous composition and create the transition to the second main polemical section, in which the current problem is more clearly identified. The author has thus adopted Jude particularly in his polemic against heretics, but incorporated his ‘material’ very freely and with relatively consistent adaptation to his own line of argument. He apparently shares with the author of Jude the conviction that the appearance of “scoffers” is an indication of the end times, and that this sign that the end is near can be seen in the work of the false teachers who have now appeared. He is less concerned than the author of Jude with the simple assertion that the opponents are condemned, and seeks more strongly to address the power of God and Christ for salvation. To this end, he adapts the structure of argumentation of the first polemical section and 162 This is likely more common than the phrase “in the last time” in Jude 18 (Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 288). 163 So also Kraus, Sprache, 373–­76; and after an open comparison of the arguments, Gilmour, Significance, 90.

192

Second Peter: Introduction

introduces a second section that argues directly with the opposing position. The use of Jude, which is extensive but free and eclectic in specifics, can be understood from the position of the author and his situation; a reverse direction of literary dependence would be difficult to explain. The use of Jude shows at least that the author agreed with Jude in essential points, or regarded Jude’s polemic as useful for his own argumentation. From this, one can conclude that 2 Pet was created in an environment in which Jude had already ‘arrived.’164 However, it is rather doubtful that the author expected that his readers knew Jude and detected its use. Nowhere is there an explicit reference to this Vorlage, and in addition the text is adopted only with significant changes, such that the literary technique remains rather concealed. If the readers knew Jude, then they could understand 2 Pet as affirming it; if they had perceived the text as simply a partial ‘copy’ or an expanded edition of Jude,165 this would have certainly limited the effect of the Petrine authorial fiction. This fiction in itself hardly allows for “Peter” to refer to a text by Judas. Thus ‘Peter’ refers only to his ‘own’ earlier writing (2 Pet 3:1), which probably means 1 Pet. 5.2.3 The relationship to 1 Peter

Second Peter, like 1 Pet—­although much more emphatically—­claims to be composed by the apostle and eyewitness Simon Peter (2 Pet 1:1, 16ff.; cf. 1 Pet 1:1). But already the ancient church, above all Jerome (Epist. 120.11), recognized the differences in style and character that contradict a direct composition of both texts by the same author. For Jerome, the solution was to assume two “interpreters” or secretaries. However, the secretary hypothesis can be textually justified only for 1 Pet (cf. Silvanus in 1 Pet 5:12),166 not for 2 Pet.167 The possibility of a common authorship of both texts is excluded by the differences in vocabulary and style.168 164 So Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 288, who presumes that this is Alexandria (among other reasons because of Clement’s commentary on Jude). 165 Accordingly, Jude was also understood in later reception history (e.g., by Luther) as an epitome of 2 Pet. 166 However, in the case of 1 Pet as well, the secretary hypothesis is unable to serve as an effective ‘bulwark’ against the assumption of a pseudonymous composition. On this, see Schnelle, Einleitung, 479–­80; for criticism of the secretary hypothesis, previously Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 80–­81. 167 Cf. Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 94. For this reason Spitta (Brief, 530–­32) regarded 2 Pet as authentic and ascribed 1 Pet to Silvanus as secretary; likewise Zahn (Einleitung, 2:107–­8), who argued on the basis of the connections between the two texts (see below) that Silvanus as the secretary of 1 Pet followed the authentic 2 Pet. 168 Cf. the detailed examination by Mayor, Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter, lxviii–­c v; on this, Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 144–­45, who nevertheless determines: “None of



Literary Unity, Use of Sources, and Literary Context

193

The starting point for observations on the relationship between these two texts is 2 Pet 3:1, where the (fictive) author refers to an earlier letter to the addressees. Since a reference to the first section of 2 Pet or even to Jude is ruled out and the assumption of a different lost letter appears too speculative,169 this can only be seen as a reference to 1 Pet. The reference is noteworthy because there is no hint at the intensive connection with Jude. The most consistently used writing goes unmentioned, and instead there is a reference to a text that shares only limited commonalities. At the same time it is striking that the author of 2 Pet in no way attempts to imitate the language and style of 1 Pet. Only the letter prescript is “more similar [to that of 1 Pet] than any other NT apostolic letter.”170 The salutatio χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη (1:2) adopts the exact formulation of 1 Pet 1:2; in contrast, the superscriptio, with its archaizing name Συμεὼν Πέτρος significantly diverges from the beginning of 1 Pet, and also the ending with its brief doxology is guided rather by Jude than by the epistolary ending of 1 Pet. Scholars have postulated an influence by 1 Pet for a number of other passages,171 but these connections remain relatively uncertain. These are the only NT occurrences of the verb ἐποπτεύειν (1 Pet 2:12; 3:2) and the noun ἐπόπτης (2 Pet 1:16), yet both lexemes also occur in the LXX;172 the phrases σπίλοι καὶ μῶμοι (2:13) and ἄσπιλοι καὶ ἀμώμητοι (3:14), which appear to be modeled on 1 Pet 1:19 (ἀμώμου καὶ ἀσπίλου; but cf. also Col 1:22; Eph 1:4; 1 Tim 6:14); the theme of prophecy (1 Pet 1:10-12 and 2 Pet 1:16-21);173 the reception of the motif of Noah and the flood in connection with the fallen angels (1 Pet 3:18-­20; 2 Pet 2:4-­5; 3:9);174 and the motif of the patience of God (1 Pet 3:20 and 2 Pet 3:15).175 However, in each of these cases one can hardly speak of a direct influence on 2 Pet, but rather of a loose connection with a few themes of 1 Pet. the really characteristic terminology of either epistle reappears in the other” (144); Bauckham, “Jude: An Account,” 3716–­18. On the specific linguistic profile of 2 Pet see Kraus, Sprache. 169 Later readers know either only one letter of Peter (= 1 Pet)—­for example, Clem. Alex., Strom. 3.110.1 and 4.129.2 (on this, see Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 260)—­or 1 Pet and 2 Pet, perhaps as disputed (cf. Euseb., Hist. eccl. 6.25.8). There is no ancient testimony to further letters of Peter. 170 Ruf, Propheten, 569. 171 So above all Boobyer, “Indebtedness.” 172 On this, see Kraus, Sprache, 332. 173 Cf. Bénétreau, “Évangile.” 174 On this, Schmidt, Mahnung, 368n143: the adoption of the motif of the flood is “an important indication that the author knew the first letter of Peter,” which is supported in particular by the correspondence between the number mentioned in 1 Pet 3:20 of eight people saved and the identification of Noah as the eighth person saved in 2 Pet 2:5; cf., however, the criticism by Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 146: “It is simpler to explain the resemblance by common use of fairly well-­k nown themes without regarding 1 Pet 3:20 as a source for 2 Peter.” 175 On all this, see Gilmour, Significance, 92–­93.

194

Second Peter: Introduction

Finally, the figure of Peter in 2 Pet differs significantly from that of 1 Pet:176 whereas the Peter of 1 Pet is primarily a witness to the suffering of Christ and a participant in the suffering of the community (1 Pet 5:1), the Peter of 2 Pet is decidedly a witness to the glory or revelation of Christ (2 Pet 1:16-­18). That is, neither linguistic-­stylistically, nor formally, nor in content, nor prosopographically did the author of 2 Pet make an attempt to adapt to 1 Pet, although this text was known to him and possibly also to his addressees, and was accepted as authoritative. In view of this obvious tension, Martin Ruf spoke of an “allographical continuation”:177 “The second letter of Peter lays claim to the first,” yet “through the more complete self-­identification and the series of titles, the second letter of Peter claims for itself a particular weight”—­namely, that of a testament. “With this it completes the series of possible Petrine epistles,” acknowledging the first, but from “the position of one who selects and rejects.”178 5.2.4 The Pauline Epistles and their collection

Alongside Scripture and one earlier letter (3:1; i.e., 1 Pet), the letters of Paul are the only reference explicitly mentioned in 2 Pet (3:15-­16): with the reference to “all” the letters, the author apparently presupposes a collection of Pauline Letters, which he regards as complete, but whose scope nevertheless remains unclear.179 The mention of “our dear brother Paul” (3:15) at the same time shows an appreciation of Paul and an acknowledgment of his apostolic standing by the ‘coapostle’ writing fictively,180 although, with regard to misinterpretations of the Pauline Letters, ‘Peter’ claims the authoritative interpretation for himself. The author clearly knows specific content and is aware of its ambiguity. The ‘orthodoxy’ of Paul is not called into question in 3:15-­16. It is the misinterpretation by the “ignorant and unstable” (3:16) that the author rejects, thus probably positions that are—­in his view, unjustly—­based on Paul. The remark in 3:15-­16 is apparently preceded by “a process of collection, dissemination, reception, and misuse” of the Pauline Letters.181 This is not insignificant for dating 2 Pet,182 but little 176

On this, see Schmidt, “Stimme,” 635–­43; on 1 Pet, also Doering, “Apostle.” Ruf, “Petrus-­Code”; see also idem, Propheten, 569–­73; on this also Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 21–­22. 178 Ruf, Propheten, 573. 179 On this, see Ruf, Propheten, 579–­85, who sees textual reasons for the knowledge of Rom, Gal, and 1–­2 Cor, as well as—­because of the phrase ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφός (Col 4:7; Eph 6:21), with which 2 Pet 3:15 is likely a “Pauline predication for a treasured colleague” (582)—­for the knowledge of Col at least. 180 Cf. Kraus, Sprache, 396. 181 So Kraus, Sprache, 397. 182 On this, see the comment in Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 26, who refers to authors 177



Literary Unity, Use of Sources, and Literary Context

195

can be concluded regarding 2 Pet’s place of composition or destination based on the addresses of Paul’s letters that are potentially referred to here, since the presupposed collection and its dissemination had already ‘generalized’ the Pauline tradition, and the addressees of the Pauline letter collection (3:15: ὑμῖν) could be conceived of in terms of the universal church, as could the addressees of 2 Pet, who are likewise disconnected from the addressees of 1 Pet.183 Broad portions of post-­Pauline early Christian epistolography were indeed influenced by the form of the apostolic letter that Paul developed,184 and 2 Pet participates at least indirectly in this general development via the connection with Jude and 1 Pet.185 Yet concrete references to Pauline statements are as difficult to demonstrate as in the case of 1 Pet. This may be on account of stylistic reasons: even Scripture is never formally cited and rarely (e.g., in 3:13) alluded to with precision, and the statements from Jude that 2 Pet certainly adopted are also often stylistically modified. Already in the prescript, with its connection to Jude and 1 Pet, 2 Pet takes a different approach than the Pauline letters. Further references that have occasionally been suggested186 remain uncertain. Bauckham suspects that there are three possible allusions: the motif of the thief in the night (1 Thess 5:2), which is taken up in 2 Pet 3:10, was widespread in early Christianity;187 the formulation of 2 Pet 2:19 is not so much an allusion to Rom 6:6 as it is the adaptation of a common saying;188 and the resonance of the language of God’s “patience” in 2 Pet 3:9 with Rom 2:4 (or 9:22) or that of 2 Pet 3:15 with Rom 12:3 and 15:5 remains vague. With regard to the question of the scope of the presupposed Pauline collection, it is significant that the phrase ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφός (3:15) occurs in the Pauline letters themselves in reference to Onesimus in Phlm 1:15, and then for Tychicus in Col 4:7 and Eph 6:21. Only against this background does the phrase become typical of ‘Paul.’ This suggests that the collection available to the author contained the deutero-­Paulines.189 who have suggested a date around the end of the second century on the basis of this evidence (among others, Goodspeed, Introduction, 352–­53; Enslin, Beginnings, 341; and Mayor, Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter, cxxvii). 183 For this discussion, see Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 24. 184 Cf. Ruf, Propheten, 47–­48; Vouga, “Briefe,” 208. 185 A literary testament in the form of a letter is found—­probably before 2 Pet—­first in 2 Tim, but the arrangement of 2 Pet appears to be independent of this model. 186 See the far-­reaching conjectures in Farkasfalvy, “Setting”; further, the list in Barnett, Paul, 222–­28; and the overview in Gilmour, Significance, 100–­105. 187 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 147. On the motif of the thief, see Jacobi, Jesusüberlieferung, 123–­84. 188 Grünstäudl, “Slavery,” brings in (late) evidence for the dissemination of this saying as a saying of Jesus (agraphon); thus, above all, Hippol., Comm. Dan. 3.22.4; Adamantius 58.1–­2 and Clem. Recogn. 5.12.4. 189 On this, see Ruf, Propheten, 581–­82.

196

Second Peter: Introduction

Thus, the Pauline influence in 2 Pet appears to be limited,190 which is significant particularly given the author’s knowledge of a Pauline letter collection. The themes and lines of thought of Pauline theology and tradition are—­apparently deliberately—­not adopted. Rather, with the reception of Jude (and thereby the James tradition), the author firmly associates himself with a non-­Pauline (and Paul-­critical) branch of tradition. The Pauline letter collection, which he knows and also acknowledges in its authority and significance (perhaps nolens volens),191 is pigeonholed with the help of the interpretive prerogative that he claims for himself. Paul is thereby linked back to Peter, and with this a tendency is renewed that likely was to be found already in Paul’s own time among his opponents and competitors.192 In effect, the theological relationship of 2 Pet to the corpus Paulinum is thus rather critical and prone to conflict. The ‘brotherly’ respect that can be seen in the formulation of 2 Pet 3:15-­16 could, of course, also allow for a ‘harmonizing’ interpretation. In this, the connection thus attested between Paul and Peter, or between early Christian epistolography and the gospel tradition, could be regarded as anticipating the coexistence later attested in the NT canon, such that 2 Pet could almost be read as a ‘milestone’ on the path toward the NT canon—­although this text itself was only added to the canon late and with great effort. 5.2.5 The canonical Gospels (especially Matthew)

With Peter as its fictive author, 2 Pet lays claim to the authority of Jesus’ disciple and an eyewitness, the first guarantor of the gospel tradition. Already in Mark, Peter is the first to be called (Mark 1:16) and the last disciple to be mentioned (Mark 16:7), and with this the early gospel tradition—­entirely independent of the tradition about Mark as Peter’s coworker193—­carries Petrine authority. 190

So already Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 147: “There is little sign of Pauline influence in 2 Peter.” Lindemann, Paulus, 263, is also very skeptical of a Pauline influence. 191 On the juxtaposition of the Pauline letter collection and “the other writings” (which the unstable misinterpret) in 3:16, see Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 27–­33. The Pauline letters are not only placed alongside other early Christian texts but probably also alongside the OT (and perhaps early Christian) Scriptures, which once again shows how great the authority of the Pauline letter collection was already at the time of the composition of 2 Pet. 192 The Pauline argumentation in Gal for the independence and validity of the gospel he proclaims suggests that there were in his time plenty of critics of his law-­critical mission who had expected a stronger link with Jerusalem, Peter, or the Jesus tradition and mistrusted an apostle who himself had no personal knowledge of the earthly Jesus. Paul had little with which to counter this argument (which is perhaps also to be surmised for the opponents in 2 Cor). Gal 2:11-­14 shows (with all due respect) the increasingly difficult relationship between Paul and Peter. On this, see also Frey, “Paulus und die Apostel,” 221–­27. 193 Thus Papias in Euseb., Hist. eccl. 3.39.14–­15; cf. Justin, Dial. 106.3; Iren., Haer. 3.1.1;



Literary Unity, Use of Sources, and Literary Context

197

This is further strengthened in Matt, and the role of Peter as the spokesman for the disciples is maintained in John as well, despite all the misunderstandings and the subordination of Peter in relation to the “disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23).194 This raises the question of the relation of 2 Pet (and its image of Peter) to the gospel tradition. Scholars have discussed above all the relationship to Matt,195 which suggests itself owing to the adoption of the transfiguration tradition in 2 Pet 1:16-­18; less often a relationship to Luke or the sayings tradition is considered,196 as is the relation to the comment about the martyrdom of Peter in John 21:18. In this discussion the questions of date and authenticity invariably play a central role. Most recently, Bauckham has attempted to establish that 2 Pet 1:16-­18 draws on a tradition independent from the Synoptics.197 This is, however, unconvincing. The fact that 2 Pet omits narrative elements from the synoptic accounts of the transfiguration (three disciples, Moses and Elijah, ‘tents’ on the mountain) can be easily explained based on the given context of the letter and the nature of the brief flashback; also, the fact that the voice rings out not from the cloud but “from heaven” (1:18)198 is not a compelling argument,199 especially since there could be an influence from the synoptic baptism pericopes here (Matt 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22).200 In the text and Clem. Alex., Adumbr. to 1 Pet 5:13; Hyp. frg. 8.4–­12 (= Euseb., Hist. eccl. 6.14.6–­7) and frg. 9.4–­20 (Euseb., Hist. eccl. 2.15.1–­2). This statement about Mark as the companion of Peter could in itself be deduced from 1 Pet 5:13. However, this cannot explain Papias’ criticism of the Gospel of Mark (likely measured against a gospel with a different structure, probably John), which is in this regard rather an argument for the validity of the Petrine authority of Mark (on this, see Hengel, Petrus, 65–­78). The fact that such a self-­confident author as that of Matthew adopted Mark almost in its entirety further supports this tradition. 194 On this, now in detail Schultheiß, Petrusbild. 195 Kraus, Sprache, 376–­79; further Ruf, Propheten, 585–­89. 196 On the relationship with Luke and Q, see Gilmour, Significance, 97–­98; Ruf, Propheten, 587–­88. 197 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 205–­10; cf. in this vein, of course, the older representatives of Petrine authenticity, see Spitta, Brief, 493–­99; Zahn, Einleitung, 2:95; Blinzler, Berichte, 71–­72. The dependence upon the Synoptics has been convincingly established most recently by R. J. Miller, “Attestation,” 620–­25. See also Gilmour, Significance, 96–­97; Ruf, Propheten, 101–­12; as well as Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 113–­23. 198 Cf. also Ps.-­Clem. Hom. 3.53 and Apoc. Pet. (E) 17, in which Bauckham nevertheless suspects dependence on 2 Pet. 199 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 206, claims that the general apocalyptic conception of a voice from heaven (cf. Dan 4:31; 1 En. 13:8; 65:4; 2 Bar. 13:1; 22:1; Rev 10:4; 11:12; 14:13) should be taken as evidence for the use of a source diverging from the Synoptics, since 2 Pet only uses apocalyptic terminology when he follows sources. However, this assumption of a use of sources is uncorroborated for 2 Pet 3 as well. 200 Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 206. Cf. also John 12:28; Ps.-­Clem. Hom. 3.53 and Apoc. Pet. (E) 17.

198

Second Peter: Introduction

spoken by the voice from heaven, there is an exact agreement with Mark 9:7 and Matt 17:5 in ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, while 2 Pet postpones οὗτός ἐστιν, which comes first in the synoptic versions, and adds another μου after ἀγαπητός. Finally, instead of ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα, which appears only in Matt (not in Mark and Luke) as well as in the baptism pericope in Matt 3:17 (with slight variation Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22), 2 Pet offers a varying version with εἰς ὃν ἐγὼ εὐδόκησα (cf. Matt 12:8; Justin, Dial. 29.1; Ps.-­Clem. 3.35), which is stylistically “the more unusual possibility.”201 Overall, the evidence shows the greatest proximity to the version found in Matt. The absence of the synoptic ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ (Matt 17:5 = Mark 9:7; diff. Luke 9:35) can be explained by the nonnarrative context of 2 Pet. The εἰς ὃν ἐγὼ εὐδόκησα could be based on the influence of Matt 12:18, but also corresponds with 2 Pet’s stylistic preference for somewhat unusual formulations. The doubled possessive pronoun in ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός μου is certainly striking, but whether this can be considered a Semitism, which would enable the inference of great originality,202 is doubtful, and the idea that ὁ ἀγαπητός μου should be understood here as an independent title for Christ (against the background of Gen 22:2 and Isa 42:1) cannot be substantiated for 2 Pet. It is more likely that we have here a free rendering of the Matthean voice from heaven. A simple “slip of memory” should not be assumed in an author with such linguistic competence and independence in composition. Proof of a tradition independent of the Synoptics (Matt) thus cannot be shown in this way.203

The question then arises whether, conversely, dependence can be proved.204 This, too, can hardly be expected to appear as a slavish adoption in an author like that of 2 Pet. Nevertheless, the assumption that the vision of Jesus’ transfiguration ascribed to Peter is based on the synoptic account—­or more precisely, on the basis of the aforementioned details, the Matthean narrative—­is the simplest and most probable solution. This is especially true if there are also other reasons to date 2 Pet significantly later than Matt. Bauckham’s hypothesis of independence, by contrast, manifestly serves his relatively early dating of the text. There are no linguistic indications of an awareness of the Johannine tradition. Substantive parallels can be found in the emphasis on the δόξα of the Son conferred by the Father (2 Pet 1:16-­17; cf. John 1:14b), but this was likely commonplace at this stage in early Christianity.205 Most plausibly, the reference to Jesus’ prophecy of Peter’s death (2 Pet 1:14) could be linked with the proclamation of martyrdom in John 21:18-­19, 201

So Kraus, Sprache, 106; there, in detail, on the nuanced usage of εἰς in 2 Pet. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 209; also taken up in Gerdmar, Rethinking, 75–­76. 203 See recently also Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 116–­17; and in more detail R. J. Miller, “Attestation.” 204 Supposed linguistic resonances in other passages, which above all Dschulnigg, “Ort,” 168–­76, has collected in support of his classification of 2 Pet within a Matthean Jewish Christianity, are likewise rather inconclusive; on this, see criticism in Kraus, Sprache, 376–­79. 205 On this, see Ruf, Propheten, 112–­14. 202



Literary Unity, Use of Sources, and Literary Context

199

yet there are no indications of a direct reference, and the death proclaimed in John 21 is not imminent, but lies rather in the distant future (see below on 1:14). Even if John could have already been known at the time of composition of 2 Pet, specific points of contact cannot be demonstrated.206 5.2.6 The relationship of 2 Peter to the texts of the Apostolic Fathers

Depending on the time and place of composition, the author could also have been familiar with texts among those now known as the Apostolic Fathers.207 Conversely, under the assumption of an earlier dating, these have often been discussed as potential recipients of 2 Pet.208 However, parallels alone can prove nothing; for a literary awareness in either direction, better arguments would need to be produced. Failing this, the question arises as to how to explain the correspondences: Do these indicate a shared milieu, perhaps a shared place of composition,209 or simply an analogous situation? a) The points of contact with 1 Clem.,210 probably composed around the end of the first century, pertain to a few terms and motifs such as the “way of truth” (2 Pet 2:2; 1 Clem. 35.5) and the metaphor of the way in general, the designation of God as μεγαλοπρεπὴς δόξα (2 Pet 1:17; 1 Clem. 9.2), the motif of the epistolary reminder (2 Pet 1:12; 3:1; 1 Clem. 7.1), the parallel usage of Lot as an example (2 Pet 2:6-­9; 1 Clem. 7.5–­6; 11.1), and the motif of creation and destruction through God’s word (2 Pet 3:5; 1 Clem. 20.6). The clearest correspondence is between 2 Pet 3:9 and 1 Clem. 8.2, 5, yet this can be explained by the parallel reference to Ezek 33:11.211 b) The same applies for the thematic parallels with the Shepherd of Hermas,212 which has also been used to establish a Roman milieu for 2 Pet.213 Here, too, most of the parallels are relatively general, although Grünstäudl points out that three terms of significance for 2 Pet and its interpretation of Scripture offer striking points of contact with Hermas: the hapax legomenon δυσνοητός (2 Pet 3:16; cf. Herm. Sim. 9.14.4), 206

Cf. Ruf, Propheten, 589–­90. Ruf, Propheten, 48. 208 Thus, in detail in Bigg, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 199–­210; recently, Picirilli, “Allusions.” On this, see above, p. 168. 209 Thus the influential thesis of Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 150, for whom 2 Pet, like 1 Clem., 2 Clem., and Herm., originates in a Roman congregation; on this, see criticism in Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 187–­200. 210 On this, Gilmour, Significance, 115–­16; Ruf, Propheten, 591–­92; Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 191–­93. On the date, see Lona, Clemensbrief, 95; Lindemann, “Clemensbrief,” 77–­78. 211 So Gilmour, Significance, 116. 212 On this, Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 193–­97. 213 So Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 180 and 277; for discussion, see Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 195. 207

200

Second Peter: Introduction

ἐπιλύσις (2 Pet 1:20), and στρεβλόω (2 Pet 3:16).214 Ultimately, these parallels can neither prove a common setting of origin nor even a literary usage; they do, however, show that the spiritual kindred of 2 Pet are to be found rather in the second century than among the core NT texts.215 c) A similar finding also emerges with regard to 2 Clem., probably to be dated around the middle of the second century,216 for which a great proximinity to and multiple points of contact with 2 Pet have often been observed.217 Both texts support Christ’s divinity (2 Clem. 1.1; 2 Pet 1:2), both know that the Christian message could appear as μῦθος (2 Pet 1:16; 2 Clem. 13.3), both know that “false teachings . . . or a false way of life . . . could lead to slandering of the way of truth (2 Pet 2:2) or of God’s name (2 Clem. 13.1 . . .) among non-­Christians.”218 Yet these and other similarities only imply a certain correspondence in the general temporal situation, not a literary relationship or a common historical-­theological context.219 d) One clear parallel occurs in Barn., which in 15.4 quotes the Psalm verse 90:4 (LXX 89:4), also taken up in 2 Pet 3:8. However, this Psalm citation is already widely attested in early Jewish tradition220 and early Christian authors were able to participate in this tradition without referring to the Psalm independently or using another Christian text as a source.221 Beyond this, the Psalm citation in Barn. appears in the context of speculation on world chronology that places the Sabbath of the world in the seventh millennium (and in Barn. it is directed against the Judaizing observance of the Sabbath),222 whereas in 2 Pet the citation highlights the impossibility of a chronological calculation of the end. There is certainly no literary relationship here. e) Finally, we must take account of Polycarp, who used 1 Pet intensively in his letter to the Philippians.223 By contrast, there are no demonstrable literary connections with 2 Pet, only parallels in individual topoi (“false teachers,” 2 Pet 2:1; cf. Pol. Phil. 7.2), terms (δικαιοσύνη; Christ as “soter”), and associations (Pol. Phil. 3.2: “word of truth”; 9.1: “word of righteousness”) as well as the mention of Paul (Pol. Phil. 3.2), who is recommended for study as a wise epistolographer, but is not pigeonholed as in 2 Pet.224

The ‘proximity’ of a few texts of the Apostolic Fathers to 2 Pet can thus be observed phraseologically and substantively, and this offers an indicator for 214

Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 196–­97. So also Ruf, Propheten, 591. 216 On the date, see Pratscher, Clemensbrief, 62–­64. 217 Cf. Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 197–­99; according to Ruf (Propheten, 592), 2 Clem. is a “theological neighbor” of 2 Pet. 218 Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 198. 219 So Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 199. 220 On this, see in detail Schrage, “Tag.” 221 So Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 201. 222 Early Jewish conceptions underlie this; cf. also 2 En. 33:1; L.A.B. 28.2; L.A.E. 42. 223 So Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 204; Holmes, “Letter,” 223. 224 Cf. Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 205. 215



Literary Unity, Use of Sources, and Literary Context

201

the dating of 2 Pet, but there are no demonstrable literary relationships in either direction. 5.2.7 The relationship to other texts of the second (and third) century ascribed to Peter

The relationship to other texts of the second (and third) century must also be considered.225 While the ‘historical Peter’ probably left no written texts behind and the canonical 1 Pet, which already presupposes the martyrdom of Peter in Rome (1 Pet 5:1, 13),226 can as a pseudepigraphon perhaps be placed around the end of the first century,227 somewhat later than this Peter is claimed as (pseudonymous) author much more frequently. Alongside 2 Pet (on the dating of this text see below pp. 220–­21) many other very diverse Petrine texts emerge in the second and third centuries: a kerygma of Peter, a revelation (apocalypse) of Peter, a gospel of Peter, an acts of Peter, a letter of Peter to Philip, another apocalypse of Peter transmitted in Coptic, a book of The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles, a letter of Peter to James, and the Kerygmata Petrou (“Preachings of Peter”) transmitted in the Pseudo-­Clementines. These texts are so diverse that they do not allow for the reconstruction of a unified ‘Petrine school,’ but they do show that the figure of Peter could lend itself as a fictitious author for many kinds of texts. Second Peter is not unique in this respect. 5.2.7.1 The Apocalypse of Peter and the question of the literary relationship with 2 Peter

First to be discussed here is the Apoc. Pet.228 This text has often been regarded as an early recipient of 2 Pet (on this, see above, pp. 168–­69), but recently 225 On this, see the overviews in Smith, Controversies, 39–­64, 120–­42; Schmidt, Mahnung, 410–­19; as well as recent detailed discussion in Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 90–­183. On Petrine literature, see futher Berger, “Offenbarung”; Norelli, “Situation”; Röwekamp, “Petrus-­Literatur.” 226 On the martyrdom of Peter, see further John 21:18-­19 (and 13:36); 1 Clem. 5–­6; Dionysius of Corinth in Euseb., Hist. eccl. 2.25.8; Acts Pet. 37–­41; Mart. Ascen. Isa. 4:2–3; and detailed discussion in Cullmann, Petrus, 78–­169; Grappe, Images, 49–­81; Bauckham, “Martyrdom”; Bockmuehl, Peter, 114–­32. Peter’s stay in Rome as well as his martyrdom are disputed in Zwierlein, “Petrus in Rom?”; idem, “Petrus und Paulus?,” 146: “Peter was never in Rome and . . . did not die the death of a martyr and blood witness.” 227 On this, see Schnelle, Einleitung, 481. 228 The edited Greek text of the Akhmim Codex P.Cair. 10759 is found in Kraus and Nicklas, Petrusevangelium, 103–­30; the Ethiopic text in Buchholz, Eyes; as well as Marrassini, “Apocalisse.” See also the translation of both versions of the text in C. D. G. Müller, “Offenbarung,” as well as specialized studies by Bauckham, “Apocalypse of Peter: Account”; idem, “Apocalypse of Peter”; idem, “2 Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter”; and Kraus, “Petrus-­Apokalypse”;

202

Second Peter: Introduction

Wolfgang Grünstäudl has vigorously established the reverse direction of literary dependence. Although the problems of transmission place tight limits on an exact proof, his arguments must be given serious consideration. Let us first consider the testimony: Apoc. Pet. is already mentioned as a γραφή229 and is cited three times by Clement of Alexandria, and (unlike 1­–­2 Pet) is mentioned in the Muratorian Canon.230 It apparently enjoyed relatively widespread recognition significantly earlier than 2 Pet.231 The text of this work is transmitted in a Greek version in a parchment codex from the sixth or seventh century (P.Cair. 10759 = ‘Akhmim Codex’, identified as A), which also contains a fragment of the Gospel of Peter, fragments of 1 En. in Greek and a martyrdom (of Julian of Anazarbus).232 In addition, there are two further Greek fragments in Oxford (Bodl. MS.Gr.th.f.4 [P]) and Vienna (P.Vindob. G 39756), identified as B and R, which both belong to the same codex (written in the second half of the fifth century).233 A more comprehensive text is only attested in Old Ethiopic (E) in two MSS, where the work is found within a larger pseudo-­Clementine composition.234 Given that the Ethiopic text contains all ancient quotations of Apoc. Pet. and accords with ancient statements about its length, it likely represents the older tradition, whereas A should be considered an edited and abridged version.235 However, this text is often corrupted or unclear owing to the translation, such that a Greek ‘urtext’ can hardly be ascertained.236 The situation is better only where B and R confirm or clarify the Ethiopic text.237 In this work, the resurrected Christ on the Mount of Olives explains to his disciples the signs of the age and of his coming, and informs them about the coming of a pseudomessiah who will bring persecution upon them (Apoc. Pet. 1–­2). He then explains to Peter the events of the end time: the dissolution of the world, the Parousia, and the resurrection of the dead (Apoc. Pet. 3–­6). The text then describes the judgment idem, “Fragmente”; idem, “Acherusia”; idem, “Fürbitte”; Nicklas, “Insider”; idem, “Drink the Cup”; idem, “Jewish, Christian, Greek?” 229 Clem. Alex., Ecl. 41, 48–­49. According to Euseb., Hist. eccl. 6.14.1, Clement is supposed to have even written a commentary on Apoc. Pet. 230 Despite its support for the recognition of Apoc. Pet., the fragment also identifies critical voices, which at the same time shows that Apoc. Pet. was the object of discussion. 231 On the witnesses, see Buchholz, Eyes, 22–­81 (esp. 22–­36); and Kraus and Nicklas, Petrusevangelium, 87–­100; further, Nicklas, “Spuren”; Jakab, “Reception.” 232 On this codex, see the analysis by van Minnen, “Apocalypse”; on the date, 20–­21. 233 Kraus, “Fragmente”; van Minnen, “Apocalypse,” 35. 234 On this, see Buchholz, Eyes, as well as Marrassini, “Apocalisse”; for a comparison of the textual traditions, also C. D. G. Müller, “Offenbarung,” 564–­66. 235 So, in agreement, Bauckham, “Apocalypse of Peter,” 257; Buchholz, Eyes, 422, 424; Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 102–­3. 236 So also Buchholz, Eyes, 376ff. 237 See here especially Kraus, “Petrus-­Apokalypse”; Buchholz, Eyes, 346–­48.



Literary Unity, Use of Sources, and Literary Context

203

and the resurrection of the dead and the judgment and punishment of the various types of sinners in detail (Apoc. Pet. 7–­13), and briefly mentions the fulfillment of the promises to the chosen (Apoc. Pet. 14). Thereupon Peter receives a personal exhortation to martyrdom (“Drink the cup that I have promised you . . .”), which is apparently associated with the expectation that the events of the end times are beginning (Apoc. Pet. 14.4). Finally, Jesus encourages the disciples to go to the “holy mountain” (i.e., Temple Mount), where they see Moses and Elijah in transfigured form, paradise, and the heavenly temple, before Jesus is finally taken up by the cloud (Luke 24, Acts 1). This text, which in part seems bizarre above all in the depiction of judgment, had a great impact in antiquity238 and aroused the interest of exegetes especially because of its reception of the synoptic transfiguration in Apoc. Pet. 15, since Apoc. Pet. and 2 Pet are the oldest extant nonsynoptic accounts of this episode. Of course, the relationship between these two texts—­also depending upon the respective decisions regarding the authenticity and dating of 2 Pet—­has been variously determined.239 While academics around 1900, following Harnack,240 considered 2 Pet to be dependent upon Apoc. Pet., Spitta in 1911 argued effectively for the reverse direction of dependence.241 Taking into account the Ethiopic tradition, Bauckham has once again defended this position extensively and thus bolstered his quite early dating of 2 Pet.242 Together with Bauckham’s situation of Apoc. Pet. in the Bar Kochba period and in a Palestinian Jewish context,243 this has been taken up by many interpreters, although recently a series of authors have brought strong arguments to call into question the Palestinian Jewish categorization of the work and thereby also the date in the Bar Kochba period, and have suggested instead an Egyptian Alexandrian location for the text.244

There is a series of points of contact between Apoc. Pet. and 2 Pet. Terminologically, with the Greek text, one can point above all to the language of the way (ὁδὸς τῆς δικαιοσύνης in Apoc. Pet. [A] 22, 28, cf. 2 Pet 2:21 as well as further ‘way’ phrases in 2 Pet 1:11, 15; 2:2, 15), but this is rather “commonly accessible 238 Principally through its reception in Apoc. Pet., the text had a strong influence on later Christian eschatology and conceptions of the underworld; on this, see Kraus, “Petrus-­ Apokalyse,” 92–­94. 239 See the survey of scholarship in Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 105–­11. 240 Harnack, Chronologie 1:471. 241 Spitta, “Petrusapokalypse.” 242 Bauckham, “Apocalypse of Peter”; idem, “2 Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter.” 243 Bauckham, “Apocalypse of Peter.” 244 Thus first Tigchelaar, “Liar,” who questions the identification of the pseudomessiah with Bar Kochba; on the religio-­historical connections, see further Bremmer, “Tours of Hell”; Kraus, “Petrus-­Apokalypse”; idem, “Acherusia”; Nicklas, “Insider”; idem, “Jewish, Christian, Greek?”; all of these assume an Egyptian, or Alexandrian, origin for Apoc. Pet. Indicators of this are, among other things, the river of fire (Apoc. Pet. 12), the mention of the Acherusian lake and Elysian fields (Apoc. Pet. 14), and the punishing angel Temelouchos (= Apoc. Pet. [E] 8: Temlakos).

204

Second Peter: Introduction

terminology”245 that cannot substantiate literary dependence. Further terminological resonances could also have developed in the Akhmim codex version through the influence of the text of 2 Pet.246 More significant is the contact in especially rare expressions (such as αἰώνιος βασιλεία in 2 Pet 1:11).247 However, points of contact in three sets of motifs are essential for determining a possible literary dependence: Jesus’ prophecy of death to Peter (2 Pet 1:14; Apoc. Pet. [E] 14.1–­4 and R [P.Vindob.G 39756 p. 4, l. 2–­5]),248 the tradition of Jesus’ transfiguration (2 Pet 1:16-­18; Apoc. Pet. [E] 15), and the motif of the global conflagration (2 Pet 3:8-­10, 12; Apoc. Pet. [E] 4–­6),249 which must be considered in their shared features. Scholarship has thus far concentrated above all on the parallels in the transfiguration tradition. Here, in contrast with the Synoptics, in 2 Pet and Apoc. Pet. the mountain of the transfiguration is called the “holy mountain” (by which Apoc. Pet. certainly means the Temple Mount); the voice calls out not from a cloud, but rather from heaven; and the phrase “honor and glory” (2 Pet 1:17; Apoc. Pet. [E] 16.5) also connects the two texts, suggesting a literary relationship here. The more specific nature of this relationship must be determined in light of the relationship with the Matthean tradition. Grünstäudl’s argumentation for 2 Pet’s usage of Apoc. Pet. can be summarized in the following points: a) 2 Pet is not independent of the synoptic tradition250 but rather knows Matt as well as Apoc. Pet. However, 2 Pet clearly diverges from Matt precisely where 2 Pet also agrees with Apoc. Pet. (E) so that 2 Pet can better be read as “a harmonization of the transfiguration traditions of Matt and Apoc. Pet. [Eth.].”251 b) Even more clearly than the transfiguration pericope, a comparison of the prophecy of death (Apoc. Pet. [Eth.] 14;252 2 Pet 1:13-­14) suggests that 2 Pet is dependent upon Apoc. Pet. An individual prophecy of death by Jesus to Peter is found in the NT only in John 21:18, yet this passage, with its dark insinuation, can hardly be taken up in 2 Pet 1:14 (see p. 288). The next extant prophecy 245

Kraus, Sprache, 393. Kraus, Sprache, 394. 247 Cf. P.Vindob.G 39756, p. 2, l. 11–­13 (in Kraus, Sprache, 394; idem, “Petrus-­Apokalypse,” 82). According to Bauckham, “2 Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter,” 299, this expression is only attested in these two passages before 150 CE. 248 Cf. Kraus, Sprache, 394; idem, “Petrus-­Apokalypse,” 82. 249 On these three textual complexes, see the detailed discussion in Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 113–­37. 250 On this, see above, p. 169 and pp. 196–­99; cf. Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 115–­19; R. J. Miller, “Attestation”; Ruf, Propheten, 101–­9. 251 Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 121. 252 The text is reconstructed with the Greek fragment P.Vindob.G 39756. 246



Literary Unity, Use of Sources, and Literary Context

205

of death by Jesus to Peter is found in Apoc. Pet. 14.4. Peter is to “drink the cup” that had been promised to him in the city that rules over the west (Mark 14:36 par. John 18:11), “from the hand of the son of the one who is in Hades” (i.e., probably Nero) “so that his disappearance might take a beginning” (ἵνα ἀρχὴν λάβῃ αὐτοῦ ἡ ἀφανεία).253 This prophecy of death (text according to R) comes across as oddly archaic and cannot have been composed too long after Peter’s martyrdom, since his martyrdom under Nero is manifestly connected with the beginning of final events (first with the end of Nero or perhaps of the ‘antichrist’ and then probably also with the fulfillment of the promises of salvation to the elect).254 Apoc. Pet. is thus certainly not a narrative expansion of 2 Pet 1:14. By contrast, against the background of the existence of such a tradition, the statement ascribed to the “scoffers” in 2 Pet 3:4 that the “fathers” (which also includes Peter) have passed away and the world has not changed would be easy to understand. Second Peter 1:14 can then also be explained as a reception of the prophecy of death without the imminent eschatological expectation conveyed in Apoc. Pet.; and finally, 2 Pet as a whole can be understood from this perspective “as a continuation and correction of the eschatological expectation that is connected in Apoc. Pet. with Peter’s death.”255 Although Peter has suffered his death, the scenario anticipated as following that event has not begun; nonetheless, in his ‘testament’ against the “scoffers,” Peter holds fast to the (temporally indefinite) eschatological expectation of the Parousia and judgment. c) The same direction of literary dependence emerges from the comparison of the concept of the global conflagration that unites the two texts (2 Pet 3:8–­ 10:12; Apoc. Pet. [E] 5.2–­8). Whereas Bauckham must presume the adoption of an unknown Jewish apocalyptic source for 2 Pet 3,256 the assumption that 2 Pet 3:10 draws on the scene in Apoc. Pet. 4–­6 offers a much simpler explanation.257 The extent to which the issue of the eschatological ‘delay’ is reflected upon is crucial. In Apoc. Pet. this problem is not discussed at all, whereas 2 Pet clearly appears to be a reaction to and an explicit reflection on the issue of delay (2 Pet 3:4, 8-­9). It would be difficult to understand Apoc. Pet. as a further development of 2 Pet’s intensive struggle with the question of delay, whereas 2 Pet can 253 Cf. Kraus and Nicklas, Petrusevangelium, 127–­28. The text of the Vienna fragment (R) helps here to restore the text that is corrupted in the Ethiopic. 254 Cf. Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 127; Nicklas, “Drink the Cup,” 189–­91; also Bauckham, “Martyrdom,” 573–­74. 255 Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 129. 256 For criticism, see below, pp. 377–­79. 257 So Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 130–­37; idem, “Feuer.”

206

Second Peter: Introduction

easily be understood as a corrective continuation of the imminent expectation conveyed in Apoc. Pet., which has become questionable with the passage of time. d) Grünstäudl draws a final argument from the reception of Jude in 2 Pet: Given that Apoc. Pet. has no points of contact with Jude, the assumption that it draws on 2 Pet and omits every element that comes from Jude is implausible. It is more likely that 2 Pet adopted elements from Jude and Apoc. Pet. and carried them forward in line with its own concerns. These arguments result in the “literary dependence of 2 Pet on Apoc. Pet.”258: 2 Pet thus draws on not only 1 Pet but at least one other text of the ‘Petrine tradition.’ This could simultaneously serve as an explanation for the fact that 2 Pet makes little effort to adopt the image of Peter from 1 Pet. There was apparently already a plurality of ‘writings of Peter’ and images of Peter available, a ‘Petrine discourse.’259 With regard to dating 2 Pet, the dependence on Apoc. Pet. means that this does not mark the terminus ad quem, but rather the terminus a quo for 2 Pet. However, it is difficult to specify the date of Apoc. Pet. since the identification of the pseudomessiah with Bar Kochba is not compelling. With regard to Apoc. Pet. 1–­2, one could also consider the effects of the messianic revolts in the Egyptian diaspora under Trajan, but this remains equally uncertain. The early recognition of Apoc. Pet. suggests that a date in the first half of the second century is plausible. 5.2.7.2 The Kerygma Petri

Clement of Alexandria cites a Kerygma Petri260 multiple times;261 the Valentinian Heracleon already cites this text as an authority in his commentary on John, composed around 170 CE (Origen, Comm. Jo. 13.17.194),262 and the 258

Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 142. This was previously suggested as early as Knopf, Briefe Petri und Judä, 255; and Seethaler, 1. und 2. Petrusbrief, Judasbrief, 86, neither of whom, however, evaluate exegetically the potential reference of 2 Pet to Apoc. Pet., which they consider possible or even probable. 259 Here I adapt the terminology coined by Hindy Najman (Seconding Sinai) with regard to the ‘Mosaic discourse’—­that is, the texts that carried on the Moses tradition in ancient Judaism. 260 Text: Cambe, Kerygma; Klostermann, Apocrypha, 13–­ 16; German translation in Schneemelcher, “Kerygma,” 3–­41; commentary in von Dobschütz, Kerygma Petri, 27–­64; see also Paulsen, “Kerygma”; Norelli, “Situation,” 63–­71; Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 90–­97. 261 A quotation (Clem. Alex., Strom. 2.68.1–­2) is found in a commentary on the Psalms that was used by Clement and is thus older (see Cambe, Kerygma, 45). Clement indicates no doubt as to the Petrine authorship and authority of the text. Not until Origen, Princ. 1, praef., is it said that this book is not by Peter (Schneemelcher, “Kerygma,” 37). 262 On this, see Cambe, Kerygma, 15–­28.



Literary Unity, Use of Sources, and Literary Context

207

Berlin Coptic book probably does so as well.263 This text is a summary of the Christian proclamation ascribed to Peter, which was possibly composed in Egypt in the first half of the second century and could thus potentially be older than 2 Pet.264 After the great Jewish revolts in this region (115–­117 CE) that led to the extensive elimination of Egyptian Judaism and probably also Jewish Christianity, Peter appears here already as a (pseudonymous) guarantor of a Gentile Christian text. Christ is named here—­according to an oft-­cited fragment—­“nomos” and “logos”;265 God is described in Platonizing style with negative predications;266 God is the creator of the beginning of all things (cf. Gen 1:1; John 1:1) and has “the power . . . to bring an end.”267 The text presents a polemical defense against pagan worship of the gods (which is said to occur in ignorance and without knowledge) as well as Jewish festival praxis and worship of angels.268 One fragment, in the apostolic-­we style, recounts the insight into the scripturality of the story of Jesus gained from the prophets after Easter.269 Two passages might take up phrases from Heb (1:3 and 8:8-­9).270 Aside from the mention of the God “who . . . has the power to bring an end,”271 which offers a very general parallel to 2 Pet 2:8 and 3:5-­13, significant parallels cannot be found in the extant fragments. Yet “knowledge” and scriptural hermeneutics seem to have been important themes of this text, too, as well as the articulation of Christian theology in strongly Hellenistic terms (such as εὐσέβεια and θεοσέβεια), which is likewise analogous to 2 Pet.272 This is a significant departure from the ‘historical’ Peter, but fits in well with the Alexandrian milieu. At the same time, this reveals the framework in which the pseudonymous claim to Peter as an authority was possible (and apparently caused no offense among Alexandrian readers). If Ker. Pet. was composed in the first half of the second century, it could yet be composed 263

On this, see Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 92. Cf. Schenke-­Robinson, Schenke, and Plisch, Koptische Buch. 264 Cf. Smith, Controversies, 39. 265 Clem. Alex., Strom. 1.182.3; 2.68.2; and Ecl. 58; this identification not only resonates with John 1:1, 14, but at the same time in the connection between logos and (cosmic) law appears as Stoicizing. 266 See the fragment attested in Clem. Alex., Strom. 6.58.1. 267 Clem. Alex., Strom. 6.5.39. 268 Clem. Alex., Strom. 6.39.4–­40.2 and 6.41.2–­3. 269 Clem. Alex., Strom. 6.128.1–­2 . 270 Heb 1:3 in Clem. Alex., Strom. 6.58.1 and Heb 8:8-­9 (alongside Jer 31[38]:31–­32) in Clem. Alex., Strom. 6.41.4– ­6. 271 Clem. Alex., Strom. 6.5.39 (see in Schneemelcher, “Kerygma,” 38). 272 On this see Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 97.

208

Second Peter: Introduction

before 2 Pet.273 If both texts are to be located in the Alexandrian region, it is conceivable that this pseudonymous Petrine text was known in the vicinity of the author or his addressees. 5.2.7.3 Second Peter and other apocryphal Petrine literature of the second and third centuries

The remaining texts of the Petrine tradition in the second and third centuries mentioned above need not be discussed in detail here, since they most likely no longer come into consideration as sources or background for 2 Pet. While they show the breadth and intensity of the reception of the figure of Peter from the mid-­second century, the texts are so varied in their genres and theological orientation that they cannot belong to a common tradition or school. Peter as a figure, in particular as an authority within emerging Christianity, was especially useful:274 His preaching, his deeds, and his martyrdom drew multifaceted interest, and the figure of Peter was able to serve the authorization of doctrine in various discourses (about Christian knowledge and doctrine, the justification of Jewish Christianity, the understanding of Paul, the signs of the age, and the Parousia). In this context, it is significant for the classification of 2 Pet that other pseudonymous Petrine texts exist alongside or already before 2 Pet, not only the canonical 1 Pet, but very likely also Apoc. Pet. and Ker. Pet. This means that 2 Pet was already able to connect with a broad tradition of pseudonymous Petrine texts and the construction of a pseudonymous authorship was thus nothing new, but rather 2 Pet likely entered into a preexisting ‘Petrine discourse’ and should be understood as a contribution to a discourse that was already advanced. 5.2.8 Further Christian literature

Depending upon the dating of 2 Pet, other early Christian texts between Justin275 and Clement of Alexandria need to be considered, not as sources, but as further literary context. For Justin, based on a comparison among Dial. 81.1–­3, 82.1–­3, and various passages from 2 Pet, W. Grünstäudl has argued for a literary relationship, which he boldly interprets as the author of 2 Pet having made use of Dial. (or a small passage thereof). In Clement of Alexandria’s work, for which knowledge of 2 Pet (unlike 1 Pet, Jude, and Apoc. Pet.) cannot be demonstrated, 273

So also Schmidt, Mahnung, 410. Cf. also Perkins, Peter, James, and Jude, who characterizes Peter in the title as “apostle for the whole church.” 275 On Justin, see the detailed discussion in Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 206–­26. 274



Literary Unity, Use of Sources, and Literary Context

209

Grünstäudl ultimately finds correlations, for example, in the weight of the term “knowledge” and in aspects of the hermeneutics of authoritative texts, which leads him to the thesis that 2 Pet’s historical and theological home is to be found in the educated milieu of Alexandria of the time before Clement.276 This hypothesis requires further careful examination. An Alexandrian milieu for 2 Pet may also be likely in view of the use of Apoc. Pet. (and certain points of contact with Ker. Pet.) as well as the strong reception of Hellenistic religious language (which was adopted much more strongly in Hellenistic Judaism, such as in Philo, than in older early Christianity). In the educated milieu of Alexandrian Christianity there might have been a space in which even such a bold literary fiction as that of 2 Pet could be enjoyed aesthetically and accepted in its substance,277 without immediately being discredited as pia fraus. 5.2.9 Pagan texts and discourses

Beyond this, was 2 Pet also influenced by pagan texts? Even if they can hardly be proved as ‘sources,’ observations regarding vocabulary and parallels to individual texts show that 2 Pet, perhaps more than all other NT writings, reaches beyond the borders of the Hellenistic Jewish and early Christian linguistic and conceptual world, and adapts forms of presentation from the pagan Hellenistic environment. With regard to vocabulary, Thomas Kraus has shown that many of the rare vocabulary items derive from the mundane sphere, as shown by “the saying of 2:22, which is found in the tradition of Democritus or Heraclitus,”278 the extremely rare μυωπάζειν (1:9), or the use of a word like ταρταροῦν (2:4), which displays a familiarity with Greek mythology. The phrasing and line of thought in 2 Pet 1:3ff. shows a close correspondence with the honorific decrees that were ubiquitous in antiquity (see below, pp. 256–57). In addition, the reception of forms of rhetorical ornatus is also significant,279 as is the natural use of Hellenistic religio-­philosophical terms like θεία δύναμις (1:3) and θεία φύσις (1:4) or concepts like the Stoic doctrine of ekpyrosis. “The idiomatic language of religious discourse here transcends the boundaries between Jewish Christian and pagan,”280 such that one can conclude, “A part of the endeavor 276

On this, cf. Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 236–­86. In any case, Heracleon and Clement also appear to have accepted the Kerygma Petri as Petrine (in whichever sense of the term) and to have registered no suspicion as to its authorship. 278 Kraus, Sprache, 379; idem, “Hund.” 279 On this, see Ruf, Propheten, 597. 280 Ruf, Propheten, 596. 277

210

Second Peter: Introduction

of the Secunda Petri aims . . . at integration in an ancient culture that is not specifically Jewish Christian.”281 6. Literary Form and Structure 6.1 Literary form Second Peter unites formal elements from the genres of the letter and the ‘literary testament.’282 On the one hand, it is clearly a letter, as shown by the complete prescript (with superscriptio, adscriptio, and salutatio) followed by the proemium, the final admonitions (which resonate with known epistolary closing formulas in the “wish for well-­being”283 in 3:18), the repeated address to the readers with reference to their situation, as well as the explicit reflection on the act of writing in 3:1. This epistolary ‘framework’ is connected with formal elements of a literary testament in the reference to Peter’s approaching death, which thus creates a situation of farewell (1:13-­14), and when in the garb of the apostle the author “reminds” his readers (1:12-­13; 3:1), knows about things yet to come (1:20; 3:3), and seeks specifically to enable recollection after his death (1:15). Ethical admonitions and eschatological proclamations likewise belong to this genre. Especially in 1:12-­15, there is a high concentration of elements that are characteristic of ‘last words,’ which enable the text to be recognized as testamentary.284 It would not be surprising if literarily competent readers had categorized it as fictional from the start.285 Despite these testamentary features, in terms of its form the text remains a letter, such that it is best designated as a “testament in epistolary form.”286 6.2 Structural outline A structural outline of the text can be established on the basis of various criteria. The epistolary genre of the text’s frame suggests that epistolograpic criteria will 281

Ruf, Propheten, 597; also Trimaille, “De sera,” 481. Thus for the first time Munck, Discours, 162–­63; and Michel, Abschiedsrede, 68; further, Knoch, Petrusbrief, 251–­54 (and idem, “Testamente”); Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 131; Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 90; Schnelle, Einleitung, 505; on the genre of the farewell address or literary testament, see Munck, Discours; Michel, Abschiedsrede; M. Winter, Vermächtnis, 9–­213; as well as the overviews in Becker, Evangelium, 1:440–­45; Weiser, Timotheus, 35–­38; and the discussion in Ruf, Propheten, 201–­4. 283 So Schmidt, Mahnung, 308. 284 On this, see the detailed discussion in Ruf, Propheten, 201–­19. 285 Thus the suggestion by Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 134: “Second Peter bears so many marks of the testament genre . . . that readers familiar with the genre must have expected it to be fictional, like other examples they knew.” 286 So Vielhauer, Geschichte, 595; likewise Kraus, Sprache, 411. 282



Literary Form and Structure

211

be helpful. Thus, Hans-­Josef Klauck identifies a letter opening with a prescript (1:1-­2) and proemium (1:3-­11) and a letter closing shaped by a final admonition and doxology, but without a concluding greeting or blessing formula (3:17-­18).287 These two sections are joined by the letter body (1:12–­3:16), which opens with an “epistolary self-­recommendation” (1:12-­21) and concludes with a “ ‘Pauline’ motivated paraenesis” (3:14-­16). The central portion of the body consists of two main sections concerned with (1) the false teachers (2:1-­22) and (2) the certainty of Christ’s return (3:1-­13). According to other scholars, the prescript can reach as far as 1:4288 and the closing can be further subdivided into the epilogue (3:14-­17) and postscript (3:18).289 Such an epistolographic structure seems to be more appropriate to the text than a structure that follows in its entirety ancient rules of rhetoric, in which the epistolary elements need to be reinterpreted as parts of ancient oratorical paradigms. Thus, for example, Duane F. Watson290 must read the prescript in 1:1-­2 as a “quasi-­exordium,” followed by the exordium (1:3-­15), a long, multipart probatio (1:16–­3:13), and a concluding peroratio (3:14-­18). The problems of this approach are perceived more clearly by Lauri Thurén, who includes 1:1-­2 rhetorically within the exordium but admits that these verses follow epistolary conventions and that 1:12 also contains a conventional letter body opening. Especially difficult is the subdivision of the letter body, or the argumentatio:291 Karl-­Matthias Schmidt regards 1:12-­19c as narratio, 1:19d–­2:22 as confirmatio, 3:1-­2 as repetitio, and 3:3-­13 as refutatio.292 Thurén, however, considers 2:1-­22 to be a refutatio, and 3:1-­13 a probatio. He sees a propositio in 1:12, yet the remainder of 1:12-­21 does not fit well with this model insofar as it addresses the authority and credibility of the author and the Scriptures. It is likewise doubtful that 2:1-­22 can be considered a refutatio, since the thesis of the opponents does not appear until 3:4. The simple ascription of rhetorical terms to individual sections of this text thus remains inadequate. A letter is not a speech, and, furthermore, 287

Klauck, Briefliteratur, 306–­9. So, among others, Wohlenberg (Petrusbrief und Judasbrief), Chaine (Les épîtres catholiques), Schrage (“Zweite Petrusbrief ”), all ad loc. See the argumentation below, pp. 248–­49. 289 So Schmidt, Mahnung, 346. 290 Watson, Invention, 141–­42; and following him, Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 112–­18; Martin, “Theology,” 136–­37; as well as Thurén, “Writings,” 601–­2 , who differentiates between exordium (1:1–­11), argumentatio (1:12–­3:13), and peroratio (3:14–­18) based on the usage of διό in 1:12 and 3:14. 291 Whereas Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 111–­13, divides the letter body into five refutations, most authors see a three-­part structure in 1:12-­21, 2:1-11, and 3:1-­13 (so Schnelle, Einleitung, 505, and many commentaries). See the compilation in Kraus, Sprache, 399n132. 292 Schmidt, Mahnung. 288

212

Second Peter: Introduction

a textbook-­schematic speech would, according to ancient measures, be a bad one. Thurén therefore considers it worthwhile to look for rhetorically unusual elements in the text.293 More helpful for the textual subdivisions is rather the syntactic-­stylistic structure developed by Thomas J. Kraus,294 which guides the following sketch of the structure, incorporating epistolographic and content-­functional aspects.295

I. Letter Opening 1:1-­4 (extended) prescript 1:1-­2 superscriptio, adscriptio, salutatio 1:3-­4 Expansion of the salutatio (a genitive absolute introduced by ὡς) 1:5-­11 Proemial admonition on virtue II. Letter Body 1:12-­15 Body opening and testamentary note 1:16-­21 Justification of the authority of the author 1:16-­18 Apostolic eyewitness status 1:19-­21 Authority of the prophetic word



2:1-­3 Introduction to the dispute with the false teachers: their proclamation 2:4-­10a Biblical examples for the punishing and salvific power of God 2:10b-­22 Polemical application to the false teachers



3:1-­4 New beginning: the prophecy about scoffers who deny the Parousia 3:5-­13 Rejection of the arguments of those denying the Parousia 3:5-­7 The argument for the stability of the cosmic course 3:8-­10 The argument that the promise of the Parousia is not yet fulfilled 3:11-­13 Admonishing conclusion of the argumentation

293

Thurén, “Writings,” 602, identifies among other things the renewed discussion of the occasion for writing in 3:1 and the unusual mention of the Pauline letters in the repetitio (3:15-­16). 294 Kraus, Sprache, 401–­4. 295 The justification for setting the breaks after 1:4 and before 2:1 and for the cohesion of 2:1-­3, 2:4-­10a, and 2:10b-­22, as well as of 3:1-­4 and 3:5-­13, is found in the exegesis of these passages.





Author, Date, and Location

213

III. Letter Closing 3:14-­18a Concluding admonition with reference to the letters of Paul 3:18b Concluding doxology

7. Author, Date, and Location 7.1 The author and the problem of pseudepigraphy The question of the author’s identity has dominated the reading of 2 Pet since the beginning of modern exegesis, in part with recourse to the doubts of the ancient church, which were taken up in humanism and again by some reformers. The text clearly claims to be written by Simon Peter, the apostle and disciple of Jesus, and presents itself as a ‘testament’ of Peter composed close to his death (1:14) for all Christians. The authoritative-­apostolic claim is particularly emphasized by the solemn Hebraizing mention of the name “Symeon Petros” (1:1). This claim is further strengthened by the reference to the close interaction with Christ, who had revealed to Peter his approaching death (1:14; cf. John 21:18); the author’s status as eye-­and earwitness to Jesus’ transfiguration (1:17-­18; cf. Matt 17:1-­18), which is contrasted with “made-­up stories” (1:16); the reference to another letter that is apparently known to the addressees and acknowledged by them (i.e., probably 1 Pet); and the concluding familiar reference to “brother Paul” (3:15-­16). Critical biblical scholarship has questioned the historical accuracy of this self-­identification with a level of unanimity rarely achieved elsewhere. While a large number of academics still defended Petrine authorship in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,296 the consensus today is entirely clear: “Peter cannot have written this letter.”297 296

So, among others, Weiss, “Frage”; von Hofmann, Brief Petri und Brief Judae; Keil, Commentar; Spitta, Brief; Bigg, Critical and Exegetical Commentary; F. Maier, “Beitrag”; Zahn, Einleitung; Wohlenberg, Petrusbrief und Judasbrief. Further evidence in Bauckham, “2 Peter: An Account,” 3719. The best compilation of the reasons for a Petrine authorship is still offered by Zahn, Einleitung, 2:90–­111, who presumes Silvanus as the secretary for 1 Pet in order to be able to maintain the authenticity of 2 Pet despite linguistic differences. Other scholars have seen 2 Pet as a translation from the Semitic (so Wohlenberg, Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, xxxv– xxxvi), regarded the passages parallel to Jude as interpolations (on this, see above, p. 178n112), seen a secretary who has taken great liberties at work in 2 Pet (so, e.g., J. A. T. Robinson, Redating, 192–­98, for whom Judas is actually also the author of 2 Pet), or understood 2 Pet as a compilation of Petrine materials by a student and thus assumed at least a derived authenticity (so Michaels, Second Peter and Jude, 352). However, these defensive strategies have been entirely unconvincing. On the argumentation, see Bauckham, “2 Peter: An Account,” 3720–­22. 297 So Kümmel, Einleitung, 379. See the accounts of scholarship in Bauckham, “2 Peter: An Account,” 3719–­24; P. Müller, “Petrusbrief ”; see also Brown, Introduction, 767: “The

214

Second Peter: Introduction

Even the most thorough recent attempt at a conservative classification, by R. J. Bauckham, was only able to establish a relatively early date, but not Petrine authenticity.298 Such authenticity is now maintained almost exclusively by authors for whom it is dictated by a dogmatic commitment and therefore cannot be scrutinized academically.299

However, acknowledging the pseudonymity of the text does not solve all the problems of interpretation but rather raises new questions about the nature of the literary fiction, its intention, and the context of its production and reception. These questions are also theologically relevant: Can a letter that is so boldly fabricated still claim ‘canonical’ authority?300 Not all the reasons for presuming a pseudonymous authorship of 2 Pet provide compelling evidence in and of themselves, yet taken together they present an overwhelming argument. The most important arguments are first of all literary: a) Literary dependence upon Jude. The latter text is itself likely pseudonymous and should be dated at the earliest to the late first century, but the beginning of the second is more likely (see above, pp. 31–32). Even if the general possibility that Peter might make use of a letter by a nonapostolic author could not be ruled out,301 this reception would be striking, since ‘Peter’ specifically refers to his eyewitness status in 2 Pet 1:16. Further literary connections can also be adduced: b) The clear stylistic distinction from 1 Pet with a simultaneous acknowledgment of that text. This argument can hardly be invalidated by the assumption that a secretary was involved in the composition of 1 Pet or of both letters. pseudonymity of II Pet is more certain than that of any other NT work”; Gielen, “Petrusbrief,” 525: “undisputedly suited for consensus”; Schnelle, Einleitung, 503; Broer, Einleitung, 2:645–­ 46; and likewise virtually all recent critical commentaries, including Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 30–­37; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 122–­27; Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 93–­95; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 158–­62; and Donelson, I & II Peter and Jude, 208. 298 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 158: between 80 and 90 CE. Even the conservative Adolf Schlatter questioned the hypotheses of pseudonymity for all other NT texts, except for 2 Pet (Einleitung, 450–­51). 299 Cf., for example, Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, 24; Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 276; Ellis, Making, 293–­303; most recently, also Berger, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 934–­35. 300 Of course, the argumentation of conservative apologetics is dishonest in that, from canonicity or the dogma of inspiration, it draws a substantive claim to truth (defined by modern categories), according to which the statements of authorship must be correct and pseudepigraphy (in canonical texts) cannot occur. When one argues in this way, one need no longer actually read the texts, since one already knows in advance what the reading must produce. 301 Thus the argument in Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 276, who accepts literary dependence but maintains Petrine authorship.



Author, Date, and Location

215

Nothing in 2 Pet indicates a coauthor. Could Peter be expected to refer, as occurs in 2 Pet 3:1, to a letter that he had written ‘only’ with the help of a secretary? It is more plausible to assume that the author deliberately took the stylistic distinction into account. This difference, then, is part of the specific character of the authorial construction.

c) The reference to a collection of Pauline letters (whose extent is not entirely clear, but which was regarded as ‘complete’). Even if the collection of letters could have begun in the Pauline congregations during the lifetime of Paul and Peter, it would be unduly bold to assume that such a collection was already available to Peter (in Rome?) in the 60s of the first century.302 The remark much more plausibly indicates an advanced stage of the collection of Pauline letters in the second century. d) The extensive lack of attestation to 2 Pet in the second century, and ultimately until Origen. Even if this argument is not entirely compelling, it does indicate either a lack of awareness or an initial skepticism regarding the letter particularly in contrast to the attestation of other texts (1 Pet, Jude, even Apoc. Pet.). This would make less sense in the case of an orthonymous composition in the first century than for a pseudonymous text in the second century. Formal and linguistic arguments can be made as well: e) The form of a literary testament. Since its beginnings in ancient Judaism (on the one hand in Deut, on the other in early Jewish testamental literature303), this form is characterized by having been composed retrospectively, or after the death of the ‘author,’ and fictionally ascribed to that person.304 In the present case, the testament is addressed not just to a single descendant or student of the author who is present during the final phase of his life (as for example in 2 Tim) but rather explicitly to an audience that lives after the death of the speaker and is meant to be better instructed through the speaker’s teachings set down in writing. Here, problems of the later period come into view that were not yet such an issue during Peter’s lifetime. f) The elaborate Greek language with multiple hapax legomena and rare words, some of which refer explicitly to Greek literature and mythology. Although it is difficult to determine what degree of Greek proficiency can be credited to the Galilean Peter, the elaborate style of 2 Pet does exceed nearly all other texts of the NT and is certainly not that of a Palestinian who originally spoke Aramaic. g) The high Christology with Christ as “our God” (1:1; cf. 1:4), to whom alone the closing doxology is addressed (3:18), and the often vague differentiation between God and Christ (cf. 1:11 and elsewhere). While a ‘high’ Christology did develop relatively 302

Against Ellis, Making, 297. On this, see Frey, “Origins.” On the genre, see the literature given above, p. 210n282. 304 This also applies to the NT examples in the Johannine farewell addresses, Paul’s Miletus speech in Acts 20, and 2 Tim. 303

216

Second Peter: Introduction

early in emerging Christianity305 and therefore does not necessitate a late dating of a text, the specific predication of Christ as “God” was not ventured until a later period, and the frequent identification of Christ (and not God alone) as “Savior” (cf. 1:11: “Lord” and “Savior”) also speaks for an estimated date not before the end of the first century. h) The reception of elements of Hellenistic-­philosophical thought, such as the participation in “divine nature” (1:4) or the adoption of linguistic elements of official honorific decrees (1:3-­11), which in their substance are also difficult to ascribe to the Palestinian Jewish Christian and apostle. i) No specifically ‘Petrine’ content. Apart from the reference to Jesus’ transfiguration and other connections with the Gospels, 2 Pet contains little that could be regarded as specifically Petrine. Further biographical information is lacking, as are references to his mission or themes that are specifically connected with him.306

Finally, the text itself shows clear anachronisms. Thus, among others: j) The reference to the death of the “ fathers” in 3:4. If the opponents point to the death of the “ fathers” to justify their skepticism about the expectation of Christ’s Parousia, this can only mean, not the fathers of Israel,307 but rather the first witnesses of the Christian hope (and not least Peter himself). Only with this understanding does the statement reveal a conflict with the promise of the Parousia in emerging Christianity (Mark 13:30 par.). The reference to the death of the generation of witnesses clearly places the opponents’ argumentation—­and thereby also the argumentation of the letter—­in the ‘postapostolic’ period, and thus a period in which Peter, too, was no longer living.308 k) The language of “your apostles” in 3:2. This phrase (which modifies Jude 18) already presupposes the concept of ‘the apostles’ as a closed group. The suggestion that Peter could refer here to the apostles who missionized the addressee congregations309 presupposes a concept of the allocation of the mission areas that is anachronistic for Peter’s (and Paul’s) time. 305

See the foundational discussions in Hengel, “Christologie”; Hurtado, Lord. Contrast Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 160: “His disregard for 1 Peter . . . may indicate a confidence, derived from personal knowledge, of his ability to speak on behalf of the dead Peter without recourse to other Petrine writings.” 307 See, for example, Bigg, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, ad loc.; E. M. B. Green, Second Peter Reconsidered, 29–­30; Ellis, Making, 295–­96, who refers to the general expectation of the Messiah or the kingdom of God supposedly shared by the fathers of Israel. In contrast, cf. even J. A. T. Robinson, Redating, 180: “The context demands the sense that ever since the first generation of Christians died things have continued as they always have been.” 308 So, rightly, Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 292. Nevertheless, the authorial fiction is less shaky than, for example, in Jude 18. 309 So also Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 287 (from the perspective of the church in Rome); Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, 164–­65 and Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 371, under the assumption of Petrine authorship. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 371, even suggests that Peter did not exclude himself in this phrase. 306



Author, Date, and Location

217

l) The presence of the false teachers. Purely in terms of language, the letter does not refer to the opponents (prophesied by Peter) only in the future (2:1-­3; 3:3), but repeatedly slips into the present tense in the polemical description of them (2:10-­22; 3:5, 9, 16). This should be read not only as a phenomenon of generalization and typification, but also as an indication that these opponents belong to the present time of the author (and his readers).

The result is inevitable: 2 Pet is a pseudonymous text. Its actual author is probably a Gentile Christian, is linguistically adept, and to a certain degree also literarily educated. He lives a fairly long time after Peter’s death (likely 64 CE) and addresses an unspecified audience of his own time. Yet this occurs with the explicit claim to Petrine authorship and with (very selective) recourse to the life of Peter (as told in the Gospels)—­that is, with the claim to the authority of the eyewitness to (the glory of) Jesus Christ. It is striking that the author indicates a link with a letter of Peter (1 Pet, probably considered to be authentic), but in no way adopts its style or subject matter. At the same time, he makes intensive use (with no explicit reference) of another text (Jude) that is attributed to a nonapostolic author, as well as very probably another ‘revelation’ attributed to Peter (Apoc. Pet.), which is likewise far removed from 1 Pet in style and substance, and which he follows in the transfiguration account, in part against Matt. We do not know whether the author himself regarded 1 Pet (and Apoc. Pet.) as authentic, but perhaps this question was not a high priority. The possibility of Petrine pseudepigraphy was likely not unfamiliar to him already on the basis of the texts he knew, especially if he was acquainted with the phenomenon of prosopopoeia from some degree of literary education. In this respect, he probably did not need to ‘invent’ the literary form of his text ad hoc. This form of pseudonymous authorial fiction is different in nature from all other pseudonymous constructions in the NT. It is unlike the ‘school pseudepigraphy’ of the deutero-­Paulines (Col, Eph, 2 Thess), which are closely linked with the Proto-­Pauline Letters in their substance and in part also in form (cf. 2 Thess and 1 Thess); the construction of the Pastoral Epistles, which despite considerable biographical details are still addressed to a student ‘contemporary’ with Paul, and only indirectly speak to later generations; the fictions in James and Jude, which are not underpinned biographically; as well as the more ‘reserved’ fiction of 1 Pet. Excursus: On the particular form of the pseudepigraphy in 2 Peter and its assessment The insight that the claims in 2 Pet to Petrine authorship and to the status of apostolic eyewitness are fictive—­that is, factually incorrect and, in this respect, potentially a

218

Second Peter: Introduction

‘deception’—­has raised doubts about the canonical authority of the text since the beginnings of modern research. Conversely, the resistance of conservative interpreters against such assumptions has been fueled by an interest in the validity and authority of the canonical texts. a) This discussion was long burdened by problematic value judgments:310 The judgment that pseudepigraphy was an epigonic phenomenon (as a symptom of decline compared with the ‘religious personalities’ of the prophets, who worked under their own names) derives above all from discussions of early Jewish apocalyptic literature. In this vein, with a psychologizing line of thought, it was concluded that the authors of pseudonymous texts did not dare to write in their own name and therefore took to this means of deception. Since the beginnings of modern scholarship, pseudepigraphy has often been connected with moral categories of deception, manipulation, or lies.311 This has raised (and raises) the moral question of whether such a ‘deception’ in the interest of religious truth312 could be legitimate, or whether—­if such a text was recognized as pseudepigraphic—­ this could be accepted under certain circumstances in emerging Christianity. In contrast, critical introductory research—­likewise apologetically—­has affirmed that pseudonymity was widely common in ancient Judaism (Old Testament, Wisdom literature, apocalyptic literature), just as in the Greco-­Roman world,313 and so the phenomenon in early Christianity could not have been something unusual or, indeed, objectionable. Conservative critics, by contrast, adduce evidence of ancient Christian objection to pseudonymous texts (as, for example, Acts Paul)314 and adhere to the judgment that in the case of an intentional deception (pia fraus) a text cannot hold canonical authority. b) Recently this discussion, which has long been far too generalized, has become significantly more nuanced.315 Comparison with many ancient (Near Eastern, Greco-­ 310

For a summary of research see Janßen and Frey, “Einführung,” 4–­16. Critical of this is K. Aland, “Problem,” 24, who, in contrast with older studies, concluded that “psychological interrogations are insufficient and ethics is not a category that is pertinent to our problem.” This may indeed go too far in its generality, but it shows that a careful literary critical examination is indispensible. 312 Cf. R. Zimmermann, “Lügen”; idem, “Unecht.” 313 Schnelle, Einleitung, 356, identifies within Greek literature the texts ascribed to Orpheus and the medical texts that were secondarily ascribed to Hippocrates of Cos, as well as texts published pseudonymously under the names of Plato, Aristotle, or Pythagoras, and points to the fact that pseudepigraphy reached its high point precisely in pseudepistolography, in the ascription of letters to heroes of intellectual history and then, above all, to Cynics, as ‘school pseudepigraphy.’ 314 So, for example, Baum, Pseudepigraphie. Cf. Euseb., Hist. eccl. 6.12.3 on Serapion of Antioch, and Gos. Pet. or Tert., Bapt. 17.4–­5, on the dismissal of the presbyter who “out of love for Paul” composed, or “forged,” an Acts of Paul. 315 On this, see the overview in Janßen and Frey, “Einführung,” 3–­14, as well as the history of research in M. Janßen, Namen. Important milestones in scholarship are Hengel, “Pseudepigraphie”; Speyer, Fälschung; Brox, Verfasserangaben. 311



Author, Date, and Location

219

Roman, Jewish, Christian) pseudonymous texts and taking account of literary aspects has led to more precise research questions.316 While one cannot say that there was no concept of intellectual property in antiquity, a distinction must be made “between the respective literary-­sociological locations and geographical spaces.”317 There were multiple motivations for authors to choose a fictional textual form318 as well as various reception contexts. In differing school contexts or milieus of differing literary education, the phenomenon of an authorial fiction must be explained in different ways and assessed individually. One key insight of the more recent discussion of pseudepigraphy is that in texts with a fictional authorship, the overall fictional concept consists not only in the image of the author but also to a certain extent in the image of the addressees or the opponents and the situation being depicted. Information about the addressees, the occasion for writing, and specific opponents cannot be interpreted as directly historical. This makes situating a pseudonymous letter even more complex. c) There is intense discussion of the extent to which ancient readers were able to recognize pseudepigraphy as such. The phenomenon of literary prosopopoeia was known from rhetorical instruction, at least among more educated circles.319 Yet it is striking that early Christian authors were often aware of pseudepigraphy in philosophical schools and decried forgeries among heretics but did not anticipate the possibility of this phenomenon in their own circles.320 Concepts of ‘legitimate’ fictionality were thus certainly not generally widespread in early Christianity, but they could well have been known in more literarily educated subcultures. For 2 Pet, scholarship has repeatedly considered the option of an ‘open pseudepigraphy.’321 However, we must differentiate between the perspective of the author (who must have regarded his approach as legitimate) and that of the recipients, whereby here, too, varying degrees of literary sharpsightedness must be taken into account. Various aspects need to be mentioned: d) The author’s perspective can perhaps be explained somewhat on the basis of his reception of Jude. The fact that he saw himself as legitimated in integrating a letter by a nonapostolic author into his ‘apostolic letter’—­whereby he likely assumed that this letter was unknown to his addressees—­presupposes that he belonged to a “literary subculture . . . in which authorial details were largely open for multifaceted fictionality.”322 The linguistic-­literary level of the text and the horizon of his knowledge of Hellenistic Jewish as well as pagan texts and discourses, which can be seen in the intertextual references, suggest a level of education in which forms of school 316

On this, see the summarizing contribution by Aune, “Reconceptualizing.” Janßen and Frey, “Einführung,” 8. 318 On this, see the overview in Janßen, “Antike (Selbst-­)Aussagen.” 319 On this, see Schmidt, Mahnung, 91–­102. 320 On this, see Frenschkowski, “Erkannte Pseudepigraphie?,” 87–­95. 321 So Klauck, Briefliteratur, 304–­5; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 134; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 127ff.; Schmidt, Mahnung, 429–­30. 322 So Frenschkowski, “Erkannte Pseudepigraphie,” 120–­21. 317

220

Second Peter: Introduction

pseudepigraphy and prosopopoeia were familiar. If the author anticipated that his addressees would at least perceive the rhetorical skill and were aware of the ethical and cosmological discourses addressed in the letter, it can be assumed that he could also presuppose an understanding of the stylistic device of prosopopoeia, and thus of the chosen literary form of Peter’s testamentary letter, even though his death already lay in the distant past. e) The author explicitly refers to 1 Pet but shows no effort to adapt his work stylistically or thematically to this other Petrine letter, which was likely known and accepted by the addressees. This might even indicate that the author—­although he constructed a consistent and nearly seamless fiction—­must have expected linguistically knowledgeable and insightful recipients of the text to be able to perceive the prosopopoeia (and still—­or precisely because of this—­follow the message of the letter). The history of reception reveals that other linguistically competent ancient readers perceived the stylistic differences, although they then drew different conclusions, perhaps because of differing educational and discursive contexts. f) If it is true that other (pseudonymous) Petrine writings were already circulated in the vicinity of the author and his addressees, the fictional ascription of 2 Pet is even less surprising. Particularly the lack of adaptation to 1 Pet can be better understood in the context of a broader ‘Petrine discourse.’ g) The fact that 2 Pet was transmitted (i.e., was kept and passed on by some of the addressees), but was only hesitantly received and recognized as Petrine relatively late, shows that there were likely also critical voices among the recipients, who drew different conclusions from the knowledge of its pseudonymous nature and demonstrated skepticism of the letter—­skepticism that dissipated only after quite some time.

7.2 Date of composition The suggested dates of composition for 2 Pet are more broadly divergent than for nearly any other NT text.323 While defenders of Petrine authenticity must date the text to the 60s of the first century,324 suggestions for the date of 2 Pet under the assumption of pseudonymous composition encompass a time span of nearly a century (from ca. 80 to ca. 180).325 This demonstrates the uncertainties of this discussion. 323

On older research, see the overview in Bauckham, “2 Peter: An Account,” 3740–­41. So, among others, Zahn, Einleitung, 2:90–­111 (60–­63 CE); Bigg, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 242–­4 4 (60–­6 4 CE); Wohlenberg, Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, xxxvii (63 CE); Ellis, Making, 209: “before AD 65”; also J. A. T. Robinson, Redating, 197–­98, suggests that 2 Pet was composed directly after Jude in the years 60–­62. Recently, Klaus Berger, who has turned to fundamentalism, has proposed a date contemporary with 2 Thess, which for him means the period of 50–­52 CE (Berger, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 935). 325 See the evidence in Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 39; Chaine, Les épîtres catholiques, 33–­34 (ca. 80 CE); Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 158 (80–­90 CE); Spicq, Épîtres, 195 (the 90s, under Domitian); Knoch, Petrusbrief, 213 (end of the first century); Schelkle, 324



Author, Date, and Location

221

Direct historical points of reference for the date are lacking, and many other arguments are based on conjecture.326 The ‘developments’ in early Christianity that are often assumed (in Christology, the degree of hellenization, the perception of the Parousia as problematic, the emergence of a ‘canonical consciousness,’ etc.) did not proceed in such a linear and coherent way that they can serve to substantiate the dating of texts. Ultimately, only the literary references constitute a viable basis, and these in turn rely on the dating of the texts being referenced. If 2 Pet presupposes 1 Pet, Matt, and Jude, and makes use of Jude in an altered situation and likely also a different region (i.e., already from a certain temporal distance), then the text cannot be dated to before 120 CE. If 2 Pet also makes use of Apoc. Pet. (and not the reverse), then—­depending upon the date established for this work327—­composition after 130 or 140 CE is more likely. It is doubtful that—­as Grünstäudl suggests—­2 Pet also knows Justin and would thus have to be dated around 160 CE at the earliest, yet a time span around the middle of the second century (140–­160 CE) remains the most likely period for the development of the text. This is affirmed by the observation of substantive and linguistic parallels in texts of the Apostolic Fathers (above all Herm., 2 Clem.) and the absence of a positive attestation among the authors of the late second century (including Clement). There is little to support a significantly earlier date. 7.3 Addressee congregations and place of composition According to its address, 2 Pet is truly a ‘catholic’ letter. The fictive authorship by the most important of the apostolic eyewitnesses to Jesus and the testamentary nature of the text imply a claim to general legitimacy, even if the real author had in view a concrete challenge by contemporary teachers and probably a regionally limited circle of addressees.328 Nevertheless, no concrete community situation Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 178 (ca. 100 CE); Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 39 (100–­ 125 CE); Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 94 (100–­125 CE); Schnelle, Einleitung, 504 (ca. 110 CE); Hauck, Katholischen Briefe, 83 (100–­150 CE); Kraus, Sprache, 413 (110–­130 CE); Grundmann, Brief, 65 (110–­150 CE); Vögtle, Judasbrief, 129 (120–­125 CE); Schneider, Briefe, 100 (120–­150 CE); Kümmel, Einleitung, 383 (125–­150 CE); Brown, Introduction, 767 (ca. 130 CE); Jülicher and Fascher, Einleitung, 224 (100–­180 CE); Vielhauer, Geschichte, 599 (middle or second half of the second century); Knopf, Briefe Petri und Judä, 257 (150–­180 CE); Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 293 (second half of the second century). 326 The argument by Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 158, that 2 Pet 3:4 can only be understood within the direct crisis following the death of the first Christian generation and that 2 Pet is therefore to be placed in the 80s is implausible. 327 On this see above, pp. 202–3. 328 It cannot be concluded from 2 Pet 3:1 that the author wanted to locate his addressees specifically in the regions of Asia Minor addressed in 1 Pet 1:1-­2 . Second Peter rather takes

222

Second Peter: Introduction

is addressed (unlike in Jude): while the “false teachers” do appear within the congregation(s) according to 2 Pet as well (2 Pet 2:1), other statements are removed in 2 Pet’s reception—­for example, about the opponents’ participation in community meals (Jude 12). And while Jude closes with a call for a pastoral effort to be made toward the uncertain community members, 2 Pet limits itself to the general admonition to remain steadfast (2 Pet 3:17) and to hold fast to the promise. In this, too, 2 Pet is less concrete and more ‘general’ than Jude. Despite the adoption of biblical traditions and the reception of Jude (whose ‘Enochic’ features are, however, significantly reduced), there is nothing to indicate a Jewish Christian identity for the addressees. Specific Jewish themes such as law, circumcision, and festivals, or questions of the integration of Jewish and Gentile Christians, which in earlier texts are connected with the figure of Peter,329 do not appear. Newly converted members of the addressed congregations have turned away from error and defilement (2 Pet 2:18-­20), and their ‘relapse’ into an unholy state is characterized with images reminiscent not of synagogal Judaism but rather of the cliché of an unethical Gentile life (2 Pet 2:21-­22). Thus we must reckon with largely Gentile Christian congregations.330 Where are these to be situated? The generality of the text also offers few indications regarding the location, or the region, of composition.331 Discussion of this question primarily mentions Rome, Asia Minor, and Egypt (Alexandria).332 A location in Alexandria probably has the strongest support. a) The traditional suggestion is Rome.333 Peter stayed there at least shortly before his martyrdom, and 1 Pet already claims to be composed in “Babylon” (= Rome; 1 Pet 5:13). So long as 2 Pet was ascribed to Peter himself, Rome made sense as the place of composition. A ‘Petrine school’ is also often situated there, to which one could then trace the Petrine letters (also as pseudepigrapha).334 Yet recourse to 1 Pet as a letter that is already widely disseminated and read. 329 Cf. Acts 10; Gal 2:11ff., and perhaps also the Cephas faction in Corinth named in 1 Cor 1:11-­12, whose profile is difficult to clarify, as well as the tradition ascribed to Peter in the Pseudo-­Clementines. 330 Somewhat differently Schnelle, Einleitung, 504, who expects a “significant Jewish Christian contingent.” Jewish Christian addressees are also suggested by J. A. T. Robinson, Redating, 198 (in connection with an earlier date); and Gerdmar, Rethinking. 331 So already Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 179; cautiously also P. Müller, “Petrusbrief,” 334; Gielen, “Petrusbrief,” 526. 332 See the broad list of proposals in Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 3. 333 So Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 149–­51; Knoch, Petrusbrief, 213; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 125. 334 So Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 161–­62; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 125; Grundmann, Brief, 65; J. H. Elliott, “Peter.”



Author, Date, and Location

223

unlike 1 Pet 5:13,335 nothing in the text of 2 Pet indicates a (factual or fictional) Roman origin, and the linguistic and substantive connections with 1 Clem., Herm., and 2 Clem. are too general to allow—­as Bauckham has suggested336—­ for 2 Pet to be traced to the same milieu as these.337 Finally, the fact that 2 Pet likely remained unknown in the West for some time speaks against Rome. The text not only goes unmentioned in the Muratorian Fragment but it is also unattested into the third century in authors from North Africa, Italy, and elsewhere in the West. This speaks strongly “against any attempt to seek to connect 2 Pet with Rome or even a Roman Petrine tradition.”338 b) The connection with 1 Pet in 2 Pet 3:1 could suggest the conclusion that the addressees are the same as those of 1 Pet, resulting in a location of the addressees in Asia Minor.339 Yet 3:1 is also part of the overall fictional concept of the letter, and the literary connection with 1 Pet presupposes nothing more than that 1 Pet was known and recognized by (a portion of) the actual addressees. Since 1 Pet was soon disseminated rather broadly,340 this could have been the case anywhere during the mid-­second century. The reception of Jude and the controversy over the Pauline legacy represented by Jude (and James) could also indicate Asia Minor, yet there is nothing to support connecting the addressees of 2 Pet with those of Jude, and Jude couldalso have been available to the author in another region—­especially a few decades after its composition. Discussion about Paul was even more common to the church in all its provinces in the mid-­second century. 335

This, too, is of course to be read in the context of the authorial fiction and is not necessarily to be taken in reference to the location of composition of 1 Pet, which is more likely to be found in the area around the addressees in Asia Minor. 336 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 150. 337 On criticism of Bauckham’s hypothesis, see P. Müller, “Petrusbrief,” 333–­34. Other locations are suggested, above all for 2 Clem.; on this, see Pratscher, Clemensbrief, 59–­61. 338 So Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 233 339 So Grundmann, Brief, 65; Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 237; Fornberg, Church, 147; Gielen, “Petrusbrief,” 526. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 120, and Callan, “Style,” 224, argue based on the supposed ‘Asiatic’ style for an origin in Asia Minor, but see criticism in Kraus, Sprache, 413. 340 1 Pet is first cited in the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians (Pol. Phil. 1.2, citing 1 Pet 1:8; Pol. Phil. 8.1, citing 1 Pet 2:22, 24); it was recognized as Petrine in Irenaeus and was first commented upon by Clement of Alexandria (see Merkt, “Literature,” 169). Allusions to 1 Pet are possibly found already in Apoc. Pet. (see Schmidt, Mahnung, 412–­13, who points to the correspondence between the admonition in 1 Pet 3:3 and Apoc. Pet. 7, as well as between that in 1 Pet 2:18-­19 and Apoc. Pet. 11).

224

Second Peter: Introduction

c) The third location frequently mentioned is Egypt, or more specifically Alexandria,341 for which the reception history of 2 Pet is primarily invoked. Second Peter is first mentioned (by Origen) and attested in manuscripts (𝔓72) in Egypt. In Egypt, particularly in Alexandria, an urban milieu with a thriving Christian education system would be found, in which there is evidence for the reception of Hellenistic Jewish traditions and the encounter with pagan thought, as well as reflection about forms of scriptural interpretation and concepts of Christian “knowledge.”342 Other ‘Petrine’ texts also likely originated in Alexandria, such as Ker. Pet. and possibly also Apoc. Pet., which in some aspects makes reference to Egyptian traditions or, for example, traditions from Sib. Or.343 W. Grünstäudl has recently demonstrated interesting connections between 2 Pet and concepts found in the theology of Clement of Alexandria, and on this basis proposed that 2 Pet originated after the mid-­second century in the educated milieu of Christian Alexandria.344 This educated milieu could also offer a context in which the authorial fiction of 2 Pet would be understood as a literary stylistic device and in which the author could also expect an appropriate reception of his text. 8. The Situation of Composition and the Position of the Opponents 8.1 The profile of the opponents The opponents being challenged here differ significantly from those confronted in Jude, and the issues in dispute are different. Second Peter speaks to a different situation than Jude.345 This is shown by the transformation of Jude’s polemic against the opponents in 2 Pet 2 as well as by the specific formulation of the points of contention in 3:4. And although 2 Pet deliberately seeks to ‘catholically’ address all ‘orthodox’ Christians (1:2) in the period after Peter’s death (1:12-­15) and is not sparing with commonplaces in the polemic against the opponents, in light of 3:3-­4 there is a specific group in view.346 All the evidence supports 341 So, e.g, Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 40; Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 95; also Spicq, Épîtres, 195; and Schenke and Fischer, Einleitung, 2:329; as well as most recently Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, with strong arguments. 342 Cf. Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 41. 343 On the location of Apoc. Pet. in Alexandria, see above, p. 203. 344 Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 283–­84: “among those Christian educators of Alexandria . . . who for us can be seen in the texts of Clement of Alexandria—­in particular in Adumbr./Hyp., Exc., and Ecl.” Cf. Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 293. 345 So, rightly, Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 95. 346 The generality of the polemic probably also contributed to the reception and canonization of 2 Pet, since it could in turn be read with other ‘heretics’ (e.g., gnosticizing groups) in view.



The Situation of Composition and the Position of the Opponents

225

identifying the “false teachers” of 2:1 with the “scoffers” of 3:3-­4. The precise identification of their position is difficult,347 and it has in the past often been defined by stereotypes and polemical anachronisms.348 Before a tentative evaluation can be attempted, the textual evidence and a few prominent scholarly positions must first be discussed. 8.1.1 Textual evidence

Reconstruction of the opponents’ position can be based on the following textual evidence: (a) the author’s transformation of Jude’s polemic, (b) the explicit argumentation in 2 Pet 3:4ff., (c) further indications from other sections of the letter, and (d) references to parallels and positions in the religious environment. a) In the transformation of Jude’s polemic, above all the specific references to transgressions against angels (Jude 8-­10) or the violation of the established boundary between angels and humans (Jude 6-­7) are removed or at least strongly blurred. In 2 Pet 2:4, unlike Jude 6, the Watchers’ ‘boundary transgression’ is no longer mentioned specifically, although this could also have been described based on Gen 6:1-­2 . Instead, the text speaks more generally of the ‘sinning’ angels. The issue of the transgressed boundary between humans and angels, which for Jude is decisive, is apparently of no importance for 2 Pet. In 2 Pet 2:10-­11 as well, the accusation from Jude 8, which refers to the disregard for the angelic powers, is adopted, but divided between two sentences. First, because of its singular form, κυριότητος καταφρονοῦντας probably means scorn for the sovereignty of Christ,349 thus not a transgression against angels. Only the phrase δόξας οὐ τρέμουσιν βλασφημοῦντες, which follows after a new sentence has begun, appears to refer to heavenly powers, yet the accusation remains oddly vague and should be read primarily in terms of the opponents’ arrogance. They do what even the angels dare not do. The issue illustrated by the apocryphal example in Jude 9 is left much more vague here.

Even the single concrete insight into the community’s situation in Jude—­the reference to ‘love feasts’ (Jude 12)—­is eliminated by the change in vocabulary and transformed into an accusation of fraud (2 Pet 2:13). Finally, references to pneumatic claims by the opponents are also removed (cf. Jude 19). 347

Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 96–­97 presents an extremely cautious position. See also Frey, “Autorfiktion,” 714–­27. 348 Most problematic are stereotypes of the opponents as gnostics (Berger, “Streit um Gottes,” 121, rightly argues polemically against this), antinomians, libertines, or pneumatics, as well as overburdening questions about the opponents with problems of the church’s legitimation of scriptural interpretation (above all in the interpretation of 1:19-­21 and 3:15-­16). 349 This is supported by 2 Pet 2:1. Cf. Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 136.

226

Second Peter: Introduction

Alongside the accusation of false teaching,350 general accusations351 are maintained or formulated analogously, such as impiety (2:5-­6; 3:7), lawlessness and unrighteousness (2:15), and abandonment of the ‘way’ (2:15). Added to these are moral topoi such as living according to one’s own desires (2:14, 18) and in passions (3:3), adultery (2:14), licentiousness (2:2, 18), debauchery (2:13), greed (2:3, 14), deception (2:13), animal irrationality (2:12), as well as the statement that the ‘godless’ opponents are condemned (2:3, 9, 12-­13, 17; cf. 3:7). All these accusations were already used as polemical topoi in Jude and there, too, could not serve to identify the opponents more precisely (see above, p. 35). The adoption of these themes in 2 Pet confirms the stereotypical character and interchangeability of certain polemical invectives, and justifies the suspicion that these accusations are not, or are only to a limited degree, significant for profiling the opponents.352 These can be applied to the identification of the opponents’ profile only secondarily and as a supplement. b) The characterization of the false teachers must begin with the explicit dispute in 3:3-­13, first with the citation in 3:4 (whose specific formulation, however, should likely be attributed to the author), and the argumentation in 3:5-­13. Here, in deviation from Jude, a problem is presented that does have parallels in early Christian texts, but cannot have simply been taken from a ‘Vorlage.’353 The opponents provocatively negate “the promise of his coming”—­ that is, of the Parousia of Christ.354 Two arguments can be identified: α) Nothing happened after the death of “the fathers” (already in the past). This argument derives from the experience of a ‘stretching of time’ in connection with an expectation of the beginning of eschatological events that was originally imminent, or even ‘scheduled’ (i.e., with reference to the ‘first generation of witnesses,’ or even a specific date like the martyrdom of Peter). This expectation appears to have been disappointed and is apparently interpreted by some community members as a “delay” (3:9). The author counters this argument 350

ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι, 2:1; cf. 2:3: “fabricated words”; 2:18: “pompous speeches.” On this, cf. Frey, “Disparagement”; see also Berger, “Streit um Gottes,” 122–­23. 352 So Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 95. 353 See the argumentation below, pp. 377–79, against the usage suggested by Bauckham of a Jewish apocalyptic source in 3:4, 5-­13. 354 Even if Christ is not named here and in the following argumentation, the reference of the terminus technicus to the Parousia of Christ is indisputable in an early Christian text of the second century. The ‘unchristological’ argumentation in 3:5-­13 must be explained against the background of specific eschatological scenarios, but it is no indication that this passage is concerned ‘only’ with a ‘coming of God’ in the sense of OT theophanies, rather than the Parousia of Christ. 351



The Situation of Composition and the Position of the Opponents

227

in 3:8-­9. The theme of Christ’s “powerful arrival” and the reliability of this expectation is prepared in 1:16. β) The statement that everything has remained as it is since the creation (3:4b) brings in an argument that is not based on experience or observation but is instead formulated more fundamentally. Nothing has changed, not just since the lapsed deadline of the anticipated Parousia, but since the creation. That is, the stability of the world—­indeed, its immutability—­is generally expected, which takes up a broad cosmological discourse. The author counters this argument in 3:5-­7 with reference to the flood and then by adopting the motif of the ekpyrosis. c) Further elements of the letter can be associated with the image of the opponents: α) According to 2:1, we are dealing with teachers who probably did not intrude from the outside (in contrast to Jude 4), but rather teach in the congregations as fixed members or even ‘officials.’ β) According to 2:20, they have come “from the impurities of the world” to the knowledge of Christ (from which, the author is convinced, they have fallen away). They are therefore most likely Christians with a pagan background. γ) According to 2:2 and 2:18, they are successful in the congregations; their teachings resonate above all among the newly converted (which perhaps indicates that they were active in instructing catechumens). δ) A core concept in their message was likely “freedom” (ἐλευθερία, 2:19), which was likely connected with certain ethical liberties (as the author polemically emphasizes). ε) 3:15-­16 indicates that they referred to Paul and other texts, whereby their interpretation is regarded as a misunderstanding and distortion of these texts. ζ) With regard to the apostolic message, they seem to have characterized individual elements (e.g., the promise of the Parousia) as unauthorized “invented stories” (μύθοι, 1:16). This could also have occurred with reference to proclamations of the biblical prophecy, such that the author emphasizes divine authority precisely against this (1:19-­21). η) If the polemic language of “reveling in broad daylight” (2:13) is relevant here, these are members of the social upper class who have the leisure to dine during the day. d) Depending upon various religio-­historical models, further elements of the letter can potentially be applied to the opponents—­yet here there is more uncertainty: α) Could the language of the judgment that is “not idle” and the destruction that is “not asleep” (2:3) be aimed at a position that regards the gods or God as inactive with respect to the world? Could the language of a “delay” (which,

228

Second Peter: Introduction

of course, in 3:9 is attributed to the congregation rather than the opponents) be connected with Epicurean perspectives on the slowness or even unlikelihood of intervention in the events of the world by the gods or God? Could the reception of Stoic cosmology in 3:5ff. also indicate that the opposing side thought in Epicurean terms or that the author at least wanted to give it an Epicurean image? The argument of persistence or indestructibility of the world (3:4b), however, suggests a cosmological position that is rather to be found in a Peripatetic context. β) The serious ethical accusations could refer to a theological or ethical libertinism, raising the question of its background, if the accusations need not be taken as polemical stereotypes or fears of the author from which little can be derived regarding the actual lives of the opponents. 8.1.2 Scholarly positions

These points have been connected with various emphases in scholarship and related to theological-­and religio-­historical backgrounds, whereby in older research data from Jude and 2 Pet were often combined. a) Since the Patristic period and in older research, the interpretation of the opponents as gnostics has been popular.355 Already in the beginnings of modern research Hugo Grotius had linked the opponents with the Carpocratians.356 The gnostic hypothesis was also fundamental to Ernst Käsemann’s interpretation.357 Other exegetes, chiefly in connection with an early dating, spoke of “incipient” or “proto-­Gnosticism”358 or connected the opponents with the Nicolaitans of Revelation359 or Paul’s ‘opponents’ in Corinth.360 355

Against this, see the criticism already in Zahn, Einleitung, 2:110. Among the church fathers, cf. Pseudo-­Oecumenius (PG 119:592, 597) and Theophylact of Ohrid (PG 125:1265, 1269, 1276). The reception of 2 Pet in the early church was probably fostered not least because its polemic could be used against gnostics. 356 See further references in Bauckham (“2 Peter: An Account,” 3724), who identifies representatives who categorize the opponents in the most diverse schools (Simonians, Carpocratians, Marcionites, Archontics, Basilideans, Markosians). 357 Käsemann, “Apologie,” 137. In greatest detail, cf. Werdermann, Irrlehrer; further Vielhauer, Geschichte, 597; Schenke and Fischer, Einleitung, 323–­24; Grundmann, Brief, 62–­63; Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 230–­34; Schrage, “Zweite Petrusbrief,” 125–­26; Seethaler, 1. und 2. Petrusbrief, Judasbrief, 152–­53. 358 So, e.g., Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 232; G. L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, 37–­38. 359 So Gerdmar, Rethinking, 289–­92, who suggests “Balaamites.” Yet the references to the example of Balaam in Jude, 2 Pet, and Rev does not permit the extrapolation of a common front of opponents. 360 Bigg, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 282–­83; Zahn, Einleitung, 2:110–­11.; G. L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, 39–­40; cf. the early discussion in Werdermann, Irrlehrer, 124–­35.



The Situation of Composition and the Position of the Opponents

229

With a later dating of 2 Pet from the mid-­second century, gnostics would not be ruled out as opponents, but the textual indications speak against such a classification.361 The accusations of libertinism, if they are not the author’s polemical topoi, in no way specifically indicate gnostics. Nor does the author polemicize against “myths,” but defends against the accusation of having followed such stories himself (1:16). There is nothing to indicate that the skepticism regarding the Parousia is grounded in a strong present eschatology (cf. 2 Tim 2:18); the accusation of blaspheming the δόξαι (2:10) is taken from Jude and is rather revoked in 2 Pet, such that a claim to the superiority over cosmic powers cannot be postulated as a specific characteristic of the opponents; and the proclamation of freedom (2:19) can hardly be defined in terms of freedom from perishability, given that φθορά is a term introduced here by the author. In this respect, no dualistic negation of the world can be seen among the opponents. That is, the phenomena that could justify categorizing the opponents’ views specifically among the gnostic systems of the second century are lacking. The characterization of faith as “knowledge,” which the author himself supports, is not gnostic.

b) Bo Reicke’s suggestion that the opponents in 2 Pet preached freedom from the political authorities of the Roman Empire has remained entirely an outsider hypothesis.362 The same can be said for the classification of the opponents as Essenes (which again draws on the theme of the angels in 2:10),363 or Christians influenced by the Essenes,364 Ebionites,365 or Judaizing countermissionaries.366 There is no trace of a specifically Jewish position among the opponents, just as the environment and situation of the congregations of 2 Pet are even less influenced by specific questions of Jewish existence than those of Jude.367 c) An influential argument has been that of Tord Fornberg, who does not identify the opponents with a particular group, but regards them instead as Christians who, in the author’s view, have assimilated too extensively with the thought of the Hellenistic environment.368 Both the eschatological skepticism 361

For criticism, see above all Fornberg, Church, 32–­33; Berger, “Streit um Gottes,” 121–­22; further Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 275; idem, “2 Peter: An Account,” 3727; P. Müller, “Petrusbrief,” 327. 362 So Reicke, Epistles, 166–­71; idem, Diakonie, 366–­67 (above all on the basis of 2:10); against Fornberg, Church, 127–­28. 363 Szewc, “Doxai.” 364 Cf. Riesner, “Petrusbrief,” who adopts the hypothesis of composition by Judas from J. A. T. Robinson. 365 So Molland, “La thèse,” based on a few parallels to 2 Pet 1:21 in the Ps.-­Clementines. 366 So G. W. H. Lampe, “Wolves,” 260–­61. 367 Against Berger, “Streit um Gottes,” 131, who suggests that the problem of the delayed Parousia is predetermined for 2 Pet from Jewish tradition. Yet the Jewish elements all appear to be mediated by a Christian context. Fornberg, Church, 139, rightly observes: “2 Peter does not seem to have been affected by post-­apostolic Jewish Christianity.” 368 Fornberg, Church, 31–­32; Fornberg, however, does not see the opponents as Paulinists despite their reference to Paul.

230

Second Peter: Introduction

and a (consequent) libertine ethic can be explained from a Hellenistic horizon of thought. The opponents could have attempted to free the traditional faith of elements that were objectionable in the Hellenistic environment, thus above all from the apocalyptic eschatology—­particularly after the expected Parousia apparently failed to materialize—­and from the rigorous ethic.369 d) The question then arises whether more precise identifications can be reached from this point: referring to Plutarch’s Sera, Jerome H. Neyrey has pointed to the Epicurean skepticism of divine providence and proposed “that the opponents were either Epicureans who rejected traditional theodicy, or ‘scoffers’ (apikoros) who espoused a similar deviant theology.”370 This text discusses Epicurean arguments that reject the traditional teaching of the gods’ providence (Sera 548c, 549b) and thus also the possibility of divine reward and punishment. Their position thus unites various Epicurean teachings: the cosmological thesis that the world did not come to exist through a rational force (Diog. Laert. 10.93–­114); the issue of freedom from fear of the gods and their punishment as well as the freedom for moral self-­determination (Diog. Laert. 10.133; cf. Lactant., Inst. III 17); the rejection of divination (Plut., Def. orac. 434d; Pyth. orac. 396e–­f, etc.) in connection with the reference to unfulfilled prophecies (Diog. Laert. 10.135; Cicero, Nat. d. 2.162; Lucian, Alex. 17, 25, 38, 43–­46, 61) and the theory of the gods’ injustice, which consists in the observation that reward and punishment do not occur (Plut., Sera 549b; 548c–­d; Cicero, Nat. d. 3.79–­85; Philo, Prov. 2.1). Sera explicitly addresses the delay of divine punishment (548d–­556e) and the unjustified punishment of the wrong people (556e–­557e). Plutarch is even able to ascribe to Epicurus the conception of the eternity and imperishability of the word (Adv. Col. 1114a), although this is anchored rather in Aristotelian thought.371 Impressive parallels are found between the Epicurean arguments, or those ascribed to Epicureans, and the discussion in 2 Pet, which is concerned with the Parousia of Christ (3:4)—­that is, God’s intervention in the world (cf. 2:3) and its “delay” (3:9); God’s power to save and to judge (2:9)—­that is, the reality of reward and punishment; and the sustaining of the world by God’s word (3:6-­7), as well as the slogan of “freedom.” While in its defense of the expectation of the Parousia 2 Pet explicitly rejects the idea of a divine hesitation (3:9), emphasizes God’s righteousness (cf. 3:13), asserts that the judgment does not sleep (2:3), affirms the validity of the prophecy and of judgment, and, not least, takes up Stoic cosmological arguments, there are at the same time elements of anti-­Epicurean discourse in the text’s argumentation. The accusation of living life according to one’s own “lusts” or “desires” could also—­appropriately or not—­be brought against Epicureans. 369

So also Bauckham, “2 Peter: An Account,” 3728. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 122; cf. 122–­28; in further detail, idem, “Form and Background”; on this, see also Berger, “Streit um Gottes,” 124–­31; and P. Müller, “Petrusbrief,” 328. 371 Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 231. 370



The Situation of Composition and the Position of the Opponents

231

Nevertheless, a direct Epicurean background cannot be demonstrated for the opponents, since the image of the Epicureans and the polemic against them had become a topos in antiquity. So, for example, Josephus also compared them with the Sadducees,372 and in the Targumim especially Cain was able to become a representative of an ‘Epicurean’ denial of God, judgment, the afterlife, reward, and punishment.373 “Apikoros” is the Talmud’s cipher for those who deny the resurrection,374 divine reward and punishment,375 or the Law,376 or for heretics in general.377 The Epicurean stylization of heretics could thus become a polemical label in itself, and it therefore remains uncertain how much genuine Epicurean philosophy was present among the opponents and the extent to which their arguments only appear in an Epicurean light or are sketched according to this image. 8.1.3 Assessment

Caution is required against an overprecise philosophical classification of the opponents. They are to be regarded first of all as Christians and Christian teachers, and it is certain that they adopted Pauline texts and theses in their preaching (3:15-­16). Within these teachings the aspect of “freedom” (2:19) may have held a central place, although the nature of their understanding of this freedom in relation to Paul’s own remains unclear. A skeptical reluctance with regard to apocalyptic eschatology, such as the expectation of the bodily resurrection, is widely attested among (Gentile) Christians influenced by Hellenism (cf. 1 Cor 15:12) and need not necessarily be explained by Epicurean influences. If texts such as Apoc. Pet., with their picturesque representation of the judgment and their now questionable imminent expectation of the end, were circulating among the addressees and opponents of 2 Pet, then the push against this notion by hellenistically educated Gentile Christians is even more understandable. Even though they referred to Paul, who was apparently a recognized authority in the congregations, the opponents were not proper Paulines. Perhaps they referred to the Spirit, yet since the author specifically does not adopt the polemic of Jude 19b, they might not have justified their teachings pneumatically. They were also hardly true libertines or even antinomians, although 372

Jos., B.J. 2.164–­165.; A.J. 13.173; 18.16–­17. So the Targumim on Gen 4:8; see Vermes, “Versions,” 96–­100; taken up by Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 124. 374 m. Sanh. 10:1; t. Sanh. 13:4-­5; b. Roš Haš. 17a. 375 m. Avot 2:14. 376 b. Ned. 23a, b. Sanh. 99b. On this, see Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 127–­28. 377 On this, see Marmorstein, “Epicuriens,” 181; Krauss, Lehnwörter, 1:207, 2:107; Geiger, “Apikoros.” 373

232

Second Peter: Introduction

the author’s accusations must not have been created entirely out of thin air, from his perspective. Perhaps, in his understanding, the denial of the Parousia and the judgment must entail complete abandonment of ethical standards, so that precisely on this point in his polemic—­like the polemic brought against Epicureans in antiquity—­he resorts to excessive incriminations. However, since the opponents came from within the congregations being addressed and were themselves shaped by those congregations, they are likely less distant from the author in their spiritual characteristics and the profile of their education than the polemical repudiation suggests. 8.2 The implied situation of the community The “false teachers” were apparently active as teachers within the congregations that the author has in view. It is not said that they held specific church offices, nor does the author claim a church office, but instead speaks specifically in the apostolic authority to which he lays claim. Apparently, the author expected his addressees to be able to identify the combated “false teachers,” or the stream that they represented, less on the basis of the ethical accusations, which were sometimes rather clichéd, than on the arguments offered explicitly in 2 Pet 3:4, which the addressees must have been able to recognize and identify, at least in their basic tendencies. In addition, it is said that the opponents were successful in the communities: they have “many” followers (2 Pet 2:2) and pose a danger above all to the freshly converted, who might relapse to a state that the author identifies with hopeless paganism (2:14, 19-­22). The fact that the author emphasizes this point so broadly suggests that the author himself was hardly in a confident position in the communities in question. Perhaps the opponents were even more successful with their ‘seductive’ tendencies, and the intensity of the polemic should be understood as coming from a precarious position.378 This could also be supported by the strong image of Lot, who suffers under the lawlessness of the godless in 2:8, which invites the addressees to participate in this suffering of the pious. Unlike in Jude 3, there is nothing to indicate that the opponents came in from the outside (e.g., as wandering teachers); they rather appear to be anchored in the communities. On the other hand, the reference to the communal meals from Jude 12 is not adopted but is changed so that private meals instead come 378

It is therefore questionable whether one can say, with Schnelle, Theologie, 617, that the author understands himself “as spokesman for the majority church.” This may well accord with the author’s claim to orthodoxy but by no means necessarily represents the actual power relations within the congregations.



The Intention of the Author and Aspects of His Theology

233

into consideration as a place where the “false teachers” might be encountered. The problem here is not participation in the communal meals but table fellowship as a place of ‘infection’ with false teachings and undisciplined behavior. The challenge to the addressees (unlike Jude 22-­23) does not imply a pastoral effort toward those who have become uncertain but simply a call to steadfastness (2 Pet 3:17) and to remain in the teaching that is “remembered” as the initial truth. 9. The Intention of the Author and Aspects of His Theology The eschatological focus of the argumentation in 2 Pet makes it difficult to determine the author’s theology apart from the specific occasion of the writing. It is to be expected that only isolated facets emerge in 2 Pet. The author is a Christian teacher who is familiar with a great breadth of Hellenistic Jewish and early Christian texts and traditions, has also been educated in literature and to some degree in philosophy, but notably does not indicate that he holds a church office. The dispute with the “false teachers” is also, interestingly, not a dispute over formal or official legitimacy but rather, aside from the moral discrediting of the opponents, is entirely focused on content. The use of Jude shows that the author—­in a different situation379—­agrees with that text in essential points and regards its argumentation as useful (although he could have formulated his concerns independently). He could agree with it in the view “that the end time will be characterized by the appearance of heretics, with whom a conflict will be unavoidable,”380 and that such people are definitively liable to judgment. However, the author modifies Jude’s polemic against heretics and places God’s salvific power alongside the power of judgment, revealing his own emphases.381 The following sketch of the theology of 2 Pet can only identify select topoi.382 9.1 The biblical God as historically powerful, as creator, sustainer, savior, and judge 379

This is misjudged when one sees the opponents of the two texts as too closely linked. Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 98. 381 Given that the addressees of 2 Pet likely did not know Jude, the assumption that 2 Pet sought in some sense to replace Jude is hardly appropriate (against Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 99). It remains uncertain how widely Jude was known at the time 2 Pet was composed. 382 On this, see Hahn, Theologie, 1:746–­49; G. Strecker, “Orientierung,” 683–­89; Stuhlmacher, Theologie, 2:105–­16; Schnelle, Theologie, 616–­18; Wilckens, Theologie, 1:384–­89; Martin, “Theology,” 153–­63. 380

234

Second Peter: Introduction

Despite its high Christology and argumentative concentration on the Parousia of Christ, 2 Pet is a ‘theocentric’ text: God is the origin and the ultimate aim of world events as well as of the event of salvation. God stands above the ages (3:8-­9) and yet acts through the creative and judging word within human history. In continuity with the biblical and emerging Christian tradition, 2 Pet confesses God as the creator of the universe, which through God’s word was called into being, is sustained, and will also be judged (3:5-­7). The word of God, God’s logos, is thereby the operative entity in world history that determines the world from the creation to the eschaton. Creation and apocalypse are in this sense not ‘natural events’ but rather willful acts of God, and precisely the end of the world, in the flood (kataklysmos) as in the global conflagration (ekpyrosis), is an event of judgment pronounced and mandated by God’s word. The author thereby sketches an image in the style of Stoic cosmology of a sequence of several worlds, wherein a new creation follows each cosmic catastrophe, the destruction of “heavens [plural!] and earth.”383 However, in accordance with the biblical testimony, this sequence is limited to three worlds (the ‘old’ antediluvian world, the present world, and the ‘new’ world), whereby no further catastrophic judgment is expected for the ‘new’ world, in which righteousness dwells (3:13). In biblical history and its episodes, God has acted in judgment and salvation, thus in judgment upon the sinful angels (2 Pet 2:4; cf. Gen 6:1-­4) and upon Sodom and Gomorrah (2 Pet 2:6), but also in the salvation of Noah and his family (2:5) and of the righteous Lot (2:7).384 In this, both judgment and salvation are understood as an act of the righteousness of God, who saves the righteous and does not let the impious go unpunished.385 The biblical event of judgment and salvation is at the same time proof and confirmation that God also acts in the present as judge and savior, that the judgment pronounced upon the godless in God’s word is valid and operative, and God’s judgment “does not sleep” (2:3). The godless should not, therefore, relax in a false sense of security, and the pious should know that God can and will save them from trial (2:9). Closely linked with the theme of God’s power of judgment and salvation is that of the reliability of the word of God, which is especially concerned with the messages and promises of the biblical prophets. These are decidedly not 383

In the new world, according to Isa 65:17 or 66:22 in 2 Pet 3:13, this is evident, but the flood is also understood in 2 Pet 3:5-­6 as a total catastrophe of the “old world” (2 Pet 2:5), such that the postdiluvian world likewise emerges as a new creation. 384 It is no accident that both examples derive from the prehistory or patriarchal narratives. There is no specific reference to Israel. 385 The notion of an ‘election’ that would not be justified by righteousness or piety is not found here. Rather, Noah and Lot are saved because they are righteous.



The Intention of the Author and Aspects of His Theology

235

understood as autonomous but rather as human speech about God that is borne or authorized by the Holy Spirit, and whose messages are therefore also to be taken seriously and heeded (1:19-­21). The author sees an additional affirmation of the biblical promises in the Christ event witnessed by the apostles (1:16-­18), in which the emphasis lies above all on the aspect of the divine glory of Christ, perceived in the transfiguration of Jesus. With regard to the opponents’ denial of the promise of the Parousia, or perhaps also more generally of God’s power within history, the author emphasizes God’s “patience.” God “does not want some to perish but all to come to repentance” (2 Pet 3:9). This notion of the divine will for salvation, formulated in thoroughly universal terms, appears somewhat disjointedly in 2 Pet alongside the strict image of the “righteous” God who judges sinners. The notion of repentance that leads to salvation is not developed further here, apparently because of the focused concern of the argumentation. The motif of the divine will for salvation is not applied to the mission of Jesus or the Christ event, nor is its relation to the impending judgment of sinners further qualified. 9.2 Christ, the God and Savior, and his ‘glory’ Second Peter clearly attests a ‘high’ Christology:386 Jesus Christ is understood in divine categories and programmatically identified as “God” (1:1: “our God and Savior Jesus Christ”), as occurs in later NT texts and other (primarily Gentile Christian) texts of the second century.387 The closing doxology, too, in 2 Pet 3:18 (unlike Jude 24-­25) is directed at Jesus Christ alone.388 Alongside the phrase “our God and Savior, Jesus Christ,” used only in 2 Pet 1:1, the more frequent and formulaic “our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ” occurs (1:8, 11; 2:20; 3:18; abbreviated in 3:2: “Lord and Savior”), and of course “Lord Jesus Christ” (1:14, 16; cf. 1:2). The title Χριστός is used strikingly often (eight times) and fully in the sense of a proper name.389 κύριος, which with fourteen occurrences is the most frequent predication,390 386

On the following, see also Starr, Sharers, 28–­31; Frey, “Retter,” 137–­4 4. It is disputed whether Rom 9:5 is to be read in this way. The significance in the Scripture citation is clear in Heb 1:8-­9, and then in 2 Thess 1:12; John 1:1, 18; 20:28; 1 John 5:20, and Titus 2:13. Further Ign. Eph. inscr.; 1.1; 7.2; 18.2; 19.3; Ign. Trall. 7.1; Ign. Rom. 3.3; Ign. Smyrn. 10.1; Ign. Pol. 8.3; Pol. Phil. 12.2; 2 Clem. 1.1; also Apoc. Pet. 16, as well as the external witness Plin., Ep. 10.96.7. 388 Cf. for example 2 Tim 4:18; Rev 1:6. 389 Nothing remains here of the messianic references once connected with the term (which would be presumed for the fictive author Peter). 390 The reference to Christ is, however, not always clear here. In 2:9 a reference to God is more likely (cf. v. 4); cf. likewise 2:11 (dependent upon Jude 9). The reference in 3:8, 9, 10, 15 387

236

Second Peter: Introduction

is often used formulaically.391 In this connection, the mention of δεσπότης in 2:1 is also of interest. This is drawn from Jude 4, yet the term now very clearly refers to Christ: as Lord, he is the “sovereign,”392 to whom belongs the “dominion” (2 Pet 2:10: κυριότης, i.e., authority). At the same time, he is the king of the “eternal kingdom” (1:11) into which the faithful will one day enter.393 However, the most significant predication of Christ is the language of Christ as “Savior” (σωτήρ), which occurs with striking concentration at five prominent passages (1:1; 1:11; 2:20; 3:2; 3:18). Aside from Acts 5:31 (cf. Titus 2:13), the formula “our Lord and Savior” occurs within the NT only in 2 Pet. The term refers to God in the LXX and for the most part also in emerging Christianity and came to be used as a title for Christ only gradually and relatively late. The predicate σωτήρ is also linked with the title θεός (2 Pet 1:1: “our God and Savior”), which occurs explicitly only in Titus 2:13 and in its substance also in Johannine literature.394 Christ as God is Savior and Lord, or the Savior is the God Jesus Christ. In this, the relation between this “God” and the Father (cf. 2 Pet 1:17) is not always precisely discussed. This relation is more closely described in 1:17, where it becomes clear through the voice from heaven that Christ has received his divine glory and dignity from the Father.395 Yet the accent lies on the notion that he possesses this dignity, not that he has ‘only’ received it. This is not a ‘subordination’ of Christ; rather, his divine dignity is underscored here. Christ’s divine dignity is first and foremost relevant with regard to the eschatological event, for this substantiates the Parousia in glory (which the opponents deny; cf. 2 Pet 1:16). In the present, obedience to the commandment of the divine Lord and ruler is called for; by contrast, with regard to Jesus’ earthly activity the author only mentions the scene in which this dignity and glory revealed itself to the apostles. Similarly, the salvation event that the author has in view is not first and foremost Jesus’ past salvific activity in the is also unclear, since theology and Christology merge precisely in the concept of the “day of the Lord.” Cf. Vögtle, “Christo-­logie und Theo-­logie,” 397–­98. 391 Thus in the phrase “our Lord, Jesus Christ” (1:8, 11, 14, 16) or “our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ” (1:11; 2:20; 3:18; cf. 3:2). 392 Cf. Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 128; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 184. 393 Even more than in the Johannine writings (cf. John 18:36), this brings the language of the βασιλεία of Christ to the foreground, as opposed to the former and traditional language of the “kingdom of God.” 394 Cf. also substantively analogous statements in John 4:42 with 2 Pet 1:1, 18; 20:28 and 1 John 4:14 with 2 Pet 5:20. 395 The formulation could even suggest that this was received at the time of the transfiguration, but one should not draw any far-­reaching conclusions from this.



The Intention of the Author and Aspects of His Theology

237

cross and resurrection, which goes entirely unmentioned in 2 Pet, nor the cleansing of sins experienced by the faithful (briefly mentioned in 1:9), but rather the anticipated salvation from the final judgment at the Parousia of Christ (1:16; 3:4). The fact that only such a short snippet of Jesus’ earthly activity is mentioned must—­especially in a ‘Petrine’ text—­draw attention: aside from the transfiguration episode and the personal announcement of Peter’s imminent death, which is hardly evidenced in the canonical Gospels,396 any further details of the activity of the earthly Jesus witnessed by the apostles are lacking, in particular any reference to Jesus’ passion and death,397 as well as his resurrection. This suggests the conclusion that the earthly Jesus is largely irrelevant for 2 Pet, and in this Jesus’ suffering and the cross also recede entirely behind the emphasis on his divine glory and the eschatological authority established therein. It is nevertheless doubtful that Käsemann’s characterization of the author as representing a theologia gloriae398 is appropriate—­like the theologia crucis, this attribute is determined by definitions and concerns of later periods. Even so, with its christological emphases 2 Pet stands in striking opposition to most other NT texts. Because there is not always a clear differentiation between the activity of God and of Christ, the image of Christ also acquires a significant share of the attributes of God: 2 Pet 1:1 already speaks of the “righteousness” of the “God and Savior Jesus Christ,” which is understood as ‘distributive’ (unlike in Paul, for example). Thus, it is Christ who has given the addressees their faith (1:1), everything necessary for a pious life (1:3), and the precious promises of salvation (1:4). The Savior Jesus Christ is the merciful benefactor whose character is marked by ‘goodness’ and ‘virtue.’ Of course, according to ancient conventions this gift requires an appropriate response—­namely, the development of corresponding virtues (1:5ff.). 9.3 Soteriology and faith With this, we come to the problems of the soteriology of 2 Pet. Precisely here arises the danger of an overhasty argumentum e silentio; false oppositions must be avoided. 396

2 Pet 1:14; see below pp. 286–­87. The cleansing of previous sins, probably experienced in baptism, is mentioned only in a brief remark in 1:9—­that is, a soteriology is known in traditional formulae, but a reference to the events of Christ and the cross is not established here. 398 Käsemann, “Apologie,” 151. 397

238

Second Peter: Introduction

The ‘basic situation’ of (pagan)399 persons outside the faith is characterized negatively in a few remarks. Theirs is a life in ‘sordid’ licentiousness and sin (2 Pet 2:19, 22), which is de facto (though unknowingly) slavery (2:17), connected with perishability and the ruin of death (caused by sin, 1:4). Of the faithful it is said that they have been given faith and “knowledge of Christ”; this is given on the basis of Christ’s “righteousness” (2 Pet 1:1-­2), and with this everything is given to them that is necessary for a pious life (1:3-­4). According to 1:9, they have been granted forgiveness of sins (likely a reference to baptism) and given the precious promise of participation in salvation—­t hat is, in imperishability (1:4)—­a nd of entry into the eternal kingdom of Christ. How the forgiveness of sins was acquired (baptism) and wherein it is based (Jesus’ death) goes unmentioned in the brief formulaic phrase. The proclamation of Jesus’ death and of the salvation based in it is at best suggested in the background of such formulations; for the current communication of the letter it appears to be immaterial. It is noteworthy that the forgiveness that has been granted only includes sins committed during one’s ‘pre-­Christian’ life,400 not later sinful or licentious behavior.401 Second Peter does not say that true believers would or should have no more sin (1 John 3:9), and the treatment of postbaptismal sins is only addressed marginally when the remaining time until the Parousia is characterized as a time of repentance (2 Pet 3:9). Nevertheless, it is clear that life after baptism is inevitably characterized as a period of ethical effort and probation. This is the appropriate response to the gifts granted by Christ (1:5-­7). In this respect, the relation between the divine Savior and those associated with him is to be conceived in categories of loyalty or even reciprocity: the faithful should develop virtues (1:5) that correspond with their faith (or with the benefactions and the nature of the divine Savior) and should seek an accordingly “pious life” (1:3). The state of faith is thus also called the “way of righteousness” (1:9; 2:20-­21). The virtues that are to be developed, or the “pious” way of life, are ultimately the condition upon which the faithful will not stumble “along the way” but will in fact obtain the promised salvation at the eschaton (2 Pet 2:9-­11). Salvation here is thus not an already-­present gift but a gift promised and 399

The Jewish person is (at least explicitly or in distinction from the Gentile) nowhere in

view. 400

Unlike, e.g., 1 John 1:7. There is no explicit mention of forms of postbaptismal atonement. It remains undetermined whether the notion of repentance in 2 Pet 3:9 has in view the conversion of non-­ Christians or the repentance of the already faithful. The warning about the day of judgment that will arrive suddenly effectively also aims at those who already believe. 401



The Intention of the Author and Aspects of His Theology

239

granted at the final judgment on the condition of probation in the “pious life” (1:11). In this sense, ‘works’402 or virtue (ἀρετή) is necessary to salvation. The addressees should “confirm” their calling in this way. Here 2 Pet connects with Jas 2 in substance when it is said that faith must not be “idle” (= “without work”) or “fruitless” (2 Pet 1:8). An idle faith that is not aimed at the virtues does not lead to salvation but rather—­because of the licentiousness and sin that is practiced—­to judgment (as is said with regard to the opponents and those tempted by them). As was the case already in Jude, this raises the question of the character of what is called “faith” here.403 The term occurs only twice (2 Pet 1:1, 5), in that twofold dimension whereby πίστις has been given to the addressees and they in their πίστις should develop virtues: πίστις stands here at the head of a virtue catalog, as the starting point and source of a series of behaviors whose aim is love. As the first virtue, πίστις is loyalty to the divine Lord and Savior that is proved in the course of life. Faith is thereby gift and obligation at once. The notion of knowledge (ἐπίγνωσις) appears prominently alongside πίστις, and, conversely, the personal knowledge of Christ as Savior and Lord comes to designate faith, or personal Christian existence. The attitude of faith and the object of faith, fides qua creditur and fides quae creditur, can be separated just as little as can the act of faith and praxis of faith. In this, the “knowledge” of Christ encompasses (as does πίστις) an intellectual and an ethical-­practical dimension. It is grounded in an (initial) acknowledgment, or in the calling and revelation of Christ, and is deepened in the practiced Christian life (3:18). Temptation by the opposing teaching is therefore by no means regarded only in ‘dogmatic’ terms, but at least just as much in ethical categories (2:18-­19), in the temptation to sin and to an undisciplined lifestyle without virtue. The addressees are warned to remain steadfast against the opposing viewpoints and not let themselves be carried away (3:17). It is striking, in contrast with Jude 24-­25, that 2 Pet does not offer the assurance that Christ will preserve his faithful against stumbling. The author likely would have regarded such an assurance as a weakening of the admonition he intended to communicate, so he formulated the letter closing in decided deviation from Jude.404 402

This term, which in Paul was connected with the observance of the Jewish law (and which likely resonates in Jas 2:22), does not occur in 2 Pet; there is rather—­in good Hellenistic terms—­discussion of “virtues” (2 Pet 1:5). 403 Cf. Frey, “Holy Tradition.” 404 So also Martin, “Theology,” 162: “The tender notes of pastoral solicitude in Jude are not here.”

240

Second Peter: Introduction

Second Peter does not speak of a salvific mediation, such as in the early Christian ‘sacraments’ of baptism and the Eucharist, although the mention of the forgiveness of sins in 1:9 can be taken in reference to baptism and the praxis of communal meals must be presupposed. Yet 2 Pet (unlike, e.g., Ignatius) is neither interested in ‘ecclesial’ rituals nor in a ‘sacramental’ mediation of salvation. The concern of the text ultimately aims at the ethical admonition and warning, for only the period of testing on the ‘way of righteousness’ leads to the final acquisition of salvation. 9.4 The questionable ecclesiology In comparison with many texts of the same period, the ecclesiology of 2 Pet is strikingly de-­emphasized. Scholarship on this point is often influenced by anachronistic presuppositions that already associate ideas of ‘church offices’ with ‘Peter’—­however, this is by no means necessarily given in the choice of pseudonym. No explicit references to church structures or offices are found in 2 Pet. One can consider whether the “false teachers” mentioned in 2:1 in fact occupied the congregational office of “teachers” (and thereby spread false doctrine as “church officers”),405 while the author semi-­‘officially’ argues against his deviant colleagues with the authority of the apostolic guarantor of orthodoxy. This interpretation could be supported by the fact that the opposing teaching likely referred to texts (Pauline letters and probably OT texts) that, in the author’s judgment (3:16), it misrepresents, and that they endanger primarily the newly converted (perhaps catechumens; 2:18-­19). On the other hand, 2 Pet erases the reference to communal meals (2:13; cf. Jude 12), so it is likely that the spread of the opposing perspectives took place not in community gatherings and meals but also or primarily in the context of private events. However, the term ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι, which is first attested in 2 Pet and Justin, does not permit any conclusions regarding the structure of church offices, especially when 2 Pet mentions no other office (such as episkopos, diakonos, etc.). Since it is hard to imagine that the congregations in the author’s region had no official structure, the only remaining conclusion is that the argumentation at hand seeks to be supported not by the legitimacy of a church office but rather by recourse to the apostolic authority alone. It is not an office (nor the Spirit) but rather only the memory of the apostolic tradition and agreement with it that can ensure the ‘apostolicity’ of the proclamation.406 In dogmatic terms, this is the successio apostolica construed as successio fidei. 405

So Wilckens, Theologie, 1:385, who anachronistically brings in official structures here. This presents a strong argument against the characterization of the letter as ‘early

406



The Intention of the Author and Aspects of His Theology

241

9.5 The limited pneumatology The Holy Spirit is only mentioned in one passage in 2 Pet: it is the Spirit who moved the biblical authors—­that is, enabled them as human beings to speak from God. The Holy Spirit authorizes biblical prophecy, the OT word of God (1:19-­21).407 Yet it is striking that (unlike in Jude) the Holy Spirit does not function as a factor in the life of the faithful, in the congregations, or, for example, as guarantor of an appropriate reading of Scripture. Likewise, prophets and prophecy are limited to the biblical era (2 Pet 3:2), while they go unmentioned with regard to the congregations: the “false prophets” in the biblical era correspond with the “false teachers” in the present, but in 3:2 the author does not speak of “prophets” in the congregation or of the apostles’ prophecy (Jude 18). This is striking and significant in light of the interpretation of prophecy and the Spirit in most early Christian traditions (Paul and his school, John, Luke–­Acts, and, in particular, 1 Pet and Jude). The avoidance of any mention of Spirit, indeed the ‘repression’ of Spirit and prophecy, could indicate that these phenomena seemed dangerous to the author (and possibly played a role among the opponents). 9.6 Eschatology Eschatology is the primary concern of 2 Pet. Paramount to this concern is rejecting the opposing teachers’ skepticism of the hope for the Parousia (see above, pp. 226–27). If this skepticism also has in view a ‘scheduled’ imminent expectation, perhaps being spread under the name of Peter in the form of Apoc. Pet. 14.4, then the defense against it is certainly not easy at a time when the death of the first generation of witnesses already lies at least sixty, if not ninety, years in the past. The bold pseudonymous authorship and the severe polemic against the opponents might also reflect this difficulty, which was surely felt by the author. However, 2 Pet is anything but an “apologia for emerging Christian eschatology.”408 What 2 Pet articulates in response to the objections of the opponents has shifted significantly from the form of the Parousia expectation in emerging Christianity and is a thoroughly creative development in the dialogue between biblical and emerging Christian tradition and pagan cosmology. The intense reception of Jude (and the selective reception of Apoc. Pet.) shows that the author has been strongly shaped by and (with some modification) Catholic,’ or indeed against the viability of this attribute at all. 407 The notion of an extension to early Christian prophecy or texts is precisely not included in 2 Pet 1:20-­21. 408 So the polemical characterization in Käsemann, “Apologie” (emphasis added), and in agreement G. Strecker, “Orientierung,” 686.

242

Second Peter: Introduction

accepts early Christian eschatological traditions. This background concerns, on the one hand, the opponents’ liability to judgment (which 2 Pet adopts from Jude) and, on the other, the expectation of the Parousia of Christ in glory (which 2 Pet maintains against the skepticism of the opponents, whereby the scenario as a whole appears to be inspired by Apoc. Pet.—­though with no fixed schedule). It is first of all clear that the author (like the author of Jude) considers himself to be living in the last days, for which the arrival of scoffers and false prophets has been foretold (3:3; cf. Jude 18); the appearance of the false teachers corresponds with this prophecy and affirms the eschatological understanding. However, in light of the incommensurable divine measure of time, any calculation or scheduling of the eschaton is inappropriate (3:8-­9) and is therefore to be rejected. It is misguided to interpret the not-­yet-­arrived Parousia as a delay. Rather, the addressees should use the remaining time to prove themselves ethically and to repent (3:9). The eschatological expectation of 2 Pet is thus an imminent expectation that has morphed into constant anticipation. For the author, the eschaton is connected with salvation and judgment—­ that is, the definitive acquisition of salvation and the definitive punishment of the godless, who (like the sinful angels according to Jude 6 or the Enoch tradition) are preserved in order to be punished in the eschaton (2:10). Various elements that are not entirely logically coherent come together in the eschatologial expectation of 2 Pet. First, the term παρουσία—­the powerful arrival of Christ—­is primary. For the author, this is grounded in biblical prophesy, affirmed in the divinity of Christ as witnessed by the apostles, and thus to be hoped for with certainty. Against the objections of the scoffers, which are drawn from the experience of the ‘stretching of time’ as well as from philosophical arguments, the author vehemently defends the hope of the Parousia. He does so not least because the ethical orientation of Christian existence is bound up with the Parousia and the associated expectation of judgment, whereas the denial of the Parousia among the opponents likely induces a neglect of ethics and a sinful lifestyle, leading to judgment and ruin, according to the author’s conviction. The defense of the expectation of the Parousia thus takes place not just “dutifully”409 or because it is an “irrevocable part of the Christian faith tradition,”410 but rather because it is essential for the present certainty of faith—­namely, the hope for the demonstration of the truth of the Christian ‘way’ and rescue from temptation (2:9). Nevertheless, according to the soteriology of the text, Christian life is aimed at ethical probation, so that salvation (or ruin) is definitively imparted only in a final (and judicial) act of God, or Christ. 409 410

So Käsemann, “Apologie,” 149. Wilckens, Theologie, 1/3:385.



The Canonical Function and Significance of 2 Peter

243

The eschatological expectation of 2 Pet is characterized by a series of ideas that are not entirely logically coherent. On the one hand, in very spatial terms (or in spatial metaphors), the text expects the entry of those who have been called and elected with Christ into his (!) eternal kingdom (1:11). On the other hand, there is hope for a new creation defined by righteousness (3:13), and ultimately (quite vaguely) conquest over perishability or the ruin of death, which exists in the world because of sin, as well as participation in “divine nature” (1:4). Although this term is not interpreted ontologically in the sense of a ‘deification’ (see below, pp. 263–­68), but rather in the sense of an ethical conformity with the being of God or Christ, or an imitatio Christi, even so, the definitive conquest over perishability or ruin is an eschatological state that can be achieved, not in earthly life, but first in the eternal kingdom of Christ, or the new world. The eschatology of 2 Pet is unique in the NT in that it adopts the concept of the global conflagration—­that is, the destruction of the entire cosmos (heaven and earth, including the celestial bodies) in a fire that annihilates everything. The reception of this concept even led to a reinterpretation of the tradition of the flood, which now also appears as a cosmic catastrophe (3:7). The ekpyrosis is not the judgment itself but the preparation for it and the prerequisite for the emergence of the new, eschatologically ultimate creation. In this, the Stoic notion of ekpyrosis is modified in biblical terms: the global conflagration (as in Jewish and Christian parallels) is associated with the judgment, and there is no conception of an infinite sequence of worlds but rather only of the three biblically attested worlds (before the flood, in the present, and in the eschaton). Yet it remains unclear in 2 Pet how the ekpyrosis is related to Christ and his Parousia. The oft-­noted ‘unchristological’ character of the eschatological events depicted in 2 Pet 3 can be explained, however, when the scenario found in Apoc. Pet. is seen as the background; there, on the “day of God,” heaven, celestial bodies, earth, and sea first pass away in fire before Christ appears and holds judgment.411 The ekpyrosis is in this regard only a ‘prelude’ to the Parousia and a preparation for the judgment, yet this notion also serves to bring about a healthy fear of the divine fire of judgment (3:11), and thus to move the addressees or others to repentance in the remaining period of the present world’s existence (3:9). 10. The Canonical Function and Significance of 2 Peter The ‘canonical’ significance of 2 Pet and its position in the NT canon have been and still are controversial. Does this text constitute the nucleus of the NT canon, or does it stand at the margins? On the one hand, in historical terms, it must be said that 2 Pet is attested later than any other text and thus was contested 411

On this, see Grünstäudl, “Feuer”; and below, pp. 398–­99.

244

Second Peter: Introduction

more intensely than any other. Nevertheless, the text itself attests to steps on the path toward an ‘integration’ of early Christian traditions and toward a Christian ‘canon’ of the NT, or even of both testaments. Second Peter 3:2 brings together “the words of the holy prophets” and Christ’s “commandment handed down by your apostles,” thus uniting the prophets and apostles. In connecting the form of emerging Christian letters (substantially influenced by Paul) with the figure of Peter (primarily significant for the gospel tradition), the text attests to a correlation of the gospel tradition and letters, which is central (already in Marcion) to the idea of a Christian textual canon. Finally, the reference to the Pauline letters—­harmonious only in appearance—­suggests a companionship of the two apostles, “as though there had never been a conflict between Peter and Paul over the truth of the gospel (cf. Gal 2:14),”412 such that, with regard to the ‘architecture’ of the canon, the connection between the Paul-­critical tendency of the corpus catholicum or the praxapostolos and the already-­established Pauline collection becomes plausible. In historical terms, David Trobisch has ascribed a special position to 2 Pet in his model of the development of the NT canon.413 In his view, 2 Pet especially reflects the interest of the editor of the NT canon in that the text refers to all sections of the canon414 and alleviates the tension between Paul and the Jerusalemites. However, this very text was long denied recognition, and the hypothesis of such an early systematic ‘final redaction’ of the NT canon in the late second century cannot really be substantiated. Peter Stuhlmacher gives a somewhat less direct appraisal of the canonical significance of 2 Pet, yet he sees in this text “the first conception of an ecclesial hermeneutic of the Christian Bible carried out in its entirety.”415 In this he presumes exegetically that 2 Pet 1:20 is concerned with the question of the “autonomy” of the (opposing) interpretation, in contrast with a ‘church-­oriented’ interpretation within the apostolic tradition of faith. Since the author lays no claim to the legitimacy of a church office, and in the conflict over the Pauline letters ultimately one witness stands against another, one could at best understand this position such that the author here points to consonance with the Pauline letters and thereby implicitly invites the reader to verify his position in these (and other) texts. It is clear that such a comparison could not take place in antiquity in accordance with modern textual analysis and comparisons; still, the author’s reference to these texts and the assertion of consonance is an implicit invitation to a (critical) examination of his statements. 412

So Stuhlmacher, Theologie, 2:111, whose judgment, however, that Peter becomes in 2 Pet “an apologist for Paul” does not sufficiently observe the nuances in 2 Pet 3:15-­16. 413 So Trobisch, Endredaktion, 136–­47; on this, see Ebner, “Kanon,” 44. 414 This applies for the Synoptics, the Pauline letter collection, and other Catholic Letters; however, it remains questionable whether the prophecy of the martyrdom of Peter is a substantial reference to John 21. 415 So Stuhlmacher, Theologie, 2:113.



The Canonical Function and Significance of 2 Peter

245

In the vein of newer trends toward a ‘canonical’ exegesis, anchored above all in North America, Robert W. Wall sees 2 Pet within the context of the Catholic Letter collection and of the NT canon. The image of Peter in 2 Pet appears therein as complementary to the image of Peter found in 1 Pet,416 and although Wall is fully aware of the quite late reception of 2 Pet, he is able to ascribe the ultimate canonization of the text to its “spiritual utility.”417 As much as such a perspective is able to address the function of 2 Pet within the collection of the Catholic Letters—­whose form was of course fixed at a late date—­and of the NT, it underestimates the conflicts within the canon. Ultimately, this exegetical orientation interprets a framework from a later period and glosses over the original purpose of the text, which was communicated long before 2 Pet appeared as part of a larger collection. The ‘canonical’ reading does not sufficiently take into account the fact that the canonical process itself was rather open for a long time, and that a text like Apoc. Pet., which ultimately ‘became apocryphal,’ was recognized and disseminated by the church earlier than 2 Pet, while 2 Pet still had to deal with a certain skepticism.

416

So Wall, “Function,” 67: “The biblical canon presents these two writings together, even though they address different theological crises by different theological conceptions, so that these two integral and complementary parts may complete a fully biblical Petrine witness to the Christian gospel”; cf. Nienhuis and Wall, Reading, 101. 417 So Nienhuis and Wall, Reading, 113.

This page intentionally left blank

COMMENTARY

0. The Inscriptio [(Letter) of Peter II]

T

here are only a few Greek manuscripts that do not contain the inscriptio of 2 Pet, but it has been transmitted in several variants.1 The shortest form, ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Β, is found in the codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. This form is supplemented elsewhere with “letter” (as in the oldest extant textual witnesses, P.Bodm. VIII [𝔓72]),� “catholic letter,” “of the holy apostle,” or similar readings in varyin order. The range of variation suggests that the inscriptio was added secondarily, but for such a late text, which furthermore explicitly mentions a previous text (3:1), it cannot be ruled out that the text was initially disseminated with an inscriptio. I. The Letter Opening

1. The Extended Prescript (1:1-­4) (1) Symeon3 Peter, servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received faith equal to our own4 in the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: 1 On this, see ECM 4/1:203, where, however, the abbreviation B found in the text (e.g., of Sinaiticus) is confusingly written out as ΔΕΥΤΕΡΑ. 2 Hengel, Evangelien, 88, on the basis of textual attestation for 1 Pet, suspects that here as well the form ΠΕΤΡΟΥ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ Β᾿ was used from the beginning: “For example, in 1 Pet the original form was probably Πέτρου ἐπιστολὴ α᾿, . . . It was probably similar in 2 Pet.” 3 A series of manuscripts have the simplified reading Σίμων here, but the less common form of the name (see below, p. 249) is clearly the lectio difficilior. 4 ἡμῖν could refer directly to the apostles (“a faith equal to us”; so Grundmann, Brief, 65;

247

248

Second Peter: Commentary

(2) May grace and peace abound for you in the knowledge of God and of our Lord Jesus, (3) since (indeed)5 his divine power has given us everything that provides for a pious life,6 because of the knowledge of the one who called us by virtue of his own excellent glory,7 (4) through which8 the exceedingly great and precious promises have been given, in order that you through them will become partners in divine nature and thus escape destruction, which is in the world because of desire.

The letter opening follows the standard pattern of superscriptio, adscriptio, and salutatio, although with some significant modifications. In this, the author is already guided by Jude and 1 Pet.9 The salutatio is followed by a detailed presentation of the addressees’ state of salvation, or of God’s benefactions that they have experienced, in vv. 3-­4. This is connected syntactically with the prescript by ὡς + genitive absolute and can therefore be regarded as an extension of it.10 Verse 5 begins not only a new sentence but a distinct segment that continues to v. 11. Thus, in syntactic terms, we find a significantly extended salutatio in vv. 2-­4, and therefore a prescript extended to a proem in vv. 1-­4, whose form is as such unique in the NT.11 similarly Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 103); however, we have here a constructio ad sensum: the author means the faith of the apostles. Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 184 is also imprecise: “who with us have achieved the equally precious faith.” 5 ὡς with the participial construction is taken here as causal (see BDR §425.3; von Siebenthal and Hoffmann, Grammatik, §§231–­32; Kraus, Sprache, 401, 403). The translation here follows Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 84. The πάντα in the initial position connects in substance with πληθυνθείη in v. 2. 6 Literally, “for life and for piety”—­but this is likely a hendiadys. 7 Literally, “glory and virtue,” but this too is likely a hendiadys. Rendering ἀρετή is difficult. Unlike in v. 5, which refers to human virtue, this verse is concerned with the divine ‘excellence’ or, adjectivally, ‘excellent.’ Cf. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 150: “excellence”; Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 84, is less accurate: “charism”; as is Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 105: “strength.” δόξα may also imply here the components “honor” and “authority/ weightiness,” but based on v. 17, “glory” is the best choice here. 8 δι’ ὧν refers to the preceding pair of terms and explicates what was expressed there with a(n) (instrumental) dative. 9 Second Peter shares with Jude the self-­description as δοῦλος and the uncommon passivum divinum πληθυνθείη, which also occurs in 1 Pet 1:2. See above, pp. 58–­59, 63, on Jude 1, 2. 10 So Bigg, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 253; Spitta, Brief, 26–­33; von Soden, Hebräerbrief, 214; Hauck, Katholischen Briefe, 84; Schneider, Briefe, 101; Schrage, “Zweite Petrusbrief,” 128; Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 299–­300; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 173; Fornberg, Church, 86; Kraus, Sprache, 179, 401, 403. 11 But cf. Ign. Phld. prescr., where there is a similar syntactical connection between the adscription and proemial explications; also Ign. Eph. 1.1; Ign. Rom. 1.1; and Ign. Smyrn. 1.1 exhibit extended salutationes; cf. in addition, the pseudo-­Platonic letters (on this, Spitta, Brief, 26ff.).



Second Peter 1:1-4

249

At the same time, the extension of the prescript is closely connected semantically and in generic aspects12 with the proem that begins in v. 5, such that many scholars take it to be an “opening to the proem.”13 Syntactically, however, the association with vv. 1-­2 is clearer. The argument that vv. 3-­4 are an incomplete protasis14 is unconvincing, and v. 5, with καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο δέ + imperative, does not begin an apodosis. Nevertheless, a clear classification of vv. 3-­4 is hardly possible, and the somewhat-­suspended ‘medial position’15 of these verses is better understood, not as ineptitude, but rather as a deliberately shaped transition. 1.1 The prescript proper (1:1-­2)

1 The prescript begins appropriately with a superscriptio. This, however, is rendered unusually solemn by the doubled name “Symeon Peter,” thereby already conveying the dignity of the apostolic author who is introduced. Συμεών is the Greek transcription of the very common Hebrew name ‫ׁשמעון‬, which, however, was more often transcribed into Greek in the form Σίμων.16 The form Συμεών is used elsewhere in the NT for the apostle Peter only in Acts 15:14, in proper style on the lips of the Jewish Christian James and in the Palestinian context of the depiction of the apostolic council. This form is also used for other figures in Luke 2:25, 35; 3:30; Acts 13:1; and Rev 7:7. It is common in the LXX (above all for the patriarch Simeon) and in T. 12 Patr.; by contrast, Σίμων is the dominant form in 1–­2 Macc, Josephus, in the Gospels and Acts, as well as in the texts of the second century.17 It is noteworthy that the Hebraizing transcription of Συμεών is not accompanied by the Aramaic second name Κηφᾶς18 but rather by its Greek translation, Πέτρος. This combination shows that the archaizing form Συμεών has been deliberately selected and is meant to “emphasize the legitimacy of the author,”19 or—­if it cannot be taken 12 On this, see especially Ruf, Propheten, 258–­65, who refers to beginnings of texts with a participial construction (gen. abs.) serving as a protasis and followed by an imperative, such as the prologue of the Greek Sirach (Sir prol. 1-­14), and inscriptions of honorary decrees. On the basis of such parallels, the connection between vv. 3-­4 and vv. 5-­11 ought to have been equally evident to the addressees. 13 So Ruf, Propheten, 258. Cf. also, among others, Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 150; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 173–­74; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 136; J. D. Charles, Virtue, 84; Starr, Sharers, 24–­26. 14 So Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 85. 15 Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 106–­7, sees here a “mediating” or “double-­ headed position.” 16 See extensive discussion in Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names, 1:218–­35; cf. the earlier discussion in Fitzmyer, “Simon.” 17 Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 84; Bigg, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 248. 18 This only occurs in Paul in Gal and 1 Cor, as well as in John 1:42 (where the second name is translated independently). 19 So Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 104; cf. also Fornberg, Church, 10; Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 296; Reicke, Epistles, 150; Schrage, “Zweite Petrusbrief,” 129;

250

Second Peter: Commentary

as evidence of authenticity20—­strengthen the text’s embeddedness in the biblical tradition and thereby the dignity of the fictive author. The form of the name reveals nothing more about the actual author than that he is familiar with the LXX and the older Petrine tradition.

Although the author knows 1 Pet, he did not simply imitate its opening in composing his “second letter” (cf. 3:1) in order to ‘append’ his own writing to it.21 Rather, with the archaizing opening, he strikes his own solemn and dignified tone. He derives his authority not from the ‘literary’ Peter of 1 Pet, but rather offers his own direct claim to the figure of Peter as witness to truth. In the extension of the superscriptio with “servant and apostle of Jesus Christ” the author might have combined phrases from Jude 1—­“Jesus Christ’s servant”—­and 1 Pet 1:1—­“apostle of Jesus Christ”—­but both attributes are found already in Paul in Rom 1:1 (cf. Titus 1:1). If the language of “servant” of Christ was inspired by Jude 1,22 then the additional title of “apostle” marks the proper authority that belongs to Peter, which is then reinforced by the motif of his eyewitness status (vv. 16-­18).23 Unlike in the authentic Pauline letters, but in harmony with Jas 1:1 and Jude 1, the addressees are not identified by name or location. The text speaks instead to all true Christians.24 The address shows that the claim to apostolic heritage cannot be exaggerated.25 Unlike Jude, 2 Pet is a truly ‘catholic’ letter. The laudatory concretization of the faith of the addressees does serve a rhetorical function, but it cannot be regarded as simply a captatio benevolentiae, Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 184; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 132; Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 43. 20 The form of the name was evaluated in this way by proponents of Petrine authorship; cf. Bigg, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 248, and Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 284. On the basis of Acts 15:14, J. A. T. Robinson, Redating, 194, regards this form as an indication that the letter comes from Jesus’ family—­that is, from his brother Judas. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 167, suggests an author from a Jewish Christian Petrine group in Rome, who would have used the Palestinian form. 21 Cf., for example, the dependence of 2 Thess 1:1-­2 on 1 Thess 1:1. 22 This is supported by the otherwise broad reception of Jude in 2 Pet. On the title δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, see above, pp. 58–59. 23 Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 145: “To those familiar with Paul’s letters, the two labels, ‘servant’ and ‘apostle’, would be easily recognized as claims to official church leadership roles and status.” However, there is no reference in 2 Pet to concrete church offices, nor are “apostle” and “servant of Christ” understood as such. 24 There is no trace here of Peter’s focus on Jewish Christians, as still resonated in Gal 2:7; just as little is found on the topic of the coexistence of Jewish and Gentile Christians. This, too, shows a temporal and situational distance from the historical Peter. 25 Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 104.



Second Peter 1:1

251

for it corresponds with the treatment of the addressees throughout the letter. Despite their endangerment, they are addressed as people who are linked to the author in faith and who hope together with him for salvation (cf. 2:9) and the eschatological fulfillment (3:13). This commonality in faith is mentioned right at the beginning. The addressees have “received faith equal to our own,” whereby ἡμῖν here does not refer exclusively to Peter’s faith but includes the faith of other apostles and witnesses: ‘Peter’ speaks in the name of the “apostles as a whole.”26 ἰσότιμος occurs only here in the NT and is also absent from the LXX.27 The adjective is found in Josephus,28 and often in Philo, as a designation of civic equality.29 It designates equal status or equal value,30 or simply the highest rank or highest quality.31 The closest substantive parallel in the NT is Titus 1:4, where the fictive author Paul addresses Titus in the salutatio as “son in accordance with the shared faith” (κατὰ κοινὴν πίστιν). Yet the distance between the apostle and his addressees is greater here. The phrase can hardly refer simply to the shared faith but instead indicates a faith that is equally valued (by God): faith that leads to salvation—­the true ‘apostolic’ faith. It may nevertheless be surprising that the faith of the addressees is supposed to be equal to that of the apostles and eyewitnesses. Still, the ‘isotimy’ is justified in that the faith—­of Peter as well as of the addressees—­is received32 or given.

The reference to “equal” faith not only establishes a point of contact between the fictive author and his addressees, but also, as is characteristic of late NT texts, bridges the distance between the generation of witnesses and the later generations that are dependent upon the apostolic testimony. The authenticity of the proclamation in the postapostolic period is not guaranteed here by the Spirit (as, for example, in John; cf. John 14:26; 16:13), nor by a church office (as in the Pastoral Epistles), but is rather rooted in equivalence in the true faith. The orientation toward the apostolic testimony is decisive. 26

Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 104. In vv. 16 and 18, ‘Peter’ merges together with the other witnesses of the transfiguration; in 3:15 as well, he speaks in the plural of fellowship with Paul. However, the dichotomy of Jewish Christian versus Gentile Christian is not in view here (so, rightly, Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 44). Therefore, one cannot assume that ‘Peter’ greets “Gentile Christians” as the “apostle to the Jews . . . in the name of the 12 apostles or in the name of all Jewish Christians” (Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 84). 27 Cf. Kraus, Sprache, 333; C. Spicq, Notes, 3:359–­60. 28 Jos., A.J. 12.119; cf. 7.215; further B.J. 1.71; 4.319, 389, 393. 29 Philo, Spec. 1.52. 30 Philo, Leg. 2.18; Spec. 1.181; Sacr. 8; Strabo, Geogr. 15.3.20; Dio Chrysostom, Orationes 41.2. 31 Philo, Sacr. 131; Sobr. 4. Cf. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 147. 32 The verb λαγχάνειν is connected with the image of fate or divine dispensation.

252

Second Peter: Commentary

The “equal” faith is due to the justice or righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) of Christ, which here—­unlike in Paul—­is understood as the impartial aequitas that distributes to each his or her due, and yet is magnanimous and philanthropic:33 in his just action, concretely in the dispensation of “equal” faith to the addressees, Christ demonstrates that he is their benefactor (which then in vv. 3-­11 is taken up and paraenetically explained with reference to the ancient framework of benefaction). As much as the faith (πίστις) mentioned here appears to be defined in 2 Pet in terms of substance and in accordance with doctrine,34 it is first of all characterized as a gift, courtesy of the dispensation of God and of Christ. It is thus hardly appropriate to erect a dichotomy between the ‘subjective’ aspect of the act of faith (fides qua creditur) and the ‘objective’ aspect of the content of faith (fides quae creditur), or to set the concept of faith in 2 Pet, which is more strongly defined by its content, against the supposed understanding in Pauline theology of faith as the act of believing. The notion of a faith that has become simply tradition or formulistic, as could be read from Jude 3 (on this, see above, p. 69), is a far cry from the concept of 2 Pet,35 nor does the ethical elaboration of faith that is necessary for salvation (vv. 5ff.) call into question its nature as a gift.

The Christians of a later period addressed here also participate in this “equal” faith, insofar as their faith is guided by the testimony of the apostles. With this laudatory statement, the author evokes his readers’ receptiveness and obliges them to the ‘apostolic’ standard given in the testimony of Peter. The agent of the “ just” dispensation of faith is “our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” This singular and clearly christological reading of the formula36 is 33 Grundmann, Brief, 66; cf. also Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 185; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 168; Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 104; Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 147; Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 162. Throughout the letter δίκαιος or δικαιοσύνη is understood in the sense of just action (cf. 2 Pet 1:13; 2:5, 7-­8, 21; 3:13) and thus as a character trait. For ‘impartial’ justice or righteousness as an attribute of God, cf. also Acts 10:34. An interpretation that follows a Reformation Pauline understanding of δικαιοσύνη as salvific righteousness (so Spicq, Épîtres, 208; Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, 35; Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 286) misses the independent character of 2 Pet. 34 Cf. Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 185. Analogously, the πίστις of the addressees is discussed already in Jude 3 (see above on Jude 3). 35 Cf. the discussion in Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 44–­45. Schrage, “Zweite Petrusbrief,” 129 is somewhat too one-­sided: “Faith is thus to be understood here in the sense of the doctrine of faith, which has lost nothing of its dignity and integrity in the chain of tradition, but rather still has the same dogmatic weight and the same objective value as in the apostolic period.” Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 185, is just as one-­sided, with the opposite confessional evaluation: “the precious tradition of the church, that is, fides quae creditur, not fides qua creditur.” 36 So Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 185; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 168–­69; Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 45; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 132–­33; Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 103–­5; Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 163.



Second Peter 1:1

253

supported, first, by the linguistic evidence: If the statement were intended as two-­part (i.e., “God and Christ”), the article would have to be repeated before σωτῆρος, or at least the independent phrase καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ would be “a very clumsy mode of expression.”37 In addition, the analogous phrase “our Lord and Savior” (κύριος [ἡμῶν] καὶ σωτήρ) is used multiple times in reference to Christ (2 Pet 1:11, 20; 3:2, 18),38 and the closing doxology in 3:18 (unlike Jude 25) refers entirely to Christ. Objections to this clearly christological interpretation of the phrase τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ tend to have a theological basis. While Christ is identified as θεός in 2 Pet only here,39 nothing speaks against ascribing the predication to Christ, especially in such a late text. Second Peter is a clear witness to a ‘high’ Christology. Such a Christology already developed early in the emerging church, although more time is thought to have passed before it arrived at the titular reference to Christ as “God.” Yet this predication is attested with certainty in other late NT texts,40 as well as in the texts of the apostolic fathers, as for example programmatically in 2 Clem. 1.1.41 At the same time, a comparison of the closing doxologies in 2 Pet 3:18 and Jude 24-­25 shows that 2 Pet takes a significant step beyond Jude.

For the Gentile Christian addressees, the title conveys from the beginning a pronounced emphasis on the majesty and glory of Christ.42 However, in the formulaic and brief expression, it remains unclear what exactly is meant when the author identifies Christ as God, and how the relation between Christ as God and the one God should be understood. The designation of Christ as Savior (σωτήρ) is essential to and characteristic of 2 Pet.43 Five of the sixteen NT occurrences of the term are found in 2 Pet (cf. also 1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18); there are four occurrences in the Pastoral Epistles (2 Tim 1:10; Titus 1:4; 2:13; 3:6);44 and the title becomes ever more common in 37

Vögtle, Judasbrief, 133. This reading is found in a few manuscripts in 1:1 as well, but this is a simplification. 39 Frankemölle, 1. Petrusbrief, 2. Petrusbrief, Judasbrief, 89; cf. also Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 84; Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 147–­48. 40 John 1:1, 18; 20:28; 1 John 5:20; Titus 2:13; cf. also Heb 1:8 (in the quotation of Ps 45:7) and (disputed) Rom 9:5. On this, see Frey, “Retter”; further, Brown, “God”; and Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 45. 41 Cf. Ign. Eph. inscr.; 1.1; 7.2; 18.2; 19.3; Ign. Trall. 7.1; Ign. Rom. 3.3; Ign. Smyrn. 10.1; Ign. Pol. 8.3; Pol. Phil. 12.2. 42 So Fornberg, Church, 143, who sees this formulation as a sign of the use of Hellenistic religious language and rightly refers to the letter by the governor of Bithynia, Pliny the Younger, to Emperor Trajan (Ep. 10.96.7) in which he reports that the Christians sing hymns to Christ as to a god (quasi Deo)—­that is, already for Pliny, Christ could appear as a god. 43 On this, see Frey, “Retter,” 141–­43; Karrer, “Retter”; and especially Jung, ΣΩΤΗΡ. 44 The title occurs only once in Paul (Phil 3:20), and additionally in the letter to the 38

254

Second Peter: Commentary

the second century as a predication of Christ,45 whereas in Judaism and earliest Christianity it referred only to God. Essential for understanding the usage in 2 Pet is the observation that the term was common in the Hellenistic world in honorific titles in inscriptions and honorific decrees not only for emperors and governors but also for benefactors and patrons.46 In the context of the ancient framework of benefaction, the designation of a benefactor as σωτήρ not only could be a reaction to past benefactions but also could establish an association between the honoring group and the honored person, or oblige the group to him and move the person so honored to new benefactions. In this sense, the designation of Christ as “our Savior” not only refers back to salvation that has already occurred (e.g., through the forgiveness of sins, cf. 1:9), but also implies the power of Christ to save the pious from temptation (cf. 2:9) and ultimately to grant them “entry into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ” (1:11). At the same time, the honorary designation motivates the addressees to corresponding behavior toward their Savior—­which is explicated in vv. 3-­11 in an echo of ancient honorary decrees. 2 The salutatio takes up common phrases: “grace and peace” (χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη) is familiar from several NT letters;47 less common is the use of the verb πληθύνειν, which is found in the NT only in the salutationes of Jude and 1 Pet, and in the inscriptiones of other texts of the postapostolic period and of the second century—­namely, in 1 Clem., Pol. Phil., and Mart. Poly.48 The formulation reproduces the salutatio of 1 Pet 1:2. The liturgically influenced benediction formulated in the passivum divinum concretizes the apostolic care Ephesians (Eph 5:23), thrice in Luke–­Acts (Luke 2:11; Acts 5:31; 13:23), and twice in the corpus Johanneum (John 4:42; 1 John 4:14). On this, cf. Jung, ΣΩΤΗΡ, 263–­354. However, the way is paved for this titular reference to Christ by earlier verbal statements about Jesus’ ‘salvific’ efficacy at the Parousia (1 Thess 1:10 and elsewhere). On the triumph of the title in the post-­NT period, see the references in Karrer, Jesus Christus, 54. In the apostolic fathers, the title only occurs in Ignatius (Ign. Phld. 9.3 and Ign. Smyrn. 7.1); but then cf. Justin, Dial. 8.2, as well as numerous occurrences in Gos. Pet. and later texts. 45 Cf. Luke 1:47; 1 Tim 1:1; 2:3; 4:10; Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4; Jude 25. See further above on Jude 25. 46 Jung, ΣΩΤΗΡ, 342, suspects that the title was adopted “from the pagan-­sovereign usage.” See further Karrer, “Retter,” 164–­70; Danker, “Decree,” 78; cf. also idem, Benefactor, 451–­ 467, and the references in NW 1/2, 239–­57. The language of “savior and benefactor” was often used for Roman emperors (IGR 3:609, 610, 644; IG2 2:3284; also Jos., B.J. 3.458–­459; and 7.70–­71 for Vespasian), as were other phrases such as “savior of the world” (IG 12/5:557; IG2 4:611), “savior of human life” (IK 12/2:251), “savior of humanity” (IBM 4/1:894), “savior of the whole world” (IGR 3:719, 721), “savior of the cosmos” (IG 2/2:3273; cf. John 4:42). 47 Cf. Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:3; Eph 1:2; Phil 1:2; Col 1:2; and in connection with a further term 1 Tim 1:2; 2 Tim 1:2; 2 John 2; Jude 2. 48 See above on Jude 2. Cf. further Diogn. 11.5.



Second Peter 1:1-2

255

of the fictional author. Yet while this formulation in 1 Pet forms the stylistically appropriate conclusion of the prescript, the salutatio here undergoes an immediate extension, as well as an additional expansion that is connected syntactically (vv. 3-­4). Here, then, the fullness of the divine gifts (πάντα)—­substantively linked with πληθύνειν—­is emphasized, expressing the fundamental reason and ultimate aim of the divine attention addressed here. This verse first articulates wherein “grace and peace” are (or should be) granted to the addressees: “in the knowledge of God and our Lord Jesus.” The two-­part formulation is notable in contrast with the more frequent singular reference to the knowledge of Christ (1:3, 8; 2:20; 3:18) and to the “God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (1:1; cf. “Lord and Savior” 1:11; 3:18). Since only the name Jesus (not Christ) occurs here and alongside Jesus, God is named independently as an object of knowledge, this could suggest a rather traditional formula,49 which as ‘binitarian’ still names God and Christ alongside one another, but is displaced by the primarily christological language in other parts of the letter. ἐπίγνωσις is a core concept of 2 Pet, appearing three times in the beginning of the text (1:2, 3, 8) and then negatively in 2:20, and also closely linked with γνῶσις (1:5, 6; 3:18). The object of ἐπίγνωσις is usually personal: God and Christ (1:2), “he who called us” (1:3), “our Lord, Jesus Christ” (1:8), “our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ” (2:20). The verb form in 2:21 has as its object the “way of righteousness.” The term derives from philosophical discourse and in the Christian context was used in reference to the “knowledge” of moral and religious issues, and thus is specified in 2 Pet with a genitive modifier (God or Christ).50 γνῶσις is used in the same way in the closing admonition in 3:18: the addressees should grow in the “grace and knowledge (γνῶσις) of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.”51 Thus γνῶσις and ἐπίγνωσις closely approach one another in 2 Pet, although the terms are not entirely congruent semantically. While ἐπίγνωσις is always connected with a genitive modifier, γνῶσις is able to stand alone (1:5); in the end (3:18), γνῶσις appears as the knowledge that results from insight (ἐπίγνωσις, which has an aspect of being a process).52 49 Cf. Vögtle, Judasbrief, 133, who points out that “the binitarian formula in the blessing was traditional.” John 17:3 formulates a statement of faith that is similarly composed of two articles: there, knowledge of God and of Christ is linked with the Johannine concept of salvation as “eternal life.” On the relation between Christology and theology in 2 Pet, see Vögtle, “Christo-­logie und Theo-­logie.” 50 Suggested to me by Thomas J. Kraus. Cf. also LXX Prov 2:5; LXX Hos 4:1; Col 1:10; Eph 1:1; Diogn. 10.1. 51 Whereas in the Pastoral Letters, for example, the term γνῶσις is only used in a negative sense (1 Tim 6:20), 2 Pet uses γνῶσις (1:5; 3:18) and ἐπίγνωσις only in a positive sense for a Christian statement of faith. 52 Suggested to me by Thomas J. Kraus. The prefix is occasionally interpreted as an intensification, so LSJ, s.v. “full knowledge.” Cf. also Col 1:9-­10; 2:2; 3:10; Eph 1:17; 4:13. An inceptive sense of the prefix is suggested by Picirilli, “Meaning,” 91. This fits with the fact

256

Second Peter: Commentary

ἐπίγνωσις appears in 2 Pet almost as the “basic principle of personal Christianity.”53 At the same time, as a designation for the personal knowledge of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, the term at the same time approaches “faith” (πίστις).54 In this, as with πίστις in v. 1, it is clear that the object of faith (fides quae creditur) and the ‘act’ of faith (fides qua creditur) cannot be separated55 and that the “knowledge” of Christ described here encompasses both an intellectual and an ethical-­practical aspect. The personal formulation of the ‘object’ of knowledge suggests a relational concept:56 this is not just about the initial acknowledgment; rather, it is about the knowledge of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ that began in the turn toward Christ, but is to be proved in one’s way of life (cf. 2:20-­22), and thus continues to deepen (3:18). Thus, while the conclusion of the salutatio still speaks in rather binitarian language of the “knowledge of God and Jesus, our Lord,” in what follows (as in 1:1) there is recurring language of the Savior Jesus Christ predicated as “God,” whose divine glory and power are then also firmly emphasized with recourse to the transfiguration, whereby, however, the activity of God and that of the God Jesus Christ are not always clearly distinguished. 1.2 The extension of the prescript (1:3-­4) as an introduction to the proem

The “knowledge” that was a theme in the salutatio, its implications, and its aim are now explicated in more detail in a striking extension, which is linked syntactically with vv. 1-­2 such that it is difficult to observe a clear break between v. 2 and v. 3 (see above, p. 248). A new period does not begin until v. 5. This is marked as a new beginning by the phrase καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο δέ and the period comes to an end in vv. 10-­11. Verses 3-­4 thus constitute an extension of the prescript, which segues into the proem. Substantively, however, vv. 3-­4 are also closely linked with vv. 5-­11. There is a striking formal and linguistic similarity here to honorary decrees with which benefactors and ‘saviors’ were honored in the Hellenistic world (for the most part in inscriptions, i.e., visible in public space).57 that in other NT and later texts (Heb 10:26; 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Tim 2:25; 3:7; Titus 1:1; 1 Clem. 59.2; Mart. Pol. 14.1; Diogn. 10.1) and already in Hellenistic Judaism, the term belongs to the “terminology of conversion” (see Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 105; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 169–­70). 53 Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 84; Grundmann, Brief, 68; Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 130. 54 On this see Starr, Sharers, 36. 55 So already Fornberg, Church, 97n2. 56 So, rightly, Starr, Sharers, 38–­39. 57 On this see the foundational discussion in Danker, “Decree,” 65–­66: “Much of 2 Peter 1,



Second Peter 1:2-4

257

In such honorary decrees an identification of the community that is doing the honoring (often with the names of individual functionaries) is followed by a preamble (often with ἐπειδή) justifying the decree, which articulates the achievements and qualities of the honoree for the community, and then a resolution with recommendations or requests for commensurate honor of the benefactor.58 Verses 3-­4 demonstrate parallels with the preambles of such honorary decrees,59 while the following virtue catalog in vv. 5-­7 hortatively formulates the honoring ‘response’ to the aforementioned gifts and promises.

This formal correspondence with a linguistic form common in the Hellenistic Roman world could hardly have gone unnoticed by the addressees. Thus, the effort to ‘honor’ the divine savior with the corresponding virtues described in vv. 5ff. must have been (at least also) understood in terms of this societal convention, even if the God and Savior Jesus Christ is of course fundamentally different from other ‘divine’ benefactors (such as the Roman emperors). In theological terms, vv. 3-­4 appear as a christological-­soteriological ‘foundation,’ which is then followed by an admonition to corresponding ethical behavior that not only serves to fittingly honor the “Savior” Christ, but is indispensable in obtaining the promised salvation, a share in “divine nature” (v. 4), and entry into the “eternal kingdom” (v. 11). According to vv. 12-­15, the fictive author seeks to “remind” his readers of this broad soteriological context with his letter. Thus vv. 3-­11 can be understood as a brief summary of the overall soteriological concept of 2 Pet, whose form, terminology, and substance is, however, very clearly rendered in Hellenistic categories. 3 This soteriological ‘foundation’ connects with the actual prescript in vv. 1-­2 and the blessing of the salutatio in a causal participial construction with ὡς.60 The addressees’ state of being is established as faithful by the salvific activity of Christ.61 To him belong “divine power” and—­as is emphasized in and especially vv 1-­11, is impregnated with terminology used in a broad range of hellenistic decrees.” Of course there are numerous differences in the particulars, but the Hellenistic linguistic style is obvious. By contrast, the connection with early Jewish and early Christian models of preaching (4 Ezra 14:28-­36; Acts John 106–­107), suggested by Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 173–­74, does less justice to the linguistic style present here. 58 Cf. Danker, “Decree,” 65. 59 Danker, “Decree,” 67–­71, cites close parallels to almost every statement in vv. 3-­4; the parallels in the following virtue catalog are somewhat less concentrated (op. cit., 71–­73). 60 The “we” or “us” in vv. 3-­4 therefore does not refer to Peter or the apostles but rather unites the fictive author Peter with the addressees. He first turns to the addressees with an admonition in the second-­person plural in v. 5, and ‘Peter’ does not speak with his own “I” again until v. 12. 61 The subject of the construction in v. 3—­“ his divine power”—­should be taken in reference to the “Lord Jesus Christ” who was named in v. 2; cf. Bigg, Critical and Exegetical Commentary,

258

Second Peter: Commentary

the end—­his “own” (ἴδια) δόξα and ἀρετή. The striking double expression δόξα καὶ ἀρετή can be read as hendiadys—­that is, “glory and excellence” should then likewise be rendered in a syntagma as “splendid glory” or “splendid radiance.”62 With this, Christ’s “divine power,”63 and thus the divinity of Christ, who acts for salvation, is once again emphasized. With regard to the subject in v. 3, however, exegetes are divided: while some want to see God as the only subject in v. 3,64 others support a shift from God (who has “given”) to Christ (who has “called”),65 or the reverse.66 The reasons for seeing God and not Christ as the subject of one or the other action are found above all in the linguistic usage of older early Christianity. However, the fact that, for example, God is the one who calls in 1 Pet 1:15 and 2:9 need not establish the same reading for 2 Pet 1:3, especially since 2 Clem. (5.1; cf. 1.8; 2.4, 7; 9.5) speaks of being called by Christ.67 Precisely the language of “his own” δόξα and his δύναμις here refers to Christ and points toward the power and glory of Christ attested by ‘Peter’ with the reference to the transfiguration in 2 Pet 1:16-­17.

It is in the gift of Christ, the God and Savior, that the calling and the faithful state of the addressees are grounded. Despite the great emphasis on the necessity of an ethical effort, 2 Pet holds fast to the priority of the divine gift of salvation and thereby to the quality of faith as being a gift.68 “Everything” (πάντα) that is required for and serves life (ζωή) and piety (εὐσέβεια) is given to the addressees and thus is present with them (cf. 1:12). It is doubtful that one may differentiate between “piety” and “life” here, and take “life” in reference to the future, eternal salvation in contrast to the present “pious life.”69 The expression is a hendiadys, so the two terms cannot be distinguished from one another, and moreover, a separation of the present and future life is not in view here. 253; Chaine, Les épîtres catholiques, 39; Schrage, “Zweite Petrusbrief,” 130; Grundmann, Brief, 69; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 177; Fornberg, Church, 144; Starr, Sharers, 32–­34; Schmidt, Mahnung, 350. 62 Given the usage in the transfiguration narrative in 2 Pet 1:16-­17, δόξα here appears to be used in the sense—­influenced by the LXX and largely predominant in the NT—­of “glory” and not in the common Hellenistic sense of “opinion” (also found, for example, in Josephus and Philo). 63 So, rightly, Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 179. 64 Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 188. 65 G. L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, 62–­63; Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 300–­301; Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 50–­51; Frankemölle, 1. Petrusbrief, 2. Petrusbrief, Judasbrief, 91; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 139. 66 Holtzmann, “Petrusbriefe,” 859. 67 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 178; Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 107. 68 So, rightly, Grundmann, Brief, 68–­69; Knoch, Petrusbrief, 238. 69 So Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 107.



Second Peter 1:3

259

It is noteworthy that the traditional (Pauline and above all Johannine) soteriological term ζωή is now accompanied by the characteristically Hellenistic term εὐσέβεια, which comprehensively encompasses the appropriate respect for authorities and regulations, the required religious-­cultic practice, and the ethical way of life.70

Even if the relationship between God and Christ is not precisely defined, one must regard Christ, in his own “divine power” and “splendid glory,” as the giver of these gifts. Christology is thus articulated in specifically Hellenistic terms: There is no mention elsewhere in the NT of θεία δύναμις. Beyond 2 Pet 1:3, 4 the adjective θεῖος occurs only in Paul’s Areopagus speech in Acts 17:29, which strongly alludes to the Greek philosophical milieu, and then somewhat more frequently in the Apostolic Fathers.71 The avoidance of this term in the older tradition apparently rests on the fact that, in the Greek understanding, many superhuman abilities could be described as “divine,” which is not readily compatible with early Jewish and emerging Christian language about God. Thus the phrase θεία δύναμις occurs in Greek philosophy for exceptional abilities;72 it is found among Hellenistic Jewish authors,73 but (apart from the present verse) not before Justin among early Christian authors.74 Last but not least, the phrase also appears in an honorary decree from Stratonicea, where the statues of the gods illustrate the excellent deeds of divine power (τῆς θείας δυνάμεως ἀρετάς).75 The use of this phrase in 2 Pet 1:3 shows how the author clothes his Christology in Hellenistic language from the outset,76 whereby in his view this is not just any ‘divine power,’ but the power of God that Christ has received (1:17), in which he will appear at the eschaton. As the epigraphic evidence shows, this language could also imply a reference to Christ’s ‘excellent activity,’ his ἀρετή.

In the present context, the term presents Christ as the giver of all salvific gifts, operating in divine power and ‘goodness,’ as the divine benefactor and savior who has created and given to the addressees all the preconditions that enable 70 The term rarely occurs in the LXX, but is used in Philo and Josephus, and especially frequently in 4 Macc. In the NT, beyond Acts 3:12, the term appears above all in the Pastoral Letters (1 Tim 2:2; 3:16; 4:7–­8; 6:3, 5-­6, 11; 2 Tim 3:5; Titus 1:1) and in 2 Pet (1:3, 6, 7; 3:11), and it also appears in the Apostolic Fathers (1 Clem. 1.2; 11.1; 15.1; 32.4; 2 Clem. 19.1). See further below on v. 6. 71 Cf. 1 Clem. 2.3; 40.1; 2 Clem. 20.4; Herm. Vis. 3.8.7; 4.1.6; Herm. Mand. 11.2, 5, 7, 9, 21; Ign. Magn. 8.2; Papias frg. 4. 72 Plato, Ion 533d; Leg. 3.691e; Arist., Pol. 7.4.8; see Chaine, Les épîtres catholiques, 39; Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 187; Ruf, Propheten, 295. 73 Let. Aris. 157; then primarily Philo, Conf. 155; Det. 83; Spec. 2.2; and above all, Abr. 26, where θεία δύναμις is also used in connection with virtues; on this, see Ruf, Propheten, 296. 74 Justin, 1 Apol. 32; Clem. Alex., Strom. 1.98.4; 7.37.4. Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 177. 75 CIG 2715a; on this, see Danker, “Decree,” 68; cf. Ruf, Propheten, 296. 76 See the collection of relevant passages for the period vv. 3-­4 in Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 85; further Grundmann, Brief, 76–­77.

260

Second Peter: Commentary

a life in accordance with and pleasing to God. Concretely, this can hardly refer to the salvation event within the Jesus story, the resurrection (cf. Phil 3:10), or even the cross, nor is the concrete acquisition of salvation in baptism (cf. Col 3:1ff.) or the gift of the spirit in view here.77 The salvific gift is located rather in the “knowledge of Christ”—­that is, faith—­that has been given and in the “calling” by him.78 Yet this is formulated ‘openly’ for the addressees in terms of their life histories, and the author’s gaze immediately moves on to the promised salvation (vv. 4, 11) and the virtuous way of life that corresponds with the virtuous gift and to which the addressees are likewise called (vv. 5ff.). The salvific activity of Christ is thereby described as an act of Christ’s “divine power” and of his own δόξα καὶ ἀρετή. The “God” and “Savior” Jesus Christ acts in his divine power and “splendid glory” when he reveals himself to people, calls them, and presents them with gifts. The phrase δόξα καὶ ἀρετή is common in Greek literature, above all in Plutarch,79 and also occurs in honorary decrees,80 where δόξα designates “renown” based on certain deeds. In the Roman context, Honos and Virtus (= δόξα and ἀρετή) were even worshiped together as deities and were depicted jointly on coins.81 Against this background, one could also interpret δόξα in reference to the renown of the “Savior.” However, in 2 Pet 1:17 and in the closing doxology at 3:18, the biblical (LXX) and emerging Christian semantic content of the language of Christ’s δόξα in the sense of the divine or eschatological “glory” is unambiguous, and this sense likely also defines the usage in 1:3, even if the aspect of “honor” still resonates.

The usage of ἀρετή here is striking. Even if this term serves in a hendiadys to express the “excellent” glory, it implies an element of the ethical positivity and integrity of Christ and his actions, which is emphasized here—­not by chance in the foundation for the later admonition to virtue.82 Christ’s nature is—­ethically as well—­“good” and “excellent,” and this very “goodness” and “excellence” has revealed itself in the calling of the addressees to faith and salvation. Elsewhere in the NT, the ἀρεταί of God are mentioned only once (1 Pet 2:9), drawing on LXX Isa 43:21, but the ἀρετή of God is addressed repeatedly in Hellenistic Judaism, 77

Ruf, Propheten, 298, reads 2 Pet 1:3-­11 against this background as “a solemn reminder of baptism,” but only the “cleansing of former sins” in 1:9 alludes to baptism. 78 This does not refer to the calling of the disciples by Jesus, since the addressees are included in “we.” 79 Cf. Plut., Mor. 535. 80 See the references in Ruf, Propheten, 293. 81 References in Ruf, Propheten, 314. 82 Cf. J. D. Charles, Virtue, 137: “Surely there is a resonation in the mind of the readers between the way in which ἀρετή is used here and its application to ethics immediately following (1.5). To wit: there exists a relationship between God’s moral character and ours.”



Second Peter 1:3-4

261

in Philo83 and Josephus. In the preface to his Antiquitates judaicae (§§22–­23), Josephus notes that Moses demonstrated “that God possesses perfect ἀρετή, participation in which should be the aspiration of the human being.”84 In contrast to pagan mythology, the biblical God has complete moral integrity and in this differs from humanity. In the ascription of ἀρετή to God, what is held to be virtuous among humanity is attributed a fortiori to God. From the perspective of this Hellenistic Jewish usage, the adoption of the attribute in a Hellenistic Christian context and its application to the “God” and “Savior” Christ can be understood.

His benefactions and calling of the addressees to salvation are the expression of his own goodness, excellence, and glory—­indeed, of his own divine nature; in accordance with this linguistic style, the recipients of these benefactions, those who are called and who are faithful, should then emulate this “virtue” and participate in his nature. The latter is further explicated in v. 4, likewise in the language of Hellenistic religiosity. 4 The connection with v. 3 through δι’ ὧν refers back to the terms δόξα καὶ ἀρετή: the “excellent glory” or the divine ‘goodness’ of Christ is the point of departure for the “exceedingly great and precious promises,” which he—­as benefactor and “savior”—­has given to the faithful. The language of the gift (δωρέομαι in perfect passive) from v. 3 is taken up here and developed, now with regard to the promises for the future of the faithful, followed by a sketch of the path toward achieving this salvific aim, toward the ultimate participation in the “eternal kingdom” (v. 11). For “promises” the author does not employ the usual ἐπαγγελία but rather the rare ἐπάγγελμα, which in the NT is used only here and in 2 Pet 3:13, perhaps in order to differentiate between the promises mentioned here and the promise of the Parousia, which has been handed down and is doubted by the opponents (ἐπαγγελία, 2 Pet 3:4, 9).85 The view toward eschatological fulfillment pervades the letter, and, at the end of the eschatological argumentation, 3:13 returns to the concept of the “promise” (ἐπάγγελμα), thereby recalling 1:4.86

The substance of the “promises” is explicated in the final clause. Here, the linguistic form and the context indicate that this is not about a state of being that has already been realized among the addressees but rather a goal, a calling, that needs to be “made firm” (v. 10) through the effort to lead a “pious life” (v. 3), or the ἀρετή that corresponds with God (v. 5). 83

Cf. Philo, Leg. 2.14. Ruf, Propheten, 292. Cf. also Jos., A.J. 17.130: ἀρετὴ τοῦ θείου. 85 So Vögtle, Judasbrief, 139. 86 Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 108: “The christological promise is guided by the eschatological expectation that the author presupposes.” 84

262

Second Peter: Commentary

This ‘eschatological caveat,’ which is in effect a caveat of ethical probation, is suggested for various reasons: Linguistically, ἐπαγγέλματα is followed by a prospective final ἵνα clause (ἵνα . . . γένησθε), which is also linked with the following participial clause (ἀποφυγόντες . . .). Substantively, v. 10 makes clear that the virtues stipulated in vv. 5-­7 are a requirement for obtaining the promises, and there is also a correspondence between the eschatological promises, the “escape from perishability/ruin” (v. 4), and the entry into the eternal kingdom (v. 11). The interpreters from the religio-­historical school sought to ascribe to the author an ‘enthusiasm’ according to which participation in the “divine nature” was already an “experience of the present.”87 However, this hardly fits with the ethical impetus in vv. 5-­11 (and 3-­4). It is conceivable that the addressees approach the divine nature in their ethical efforts, but “the participation in the divine φύσις should be understood less as a process than as a future salvation.”88 In the present, the addressees are still subject to perishability (mortality, death); they are still able to stumble (v. 10). Participation in the divine nature is still realized just as little as the entry into the “eternal kingdom” of Christ.

The promises are described as “exceedingly great” and “precious”89 before they are then developed in both positive and negative terms in a direct address. ‘Peter’ proclaims to the later addressees the salvific goal and the path required to achieve it, and there is perhaps a subtle inconsistency of the authorial fiction in the shift to second person: Peter is, of course, at the time of the letter’s composition no longer living, but has already reached the goal.90 He has himself been relieved of perishability as a martyr and participates in the eternal salvation that has been promised. 87 So Hollmann and Bousset, Brief des Judas, 304: “That which came to predominate later in the Greek church of the third century is suddenly announced here, namely the teaching of ‘divinization’ conceived in physical terms . . . For this is not the opinion that Christians first receive the divine nature in the future world, but rather that the divine nature of immortality already enters into them, in order to enable them to receive eternal life.” By contrast, Knopf, Briefe Petri und Judä, 265, notes: “This does not refer to a process of divinization that already begins in the present life.” More recently, Spicq (Épîtres) and Reicke (Epistles) have read v. 4 in connection with the experience of Christian initiation, conversion or baptism. However, the verse as a whole is not retrospective, but final, and nothing points to baptism (Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 171). 88 Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 108. 89 Similar formulations occur in 1 Clem. 26.1; 34.7; 2 Clem. 5.5. Apoc. Pet. (R) 14 also speaks of Jesus’ promises. By contrast, in older early Christianity the promises of Christ (not of God) are hardly mentioned. 90 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 179, also takes this into account. The addressees must have known about Peter’s fate of martyrdom, which is presupposed already in John 21:18-­19 and 1 Clem. 5.4 and is then attested in the peculiar “promise” of the “cup of death” to Peter in Apoc. Pet. (R) 14 (ὃ ἐπηγγειλάμην σοι). In the text of Apoc. Pet., it is also said that Jesus will fulfill the ἐπαγγελίαι to his called and elected ones at the eschaton.



Second Peter 1:4

263

The salvific goal is formulated with both a positive and (with a participial phrase) a negative dimension. The faithful should (a) become “participants in divine nature” (φύσις) precisely in that they (b) “escape destruction, which is in the world because of desire.” Once again the author uses language that connects with central tenets of Greek philosophical and religious thought: “The flight from perishability, the share in divine nature granted by God’s power, life in God, knowledge of God and an incorruptible nature constitute the quintessence of Hellenistic piety.”91 In its linguistic form, this message contrasts with all other NT parallels, and it is not by chance that “the Hellenistic goal of piety” occurs “for the first time in such undisguised words” in the latest text of the NT.92 Second Peter 1:4 is one of the most difficult statements to understand in the NT.93 The language of participation in divine φύσις in 2 Pet 1:4, which is singular within the NT, has provoked contentious theological discussions. On its account, 2 Pet has been accused of betraying the biblical faith in God and of the “relapse of Christianity into Hellenistic dualism.”94 In this verse, “an entirely uneschatologial understanding of salvation is presupposed, as was represented by Gnosticism.”95 It is about the “divinization of the human being,”96 as the mysteries and Gnosticism also promised, and thus not a Christian, but rather a pagan hope in which the fundamental distinction between God and humanity is abandoned. This vehement criticism corresponds, at least, with the interpretation by representatives of the religio-­historical school, according to which participation in divine nature and the conquest over perishability should be understood as an already-­present experience of the faithful.97 When 2 Pet 1:4 is read in this way, it becomes difficult to resolve the resulting tension with the clearly eschatological statements of the letter in 1:11 or 3:4ff., and the text appears as an incoherent patchwork.98 Of course, this uneschatological interpretation of 1:4b is likely a misunderstanding, since the statement is clearly characterized in syntactic terms as the aim or substance of the promise, 91

Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 85. Knopf, Briefe Petri und Judä, 264. 93 On this expression, in addition to the commentaries, see extensive discussion in Starr, Sharers; Wolters, “Partners”; Hafemann, “Divine Nature”; and on the reception history, Christensen and Wittung, Partakers. 94 Käsemann, “Apologie,” 144: “It would be difficult to find a sentence in the entire NT that in its expression, motifs, and general tendency more sharply marks the relapse of Christianity into Hellenistic dualism.” 95 Koester, “φύσις,” 269. 96 Käsemann, “Apologie,” 144. Similarly, Schrage, “Zweite Petrusbrief,” 126. 97 So Hollmann and Bousset, Brief des Judas, 304 (see above, n. 87). 98 So in Koester, “φύσις,” 269, who has to assume that the author “adopted [the term] from Gnosticism and attempted to incorporate it in his renewal of the expectation for the future.” 92

264

Second Peter: Commentary

corresponds with the eschatological conclusion of 1:11, and in addition is connected with the ethical exhortation to maintain Christian existence in the practice of a virtuous life.

Terminologically, the phrase is unique in the NT. Whereas the language of community (κοινωνία) with Christ (1 Cor 1:9) and God (1 John 1:3) is conventional, this notion is apparently articulated impersonally here as participation in the divine “nature.”99 The syntagma θεία φύσις is otherwise unattested in the NT (and other than in 2 Pet 1:3-­4, the adjective θεῖος occurs only in Acts 17:29). With regard to substance, one may refer to conceptions of the eschatological transformation of the faithful in glory (2 Cor 3:18;100 1 Cor 15:49) and ‘conforming’ to the image of Christ (Rom 8:29), whereby in 1 Cor 15 the opposition of ‘perishable’ and ‘imperishable’ also plays an essential role. First John 3:2 goes the farthest when it speaks of becoming like Christ through the eschatological demonstration of his glory: “We will be like him (ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσόμεθα), for we will see him as he is.” But there is no mention here of a similarity with God or even ‘divinization.’101 How, then, is participation in the “divine nature” conceived here? The genitive with κοινωνός can “designate one who is equal in some form, thus for instance the partner, companion, comrade, . . . etc.” (Heb 10:33; Mart. Pol. 6.2; 17.1) or “communal goods, shared transgression, etc.” (1 Pet 5:1; Herm. Mand. 4.1.5; Diogn. 11.8). “Thus 2 Pet 1:4 is concerned with either a partnership with the θεία φύσις or a fellowship in reference to this,”102 or a participation in it, whose kind and formation would then, however, need to be specified: Is this a material participation, and what characterizes that θεία φύσις in which the addressees are to receive a share? Various recent attempts at interpretation must be considered here: The attempt by Norbert Baumert to defuse the phrase semantically is problematic. Baumer seeks to distinguish fundamentally between κοινωνεῖν and μετέχειν, and to speak only of a fellowship in 2 Pet 1:4 (between Peter and his addressees).103 Aside from the fact that he ignores the eschatological dimension of the text, it must be noted that 99 Of course, in the context of 2 Pet, a general ‘divinity’ or a physical understanding of God cannot be intended; rather, the concept of a biblical God who acts in history underlies the attribute θεῖος (Hafemann, “Divine Nature,” 82). 100 On the background of the transfiguration motif in texts of Hellenistic Judaism and of Hellenism, cf. Back, Verwandlung, 24–­76. 101 This was also the interpretation of the religio-­historical school; see Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 163–­64, who saw here the concept of “divinization through theoptia.” On this passage, cf. Frey, Eschatologie, 3:88–­94. 102 Ruf, Propheten, 256. 103 “Companions in [i.e., with respect to] divine nature” (Baumert, Κoinonein, 502).



Second Peter 1:4

265

2 Pet 1:4 does not identify whom (else) the addressees are to have ‘fellowship’ with. In this, Baumert’s conjecture is, in my opinion, inaccurate, since fellowship with Peter is not insinuated in the context. The semantic differentiation of κοινωνεῖν and μετέχειν is deserving of attention, but this distinction is more significant in other NT passages (e.g., 1 Cor 10:16-­17) and is developed from the perspective of those other texts. There is no compelling reason that κοινωνεῖν cannot also refer to participation here. The interpretation by Al Wolters is also unconvincing. Wolters wants to read the phrase in a ‘covenant-­theological’ framework, understands θεία φύσις as a circumlocution for God, and then speaks of “partners of the Deity.”104 Wolters rightly points out that θεία φύσις in 2 Pet 1:4 cannot be superseded by the notion of the personal biblical God present throughout the text.105 Yet, aside from the unsuitable image of ‘partnership,’ here, too, the direct context is given too little attention, since the virtue catalog that follows is concerned with the addressees’ correspondence with the “God and Savior” Jesus Christ in a series of ‘characteristics.’ There is no trace of covenant theology in 2 Pet, and it remains unclear here why the text speaks not just of commonality with God but specifically of the θεία φύσις. In a productive article, Scott Hafemann has recently understood θεία φύσις in the ethical sense of divine action, and interpreted the expression in terms of participation in God’s eschatological act of salvation. He understands κοινωνοί according to the predominant usage in the LXX in the sense of “fellow participant in something (with others).”106 Thus he, too, rules out actual ‘participation’ in the divine itself; instead, the text is concerned with the communal participation in the salvation granted by God. However, the concern to exclude the possibility of participation in the divine appears to be a theologically motivated attempt to rescue the text. It is worth considering the notion that θεία φύσις could refer dynamically to God’s action, but it remains uncertain whether κοινωνοί only designates common participation in ‘something.’ A reference to Godself cannot be ruled out here, since at least in Josephus (C. Ap. 1.232) we find a formulation that speaks (although with μετέχειν) of a wise and prophetic person’s participation in the θεία φύσις.

A glance at the broad religio-­historical background of the term (including the language of perishability or transience that follows this phrase) can help to specify our understanding: a) A dualism (initially Platonic), widespread in the Hellenistic world, underlies especially the participial construction. According to this dualism, that which belongs to the material world is characterized by transience and mortality, whereas the divine is everlasting and immortal.107 In this context, φθορά first of all refers to the transience 104 Wolters, “Partners”; likewise Reese, 2 Peter and Jude, 133, 135; for criticism of this position, see Starr, Sharers, 46–­47; and Hafemann, “Divine Nature,” 82–­83. 105 Wolters, “Partners,” 34–­37; in agreement also, Hafemann, “Divine Nature,” 82. 106 Hafemann, “Divine Nature,” 95. 107 Vögtle, Judasbrief, 140–­41. Illustrative usages are Plut., Mor. 358e, and Aristid., Apol. 7.1–­2 .

266

Second Peter: Commentary

and mortality of earthly life in general. However, the phrase is notably expanded here: φθορά is in the world “in/through desire” (ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ), which, according to biblical traditional language, clearly refers to sin or the fall of humanity. Thus, φθορά is not simply the conditio humana of impermanence, or humanity’s tie to the earthly sphere brought about by the passions but rather—­at least also—­the eschatological ruin (2 Pet 2:12) that the addressees escape in obtaining eternal salvation, the “eternal kingdom” (1:11), or participation in the “new heaven and the new earth” (3:13).108 b) In discussing the possible forms of human participation in the divine and its imperishability, we must bear in mind that the boundary between gods and humanity has always been somewhat permeable in the Greek tradition: gods appear in the form of human beings, human beings are ‘divinized’ as heroes, or partake in ‘divine’ (i.e., superhuman) powers through poetic inspiration or exceptional deeds. The OT and early Jewish tradition draws a stricter boundary between creator and creation, although here, too, for instance in Jewish wisdom theology and in Hellenistic Judaism, bridges were constructed in order to explain God’s action in the world (e.g., through the ‘logos’) or participation in God (as God’s ‘image’ or through ‘mimesis’). c) Discussion of “divine nature” (θεία φύσις) first appears in Plato,109 where ethical categories already resonate: so long as they bore the “divine nature” (ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ φύσις or θεία φύσις), the kings of Atlantis operated with ethically positive, virtuous behavior (Critias 120d–­121); and the human soul received habits from the god “insofar as it is possible for a human being to participate in god” (Phaedr. 253a). “Participation in God signifies a certain moral behavior, whose guiding principle is provided through the imitation of God.”110 d) Finally, Stoic thought regards the entire cosmos as divine, insofar as everything shares in divine cosmic reason, the logos. Yet this dynamic principle, which holds the world together and brings forth all things, can also be called φύσις.111 Thus the Stoics hold to the ethical maxim “to live in accordance with nature” (κατὰ φύσιν ζῆν) or also “to live reasonably” (λογικῶς ζῆν), and reason ultimately expresses itself in virtues. For the Stoics, as much as human participation in the divine or in cosmic reason is thus, by virtue of human reason, given as ‘natural,’ this participation is expressed particularly in appropriate ethical behavior.112 For Epictetus, for example, participation in the divine is demonstrated in the achievement of “indifference,” freedom from “desires,” which however can never be fully achieved in earthly life. Thus, Stoic thought, too, is not concerned with ‘divinization’ understood in a material sense, but rather with 108

Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 157, takes a different position, interpreting the term noneschatologically and in entirely cultural-­anthropological categories: “Corruption serves to contrast God and God’s world with the world of mortals. Yet, God’s world is accessible to mortals by benefaction from the divine patron.” 109 Cf. Knopf, Briefe Petri und Judä, 264; extensive discussion in Ruf, Propheten, 298–­99. 110 Ruf, Propheten, 299; in Platonic thought through mystical elevation and ‘divination.’ 111 Diog. Laert. 7.148, 156; Epict., Diss. 2.8.2; cf. Hafemann, “Divine Nature,” 85. 112 On this, see Hafemann, “Divine Nature,” 86–­87.



Second Peter 1:4

267

participation in essential aspects of the divine,113 whereby the ethical dimension plays a prominent role. e) The idea of participation in θεία φύσις was taken up in Hellenistic Judaism. Angels have a θεία φύσις (so, according to Philo, Abr. 107, the visitors to Abraham), and the planets, too, enjoy a divine, blessed φύσις (Philo, Decal. 104). Extraordinary characteristics, such as special wisdom or the ability to predict the future, could appear as participation in a θεία φύσις (Jos., C. Ap. 1.232–­233). Although the Greek parallels for the most part employ μετέχειν, not κοινωνεῖν/κοινωνία, not too much can be concluded from this,114 since κοινωνεῖν occurs in parallel expressions115 and was perhaps better suited to early Christian linguistic usage. f) Early Christian parallels from the second century come still closer to the phrasing found here: Barn. 19.8 speaks of the faithful being κοινωνοί with regard to116 the imperishable; in Ign. Eph. 4.2, a paraenesis culminates in the purpose statement “so that you may constantly have a share in God as well” (ἵνα καὶ θεοῦ πάντοτε μετέχητε).117

These linguistic and substantive parallels show that 2 Pet 1:4 is not concerned “with a participation in divine nature understood in some material sense,”118 nor with particular ‘divine’ characteristics or abilities. A ‘divinization’ understood materially or any weakening of the biblically established boundaries between creator and creation is foreign to the author of 2 Pet. The same is true of the idea of a mystical or mysterious participation in the divine, and the concept of mediation of the divine through the holy spirit, as found in Paul (cf. Rom 8:11), is not to be found in the concepts of 2 Pet.119 Rather, especially in the present context in connection with the virtue catalog that follows and in conformity with the style of contemporaneous honorary decrees, θεία φύσις likely implies first and foremost an ethical aspect. The “divine nature” could then represent the whole of the divine being in ethical terms—­namely, the aforementioned ἀρετή, which the addressees as faithful persons should now conform to in life and in whose imperishable essence they should ultimately receive eschatological participation. This imitatio Dei is thus not only an eschatological gift, it is realized already in Christian life, beginning with baptism and then, by distancing oneself from sin that leads to ruin, in the continued growth in the knowledge of Christ (cf. 3:18) and in the corresponding development of Christian virtues (1:5ff.). It does not achieve its goal, however, until the eschaton, 113

Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 173. Against Ruf, Propheten, 300, who takes up the examination by Baumert (Κoinonein). 115 Evidence in Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 181. 116 This appears, however, in the dative, not the genitive. 117 Trans. following Lindemann, Väter, 183. 118 So, rightly, Ruf, Propheten, 301. 119 Against the suggestion in Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 181. 114

268

Second Peter: Commentary

when the promised salvation through Christ is granted—­in figurative terms, in the entry into Christ’s “eternal kingdom” that was brought into view in 1:11.120 The ethical framework is also confirmed by the early history of this idea (it is not yet possible to speak here of the Wirkungsgeschichte of 2 Pet): when, for instance, Clement of Alexandria says of the “true Gnostic” (i.e., the Christian), that he “becomes God” (θεὸν γενέσθαι),121 it is first and foremost instruction, knowledge, and ethical effort that make human beings “godlike” (θεοειδήϛ or θεοείκελοϛ; Clem. Alex., Strom. 6.72.2). Origen, perhaps echoing 2 Pet 1:4, employs the formulation that the connection between the divine and human nature in Jesus took place “so that by fellowship with divinity human nature might become divine, not only in Jesus, but also in all those who believe and go on to undertake the life which Jesus taught.”122 Here the terms θεία, φύσις, and κοινωνία are united, but here, too, “fellowship” with God bears an ethical accent. Only later, in Athanasius, does the ‘exchange formulation’ acquire a central christological-­soteriological meaning: “He became human so that we might be made divine” (De incarnatione 54).123 When the language of “divinization” (theosis) is then increasingly understood in mystical and sacramental terms among the Greek fathers, this departs from the statement of 2 Pet 1:4, which is characterized by the aspect of “mimesis.”

The reception and modification of the Hellenistic concepts demonstrates how much the author of 2 Pet “sets out his theology dialogically.”124 He stands in direct conversation with the thought of his Hellenistic environment125 and articulates aspects of the Christian expectation of salvation by adopting concepts that were plausible in the context of Hellenistic philosophy and ethics; yet these concepts are modified in that the author, on the one hand, connects the Hellenistic understanding of transience or imperishability with the aspect of sin or liability to judgment and, on the other hand, links the concept of “escape” from transience with the tradition of eschatological fulfillment and entry into the “eternal kingdom” of Jesus Christ. At the same time, the concept of eschatological fulfillment itself is conceptually transformed such that the focus no longer lies on the idea of God’s ‘miraculous’ intervention for the salvation of the faithful,126 but rather on God’s ‘nature’ as the ethical point of reference for the 120

Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 176. On this, Normann, Teilhabe, 153; see also Clem. Alex., Strom. 7.95.2–­3. 122 Origen, Cels. 3.28; trans. H. Chadwick, Contra Celsum, 146. Cf. Normann, Teilhabe, 167. 123 On this, see Normann, Teilhabe, 176. 124 Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 109. 125 On this, see also Fornberg, Church, 88: “The letter reflects the church’s direct encounter with the strongly syncretistic and pluralistic environment.” 126 Such as occurs, e.g., in Apoc. Pet. (R) 14; on this, see Kraus, “Fürbitte,” 355ff. 121



Second Peter 1:4-11

269

faithful, which reveals itself in the salvific gifts of Christ, and on the practical ‘imitation’ of those divine ‘virtues,’ which alone are able to ensure the ultimate participation in the promised salvation and in imperishable existence in the kingdom of Christ (cf. 1:11). It is not a coincidence that, in the following verses, a virtue catalog describes the path that leads to escape from transience and the ruin of death, which entered the world through sin, and to receiving a share in imperishability and eternal salvation. Precisely because the addressees have been granted the precious promises of salvation, they ought to do everything necessary to develop these virtues in order to thereby achieve the promised goal. 2. The Proem (1:5-­11) (5) And for this reason, applying every effort, you ought to provide127 in your faith virtue, and in virtue knowledge, (6) and in knowledge self-­control, and in self-­control endurance, and in endurance piety, (7) and in piety mutual affection, and in mutual affection love (itself). (8) For if these (virtues) are yours and increase, they do not render you idle or fruitless in regard to the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. (9) For whoever is lacking these things is blind and shortsighted, and has become forgetful128 of the cleansing of their former sins. (10) Therefore, brothers and sisters, be (even) more eager to make your calling and election firm. If you do this, you will never stumble. (11) For in this way, the entry into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be richly provided to you.

The proem proper begins with a new start syntactically,129 which links substantively with vv. 3-­4 and the soteriological foundations articulated there.130 The consequence of the salvific gifts of Christ—­namely, behavior that corresponds with the “exceedingly great and precious promises”—­is a life in the “eager” effort toward virtue, specifically the ‘Christian’ virtues that grow from faith. This is simultaneously the prerequisite for the ultimate achievement of salvation, for entry into the “eternal kingdom” (vv. 10-­11). The repetition of words or word stems frames these verses between σπουδήν (v. 5) and σπουδάσατε (v. 10) as well as ἐπιχορηγεῖν (vv. 5, 11). This repetition strengthens the admonition to eagerness and emphasizes the correspondence between the “supply” or development 127

Literally, “to provide at one’s own expense,” used here figuratively, BA, s.v. Literally, he has “taken forgetfulness.” By comparison, cf. v. 15: μνήμην ποιεῖσθαι (“make memory”). 129 Grammatically, v. 5 is not an apodosis to vv. 3-­4; on this, see above, p. 249. 130 This transition is also supported in terms of form and genre by parallels in the epigraphic honorary decrees, in which exhortation or instruction for honorific action follows the identification of the benefactor’s merits. See evidence in Danker, “Decree,” 71; Ruf, Propheten, 262–­65. 128

270

Second Peter: Commentary

of virtues in life and the final “supply” or provision of entry into eternal salvation. In the course of the text, this admonition to a “pious life” stands in stark contrast to the image of the opponents who, as the author attests, lead a life “in their desires” and in opposition to the required virtues, resulting in the eschatological loss of salvation (2:1-­22). The author seeks to safeguard his addressees against such “stumbling” (v. 10). The eight-­part (or, without πίστις, seven-­part) virtue catalog131 adopts a literary form that was widespread in Hellenistic philosophy and ethics (above all in Stoicism), was adopted in various ways in Hellenistic Judaism132 and in the NT, and continued in posttestamental early Christian literature. In contrast with a simple list of virtues (and/ or vices), the present catalog takes the less common form of a series of filiations133 or “sorites” (AB, BC, etc.),134 a rhetorical device whereby the repetition of individual terms has an intensifying effect and implies an aspect of escalation. The connection of these terms with ἐν offers a spatial metaphor: the series progresses from the external ‘space’ of faith to its innermost core—­namely, love. However, a strictly logical relationship between the individual virtues is hardly in view here.135 This series of virtues only partially overlaps with other NT catalogs,136 but more agreements with such lists are found among the Apostolic Fathers.137 The agreements with Stoic catalogs are also limited,138 where ἐγκράτεια and εὐσέβεια can be found, but πίστις in a Stoic context signifies “fidelity” or “loyalty,” not Christian faith. Thus ultimately “the divergence of the ideals is more visible than the agreements.”139 Although the catalog documents a 131

On this, cf. Fornberg, Church, 97–­101; J. D. Charles, Virtue, 138–­48; Ruf, Propheten, 256–­83. See foundational discussion in Betz, “Lasterkataloge”; Fitzgerald, “Virtue/Vice Lists.” 132 Cf. Wis 8:7; Philo, Sacr. 27; Leg. 1.64; cf. also in Qumran 1QS IV, 2–­6 and in m. Sotah 8:15. 133 Berger, Formen, 211–­12. 134 Cf. further Wis 6:17-­20 and m. Sotah 9:15; the form “A ἐν B,” which appears to express a locative component, nevertheless only has parallels in texts that do not present any real series (T. Ash. 5:1; Plut., Mor. 441a); on this, see Ruf, Propheten, 280–­81; on sorites or gradatio, see the foundational work by H. A. Fischel, “Sorites.” 135 Unlike T. Ash. 5:1, where it is said that “in” every aspect its opposite is inherent (thus, e.g., in laughter, grief, etc.). This is not the case here. On the semantics of ἐν see the detailed discussion in Kraus, Sprache, 125–­27. 136 Ruf, Propheten, 272: four elements in common with 1 Tim 6:11; three elements in common with 1 Thess 1:3; Gal 5:22-­23; 2 Cor 8:7; 2 Tim 3:10; and Rev 2:19; and only two elements in common with 2 Cor 6:6-­7; 1 Tim 4:12; and 2 Tim 2:22. The correspondence is most frequent with πίστις and ἀγάπη. 137 Cf. Ruf, Propheten, 274–­75, who compares 1 Clem. 1.2; 62.2; 64.1; Herm. Vis. 3.8.7; Herm. Mand. 6.1.1; 8.9; 12.1; Herm. Sim. 9.15.2; and Barn. 2.2–­3 and finds in these texts, alongside πίστις and ἀγάπη, frequently also ὑπομονή and above all ἐγκράτεια, both of which also appear in 2 Pet 1:6. 138 Cf. J. D. Charles, Virtue, 139. 139 Ruf, Propheten, 278.



Second Peter 1:5-11

271

stronger reception of Hellenistic virtue ethics in the Christianity of the second century (ἀρετή, ἐγκράτεια, εὐσέβεια), the individual terms must be understood based on their use in the whole of 2 Pet, not just from some ‘template.’ It is hardly a coincidence that πίστις, mentioned already in v. 1, is found at the beginning of the list and ἀγάπη, the highest ethical ideal in the whole of early Christianity, stands climactically at the end. In this 2 Pet 1:5-­7 corresponds with the statement formulated in Ign. Eph. 14.1: “The beginning is faith, the end is love.”

5 The connection to v. 4 with αὐτὸ τοῦτο expresses a consecutive relation (“for this very reason”). This is affirmed again in the repetition of the admonition with διὸ μᾶλλον in v. 10. In a common formulation140 the addressees are encouraged to “apply every effort” and in their faith—­which has been given to them (v. 1)—­to now allow virtue (ἀρετή) to develop as well. Here ἀρετή connects to v. 3, where the term had not coincidentally been applied to Christ himself. Thus, these verses are concerned with a practical correspondence with that which the divine lord and “savior” Jesus Christ himself represents, who has given everything to the addressees (v. 3). ‘Mimesis’ of Christ should be found in the “pious life.” The notion of mimesis is quite common in early Christianity.141 Paul admonishes his addressees to be his “imitators” (1 Cor 4:15; 11:1), and in John the disciples are called to a love that corresponds with the love demonstrated by Christ (John 13:34-­35) or, following the washing of feet, they are exhorted to imitate his example (John 13:15). In accordance with the ancient concept of mimesis, this is not a matter of a simple exact repetition of individual actions but rather the imitation of the whole ethical model presented in the person and their deeds.

The starting point for the list of “virtues” is πίστις, which is a fixed element of NT virtue catalogs (cf. 1 Thess 1:3; Gal 5:22-­23; 2 Cor 8:7; 1 Tim 6:11; 2 Tim 2:22; 3:10; Rev 2:19), often in connection with ἀγάπη,142 and frequently serves as the point of departure in Christian virtue catalogs of the second century.143 140

The hapax legomenon παρεισφέρειν corresponds with εἰσφέρειν, frequently found in inscriptions, such that the phrase here adapts εἰσφέρειν πᾶσαν σπουδήν, common in Koine Greek. See Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 184. 141 1 Cor 4:16; 11:1; 1 Thess 1:6; 2:14; 2 Thess 3:7, 9; Heb 13:7; and, without the phraseology, John 13:15; on this, see most recently Bennema, “Mimesis”; Burridge, Imitating Jesus; van der Watt, “Reciprocity.” 142 Cf. Ruf, Propheten, 271–­72. This is often accompanied by “endurance” (ὑπομονή), which can perhaps be understood as a variation on the triad “faith–­love–­hope” (1 Cor 13:13). 143 Herm. Vis. 3.8.1 likewise begins with πίστις and ends with ἀγάπη; Barn. 2.2–­3 begins with πίστις, as do 1 Clem. 1.2; 62.2; 64.4; Herm. Mand. 6.1.1; 8.9; Herm. Sim. 9.15.2; Acts John 29; and Acts Paul Thec. 17 (cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 185).

272

Second Peter: Commentary

In its pagan, and above all Roman, context (fides), the term has the sense of “loyalty,” which is owed to a ruler, patron, or benefactor,144 and also occurs with this sense in Hellenistic virtue catalogs.145 This aspect might also resonate here because of the formal dependence on Hellenistic honorary decrees: loyalty to the “Savior” and benefactor demands the response of a life in the ἀρετή that corresponds with him, and therein adaptation to his nature.146 However, the sense of πίστις in the present context is primarily determined by the fact that the addressees have received it (v. 1) and that πίστις is closely associated with the “knowledge” of Christ—­indeed, it can be circumscribed with the term ἐπίγνωσις of Christ. In this respect, following the usage characteristic of early Christianity since Paul, here, too, πίστις is “faith”: πίστις is the core concept of the Christian relationship with God or of belonging to Christ, which as a relational concept includes the content of faith as well as the act of faith, or, better, the praxis of faith. The author is concerned here with praxis—­that is, with the virtues that grow out of faith and constitute a life lived in accordance with God (and therein a “pious” life). However, the ‘Christian’ sense of πίστις should not be set in opposition to the Hellenistic Roman meaning: there are certainly analogies with the understanding of fides as loyalty to be seen in the correspondence with the divine “Savior” and his ‘moral quality.’

While v. 1 asserts that the addressees have received faith (πίστις) and, according to v. 3, also everything that is necessary for a “pious life,” the author now admonishes them, in their faith, to also allow virtue (ἀρετή) to take effect. He thereby connects with the mention of Christ’s ἀρετή (v. 3), which demands an appropriate response in the style of ancient benefaction. At the same time, he implicitly opposes a concept of Christianity that considers faith to be independent of an ethical way of life. In substance, this connects with Jude147 and Jas, which confront a (likely misunderstood) Pauline or post-­Pauline conception (cf. 2 Pet 2:19; 3:15-­16) according to which it is possible for faith to exist without corresponding “works” (Jas 2:14ff.) or virtues, or the absence of such virtues is unable to endanger salvation. The term “virtue” (ἀρετή) is rare in early Christian virtue catalogs (elsewhere only in Phil 4:8; Herm. Mand. 12.3.1), but is regularly found in Hellenistic Roman lists, for the most part as a summary umbrella term for ethically positive characteristics. The term is also rare in the LXX, but was used frequently in Hellenistic Jewish texts (2–­4 Macc, Wis, Philo, Josephus), and in those texts 144

On this, cf. Schumacher, Entsehung, 276–­81; as well as C. Strecker, “Fides.” Cf. Epict., Diss. 2.22.30 and 4.3.7, or in Plutarch’s dialogue on love, Amatorius 23 (= Mor. 769a); on this, see Vögtle, Tugend-­und Lasterkataloge, 125, 189. 146 So also Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 179. On the significance of this loyalty in ancient patron-­client relationships, cf. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 158–­59. 147 Cf. Jude 4: “who pervert grace into licentiousness.” See above, pp. 74–­75. 145



Second Peter 1:5

273

documents the adoption of the categories of Hellenistic moral philosophy.148 In contrast to the sparse usage in the NT (five occurrences, three of which are in 2 Pet), the term is used more often in the second century (also in connection with δικαιοσύνη), in the sense of a specifically ‘Christian’ ethic.149 Faith is supposed to engender a Christian way of life. In the broader ancient context (e.g., according to Aristotle) virtue is the way of life that leads to happiness (to be developed through education and training [παιδεία]). In this context, the admonition to virtue is reasonable and plausible in Christian ethics as well. “Knowledge” (γνῶσις) is found in Hellenistic virtue catalogs150 (often at the beginning or the end), where it designates philosophical or religious knowledge.151 In Christian virtue catalogs, the term is less common,152 and no longer appears in the initial or final position: following the tradition of biblical and early Jewish wisdom theology, “knowledge” here usually describes a knowledge that grows from faith (cf. Col 2:3), is less speculative than practical,153 contributes to right and virtuous behavior, and ultimately reaches its culmination in love (1 Cor 13:2). However, 2 Pet is distinguished from its Christian predecessors by the weight of γνῶσις terminology,154 and the inclusion of γνῶσις here after ἀρετή in the virtue catalog at the same time offers an insight into the author’s own theological concerns, or into a milieu in which “knowledge” is also an important and positive value in the context of Christian faith. Nowhere in 2 Pet does γνῶσις carry negative connotations; by contrast, it is closely connected with the term ἐπίγνωσις (cf. 2 Pet 3:18). Thus the usage of the term here suggests neither criticism of the opponents’ allegedly speculative gnosis155 nor an affinity with Gnosticism on the part of the author. Rather, the term is employed here—­as it is later in Clement of Alexandria156—­as an absolute positive. 148

In the virtue catalogs in Philo, Sacr. 27 and Leg. 1.64, ἀρετή is the starting point; in Leg. 1.64 and Wis 8:7 it is the superordinate term for the four cardinal virtues. Cf. Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 179. 149 2 Clem. 10.1; Herm. Mand. 1.1.2; Herm. Sim. 6.1.4; 8.10.1; cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 185. 150 See Vögtle, Tugend-­und Lasterkataloge, 187–­91; Dupont, Gnosis, 388–­93; J. D. Charles, Virtue, 141. 151 So, for example, in Corp. herm. 13.7–­9. 152 Cf. 2 Cor 6:6; 8:7; 1 Clem. 1.2; Barn. 2.3; Acts Pet. 2; Acts John 29. 153 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 186. 154 Neither Jude nor Apoc. Pet. use this terminology, 1 Pet 3:7 uses the term only in a vague sense, and in Paul as well “knowledge” bears less significance than it does among some of his Corinthian readers; on this, see Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 252. 155 So Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 306. No connection can be made here with 1 Tim 6:20. 156 On the significance of γνῶσις in Clement and the connections with 2 Pet, see Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 250–­59.

274

Second Peter: Commentary

The substantive relation between virtue and knowledge remains unclear. Whether virtue is supposed to lead to and deepen knowledge or vice versa remains undetermined. It is, however, sufficiently clear that knowledge as well as faith would be deficient without the virtues. 6 “Self-­control” (ἐγκράτεια) is a virtue characteristic of Hellenistic thought.157 It corresponds with the Stoic ideal of the free person, who controls the passions rather than being controlled by them. In diaspora Judaism, and above all in Philo, this idea was broadly adopted and furnished with ascetic features.158 In Christian virtue catalogs, the term occurs initially only in Gal 5:23 (cf. also Acts 24:25, and the adjectival form in Titus 1:8), then more frequently in the apostolic fathers (1 Clem., 2 Clem., Herm.) and later texts in which the Hellenistic ideal was adopted as a component of Christian ethics. Clement (Strom. 7.46) is also able to say that knowledge leads to self-­control. In 2 Pet, the ideal of ἐγκράτεια stands in stark contrast to the unbridled behavior that the opponents are accused of (2:7, 10, 18, etc.). “Endurance” (ὑπομονή) occurs more frequently in NT virtue catalogs,159 at times perhaps in place of ἐλπίς (“hope”).160 Firm perseverance in difficult circumstances was also a virtue in Hellenistic thought, and was sometimes subordinated to “courage” (ἀνδρεία),161 but there are broad correlations found in early Jewish and Christian thought, and the internal connection between self-­control, endurance, and “piety” is easy to follow. “Piety” (εὐσέβεια) also occurs in Hellenistic virtue catalogs. The term primarily designates reverence for the gods, but beyond that also for regulations and authorities.162 This virtue, too, was adopted in Hellenistic Judaism (Philo, 4 Macc); Let. Aris. 24 even uses it in reference to respectful behavior toward other people, and in Let. Aris. 136 and Philo (Spec. 2.63), εὐσέβεια and “righteousness” are closely linked. In early Christianity the term was long avoided163 and is first taken up in texts with a strong Hellenistic influence such as the 157 Socrates declared this to be a cardinal virtue (Xenophon, Memorabilia 1.5.4; further Sext. Emp., Adversus mathematicos 9.153). 158 In Sir 18:30 and Philo, Spec. 1.149–­150, self-­control is the opposite of desire (ἐπιθυμία). Cf. also Wis 8:21; Jos., B.J. 2.120 (on the Essenes) and 4 Macc 5:34, where ἐγκράτεια is paralleled with the law (νόμος). 159 Rom 5:3-­4; 1 Tim 6:11; 2 Tim 3:10; Titus 2:2; Acts 2:19 (cf. 1 Clem. 62.2; 64.4; Herm. Mand. 8.1.9; Barn. 2.2). Cf. also 1 Cor 13:7; Jas 1:12; 1 Pet 2:20. 160 So Ruf, Propheten, 272–­73. 161 So Arist., Eth. nic. 1115a–­1117b. 162 Cf. Förster, “σέβομαι,” 176–­77. 163 Förster, “σέβομαι,” 181, explains this with the differing understanding of God: “What εὐσεβεῖν evokes is not a personal entity, but rather a great order, not ὁ θεός, but τὸ θεῖον.”



Second Peter 1:5-8

275

Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim 2:2; 4:8; 6:6; cf. 1 Clem. 1.2). Here εὐσέβεια describes less a specific virtue than the “pious way of life” (v. 3) more generally—­that is, like ἀρετή, the ethically oriented Christian life as a whole. 7 With φιλαδελφία (“brotherly love”), which otherwise occurs in early Christian virtue catalogs only in 1 Pet 3:8; Acts Pet. 2; and Acts John 29, the author adopts a term that in pagan linguistic usage designates affection for natural siblings,164 which was also used in this way in Hellenistic Judaism (e.g., 4 Macc 13:19-­27). Early Christianity then used the term within its metaphorical familial language in reference to fellow Christians (1 Thess 4:9; Rom 12:10; Heb 13:1; 1 Pet 1:22; cf. 1 John 3:14; cf. John 13:34-­35), such that the usage in this list presents a specifically Christian component.165 This usage suggests a connection with ‘general’ love. It is no coincidence that love (ἀγάπη) constitutes the climactic end point of the virtue catalog. This term is already central in the Jesus tradition (cf. the double commandment in Mark 12:30-­31 par.; Matt 5:43-­4 4) and for Paul is the core and consummation of the Christian ethic (Gal 5:22; Rom 13:10; 1 Cor 13:13; cf. Col 3:14). It occurs in the early Christian triad of faith, love, and hope (1 Cor 13:13; cf. 1 Thess 1:3) and according to Ignatius (Eph. 14.1) is the purpose of Christian life. In a few early Christian virtue catalogs, as is the case here, it is found climactically at the end (Rom 5:3-­5; 1 Cor 8:7; Herm. Vis. 3.8.5, 7). The author of 2 Pet sees love as the inner core and the consummation of the Christian virtues, and although 2 Pet nowhere speaks of the love of God (cf. Jude 21) or of Christ, it does constitute the final correspondence with the ethical ‘goods’ (ἀρετή) of the Lord and Savior (v. 4). Love is the culmination of the depiction of the Christian way of life, which is rooted in faith in Christ and the knowledge of Christ, and had previously been introduced as that εὐσέβεια (“pious way of life”) for which everything necessary had been granted to the addressees through Christ (v. 3). 8 For this reason, the author again speaks to the addressees directly in the second person. In doing so, he initially does not express a demand or admonition but simply states that these virtues are present and growing in the addressees. If this is the case (which the author does not doubt is true of his readers), they will not stand idle or fruitless “with respect to the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.”166 This, then, is not a matter of the virtues leading to the knowledge of Christ, for this is already given. Rather, the author is conversely concerned 164

So, for example, in Plutarch’s pertinent dialogue Περὶ φιλαδελφίας (De fraterno amore). Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 187. In Philo (Virt. 51 and 96; Spec. 4.97), φιλανθρωπία is instead connected with εὐσέβεια; cf. J. D. Charles, Virtue, 144. 166 So Kraus, Sprache, 102–­5. 165

276

Second Peter: Commentary

with the fact that this knowledge—­and thus also faith—­should not be fruitless, and this very thing is ensured by the development and practice of the Christian virtues.167 Ultimately, this is about the eschatological judgment, where the faithful should not be found without fruit, if they want to reach their aim. The adjectives ἀργός (“idle, lazy”) and ἄκαρπος (“barren, without fruit”) are rare in the NT.168 However, ἀργός does occur in Jas precisely where faith without works is described (Jas 2:20), and 2 Pet also thinks along these lines: the faithful should not appear without the ethical way of life that grows from faith—­figuratively: without the “fruits” of their faith. “Fruit” is used on multiple occasions in the NT as a metaphorical expression for good works or ethical qualities,169 and already Paul introduces his virtue catalog in Gal 5:22 with this metaphor. According to Titus 3:14, the faithful should do “good works” lest they be “without fruit” (ἄκαρποι), and also 1 Clem. 34.1, 4, exhorts his addressees to do good, so that they do not appear lazy (ἀργοί) or remiss (παρειμένοι), but like good workers will ultimately receive their payment. In contrast, Jude 12 describes the opponents as “barren trees” (cf. Herm. Sim. 4.1.4; 9.19.2).

The admonition thus occurs in an eschatological context. Faith should produce virtues—­bear fruit—­so that the faithful ultimately achieve salvation. 9 In contrast, v. 9 articulates a general judgment of those whose faith produces no fruit. This does not refer to the opponents, who are attacked later with accusations of very concrete negative behaviors,170 but rather refers specifically to “idle” or “forgetful” Christians—­a danger the author sees among his addressees. Such Christians are—­as formulated in a peculiar doubled expression—­“ blinded by shortsightedness.” These two words are probably used synonymously: the use of the participle of a very rare word μυωπάζειν in addition to the more common τυφλός “blind” offers a rhetorical escalation.171 167

εἰς probably does not strictly refer to a purpose here, but should rather be understood figuratively (as “in reference to,” “with regard to”; so Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 188; Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 185). Contra Vögtle, Judasbrief, 152, who sees expressed here (and confirmed by 3:18) an increase in Christian knowledge following the moral effort; and even farther in this direction, Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 87, who—­probably incorrectly—­ regards ἐπίγνωσις as the final element of the virtue catalog. 168 The doubled expression simultaneously offers an effective alliteration. 169 Matt 3:8, 10; 21:43; Luke 13:6-­9; John 15:2-­8; Gal 5:22; Eph 5:9; Col 1:10; Heb 2:11; Jas 3:18; cf. LXX Prov 19:22. 170 So, rightly, Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 111. Contra Vögtle, Judasbrief, 152, who believes that the author has “in view the type of person represented by the libertine dissidents.” 171 So Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 189. All further speculations as to whether the author “wanted to distinguish between two slightly different possibilities in a process of blindness” (Grundmann, Brief, 74n28) or even sought to explain blindness as a result of the “narrowing of the field of vision to that which is closest at hand” or “worldly” (Vögtle, Judasbrief, 153)



Second Peter 1:8-9

277

Blindness as a metaphor for a lack of spiritual perception and faithlessness is conventional in early Christianity, but there is here (as in a few later texts)172 a specific reference to ethical misconduct.173 Seeing and “insightful” faith leads to an ethical life, while the failure to pursue the ethical consequences of faith is regarded as “blindness.” In addition, the semantic field “see”174 in 2 Pet is closely related to statements about knowledge (ἐπίγνωσις/γνῶσις) as a result of “seeing.” Accordingly, the following sentence shifts the semantic field from the optical dimension to the motif of “forgetting/remembering,” which is central to 2 Pet (cf. 1:12-­15). Whoever lacks the virtues has apparently forgotten what they have received and experienced (in baptism). This is not to say that they (like the opponents according to 2:20-­21) fall back again into the previous unsaved state before their baptism or even into a worse situation, but it does mean that they have not drawn the necessary conclusions from the liberation that occurred in baptism. “Forgetting” is expressed here with λήθη, a hapax legomenon within the NT, in the phrase λήθην λαμβάνειν + gen., which is common in Hellenistic language.175 This then corresponds with μνήμην ποιεῖσθαι (lit. “make memory”) in 1:15, and it appears that the author here precisely observed the nuances of active “remembering” and rather slippery “forgetting”: against the passivity of forgetting and an ethically idle lifestyle, he seeks to arouse once again the “eagerness” for a way of life that corresponds with faith and the divine gifts.

The note on the “cleansing of (the) former sins” probably refers to baptism, in which forgiveness of sins was bestowed upon the addressees, and which at the same time is connected with the break from the old life “in sin” and the beginning of a new life “in righteousness” and a “pious way of life.” It is a common topos of emerging Christian baptismal theology that baptism as an initiation rite implies the forgiveness of sins, and indeed as a concrete process signifies the washing away, the cleansing of sins (cf. Acts 22:16; 1 Cor 6:11; Eph 5:26; Titus 3:5; Barn. 11.1). This topos forms the background here and attests to a baptismal theology in nuce, although 2 Pet otherwise does not mention baptism. in semiophthalmological terms are just as flawed as deliberation about the extent to which an intentional closing of the eyes (Spitta, Brief, 74–­75; Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 308) might be articulated here. It is clear that for the author this spiritual blindness is culpable and entails the soteriological consequence of “stumbling”—­that is, the loss of salvation (cf. vv. 10-­11). 172 1 John 2:11; Rev 3:17; 1 Clem. 3.4. 173 Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 189. 174 On this Kraus, Sprache, 354. 175 Cf. BA, s.v. “λαμβάνω,” 2.

278

Second Peter: Commentary

However, it is no accident that the author speaks of “former” sins here. While NT texts presuppose that new believers in Christ were enmeshed in various sins in their former lives (cf. Eph 2:2; 1 Pet 1:14; 4:3), nowhere else in the NT articulates an explicit limitation of the forgiveness granted in baptism to sins committed previously.176 This occurs here for the first time and is then paralleled in Herm. Mand. 4.3.1–­2, and in Justin, 1 Apol. 61. Thus, 2 Pet is situated in the context of the theological discourse surrounding repentance in the second century. Second Clement 6.9 exhorts his audience to keep baptism “pure and untainted,”177 and Hermas formulates, “Whoever has received forgiveness of sins must sin no more, but live in purity” (Herm. Mand. 4.3.2). It is within this theological context that 2 Pet’s admonition to a virtuous life is to be understood. 10 With a renewed direct address, the author brings the proem to a close. Verses 10-­11 refer back to v. 5 in several ways. The διό along with the climactic μᾶλλον intensifies the αὐτὸ τοῦτο from v. 5: the addressees should strive for an ethical way of life not only because of Christ’s benefactions, but even more so in order to avoid falling prey to forgetfulness and blindness. The language of “eagerness” or “effort” (σπουδή) is taken up again in the imperative σπουδάσατε.178 Here the soteriological significance of the effort for a virtuous life is more clearly articulated: it is a matter of “confirmation” (βεβαίαν . . . ποιεῖσθαι, “to make firm”) or “ratification”179 of one’s own calling and election. That is, in the calling and election that has taken place, in the knowledge of Christ, in faith in him and in baptism for the forgiveness of sins, salvation is not yet definitively granted to the addressees. It is promised to them but will only be granted on the condition that they do not forget what has been given to them, but rather confirm it with the appropriate response in their way of life.180 If this 176

That Jesus’ death atones (only) for sins committed in the “period of endurance” was expressed in the pre-­Pauline atonement tradition in Rom 3:25. Paul used this tradition, but does not articulate such a limitation in his own formulations. 177 Like 2 Pet 1:11, 2 Clem. 6.9 connects the lasting purification of sins after baptism with entry into the βασιλεία. 178 In late NT texts (Eph 4:3; Heb 4:11) and the Apostolic Fathers (Ign. Eph. 10.3; 2 Clem. 10.2; 18.2), the verb expresses a ‘moral effort’ and occurs three times in 2 Pet (also 1:15 and 3:14). Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 190. 179 The word stem has in part a legal dimension of meaning that could resonate here. Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 190: “Christ has called the Christian into his kingdom (v 3), promising him immortality (v 4), but an appropriate moral response is required if his final salvation is to be guaranteed.” 180 A very similar perspective is found in 2 Clem., where the relationship between Christ and Christians is construed within the framework of ancient patron-­client relationships and Christian life appears as the appropriate response to God’s promises (see among others 2 Clem. 11.1; 15.2–­3); on this, see Kelhoffer, “Reciprocity.”



Second Peter 1:9-10

279

response does not take place, because they forget the gift of salvation that has been guaranteed to them or become idle and negligent, there is a danger that they will not reach their goal but will “stumble” along the way. In the present context, “to stumble” (πταίειν) is not to be taken in the simple sense of “to sin,” as it is in Jas 2:10 and 3:2; rather, in view of the eschatological fulfillment of salvation mentioned in v. 11, it should be understood as the loss of salvation, which is a possibility for the addressees.181 However, the addressees should “not stumble,” but in accordance with the precious promise given to them (v. 4) receive that which was promised: they should enter into the “eternal kingdom” (v. 11) and so escape perishability or the ruin of death (v. 4) and receive a share in the imperishable. Therefore, the author seeks to “remind” them of this by way of admonition (vv. 12, 15). Similar statements are found in other approximately contemporaneous texts, such as in 2 Clem. 5.5–­6, which likewise mentions the “great and wonderful” “promise of Christ”—­namely, “the restfulness of the coming kingdom and of eternal life,” which the faithful ought to “live piously and justly” in order to gain, or in Barn. 4.13, where judgment according to works leads to the conclusion “that we should never rest, since we are called, and fall asleep upon our sins, and (thus) the evil ruler, gaining power over us, should drive us away from the kingdom of the Lord.”182

Jude, which is adapted by 2 Pet, had already spoken of “stumbling” in its closing (v. 24). Yet unlike the assurance given there that God could preserve the addressees “without stumbling,” the text here (as in 2 Pet 3:17-­18) refers to the necessity of one’s own engagement in the confirmation of being called.183 The mention of “calling” and “election” could further refer back to Rom 8:28-­30, where these divine acts also occur (though not in the same verbal terms). But whereas in that text the line of thought leads to the triumphant questions of what can harm those who are called, elected, and honored by God (Rom 8:31ff.), here we find the exhortation to virtuous behavior, which should respond to and affirm the calling and election. “Should 2 Pet 1:10 really want to 181

So, rightly, Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 191. The addressees are distinguished from the opponents, who have already fallen into ruin (cf. 2:20), but they are also at risk of neglecting the effort toward a ‘pious life’ and of still owing a response to the salvific gifts and promises of Christ. 182 Trans. following Lindemann, Väter, 35. 183 Of course, Jude is also aware of the necessity of ethical probation, and 2 Pet 1:3 is able to solemnly say that faith and all that is necessary for a “pious life” have been given to the addressees. But the two are in agreement (against Paul and potentially positions that invoke him) that ethical probation is ‘soteriologically necessary.’ Second Peter emphasizes this even more strongly than Jude.

280

Second Peter: Commentary

enter into dialogue with Rom 8:28-­30, then 2 Pet 1:10 can only be understood as a corrective to Paul’s text.”184 There may instead be an interesting reference to Apoc. Pet.: According to Apoc. Pet. (R) 14, it is precisely the κλητοί and ἐκλεκτοί who will be saved by Christ in fulfillment of his promises through the “good baptism in rescue from the Acherusian Lake” and enter with him into his “eternal kingdom.”185 These phrases are very close to those of 2 Pet, and if 2 Pet depends on Apoc. Pet. rather than the reverse,186 it appears that the unconditional promise of eschatological salvation of the “called and elected” through a specific eschatological “baptism” or purification187 is modified and corrected here with the reference to the necessity of an ethical way of life, which alone is able to ensure entry into the fulfillment of salvation for those who have been called and elected.

11 Following the negative statement that those who behave in this way “will never stumble,” v. 11 concludes with a positive formulation of the salvific prospects. The addressees—­if they make an eager effort to live virtuously—­“will be richly provided” with entry into the eternal kingdom of Christ. ἐπιχορηγηθήσεται incorporates the verb from v. 5 and thus illustrates that the eschatological gift of complete salvation not only fulfills the promise of salvation that has already been given, but is at the same time the appropriate response to the eager mobilization of the ethical fruits of faith: the eschatological reward. Its extent is accentuated by the adverb πλουσίως, just as the promises had been previously described in v. 4 as “precious and exceedingly great.” Verses 10-­11 thus round out the train of thought that had begun in (vv. 3-­4 and) v. 5. Used here climactically, the image of entry into the “eternal kingdom,” with its concrete spatial metaphor, differs from the rather abstract promise of participation in “divine nature” (v. 4). In the present context, both statements are formulated with a view toward eschatological fulfillment; neither of the two has already been realized in the present time of the addressees (see above on v. 4), although the ethical approximation of the virtues represented by God and Christ is conceivable, at least to a degree, in a virtuous life. But whereas the statement in v. 4 is entirely drawn from the language of Hellenistic 184 Ruf, Propheten, 303; however, based on the absence of lexical agreements, Ruf maintains that a direct engagement with this Pauline text cannot be demonstrated as the intention of 2 Pet (304). 185 Translation following Kraus and Nicklas, Petrusevangelium, 128. 186 So Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 125; against Bauckham, “2 Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter.” 187 Concretely, this passage is even concerned with a scenario in which the “called and elected” ask for deliverance from a place of punishment and, in accordance with the promise of Jesus, is granted them, such that they enter into the eternal kingdom with those who have been found righteous; on this, see Kraus, “Fürbitte,” 395.



Second Peter 1:10-11

281

philosophy, the backdrop of v. 11 is the image of the kingdom of God, which was central in Jewish apocalypticism and in the proclamation of Jesus, and is transformed already in the NT—­and programmatically so in the Gospel of John (cf. John 18:36-­37)—­into language of the kingdom of Jesus Christ.188 The “entry” (εἴσοδος) into the kingdom of God adopts the entry sayings from the Gospels (Matt 7:21; 18:3; Mark 10:15; Luke 18:17, 25; John 3:5), although in contrast to these, the element of the solemn or triumphal entry is added here. In the combination of the two statements of salvation from v. 4 and v. 11, it is striking that the former fits in well with the linguistic and ethical style of the starkly Hellenistic proem, whereas the image of those who have been proved to be faithful entering into the eternal kingdom of Christ contrasts markedly with v. 4 and conveys traditional apocalyptic conceptions. In post-­NT texts, there is not often mention of “entering” the kingdom: Hermas still speaks several times of “entering into the kingdom of God” (Herm. Sim. 9.12.3–­8; 16.2–­4), and in 2 Clem. 6.9 and 11.7, analogously to 2 Pet 1, the hope of entering “into the royal domain of God” or “into his kingdom” is connected with the ethical admonition to do justice, or to keep baptism undefiled. However, where there is mention of the kingdom of Christ, the metaphor of “entry” is usually absent: Christ’s kingdom “appears” (2 Tim 4:1), the faithful tenaciously hold fast to his kingdom (Barn. 7.11), or they have already been “transferred” there (Col 1:13). Only the Paul of 2 Tim is able to articulate the hope that at the eschaton Christ will save him “for his heavenly kingdom” (2 Tim 4:18). But before 2 Pet 1:11 and Apoc. Pet. (E) 14.4, there is no mention of “entrance” or “entry” into Christ’s kingdom. Even more striking is the language of the “eternal kingdom” of Christ: the idea that God’s kingdom lasts “forever” is shaped by OT passages and is present in Dan (Aram. in Dan 3:33; 7:27; Gk. in 4:34 θʼ; 7:27 θʼ; and LXX) together with the conception of the approaching or dawning kingdom of God, which was significant for Jesus’ proclamation. Dan 7:14 applies this to the Son of Man. Yet when the NT speaks of Christ’s kingdom alongside the kingdom of God, this is always conceived as temporally limited, in contrast to the definitive state of salvation of the eternal kingdom of God (1 Cor 15:23ff.; Rev 20:1-­6; cf. 4 Ezra 7:28). Perhaps the closest statement to that of 2 Pet 1:11 is found in Heb 12:28, where the eschatological hope is formulated as receiving an “unshakable kingdom” (βασιλεία ἀσάλευτος). Here the Hellenistic concept of a kingdom free of inconstancy and perishability (cf. 2 Pet 1:4) pertains directly to the kingdom, although in Heb as well, this refers to the kingdom of God (Heb 12:22) or 188 On this, see Frey, Eschatologie, 3:271–­80. The ascription of the kingdom to Jesus is, in any case, a later development. It is absent from Mark and Paul, occurs in Matt only in the ascription by others (the mother of the sons of Zebedee, Matt 20:21) or in connection with the ‘Son of Man’ title (Matt 13:41; 16:28); likewise in Luke in the ascription by the angels (Luke 1:33) and the thieves at the cross (Luke 23:42) as well as Jesus’ own statement in Luke 22:29-­30. Cf. Eph 5:5; Col 1:13; Heb 1:8; 2 Tim 4:1, 18.

282

Second Peter: Commentary

God’s city, which the faithful are to enter together with the pious from the OT period and with Christ as their ‘vanguard’ (cf. Heb 12:2). With a very similar formulation, Jesus says in Apoc. Pet. (E) 14.4 that he and his elected, with the patriarchs, will depart in jubilation into his “eternal kingdom.”

Before Apoc. Pet. 14.4 and 2 Pet 1:11, the syntagma of the “eternal kingdom” of Christ is not attested.189 It is then found in several passages in Justin—­where there is, however, in part a reference to Dan 7190—­and in a few other texts.191 But the recollection of Dan 7 cannot be demonstrated for all these passages.192 For 2 Pet 1:11 as well, this assumption can hardly be proved. The adoption of an apocalyptic image, which is awkward in context, can most easily be explained if 2 Pet is inspired by Apoc. Pet. in this formulation. The image found there of those who are called and elected entering the eternal kingdom in eschatological joy is adopted in 2 Pet, but under different basic soteriological presuppositions: According to Apoc. Pet., Christ grants salvation to the called and elect at their request, together with the righteous and the patriarchs, in accordance with his promises, even from a place of punishment (i.e., in the case of sinful misconduct). But according to 2 Pet, receipt of the precious promises is bound up with the appropriate ‘response’ to the calling and election and to the divine gifts. A life in (Christian) virtues is required—­as the fruit of faith—­if entry into salvation, into the “eternal kingdom” of Christ, is to take place at the eschaton. II. The Letter Body 1. The Body Opening (1:12-­15): The ‘Testament’ of Peter (12) Therefore I want to remind you of these things always, although you know them and are firmly established in the present truth. (13) But I believe it is right, so long as I am in this tent, to rouse you in your memory, (14) because I know that my tent will soon be put away, even as our Lord Jesus Christ has shown me. (15) But I will endeavor that even after my departure you are able to remember these things at any time.

A new section begins with v. 12, marked by the causal διό (cf. 3:14) and the shift of the subject to the “I” of the implied author. Extending to v. 15, this 189 Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 192, who, however, regards Apoc. Pet. as dependent upon 2 Pet. 190 On this cf. Ruf, Propheten, 305. 191 Melito, Homily on the Passover 68; Aristid., Apol. 16.1b–­2 (text uncertain), Ps.-­Clem. Hom. 10.25.3; 13.14.2; and Mart. Pol. 20.2.l. (on this, see Ruf, Propheten, 305n162; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 192). 192 It is clear that this reference is present in Justin because the dialogue with Trypho discusses the scriptural basis for the ascription of the kingdom to Jesus. The other passages given above, however, do not necessarily contain such a reference.



Second Peter 1:11-15

283

section is framed by future tenses (vv. 12, 15), the motif of “remembrance” (vv. 12, [13,] 15), the demonstrative τούτων (vv. 12, 15), and a temporal expression of constancy (ἀεί/ἑκάστοτε). A repeated reference to the nearness of his own death is embedded in vv. 13-­14. Epistolographically, vv. 12-­15 (and possibly also 16-­21) can be classified as an “epistolary self-­recommendation.”193 The opening of the letter body identifies the occasion or intention of the letter (vv. 12-­15). Following this, the authority of the (fictive) author and of the prophetic letter (1:16-­21) are discussed, before two extensive sections address the problem of the opponents and their position polemically (2:1-­22) and argumentatively (3:1-­13). Verses 12-­15 characterize 2 Pet as an (epistolary) testament of Peter to later addressees. Nearing his death, Peter looks beyond his life on earth and seeks to provide the addressees with the possibility of constant remembrance of the apostolic truth for the time after his death. This is the explicit intention of the letter, which is taken up again in 3:1-­2 (cf. 3:17) and which characterizes 2 Pet as a whole.194 In terms of the letter’s form, alongside epistolary elements, certain motifs emerge that stem from the genre of the literary testament, or the farewell discourse, which is widely attested in early Jewish literature195 and is included in NT texts such as Jesus’ farewell address in John 13:31–­17:26, Paul’s farewell address in Acts 20:18-­35, as well as 2 Tim as Paul’s literary testament. Composed from a perspective after the death of the protagonist, this literary form usually offers an address to descendants or students that connects a retrospective account of the protagonist’s own life or certain episodes from it with admonitions to those who are left behind and predictions for their (historical or eschatological) future. The situation of an approaching death heightens the significance of these ‘last words’ for the descendants or followers. Testamentary texts are quite variable in their form: they can be embedded in larger narrative units, integrate elements of other genres (visions, meal scenes, prayer, etc.), and be composed in letter form (e.g., 2 Bar. 78–­86; 2 Tim). Not every literary testament necessarily includes all generic elements. In 2 Pet, ‘Peter’ speaks as an apostolic witness via his letter to an unrestricted number of readers (1:1-­2), even after his death (1:15). They are addressed 193

So Klauck, Briefliteratur, 306–­9. All this is of course to be read within the framework of the fictional authorial construction. The actual intention can absolutely differ from the intention formulated here on the lips of Peter, who finds himself approaching death. 195 In the Aramaic Visions of Amram (formerly Testament of Amram) 4Q543–­548(549?), we first see the formal pattern that then characterizes the texts of the T. 12 Patr.; cf. Frey, “Origins,” 359–­60. Biblical models are found in the blessing of Jacob (Gen 47:29–­50:14), Deut, Joshua’s farewell discourse (Josh 23–­24), Samuel’s farewell discourse (1 Sam 12), and elsewhere. Moses’ farewell discourse in Jos., A.J. 4.176–­327, also offers interesting parallels. For discussion of the genre, see Becker, Evangelium, 2:440–­45; Weiser, Timotheus, 35–­38; and M. Winter, Vermächtnis. On 2 Pet see most recently Ruf, Propheten, 201–­4. 194

284

Second Peter: Commentary

in the second person three times in vv. 12-­15, and again in 3:1-­2 . The fictive author writes in the awareness of his approaching death (vv. 13-­14), rendering the situation one of farewell. The motif of memory that should be kept alive is also among the typical elements of a literary testament, as are the admonition and prediction of future threats conveyed in 2 Pet.196

12 For the first time since the prescript, ‘Peter’ himself appears again in the plural direct address to the addressees (ὑμᾶς). After the more general admonition in vv. (3-­)5-­11, communication between the (fictive) author and the addressees is strengthened and the communicative structure established: ‘Peter’ explains his situation and his purpose in writing with a view to the addressees after his death (v. 15). This passage is also of central significance for the image of Peter conveyed in this text. διό connects causally with vv. 5-­11, with the addressees’ prospects of participation in the “eternal kingdom” (v. 11) and the requisite probation of their election (v. 10). This is why the constant reminder is necessary, which ‘Peter’ seeks to ensure with his letter. The apostle is concerned for the salvation of the addressees—­including those who will come after his death. The beginning of this section is linguistically unusual and seems awkward. The future tense of μέλλειν is uncommon,197 and cannot be explained by the fact that, according to the authorial fiction, Peter (also) writes to readers after his death.198 It is difficult to identify a specific sense of the construction, but the periphrasis produces a solemn tone for the statement of intent.

‘Peter’s’ intention is thus to “remind.” The message of the letter is not about something new, but rather something that the addressees—­who are addressed from the beginning as ‘orthodox’ (1:1)—­are well aware of: the original apostolic proclamation. Concretely, περὶ τούτων refers to what was said in vv. 5-­11, the proem that seems to serve as a summary of the proclamation, encompassing the knowledge of Christ (v. 8) and forgiveness of sins (v. 9), eschatological expectation (v. 11) and ethics (v. 5-­7). The reminder should be able to occur constantly and repeatedly (ἀεί), and this is to be ensured even after Peter’s death 196

So Joshua in L.A.B. 24.3; Paul on the elders of Ephesus in Acts 20:32; the Paraclete in John 14:25-­26. 197 Normally μέλλειν is in the present or aorist and in itself conveys the aspect of incompleteness. Some of the MSS thus altered the text, and some commentators have conjectures. However, the usage is possible and according to Kraus (Sprache, 249–­50 and 274; as well as Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 195) should be understood here in the sense of a periphrastic form of the future ὑπομνήσω. Grundmann, Brief, 78, translates: “I want to be attentive to it always.” This refers to the apostle’s activity until his approaching death (so Schmidt, Mahnung, 354n113). 198 Against Vögtle, Judasbrief, 158 (cf. Vögtle, “Schriftwerdung,” 298–­99); and Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 114.



Second Peter 1:12-14

285

by the written form (cf. v. 15). This is not a matter of Peter’s unceasing activity, which of course would end with his death, but rather of the permanence of the reminder, which the written testimony will make possible.199 With the “reminder,” the author here already takes up a motif from the body opening of Jude (before following the thread of Jude in 2:1), which in Jude 5 is likewise linked with a reference to the addressees’ knowledge. This demonstrates how closely the reception of an epistolary Vorlage is interwoven with the testamentary setting. While in Jude 5 the addressees’ knowledge of course refers to knowledge of the biblical example of judgment, a broader stock of knowledge of the faith is in view here.

The author speaks to the addressees as those who know the truth (cf. also 1 John 2:21) and are “confirmed” in it. In rhetorical terms, one could see this as a captatio benevolentiae in view of the apparent success of the “false teachers” (2:2, 14b, 18b), but the statement is a consequence of what was articulated in the prescript: the addressees have received an “equivalent” faith (1:1; cf. Jude 3), and the admonition proceeds on the basis of this confidence in them. From the perspective of the real author, this also means that the faithful of his time “possess the full truth, identical to the faith of the apostles.”200 The notion that the word of truth of the gospel is “present” among the addressees of a community had previously been stated in Col 1:5-­6, and it is conceivable that 2 Pet 1:12 picks up on this in speaking of the “present truth.”201 Truth thus becomes a cipher for the Christian message (cf. 1 Pet 1:22) and a knowledge of faith that entails virtuous behavior.202 The form in which this truth is present with the addressees is not specified,203 yet the written apostolic testimony should enable it to be ‘safeguarded.’ 13-­14 Once again ‘Peter’ speaks about himself: his act of reminding for the benefit of the faithful is “ just” or “righteous” (δίκαιον) and right,204 indeed it is his apostolic obligation. Here v. 13 goes one step beyond v. 12: while the author had been speaking of the addressees’ steadfastness in the truth,205 199

Correctly on this, Vögtle, “Schriftwerdung,” 298–­300. Vögtle, “Schriftwerdung,” 300. In late NT texts the language of “truth” is often a term for the Christian message (cf. 2 John 4; 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Tim 2:15, and elsewhere), but the term is already used in Paul (Gal 2:5, 14; 5:7) and cannot be connected a priori with the dogmatic concept of a fixed ‘deposit of faith’ (thus, rightly, Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 198). 201 This is suggested by Schmidt, Mahnung, 223–­24. 202 Cf. Schmidt, Mahnung, 222, based on a comparison of 2 Pet 1:12 and 3:17. 203 This is not a reference to other texts, the presence of the Spirit, or an ‘office’ that ensures continuity, nor can the ‘truth’ be regarded as represented personally in the presence of Christ. 204 A parallel formulation occurs in Moses’ farewell discourse at Jos., A.J. 4.178. 205 The lexical field surrounding στηρίζειν (“confirm”) or the language of “stability” is prominent in 2 Pet (cf. 2:14; 3:16-­17); on this, see Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 197; Kraus, Sprache, 356. 200

286

Second Peter: Commentary

he now comes to his aim of keeping their memory “awake” or “awakening” it (cf. 3:1). There is apparently a danger that the addressees, who have received the truth and have it present with them, might become drowsy or forgetful (cf. 1:9) and relax their active effort for the virtues of faith (cf. v. 5). In contrast, their memory should be alert and vivid, which is articulated with the formulation μνήμην ποιεῖσθαι (“make memory”)206 in v. 15. This justifies the necessity of the testamentary letter for the author.207 ‘Peter’ alludes to the proximity of his death: as an apostle, he has had the task of “keeping awake through reminder” all his life, but now his imminent death necessitates a testamentary record of his witness.208 In discussing death, here the author uses the common Hellenistic image of physical life as a tent and of dying as taking down the tent, which then blends with a second image, according to which death resembles the removal of clothing. The reference to a tent (σκήνωμα and more often σκῆνος) is used metaphorically in Greek literature as an image for the human body, which is regarded as a temporary dwelling for the soul.209 This is found in philosophical210 and medical texts,211 as well as in Corp. herm.212 and in Hellenistic Jewish texts.213 While the image occurs in the NT only in 2 Cor 5:1, 4, and then again in 2 Pet, it is more common in Christian literature of the second century; cf., e.g., Diogn. 6.8: “The immortal soul resides in a mortal dwelling (σκήνωμα)”; Tatian, Or. Graec. 15.3; Clem. Alex., Strom. 5.94.3. In its Greek context (although not 206

The contrast is with those who, in 1:9, have “taken forgetting” (see Schmidt, Mahnung, 353). For memory or reminding as a topos of postapostolic pseudepigraphy, see also 2 Tim 2:14; Titus 3:1; for a foundational discussion on this, see Zmijewski, “Paradosis”), who, however, develops from this aspect a one-­sided apologetic view of postapostolic pseudepigraphy (for criticism see Schmidt, Mahnung, 353–­54). The aspect of a ‘constant’ reminder does not yet suggest a ‘canonization.’ 208 Cf. the parallels in the testamentary letter of Baruch in 2 Bar. 84:1-­2 (trans. A. F. J. Klijn [OTP]): “Now, I gave you knowledge, while I still live. For I have said that you should particularly learn my mighty commandments which he has instructed you. And I shall set before you some of the commandments of his judgment before I die. Remember . . .” On this, cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 198. 209 In addition to the lexica (LSJ) see also the literature on 2 Cor 5:1, esp. Thrall, Epistle, 1:357ff.; Vogel, Commentatio mortis, 229–­30; as well as the texts in the Neuer Wettstein (NW 2/1–­2:443ff.) 210 Thus, e.g., Ps.-­Plato, Axiochus 365e–­366a (cited in NW 2/1–­2:444: “We are namely souls, an immortal being, enclosed in a mortal prison; but nature surrounded us with this tent to our detriment”; also in Sentences of Sextus 320). 211 Hippocrates, Aphorismata 7.26–­38 (cited in NW 2/1–­2:444: “But the soul leaves the tabernacle of the body . . .”). 212 Corp. herm. 13.15: Tat is (in death) freed from the σκῆνος. 213 Wis 9:15; Philo, QG 4.11. Philo also uses οἶκος in this sense, so Somn. 1.122 (similarly Cicero, Tusc. 1.22, 51), as does (probably in the second century and perhaps with a Christian influence) 4 Bar. 6:6-­7. 207



Second Peter 1:13-14

287

necessarily in early Christian reception) the image reflects a dualistic anthropology,214 according to which a person’s death frees the soul from the tent, house, or even prison of the earthly body. It is no accident that Paul takes up this image in the discussion with the Corinthians (cf. 1 Cor 15:35-­50) and reflects on the process of the earthly tent’s dissolution in 2 Cor 5:1ff. with a view to being clothed with the outer garment of a heavenly dwelling. Second Peter 1:13-­14, however, does not mention the latter aspect, and appears instead to adopt here a conventional euphemism for death, which has no recognizable background in other early Christian or Hellenistic Jewish literature. This, too, demonstrates how Hellenistic language and modes of thought characterize the language of the author’s proclamation.

In v. 14a, a second metaphorical element emerges with the aspect of “setting aside,” which probably originally referred to clothing.215 A mixture of these two metaphors is already found in 2 Cor 5:3-­4, which, however, does not imply a reception of the Pauline passage here, since there are neither lexical correspondences nor an adoption of elements of the Pauline discussion here. The noun ἀπόθεσις, which is rare even outside the biblical tradition,216 is used in Clem. Alex., Strom. 1.19, for example, with a clear reference to “setting aside the flesh” (i.e., physical death). Strikingly, ‘Peter’ does not speak of merely a natural anticipation of his death; rather, v. 14b refers explicitly to a revelation through “our Lord Jesus Christ.” Grammatically, it is difficult to determine whether the καθὼς καί refers to a second source of knowledge in addition to a natural intuition.217 A similar structure is found in Acts, where Paul is first aware of his imminent death (Acts 20:25) and then receives an announcement of his imprisonment through the prophet Agabus (Acts 21:11). In any case, the announcement of death through Christ himself is emphasized. Prophecy of death by Christ is attested elsewhere in the NT only for the sons of Zebedee (Mark 10:39) and Peter (John 21:18). Of course, such a ‘special revelation’ highlights Peter’s authority and special status as an apostle of Christ.218 Yet beyond this function, there remains the question of the possible background of this remark. Excursus: Jesus’ prophecy of death to Peter and its background Knowledge of an approaching death is a conventional topos in farewell scenes, and in this context imminent death is occasionally communicated to the protagonist through 214

So Windisch, Korintherbrief, 158; Lona, Diognet, 196. Cf. Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 313; Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 65; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 199; tentatively Ruf, Propheten, 226–­27. 216 Kraus, Sprache, 349, 352. 217 So Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 199; for discussion see Ruf, Propheten, 229–­32. Second Peter 3:15 is linguistically parallel. 218 This is emphasized by Vögtle, “Schriftwerdung,” 302. 215

288

Second Peter: Commentary

a special revelation.219 This topos is found in early Christian martyrdom narratives as well, but the articulation of a special announcement by Christ to Peter found here cannot be sufficiently explained from these two contexts. Why does the author refer to a special revelation beyond the simple knowledge that his death is near? Vögtle has suggested that the remark is primarily meant to emphasize the authority of the fictive author,220 but it is unclear what this could have further contributed to Peter’s apostolic authority. Bauckam therefore rightly asserts: “The only plausible reason is that there was a prophecy of Jesus about Peter’s death which would be well-­ known to 2 Peter’s readers.”221 There are several possible explanations: a) In the NT, an announcement of Peter’s death by Christ himself is mentioned only once: in John 21:18,222 where Jesus cryptically prophesies Peter’s path to death.223 This opaque saying cannot be isolated from its context and dated as a tradition before Peter’s death, and hence it certainly cannot be used to reconstruct an early Jesus logion. Thus, the suggestion that an earlier announcement of Peter’s death, which had not been understood as yet, is interpreted post eventum in 21:19 can hardly be supported.224 Rather, these verses demonstrate an awareness of Peter’s martyrdom at the time of the redaction of John (i.e., ca. 100), which is now paralleled with Jesus’ fate225 and contrasted with that of the “beloved disciple” (John 21:22-­23). The Johannine redactor’s historical knowledge is presented in a saying of Jesus, which as a vaticinium is appropriately cryptic. If 2 Pet knows John (which is possible but difficult to prove), there could be a reference to it here. However, John 21:18-­19 does not speak of an imminent death, but rather a distant one, and 2 Pet 1:14 shows no affinity with John 21:18-­19. A reference to these verses in 2 Pet is therefore unlikely. Further statements by Jesus about Peter’s approaching death are found in noncanonical Petrine texts:226 219

So in Jub. 35:6; T. Lev. 1:2; T. Ab. 1–­7; 4 Ezra 14:9, 13-­14; 2 Bar. 43:2; 76:1-­2; 2 En. 55:1. On this, see Michel, Abschiedsrede, 49. 220 Vögtle, “Schriftwerdung,” 302. 221 Bauckham, “Martyrdom,” 551–­52. 222 It might be that already John 13:36-­37 subtly alludes to Peter’s martyrdom or his following Jesus in death, but there is no announcement of his death here. Cf. further the scene of revelation in connection with Paul in Acts 23:11, which however does not openly articulate the kind of testimony (μαρτυρῆσαι) Paul gives in Rome. 223 The saying is generally also seen as alluding to the crucifixion of Peter; an interesting recent suggestion proposes that “another shall gird you” does not refer to a crucifixion but rather the events recounted in Tac., Annales 15.4.4, where after the fire in Rome Christians were tied to crosses and burned; on this see T. D. Barnes, “Another Shall Gird Thee”; as well as Nicklas, “Drink the Cup,” 88–­89. 224 Thus Brown, Gospel according to John, 1107f., 1118; followed by Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 200. 225 The note in John 21:19 with the reference to the manner of death corresponds with the interpretation of the “exaltation” as referring to Jesus’ crucifixion in John 12:33 (cf. 18:32). 226 See also Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 200–­201.



Second Peter 1:13-14

289

b) The most well known is the quo vadis episode of Acts Pet. (35), which associates Peter’s death in Rome with the death of Jesus by connecting the motifs of substitution and emulation. It is very unlikely, however, that 2 Pet 1:14 might depend upon (a protoform of?) this episode, since the latter is rather inspired—­if anything—­by John 13:36, and Acts Pet. (the complex situation of its transmission notwithstanding) is probably to be dated significantly later than 2 Pet.227 c) A second announcement of Peter’s death occurs in the letter of Clement to James from the introductory section of Ps.-­Clem Hom., in which Clement quotes Peter as saying (Ep. Clem. 2.1–­2): “Since the days of my death have come near, as I have been instructed by the Lord and teacher Jesus Christ, who sent me, I appoint for you this Clement as bishop.”228 But this document is also, in its extant form, probably much later than 2 Pet.229 The announcement exhibits “no relevant contacts on the verbal level” with 2 Pet 1:14.230 In addition, Ep. Clem. 1.5 likewise connects Peter’s death with Rome, and Ep. Clem. 1.3 is aware “of Peter’s commission (κελεύω) to ‘illuminate the dark part of the west (τῆς δύσεως) of this world,’ which produces thematic connections with the announcement of Peter’s death in Apoc. Pet.”231 Thus, Ep. Clem. might itself be dependent upon Apoc. Pet. d) A segment of text from Apoc. Pet. that has survived in Greek232 contains a cryptic prophecy of death by Jesus to Peter (Apoc. Pet. [R] 14.4), which is situated narratively between the resurrection and the ascension (as is the entire Apocalypse). After the broad depictions of the judgment over sinners and directly before the description of the vision of the transfiguration (Apoc. Pet. 15–­17; cf. 2 Pet 2:16-­18), Peter receives the order from Jesus to go to Rome and suffer his martyrdom there (cf. also Ep. Clem. 1.3). But this segment, which can now be better reconstructed on the basis of the Greek papyrus fragment, must be considered within its context:233 In the words of Christ we also find here the promise of salvation for “my called and elected” (cf. 2 Pet 1:10: τὴν κλῆσιν καὶ ἐκλογήν) through “baptism” in the Acherusian Lake,234 then discussion of the entry of Christ with the elected and the patriarchs “into my eternal kingdom” (εἰς τὴν αἰώνιόν μου βασιλείαν; cf. 2 Pet 1:11: εἰς τὴν αἰώνιον βασιλείαν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν . . .),235 and a reference to the fulfillment of the promises 227

On this see also above, pp. 169–­70. Following Irmscher and Strecker, “Die Pseudoklementinen,” 450. 229 Thus Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 201; Ruf, Propheten, 239–­40. 230 Thus Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 161; this also speaks against the dependence of Epistola Clementis 2.1–­2 on 2 Pet 1:14 as presupposed by Ruf, Propheten, 239. 231 Thus Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 161. 232 On the possible dependence of 2 Pet on Apoc. Pet. see above in the introduction, pp. 201–­6. 233 On this see Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 124; cf. the edition in Kraus and Nicklas, Petrusevangelium, 121–­30. 234 On this, see Kraus, “Acherusia,” as well as—­in older scholarship—­Peterson, “Taufe.” 235 As Bauckham, “2 Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter,” 299, observes, the phrase αἰώνιος βασιλεία occurs in Christian literature before 150 CE (according to Bauckham’s dating of the text) only in these two passages. 228

290

Second Peter: Commentary

of salvation (cf. 2 Pet 1:4). Thereupon—­in a passage that concludes the revelation and segues into the story of the transfiguration of the resurrected Christ on the holy mountain (i.e., here, the Temple Mount)—­Jesus addresses Peter: ἰδοὺ ἐδήλωσά σοι Πέτρε καὶ ἐξεθέμην πάντα καὶ πορεύου εἰς πόλιν ἀρχούσαν δύσεως καὶ πίε τὸ ποτήριον ὃ ἐπηγγειλάμην σοι ἐν χειρὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἐν Ἅιδου, ἵνα ἀρχὴν λάβῃ αὐτοῦ ἡ ἀφανεία καὶ σὺ δεκτὸς τῆς ἐπαγγελίας . . . “Behold, Peter, I have revealed and presented everything to you. And go into the city that rules over the west, and drink the cup that I have promised you, in the hand of the son in Hades, so that his destruction might have a beginning and you acceptable of (or ‘beyond’) the promise . . .”236 In the death prophecy itself, the only lexical agreement with 2 Pet 1:14 is the verb δηλοῦν, which in Apoc. Pet. with the object πάντα encompasses the entire revelation of the judgment, not specifically the martyrdom of Peter. This alone cannot yet demonstrate a reference. However, the segment contains many further points of resonance with 2 Pet 1:4, 10, 11;237 when taken together, these suggest a literary connection. “Nearly all key motifs” of this segment of Apoc. Pet. are found in 2 Pet, although they are “spread over the somewhat more extensive textual range of 2 Pet 1:4-­14”238—­with two exceptions: the cryptic baptism in the Acherusian Lake and the connection of Peter’s martyrdom with the eschatological destruction of the “son in Hades.” This suggests a selective and abbreviated treatment of the motifs from Apoc. Pet. in 2 Pet, rather than a narrative development of 2 Pet in Apoc. Pet.239 An additional argument is the observation that Jesus’ prophecy of death to Peter here has an odd “archaic character”:240 Peter’s martyrdom under Nero serves as the point of departure for the destruction of the “son in Hades”;241 that is, regardless of the referent of this difficult and perhaps corrupted term,242 this is the beginning of a series of eschatological events.243 But this idea cannot have developed too long after Peter’s death and was perhaps already adopted in Apoc. Pet. as a traditional concept. It is certainly not a narrative elaboration 236 Text in Kraus and Nicklas, Petrusevangelium, 127; translation (in connection with the Ethiopic) following op. cit., 128. On the interpretation, see Nicklas, “Drink the Cup,” 188–­93. 237 See the synopsis in Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 124–­25. 238 Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 125–­26. 239 Against Bauckham, “2 Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter,” 303. 240 Thus Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 127; cf. Nicklas, “Drink the Cup,” 193. 241 On the interpretation of this term in reference to Nero (cf. 2 Thess 2:3), see Nicklas, “Drink the Cup,” 191–­92. 242 On this, see Nicklas, “Drink the Cup,” 191–­92; and previously Bauckham, “Martyrdom,” 573–­74. 243 Something of an analogy can be found in Rev in the language of the fall of Babylon (= Rome), which according to the conception of Rev is a prerequisite for Christ’s Parousia and the beginning of the establishment of the eschatological reign of God.



Second Peter 1:13-15

291

of the prophecy in 2 Pet,244 since in the reference to Rome, the language “drink of the cup” (cf. Matt 20:22-­23 par.), and above all the association of Peter’s death with the beginning of the eschatological consummation, Apoc. Pet. contains many additional elements that cannot be derived from 2 Pet. It is more plausible to take 2 Pet 1:14 as an abbreviated reference to the situation depicted in Apoc. Pet. 14,245 in which the problematic aspects no longer acceptable to the author of 2 Pet have been omitted. Given the admonition to live virtuously, the idiosyncratic event of the salvation of sinners from punishment at the Acherusian Lake must have seemed inappropriate here, and the association of Peter’s martyrdom with the beginning of the eschatological events had become implausible with the passage of time. When one takes into account this passage from Apoc. Pet., which was popular in the second century, it must be concluded that a tradition about a ‘special revelation’ to Peter regarding his martyrdom was indeed widespread. The reference to such a revelation in 2 Pet 1:14 need not be the author’s ‘invention.’ But instead of John 21:18, the author likely drew on the prophecy found in Apoc. Pet., which is adopted with significant selectivity and reinterpretation. The reference to a scenario as presented by Apoc. Pet. also offers the possibility of more precisely contextualizing the dispute over eschatology in 2 Pet 3. The skeptics’ reference to the fact that the death of the fathers is long past and nevertheless the eschatological events have not yet begun (2 Pet 3:4) could have a very specific point of reference in the association of Peter’s death with the eschaton, attested in Apoc. Pet. (R) 14.4: the imminent expectation of the Parousia as ‘updated’ there through the connection with Peter’s martyrdom would then, with the passage of time, have been met with skeptical objection, which among other things could find expression in the statement of the “scoffers” cited in 2 Pet 3:4. Against this background, 2 Pet appears as an attempt to justify eschatological hope and the reliability of the divine promises in a manner less vulnerable to attack in the face of the undeniable ‘problem of delay’; from this perspective, it cannot be a coincidence that this justification claims the authority of Peter, who now—­as his last word before death—­reformulates the prophecy once given to him and reinterprets the hope of the Parousia against its skeptics.

15 Following the references to his approaching death, v. 15 returns to ‘Peter’s’ activity (v. 12): he wants to spend the time remaining to him preparing a testamentary letter, which will offer the possibility of a constant (ἑκάστοτε) reminder of the apostolic teaching after his death. The repetition of τούτων also confirms that this rounds out the unit of vv. 12-­15. The future form σπουδάσω, like the periphrasis in v. 12, likely refers to Peter’s remaining lifetime from the perspective of his current situation, or more specifically, the letter itself, which ‘Peter’ wants to write before his quickly approaching death.246 244

Thus Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 128. Thus Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 125. 246 This does not refer to 1 Pet, which 2 Pet 3:1 looks back on. Even less plausible is another book to be written in the future. The author certainly does not have Mark in mind, which according to Papias (Euseb., Hist. eccl. 3.39.15) is a collection of Peter’s lectures (cf. Ruf, 245

292

Second Peter: Commentary

It is noteworthy that the term used here for Peter’s death is ἔξοδος, with which an element of Hellenistic language appears once again. The term appears with this sense only once more in the NT, when Jesus’ departure in Jerusalem is mentioned in the Lukan transfiguration episode (Luke 9:31). It is rather uncommon that the term has this sense,247 which is suggested by the phrase “exit from life” (so Jos., A.J. 4.189; cf. Wis 7:6). This usage could be adopted in Hellenistic Judaism (Wis 3:2) but appears to become more common only in the second century.248 This language fits with the image of a departure or flight from perishability (2 Pet 1:4) and of entry (εἴσοδος) into the imperishable “eternal kingdom” (1:11). The fictive author “seeks with his teaching in written form to create a document that Christians of the postapostolic period can ‘always’ turn to.”249 As an apostolic witness to Jesus—­a notion that will be deepened in vv. 16ff.—­ and under the ‘prerogative of interpretation’ of the letters of Paul that he lays claim to (3:15-­16), ‘Peter’ in fact seeks to formulate the standard of faith and thereby claim semicanonical validity. Canonical recognition of the letter is indeed refused for a long time and by many people, yet it is interesting that the death of the first witnesses together with the challenges that followed provoked the written documentation of their testimony, indeed a ‘testament’ of the apostle. There remains the unresolved theological problem of whether and how the claim that the unaltered truth is present in that testimony can be verified (or submitted to an examination at all). If the claims made in this text and elsewhere are not to remain merely claims, the only option is comparison with other apostolic witnesses of the early period (such as the Pauline letters).

2. The Authority of the Witness to the Glory of Jesus Christ and the Reliability of the Prophetic Word (1:16-­21) The body opening is followed by an expansion that is meant to strengthen the authority of the two primary witnesses to the apostolic truth, the apostle and the prophetic scriptures. This is linked causally (γάρ in v. 16) with vv. 12-­15, Propheten, 243–­4 4; and Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 201–­2). The suggestion by Trobisch, Endredaktion, 138, that the formulation supports “the notion that Peter did not compose these reminders himself, but rather commissioned them,” is also implausible (and dependent upon the translation “I will make sure of it”). This sense cannot be derived from the verb. 247 Cf. Kraus, Sprache, 351. The majority of occurrences in the LXX refer, of course, to the exodus of the Israelites. 248 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 202, cites Justin, Dial. 105.5; the letter of the martyrs of Lyon and Vienna (Euseb., Hist. eccl. 5.1.36, 55; 5.2.3); Iren., Haer. 3.1.1, on the death of Peter and Paul; Clem. Alex., Exc. 41; Apoc. Pet. 14. 249 Vögtle, “Schriftwerdung,” 304.



Second Peter 1:15-21

293

and a second γάρ in v. 17 introduces the broader explanation of this statement. In contrast to vv. 12-­15, the subject shifts from singular to the plural “we” of the apostle. An intensified expression (βεβαιότερον) connects the second ‘theme’ of the reliability of the prophetic word in v. 19. After an injunction to the reader in v. 20 to know and acknowledge the divine authority of the biblical prophecies, this segment concludes in a general tenet about prophecy. This section, with its emphasis on the authority of apostolic eyewitnesses and—­even more so—­of biblical prophecy, thus still belongs to the body opening, even though rhetorically it performs the function of a confirmatio.250 This paves the way, at least implicitly, for the later primary theme of eschatology and the promise of the Parousia, undermining the opponents’ position. 2.1 The authority of Peter as eyewitness to the divine glory of Christ (1:16-­18) (16) For we made known to you the powerful arrival251 of our Lord Jesus Christ, not because we followed cleverly devised myths, but because we have become eyewitnesses to his majesty. (17) For he received from God the Father honor and glory when a voice came to him from the majestic glory: “This is my son, my beloved, in whom I am well pleased.” (18) And this voice we heard coming from heaven when we were with him on the holy mountain.

The focus shifts from the fictive present of the situation in which Peter’s death is approaching back to the past, the time of his discipleship and eyewitness experience of Jesus. This is what authorizes the apostle and his proclamation. This passage recalls the episode of Jesus’ transfiguration (Mark 9:2-­8 par.), which is ultimately the only element of the Jesus tradition that is associated with Peter in 2 Pet. Peter is thus (along with the other apostles) a messenger of the power (δύναμις) and “arrival” (παρουσία) of Christ, or of his majesty (μεγαλειότης)—­that is, of his divine power and presence (cf. 1:3). Neither Jesus’ suffering (1 Pet 5:1) and cross (cf. 1 Cor 1:18) nor his teaching or deeds are mentioned here. The emphasis of Peter’s testimony, and thereby the image of Peter in 2 Pet, thus stands in contrast not only with 1 Pet252 but also with the image of Peter from the Gospels—­an awareness of these texts is presupposed, but their reception is very selective.253 250

So Schmidt, Mahnung, 356. This is a hendiadys; see below, p. 299. 252 On this, see Schmidt, “Stimme.” 253 Peter’s lack of understanding that is manifest in the context of the transfiguration and the proclamations of Jesus’ suffering, and his resistance to Jesus’ path of suffering (Mark 8:34 par.) are also significant. By contrast, Peter is here a witness who fully understands the revelation conveyed to him, and in this context a rebuke from Jesus is no longer conceivable. 251

294

Second Peter: Commentary

This brief segment is structured into a two-­part sentence (negative and positive) about Peter’s status as an eyewitness (v. 16), followed by the introduction, with the causal γάρ, of a brief recollection of the transfiguration with the embedded quotation of the voice from heaven (v. 17), before once again Peter’s status as earwitness to the voice is confirmed (v. 18). The transfiguration episode thus stands in the center of the brief passage. Excursus: The relationship to the synoptic and nonsynoptic transfiguration tradition The literary relationship with the transfiguration tradition found in the Synoptics and beyond is the object of intense debate.254 These discussions are influenced by previous decisions regarding the authenticity and dating of the texts; at the same time, any judgment is made more difficult by the very brief points of reference, which do not allow for a ‘synoptic’ comparison, and the author’s great independence in the reception of his sources, even where such reception is evident (as, for example, with Jude). Thus, it is difficult to demonstrate ‘dependence,’ even if it certainly cannot be ruled out, and is rather likely that the author knew these accounts. Alongside the synoptic transfiguration pericopes (Matt 17:1-­9; Mark 9:2-­9; Luke 9:28-­36), we must also consider influence of the synoptic accounts of Jesus’ baptism with their similar voice from heaven (Matt 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22), as well as noncanonical references in Acts Thom. 143; Acts John 90; Acts Pet. 20–­21;255 Ps.-­Clem. Hom. 3.53; and above all Apoc. Pet. (E) 15–­17. Here the discussion can be limited to two key questions: (a) knowledge of the synoptic tradition (above all Matt)256 and (b) the relationship to the account in Apoc. Pet.257 a) Since 2 Pet is clearly to be dated to the second century, knowledge of Matt is very likely. However, it is uncommon for texts to quote sources word for word or even as an authority until well into the second half of the second century. This is all the more true of an author like that of 2 Pet, who nowhere explicitly quotes Scripture or other early Christian texts. Bauckham’s attempt to demonstrate independence from Matt and to establish 2 Pet as an independent transfiguration tradition must be regarded as failed.258 Given the brief reference in 2 Pet, proof of literary dependence 254 See extensive discussion in Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 205–­12; further Lee, Transfiguration, 162–­67; R. J. Miller, “Attestation”; and most recently Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 111–­41. 255 On the transfiguration scenes in Acts John 90, Acts Thom. 143, and Acts Pet. 20–­21, see Ruf, Propheten, 119–­22; on Acts Pet. 20–­21, see also Lee, Transfiguration, 170–­209. 256 On this, see Kraus, Sprache, 376–­79; Ruf, Propheten, 101–­12; R. J. Miller, “Attestation.” 257 On this, see Bauckham, “2 Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter”; Lee, Transfiguration, 162–­67, which regards both texts as independent receptions of the transfiguration episode; and most recently Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 111–­41. 258 On this, see above all R. J. Miller, “Attestation”; and most recently Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 116–­17.



Second Peter 1:16-18

295

in the other direction is likewise difficult, but, with Martin Ruf, good arguments for a selective reception of Matt can be made:259 (1) The emphatic ἡμεῖς (v. 18) indicates a plurality of disciples, while in the synoptic accounts Peter is always introduced as first in the group of three disciples (Peter, the sons of Zebedee). (2) In agreement with the synoptic accounts, the episode takes place on a mountain. (3) A voice from heaven is heard, whose wording, slightly modified, is similar to that of the synoptic transfiguration. Structurally, “these congruencies suffice . . . to evoke the text of the synoptic tradition as a foil,” while the omissions stand “in service of selectivity.”260 In addition, in the Synoptics the transfiguration pericope directly follows a logion about the disciples as eyewitnesses of the coming kingdom (Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27) or of the coming Son of Man (Matt 16:28), suggesting that the transfiguration serves as additional evidence for reliability of the promise of the Parousia.261 The proximity to Matt is especially close: εὐδόκησα occurs only here (as in Apoc. Pet. [E] 17 and Ps.-­Clem. Hom. 3.53) in the context of the transfiguration.262 A few discrepancies from the Matthean account can easily be explained by the intention of the account in 2 Pet: in contrast to all forms of the voice from heaven in the synoptic transfiguration and baptism pericopes (as well as Apoc. Pet. (E) 17 and the Gospel to the Ebionites [Epiph., Pan. 30.13.7–­8]), the initial position of ὁ υἱός μου, or transposition of οὗτός ἐστιν, brings a particular emphasis: “Jesus is marked out as coming from God.”263 The same function is also served by the ἐγώ, introduced in contrast to all synoptic accounts.264 Other differences are not so easy to explain: It is doubtful that the attribute “holy” can be explained as a word preferred by the author,265 as is the suggestion that the interpretation of the event through the motif of δόξα is due to a Lukan influence.266 Some elements can be better explained by the influence of Apoc. Pet. b) The account of the transfiguration in Apoc. Pet. (E) 15–­17 is relatively extensive. Its context differs from that of the Gospels insofar as the transfiguration here (like Jesus’ entire revelation to his disciples) is situated after Easter and directly before the ascension. Thus, we have here a free reception of the tradition. The reception of the synoptic accounts (above all Matt) here is demonstrated beyond doubt by the appearance of Moses and Elijah (16.1), Peter’s suggestion to make ‘tents’ for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah (16.7), which Jesus rejects with an angry saying about ‘Satan’ (16.8; cf. Mark 8:33; Matt 16:23 par.), as well as the voice from heaven (17.1), which is followed by 259

Ruf, Propheten, 103–­9. Ruf, Propheten, 106. 261 Thus Ruf, Propheten, 107. 262 Cf. also Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 116. 263 Ruf, Propheten, 103; cf. Vögtle, Judasbrief, 167. 264 Ruf, Propheten, 103–­4. 265 Against Ruf, Propheten, 104–­5. The association Ruf suggests with Ps 2:7 and the tradition of the installation of the king on Zion that underlies that verse is also rather implausible in the present context. 266 Thus Ruf, Propheten, 107. 260

296

Second Peter: Commentary

the vision of clouds and the ascension (17.2–­6). The transfiguration tradition is thus ‘displaced’267 into a new context and at the same time connected with the proclamation of the vision of a heavenly ‘tent’ for Jesus and his elect (16.9). Beyond this, there are, above all, three further significant differences from the synoptic accounts:268 α) In Apoc. Pet. (E) 15.1, Jesus commands the disciples to go from the Mount of Olives to the “holy mountain,” which topographically can only refer to the Temple Mount or Zion. The phrase “holy mountain” occurs only in 2 Pet and Apoc. Pet., and its use in Apoc. Pet. is certainly not due to an influence from 2 Pet. This striking commonality can more easily be explained by the influence of the scene in Apoc. Pet. on 2 Pet. β) In Apoc. Pet. the voice does not come from the cloud, but from heaven, which can easily be explained as a transformation of the synoptic account, especially since a voice from heaven was a widespread topos. In terms of the narrative, this transformation could further be motivated by the fact that the motif of the cloud is ‘needed’ for the depiction of the ascension that follows. It is certain that the voice from heaven in Apoc. Pet. cannot be explained by an influence of 2 Pet, and the reverse direction of dependence is more plausible. γ) Apoc. Pet. not only depicts the splendor of Moses’ and Elijah’s face, body, and hair (15.2–­7) and describes the biblical patriarchs’ garden of restfulness (16.2–­5), but explicitly speaks of “honor and glory,” though this is in reference to those who strive to emulate the righteousness of Christ (cf. Matt 6:33). The double expression τιμὴ καὶ δόξα occurs in 2 Pet 1:17 in a noteworthy divergence from the Synoptics. Here as well, dependence cannot be proved, but the parallel of the (rare) syntagma is striking. It is significant, however, that “clear differences from Matt are found in 2 Pet only where 2 Pet agrees with [Apoc. Pet. version] E.”269 This is certainly not a “harmonization of the transfiguration traditions from Matt and Apoc. Pet. (E)”270 simply for the sake of harmonization, but rather the secondary influence of a tradition in which the transfiguration was particularly associated with the heavenly glorification of Christ (in the ascension) and the corresponding Parousia (cf. Apoc. Pet. 1–­2). This influence can be accepted especially if other passages of 2 Pet (as with Christ’s prophecy of death to Peter, vv. 13-­14) also suggest the reception of Apoc. Pet. This reconstruction explains the textual evidence better than the assumption that Apoc. Pet. adopted and narratively fleshed out 2 Pet.271 267 Of course, Apoc. Pet. cannot shed any light in the discussion of whether the synoptic transfiguration episode is an ‘original’ vision of the resurrected Christ. Nothing in the text of Mark supports this, and reference to texts like 2 Pet and Apoc. Pet., which were composed so much later, does not bring a valid argument here. 268 On this, Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 113–­14; see also above in the introduction, p. 204. 269 Thus Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 120. 270 Thus the formulation by Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 121. 271 See also above, pp. 201–­6 in the introduction, and the extensive discussion in Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 122–­23.



Second Peter 1:16-18

297

16 The authority of the Petrine testimony is substantiated here, beginning with a sentence in the form οὐ . . . ἀλλά, which employs a manifestly apologetic argument.272 This defends against the suggestion that the apostle (and thus the Christian proclamation) followed “cleverly devised myths” (σεσοφισμένοις μύθοις). How is this accusation to be understood? The concept of μῦθος fluctuated over the course of its history.273 Whereas in the early period (Homer) the term could still simply refer to “word, story,” it later came to be contrasted with logos (already in Herodotus, Histories 2.45; Plato, Tim. 26e). With criticism of the old stories about the gods, the allegorization of those stories, and the use of artistic myths as a poetic form of expression (Plato, Plutarch), the term increasingly acquired the meaning “invented” or even “untrue story.” Thus, Philo often speaks of “myths” as “invented” (using πλάσσω/πλάσμα)274 and sets his own interpretation (e.g., the narrative of Lot’s wife) against the fabrication of stories,275 while Josephus contrasts Moses with other lawgivers in this way.276 Something similar is also found in Plut. (Mor. 398d, in defending the oracle) and Diod. Sic. (1.93.4, in defending the Egyptian burial practice against the Greeks). That is to say, μῦθος is a conventional term in religious polemic used to disparage opposing positions, which are defamed as ‘invented’ and ‘untrue’ stories in contrast to one’s own factually or substantively more reasonable position. This occurs in early Christian polemics against pagan stories of the gods,277 as well as in the pagan polemic of Celsus against the Christian proclamation of the resurrection (Origen, Cels. 2.55).

In the NT, μῦθος is used in this pejorative sense four times in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim 1:4; 4:7; 2 Tim 4:4; Titus 1:14) as well as once in 2 Pet 1:16. According to this statement, the proclamation of Peter and the apostles is not an invented or even “cleverly devised” (σεσοφίσμενος) story, nor are they secondhand witnesses, who simply “ran after” a story told by other people. The proclamation is true because it rests on witnesses who saw it with their own eyes. This statement seems to react against an accusation that the opposite is true. In what context could such an allegation of untruth be leveled? It is conceivable, first of all, that the allegation of following untrue “stories” was brought against the author, or the Christian proclamation more generally.278 Such 272

On this, see Neyrey, “Apologetic Use,” 506–­9. On this, see Stählin, “μῦθος.” 274 References in Neyrey, “Apologetic Use,” 507. 275 Philo, Fug. 121. Cf. further Abr. 243; Opif. 157; Mut. 152; Somn. 1.172; see Neyrey, “Apologetic Use,” 508. 276 Jos., A.J. praef. 4. 277 Aristid., Apol. 13.7; also (on pagan birth narratives) Origen, Cels. 1.37. 278 Thus Mayor, Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter, 103; Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 89; Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 315; Fornberg, Church, 60. 273

298

Second Peter: Commentary

accusations are attested not only from the pens of later critics of Christianity such as Celsus,279 but already 2 Clem. 13.3 attests to the charge that the words of Christians are μῦθος and πλάνη (fraud) in a situation in which those words are not confirmed by deeds of love.280 Perhaps the opponents doubted the eschatological promise of Christ’s Parousia (and thereby also the prophecy) as just such an ‘invented’ assertion, unsubstantiated by actual experience (cf. 2 Pet 3:4; this must have appeared as “scoffing” or “blasphemy” in the author’s eyes). If the eschatological hopes were further connected with specific ‘Petrine positions’—­as the hope expressed in Apoc. Pet. connects the beginning of eschatological events with the death of Peter (Apoc. Pet. [R] 14.4)—­then the reference to ‘his’ proclamation as unbelievable stories can be better understood. In his testament, ‘Peter’ had to address such an accusation. Further, one can also read this sentence as an implicit charge against the opponents that for their part they follow “myths” (although this is not explicitly stated in v. 16). Such a reading was suggested by older interpreters, who regarded the opponents of 2 Pet as gnostics and saw here an allusion to gnostic mythology,281 but nothing in 2 Pet supports a gnostic profile for the opponents. However, the polemical usage of μύθοι could have a parallel in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim 1:4; 4:7; Titus 1:14; cf. Ign. Magn. 8.1), where μύθοι are connected with Jewish elements (Titus 1:14; cf. Ign. Magn. 8.1) and “genealogies” (1 Tim 1:4), and an opposing group is referred to with the phrase “falsely so called knowledge” (1 Tim 6:20). In 2 Pet 2:3, the author similarly accuses his opponents of luring followers with “invented stories” (πλαστοῖς λόγοις). Thus, a polemical undertone of 1:16a cannot be rejected out of hand. However, this says less about the profile of the opponents than about the rhetoric of the author, who often turns his opponents’ accusations against them.282

In contrast to what the opponents claim, then, Peter and the apostles have not chased after invented stories (of others), but are rather eyewitnesses (ἐπόπται) to the content of their proclamation. Eyewitness status ensures authenticity and thus the opposite of what was pejoratively associated with μῦθος. The choice of ἐπόπτης here, a hapax legomenon in the NT,283 points to the language of 279

On early criticism of the NT accounts see Cook, Interpretation, esp. 26–­61 on Celsus. “For when outsiders hear the sayings of God from our mouths, they are astonished at their beauty and greatness. Then when they discover that our actions do not match our words, they turn from astonishment to blasphemy, saying that our faith is some kind of myth and error” (trans. Ehrman [LCL]). 281 Thus, e.g., Stählin, “μῦθος,” 791; Käsemann, “Apologie”; cf. also Grundmann, Brief, 62–­63; Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 197; against this, however, Fornberg, Church, 31–­32; Neyrey, “Apologetic Use,” 506–­7. 282 As has been observed by Neyrey, “Apologetic Use,” 506–­7, the accusation of “following” myths (1:16) is taken up again in 2:2 in the statement that many “follow” (ἐξακολουθήσουσιν) the licentiousness of the opponents; the argument of the unfulfilled “promise” (3:9) is reversed in an anticipatory accusation that the opponents “promise” (ἐπαγγελλόμενοι) freedom, although they themselves are not free. 283 Luke 1:2 instead employs the less specific αὐτόπται. ἐπόπτης occurs in 1 Clem. 59.3 280



Second Peter 1:16

299

the mysteries. In Eleusis, an ἐπόπτης is “one who has been initiated into the highest form of the mysteries.”284 While this does not necessarily indicate a specific reference to this background, the choice of this term does convey a semantic nuance: Peter is ‘initiated’ in the truth to the highest degree by his eyewitness experience; authorized by divine revelation, he is a messenger of truth, the “greatness” of Christ, or his δύναμις καὶ παρουσία. This expression should probably also be taken as hendiadys, as Jos., A.J. 9.55 shows, especially since δύναμις and παρουσία are attested elsewhere in various syntactical contexts as a conceptual pair.285 Thus, the phrase refers to the “powerful presence” or “powerful arrival” of Christ.286 This raises the question of whether παρουσία should be taken here in the technical sense as referring to the expected (and disputed) “arrival” or “return” of Christ. This is highly likely, given the other uses of the term in 2 Pet 3:4, 12, and its widespread use as a terminus technicus in older early Christianity.287 Thus, the way is paved here for the topic of the controversies that will be addressed later. Christ’s Parousia as a “powerful arrival” (and thus in connection with the “divine power” of Christ in 1:3) is regarded here as the substance of Peter’s proclamation. This raises the questions of where and how Peter emerges as a messenger of the Parousia. If Apoc. Pet. is also relevant to the following reference to the transfiguration episode, in which Jesus’ Parousia in power and glory is mentioned at the beginning (Apoc. Pet. [E] 1.6), this same text could have been seen as a prominent witness to the ‘Petrine’ proclamation of the Parousia.

In the present context, the language of “powerful arrival” not only links back to the statement about Christ’s “divine power” in 1:3; it is also to be read in connection with the concept of Christ’s μεγαλειότης that follows:288 for the author of 2 Pet, Christ’s greatness, his divine power, and his anticipated Parousia in glory are connected. Whoever doubts the hope of the Parousia also questions Christ’s power and divine majesty, and, conversely, his divinity justifies the hope for his referring to God, who ‘sees’ all human deeds. The use of the related verb ἐποπτεύειν in 1 Pet 2:12 and 3:2 does not help to understand the present passage; on this, see Ruf, Propheten, 97–­98. 284 Ruf, Propheten, 98; cf. also Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 89: “borrowed from the language of the mysteries”; further Kraus, Sprache, 332. 285 See references in Ruf, Propheten, 90–­92. 286 Thus Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 68; Ruf, Propheten, 90. 287 A reference to the ‘first coming’ of Christ (suggested by Spicq, Épîtres, 220) is occasionally attested in the second century (first in Ign. Phld. 9.2, then in Ker. Pet. frg. 9, according to Clem. Alex., Strom. 6.15.128, as well as in Justin and Origen), but is hardly to be expected in 2 Pet, which almost entirely ignores Jesus’ earthly activity. 288 Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 89.

300

Second Peter: Commentary

powerful appearance and his authority to save and to judge (2:9). Therefore, the testimony to his divine power and glory is of the highest argumentative value for 2 Pet. Peter (and the apostles) are thus presented as eyewitness to the event in which this divine glory of Christ was revealed before their very eyes—­the glory that, according to the hope for the Parousia, will be visible to everyone at the eschaton. It is thus a confirmation of his divine power and glory and of the reliability of the the promise of his powerful arrival.289 17 The connection here is syntactically unclear. The participle λαβών (with Jesus Christ as the subject) cannot be subordinated to the finite verb from v. 16 (ἐγνωρίσαμεν) or from v. 18 (ἠκούσαμεν). We therefore have here an anacoluthon,290 and the participle is to be read as a finite verb (ἔλαβεν). Verse 17 thus constitutes an independent unit containing a quotation. The very brief incorporation of the transfiguration tradition first explains (γάρ) what the scene observed by the disciples signifies in terms of Christology, which is then affirmed by the quotation of the voice from heaven. This is understood here as proof that Christ possesses or has received “honor and glory” (τιμὴ καὶ δόξα) from the Father. τιμὴ καὶ δόξα here express Christ’s “majesty” (v. 16) or his divine glory. However, Christ does not possess this in himself, but has received it from God the Father. This quite clearly shows the monotheistic foundation of the Christology of 2 Pet. Ultimately, Christ’s divinity has been received. In this, 2 Pet agrees, for example, with John (cf. John 5:22-­23, 26), although there need not be a specific reference to John here (or in the language of Christ’s δόξα).291 Here, God as the origin of the Son’s δόξα is circumscribed with the solemn double expression μεγαλοπρεπὴς δόξα (“majestic glory”),292 which is similarly attested in 1 Clem. 9.2 (cf. 1 Clem. 64.1) and later in liturgical contexts.293 The quotation is based on the wording of Matt 17:5, but with a transposition of οὗτός ἐστιν (and the omission of the exhortation found there: “Listen to him!”). The language here emphasizes the close connection of the Son with the Father even more strongly 289

Thus, Fornberg, Church, 80; Lee, Transfiguration, 139. Cf. Kraus, Sprache, 277. 291 John 12:27 (in treating the Gethsemane tradition) does offer a voice from heaven with the formulation “I have glorified him and will glorify him again” (ἐδόξασα καὶ πάλιν δοξάσω). 292 Cf. Ps 145:5 (LXX 144:5) μεγαλοπρέπεια τῆς δόξης; 145:12 (LXX 144:12) δόξα τῆς μεγαλοπρεπείας; and the periphrasis “the great glory” 1 En. 14:20; 102:3; T. Levi 3:4; Mart. Ascen. Isa. 9:37; 11:32. The doxology of Jude (Jude 24) simply uses δόξα as a circumlocution for God. μεγαλοπρεπής occurs in the NT only here, but four times in the LXX (Deut 33:26; 2 Macc 8:15; 15:13; 3 Macc 2:9). 293 According to Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 218, the term was already used liturgically at the time of 1 Clem. (and 2 Pet). 290



Second Peter 1:16-21

301

than in the synoptic accounts. This is further strengthened by the emphatic ἐγώ294 and the second μου in ὁ ἀγαπητός μου, which can hardly be taken as evidence for a stronger Semiticizing form or a reference to Isa 42:1,295 but rather at most reflects the influence of the title “the beloved,” popular at the time of 2 Pet (ὁ ἠγαπημένος [Eph 1:6; Barn. 3.6; 4.3; Ign. Smyrn. 1.1; Acts Paul Thec. 1; cf. Odes Sol. 3:7] or ὁ ἀγαπητός [thus often in Mart. Ascen. Isa.]). The variation εἰς ὃν instead of ἐν ᾧ is likely a stylistic choice by the author, perhaps motivated by Matt 12:8.

18 In this section’s conclusion, Peter’s (and the other apostles’)296 status as an eyewitness is once again reaffirmed. Here two motifs are used that are otherwise found only in Apoc. Pet. 15–­17—­namely, the motif of the “holy” mountain and the voice from heaven. Taken together with the phrase “honor and glory,”297 this suggests an influence on this depiction from Apoc. Pet., but its use here is entirely determined by the present argumentative interest: the reference to the “holy” mountain leaves no hint of the fact that the phrase designates the Temple Mount elsewhere; rather, the use of “holy” here only offers a special distinction to the transfiguration scene, just as the voice from heaven emphasizes above all its divine origin. Peter and the others apostles included in the “we,” who were with Jesus on the “holy mountain” and became witnesses to the divine revelation of his glory, are messengers—­legitimated by their eyewitness status—­of the truth of Christ’s divine dignity, which was conferred upon him by Godsself and which serves as the basis for the reliability of the promise of his “powerful arrival,” of the Parousia. In his conflict with the opponents, the author is already concerned here with the validity of this expectation, even if he will later (3:4ff.) specify and modify this concept, above all the temporal expectations, against the criticism of the “scoffers.” 2.2 The authority and reliability of the prophetic word (1:19-­21) (19) So298 we have the prophetic word all the more reliable, and you do well to attend to it as to a lamp that shines in a gloomy place, until day breaks and the morning star rises in your hearts. (20) You should be aware first of all that no prophecy of Scripture 294

Cf. Ruf, Propheten, 103–­4. Against Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 209. 296 It is irrelevant whether this includes the threesome (from the Synoptics) or a larger number (as in Apoc. Pet.). Ultimately, by not naming the others who are included in “we,” the author emphasizes Peter’s special standing as a witness. 297 In the account of Apoc. Pet., however, these attributes are not applied to Christ but rather to the righteous in paradise, who are awarded with “honor and glory.” 298 κ αί here is not simply explicative, but rather resultative; see Vögtle, Judasbrief, 170. 295

302

Second Peter: Commentary

comes of one’s own interpretation. (21) For a prophecy was never brought forth by human will, but people borne by the holy spirit spoke from God.

The comment about the transfiguration episode and the apostles’ eyewitness experience is now followed by a section about the “more reliable” “prophetic word.” This passage returns to direct speech to the addressees (vv. 19b-­20), who are admonished to pay attention to this word—­the prophecy of the Scripture. The rationale for this is conveyed in a statement about the nature of ‘biblical’ prophecy and how it comes to be (vv. 20-­21), and with this the passage ends in a generalizing tone. The three verses are held together by the theme of prophecy and are thereby thematically distinct from the christological vv. 16-­18. Syntactically, however, they are connected with the preceding verses by καί and a comparative predicative adjective (βεβαιότερον). There is a perfect connection with the theme of biblical prophecy in 2:1-­3, but there the focus turns to the current situation of the addressees and the false teachers, such that 2:1 begins a new part of the body (the dispute with the false teachers), while 1:19-­21 belong to the presentation of the authorities behind Peter’s message: the apostles as eyewitnesses (vv. 16-­18) and the prophecy of Scripture (vv. 19-­21). 19 The paragraph begins with a resumption of the first-­person plural subject, which is briefly expanded to include the addressees,299 and a striking expression of escalation (βεβαιότερον). A λόγος βέβαιος (Heb 2:2; 9:17) is a valid account whose credibility is confirmed (cf. Rom 4:16).300 The comparative301 thus expresses that the credibility and reliability of the “prophetic word” (i.e., the eschatological promise) has been additionally confirmed by the revelation of Christ’s glory in the transfiguration of Jesus. This raises the question of the substantive relation between the two segments, vv. 16-­18 and vv. 19-­21.302 Is the biblical word more certain than the apostolic eyewitness account? After the emphasis on the eyewitness experience, 299 Thus also Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 200. This applies, of course, only for ἔχομεν in v. 19a; the prophetic word is given to the author as well as his readers. In the admonishing address, the contrast between the apostle and addressees is once again decisive. 300 Cf. Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 90. In Heb 2:2 the confirmation occurs through an initial fulfillment. 301 Grammatically, it would also be possible to understand the comparative as a replacement for a superlative or absolute superlative (so, for example, Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 222: “We place very firm reliance on the prophetic word”—­which incorrectly places the emphasis on the subjective intensity of Peter’s confidence), but this is unnecessary since the comparative makes good sense (on this, see Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 120; Ruf, Propheten, 320 with n209, who refers to Plut., Phil. 5.4, among others). 302 See the discussion in Ruf, Propheten, 321–­22.



Second Peter 1:19-21

303

this would be an inappropriate devaluation of the same. A different understanding is more fitting: the truth of Christ’s glory seen at the transfiguration (which should itself be understood as a fulfillment of the biblical promises) strengthens the reliability of the scriptural prophecies and renders them all the more credible and “firm.”303 The meaning of the phrase ὁ προφητικὸς λόγος has been defined in various ways.304 It has been conceived as either (a) a specific (messianic, eschatological) OT prophecy or (b) the entire text of the OT understood as prophecy, as well as (c) OT and early Christian prophecy, particularly the promise of the Parousia, or (d) the voice from heaven at the transfiguration, which has just been quoted.305 The definite article indicates a distinct entity that is known (at least to the author) and can be conceived and discussed as a unit.306 The syntagma προφητικὸς λόγος is used three times in Philo, always for a verse from the Pentateuch;307 it occurs in early Christianity, beyond this passage, in 2 Clem. 11.2 (for a quotation from an unknown Jewish text); then multiple times in Justin, for the prophetic witness of the Scriptures in general or for specific verses; and in Acts Paul (P.Hamb. 8.25–­27), where a reference to OT prophecy (of the birth of the messiah) is also likely. “By contrast, early Christian prophecy is nowhere invoked as προφητικὸς λόγος,”308 especially since the author in 2 Pet 2:1 very emphatically distinguishes the early Christian “false teachers” from the “false prophets” in Israel and thereby associates prophecy entirely with the ‘Old Testament’ era, whereas what occurs in their own time (Peter’s and above all the addressees’) is ‘teaching’ or interpretation. Nor can the phrase refer to the transfiguration or the voice from heaven, which is not a prophecy, though as an anticipatory fulfillment this episode confirms the reliability of (biblical) prophecy. Early Christian linguistic usage elsewhere suggests that the author refers here to the entirety of (OT) Scripture, which—­as in early Christianity more broadly—­was read as prophetic (with reference to Christ, or the present or future that has dawned with him). The relatively general statements about scriptural prophecy in vv. 20-­21 fit with this reading. The notion that the occurrence of individual prophetic proclamations is able to confirm the quality of the prophecy and thus strengthen the conviction that other, as yet ‘unfulfilled,’ prophecies are valid, can likely be observed in terms of literary history from the beginnings of OT prophecy in the development and successive continuation of the prophetic books. In early Christianity, this created a dynamic of ever further expanding expectation. The conviction that individual prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus the Messiah kindled broader expectations for the end time that had already 303

Ruf, Propheten, 322, which refers to Theoph., Autol. 3.17 as a parallel; also Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 120; Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 90. 304 See the systematization and argumentation in Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 224. 305 Thus Neyrey, “Apologetic Use,” 514–­16. 306 Thus Ruf, Propheten, 325, with reference to Hiebert, “Foundation,” 159. 307 Philo, Leg. 3.43; Plant. 117; Sobr. 43. 308 Ruf, Propheten, 327.

304

Second Peter: Commentary

begun, while the experience of the Spirit kindled broader eschatological expectations, and so on. The conviction that “because the events prophesied for earlier periods have taken place . . . what has been said about the future will likewise come to pass” was articulated at the end of the second century by Theophilus of Antioch (Autol. 2.9).309 The author of 2 Pet uses the same argument here.

If the Scriptures are reliable as prophecy and this reliability is now once again particularly confirmed by the revelation of Christ’s divine glory, then it is necessary to constantly keep one’s attention directed toward that prophecy (προσέχειν) and to orient one’s life around it. The author urgently admonishes his addressees about this: καλῶς ποιεῖτε introduces not just a recommendation or plea but, in view of Peter’s apostolic authority, a clear warning, which continues in v. 20 with an instruction, connected participially, that is especially emphasized.310 This clause employs impressive metaphorical language.311 The word of Scripture, understood as prophetic, is “a lamp that shines in a gloomy place” until the night ends. The end of night is communicated with two slightly different images: “until day dawns” or until “the morning star rises,” whereby the latter is further modified by the phrase “in your hearts.” The metaphor of light forms the framework of the image as a whole. Light and lamps are familiar metaphors for the word of God in biblical and early Jewish language,312 and are also used for messengers of the word.313 It is evident that “a lamp” shines “in a gloomy place” (as 4 Ezra 12:42 formulates in a parallel to 2 Pet 1:19). For the “gloomy” place, however, the use of αὐχμηρός is an unusual lexical choice, which occurs in, among other things, Apoc. Pet. (A) 21 as a description of hell.314 The stark image illustrates that the world in the author’s present time is dark and opaque, while Scripture and, in particular, the prophecy within it provides (temporally limited) guidance, which the addressees need to pay attention to and not neglect. 309

Ruf, Propheten, 328. So, rightly, Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 225; cf. Acts 15:29; Jas 2:8. The participle in v. 20 should be read as an imperative; see Kraus, Sprache, 271. 311 On this, see Frey, “Retter,” 144–­47. 312 Ps 119:105 (LXX 118:105); Wis 18:4; 2 Bar. 17:4; 59:2; 77:16; L.A.B. 9.8; 15.6; 19.5; in early Christian texts also Theoph., Autol. 2.13; cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 225. 313 Cf. John 5:35 for the Baptist; Sir 48:1 for Elijah as a torch; 4 Ezra 12:42 for Ezra; further 2 Bar. 77:13, 15. 314 Cf. Kraus, Sprache, 330. The word initially means dry, rainless, barren, dusty, dirty, then also gloomy. Its application to the world of the dead is also attested epigraphically in the second century. 310



Second Peter 1:19

305

What is meant by the break of day, especially in the “hearts”? Although there is no direct reference to the “day of the Lord” or even to Christ as the “morning star,”315 the theme of the Parousia has been present since v. 16, and the metaphor chosen here is multidimensional: even if it does not explicitly mention the “day of the Lord,” the image of daybreak is nevertheless a reference to the dawn of the eschaton (cf. 2 Pet 3:18: ἡμέρα αἰῶνος).316 The second image of the rising of the morning star (φωσφόρος) complements the first.317 φωσφόρος is usually used for Venus, which rises as the harbinger of morning light. It may be a minor point of inconsistency that the “morning star” becomes visible long before daybreak, but φωσφόρος should not be taken as referring to the rising sun instead.318 In Greek texts, the morning star is referred to as φωσφόρος or (exclusively in the LXX) as ἑωσφόρος319 (= Lat. lucifer). This carries various connotations. In LXX Ps 110:3 (MT 109:3), the morning star (ἑωσφόρος) is only a fixed temporal point; in LXX Isa 14:12, it is an image for the fallen tyrant; in Gk. Apoc. Ezra 4:29, it stands for the eschatological adversary; in Jos. Asen. 14:1, it appears as a “good omen” at the end of Aseneth’s prayer; and in Sib. Or. 5.516, it is a semidivine being that does battle with the stars. In several authors the term can also refer to divine beings.320 A clear christological reference is first found in Rev 22:16b, where the resurrected Christ presents himself as “the bright morning star.” Ign. Eph. 19.2–­3 speaks of Christ as the star that outshines all others. These two passages likely refer to the prophecy about the “star from Jacob,” which was interpreted in messianic terms in ancient Judaism321 and then in early Christianity.322 An allusion to Num 24:17 is suggested above all by the verb ἀνατέλλειν.323 In some 315

Thus emphatically Boehmer, “Tag und Morgenstern?” The phrase ἕως οὗ ἡμέρα διαυγάσῃ could be an allusion to Song 2:17 (LXX 4:6; and a translation that differs from the LXX possibly attested in Origen’s commentary on Song of Songs), but this remains uncertain and substantively rather irrelevant. Cf. Sibinga, “Citation”; reported thoroughly and cautiously in Ruf, Propheten, 344–­46. 317 On this, see Kraus, Sprache, 339. 318 Thus the suggestion in Dölger, “Lumen Christi,” 10–­11; Callan, “Note,” 146. 319 Thus in LXX Ps 109:3 (MT 110:3); 1 Sam 30:17; Job 3:9; 11:17; 38:12; 41:10; Isa 14:12. 320 Thus, Spicq, Notes, 3:953; so, for example, Artemis (Phosphorus) in Strabo, Geogr. 3.1.9; Clem. Alex., Strom. 1.24.163; or Plut., Mor. 942d, for Persephone; in Philo, Ebr. 44, also for the God of Israel. 321 Cf. 1QM XI, 6–­7; 4QTest 9–­13, as well as T. Levi 18:3 and T. Jud. 24:1, where, however, there might be Christian interpolations; beyond these, cf. CD VII, 18–­19 (cf. 4QDa 3 IV, 8), where the star is personified in reference to the “interpreter of the Torah.” Another reference is the interpretation of the name of Shimon Bar Kosiba as “Bar Kochba” (cf. y. Taʿan. 68d and the Bar Kochba coins with the star motif). 322 Cf. Matt 2:1-­20; Justin, 1 Apol. 32.12; Dial. 106.4; Hippol., Comm. Dan.1.9; Origen, Cels. 1.59–­60. 323 Thus Ruf, Propheten, 348: “The author must have been aware when writing that this 316

306

Second Peter: Commentary

passages the promise of the star in Num 24:17 is connected with the image of the sun from Mal 3:20,324 which could explain the vagueness of the metaphor in 2 Pet 2:17.

While this image of the rising of the morning star does not explicitly convey a christological significance, here, too, this meaning resonates. Because both the break of “day” and the rising of the “morning star” are associated with the eschatological revelation in the context of 2 Pet, the “morning star” can be understood here at least implicitly as a metaphor for Christ, whose “ascent” like the “break of day” is an image of the complete revelation that is expected to come with Christ’s Parousia. Nor is this cosmic-­eschatological meaning dispelled with the addition of “in your hearts.” This phrase has led interpreters to see 2 Pet 1:19 as bending the conceptualization of the Parousia toward an individual-­psychological dimension.325 Yet this would create an unnecessary tension with the clearly cosmic statements in 2 Pet 3:10-­13. It is certainly not the author’s intention to internalize the cosmic expectations, and the act of ‘illumination’ articulated here cannot be understood as occurring in the present but only in an eschatological future, when the guidance of Scripture will become obsolete and the truth of that which is now only declared prophetically will manifestly come to light. The eschaton will bring the complete revelation (cf. Rom 13:12),326 and for the author this end is linked with the Parousia. 20-­21 The admonition in v. 19 is directly followed by a second admonition or teaching, which is linked syntactically with the first:327 the addressees should give heed to Scripture in that they above all (πρῶτον) “recognize” or “remain would necessarily evoke the eschatological-­messianic hopes that connotatively accompany the verb ἀνατέλλειν.” 324 Thus, for example, in T. 12 Patr. (T. Levi. 18:3; T. Jud. 24:1, possibly a Christian interpolation); cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 226. 325 Thus Käsemann, “Apologie,” 152; Schrage, “Zweite Petrusbrief,” 137; Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 200–­201; Frankemölle, 1. Petrusbrief, 2. Petrusbrief, Judasbrief, 99; cf. Grundmann, Brief, 86. Rightly against this are Vögtle, Judasbrief, 171; Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 210; and Ruf, Propheten, 352n332: “To infer from 2 Pet 1:19 that the scope of this rising is limited to illumination unduly prioritizes this verse to the exclusion of other expectations for the eschaton.” 326 So also Fornberg, Church, 85; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 226. 327 Syntactically, it is not justified to separate vv. 20-­21 from v. 19 and treat these verses as a different argument or as a response to a different objection to the inspiration of Scripture (against Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 228, who regards the objection here as “a distinct thesis to be rejected in v 20 and perhaps also in v 21a”). It is uncertain whether the opponents claim that Scripture can be interpreted independently. This is more likely the author’s rebuke of the opponents’ actual interpretation.



Second Peter 1:19-21

307

aware” (γινώσκοντες)328 that the prophecies of Scripture are of divine origin (v. 21) and have not come to be (γίνεται) through “one’s own solution” nor are they a matter of “one’s own interpretation” (v. 20). Excursus: On the interpretation of 1:20-­21 The interpretation of 2 Pet 1:20-­21 is burdened on all sides by wider interests, since, on the one hand, the dispute over the correct and legitimate interpretation of Scripture was central to the controversies during the Reformation,329 and on the other hand, the notion of the inspiration of Scripture and the resulting authority or even ‘inerrancy’ of Scripture is a fundamental tenet of modern Protestant Evangelicalism, for which 2 Pet 1:20-­21 serves as a key scriptural basis alongside 2 Tim 3:16. Because of these interests in the application of these verses, the discussion centers around which Scripture(s) are in view here, whether 2 Pet 1:20-­21 is concerned with their origin or their interpretation, or whether these verses reflect a dispute over legitimate and illegitimate interpretation. Particularly contentious, then, is interpretation of the theme and sense of the ὅτι clause in v. 20b, and its connection with the statement of v. 21, which is causally linked. There are two opposing interpretations: a) Among German-­speaking exegetes, v. 20b is usually rendered such that “no prophecy in Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.”330 On this reading, the clause is concerned with the interpretation of prophecy in the author’s and his opponents’ own time, which must not occur “on one’s own authority,” “privately,” or be “unauthorized.” This understanding presupposes that the author here implicitly accuses his opponents of such independent interpretation, and in contrast claims for himself the right of legitimate interpretation. The paradigm is thus one of conflict over the interpretive authority of the church, reflecting a lingering influence of controversies of the Reformation period and more recently the ‘early Catholicism’ paradigm: ‘Peter’ becomes a representative of the office of the church or of an interpretation affiliated with the church, against which the opponents appear as autonomous and illegitimate. The difficulty is then the connection with v. 21: How can the statement that the prophets were moved by the spirit in their writing justify such a ‘rule’ for interpretation? Verse 20b does not say, after all, that interpretation must take place in accordance with the pneumatic quality of the Scriptures (v. 21) by spirit-­filled interpreters or in 328

On the imperative sense of the participle γινώσκοντες, see Kraus, Sprache, 275. On this, see Vögtle, Judasbrief, 171. 330 Thus the Luther Bible (revision 1984): “Keine Weissagung in der Schrift [ist] eine Sache eigener Auslegung”; likewise Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 71: “Aucune prophétie . . . n’est affaire d’interprétation privée”; Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 323: “No prophecy in scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” The Einheitsübersetzung is similar: “Keine Weissagung der Schrift darf eigenmächtig ausgelegt werden” (“No prophecy of Scripture may be interpreted independently”); “Sache eigener Auslegung” (“A matter of one’s own interpretation”) also in Vögtle, Judasbrief, 163. Likewise, Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 116: “Keine Prophetie der Schrift [läßt] eine eigene Auslegung zu[]” (“No prophecy of Scripture permits one’s own interpretation”); Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 90. 329

308

Second Peter: Commentary

the Holy Spirit. Such interpretations of these verses, then, are supported by the fact that v. 20b can already be read as an implicit attack on the opponents; the problematic logical relation to v. 21 speaks against them.331 b) Recent exegesis in the English-­speaking world for the most part follows an understanding established by R. J. Bauckham,332 according to which v. 20b is concerned with the origin of biblical prophecy, which “does not come from the individual interpretation (of the prophet).” The verse is thus concerned with the notion that biblical prophecies were not autonomous speeches by the prophets, but were rather brought about or authorized by God. This reading, then, is concerned not with the interpretation of Scriptures at the time of 2 Pet, but rather with the authorization and etiology of the prophetic messages. According to this understanding, this clause does not reflect a conflict over authority within the church, but is concerned solely with the divine quality (theopneustia) and authority of Scripture.333 On this reading, the logical relation between v. 20b and v. 21 is unproblematic. It nevertheless remains to be clarified what ἐπίλυσις means and why the author has chosen this word, as well as what the referent of ἴδιος might be: the prophets and authors of Scripture or (perhaps in addition)334 the interpreters at the time of ‘Peter’ or of the actual author. Finally, there is also the problem that v. 20b is formulated in the present (γίνεται), which cannot refer directly to the OT period, and only v. 21 speaks clearly of the past (ἐλάλησαν). The object of the statements is clear: the προφητεία γραφῆς—­that is, the prophecy of the Scriptures (of Israel). The theme of the prophetic word from v. 19 is thereby directly continued. The passage is concerned with scriptural prophecy, not current prophecy at the time of the apostle or of 2 Pet.335 ‘Peter’ does set scriptural prophecy alongside his own written testament and claims the ‘prerogative of interpretation’ for the letters of his “brother” Paul, which—­like “the other writings” (2 Pet 3:16)—­are being twisted by the unstable. At least in 3:16, the author is also motivated by the topic of correct interpretation. Nevertheless, this does not necessarily imply that 1:20-­21 refers to anything other than ‘Old Testament’ texts. These verses do not convey an ‘inspiration’ of NT texts. 331

Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 124, recognizes this problem. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 229: “No prophecy of Scripture derives from the prophet’s own interpretation”; in agreement, Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 207; and Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 318: “came about by the prophet’s own interpretation.” The revised Elberfelder translation corresponds with this: “Keine Weissagung der Schrift [geschieht] aus eigener Deutung” (“no prophecy of Scripture occurs from one’s own interpretation”). 333 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 233, explicitly wants to remove the interpretation of this passage from the discussion of an authoritative church office of teaching. 334 This alternative is perhaps too sharp. Thus, Paulsen (Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 123) observes that it is “more reasonable that the author concentrates on a consideration that does not remain only at the level of past prophecy. Rather, in terms of both reception aesthetics and pragmatics, the statement is likely oriented toward the recipients of the letter and their situation.” 335 For its own time 2 Pet knows only true or false “teaching” (2 Pet 2:1); “prophecy,” by contrast, is treated as a phenomenon of the past, not a current phenomenon in the community. 332



Second Peter 1:20-21

309

Bauckham has discussed the terminology: The lexeme ἐπίλυσις (lit. “[dis]solution”)336 is attested only here within the LXX and NT. In the contexts relevant here, the term denotes the “explanation” or “interpretation” of obscure statements, omens, dreams, visions, or parables (thus Mark 4:33, then frequently in Herm., whose prophecies are the ἐπίλυσεις of his visions337). The Greek version by Aquila employs the noun in Gen 40:8 and the verb ἐπίλυειν in Gen 41:8, 12, for the Hebrew root ptr in reference to the interpretation of Joseph’s dreams. Bauckham concludes from this evidence that ἐπίλυσις has its place in the interpretation of visions and signs, and therefore in the formulation of written prophecy. Here, however, one must object that while the Hebrew/Aramaic root ptr and its derivatives are used in Gen 40–­41 and Dan for the interpretation of dreams or omens, in the pesharim of the community at Qumran (1QpHab, etc.), for whom the relevant medium of revelation is no longer visions and dreams but rather the Torah and the prophets, the root pšr (pēšær) (derived from ptr) becomes a terminus technicus for the interpretation of prophetic statements. In Philo, Contempl. 75, ἐπίλυειν stands for the resolution of puzzling Scriptures. The distinction between the interpretation of omens or visions and the interpretation of texts thus appears to be artificial. The reference to “one’s own” interpretation need not necessarily denote only the interpretation of prophetic visions and the verbalization of prophetic sayings by the prophetic authors; it can also denote the resolution of difficult texts by present-­day interpreters. Bauckham’s argument with regard to the use of ἴδιος is stronger. The texts of Hellenistic Judaism, especially Philo (and thus in the context that also forms the background for the teaching of ‘biblical inspiration’), often formulate the antithesis that prophets said nothing of ‘their own,’ but rather another (i.e., God) ‘prompted’ or inspired their words (Philo, Her. 259; Mos. 1.281, 286 [of Balaam]; Spec. 4.49). According to QG 3.10, the prophet does “not give his own oracle but is the interpreter [i.e., ἑρμηνεύς . . .] of another who puts things into his mind.”338 Similar statements appear, beyond Philo,339 in early Christian texts as well.340 Yet ἴδιος is likewise not limited to statements about the origin of prophecy, but is also found in statements about the interpretation of texts (thus Ps.-­Clem. Hom. 2.22, which states that Simon [Magus] interprets the questions of the law according to his own preconceived opinion).341 Thus the use of the word does not necessarily demonstrate the statement’s reference to the production of prophetic texts, but this reference does correspond with a pattern that is widespread in the context of Philo’s interpretive tenets and their early Christian reception. 336

Cf. Kraus, Sprache, 324. Herm. Sim. 5.3.1–­2; 4.2–­3; 5.1; 6.8; 7.1; 8.11.1; 9.10.5; 11.9; 13.9; 19.16.7; cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 231. 338 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 230 (quote following the LCL edition of the Armenian text). 339 Her. 259; Mos. 1.281; Spec. 4.49; QG 3.10; cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 229–­30. 340 Hippol., Antichr. 2; Ps.-­Justin, Cohortatio ad Graecos 8; further references in Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 230. 341 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 230. 337

310

Second Peter: Commentary

This reading (b) is supported more clearly by the use of the verb γίνεται, which is more related to the development of prophecy, though the formulation in the present tense does not point only to the time of the OT prophets, but rather makes a general statement about the genesis of prophecy. Finally, the logical connection to v. 21, which is linked causally with v. 20b, is pivotal. This causal connection is best understood if v. 21a articulates the same idea again in a different way—­namely, that prophecy does not have its source in human will—­whereupon v. 21b then supplies the pneumatological justification.

Verse 20b thus conveys the teaching that no (true) prophecy originates or has originated in one’s own interpretation. Despite the generalizing present tense, this is understood as referring to scriptural prophecy, which has been the theme since v. 19. At issue is its origin, not its interpretation. The question of whether, in choosing the term ἐπίλυσις, the author specifically had in mind the resolution of puzzles or the applications of visions and dreams in prophetic proclamations must remain unanswered. Regardless, this statement expresses that the statements of Scripture are generated by the divine power that moves the prophetic author, not his own opinion or view, as is further explained in v. 21b. Of course, it is essential to consider how this statement comes into effect within the argumentative structure of 2 Pet. What the addressees should bear in mind above all may well be an issue that the opponents have forgotten or even explicitly disputed in their skepticism toward the eschatological promise. And 2 Pet is well aware that the opponents twist Scripture and misinterpret it for their own interests (3:16). Thus, the aspect of scriptural interpretation is not entirely absent. If the opponents regarded the eschatological prophecy as a fabricated story (v. 16: μύθος), v. 20b formulates the contrary position with regard to prophecy found in Scripture. Its statements are not fabricated autonomously (by the prophets), but are divinely inspired and therefore authoritative. The authority that 2 Pet invokes here is that of scriptural prophecy, reaffirmed by the eyewitness testimony of the apostles, and originating not in human willfulness but inspired by God’s spirit. The issue of interpretation, however, is not discussed directly: ‘Peter’ claims neither a specific office nor a specific possession by the Spirit in order to interpret the Scriptures appropriately, and for the time after his death, as well, he does not entrust their interpretation to a particular ecclesial consensus or office. All such models for understanding this passage prove to be anachronistic modes of thought driven by the later Wirkungsgeschichte. The text mentions the nature of scriptural prophecy (vv. 20-­21) and Peter’s eyewitness testimony, which is invoked as a ‘reinforcement’ (v. 19) of the prophetically understood Scripture. Thus the “false teachers,” discussed starting in 2:1 and quoted in 3:4, are wrong to dispute the eschatological promise, not because their teaching is less spirit



Second Peter 1:20-21

311

filled, does not accord with an ecclesial consensus, or goes against a specific church office, but because they dispute the divine origin and the divine authority of the promises of Scripture, and autonomously reject them and the testimony of the apostles as fabricated stories (v. 16). 21 Verse 21 connects here seamlessly, and as a whole causally (γάρ), whereby the first, negative clause appears as a parallel to v. 20b in substance, while the positive clause further explicates the origin of scriptural prophecy. The two clauses are held together by forms of the same verb (φέρειν), which connects the “bringing forth” of prophecy with the idea that the person speaking prophetically is “borne” (φερόμενοι) by the Spirit. The same verb was used twice in vv. 17-­18 for the ‘issuance’ of the voice from heaven. This affirms that scriptural prophecy, like that voice, comes from God.342 The Vulgate renders the participle with inspirati and thus enabled 2 Pet 1:21 to become one of the core documents for the later doctrine of biblical inspiration. As in v. 20b (ἴδιος) it is once again emphasized that the prophecies of Scripture do not issue from (the prophets’) human will—­this would itself be an indicator of false prophecy (Jer 23:26). Rather, they are “borne” by God or God’s Spirit. 1 Pet 1:11 had already claimed that the prophets were moved to make statements about the future by the “spirit of Christ,” but the context there is concerned with the circumstances fulfilled in Christ, whereas 2 Pet 1 goes beyond this and has in mind primarily the contents of prophecy that have not yet come to pass, and unlike 1 Pet, which mentions the thoroughly human quest of the prophets, 2 Pet 1 specifically denies that they are engaged in a human activity.343 The Holy Spirit is mentioned in 2 Pet only in this verse. Apparently, pneumatology was of rather limited significance for the theology of the author (in comparison with Jude as well), and the efficacy of the Spirit as a phenomenon of the congregation’s present time goes unmentioned. With the statement that the prophets spoke πνεύματος ἁγίου φερόμενοι, 2 Pet adopts the widespread notion in ancient Greek culture that a person is θεοφόρος (“bearing a god”), θεόφορος (“borne by a god”), or θεοφόρητος344 (“inspired by a god”). This was common as technical vocabulary for prophetic inspiration in Hellenistic Judaism as well,345 and was adopted in Christianity of the second century, for example in Justin (1 Apol. 33: θεοφορούμενος).346 The present statement is closer to the term πνευματοφόρος (“bearing the spirit”), or—­with different accentuation—­π νευματόφορος (“borne by the 342

Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 233. See the comparison in Ruf, Propheten, 355. 344 Philo, Spec. 1.65. 345 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 233; on Hellenistic Judaism, see Levison, Spirit in First Century Judaism. 346 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 233. 343

312

Second Peter: Commentary

spirit”), which Theophilus later uses to describe the inspiration of the OT prophets (Autol. 2.9.22; 3.12).347 In Hellenistic Judaism, this notion was often connected with the view, known from the pagan world, that the prophets provided a space for the words of the spirit without their own awareness, as a mere tool of the deity or even in a form of ecstasy, such as the famous example of the Delphic Pythia (see Plut., Mor. 759b, 763a). In the prophetic commentaries from Qumran as well we find the conviction that the precise reference of their statements was hidden from the prophets themselves (1QpHab VI, 15), so that only through inspired interpretation, which the teacher348 and, following him, the community were authorized to do, could the explanation—­the pešer—­and thus the proper reference of the prophetic statements for their own time be found.

Such ideas are not found in the brief comment of 2 Pet 1:21. The only concern here is the contention of scriptural prophecy’s divine authorship and authority. The notion that human beings were able to speak from God’s perspective—­ which is presupposed for the prophets—­can only be conceived such that they were “borne” by the Spirit (i.e., inspired). Because the Scriptures, largely regarded as prophetic in early Christianity, are reliable in their christological promises (as observed by the apostolic eyewitnesses) and thus all the more ‘firmly’ reliable in their eschatological promises, the addressees can and should attend to them and hold to the eschatological hope (against the skepticism of the opponents). Henning Paulsen has rightly identified the hermeneutical problem of this position.349 This is a line of reasoning that attempts to safeguard the theology of 2 Pet argumentatively, which is contributed to equally by the testamentary form, the reminder of the apostolic beginnings, the appeal to the apostles’ status as eyewitnesses, and the claim that the Scriptures were inspired. Not only does this present a response to the apparently dangerous position of the opponents, it is itself a position that provokes alternative conceptions in the name of the Spirit, which is not bound to Scripture alone, or in the interest of a ‘progressive’ further interpretation. It is ultimately doubtful that the arguments presented here suffice to permanently establish ‘orthodoxy’ against differing positions, although the author’s theological treatment of eschatological traditions and the dialogical incorporation of Hellenistic religious language are not lacking in creativity themselves. Thus, although the polemic against the author’s argumentation among proponents of the early-­Catholicism hypothesis was certainly too generalized and inappropriate with respect to certain aspects (such as the church office), the obvious problems of the apologetic argumentation deployed here cannot be ignored. 347

Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 233. Cf. already LXX Hos 9:7 and LXX Zeph 3:4. 1QpHab VII, 4–­5: “Its interpretation concerns the Teacher of Righteousness, to whom God has made known all the mysteries of the words of his servants, the prophets” (trans. García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition [DSSSE]). 349 Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 124–­25. 348



Second Peter 1:21–2:22

313

3. The First Argumentative Section: The False Teachers and Their Liability to Judgment (2:1-­22) With the second chapter begins the explicit confrontation with the opponents,350 who—­following the recollection of the prophetic word and the prophets inspired by God—­are introduced here as “false prophets.” In this section, the author takes up the polemics of Jude, which he adapts with linguistic independence and a strict focus on his own intention. The lexical agreements are thus relatively limited, but dependence is nevertheless evident in the sequence of themes and examples and in the use of significant keywords (see above, pp. 187–­91). The only possible reason that the author so broadly adopts the polemic of a different text, which was directed against a different kind of opponents in a different situation, is that this portrayal of the condemnation of ‘such people’ must have appeared to be useful for his own polemic and compatible with his own ideas, for example, about the judgment. Aside from a few specific emphases, the image of the opponents in Jude is already defined by several stereotypes, making it relatively easy to transfer onto different opponents. This does not require (and it is rather doubtful) that the addressees also knew Jude.

In comparison with Jude, the polemic against the opponents in 2 Pet is sharpened in a few passages, and the author occasionally abandons the fiction that Peter is writing for a future audience and formulates the description of the opponents in the present (2:10b, 12ff.) or even in the past tense (2:15). The invectives swell to an excessive level at the end (2:20-­22), where they likely overlap only partially with the actual lives of these people. The opposing teachers are “morally depraved and spiritually trivial men,”351 who are compared to swine and dogs (2:22). For today’s mindset, it is odd that the opponents are discredited (primarily in moral terms) before a single one of their arguments is reported. This disqualification is apparently intended to pave the way for contesting the opponents’ position, or, in a certain sense, to take its place:352 the objections of such people (which are characterized as scoffing and slander), who are approaching their doom, are clearly undeserving of a serious, substantive consideration. Despite this polemic, in 3:4ff. the author offers a quite interesting engagement with the opponents’ arguments and a creative reinterpretation 350

Their arguments, which will not be cited until 3:4, have of course been in the background thematically from the start. The eschatological element resonated already in 1:4; the way was paved in 1:19-­21 for the affirmation of the reliability of God and God’s word; and the theme of Christ’s Parousia was present in 1:16-­18. 351 Vögtle, Judasbrief, 182. 352 On this, see Frey, “Disparagement”; further, T. A. Miller, “Dogs.”

314

Second Peter: Commentary

of the eschatological tradition.353 One is tempted to ask whether the author ‘needed’ such a polemic for this purpose. In terms of ethical discourse (and thus also morally), 2 Pet 2 is certainly one of the most problematic texts of the NT.354 3.1 The introduction of the opponents as false teachers doomed to damnation (2:1-­3) (1) But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive principles, even denying the master who bought them, while bringing swift destruction upon themselves. (2) And many will follow their debaucheries, on account of which the way of truth will be slandered. (3) And in greed they will exploit you with fabricated stories. The judgment (of condemnation) over them has not been idle since long ago, and their destruction does not sleep.

Following the emphasis on the reliability of the prophetic word (1:19-­21), which includes the eschatological promise, the author now comes to the topic of the “false teachers” (2:1) or “scoffers” (3:3). The broad depiction of their wickedness and condemnation (2:1-­22) paves the way for the rejection of their teaching (3:4ff.), and here too (as in 1:16-­21) there is an emphasis on the reliability of God and of Christ and an implicit reference to the opponents’ denial of the Parousia. Syntactically, 2:1-­3 is clearly distinct from 1:19-­21 and 2:4-­19a, and the verses are unified by the new subject of the “false teachers.”355 Already their first introduction aims at the message that the verdict about them at the final judgment has long since been established and their doom (like the Parousia) is certain—­indeed, it is “approaching irrevocably.”356 Thus the introduction of the opponents already contains in nuce multiple themes of the continued polemic. Verses 1-­3 take up keywords from Jude 4,357 but the original message is transformed in accordance with the authorial fiction present here: while ‘Judas’ discussed the false teachers that had invaded his addressees’ community as a current problem (Jude 4, παρεισέδυσαν in the aorist), the opponents contested here can only appear on Peter’s lips in the form of a prophecy (future: ἔσονται, παρεισάξουσιν).358 This once again adopts the form of the literary testament, introduced in 1:12-­15, which also involves a view toward descendants’ future with admonition and prophecy. 353

On this, see Frey, “Judgment,” 507–­10; and the commentary below, pp. 384–418. See the concluding deliberations in Frey, “Disparagement,” 308–­10. 355 Cf. Kraus, Sprache, 401. 356 Frankemölle, 1. Petrusbrief, 2. Petrusbrief, Judasbrief, 104. 357 Thus τὸ κρίμα, δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι, ἀσέλγεια, as well as the correspondence between παρεισέδυσαν and παρεισάξουσιν, or ἔκπαλαι and πάλαι. For ἀπώλεια, cf. Jude 5. 358 Cf. the analogous words of the earthly Jesus in Mark 13:5-­6, 22-­23; Matt 24:11, 24; and Paul in 1 Tim 4:1; 2 Tim 3:1ff. For Peter (or Jesus revealing himself to him) see especially Apoc. Pet. (A) 1. 354



Second Peter 2:1-3

315

1 The link with 1:21 is carefully composed with a keyword connection: starting from the theme of προφητεία (1:20-­21), by way of the connective link of the “false prophets” (ψευδοπροφῆται), who are known from the history of Israel, the opponents are first introduced as their ‘descendants.’ Just as there were “false prophets” among the people of Israel who spoke, not from God, but by their own will and at their own discretion (cf. 1:21), so too will there be—­from the perspective of the apostle, in the eschatological future after his death—­“ false teachers” (ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι) in the community.359 The contrast adopted from the biblical tradition between true and false prophets serves as the model for the opposition between the reliable message of the apostles and the destructive message of the opposing teachers. This opposition is emphasized in a chiastic juxtaposition of 1:16-­21 and 2:1-­3:360 A

Apostles

1:16-­18

B

Prophets

1:19-­21

B’

False Prophets

2:1a

A’

False Teachers

2:1b-­3

The intertwining of 1:16-­21 and 2:1-­3 is further strengthened by the correspondence between 1:16 (σεσοφισμένοις μύθοις ἐξακολουθήσαντες) and 2:2 (ἐξακολουθήσουσιν) as well as 2:3 (πλαστοῖς λόγοις).361 With this juxtaposition, the opponents’ charge that the members of the congregation have followed untrue, fabricated stories in their eschatological hopes (cf. v. 16a) is turned against the “false teachers”: their skeptical position allows them to be associated with the biblical “false prophets,” as the seducers who are predicted by the apostles, or by Peter himself.362 With their own fictitious, “fabricated stories” they gain many who “follow after” them. The accusation of self-­authorization (cf. 1:20-­21a) in truth applies to them. The phenomenon of false prophecy and the juxtaposition of true and false prophecy are known from the history of Israel.363 A key characteristic of false prophecy—­alongside the failure of the prophecy to come to pass (Deut 18:22; 359

Cf. Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 92, who finds the transition ἐγένοντο δὲ καὶ . . . ὡς καὶ “somewhat forced,” but “it can easily be explained if the author now turns to a foreign Vorlage.” 360 Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 217. 361 Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 236; Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 127; Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 217; cf. Watson, Invention, 106–­7. 362 Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 238. 363 The term occurs in the LXX, e.g., LXX Jer 6:13; 33:7-­16 (= MT 26:7-­16); 34:9 (= 27:9); 35:1 (= 28:1); 36:1, 8 (= 29:1, 8), Zech 13:2, as an expansion of the simple reference to a “prophet.”

316

Second Peter: Commentary

1 Kgs 22:25ff.)—­is that it is autonomous (Deut 18:20; Jer 5:31). In the present context, however, the phenomenon of OT “false prophets” is simply ‘stated,’ not further explicated. The author’s interest is in the time of the addressees (from Peter’s perspective, the future), which is addressed in comparative terms with ὡς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν and in the future tense in the form of a prophecy (cf. 2 Pet 3:3). Among these addressees will appear seductive figures, comparable to the “false prophets” of the OT. Such a pronouncement of future challenges and temptations accords with the testamentary genre in early Jewish364 and early Christian texts.365 The term ψευδοπροφῆται—­alongside ψευδόχριστοι, which was emerging in early Christianity366—­is a common description of such figures in early Christian texts (e.g., the synoptic apocalyptic speeches).367 For readers who were aware of Apoc. Pet., the prophecy must have sounded especially familiar, since in that text Christ himself announces (to Peter) the appearance of “false prophets” (Apoc. Pet. [A] 1–­2): “Many of them will be false prophets and will teach paths and manifold doctrines that lead to destruction. But they will be the sons of destruction.”368 The connection between “false prophets” or “teachers” and “destruction” (as well as the language of “path” or “paths”) has close analogues in 2 Pet. Thus, at the beginning of his prophecy, ‘Peter’ very precisely connects to another proclamation of destructive false prophets that was perhaps known to his addressees, before he then draws more strongly on the model of Jude. The only modification of this ‘Petrine’ or even ‘Jesuanic’ prophecy is the terminological change from “false prophets” to the neologism “false teachers” (ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι). This term is extremely rare in early Christianity. Second Peter is the only occurrence in the NT and perhaps the first usage altogether. Only in Justin (Dial. 82.1), in a striking parallel to 2 Pet 2:1, is the presence of false prophets in Israel compared with the presence of false teachers (ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι) in the church. However, this cannot prove that 2 Pet was known to Justin.369 The converse suggestion that 2 Pet already 364

See several occurrences in T. 12 Patr.; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 237–­38. On temptations and false teaching, cf. Acts 20:29-­30; 2 Tim 3:1-­5; 4:3-­4; T. Jud. 21:9. On future afflictions, see also the Johannine farewell addresses, such as John 15:18ff.; 16:2-­3; 16:16ff. 366 Mark 13:22; Matt 24:24. 367 T. Jud. 21:9; Mark 13:22; Matt 7:15; 24:11, 24; 1 John 4:1; Rev 16:13; 19:20; 20:10; Did. 11.5ff.; 16.3; Apoc. Pet. (A) 1; Herm. Mand. 11.1.1–­7; Hegesippus in Euseb., Hist. eccl. 4.22.6; Justin, Dial. 35.3; 51.2; 82.2. Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 238. 368 ἔ σονται ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι καὶ ὁδοὺς καὶ δόγματα ποίκιλα τῆς ἀπωλείας διδάξουσιν. ἐκεῖνοι δὲ υἱοὶ τῆς ἀπωλείας γενήσονται (see Kraus and Nicklas, Petrusevangelium, 104–­5). 369 Contra Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 237. In contrast to 2 Pet, Justin speaks specifically of the notion that the prophetic gift is “among us”—­that is, available to Christians up to the present time; whereas for 2 Pet prophecy appears to be limited to the biblical period, or scriptural prophecy. 365



Second Peter 2:1

317

knew Justin’s writing and was inspired by it (though only in this passage)370 is equally unconvincing. Despite the parallel, no literary connection can be proved. However, the first usage of the abstract noun ψευδοδιδασκαλία, perhaps somewhat earlier, in Pol. Phil. 7.2 attests to the fact that the term was ‘in the air’ in the mid-­second century.

The usage of this term in 2 Pet is not motivated simply by a tradition,371 but rather is a conscious linguistic choice. The author avoids speaking of prophets for his own time, just as the Holy Spirit is referred to only in relation to the time of the OT. Prophecy, as he understands it, is apparently not a phenomenon of his day,372 when only the prophetic word of Scripture inspired by the Spirit is to be heeded. Its interpretation is “teaching” (διδασκαλία) and just as the real author is likely active as a teacher, he characterizes his opponents, with their skeptical attitude toward prophecy, as “false teachers.”373 Thus the text is concerned with a contrast in the teaching. The author seeks to accuse the opponents of “false doctrines,”374 and the statements about the biblical false prophets375 are able to serve well in polemic against them: they spoke with self-­authorization (Deut 18:20; Jer 14:14; 23:21, 32; Ezek 13:2-­7), proclaimed peace and security, and made light of the prophets’ message of judgment (Jer 6:14; 14:13, 15; 23:17; 27:9; Ezek 13:10; Mic 3:5, 11). Thus they were ultimately subject to divine punishment (Deut 18:20; Jer 14:15; 23:15, 32; 28:16-­17), or judgment. Likewise, in the extant text of Apoc. Pet., Christ says of the “false prophets” that they “will be the sons of destruction.”376 The same applies to the “false teachers” proclaimed here. Their activities are described in what follows: they introduce sectarian teachings (αἱρέσεις), bringing (eschatological) destruction with them. The double compound παρεισάγειν, which occurs in the NT only here,377 often 370

So Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 206–­26. Thus the suggestion of Chaine, Les épîtres catholiques, 3, who wants to explain the similarity to Justin in this way. 372 Cf. Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 127. Second Peter also tellingly omits the statements about the Spirit found in Jude; he does not speak of the Spirit as a phenomenon of the present community but only of the work of the Spirit in the (biblical) past, in the speech of the prophets. That the opponents themselves made no claim to prophecy (so Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 237), is conceivable, but the choice of terminology does not seem to depend on this. 373 They were probably also teachers. Whether one can say that they only claimed such an office for themselves (cf. von Soden, Hebräerbrief, 220; Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 92) is questionable. The text here is not concerned with legitimate or illegitimate exercise of an office, but rather with the truth of the teaching. 374 Vögtle, Judasbrief, 184. 375 On this, see Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 238; Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 190. 376 Apoc. Pet. (A) 2 (Kraus and Nicklas, Petrusevangelium, 105). 377 Cf., however, Gal 2:4: παρείσακτος in the characterization of the “false brothers who secretly crept in,” according to Paul’s polemic. 371

318

Second Peter: Commentary

bears the connotation “ ‘secret,’ ‘hidden,’ ‘undetected’ (generally pejorative),” perhaps even “insidious”378 and is later used repeatedly in reference to heretics.379 The formation of the word is likely inspired by παρεισέδυσαν, which in Jude 4 expresses the intrusion of the opponents from the outside (i.e., characterizes them as not originally belonging to the community). The author of 2 Pet cannot say this about his opponents. Apparently, the image of itinerant prophets does not apply to them. They probably stay in one place and are known to the congregation. But in substance their teaching is ‘foreign,’ not apostolic in origin, and introduced by their own will. The term αἵρεσις was able to refer to philosophical or religious schools or their systems of thought, and was employed in this way in early Christian usage.380 Paul used the term in Gal 5:20 and 1 Cor 11:18 in the sense of factions or divisions, without reference to false teachings, while in Ignatius (Ign. Eph. 6.2; Ign. Trall. 6.1) the term is then used for ‘heretical’ doctrines. In the present context, this aspect is marked by the addition of ἀπωλείας (objective genitive: “that lead to destruction”), which however does not allow for the conclusion that the term αἵρεσις in itself would still be ‘neutral’ for the author.381 The plural is striking. Even though 2 Pet only engages with one point of opposition (3:3-­4), the opponents can be accused of many destructive teachings, and according to ancient categories this plurality in itself can have a negative connotation in contrast with the one true teaching.382

The addition of ἀπωλείας (cf. Apoc. Pet. [A] 1–­2) accentuates the assessment: the foreign doctrines brought in through the back door lead to eschatological destruction,383 which 2 Pet often384 refers to with the term ἀπώλεια. This 378

Kraus, Sprache, 298, and 297–­98 for notes on morphology; cf. Kraus, Sprache, 327; and the examples in Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 190: Polybius 1.18.3; 2.7.8; Plut., Mor. 328d; Diod. Sic. 1.96.5; later Euseb., Hist. eccl. 4.22.5. 379 Cf. Hegesippus at Euseb., Hist. eccl. 4.22.5; Hippol., Haer. 5.17.10; 7.29.8. 380 So Acts 5:17; 15:5; 26:5; for Christianity as αἵρεσις Acts 24:5, 14; 28:22; cf. the Jewish schools at Jos., B.J. 2.118; A.J. 13.171, 293; Vita 12. 381 Contra Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 239, see Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 128: “The neutral significance . . . has already faded, and here in any case should no longer be assumed.” It is correct, however, that αἵρεσις is not used here as a technical term for false teaching or heresy (so Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 93). 382 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 240, suggests a dependence on the early Christian apocalyptic prophecy of eschatological αἱρέσεις, as it appears in the Jesus logion ἔσονται σχίσματα καὶ αἱρέσεις transmitted in Justin (Dial. 35:3; cf. also Dial. 51:2 as well as Mart. Ascen. Isa. 3:22). However, this remains a conjecture that cannot be proven. 383 Cf. Herm. Sim. 6.2.1, where the souls are dissuaded from the truth by angels and led to destruction. 384 In addition to the two occurrences in 2:1, see 2:3; 3:7, 16; and the verb ἀπολλύναι in 3:6, 9.



Second Peter 2:1

319

term is almost always used in reference to eschatological destruction in early Christianity.385 The following participial clause strengthens the negative characterization of the opponents. They not only teach destructively, they even386 deny Christ—­ that is, they are apostates. This accusation incorporates τὸν μόνον δεσπότην . . . ἀρνούμενοι from Jude 4, but disambiguates the reference of the divine epithet δεσπότης (which was somewhat unclear in its original context) through the addition of the ransom motif, which points toward Christ. The opponents deny “the one who bought them” (i.e., Christ). Thus their fate can only be one of ruin. We find here the rare designation of Christ as “master” (δεσπότης, clearly christological here, in contrast to Jude), which corresponds with the reference to Peter (like other early Christian authors) as a “slave” of Christ (1:1) and also implies Christ’s dominion and authority regarding the way of life of his followers.387 This designation of Christ is then expanded with the phrase “who bought them,”388 which might imply that this ‘purchase’ took place in Christ’s death.389 The formulaic phrase, however, leaves any further details of this event and its meaning open. Above all, it is unclear whether the author has in mind here simply a change of leadership or—­against the background of 1 Cor 6:20 and 7:23—­also a ransom (from whose dominion?),390 and unlike in 1 Pet 1:18-­19 (cf. Eph 1:7), there is no mention of a purchase price. However, unlike Paul, 2 Pet does not otherwise emphasize the freedom of the redeemed. This notion could rather have served the opponents as justification for a libertine lifestyle and is notably avoided by the author. Instead, 2 Pet emphasizes the dominion of the δεσπότης and the obligation of loyalty it entails. But the phrase τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτούς makes the accusation of renouncing Christ particularly pointed:391 not only do those in question deny the Lord to whom they belong, they have been 385 Cf. also Matt 7:13; John 17:12; Rom 9:22; Phil 1:28; 3:19; 2 Thess 2:3; 1 Tim 6:9; Heb 10:39; Rev 17:8, 11; Apoc. Pet. (A) 1–­2 . 386 The καί here is emphatic. The participle ἀρνούμενοι is thus subordinated to the finite verb παρεισάξουσιν, and the following participle ἐπάγοντες is likewise still a part of this sentence. 387 So Rengstorf, “δεσπότης,” 48. 388 Cf. [ἐξ]ἀγοράζειν in Gal 4:4-­5; 1 Cor 6:20; 7:23; Rev 5:9; 14:3-­4; cf. also Rom 6:17-­ 18; 1 Pet 1:18. On the Pauline background, see Ruf, Propheten, 364–­65; in detail Haubeck, Loskauf. 389 This is the only reminiscence of the event of Jesus’ death in the entire letter. It does, however, attest to the fact that the formulistic soteriological language (like the Pauline letters) was known to the author and his addressees. 390 Thus Haubeck, Loskauf, 281–­82. The motif also occurs in Deut 13:6 (Haubeck, Loskauf, 282). Cf. also Grundmann, Brief, 88. 391 Thus Haubeck, Loskauf, 282.

320

Second Peter: Commentary

granted a special benefaction from him and are thus all the more obligated to grateful obedience.392 It remains unclear what concretely constitutes their renunciation. This need not specifically refer to a denial of Jesus’ salvific death,393 especially since this is not addressed except in this one brief formulation. Nor can heretical doctrines about the person of Christ be derived from this text. A more likely point of reference is the denial of Christ’s Parousia discussed in 3:3-­4,394 which also has to do with the divine glory of Christ attested in 1:16ff., or the practical denial of Christ and his sovereignty implied by a libertine way of life.395 The author probably does not regard this as a dichotomy396 since the denial of the Parousia and the judgment could encourage a corresponding (un)ethical praxis. The denial of the Parousia, however, is the only secure evidence for characterizing the opponents, whereas the moral accusations are at least partially based on stereotypes that the author has adopted from Jude (and in part even intensified).

With their renunciation, the opponents are condemned to destruction (ἀπώλεια), which is added here in anticipation of v. 3b. The adjective ταχινός is striking: destruction will come quickly—­ironically, it is directly accelerated by the false teachers, while they point to the stability of the world and the fact that the Parousia and judgment have still not occurred. For the author’s understanding of time, by contrast, the opponents’ appearance is not only a sign but itself a catalyst of the rapidly approaching eschaton. Their wickedness sets the judgment in motion (just as the reverent expectation of the faithful speeds the arrival of daybreak according to 3:12). 2 The announcement of false teachers is now continued with reference to their seductive influence, with the accent shifting from their teaching to their way of life. The moral denigration of the opponents begins with the topoi of “licentiousness” and “greed.” First, it is said that many will “follow” these teachers. ἐξακολουθήσουσιν here connects with 1:16a, marking a contrast to apostolic discipleship. The primary motivation for ‘following’ the false teachers, however, is not their 392 Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 191 (cf. also 57–­58) demonstrates that according to ancient norms, for a slave not to acknowledge a master is a grave dishonor (cf. 1 Tim 6:1). Essentially, what was formulated in the language of an honorary decree in 1:3ff. is repeated here in more traditional terminology: the savior’s benefactions entail the corresponding obligation to honor him with the appropriate virtues. See above, p. 257. 393 As suggested by Smith, Controversies, 89. 394 See, among many others, Chaine, Les épîtres catholiques, 67; Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 328; Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 210; Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 79; Knoch, Petrusbrief, 260; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 184; Donelson, I & II Peter and Jude, 238. 395 So Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 241; Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 221. 396 Vögtle, Judasbrief, 185, sees a “doctrinal and practical denial of Christ.”



Second Peter 2:1-2

321

teaching itself but rather, as is interwoven polemically here, their immoral way of life, their “debaucheries.” The word ἀσέλγεια, which often refers to sexual promiscuity,397 is adopted from the Vorlage in Jude 4. Thus, it remains unclear to what extent this accusation matches the concrete behavior of the opponents, or whether the author is simply using a polemical element of his Vorlage ‘secondarily’ to discredit the opponents.398 While Jude 4 addresses the perversion of grace into licentiousness, which could point to an antinomian justification of libertine behaviors, perhaps in connection with Pauline traditions,399 2 Pet only speaks of ἀσέλγεια and does not mention the response to ‘grace.’ Bauckham has therefore suggested that the ‘libertinism’ of the opponents in 2 Pet was not critical of the law but rather based primarily on the skeptical negation of the Parousia and judgment, such that their promiscuity could be regarded as a relapse into pagan customs.400 Of course, all these attempts to deduce the profile and behavior of the opponents from the author’s allegations always rely on the assumption that these are not simply polemical clichés adopted and used for purposes of disqualification.401

The author’s ‘diagnosis’ of the situation can be inferred from this statement. Apparently, the opponents had some success among the congregations known to him. Their teaching had infected “many” (cf. vv. 18-­19), and the addressees were perhaps able to confirm this by observing their own surroundings and thus agree with the author. In the present context, however, the author does not yet address the substance of the opponents’ teaching but only emphasizes the fact that they are being followed in their immoral behavior, thus suggesting that above all the opponents’ ‘loose’ way of life tempts others to follow them. One consequence of this is highlighted here: where congregation members follow such teachers and abandon the stricter path of the virtues, this not only leads to their own stumbling (cf. 2 Pet 1:9) but also has a negative external effect by contradicting the Christian message and its ethical admonition. The faith becomes unreliable or is “slandered.” 397 Cf. the plural in Herm. Vis. 2.2.2; see also Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 222. On the function of ἀσέλγεια in 2:2, 7 and the connection with other lexemes with alpha privative, see Kraus, Sprache, 302–­3. 398 So also Harrington, “Jude and 2 Peter,” 262; cf. Frey, “Disparagement,” 285. 399 See the argumentation above, p. 75. 400 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 241. 401 On this, see the summarizing discussion in Frey, “Disparagement,” 299–­307. It cannot be denied that ethical liberalities could follow from the denial of the Parousia and judgment (in the opponents’ way of life or at least as a concern on the part of the author). On the other hand, the reference to ethical grievances could evoke approval among the addressees and help to convince them of the danger posed by the opponents.

322

Second Peter: Commentary

This reference to the possible reaction of outsiders occurs to some extent already in Paul402 and is a popular topos in the paraenesis of late NT texts and in the second century.403 In a pagan society in which Christians were outsiders, they had to maintain higher ethical standards than those of their neighbors. If they did not and offered a cause for offense, this contributed to the discrediting of their faith. So, too, according to 1 Tim 6:1 and Titus 2:5, the community’s household code of ethics ought to bring about “that the name of God and the teaching not be slandered.” Second Clement 13.3 explicitly expresses that when Christians’ behavior does not correspond with their words, outsiders “turn to slander” and regard the gospel as a “myth” (i.e., as an unbelievable story and a deception). The Christian faith is referred to here in a unique phrase as “the way of truth.”404 “Way” is a common metaphor for religious and ethical praxis in early Judaism as well as emerging Christianity, where the new faith itself could be referred to as “the way.”405 The formulation, like “way of righteousness” in 2:21 (cf. Apoc. Pet. [A] 22, 28), could denote the teaching that accords with the truth, or the apostolic testimony, and is at the same time connected with a specific praxis in life.

The “false teachers” thus not only lead others into destruction; they also contribute to the lack of credibility of the Christian “way,” in that (allegedly) they do not comply in their way of life with the (stricter) Christian ethic and thereby undermine the public perception of the community. 3 Only after discussing their way of life does the author mention the teaching of the “false teachers,” and likewise does so with the use of conventional polemical topoi: they are accused of “greed” and the independent “fabrication” of statements that are diametrically opposed to both divinely authorized prophecy (1:20-­21) and the authentically attested apostolic message (1:16). From the outset, the opponents’ teaching is thus discredited as unauthorized, invented, and presented out of self-­interest (i.e., disingenuously). It is through “fabricated stories” (πλάστοι λόγοι) that they deceptively win their supporters. “Myths” were especially considered to be such “fabrications.”406 402

Rom 2:23-­24, with reference to Isa 52:5; cf. 1 Thess 4:12; 1 Cor 14:23. Cf. 1 Thess 4:12; 1 Pet 2:12; 3:16; 4:15; Jas 2:1-­7; 1 Tim 5:14; 6:1; Titus 2:5, 8; 1 Clem. 47.7; Ign. Trall. 8.2; Pol. Phil. 10.2–­­3. On this see the foundational discussion by van Unnik, “Rücksicht”; further Ruf, Propheten, 369–­72. 404 The formulation occurs in this sense elsewhere only in Acts Pet. 12 and Aristid., Apol. 16, as well as slightly modified in Herm. Vis. 3.7.1; it occurs in the sense of a way of life demanded by God in Ps 119:30 (LXX 118:30) and Wis 5:6 as well as in Jas 5:19 v.l. and 1 Clem. 35.5. 405 Cf. Acts 9:2; 19:9; 24:14, 22; cf. “way of the Lord” Acts 18:25; “way of God” Acts 18:26. On the tradition history, cf. Grundmann, Brief, 89–­91; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 241–­42, and Repo, “Weg,” 102–­7. 406 See, for example, in Philo the terms μυθοπλαστεῖν in Post. 52, Gig. 58, Fug. 121; μυθοπλάστης in Conf. 6; Aet. 56, 68 (cf. Plut., Mor. 395c); μυθοποιΐα in Sacr. 13, 76; Mut. 59; and μυθοῦ πλᾶσμα Opif. 1.2, 157; Det. 125; Congr. 61; Abr. 243; Mos. 2.271; Decal. 156; 403



Second Peter 2:2-3

323

The allegation of the opponents that the apostles and the community have followed after “stories” invented by human beings in their hopes for the eschaton (1:16) thus rebounds sharply onto the opponents: in reality, they are the ‘con artists’ who have convinced many to “follow after” them with fabricated teachings, to their own ruin. This is followed by the accusation of greed, which is stereotypical in polemic against false teachers (cf. Jude 11, 16) and well suited for the chosen verb ἐμπορεύεσθαι: the opponents ‘buy’ their followers with the cheap ‘offer’ of a message that seems attractive in that it eliminates the harshness of judgment, softens the strict ethic of the community, and thus gains approval and a following. It must be considered that here, too, the allegation (like that of immoral behavior) is a classic polemical stereotype that was especially suited to call into question the opponents’ credibility and arouse suspicion about their teachings. In early Christian texts, similar accusations occur in 1 Tim 6:5; Titus 1:11; Barn. 20.2; and Did. 5.2;407 but the motif is also included in all polemical depictions of ‘sophists’ and begging ‘itinerant philosophers,’ and it is effective as a conventional motif. Thus, whether the opponents here did in fact draw material profit from their teaching cannot be determined from this allegation.

Just as in the case of the biblical “false prophets,” there is only one possible response to such immorality, greed, and a deceptive, unauthorized message: divine judgment, which the false teachers thus bring upon themselves. Yet in the formulation that brings this section to a close with one short sentence,408 and draws in part on Jude 4, there is once again a precise rejection of the opponents’ allegations. The author likely shares with Jude the conviction that the judgment of the scoffers is already prefigured in Scripture, which he then explains in vv. 4-­7, again partially adopting Jude 5-­7. Yet the statement that the judgment of condemnation against such people is “not ineffective” or “not idle” (οὐκ ἀργεῖ) and that their destruction “does not sleep” (οὐ νυστάζει) ascribes Praem. 8, 162; Contempl. 63; on this, see Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 175–­76; further Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 214, who points out that above all Epicureans thought that the Greek stories of postmortal punishment were invented as a means of moral control. The false teachers might have used such arguments agains the Christian expectation of Parousia and judgment, or conversely, the author’s depiction might have been meant to cast them in an Epicurean light. 407 Cf. du Toit, “Vilification,” 408: “The connection beteween religion and money-­making does not only have a long history, it constitutes also a stereotyped technique of vilification.” 408 Contra Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 195–­96, and Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 245, v. 3b belongs with vv. 1-­3, not the following section, since here the ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι are the subject and the conditional clause (protasis) of v. 4 pertains to the following apodosis (v. 9); cf. Kraus, Sprache, 401, 403.

324

Second Peter: Commentary

human activity to the abstract concepts of κρίμα and ἀπώλεια.409 While the opponents pointed to the stable existence of the world and relegated the reliability of the divine word and the expectation of the Parousia of Christ and his judgment to the realm of ‘myths’ (and perhaps derived from this the notion that a permissive way of life is harmless), in response they are now confronted with the claim that their destruction is coming “quickly” (v. 1), their judgment has long been established, and is speeding toward them inescapably.410 And if, beyond this, the opponents have even doubted divine activity in history altogether,411 they will be disabused of this notion in their destruction. The allegation of the opponents (v. 16) is thus countered in the strongest terms; the precise composition from 1:16 to 2:3 serves this aim and simultaneously introduces the further disqualification of the opponents. 3.2 The power of God to judge the unrighteous and save the pious (2:4-­10a) (4) For if God did not spare the angels who had sinned, but banishing them to the dark caves412 of Tartarus delivered them preserved for the judgment, (5) and if (God) did not spare the ancient world but protected the eighth, Noah, as herald of righteousness when he sent the flood upon the world of the impious, (6) and if (God) condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ruin, burning them to ash, to make them an example for those who would be impious in the future, (7) and if (God) saved the 409 That a divinity “sleeps” is an element of OT idol polemic (cf. Elijah in 1 Kgs 28:27). By contrast, Ps 121:4 professes that the biblical God specifically does not sleep. In Isa 5:27 this refers to the instruments of God’s judgment. Cf. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 201–­2 . 410 Jude was able to take the ‘scriptural basis’ for the notion that the verdict over the ‘godless’ is established and awaits them in the judgment at the eschaton from Enoch (see the quotation in Jude 14), whereas the listed examples of judgment (with the exception of the episode of the Watchers in Jude 6) offer no basis for this. Second Peter does not adopt the Enoch quotation, and uses the biblical example differently, but does not make an effort to find a different scriptural foundation. 411 In this case the image of the opponents would acquire ‘Epicurean’ features. Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 214, and Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 201–­2 . In connection with the denial of divine punishment or reward, the notion of divine inactivity belongs to the topoi of Epicurean teaching (see Cicero, Nat. d. 1.9.51; Euseb., Praep. ev. 5.19; Origen, Cels. 6.78; on this, see Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 202). 412 The choice between σειραῖς (from σειρά [“rope, fetter, chain”]) and σειροῖς (= σιροῖς, from σιρός [“hole, pit, cave”]) is difficult to make on the basis of attestation. σειραῖς corresponds with δεσμοῖς in Jude 6 and is more likely a “later harmonization with the text of Jude . . . perhaps under the corroborative influence of Wis 17:16” (so Ruf, Propheten, 385n413), but it cannot be presupposed that the author was only guided by Jude. In connection with ταρταρώσας, the locative meaning seems more fitting. Thus, this translation follows the reading σειροῖς. So also Fornberg, Church, 52–­53; Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 83; Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 132–­33; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 190. The contrary position is taken by Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 244; and Metzger, Commentary, ad loc.



Second Peter 2:3-10a

325

righteous Lot, who suffered under the licentious behavior of the lawless, (8)—­for by sight and hearing this righteous man who lived among them tortured his righteous soul day in and day out with their lawless deeds—­(9) then the Lord knows how to save the pious from trials, and to preserve the unrighteous for the day of judgment so that they are chastised, (10a) and especially those who go after flesh in desire for pollution and despise the Lord’s dominion.

With v. 4, which is causally linked with the statement of judgment in v. 3b, a long period begins with God now as the subject, or in v. 9 “the Lord.”413 Four biblical examples strung together in vv. 4-­7 are connected conditionally (εἰ γάρ in v. 4) to the apodosis in v. 9: the first conditional clause is joined to the next three examples with a coordinating καί (vv. 5, 6, 7). The first three examples are linked with one another by shared key words;414 the second and the first as well as the fourth and the third are thematically related in that each example of judgment is followed by an example of rescue from that event of judgment. Verse 8 is a parenthesis inserted after v. 7 (i.e., in explanation of the example of Lot). The main emphasis of the entire period lies on the apodosis in v. 9. Verse 10b brings the section to a close by pointedly applying the announcement of judgment at the opponents (picking up vv. 1-­3). The passage as a whole provides a biblical justification and affirmation of the announcement of judgment expressed in v. 3b, whereby, however, the selection of examples and v. 9 place the emphasis on both judgment and salvation. This section serves first of all to justify the judgment pronounced in v. 3b. The paradigmatic series in Jude 5-­7 was well suited to this purpose. But the fact that only two examples from this series are used (the Watchers and Sodom and Gomorrah), while they are supplemented by two positive examples of the rescue of the pious from judgment (Noah and Lot),415 shows that the aim of the argument in 2 Pet is different than that of the source: this is not just about the certainty of the judgment of the opponents pronounced in v. 3b, it is concerned more comprehensively with demonstrating God’s power to judge and to save on the basis of scriptural evidence, especially since (according 413 Thus beginning this section with v. 3b (as in the commentaries of Bauckham, Neyrey, and others) is unconvincing. 414 Verse 5 takes up οὐκ ἐφείσατο ἀλλὰ from v. 4; v. 6 is connected with v. 5 by ἀσεβής/ ἀσεβεῖν. 415 The annihilation of the old cosmos in v. 5 is not an independent example but rather the situation from which Noah is then saved. Therefore, we have 2 + 2 paradigms, each of which is introduced with a new καί (differently Ruf, Propheten, 392). Noah and Lot appear together as having been saved in Luke 17:26-­29, and Noah is also mentioned in 1 Pet 3:20 in the context of the flood. The addition of Noah and Lot to the negative examples could be an indication of the reception of 1 Pet (so Schmidt, Mahnung, 368n143); it must remain unanswered whether beyond this there is an influence of other sequences of paradigms with exemplars of righteousness.

326

Second Peter: Commentary

to Jude 15 and 21 as well) both acts—­the judgment of the godless and salvation of the pious—­are connected with the expected Parousia. In placing the judgment of the flood generation and of Sodom and Gomorrah alongside one another, the author simultaneously introduces the two forms of judgment by water and fire, which will then reappear in 3:6-­7.

A close comparison of Jude 5-­7 and 2 Pet 2:4-­7 shows that every trait characterizing the opponents from Jude is softened or omitted in 2 Pet. Syntactically as well, there is scarcely any reliance on Jude; indeed, the author arranges the complex period entirely independently. Following the four examples introduced in the conditional clause, the period flows into the main clause in v. 9. Like the series of examples in vv. 4-­7 this is a twofold formulation, but now the positive element—­the rescue of the righteous—­is mentioned before the negative aspect of judgment. The pointed emphasis on the judgment of the opponents, which these examples serve to justify and which prompted beginning with a negative example after v. 3, appears again at the end of the passage when v. 10a applies the divine power of judgment to a particular group, which is clearly the aforementioned “false teachers.” The series of examples in 2 Pet 2:4-­7 is also—­unlike in Jude—­ordered chronologically according to the sequence of the episodes in the book of Genesis. The example of the desert generation, which is given first in Jude 5, is omitted here; the example of the Watchers, which comes second in Jude 6, is the only example that allows us to speak of an eschatological judgment and of the sinners who are held captive until that judgment, and is in the first position here. After this example, then, those that follow can be read in the light of eschatological condemnation or salvation, even if no such notion is present in their biblical context.416 The structure of this section can be explained by the argumentative interest of 2 Pet and does not need to be traced back to an additional tradition of judgment paradigms alongside Jude.417 4 The example of the sinful angels, derived from Gen 6:1-­4, is adopted from Jude 6, but characteristically altered. Jude’s lexical dependencies on the Enoch tradition have been erased. and where Jude presents a precisely composed description of the sins of the “Watchers” based on the teaching about the angels—­namely, as a transgression of the boundary between angels and human beings, and thus a breach of the divine ‘cosmic order,’ which served 416

Both the flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah offer an immediate judgment of destruction and in themselves would not directly attest to an eschatological judgment. 417 Contra Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 246–­47, who with reference to Wis 10 suggests an independent tradition of examples of the rescue of the pious and punishment of the impious. However, 2 Pet 2:4-­8 can be sufficiently explained by the author’s knowledge of Jude and his independent transformation of this series.



Second Peter 2:4-10a

327

Jude’s interest—­this is rendered here in a generalized form. This shows that the problem of sinful ‘transgression’ and the interest in the preservation of the order safeguarded by the angels, which motivated the author of Jude, are not an issue for 2 Pet. Accordingly, the author has no interest in comparing the sins of angels and those of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, as Jude did. There is no independent connection to the Enoch tradition.418 Just as the “debaucheries” of the “false teachers” were formulated generically in v. 1, simply the “sinning” (ἁμαρτάνειν) of the angels is mentioned here.419 Further details of their offenses and the broader tradition connected with the Watchers are of no interest. What matters is that God “did not spare” (οὐκ ἐφείσατο) these sinful angels,420 and thus that wicked deeds invariably bring destruction with them. The statement adopted from Jude 6 that the sinful angels were “preserved (τηρεῖν) for the (eschatological) judgment” is also significant. This makes it possible to read the other examples as evidence that a final judgment is to be expected on the day of the Parousia. In Jude the example of the Watchers was the only ‘scriptural’ example to mention not simply a general divine punishment but specifically a divine punishment of sinners that first occurs at the eschaton. Thus, strictly speaking, only on this basis can it be said that eschatological condemnation of such ‘godless’ people has long been fixed and is firmly established. The Enoch tradition adopted in Jude recounts in more detail that these fallen angels are not punished immediately, but are instead bound and held captive in darkness until the eschatological judgment (1 En. 10:4-­12; Jub. 5:6, 10; cf. Jude 6). These statements are influenced by the Greek myth of the Titans and their overthrow, probably already in 1 En., but at the latest in its Greek version. This similarity 418

Whether the author knew Enoch cannot be determined with certainty (Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 132–­33). The fact that the Enoch quotation from Jude 14-­15 was not taken up here can be best explained by considering that the addressees might not have known it. There is a widespread assumption that the omission of the quotation and other Enochic elements from Jude are due to an advanced ‘canonical consciousness’ or an awareness that Enoch’s status was not generally acknowledged. This is doubtful, given that such a canonical consciousness did not yet exist in the second century and Enoch was still unquestioningly accepted among authors until the end of the second century (e.g, in Tertullian; see above, p. 121). 419 A generic sin can also be inferred from Gen 6:1-­4, and the author may have had in mind sexual sins in general (cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 248–­49), especially since v. 10a formulates this again with reference to the opponents, but also because there is a modification here in comparison with Jude 7: the opponents run “after flesh” (2 Pet 2:10a) but not “different flesh” (Jude 7). 420 The phrase occurs in Sir 16:18 in a comparable context but is widespread in the OT; cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 246.

328

Second Peter: Commentary

was observed already in ancient Judaism,421 and Jdt 16:6 identifies the angels with the Titans. Second Peter takes up this context significantly more strongly than Jude, but in line with Hellenistic Judaism, when “Tartarus” is mentioned explicitly: God did not spare these angels but rather “banished them to the dark caves of Tartarus” (ταρταρώσας), and thus preserved them and “delivered them to (eschatological) judgment.” The extremely rare verb ταρταροῦν, unattested in Hellenistic Judaism,422 is associated with the incarceration of the Cyclopes and Titans in the lowest underworld (like the somewhat more common καταταρταροῦν).423 The noun τάρταρος, however, does occur already in the LXX and in Hellenistic Judaism,424 and in Jewish apocalyptic texts the place of punishment for the angels and sinners was identified with the Greek Tartarus.425 The language of the “dark caves of Tartarus” which the author uses here “depicts the punishment particularly vividly,”426 and it is conceivable that the author seeks to recall in his Gentile Christian readers the idea of the punishment of the Titans in Tartarus (Hesiod, Theog. 617–­735), which was perhaps more familiar to them than the Enoch tradition. The reference to dark “holes” (σιροῖς) further strengthens this connection: according to Pliny Eld., Nat. 18.73.306, the term denotes “hollows dug into the ground . . . for the storage of grain”; in Diod. Sic. 19.44.1 it refers to the βάραθρον in Athens, “an underground place of detention for criminals”; and Lucian, Icaromenippus, 33 uses βάραθρον as a synonym for Tartarus.427 The author thus extensively formulates this passage using vocabulary that points to the myth of the Titans, and “he thereby situates himself in an . . . environment that presupposes an in-­depth encounter between Jewish traditions and perspectives and pagan Hellenism, which . . . puts its stamp on . . . the formulation . . . , and thereby necessarily also on the ideas themselves.”428

The judgment that the author has in view here, as in Jude 6, is doubtless the eschatological judgment of destruction. Here 2 Pet omits the striking wordplay with the verb τηρεῖν that is found in Jude. The angels’ specific offense is irrelevant. The author is concerned only with emphasizing “the validity of the divine judgment” of the sinners429 and thereby establishing that their condemnation 421

Jos., A.J. 1.73. Cf. also Hengel, Judentum and Hellenismus, 347–­48. On this, see Kraus, Sprache, 337. Cf. Sext. Emp., Pyrrhoniae hypotyposes 3.210. 423 On this, see Pearson, “Reminiscence,” 71–­80; Kraus, Sprache, 337; Ruf, Propheten, 403; also Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 249; and already Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 93. 424 Cf. LXX Job 40:20; 41:24; Prov 30:16 (parallel to ᾅδης); further in Philo, Legat. 49, 103; Praem. 152; Jos., C. Ap. 2.240; Sib. Or. 1.101–­103 and 4.186; on this, see Dennis, “Cosmology,” 166–­68; Ruf, Propheten, 402–­3. 425 1 En. 20:2; Sib. Or. 4.186; Gk. Apoc. Ezra 3:15; 5:27; Philo, Praem. 152; Jos., C. Ap. 2.240. 426 Kraus, Sprache, 337. 427 Thus Ruf, Propheten, 404; Pearson, “Reminiscence,” 78–­80. 428 Thus Ruf, Propheten, 405. 429 Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 133. 422



Second Peter 2:4-5

329

“is not ineffective” and that their ruin “does not sleep” (v. 3b), but is certain to come at the eschaton—­whenever that may occur. 5 The second example of judgment, the flood, is connected to v. 4 by the parallel οὐκ ἐφείσατο,430 although the emphasis here is on the ‘exception’ introduced with ἀλλά—­that is, the salvation of Noah. Just as the sinful angels were not spared, but incarcerated until the judgment, so also the “old world” (ἀρχαίος κόσμος) was not spared, but abandoned to destruction by the flood. The author distinguishes this antediluvian world of the impious from the present as well as the new world anticipated at the eschaton (as 3:5-­13 will demonstrate). It is noteworthy here that, going beyond the biblical account (and Enoch), the author apparently presupposes the destruction not only of the flood generation (i.e., of humanity) but of the entire cosmos, of heaven and earth, the “old world.”431 The reference to the flood as a model for the future judgment is a common topos of early Jewish and early Christian theology.432 Yet in contrast with other series of examples of judgment, the focus here is not on the punishment of the flood generation but rather on the ‘exception’ of Noah who was preserved from ruin, who is introduced as “the eighth,” as “herald of righteousness,” and as a paradigm of salvation. By recounting the fate of the righteous among godless people here and again in vv. 7-­8, the author implicitly addresses his audience’s own situation. The numerical reference to “the eighth” is puzzling. Unlike the numbering from Enoch used in Jude 14 as “the seventh after Adam,” this most likely does not refer to the succession of generations but instead alludes to the number of those who are saved according to Gen 8:18 (i.e., “Noah, together with seven others”—­namely, his wife, his three sons, and their wives).433 It remains unclear, however, why the author refers to 430 There is a close connection between the episode of the Watchers and the flood already in Gen 5 and Jub. 5. According to 1 En. 10:1-­3, the flood occurred because of the sinful actions of the Watchers and their offspring, the giants. Later passages of Enoch then speak in more detail about the flood (1 En. 89 as well as in the digressions in 1 En. 54:7–­55:2; 65:1–­67:13). The two episodes are also associated with one another in CD II, 17–­III, 1, T. Naph. 3:5 and 3 Macc 2:4, and appear alongside each other in the Targumim (Tg. Ps.-­J. on Gen 6:1-­8 and Tg. Neof. on Gen 6:2-­3). The flood and the Sodom and Gomorrah tradition occur in Philo, Mos. 2.56, 65, and in Luke 17:26-­29. Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 249; Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 227; Ruf, Propheten, 406. 431 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 299, points out that already Gen 7:11 speaks of the chaotic primal waters flowing through the floodgates of heaven. According to 1 En. 83:3, the earth was swallowed by the waters of the abyss, and Ps.-­Clem. Hom. 9.2 also appears to be aware of the effect of the flood on the cosmos, not only on human beings. 432 On early Jewish texts see Lewis, Study, and Schlosser, “Les jours.” 433 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 250. This was already understood numerically in the early Jewish tradition: Wis 10:4; Sir 44:17; 4 Ezra 3:11; 1 En. 65:11; 106:18, etc.; see also 1 Pet 3:20.

330

Second Peter: Commentary

this point.434 Is he simply concerned with the small number of those who were saved, as in 1 Pet 3:20 (“only a few, namely eight saved”)? It is not inconceivable that, as later in Justin (Dial. 138.1), there resonates here a notion of the symbolism of the world’s renewal, which is supposed to take place after the seven ‘days’ of the old creation on the eighth day, the day of the resurrection (cf. Barn. 15.9; Theoph., Autol. 3.19),435 but this is not explained in any detail here. The closest parallel to 2 Pet 2:5 is probably a passage from Sib. Or. (1.280–­281), according to which Noah likewise steps as “the eighth” from the ark into the new world.436 The mention of the number could point to such a symbolic dimension.

In the biblical account, Noah is simply “righteous” (δίκαιος) and “perfect” (τέλειος), and thereby pleasing to God (Gen 6:9).437 He then becomes the “herald of righteousness” (i.e., a preacher of repentance) in the early Jewish haggadah,438 and early Christianity (as well as, later, Islam) adopts this image of Noah.439 With the reference to righteousness, Noah becomes not only the antithesis to the flood generation but also a model of a life guided by God’s commandments. In the statement that God “preserved” him (i.e., did not subject him with all the rest to the judgment—­indeed, the cosmic catastrophe), he also becomes an example of the principle that God “knows how to save the pious from trial” (v. 9). Like Lot in the next example, Noah appears as a righteous man among the godless, who stood firm in the midst of trial and was therefore saved from judgment. With the presentation of these role models, the author makes an effort here to positively influence his readers. 6 The author takes the third example, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, from Jude 7. Here he omits not only the surrounding cities mentioned there, but also—­as with the sinful angels—­the concrete description of the inhabitants’ offense.440 It is, however, presupposed that the readers are familiar with their sinfulness. 434

On this, see Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 250; and Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 131–­33. 435 So also Kraftchick, Jude, 2 Peter, 128. Further early church occurrences in Staats, “Ogdoas,” 40–­42. 436 This occurrence is from a section of Sib. Or. that is probably still Jewish (on this see Collins, Sibylline Oracles, 376) and could be adapted here, if 2 Pet also originated in Egypt. 437 Cf. further Jub. 5:19; Sir 44:27; Wis 10:4. That Noah’s family also followed his way of life and thus could be regarded as equally “righteous” (and was saved accordingly) is tacitly assumed in the context of ancient cultural thought. 438 Jub. 7:20-­39; Jos., A.J. 1.74; Sib. Or. 1.148–­198 (cf. also 1.129: “he preached repentence”; Gen. Rab. 30:7; Qoh. Rab. 9:15; Pirqe R. El. 22; b. Sanh. 108). Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 250–­51; Lührmann, “Noah und Lot,” 130–­32; Schlosser, “Les jours.” 439 So already 1 Clem. 7.6 ἐκήρυξεν μετάνοιαν; cf. 9:4; Theoph., Autol. 3.19. 440 That the inhabitants “pursued other flesh”—­that is, wanted to engage in sexual relations



Second Peter 2:5-7

331

With early Jewish and early Christian tradition, the incineration441 and “destruction” (καταστροφή)442 of the cities is also interpreted as a cautionary “example” (ὑπόδειγμα) of the divine judgment for future generations.443 In contrast to Jude 7, the author abstains from referring to the (cautionary) signs still visible in the present. The statement about whom the cities are meant to warn as cautionary signs is textually uncertain. The new ECM and NA28 favor the reading ἀσεβεῖν over ἀσεβέσιν, which was preferred in NA27. The decision here is not clear-­cut, but the semantic difference is minimal. With the ECM reading, the warning refers to those who will act impiously in the future, which places the focus even more strongly on moral action.444

With the flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah the author presents the two most prominent examples of divine judgment, which also illustrate the model of destruction by water and fire used in 2 Pet 3:5-­7.445 While the ancient, antediluvian world was destroyed by water (κατακλυσμός), the example of Sodom and Gomorrah points toward the destruction by fire (ἐκπύρωσις), which is anticipated on the day of judgment. Thus, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah typologically depicts what will befall those whose behavior is impious, and above all the opponents, on the day of the Lord. 7 The fourth example, again set apart from the preceding by its positivity, refers to “the righteous Lot” and his salvation. In continuation of v. 5, the mention of a second righteous person and his rescue reinforces the general assertion that God is capable of saving the pious from judgment (v. 9). With this fourth biblical example, its explanation (v. 8), and the tenet inferred from with angels—­is of no interest to the author. However, this formulation from Jude 7 does appear with a subtle modification in v. 10, which—­with the opponents in view—­speaks generally of people who “go after flesh in desire for pollution”—­that is, commit sexual sins, which are not specified further. 441 The NT hapax legomenon τεφροῦν occurs in connection with Sodom and Gomorrah already in Philo, Ebr. 223. 442 This word is textualy uncertain, but the ellipsis can be explained by the repeated initial κατ-­ (homoiarcton); on this cf. Harrington, “Jude and 2 Peter,” 267. καταστροφή is used for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in LXX Gen 19:29, and in Ps.-­Clem. Hom. 3.39.2. With regard to the reversal of fortunes for the impious, καταστροφή occurs in LXX Job 8:19; 21:17; and 27:7 (see Ruf, Propheten, 414). 443 Here the term from Jude 7 (δεῖγμα) is taken up in varied form. The closest parallel is 3 Macc 2:5, where the destruction of Sodom is described as “an example made for posterity” (παράδειγμα τοῖς ἐπιγινομένοις καταστήσας); see further 4 Ezra 2:8; Ps.-­Clem. Hom. 9.2.1; cf. also Ruf, Propheten, 416–­18. 444 Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 134. 445 Fornberg, Church, 41; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 252.

332

Second Peter: Commentary

the four examples (v. 9) the author abandons his Vorlage and does not draw from Jude again until v. 10. Like the salvation of Noah from the flood, Lot’s salvation from Sodom as it burns is added independently to the examples of judgment adopted from Jude, and is further emphasized by the parenthesis in v. 8. Here the author expresses his concern with regard to his addressees. It is a matter of  “the possibility of salvation for the ‘righteous’ from the complete and certain imminent destruction at the judgment.”446 To this end, Lot—­like Noah before him—­is now characterized as “righteous,” whereby the author goes beyond the biblical tradition and incorporates postbiblical elements. In the Genesis account, Lot (unlike Noah) is not referred to as “righteous,” particularly as his behavior bears clearly negative aspects (Gen 19:8, 30-­38),447 which are also maintained in some early Jewish traditions.448 However, in other traditions Lot is stylized as righteous, likely on the basis of the formulation in Gen 18:23. There, Abraham protests against the destruction of the righteous with the wicked, and so Lot could ultimately be regarded as a righteous person because he is saved. In Wis 10:6 and 19:17, as well as in Philo (Mos. 2.58), Lot is expressly considered to be δίκαιος,449 and 1 Clem. 11.19 points to his hospitality and piety as the reason for his salvation.450 Most significant with regard to 2 Pet is the fact that in Wis 10:4, 6, Noah and Lot are described as righteous, particularly in a context that depicts how Wisdom (in the OT story) preserved and saved the righteous and pious.451 One might suspect that this passage inspired the author here.452

In line with these traditions, Lot is able to serve in the present context as an example of a pious person among impious contemporaries. One particularly 446

Ruf, Propheten, 418–­19. Genesis 13:8-­13 also casts a shadow on the figure of Lot. 448 According to Jub. 16:7-­9 Lot and his daughters committed sins such as had never been committed upon the earth. Nevertheless, they—­because of Abraham—­were saved. Cf. also L.A.B. 6.3. 449 Cf. further in the Rabbinic tradition Pirqe R. El. 25; Gen. Rab. 49:13. In addition, Lot is the ancestor of the Moabites, the people from whom Ruth came, the grandmother of David (Ruth 4:13-­22). See Rappaport, “Lot”; and Ruf, Propheten, 418–­20. 450 See also 1 Clem. 11.1: “Because of his hospitality and piety Lot was saved out of Sodom . . . The Master thus made it clear that he does not abandon those who hope in him” (trans. Ehrman [LCL]). Cf. also T. D. Alexander, “Hospitality,” which traces the theme of Lot’s righteousness to the parallels between Abraham’s and Lot’s hospitality in Gen 18 and 19. 451 On this, see Ruf, Propheten, 420. 452 Wisdom 10:6 speaks in the same terms as 2 Pet of the salvation of the righteous and the demise of the godless. On this, see also Ruf, Propheten, 426–­27, who on the other hand points to Sir 16—­a longside Jude 5-­7—­as an inspiration for the aspect of God’s judgment and severity in the history of salvation. 447



Second Peter 2:7-9

333

noteworthy aspect here is not attested in the extant halakah and either originates in a lost tradition453 or—­probably more likely—­was developed by the author himself and then further expanded in v. 8: on the basis of Gen 19:4ff., it is said here that Lot suffered under the “licentious way of life of the lawless.” 8 Lot’s suffering under his fellow citizens is emphasized in a striking parenthetical digression,454 which interrupts the long conditional sentence, slowing the pace of the passage, and emotionally appeals to the empathy, even outrage, of the readers: the righteous man who had to see and hear the lawless deeds of his contemporaries every day suffered thereby a torture of the soul,455 indeed a “temptation” (πειρασμός, v. 9), such that his only remaining hope was to be saved from this plight by the power of God—­and this was in fact granted to Lot according to the biblical account. The repetition of ἀσέλγεια, which in v. 2 served to characterize the “false teachers,” shows that the author has in view here the particular situation of the pious in his own present and his opponents’ lifestyle. The unbridled way of life of the opponents and their followers subjects the author and his ‘orthodox’ readers to hardship, and hence the assurance that God will save the pious from hardship and from the coming judgment applies first and foremost to them. This is articulated in the tenet that follows. 9 Finally, after the four examples that were introduced in the conditional and the parenthetical expansion, we arrive at the main clause, in which the author formulates his primary concern in this section. The conclusion to be drawn from the two negative and two positive examples from the biblical history of salvation is the affirmation that “the Lord”—­God or Christ of the Parousia456—­has the ability to save and to condemn. At the same time, this statement implies that the eschatological expectation, which the “scoffers” dispute (3:4), is most certainly reliable, specifically in its two-­pronged orientation toward judgment and salvation. The opponents’ dispute is a denial of the power of God, or Christ (cf. 2:1). In terms of form, this statement is made as a “generally applicable maxim.”457 Directly after the example of Lot, it was natural that the author placed the positive statement of salvation first and thus highlighted the pastoral communicative message to the addressees. At 453

As background LXX Gen 19:16 has been suggested; so Makujina, “Trouble.” Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 135. 455 On the terms, see Ruf, Propheten, 420, who above all for βασανίζειν points to the usage in the depictions of martyrdom in the late texts of the LXX (Wis, 2 Macc, and chiefly 4 Macc). 456 Most exegetes take God to be the subject, as in vv. 4-­7, without question, but the shift to the κύριος is striking and suggests that the idea of the Parousia Christ’s activity already resonates here. 457 Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 95. 454

334

Second Peter: Commentary

the same time, the statement of judgment in vv. 9b-­10a, like in v. 3b, is given the emphatic final position. What the “temptation” of the pious means here emerges from vv. 7-­8. In view of the examples of Noah and Lot, πειρασμός primarily refers not to the eschatological trial (as in 1 Pet 4:12; Rev 3:10), but rather to the hardship that arises for the pious in their life among scoffers and those who act impiously,458 insofar as their teaching and lifestyle casts the faith into doubt and discredits it, and community members are led astray into emulation of that life and apostasy (cf. v. 2).

Therefore, in contrast to the lifestyle illustrated here and despite the scoffing at their faithful conduct, the pious ought to persevere to the end in their faith and hope (cf. 3:17-­18). The assurance of v. 9a also implies that “God grants to the addressees here and now . . . the grace to resist the temptation to apostasy,”459 yet no such assurance is articulated in 3:17-­18, unlike Jude 24. Of course, ῥύεσθαι at least also refers to the definitive deliverance (cf. 1 Thess 1:10) that will occur at the Parousia and will bring to the pious who have been tried and tested final salvation, entry into the eternal kingdom (1:11), participation in imperishability (1:4), and life in a new world characterized by righteousness (3:13). With his letter, the author seeks to demonstrate in various ways that “the Lord” is capable of this and that the relevant prophetic assurances are reliable. Statements about the salvation of the pious from temptation were already common in Jewish wisdom literature (Sir 33:1; Wis 10:9). In the present context, there might also be an echo of the two closing requests of the Matthean Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:13), where the terms πειρασμός and ῥύεσθαι occur,460 yet in view of the author’s independent formulations there can be no certainty about this.

The closing negative statement in v. 9b about the judgment of the “unrighteous” in connection with vv. 3b and 4 expresses that “the Lord” knows “to preserve (them) in punishment until the day of judgment.” The concern here is thus the eschatological judgment of destruction, for which the unrighteous—­like the sinful angels from v. 4—­are already designated and “reserved.” The reference of the present participle κολαζομένους is unclear. Nonetheless, with regard to the “false teachers” of his own time, the author does not seem to have in mind an interim chastisement at temporary “places of punishment”461 as in the 458

However, this should not be construed as a stark contrast (contra Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 135), since at least for the addressees of 2 Pet, an eschatological situation is given. 459 Vögtle, Judasbrief, 192. 460 So Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 253. 461 Thus, among others, Schrage, “Zweite Petrusbrief,” 136; Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 335; Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 130. On the notion of temporary places of



Second Peter 2:9-10a

335

case of the sinful angels of v. 4, but rather their punishment in the imminent eschatological judgment.462 10a That this statement, initially formulated in generic terms, is to be understood as a concrete threat to the opponents is clarified by the expansion in v. 10a, which pointedly expresses the message of judgment: those affected “most of all” by this threat are people who “go after flesh in desire for pollution and despise the Lord.” The reprehensible nature of the behavior of the “unrighteous” is thereby emphatically underscored. With an echo of two formulations from Jude 7 and 8,463 the author first mentions the sexual promiscuity of the opponents, who “go after flesh” and are thus guided by sinful “desire” (ἐπιθυμία) for “pollution.” ἐπιθυμία is a classic term for a way of life in opposition to God’s commandments,464 and in 3:3 the “scoffers” will be accused of living according to their “own desires” (cf. Jude 16, 18). The unusual phrase “desire for pollution” (ἐπιθυμία μιασμοῦ)465 polemically expresses the negative effect of these people’s efforts and introduces the category of impurity or filthiness, used repeatedly in the rest of the letter. With the phrase “go after flesh” the author vividly depicts the misdirected lifestyle of the opponents: “following” flesh appears here in place of the discipleship or following of Christ taught by the apostles466 (cf. 1:16); “flesh” serves here—­more punishment for ‘souls’ see 1 En. 22:10-­11; however, there is no evidence that the author anticipates an early death and punishment of the opponents in Tartarus, especially since their eschatological destruction is going to come “soon” according to v. 1. The biblical examples do speak of the immediate punishment of the flood generation and the Sodomites (so, rightly, Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 335), but the author also uses these examples with a view to the eschatological judgment (cf. 2:3; 3:7; and elsewhere). The present participle κολαζομένους is therefore (like λυομένων in 3:11) to be taken in a future or final sense (see Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 254; Kraus, Sprache, 270n948) 462 On this see Grundmann, Brief, 94; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 193; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 254; and Knoch, Petrusbrief, 264. 463 “Pursue flesh” takes up Jude 7, whereby there is no reference to “different” flesh, since this aspect is not relevant here. In addition, instead of ἀπέρχεσθαι ὀπίσω, 2 Pet uses πορεύεσθαι ὀπίσω, which is more familiar from the LXX. The words μιαίνειν and σάρξ were used in Jude 8 for the opponents, who “pollute the flesh.” 464 Cf. the Decalogue commandment Exod 20:17; Deut 5:21; and in summary form 4 Macc 2:6: the law commands μὴ ἐπιθυμεῖν. In the NT the term is used almost exclusively in a negative sense, in line with early Jewish thought (see L.A.E. 19: ἐπιθυμία as the beginning of all sin; cf. the rabbinic teaching of wicked impulse). Cf. 1 Thess 4:5 in connection with πάθος, Jas 4:1-­2 in connection with ἡδονή. ἐπιθυμία σαρκός: Gal 5:16; Eph 2:3; 2 Pet 2:18; 1 John 2:16; τῶν σαρκικῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν: 1 Pet 2:11. 465 The NT hapax legomenon μιασμός is used in 1 Macc 4:43 and Wis 4:43; see further T. Levi 17:8; T. Benj. 8:2-­3; Herm. Sim. 5.7.2. 466 Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 89.

336

Second Peter: Commentary

so than in Jude—­as a power that leads astray to destruction.467 As the author wants to make clear, whoever behaves in this way is first and foremost threatened by the eschatological judgment. A second allegation, which is more difficult to interpret, is added to this. The opponents are accused of despising the κυριότης. What is meant by this term, adopted from Jude 8? Discussion of this issue is related to the question of the opponents’ profile as a whole. It must be noted that the singular of κυριότης is used here (as in Jude 8). The plural κυριότητες is used for the hierarchies of angels, for example in Col 1:16; already in Jude 8, where a reference to the angelic powers is likely in the parallel with δόξαι, the singular suggests that the expression represents the “authority” or “dominion” of the one Kyrios. In 2 Pet 2:10, the syntax has been modified in comparison with Jude 8, and thus presents a new beginning in 2 Pet 10b such that κυριότης and δόξαι are less closely associated than in Jude 8. Thus κυριότης in 2 Pet 2:10a should clearly be interpreted in reference to the “dominion” of the Kyrios, not the angelic powers.468 The question here is whether this is the dominion of God or of Christ. A reference to God would be supported by the fact that God is the subject in vv. 4-­7,469 yet in v. 9 κύριος was already at least open for being taken as a reference to Christ (of the Parousia).470 So, too, v. 10a at the least “also [suggests] the ‘dominion’ of the κύριος ՚Ι. Χ.”471 This reference becomes even clearer if one sees the closing phrase as forming an inclusio with a reference back to 2:1, which spoke of the denial of the Kyrios “who bought them.”

The opponents, who reject the Parousia of Christ and eschatological hopes, are accused not only of denying the Lord Jesus Christ in this rejection and in their way of life but also of disregarding his dominion (understood primarily in ethical terms). With this, the long period of vv. 4-­10a has reached its goal: at the end, as in v. 3b, we find once again the concrete threat of judgment against 467

Here—­despite profound theological differences—­parallels to Paul can be seen, above all Rom 8:3ff. 468 Cf. Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 89; and Ruf, Propheten, 386. A reference to wordly or church authorities, which has occasionally been suggested in the history of interpretation (primarily by the reformers), is ruled out. 469 Cf. for a reference to God also Did. 4.1; the term refers to the power of the Son of God in Herm. Sim. 5.6.1. 470 This is contested by Vögtle, Judasbrief, 194, who in a somewhat forced argument seeks to exclude the possibility of a Christological reference, but in the end (195) concedes that “an alternative either (God)–­or (Christ)” was probably “far from the author’s mind anyway.” On this issue as a whole, see also Vögtle, “Christo-­logie und Theo-­logie.” 471 Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 95. So also Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 255; Knoch, Petrusbrief, 264–­65; Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 89; Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 136. Differently (also with regard to Jude 8) Frankemölle, 1. Petrusbrief, 2. Petrusbrief, Judasbrief, 104.



Second Peter 2:10a-22

337

the “false teachers,” who in view of their ethical licentiousness and their denial of Christ ought to fear the divine power of judgment “most of all,” while in accordance with the examples of Noah and Lot, the righteous can hope for salvation from ruin. 3.3 The corrupt nature of the “false teachers” (2:10b-­22)

After v. 10a had already returned to the “false teachers,” beginning with v. 10b the following section addresses these opponents, whose corrupt activity and nature is now described in an unending cascade of accusations and invectives. The opponents are now the subject of the discussion thematically as well as syntactically, until a quotation referring to “them” in 2:22 brings the passage to a close472 and 3:1 marks the beginning of a new section. Further subsections are not clearly recognizable, and breaks have been suggested after 2:11,473 2:13a,474 or 2:16.475 The following discussion is thus divided into small segments only for the sake of better orientation. Literarily, the author continues to draw on the polemics of Jude, which he freely adapts in vv. 10b-­18a. In so doing, he abbreviates certain passages extensively, modifies others, and inserts additional accusations, and in one passage diverges from the textual sequence of Jude. In vv. 18-­22 the author then formulates his discussion independently, or by drawing on two aphorisms that cannot be clearly determined from the text. The cuts and shifts in meaning from Jude occasionally lead to ambiguities that make the interpretation difficult,476 and do not always allow the intended meaning to emerge clearly. As in 2:4b-­10a, here too the traces of the specific conflict over the position of the angels found in Jude have been blotted out, though not entirely removed (vv. 10b, 11). The only concrete reference to the community situation in Jude—­the opponents’ participation in community meals (Jude 12)—­is transformed into a different kind of polemic (v. 13). Conversely, the author adds passages explaining the impact of the opponents’ activity on the communities (vv. 18-­21), which perhaps reveals the contours of their work. This shows that while the author did find Jude’s polemic to be useful, he certainly did not feel bound by it. Ultimately, his letter is directed at a community situation and circumstances of conflict that differ significantly from those of Jude. This also needs to be taken into account 472

On this, see Kraus, Sprache, 402–­3. Thus Vögtle, Judasbrief, 196ff. 474 Thus Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 212; Grundmann, Brief, 92, wants to take vv. 4-­13a together. 475 So, e.g., Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 258ff. 476 Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 138. 473

338

Second Peter: Commentary

in the exegesis, which must not succumb to the temptation of determining meaning from the perspective of Jude. a) The rebellious insolence of the false teachers (vv. 10b-­11) (10b) Stubborn, reckless men! They are not afraid to slander glories, (11) whereas angels, who are greater in strength and power, bring no slanderous judgment against them before the Lord!477

10b-­11 With emotional indignation the first accusation addresses the rebellious, even sacrilegious insolence and arrogance of the opponents. This occurs already in the striking exclamation “Stubborn, reckless men!” (τολμηταὶ αὐθάδεις). The two appositive words, whose relation to one another is not entirely clear, mark a new section, which is confirmed by the new subject (“they”) as the sentence continues. With this exclamation, the author expresses his outrage over those who disregard the sovereignty of the κύριος (2:10a), or even deny it (2:1), and then adds a long series of further accusations. In terms of redaction history, this “mildly vocative”478 appelation comes between the segments adopted from Jude 8 and separates them such that the contempt for the “dominion” (κυριότης) still belongs to the previous period, while the slander of “glories” (δόξαι) is part of the new one. Thus unlike Jude 8, the two segments should not be interpreted in direct connection with one another.

The doubled expression479 τολμηταὶ αὐθάδεις is also partly inspired by Jude: the verb τολμᾶν is given in Jude 9 in the example of the archangel Michael (οὐκ ἐτόλμησεν κρίσιν ἐπενεγκεῖν), which is transformed here into the nomen agentis τολμητής.480 The second attribute αὐθάδης (“self-­willed, stubborn, arrogant”), which is an intensifying addition by the author, is found in the NT in Titus 1:7, and then in 1 Clem. 1.1 and Did. 3.6. This articulates the arrogant insolence of those who, in their behavior and their contempt for the sovereign power, ultimately violate the honor of Christ, or God.481 The exclamation τολμηταὶ αὐθάδεις effectively expresses outrage over the disrespect of the opponents, who insolently contradict the hope that has been handed down (cf. 3:3-­4) and in 477

With the ECM and NA28 the reading presupposed here is παρὰ κυρίῷ, against παρὰ κυρίου, still preferred by NA27. On this, see Kraus, Sprache, 15–­16; Kraus, “Παρὰ κυρίου.” 478 Kraus, Sprache, 402. 479 Ruf, Propheten, 429, suspects a “reciprocal attraction” of the two lexemes and offers instances of their collocation in pagan literary texts; on this connection in papyri, see Kraus, Sprache, 339. 480 τολμητής occurs in the NT only here; on this, see Kraus, Sprache, 338–­39. On τολμᾶν, see Rom 15:18; 2 Cor 10:12. 481 Thus, rightly, Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 207; cf. Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 234.



Second Peter 2:10b-11

339

their lifestyle boldly ignore the sovereign power of the Kyrios, thereby defying him and bringing destruction upon themselves. The element of disrespectful insolence appears again in the phrase οὐ τρέμουσιν: they “are not afraid to slander glories” (δόξας . . . βλασφημοῦντες). βλασφημεῖν is probably to be understood here in a broader sense as disparagement or verbal violation of the honor of another person.482 However, which “glories” this disparagement refers to remains unclear, since the phrase is adopted from Jude 8 almost unchanged, but its syntactical context is different. The meaning of the phrase must be determined in connection with v. 11 and its abbreviated reception of Jude 9. Since the author of 2 Pet probably did not know Jude’s source, As. Mos., 2 Pet 2:11 presents only a refracted reference to the underlying tradition. In particular, the reference to Michael and Satan is omitted,483 and in view of this reduction of the angelological content one cannot assume that 2 Pet 2:11 seeks to reproduce the original sense of Jude 9. Nevertheless, in the case of the δόξαι a dim reference to angelic powers might shine through more strongly than with κυριότης in v. 10a.484 Yet all attempts to reconstruct exact associations or concrete misbehavior alleged against the opponents are speculative and ultimately determined by a questionable incorporation of elements from Jude.485 For example, it has been extensively discussed whether the δόξαι, whom it is reprehensible to slander, represent good or wicked angels in the author’s mind. Many exegetes derive such a differentiation from the reference to “angels” (ἄγγελοι) in v. 11, who are then distinguished from the δόξαι of v. 10b. The syntactically decisive question then becomes what the referent of κατ᾽ αὐτῶν is in v. 11—­that is, whether it is about a judgment of the ἄγγελοι against (other) angelic powers (namely, the δόξαι) or a judgment against the opponents. If it could be assumed that the author adopted the situation sketched out in Jude 9, and thus here, too, we have a judgment scene with Michael and Satan, then one could see the δόξαι as ‘fallen’ or wicked angelic powers, to whom the opponents’ disrespectful speech or contempt would then apply. Yet this would unjustifiably import the profile of the opponents from Jude into 2 Pet. It also remains unclear in this case why the author censures such behavior so harshly. Bauckham attempts an explanation 482

Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 207: “injuring the reputation of another by speech” (cf. Titus 3:2; Jos., Vita 232; Philo, Spec. 4.197). 483 Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 139. 484 Here, too, the frequently suggested references to worldly or ecclesial (so Reicke, Epistles) authorities are ruled out. 485 Thus, rightly, Ruf, Propheten, 430. Vögtle (Judasbrief, 197) and Bauckham (Jude, 2 Peter, 261) offer a breakdown of the possibilities for differentiation.

340

Second Peter: Commentary

whereby the opponents denied the reality of demonic powers and thus fell victim to the temptation of immorality and ultimately to destruction.486 Against this, however, speaks the fact that such an association is not plausible for readers who know neither Jude 9 nor its sources. How are they to recognize that 2 Pet is referring to demonic powers, and how would the connection between the “slander” of such powers and the immorality of the false teachers be clear to them? Observations about the redactional deviation from Jude are essential. Second Peter 2:11 adopts Jude 9 only with extreme abbreviation and ‘generalization’: neither Michael nor Satan are identified by name, the point of contention goes unmentioned, and the direct quote is omitted, because apparently these angelological details are not important to the author. There are thus no textual grounds for seeing the object of the disparaging judgment of the ἄγγελοι as demonic powers, fallen angels, or even Satan; at most, this might refer very generally to angelic powers whose function is of no further interest here.487 The abbreviated use of this example also connects the behavior of the ἄγγελοι more closely with the contrasting behavior of the slanderers, such that the κατ᾽ αὐτῶν is most naturally understood as referring to the aforementioned opponents, not the δόξαι.488 Second Peter 10b-­11, then, does not speak of two different groups of angels, but rather of angels and human beings, specifically the opponents who demean the δόξαι. However, in 2 Pet this defamation is not to be taken in reference to a refusal to honor the angelic powers, as it is in Jude. This phrase in 2 Pet indicates the defamation of heavenly powers in general, which in the author’s view goes hand in hand with the skeptical rejection of the hope of the Parousia and the denial of Christ’s dominion. With this sense, the author was able to use the formulation from Jude 8-­9 for his own polemic. The sense in 2 Pet 2:11 has thus characteristically shifted in comparison with Jude 9. Second Peter is also concerned with an example of the angels’ humility, which is contrasted with the impudence of the opponents, yet the ἄγγελοι are not compared with another group of angels (as Michael is with Satan in Jude 9) but rather with the scoffing opponents. The angels are a positive antithesis to the scoffers, whose reckless and impudent behavior is highlighted especially sharply by this contrast.

Thus, v. 11 indicates that angels, who are much more powerful than the ‘impudent’ scoffers addressed in v. 10b, bring no “slanderous” or disparaging judgment “over them” (i.e., the scoffers), even though the latter impudently disparage the heavenly powers. The ἄγγελοι are contrasted with the opponents not only in their incomparably greater power but also in their differing ethical behavior: whereas the opponents shamelessly “slander glories,” the angels give no disparaging judgment against them but (one can likely conjecture) leave the judgment to God. 486

Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 262. Thus, rightly, Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 235. 488 Cf. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 208; Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 235–­36. 487



Second Peter 2:10b-13a

341

Verse 11 still presupposes that angels are involved in God’s activity of judgment and are able to put forward a disparaging judgment of human beings.489 However, here it is only relevant that, unlike the scoffers, the angels do not bring forward a demeaning490 judgment against human beings and instead leave the power of judgment to God, or Christ, alone—­whereas the opponents in their blindness go so far as to “slander glories.” Yet the ‘sacrilege’ of the opponents is not (as in Jude) the denigration of the angelic beings per se.491 Such disparagement could be connected with a rejection of the belief in the Parousia,492 but the formulation δόξας οὐ τρέμουσιν βλασφημοῦντες does not offer a sure indication of this. It only illustrates the arrogance of the opponents, whose actual false teaching consists in the fact that they dispute or even scoff at the hope of the Parousia, the reality of judgment, and the reliability of God’s word, and are therefore presented as brazen and reckless. b) The comparison with irrational animals and their destruction (2:12-­13a) (12) But because they, like unreasoning animals that by their nature are born for capture and destruction, slander things in which they are ignorant, in their destruction they will also be destroyed (13a) when they are punished493 with the wages of unrighteousness.

12 Following the accusation of brazen disrespect comes a series of further accusations, which are largely adopted from Jude (v. 10) but whose syntactic structure is significantly altered. With οὗτοι δέ, which is taken verbatim from Jude 10 but unlike Jude no longer functions to structure the train of thought, the focus turns to the opponents. Other elements taken from Jude 10 are the comparison of the opponents with unreasoning animals (ὡς ἄλογα ζῷα), the stem φυσικ-­, and the verbs βλασφημεῖν and φθείρεσθαι. In substance, Jude also supplies the accusation that the opponents slander what they 489

Distantly recognizable here is the old tradition of the angels of the presence (1 En. 9:1ff.) who stand before God and lament over the wickedness on earth, but leave the judgment to God (Grundmann, Brief, 95). 490 β λάσφημος κρίσις appears to be chosen as parallel with βλασφημοῦντες (see Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 140n242). 491 Thus Schmidt, Mahnung, 370: “The angels are likewise mentioned in 2 Pet 2:10-­11 out of faithfulness to the source, but they do not constitute the actual point of conflict; rather, they should be regarded as an element of polemics against heretics.” Of course, faithfulness to the source is not an end in itself: this example (even in its shortened form) poignantly illustrates the reckless insolence of the opponents. 492 So Vögtle, Judasbrief, 199–­200. 493 More literally, “suffer injustice.”

342

Second Peter: Commentary

do not know (Jude 10a) and that they fall victim to destruction in a fate that accords with their nature (Jude 10b). However, whereas the former accusation referred to the examples from the angelic world in Jude (Jude 9), here this reference is dissolved through a transposition, while the comparison with the unreasoning animals (Jude 10b) is intensified, or even transformed into a statement about the animal nature of the scoffers.494 Whereas Jude 10 says only that the opponents are destroyed by what they “understand in accordance with their nature, like the unreasoning animals,” here the comparison with animals is expanded to their being destined for death. With this, 2 Pet goes beyond Jude in adopting a thought that is occasionally attested in antiquity495—­namely, that (at least some) animals are destined by nature to be captured and killed. However, a thought that was decisive for understanding Jude is omitted here: in Jude 9 it was presupposed that Michael knew whom he was dealing with as he stood facing Satan, so that the contrast between the knowing but discreetly cautious archangel and the unknowing but impudent godless people became clear. In 2 Pet the abbreviated adaptation of Jude 9 does not mention the cautious angels, and the accusation that the opponents slander what they do not know is to some extent left hanging in the air.

In contrast to the more powerful angels who reserve judgment, the impudent scoffers are first discredited in a brusque attack: the opponents “slander (things) in which they are ignorant,”496 and in this resemble unreasoning animals (ἄλογα ζῷα). Here, unlike in Jude 10, the aspect of irrationality or ignorance about the slandered realities is not prepared through the preceding example of the angels. The point of comparison is not βλασφημεῖν (which of course animals cannot be accused of) but irrationality: the opponents are unreasoning like animals. This sharply discredits their claim to rationality and intellectuality, which underlies the teachings cited in 2 Pet 3:3-­4 and is addressed in 3:5-­13.497 Because they resemble animals in their irrationality, they also share their fate: they have no future,498 but are doomed to destruction—­like the animals, according to 2 Pet, or more precisely, those that are destined to be hunted or slaughtered. 494

On this, see Frey, “Disparagement,” 300. See the evidence in Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 263: Juv., Sat. 1.141; Pliny Eld., Nat. 8.81 and in rabbinics, b. B. Meṣiʿa 85a. See also Ruf, Propheten, 431. 496 If the notion of slandering the angels is still presumed here (so Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 263), the ἐν οἷς must retain a ‘personal’ point of reference (the angelic powers), but the thought here is already generalized (thus, rightly, Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 141). 497 It is not appropriate to conclude a particular claim to “knowledge” (γνῶσις) on the part of the opponents in contrast to this accusation (thus, rightly, Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 263, against, e.g., Grundmann, Brief, 96, and other older exegetes). The claim to a certain participation in λόγος was a commonplace in antiquity and was also increasingly widespread in Christianity of the second century (prominently in Justin). 498 Schmidt, Mahnung, 370. 495



Second Peter 2:12-13a

343

The noteworthy αὐτῶν is best taken in reference to these animals that approach their destruction.499 The use of the term φθορά in reference to the fate of the animals (i.e., their death or slaughter) makes clear where the author’s focus is directed. Once again, this is about the eschatological doom of the opponents: as is formulated in an effective paronomasia, they will “in their destruction also be destroyed” (i.e., perish like the irrational animals). The extent to which the opponents’ doom is meant to correspond with that of the animals remains unclear500 and is not relevant to the author’s message. Ultimately, he is concerned only with the proclamation of eschatological doom, which is intensified rhetorically with the figura etymologica. Following v. 3b and 10a, this again reaffirms that the opponents are destined for eschatological judgment and destruction. The comparison comes across as somewhat overburdened, but the author also wants to note that while the animals are destined for this fate of capture and being killed by their nature, the “slanderers have only themselves to blame for their fate.”501 The lexeme φυσικός also creates a link with the letter opening: according to 1:4 the faithful will escape perishability or destruction (φθορά) and acquire a share in the “divine nature” (φύσις), while the opponents demonstrate in their behavior a similarity with animal “nature.” And whereas the effort to live virtuously is necessary to achieve eternal salvation (1:5-­8), through their behavior the opponents reveal themselves as conforming with the nature of the lower animals and thus sharing their fate. 13a With another effective paronomasia the participial phrase ἀδικούμενοι μισθὸν ἀδικίας concludes the theme of retributive punishment (lex talionis) articulated at the end of v. 12: the opponents will reap what they sow (cf. Gal 6:7). Those who behave like the unreasoning animals are likewise destined for destruction, just as the wages of unrighteousness (i.e., commensurate punishment) will be given to those who do wrong. As is expressed here in a play on words, they will “suffer injustice” (ἀδικούμενοι) as payment for their unrighteousness (or “injustice,” ἀδικία), or—­since of course the judgment should not 499

Other interpretations are not very plausible: That the opponents should perish in their own destruction (αὐτῶν = αὑτῶν) is syntactically unlikely because of the καί, which specifically creates the comparison between the destruction of the opponents and the destruction of others. The suggestion that the comparison aims at the angels of v. 11—­taken as wicked angels—­and thus equates the destruction of the godless with the destruction of the Watchers (so Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 264) introduces a notion from Jude that seems unfitting here. 500 On the suggestions of various exegetes, see Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 263–­64. Proposals have included a particularly sudden or violent death, or the shared downfall of the godless and livestock in the flood, but all these attempts at specification remain unsatisfactory. 501 Schmidt, Mahnung, 370.

344

Second Peter: Commentary

appear to be unjust—­they will experience disaster or degradation.502 Lexically, the phrase “wages of unrighteousness” (μισθὸν ἀδικίας) points ahead to the example of Balaam introduced in v. 15. With this, a further point of reference emerges: in their destruction the “false teachers” will be “deprived of the μισθὸς ἀδικίας that Balaam loved so well,”503 and will receive instead a different payment for their unrighteousness.504 Thus, in their greed they will ultimately be defrauded. With this proclamation of punishment for unrighteousness, the complex period arrives at its substantive aim. c) The seductive licentiousness and sinfulness of the false teachers (2:13b-­14) (13b) For they regard as pleasure reveling during the day, when as stains and blemishes they revel in their deceptions and feast with you. (14) They have eyes full of (desire for) an adulterous woman and unceasing from sin, with which they entice unstable souls, and they have a heart trained in greed: children of a curse!

The proclamation of doom is followed by a series of participial clauses and adjectives, which should be taken as dependent either, with a loose connection, on the verb φθαρήσονται505 or on the cry of κατάρας τέκνα that follows in v. 14. The staccato series of participles, which is better rendered in English through the effect of short clauses with finite verbs, justifies the accusation of “unrighteousness” and then culminates in the indignant exclamation: “children of a curse!” Thus, there is a small caesura after μισθὸν ἀδικίας.506 13b This new series of allegations lists various kinds of misdeeds: unrestrained eating and drinking, wantonness, and selfishness, which apparently 502

The verb ἀδικεῖν, used in the sense of “punish,” which in its core meaning denotes an ‘unjust’ action, is, of course, not exactly coherent in reference to God and God’s judgment, and is likely chosen here primarily for the sake of the rhetorical effect of the play on words (see von Soden, Hebräerbrief, 223; Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 212; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 265; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 203; Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 141). Yet the sense of “harm,” or in the passive “suffer harm, be punished,” is also attested for ἀδικεῖν (Wis 14:29; 3 Macc 3:8; Rev 2:11). On this, see Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 212; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 265. A different translation suggested by some commentators, which in terms of substance is hardly plausible, is that the persons in question “will be cheated of the wages of their unrighteousness.” On this, see Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 264–­65. 503 Ruf, Propheten, 432. 504 Already in the Balaam tradition the “wages” that Balaam received are seen in his death (see below on v. 15). 505 So Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 213. 506 It is doubtful that the whole segment of vv. 13-­16 can be seen as a composition related to the Balaam example (thus Ruf, Propheten, 432–­50). The suggested references, e.g., the connections with the element of celebration and eating that also appear in the Balaam tradition, are less significant for vv. 13b–­14.



Second Peter 2:13a-14

345

ensnares above all “unstable souls” (see vv. 17ff.). The author initially still draws on Jude 12a, although here, too, the specific reference found in Jude is blurred and minor modifications transpose the message into a more general and coarser polemic. This is followed by additional accusations composed freely by the author. In his view, the unjust nature of the “false teachers” expresses itself in their undisciplined lifestyle, which alongside sexual promiscuity is manifest above all in “reveling” (i.e., unrestrained behavior in eating and drinking). The core of this accusation is adopted from Jude 12a, which spoke of the opponents there participating—­as the author emphasizes—­“without reserve” in the communal meals (ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν) and like dangerous crags putting the faithful at risk of shipwreck. The concrete problematic of the communal meals alluded to in Jude is left out of 2 Pet, probably because it did not correspond with the situation here. Instead, the term that was used for these meals in Jude—­ἀγάπαι (“love feasts”)—­is replaced with the phonetically similar ἀπάται (“deceits”), so that only the accusations of licentiousness and deceitful intentions are leveled against the opponents, with no specific reference to the life of the community. Likewise, the ambiguous metaphorical term σπιλάδες (“crags”) is replaced with the similar sounding σπίλοι (“stains”), thus simplifying the complex metaphor of Jude and shifting the focus onto the aspect of (moral) filthiness.

The unrighteousness of the “false teachers” is first identified in their ‘hedonistic’ lifestyle: they engage in “reveling” (τρυφή)507 in broad daylight, not in the evening after completing their work, the appropriate time in the Mediterranean for the main meal. In so doing, they display what is widely regarded as a sign of moral decline508 and even see it as a “pleasure” (ἡδονή),509 thereby proving themselves to be governed by the pursuit of pleasure and thus by dangerous passions. The language of “revelry” (τρυφή, ἐντρυφῶντες) also marks the opposition to a life guided by virtue. The term ἡδονή (“pleasure”) alludes to discourses of contemporary and popular philosophical ethics.510 ἡδονή is one of the four primary vices, alongside “desire” (ἐπιθυμία), which is ascribed to the opponents in 2:10, 18, and 3:3, fear (φόβος), and grief (λύπη).511 In Stoic thought ἡδονή is a passion that is irrational (Diog. Laert. 7.114)512 and alien 507

The term occurs elsewhere in the NT only in Luke 7:25, and there with a positive connotation. For the negative connotation, see Herm. Sim. 6.5.5; Herm. Mand. 6.2.5; 8.3; 12.2.1. 508 Cf. Isa 5:11; Qoh 10:16; T. Mos. 7:4; Juv., Sat. 1.103; on this, see Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 265; Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 239. 509 Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 141. 510 On this issue as a whole, see Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 214; further Stählin, “ἡδονή.” 511 Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 214. Cf. Diog. Laert. 7.111; Cicero, Fin. 3.10.35 and Tusc. 4.6.13–­ 14; Philo, Decal. 142–­46 and Migr. 60. 512 Cf. ἄλογος in v. 12.

346

Second Peter: Commentary

to the soul.513 Only in Epicurean thought is ἡδονή understood in a positive sense as the state of absence of fear and suffering, but precisely the pursuit of ἡδονή became a topical accusation against the teaching and followers of Epicurus. In early Jewish thought514 and in early Christian paraenesis as well, ἡδονή is consistently given a negative assessment. The phrase ἡδονὴν ἡγούμενοι locates the opponents—­rightly or wrongly—­in proximity to the Epicureans, or to the moral depravity they are broadly presumed to embrace, after they have already been accused of ἐπιθυμία. It is worth considering what this charge suggests about the social position of the false teachers. Those who can allow themselves to begin lavish meals already in broad daylight probably do not depend upon daily work in agriculture or craftsmanship but rather have ‘leisure.’ This suggests a socially (and perhaps also educationally) elevated position for the “false teachers,” whereas the author of 2 Pet esteems the value categories of the ‘normal’ rural and urban population, as these were likely predominant in Christian communities.

The accusation of reprehensible “reveling” and licentiousness is strengthened and supplemented in several respects. In a simplified variation of the metaphorical σπιλάδες (“crags”) from Jude 12a,515 the opponents are first characterized polemically as σπίλοι καὶ μῶμοι (“stains and blemishes”); that is, because of their way of life, the opponents themselves are not just unvirtuous—­they are also ‘dirty.’ Insofar as they are members of or teach within the communities being addressed, they contaminate them, or with their teaching and their lifestyle contribute to the “pollution” of those communities—­whereas the faithful, according to 3:14, ought to be ἄσπιλοι καὶ ἀμώμητοι (“unstained and unblemished”). Thus, simply by existing the opponents contribute to the destruction of the community, which is expressed even more clearly with the metaphor of “pollution” than with the language of “crags” (as in Jude). The rest of the phrase is not entirely clear: the opponents “revel in their deceptions (ἐντρυφῶντες ἐν ταῖς ἀπάταις αὐτῶν) when they feast with you.” Even though the author deliberately alters the language of “love feasts” (ἀγάπαι) in Jude 12a, with two letters of difference, into ἀπάται (“deceptions”),516 could this still allude to the community meals?517 This can hardly have been the author’s 513

Thus Zeno, according to Diog. Laert. 7.110. According to 4 Macc 1:25, ἡδονή is the seat of all wicked impulses; according to Philo, Decal. 143, it represents the sin of the tenth commandment, ἐπιθυμία. 515 On this and the text-­critical argument, see above, pp. 109, 112. 516 The suggestion that the author could have read ἀπάται in his copy of Jude is very unlikely (so already Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 213). The manuscript tradition probably first began to vary under the influence of this parallel. 517 So Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 266; Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 239, and—­with more extensive speculations—­Vögtle, Judasbrief, 203, who then writes: “What the false teachers call ‘love feasts’ are in reality ‘deceptions.’ ” However, this hypothesis is based on an unreliable incorporation of a thought from Jude. 514



Second Peter 2:13b-14

347

intention, since he does not presuppose any knowledge among his readers of the formulations in Jude. In addition, there is no mention of agapes or community meals in 2 Pet but only of table fellowship—­wherever it may take place.518 This could be in the context of community meals, but these would have been in the evening, so the banquets in broad daylight cannot be identified with the communal meals. In any case, for the addressees, the warning is clear. Whether communal or private meals are the occasion: table fellowship with these people is deceptive and dangerous. The “false teachers” “revel” specifically in deceptions.519 That is to say, the shared meal gave the opponents an opportunity to convince their dinner companions of their reprehensible views and to lead them astray to their hedonistic way of life (cf. 2:2). One need not presuppose other forms of deception. It is enough to see the real reason for the charge of deception in the opponents’ false teachings, which—­as the author will explicate in 2:19—­claims to bring freedom, but in fact brings eschatological ruin and thus deceives not just their followers but also those whom they lead astray. This constitutes the actual deception of the “false teachers.”

14 This is followed by further accusations that are drawn, not from Jude, but rather from the conventional stock of vice catalogs and polemics against heretics, particularly sexual promiscuity and greed. The allegations now become generalized: the opponents’ sinfulness is in their nature, even located in their body (eyes, heart), and is characterized as constant, habitual behavior. They are licentious not only in opulent banquets but also—­easily associated with this—­in their sexual behavior (see 2:1): unceasingly (ἀκατάπαυστος) they look around for a woman willing to engage in adultery, or more vividly, their eyes are “full” of desire520 for sexual gratification and “unceasing from sin.” This further intensifies the accusation of sexual promiscuity that has already been expressed several times (vv. 2, 10). All the opponents’ thoughts and endeavors are sinful. 518 This does not, however, allow for a construction of a development from Jude to 2 Pet, since there is no historically verifiable connection between their respective addressees. The suggestion of Frankemölle, 1. Petrusbrief, 2. Petrusbrief, Judasbrief, 105, is hardly fitting: “According to 13b (unlike in Jude 12, 23) the false teachers no longer took part in the love feasts of the community, but only in meals at home with Christians. . . . The relation ‘false teachers–­community’ has thus come to more of a crisis than in Jude.” 519 The “reveling” (ἐντρυφᾶν) here does not refer concretely to lavish eating and drinking (as τρυφή does in the preceding phrase) but rather metaphorically to the deceptive behavior and endeavors of the opponents. Nonetheless, the wordplay here is skillfully selected. 520 This is comparable to a rhetorical dictum attested in Plutarch (Mor. 528e), according to which shameless people do not have pupils (κόρας) in their eyes but prostitutes (πόρνας); cf. also Ps.-­Longinus, [De sublimitate] 4.5.

348

Second Peter: Commentary

The following remark gets to the heart of the danger that the “false teachers” present for the communities: using corrupt methods and false promises they gain adherents (i.e., “entice unstable souls”; cf. v. 19),521 who follow them in their teaching and the way of life that leads to destruction (v. 2). Thus, they represent a serious risk to those community members who are still “unstable” in the Christian teachings and therefore succumb more easily to temptation. The author expands on this accusation again in vv. 18ff., which suggests that the opponent teachers’ success may be one reason for the severity of the polemic. One can perhaps conclude that the author and like-­minded community members were in a difficult situation and perhaps even represented a minority position. This might indicate an additional perspective on the ‘institutional’ context of this letter: against the view long supported by most scholars, it is not issued as the writing of an ‘official authority’ of the church and aside from the ascription to “Peter” does not refer to ecclesial structures or offices.

For the readers of the letter, whom the author addressed in 1:12 as already stable, the reference to the opponents’ seductive power naturally brings with it an implicit appeal to resist these temptations. As the author adds in a somewhat disconnected, discrediting charge, their seductive behavior is driven by self-­interested ambition for spiritual influence or concrete material advantage. Thus, the accusation of “greed,” which is common in polemic against heretics, is added here (as in v. 3). Like the adulterous eyes, this is connected with the opponents physically: their “heart” is practiced in greed; this is part of their nature—­which once again effectively underscores the danger they pose. The final member of this series of denunciations in part takes up and strengthens the issues already mentioned (sexual promiscuity, pursuit of a following, and greed) and is again a purely substantive expression, which like τολμηταὶ αὐθάδεις (v. 10b) has a vocative character and is hurled as a curse at the opponents. In a Hebraizing or solemnly biblical-­sounding formulation,522 they are “children of a curse” (κατάρας τέκνα)—­that is, accursed people who are under the curse of God (cf. Sir 41:9-­10) or God’s judgment of damnation—­are heading for eschatological destruction, and, as the Balaam episode will show (vv. 15-­16), bring a curse and destruction to the faithful.523 521

ψυχαί here represents people; cf. Acts 2:41; 1 Pet 3:20. Cf. analogous formulations in LXX Isa 57:4: τέκνα ἀπωλείας (“children of destruction”); LXX Hos 10:9 τέκνα ἀδικίας (“children of injustice”); Eph 2:3 τέκνα ὀργῆς (“children of anger”); see further 2 Thess 2:3; Eph 5:8; 1 Pet 1:14; Barn. 7.1; 9.7; 21.9; Ign. Phld. 2.1. 523 Here, too, the relation to the Balaam tradition suggested by Ruf, Propheten, 437, is hardly tenable. The motif of the curse does play a role in the Balaam tradition, but he is supposed to 522



Second Peter 2:14-15

349

Rhetorically, this indignant exclamation implies an emphatic appeal to the readers to resist the temptation of those “false teachers” who are completely discredited morally, accursed, and subject to the approaching judgment (cf. 3:17). The addressees, who are “stable” in the Christian teaching, ought to distance themselves from the thought and activity of these impudent, corrupt, and self-­serving people. With this forceful proclamation of the opponents’ liability to judgment, which reaffirms the corresponding announcements in vv. 3b and 10a, the series of the accusations arrives at a preliminary climax. Thus, there is a small caesura here. d) Balaam as a cautionary example (2:15-­16) (15) They have left the straight path and gone astray, following the path of Balaam, the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness, (16) but was convicted in his own transgression of the law; a mute beast of burden that spoke in a human voice hindered the delirium of the prophet.

15 The reference to the curse creates an associative bridge to the following passage, since the Balaam pericope aims at the cursing of Israel and later traditions reckon with an actual curse.524 However, Balaam is seen first and foremost in early Jewish tradition as tempting people to apostasy and idol worship.525 Jude 11 had already used Balaam as an example in this sense, and 2 Pet—­with a slight change to the sequence in Jude526—­selectively adopts the series from Jude 11: of the three paradigms addressed only briefly there—­namely, Cain, Balaam, and Korah—­only Balaam is adopted here and presented in more detail. This episode is especially well suited as a paradigm for false prophets and seducers. Following v. 14, there is a natural connection with the theme of self-­interest, since the motif of promised or pursued payment plays a role in the Balaam tradition. This motif is taken up as the first characteristic of Balaam, or the opponents, in v. 15, while v. 16 then emphasizes the opponents’ foolishness as a counterpoint to the ‘foolish’ donkey. As usual, the reception of Jude is free: the key words ὁδός and μισθός (as well as πλάνη in v. 18) are adopted from Jude 11 (although there ὁδός appeared in connection have cursed the Israelites, whereas here the opponents, who are later equated with Balaam or his successors, are to be regarded as cursed or damned by God’s judgment. 524 So Deut 23:5-­6; Josh 24:9-­10; and Neh 13:2; as well as later, above all, in Philo, Migr. 113–­14, and Conf. 159. 525 On this, see above, p. 106. 526 The author had already adopted and modified the theme of the meal from Jude 12a, and now backs up somewhat to Jude 11.

350

Second Peter: Commentary

with Cain rather than Balaam). Apparently, the examples of Cain and Korah are less useful than that of Balaam, who as a “prophet” (v. 16) of the OT period is among the “false prophets” (v. 1) who serve as models for the “false teachers.” In addition, Balaam advanced in Jewish tradition beyond the episode in Num to the level of a paradigmatic seducer.527

First, though, v. 15 speaks directly of the opponents, who remain the subject of the sentence: they have “left the straight path” and “gone astray.” With this, the metaphor of the “way” comes into effect, which was used in 2 Pet 2:2 for Christian faith, and now appears in a variant that is close to the teaching of the two ways. Already in the OT and early Judaism, the “straight path” is a common image528 for life in obedience to God’s commandments, while—­as is figuratively self-­evident—­leaving this path (cf. Prov 2:13) denotes religious and moral aberration, and thus sin and apostasy. According to this depiction, then, the false teachers were once followers of Christ, but in the author’s view they abandoned this path and took another, which is denoted here as the “path of Balaam,” the paradigmatic “false prophet.” The reference to the “path of Balaam” is based on the OT: the angel stands specifically “in the way” of Balaam (Num 22:23), which also refers metaphorically to Balaam’s erroneous “way” (Num 22:32). In darkened retellings of the biblical account (Num 22–­24), early Jewish tradition presents Balaam as a prototype of the false prophet, as an “impious” man (Philo, Migr. 113) who in his earthbound nature was blind to the angel of God (Philo, Deus. 181), falsified the word of God (Philo, Mut. 203), and tempted others to apostasy (L.A.B. 18.13; see already Num 31:16), and who like his followers has no share in the future world (m. Sanh. 10:2 and m. ͗Abot 5:19).

This deeply negative image of Balaam was adopted in early Christianity and was able to be recalled even with brief allusions: while Rev 2:14 associates “Balaam” with the temptation to eat meat sacrificed to idols and thus with apostasy, Jude 11 additionally draws on the motifs of deception and avarice. Drawing on this, 2 Pet 2:15-­16 uses Balaam as a model of the unscrupulous and self-­serving seducer, whose false paths people “follow” and so “go astray.” The form of the name creates difficulties: Balaam is introduced in Num 22:5 as “son of Beor” (LXX Βεωρ). The form Bosor (Βοσόρ) is not attested elsewhere. A different interpretation of the genitive as indicating place of origin (“from Bosor”) cannot be justified.529 Nor is any real explanation offered by the speculations that this could be 527

Cf. especially Rösel, “Propheten.” Cf. LXX 1 Sam 12:23; LXX Ps 106:7 (= MT 107:7); Hos 14:10; Prov 2:13, 15; Acts 13:10; 1 Clem. 7.3; 35.5; further Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 267. 529 This is asserted by Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 142, with no justification, and adopted by Schmidt, Mahnung, 372. 528



Second Peter 2:15-16

351

a variant pronunciation (for example, by the Galilean Peter)530 or a wordplay with the Hebrew ‫“( בשר‬flesh”), which would characterize Balaam as “son of flesh” and thus as a model of sinfulness.531 The observation that the confusion begins already in the LXX is more helpful. There the Edomite king ‫ן־בעֹור‬ ְ ‫ ֶב ַלע ֶב‬is rendered as Βαλακ υἱὸς τοῦ Βεωρ—­that is, a certain Balak (who is not the same Balak as in the Balaam episode) receives the patronymic Beor (Gen 36:32; 1 Chron 1:43; Job 42:17)—­and Βοσορ or Βοσορρα also appears several times as a place name, also in connection with Edom. The phrase Βαλαὰμ τοῦ Βοσόρ could have developed from these textual shifts.532

Taking up the phrase used in v. 13a, the characterization of Balaam “who loved the wages of unrighteousness” (ὃς μισθὸν ἀδικίας ἠγάπησεν) alludes to the fact that according to the biblical account Balaam received an offer of payment for the cursing of Israel (Num 22:17; 24:11).533 For this reason, he is later regarded as greedy.534 Later Rabbinic traditions explain his visit to the Midianite kings, where he is then killed (Num 31:8), as taking place on account of his desire to collect his wages for tempting the Israelites to apostasy; his “wage” is then ironically regarded as his death by the sword (b. Sanh. 106a; Num. Rab. 22:5, 9; Sifre Num 157). Against the backdrop of Jude, 2 Pet 2:15 plays with this situation: while the opponents followed the error of Balaam “for the sake of wages” according to Jude 11, the opponents in view here are equally bent on some reward in ‘emulation’ of Balaam the tempter; just as he “loved” the promised wages (cf. Philo, Mos. 1.268), they love the material advantage (v. 14) and increased influence that their unrighteous activity yields. At the same time, the phrase μισθὸς ἀδικίας535 implies the idea of the punishment that, according to the OT tradition (Num 31:8), Balaam received from God for his deeds—­and thus the opponents’ impending judgment (v. 13). 16 A peculiar haggadic expansion is added to the comment about Balaam in v. 16. Here the biblical narrative of the talking donkey (Num 22:28-­30) is taken up; as a soothsayer, indeed, a “prophet,”536 Balaam should actually 530

Thus Zahn, Einleitung, 2:109. So Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 267–­68, who points to an analogy in the rabbinic Balaam tradition in which “Beor” (‫ )בעור‬is associated with “animal” (‫ )בעיר‬in order to emphasize his bestiality. Further examples of this sort of interpretation of names are the Jewish designations of Bar Kochba (= son of a star) and Bar Koziba (= son of the lie). 532 So Ruf, Propheten, 441–­42. 533 Of course, according to these texts, he specifically refused to curse Israel for the wages offered by Balak (Num 22:18; 24:13). 534 Cf. Philo, Mos. 1.267–­68; Cher. 33–­34. 535 Cf. μισθὸς τῆς ἀδικίας in Acts 1:18 for Judas; further Diog. Laert. 9.2; Barn. 4.12. 536 That Balaam was a prophet—­a lthough he is not designated as such in the OT—­can be seen from his blessings over Israel (Num 23–­24) and was widely accepted in Jewish tradition; on this, see Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 269, who refers to the Targumim (Tg. Neof. and Tg. Ps.-­J. 531

352

Second Peter: Commentary

have known the will of God, yet ironically he required the speech of a donkey, normally a silent animal, to be made aware of the angel and thus stopped on his path. Balaam’s παρανομία, his conduct that runs contrary to the will of God, is mentioned first, and then—­even more strongly—­his παραφρονία, the irrationality or even insanity of the prophet. The author might be drawing here on a tradition attested in the Targumim, according to which the donkey does not complain about the blows but rather rebukes Balaam’s lack of understanding in his delusion.537 Taken in reference to the seductive “false teachers,” this contains a harsh polemical disqualification: they, who believe themselves to be wise and unabashedly make judgments about divine matters (v. 10b), are in truth blind to these things; they are “like unreasoning animals” (v. 12). Indeed, they resemble the “prophet” Balaam, who in his blindness had to be brought to his senses and halted in his erroneous path by an unreasoning, normally silent animal.538 “This mockery is meant to strike the false teachers, whose path is united with his.”539 Like him they, too, are “convicted,” and like him they will perish.540 e) Two metaphorical characterizations (2:17) (17) These are waterless springs and wisps of fog driven by a storm, for whom the gloom of darkness is reserved.

17 The example of Balaam “is followed by . . . a further tirade of insults,”541 which once again draws freely on elements of Jude before the author describes the danger the false teachers pose for his addressees in a passage composed independently (vv. 18-­22). For the continued negative characterization of the opponents, the author draws on the imagery from Jude 12b-­13, although instead of the four images collected there (waterless clouds, fruitless trees, foaming waves, and wandering stars), he only presents two (springs and wisps of fog). Of these, only one is adopted from Jude 12b, namely the fog or clouds, and this is greatly simplified in terms of the content of the metaphor. on Num 23:7; Frg. Tg. on Num 23:1 and 24:4), L.A.B. 18.12; Philo, Mut. 203; b. Sanh. 106a; and Num. Rab. 20:7, 10. 537 In the biblical account, it is the angel of the Lord who ‘enlightens’ Balaam. In the Targumim, the donkey takes over this role (Tg. Ps.-­J., Frg. Tg., and Tg. Neof. on Num 22:30). Other later interpreters also speak of Balaam’s madness, see Philo, Mut. 203; Mos. 1.293, etc. See Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 268. 538 This corresponds with Philo’s interpretation (Mos. 1.272), who emphasizes that the vision is given to the ἄλογον ζῷον, which would rather be expected for the visionary (see Ruf, Propheten, 443) 539 Schmidt, Mahnung, 372. 540 Thus Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 243, who further refers to Num 31:15-­17. 541 Schmidt, Mahnung, 373.



Second Peter 2:16-17

353

The author creates the metaphor of the springs newly and freely, although he adopts the attribute “waterless” from the cloud metaphor in Jude 12b. The concluding reference to “gloom of darkness,” which in Jude is connected with the wandering stars, now aims directly at the opponents who are liable to judgment. The comparison with Jude shows how freely the author adapts his source. The subtle combination of images from Jude 12, likely inspired by Enoch,542 is broken up and transformed into a simpler, but polemically no less effective, metaphor.

Verse 17 begins with a repetition of the οὗτοι from v. 12 (cf. Jude 12)543 and opens a new syntactic unit. “These” opponents, who are the topic at hand, are “waterless springs.” The metaphor here is new, but is not entirely freely composed. Jude 12b spoke of “waterless clouds driven along by the wind,” and from this expression, which is based on a somewhat unclear meteorological phenomenon,544 2 Pet takes the adjective ἄνυδρος (“waterless”) but applies it to “springs,” which were not mentioned in Jude. In the OT and early Jewish tradition, the image of a spring was used in connection with the Torah or wisdom, and “drinking” became a metaphor for instruction or receiving wisdom.545 The reference to “waterless springs” thus expresses the deceitful character of the opponents’ teaching and the disappointment of those who hope that it will quench their thirst.546 The second image of “wisps of fog (ὁμίχλαι) driven by a storm”547 is without parallel in traditional material and remains somewhat unclear. It might allude to the fact that such clouds or patches of fog driven by the wind bring no rain with them.548 In this case, the lack of water would be consistent with the image of the springs, but it is unclear whether this meaning can be brought to bear here.549 All that is made explicit is the notion of being driven about,550 and thus unsteadiness, which is likewise a polemical topos for false teachers, or perishability and futility, which is also manifest in patches of fog driven 542

On this, see above, p. 114. ο ὗτοι in 2 Pet does not serve the structural function it does in Jude, where it indicates the shift from each biblical paradigm to its application to the opponents. 544 Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 274. 545 Cf. Prov 13:14; 14:27; 18:4; Sir 24:25-­26; CD VI, 4, and elsewhere; cf. also John 4:14; Rev 7:17; 21:6. 546 Cf. Jer 14:3 and 2 Pet 2:19. The image of the waterless spring is a “bitter symbol of disillusionment to the thirsty traveller or anxious farmer” (Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 345). 547 ὁμίχλη is a hapax legomenon within the NT; on this, see Kraus, Sprache, 334. 548 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 274, refers to Arist., Mete. 1.9 (346b), and Theophr., De signis 4. 549 As, for example, by Vögtle, Judasbrief, 206; Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 142; and Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 274. 550 So Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 244: “The image of a storm . . . suggests that they are in the wrong place, out of God’s order.” 543

354

Second Peter: Commentary

about.551 Both metaphorical characterizations thus express that the opposing teachers are deceitful, raise false hopes, and thus bring destruction rather than anything good. The following phrase “for whom the gloom of darkness is reserved” no longer refers as it did in Jude 13 to the wandering stars (i.e., planets), which can easily be envisioned as ending up in darkness.552 Here, since a reference to the patches of fog would be unsuitable,553 it refers instead directly to the opponents. For them, as the imagery vividly illustrates, a place in the darkness is reserved—­that is, eschatological damnation is certain. f) The seductive power of the false teachers (2:18-­19) (18) For by speaking overblown words of vanity they entice with debaucheries in desires of the flesh those who are just now554 fleeing from those who dwell in error, (19) promising them freedom although they are themselves slaves of destruction. For what one succumbs to, by that one is enslaved.

18 This renewed condemnation is more precisely justified (γάρ) by the behavior of the “false teachers,” and the author now discusses their effect on the community with no further reference to Jude. They speak “overblown words of vanity,” which is formulated with a pair of words that contrast impressively. Here the accusation of haughtiness taken from Jude (Jude 16: ὑπέρογκα) is linked with the conventional charge that these people’s words are vain, empty, and deceitful.555 The “false teachers” entice people with false promises, and especially those who are not yet stable in the Christian teaching (cf. v. 14) or, as it is expressed here, those who are just now556 “fleeing from those who dwell 551

So Schmidt, Mahnung, 373: “Wisps of fog are inflated puffs of nothingness.” Schmidt rightly points out that ματαιότης in the LXX translates the Hebrew ‫( הבל‬cf. Qoh 1:2, etc.). 552 On this, see above, pp. 116–­17, and the connection between the fall of the angels and falling or errant stars (1 En. 18:11–­19:1; 1:1-­10; 86:1-­6; 88:1-­3). 553 The fact that ὁμίχλη in the LXX is repeatedly associated with σκότος (Isa 29:18; Joel 2:2; Zeph 1:15) leads Ruf, Propheten, 452–­53, to the conclusion that there is a close connection here as well. 554 So with the text of the ECM: ὄντως. NA27 reads instead the NT hapax legomenon ὀλίγως (“barely”; i.e., “who barely escape those . . .”). 555 Cf. 1 Tim 1:6; Titus 1:10; Ign. Phld. 1:1; Pol. Phil. 2.1. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 274, suggests that the description of Balaam as ματαίος (Philo, Cher. 32; Conf. 159; Migr. 113; Det. 71) was the reason for this choice of words. 556 There is a text-­critical uncertainty here, although it does not significantly affect the meaning. While NA27 prefers the reading ὀλίγως, attested in 𝔓72, Sinaiticus (correction), Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, etc. (“who barely escape” or “who recently escape,” though for this one would expect a past-­tense verb form), ECM, and NA28 return to the reading ὄντως, which is attested in the original reading of Sinaiticus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, and then above all in



Second Peter 2:17-19

355

in error”—­that is, they are still in the process of distancing themselves from the pagan way of life and training in Christian life and its ethical precepts.557 Those who are still unstable are particularly easy to tempt into relapse through false teachings and false models. It is probable that this message, expressed here for the second time (cf. v. 14), indicates that the opponents were actually successful in the communities observed by the author, which explains something of the harshness of the polemic. The author sees the greatest danger in the newly converted being ‘poached’ by the opponents and forfeiting their salvation through the temptation of an immoral lifestyle. In this way, the newly converted are led astray to the opposite of that which, according to 1:3-­4, is the duty and the goal of the faithful558—­namely, to escape eschatological ruin and the perishability that prevails in the world through desire by means of a virtuous way of life in accordance with the faith. The words of the opponents’ teaching apparently appeal to sensual desires: they “entice” (cf. v. 14) those who are easily tempted “in the desires of the flesh” through “debaucheries.” What this means concretely and how this temptation is carried out remains unclear.559 It may be that this addresses the consequences of denying the Parousia (which is regarded as pretentious and brash as well as vain and ignorant): for those who are not yet stable, sophistic questioning of the Parousia and the judgment can incite a return to the lifestyle of pagan society or simply to ethically lax behavior, which the author characterizes polemically as “desires of the flesh” and “debaucheries.” Within this polemic, the categories of purity or pollution play a large role. According to v. 20, the lifestyle of the world is marked by “pollutions” (μιάσματα), and the temptation to once again relapse into such behavior brings about the pollution of the community members. The characterization of the opponents as “stains” (v. 12) and finally the parallel with swine and “vomiting” dogs (v. 22) bluntly expresses this notion. The purity imagery serves here as an intensification of the moral impetus: if the faithful must be found “unstained” at the eschaton (3:14), the “false teachers” pose a deadly risk to the community. With emotional forcefulness, an intolerance for the opposing teaching is thus created in the addressees560 and they are motivated to firmly distance themselves from the opponents. the Majority text, which more clearly underscores the contrast with being led astray by the false teachers (“who are in fact just now escaping”). 557 Those “who dwell in error” are Gentiles, according to a common manner of speaking; see Wis 12:24; Rom 1:27; Titus 3:3; 2 Clem. 1.7; Barn. 4.1; 14.5. 558 R ightly noted by Ruf, Propheten, 454. 559 The syntactical function of the two datives, once with ἐν and once without a preposition, is not entirely clear; both can be taken as instrumental. 560 So Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 222.

356

Second Peter: Commentary

19 The specific issue is clarified in v. 19: the opponents seem to have promised their listeners “freedom.” This is discernible as an element of the opponents’ teaching—­not in the form of a citation (cf. 3:4), but in a catchword. ἐλευθερία could have been one of the key terms of their proclamation. What the “false teachers” promised liberation or freedom from, however, remains unclear. The answer to this question is closely related to the image one constructs of the opponents.561 a) The hypothesis that from the letter’s perspective this is about emancipation from governmental authorities562 can be dismissed relatively quickly as the text offers no basis for it.563 b) It is also improbable that, similar to a gnostic perspective, the opponents were concerned with freedom from the created world,564 its archons, or the creator god understood as the demiurge. There is likewise no evidence in the text for such a gnostic worldview among the opponents,565 even though the late dating of 2 Pet no longer allows us to dismiss the idea that such a perspective existed at the time. c) The assumption that the teachers especially taught freedom from φθορά, from destruction, and thereby presented a realized eschatology according to which Christians were already preserved from the fate of death,566 cannot be sufficiently justified in 2 Pet.567 There is no historical evidence to suggest a parallel between the false teachers who are opposed here and the opponents in the Pastoral Epistles, characterized in 2 Tim 2:18 with the formula “the resurrection has already taken place!” (ἀνάστασιν ἤδη γεγονέναι). d) In older scholarship, there was a popular image of the opponents as libertines who were concerned with freedom from moral demands in general.568 This image was originally fueled by the classification of the opponents as gnostic or by parallels with the Corinthian libertines, and is thus at the least problematic insofar as it uncritically 561 See the detailed discussion in Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 275–­76; further also Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 223; Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 143–­4 4; as well as Caulley, “Freedom.” 562 Reicke, Epistles, 171; idem, Diakonie, 366–­67, suggests that the opponents were exploiting the social unrest under Domitian. 563 So, rightly, Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 275. 564 So Schmithals, Neues Testament und Gnosis, 148–­49. Cf. also Grundmann, Brief, 62: “The freedom received and jubilantly celebrated is associated with contempt for the world and its powers, which restrain and compel humanity.” The opponents are “enthusiasts who interpret Paul in a gnosticizing sense.” 565 So, rightly, Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 275; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 206. 566 Käsemann, “Apologie,” 137; likewise Harnisch, Existenz, 100. 567 The additional clause in v. 19, which is a critical comment by the author, is also unable to establish that the opponents have promised freedom from φθορά (so Ruf, Propheten, 457). 568 Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 97: “Liberation of fleshly impulses”; also Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 346; Fornberg, Church, 106–­7.



Second Peter 2:19

357

accepts the moral accusations of the author, which are in part polemical topoi. The opponents’ position must be differentiated from the polemical portrait that the author paints. e) Jerome H. Neyrey, among others, suspects an influence of the Epicurean teaching of freedom from fear of the gods and future punishment, and thus an Epicurean influence on the opponents.569 This reconstruction at least connects the opponents’ proclamation of freedom with their eschatological skepticism. Although such an influence from popular philosophy cannot be entirely ruled out, the opponents are not simply pagan teachers, but Christians, and the concept of ‘Epicurean’ Christians remains problematic. f) Finally, Thomas Scott Caulley has pointed to the importance of the example of Balaam and (with reference to Rev 2:14) interpreted the Balaam episode as an example aimed against assimilation to the Hellenistic world. It is less plausible, however, when he assesses the opponents, in connection with Balaam, as “prophets” and identifies the dispute as a fight over scriptural interpretation and inspiration. On this view, the opponents appear as pneumatics who preach freedom from the tyranny of doctrine and moral restrictions.570

It is undisputed that, especially in the author’s view, ethical consequences could result from questioning the Parousia and the judgment (cf. 3:4). Yet with regard to the language of ἐλευθερία it must be kept in mind that in early Christianity this term served as a catchword of the Pauline proclamation (cf. Rom 8:21; 1 Cor 10:29; 2 Cor 3:17; Gal 2:4; 5:1, 13).571 Since according to 3:15-­16 Paul’s letters were apparently read by the opponents, it cannot be ruled out that this context is behind the statement in 2:19. Indeed, the terms from 2:19 (ἐλευθερ-­, φθορ-­, δούλ-­) are closely connected in Rom 8:20-­21, suggesting that a reference to this passage (and perhaps also Rom 6:12-­23) is likely.572 It is conceivable that the opponents preached “freedom” with reference to Pauline thought, but also in connection with a non-­Pauline eschatological skepticism. This “freedom” was now no longer understood as freedom from the Jewish ‘law’ but instead as freedom from judgment, ultimately implying a loss of moral standards, which were obligatory for broad segments of early Christianity, including the author of 2 Pet. In the author’s opinion, this “promise”573 is made by people who themselves doubt the divine promise of the Parousia—­it is a treacherous promise whose 569 Neyrey, “Form and Background,” 418, refers above all to Lactant., Inst. 3.17; cf. also Cicero, Nat. d. 1.114–­17, and Div. 148–­49, as well as Lucian, Alex. 47. 570 Caulley, “Freedom,” 138. 571 Already Jas 1:25 and 2:12 struggle against a misunderstood use of “freedom” as a catchword. 572 See the argumentation in Ruf, Propheten, 458–­59. 573 It is hardly an accident that the author uses the verb ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι here, creating a correspondence with 3:4 and the quote of the opponents about the failure of the ἐπαγγελία to materialize.

358

Second Peter: Commentary

nonfulfillment is already evident. For these people themselves are not free but are “slaves” (δοῦλοι) in servitude to perishability or destruction (φθορά). In their ‘animalistic’ nature (see v. 12), their imprisonment to earthly pleasure (v. 13), their blindness to divine matters (vv. 12, 15), and their thoroughly sinful essence, they are themselves bound to perishability and—­as is implied here and in 2:12—­liable to eschatological destruction. They promise freedom from the very judgment by which they themselves will be destroyed. The notion that the opponents are not in fact free is now justified with a maxim that has a series of parallels in later early Christianity, but whose origin is unclear:574 “For what one succumbs to, by that one is enslaved.” This sentence is often regarded as a common proverb575 and traced to the laws of war576 or the ancient experience of wars, yet no non-­Christian parallels are known.577 Since the Christian parallels are all significantly later than 2 Pet, this is more likely a new creation by the author in the style of an aphorism, perhaps employing the structure of Rom 6:16.578 Since it is uncertain whether all early Christian parallels of the saying in fact adopt it from 2 Pet and the maxim sometimes appears within a series of quoted sayings of Jesus, Grünstäudl suspects that the sentence might have circulated as such a saying.579 It is doubtful, however, that this was already the case at the time of the author. Second Peter does not suggest a reference to Jesus tradition here, and such a reference is not very probable within his argumentation. A dependence on Rom 6:16 is thus more plausible.

The struggle alluded to here, which the opponents have evidently lost, is the battle against sin, “pollution” (v. 20), or “desires of the flesh” (v. 18). According to 1:4, as a result of sin, the ruin of death (φθορά), is in the world. The conquering power here, denoted with the relative particle ᾧ, is syntactically either neuter or masculine. If the latter is the case,580 then φθορά—­like sin in Paul (Rom 6:17-­18; cf. John 8:34)—­would in a sense be personified as a power that controls human beings or determines their eschatological fate. 574 Hippol., Comm. Dan. 3.22.4; Clem. Recogn. 5.12.4; Origen, Hom. Exod. 12.4; Adamantius 58.1–­2 . Cf. Ruf, Propheten, 460–­63; and most recently Grünstäudl, “Slavery.” 575 Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 97; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 277; Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 144; and others. 576 Vögtle, Judasbrief, 65. 577 Cf. Bigg, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 286, for some examples, whose correspondence, however, is insufficient (see the critique in Grünstäudl, “Slavery,” 65). 578 So the interpretation of Ruf, Propheten, 460–­61, who presumes reception of 2 Pet for all parallels. 579 See the table in Grünstäudl, “Slavery,” 70, which suggests this especially for Adamantius 56–­58. 580 Cf. Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 100.



Second Peter 2:19-21

359

g) The worsened state of damnation brought about by the false teachers (2:20-­21) (20) For if they, having escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, are once again entangled in them and thus succumb to them, then the end is worse for them than the beginning. (21) For it would be better for them if they had not come to know the way of righteousness than after they acquired this knowledge to turn away from the holy commandment handed down to them.

20 In closing this section, the dire effects of the false teachers’ work are now once more accentuated and expanded, being generalized in proverbial phrases—­ and with crude polemic. It is unclear exactly who is being referred to here: the new converts mentioned in v. 18, who were just distancing themselves from the sinful life581 and now once again fall into the slavery of sin in the alleged freedom promised them by the false teachers, or the false teachers, who are the theme of the polemic throughout the entire chapter, at least at the end were again the subject of the message from v. 19 (“slaves of destruction”), and against whom the harsh aphorisms of v. 22 are probably also directed.582 It is probably inappropriate to create this dichotomy here; the reference is more likely intentionally ambiguous, so that the graphic depiction of the consequences of apostasy can refer to both groups. For in fact, the ruin that is declared for the opponents also applies to those whom they lead astray. The author’s pastoral concern583 is not explicitly to save those influenced by the opponents (unlike in Jude 22-­23) but principally to discredit the opponents themselves. They should no longer be able to have a corrupting effect. The addressees should resist them and distance themselves from them and their way of life, and the harsh language serves this purpose.

The opponents were also (once) Christians (and probably still considered themselves to be): they came from the pagan world to the faith and then, in the author’s view, fell away again. They, too, had “escaped the pollutions of the world . . . through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (cf. 1:2), had distanced themselves from the sinful way of life of their environment and—­ probably in baptism—­experienced purification of the “pollutions” (μιάσματα) that life in the pagan world brings with it.584 Yet they surrendered themselves once again to the “desire for pollution” (v. 10) and again allowed themselves to be taken captive by the ‘filthy’ machinations of the world. Thus they turned away from the commandment handed down to them (v. 21) and in so doing 581 So Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 347–­48; Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 101; Ruf, Propheten, 463. 582 Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 144; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 207. 583 Cf. Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 101. 584 The usage of κόσμος as a realm or environment that creates pollution bears very negative connotations here, comparable with the usage in John 15:18ff. or 1 John 2:15.

360

Second Peter: Commentary

denied the Lord and Savior (2:1). What is said about them also applies to those neophytes who have been brought to ruin by their teaching, who had just escaped from error (v. 18) and pollution (v. 20) and are now once again ruled by desire and perishability. This declaration is made in a sentence reminiscent of Matt 12:45 (par. Luke 11:26),585 which appears here without reference to Jesus but instead in the form of a proverb: “The end will be worse for them than the beginning.” Here τὰ ἔσχατα does not refer to the present situation, but to the eschatological consequences, the judgment that certainly awaits them. After apostasy a person’s condition is burdened with greater culpability, which “differs from the [situation] before the turn to the faith. The latter is subject to the promise and hope of salvation, the former exists in the hopeless prospect of damnation.”586 There is no more salvation for apostates. With this statement the author takes part in the discussion of a so-­called second repentance, which was part of the debates that began with the third generation of emerging Christianity.587 In this, the author approaches the position of Hebrews, which, however, with its brusque rejection of a ‘second repentance’ (Heb 6:4-­6; 10:26-­27; 12:17) does not pass judgment on specific people, but rather stipulates the impossibility of return for apostates as a declaration of boundaries admonishing against the potential apostasy of its addressees.588 The austere view that there is no other repentance in addition to or after baptism was held in significant segments of Christian doctrine in the second century589 (even if praxis may have differed from teaching590), and in principle also applies to the text that allows for a unique exception, the Shepherd of Hermas. In that text, Herm. Sim. 9.18.1–­2 also alludes to the dictum used in 2 Pet 2:20 in order to show that the sins of Christians are much more serious that those committed before baptism. According to Herm. Mand. 4.3.1–­2 there is “not another repentance except that one from the time when we descended into the water,” and God in God’s mercy has again granted the possibility of a second conversion (Herm. Mand. 4.2.3–­6; Herm. Sim. 9.26.6) until an 585

In comparison with the synoptic Jesus logion from the pericope of the return of the unclean spirit, only τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκείνου is replaced here with αὐτοῖς, in accordance with the present context. An awareness of and implicit reference to this saying should thus be presumed. 586 Grundmann, Brief, 101. 587 On this problem, see Windisch, Taufe and Sünde; Goldhahn-­Müller, Grenze. 588 Cf. H.-­F. Weiß, Hebräer, 347–­51: “This is a matter of admonishing potential apostates” (348). 589 Cf. also 1 John 3:6; 5:16-­17; see further Mart. Pol. 11.1; Acts John 107; Iren., Haer. 4.27.2. 590 This is reflected in the fact that Hermas, for example, speaks “of the possibility of repentance after baptism as self-­evident” and ultimately fights against this ‘more lax’ practice by proclaiming a singular and thus final possibility for repentance—­namely, a limitation of repentance (on this, see Brox, Hermas, 476–­77).



Second Peter 2:20-21

361

“appointed day” (Herm. Vis. 2.2.4–­5) only “in the sense of a concession to the weakness of human beings”591 (cf. Herm. Mand. 4.3.4). Thus Hermas is also a representative of an austere view of repentance, although drawing on Heb 6:4-­6 Tertullian (Pud. 20) later polemicized against its allegedly ‘lax’ doctrine. It is therefore not a coincidence that the closest substantive parallel to 2 Pet is also found in the Shepherd of Hermas (Herm. Sim. 9.17.5–­18.2),592 which employs the metaphorical language of stones that were joined together to build the tower of the church: “But after they entered into unity and became one body, some of them defiled themselves . . . and they became again as they were before, or rather even worse.” The question of how this “even worse” is possible is answered: “One who does not know God and acts wickedly receives a certain punishment for his wickedness; but one who has come to know God is obliged to no longer act wickedly, but to do good. And so, if one who ought to do good acts wickedly, does he not seem to do a greater wickedness than one who does not know God? This is why those who do not know God and act wickedly are condemned to death, but those who do know God and have seen his great works and still act wickedly will be doubly punished, and will die forever.” In Hermas as in 2 Pet, conversion is understood as an acquired knowledge, relapse as pollution, and the situation for those who “have seen God’s great works” and have come to know God’s commandment and its obligatory nature is more serious than before.

21 The dire situation of those who have deviated from the path of faith is underscored with another statement in the style of a maxim, formally a “ ‘better’-­ proverb” (Tov-­Spruch).593 This wisdom form594 compares two behaviors or conditions and determines which is, or—­in this case—­would be “better” (‫טוב‬/ κρεῖττον). Accordingly, it would be “better” for the apostates “if they had not come to know the way of righteousness”—­that is, if they had never turned to faith in Christ—­“than after they acquired this knowledge to turn away from the holy commandment handed down to them.”595 The author certainly composed this proverb ad hoc with a view to his context.596 The formulation reveals how the author understands the Christian faith and the Christian life. The language of “acknowledging” or “having acknowledged” (ἐπεγνωκέναι) corresponds with the fundamental characterization of 591

So H.-­F. Weiß, Hebräer, 351. Cf. Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 145; Ruf, Propheten, 463–­64. 593 On such sayings in the NT, see Ruf, Propheten, 465. 594 Cf. Prov 15:17; Qoh 7:2, 5; as well as in early Christianity Mark 9:43; 1 Cor 7:9; and 1 Pet 3:17. Cf. also the saying about Judas in Mark 14:21 par. On the Tov-­Sprüche, see Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 223–­24; as well as G. F. Snyder, “Tobspruch.” 595 “ Turning away” (ὑποστρέψαι) is spoken of here with a clear play on the term ἐπιστρέφειν, common in missionary language. 596 So Ruf, Propheten, 465. 592

362

Second Peter: Commentary

faith as ἐπίγνωσις of Christ in 2:20 (cf. already 1:2-­3, 3, 8). The turn to Christian faith in 2 Pet always involves both a noetic as well as a practical-­ethical component. Taking up the path metaphor once again (cf. v. 2:15), the author then speaks of the “way of righteousness.”597 This should also be seen as a code for the Christian life in which ethical obligation is clearly emphasized.598 This is confirmed by the reference to the “holy commandment,”599 which has been “handed down” (by the apostles) (cf. 3:2)600 and ultimately stems from Christ himself. This phrase denotes the obligatory moral instruction that comes with Christian existence, which allows “no arbitrary reduction.”601 Falling from this path means a relapse into pagan customs and practices, and is thereby a sin even worse than those committed in the state of existence before the turn to God and Christ, since those concerned have now achieved awareness, know Christ, his benefactions, and his commandment and have fallen back again behind this awareness, and so, as the author is convinced, they will fall victim to a much worse punishment. h) Dog and swine: a polemical composite proverb in closing (2:22) (22) What the true saying says has happened to them: “A dog turns back to its own vomit” and “a swine that has bathed (turns back) to wallow in dung.”

22 With two crudely offensive sayings602 applied to the opponents this section comes to a graphic close. Intratextually, this points back to the comparison of the opponents with “unreasoning animals” (2:12), but (in line with the metaphorical language of purity that has already emerged) introduces clear accents of the impure and unappetizing. The two sayings are parallel in their subject matter and are introduced by the author as a composite proverb (παροιμία in 597 Cf. also 1:9; further Apoc. Pet. (A) 22, 28, and (E) 7.7 (= [A] 22). In the LXX the expression is found in Wisdom literature; see Job 24:13 and Prov 21:16, 21, as well as in the plural Prov 8:20; 12:28; 16:17, 31; 17:23. The closest parallel to the situation found here is in Barn. 5.4 (cf. 1.4): “The person who knows the path of righteousness but keeps himself in the path of darkness deserves to perish” (trans. Ehrman [LCL]). Cf. Prostmeier, Barnabasbrief, 240–­41. 598 Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 97, points to the difference from Jude 20: Christianity is denoted here as the “path of righteousness,” rather than “faith.” 599 This wording is distantly reminiscent of Jude 3—­where, however, the topic at hand was the faith entrusted to the saints. 600 Cf. 1 Tim 6:14; more often in plural in 2 Clem. 3.4; 4.5; 6.7; 8.4; 17.1, 3, 6. 601 Vögtle, Judasbrief, 207. 602 So Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 98.



Second Peter 2:21-22

363

singular), although they derive from different contexts. It is possible that he had already encountered them together.603 First of all, the common introduction is striking,604 which asserts that for “them”—­that is, primarily “false teachers”—­what the true proverb says has already become reality (συμβέβηκεν).605 Interestingly, this introduction mentions only one saying, in the singular (παροιμία). The phrase that aims at the substance of the proverb, τὸ τῆς ἀληθοῦς παροιμίας (“the [content] of the true saying”), is unique in the Greek Bible but extrabiblically can be regarded as “thoroughly in common use.”606 Grammatically the proverbs are constructed in parallel. The verb in each is a participle (ἐπιστρέψας, λουσαμένη) that is to be taken as indicative. In the second saying, the reader has to supply ἐπιστρέφει, which is omitted in an ellipsis.607 With the semantic content of (again) approaching something (ἐπιστρέφειν ἐπί), both maxims also connect well with v. 21, which referred to the opponents’ turning back again (ὑποστρέφειν ἐκ). Turning back from the commandment is thereby equated with turning back to vomit and dung. The two sayings contain in total four NT hapax legomena (ἐξέραμα, ὗς, κυλισμός, βόρβορος) whose background is in classical mundane semantic usage, and they thus point clearly beyond the biblical, Jewish, and early Christian sphere.608

“Dog” and “swine” were frequently used together with a negative connotation, in Jewish and other contexts.609 In biblical Jewish tradition, both animals are associated with impurity: the pig was classified as impure, and impure food was thrown to dogs.610 603 That this is a composite proverb is supported by the fact that the second saying, despite the incongruence in gender, presupposes ἐπιστρέψας (see Schmidt, Mahnung, 376). Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 279, suggests this was found “no doubt in some Hellenistic Jewish collection of proverbs” (likewise Vögtle, Judasbrief, 208). But there is no evidence for this, and one can just as well assume that the author has composed the combination “specifically for the present context” (Kraus, “Hund,” 41). 604 The two sayings are thereby introduced as a composite proverb. 605 The perfect is resultative, i.e., to be understood in reference to the present. Cf. Kraus, “Hund,” 38. 606 So Kraus, “Hund,” 39, with reference to Lucian, Dialogi mortuorum 6.2 (16.29), as well as passages from Didymus the Blind and Cyril of Alexandria. 607 On this, see Kraus, “Hund,” 41–­42. 608 So Kraus, “Hund,” 47 (who also establishes this tendency for the other hapax legomena of 2 Pet); cf. Kraus, Sprache, 345–­48. 609 LXX 3 Kgdms 20:19; 22:38; Matt 7:6; P.Oxy. 840r, 32–­33; but also Homer, Od. 18.105; Horace, Epistulae 1.2.26; 2.2.75. On this, see Kraus, “Hund,” 56–­60. 610 Schmidt, Mahnung, 376n159.

364

Second Peter: Commentary

“Dog”611 is found in a primarily negative sense already in the OT, even as an insult (1 Sam 17:43; 2 Kgs 8:13), whereas a truly positive sense in an OT Jewish context occurs only in Tob, probably owing to non-­Jewish Mesopotamian influences.612 In the Greek world, dogs were regarded, on the one hand, as loyal and intelligent, and on the other, as insolent, wily, and sycophantic, probably because of the widespread phenomenon of feral dogs.613 In the Qumran text 4QMMT, dogs are impure animals that were not permitted in the community’s sacred warehouse.614 Paul also calls his opponents “dogs,” and according to Ign. Eph. 7.1 they bite and are malicious. In Did. 9.5 dogs represent the unbaptized, and they later simply become code for heretics.

The saying employed polemically here is based on Prov 26:11. Here the MT (“Like a dog that returns to its vomit is a fool who reverts to his folly.”) differs from the LXX (“Like a dog, when he returns to his vomit, also becomes the more hated, so is a fool, when by his own wickedness, he returns to his own sin.”). Formally, 2 Pet 2:22 is closer to the MT,615 but the aspect of sin introduced in the LXX also plays a role here. The fool becomes “the role model to which the heterodox and their followers are fitted.”616 Nevertheless, the motif is certainly not used here simply because it was known from Scripture, but rather because its imagery was suited to the author’s polemical concerns. The saying about the swine is appended here. There is no direct evidence for this phrase, but the pig is not only impure in biblical, Jewish tradition, but despite its use as a source of food and a sacrificial animal in the Greco-­Roman world it is also often seen as dirty and stinking,617 and the image of wallowing in mud is common, also in connection with βόρβορος.618 A dictum quoted repeatedly by Clement of Alexandria might stem from a saying ascribed to 611

G. D. Miller, “Attitudes”; Schattner-­R ieser, “Chien.” So Schattner-­R ieser, “Chien,” 303–­4. 613 So Kraus, “Hund,” 50. 614 4Q394 8 IV, 8–­9; 4Q396 1 II, 9–­10; 4Q397 6–­13 2 (see Kraus, “Hund,” 50; Schattner-­ Rieser, “Chien”). This aspect is also found in Matt 7:6 and Rev 22:15. 615 Cf. Kraus, “Hund,” 51. Vögtle, Judasbrief, 208, incorrectly claims that the saying is found only in the MT. 616 Ruf, Propheten, 469. 617 So Kraus, “Hund,” 53–­54. Cf. Plut., Symp. 4.5 (= Mor. 671a). 618 So, e.g., Philo, Spec. 1.148; Epict., Diss. 4.11.29; Hippol., Haer. 9.7. On βόρβορος, see Kraus, Sprache, 341–­42; Kraus, “Hund,” 46–­47, 54–­55. Already according to Plato, Phaed. 69c, and Diog. Laert. 6.39, βόρβορος is associated with a place of punishment in the afterlife (see Kraus, “Hund,” 47). The word could provide further evidence for the connection between 2 Pet and Apoc. Pet., since in Apoc. Pet. (A) 23 “βόρβορος is found in connection with a large lake, which is filled with burning filth and dung and in which angels torture those who have turned away from righteousness” (Kraus, “Hund,” 46). It is therefore not surprising that “this connection between the afterlife, punishment, and βόρβορος left traces in other relevant literature (cf. Acts Thom. 56 and Mart. Mt. 3)” (op. cit., 46–­47). 612



Second Peter 2:22–3:13

365

Heraclitus: “Pigs enjoy filth more than they do pure water,”619 or “Swine bathe in muck . . .”620 Even closer to the version found in 2 Pet is a form of the aphorism from the Ahiqar tradition: “My son, you were like the swine that took a bath with great people. Once in the bath, it washed; when it got out, it saw a puddle and wallowed in it.”621 The composite proverb was perhaps first put together by the author of 2 Pet using aphorisms derived in part from biblical (Prov 26:11) and in part from classical (Heraclitus) literature, but which were familiar and easily understandable due to their imagery. It disdainfully expresses what the apostates were accused of in v. 21: they return to the filth from which they had once been disentangled—­a nauseating image simultaneously associated with impurity, with which the author seeks to evoke disgust and revulsion over the activities of the “false teachers.” With this final insult, the author has articulated the opponents’ repulsive, animalistic nature in a manner that can hardly be surpassed. The “false teachers” are now thoroughly discredited. Their nature and activity, and the corrupting consequences for themselves and those they have influenced, have been vividly depicted for the addressees. Now the author can proceed to the discussion of their arguments without fearing that they will find a sympathetic ear in the addressees. This is pursued in the following second main section of the letter body. 4. The Second Argumentative Section: The Reliability of the Promise of the Parousia and Judgment (3:1-­13) After comprehensively discrediting the “false teachers,” the author now turns to the opponents’ teaching in a new section of his letter, specifically to the critical or “scoffing” (v. 3) skepticism of the hope of the Parousia and the anticipated judgment associated with it. This position is first introduced with a direct quotation, and then dismissed in the style of a refutatio,622 where the author develops an altogether original position between apocalyptic tradition and Stoic cosmology.623 This theme does not come out of the blue: the issue of the reliability of the prophetic promise has been present since 1:19-­21, and 1:16 619

Heraclitus, frg. 13 (Diels and Kranz, Fragmente, 1:154; Eng. trans. T. M. Robinson, Heraclitus. Fragments); quoted in Clem. Alex., Strom. 1.2.2 and 2.68.3 (cf. Kraus, Sprache, 341; Kraus, “Hund,” 55), but Clement attributes the saying elsewhere (Protr. 92.4) to Democritus. 620 Heraclitus, frg. 13 (Diels), quoted in Columella 8.4, following Kraus, Sprache, 341. 621 Ahiqar (Syr.) 114, on the basis of Kraus, Sprache, 341, following Küchler, Weisheitstraditionen, 391. The Arabic version differs slightly (on this, see Ruf, Propheten, 470); in the Aramaic version of Ahiqar, the saying is absent. 622 Schmidt, Mahnung, 376. 623 See Frey, “Fire and Water?”

366

Second Peter: Commentary

already introduced the disputed term with δύναμις καὶ παρουσία. Thus the central point of the argumentation is likely reached in 3:4-­13. 4.1 The scoffers and their objection (3:1-­4) (1) This, beloved, is already the second letter that I write to you; in these (two) I seek to awaken your pure understanding with a reminder, (2) that you remember the words foretold by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior (passed down) from your apostles. (3) This you should recognize first of all, that in the last days scoffers will appear with scoffing, who live according to their own desires (4) and say: “Where is the promise of his Parousia? For since the fathers have fallen asleep, everything remains as (it has been) since the beginning of creation.”

This section formally consists of a single period.624 It presents a new beginning with a new address to the readers (“beloved”), once again taking the perspective of Peter as the speaker (first-­person singular future tense),625 and includes a “little captatio benevolentiae”626 with the reference to the (presupposed) ‘positive’ attitude of the addressees (cf. 1:1-­2, 12-­15). This is then linked with the motif of the “reminder” (cf. 1:15), which now refers to the words of the (OT) prophets and the commandments of Christ handed down by the apostles (and thereby points back to 1:16-­21). In this way the apostolic witness himself is finally able to announce the appearance of “scoffers” in the eschaton and introduce their objection against the hope of the Parousia. For the last time in this text, Jude serves as a basis for vv. 1-­3 (Jude 17-­18), although despite the relatively dense lexical adoptions, the author significantly deviates from the form of his source, primarily for the sake of the authorial fiction.627 The address to the readers as ἀγαπητοί is taken from Jude 17, which the author now connects with a reference to an earlier letter and a statement about his intentions (or those of the fictive author, ‘Peter’). The imperative μνήσθητε (“remember . . . !”), which immediately follows the address in Jude, is now syntactically dependent on γράφω ἐπιστολήν and becomes an indirect statement about the purpose of the letter (“that you remember”). Like in Jude, “the foretold words” are the object of the reminder, but they are significantly reformulated here. If the author wants to maintain the Petrine authorial fiction, he cannot refer to the prophecy “of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ,” as Jude 17 does. Instead, the prophecy of the appearance of false teachers is now “wrested from [the apostles] and ascribed to the prophets, who are inserted as 624 The participle γινώσκοντες in v. 3 does not directly modify an element from vv. 1-­2 and therefore (similarly to 1:20) should be rendered in the sense of a finite imperative verb; see Kraus, Sprache, 271. 625 On this, see Kraus, Sprache, 402. 626 Schmidt, Mahnung, 377. 627 On this, see the detailed discussion in Ruf, Propheten, 135–­38.



Second Peter 3:1-4

367

a new element into the text,”628 while the apostles function simply as transmitters of Christ’s commandment, and decidedly not as prophets. The fictive author points the addressees toward “the words foretold by the holy prophets” and Christ’s “commandment (passed down) from the apostles.” The content of the message, which was presented as an apostolic prophecy in Jude, appears here as an independent teaching of the apostolic author Peter, who now looks ahead and speaks in the future tense, but himself functions as a mediator of the “prophetic word” (1:19) and the commandment of Christ (2:21).

The content of the prophecy is presented with extensive lexical agreement with Jude 18. At the end of days, “scoffers” (ἐμπαῖκται) will come who “live according to their own desires” (κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας [Jude 18: ἑαυτῶν] ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῶν πορευόμενοι). Here we find the closest lexical dependence on Jude in the entire text. This is followed by the most striking reformulation, which refers to the opponents’ teaching profile. Here as in Jude the opponents are presented as the false teachers expected to appear at the eschaton, but while in Jude the “scoffing” was understood in the general sense of a disparagement of the faith, an immoral way of life, and ‘schismatic’ activity that provoked divisions, here it is presented with a direct quotation as a ‘scoffing objection’ and thus as a doctrinal position. With this position, which the continued argumentation is directed against, we have reached the point where the author no longer follows Jude. 1 The address of the readers as “beloved,” used here for the first time, draws on the stylistic device employed in Jude 17 (cf. Jude 20),629 which the author then continues to use independently in 3:8, 14, 17. Together with the second-­ person plural pronouns, this serves to strengthen the relationship between the (fictive) author and his readers, who had receded somewhat from view during the extensive polemic. At the same time, the address picks up again on the tradition of early Christian epistolography, primarily of the Pauline letters.630 After the invective against the opponents, which had become quite crude at the end, a warm-­hearted tone is now sounded toward the addressees. The reference to an earlier letter as well as the resumption of the motif of “memory” (1:12-­15) also resume the fictional communication situation: the addressees are presented with the apostle Peter’s testamentary address. 628

So Ruf, Propheten, 136. In Jude the address picked up on the body opening in Jude 3 (cf. also Jude 1: ἠγαπημένοις); in 2 Pet it is not prepared in the same way. The address is also found in 1 Pet 2:11 and 4:12. 630 ἀ γαπητοί as a direct address first occurs in Paul (Rom 12:19; 1 Cor 10:14; 15:58; 2 Cor 7:1; 12:19; Phil 2:12; 4:1), and like here it is always postpositive. It is used somewhat differently, namely in the first position in the sentence, in 1 John 2:7; 3:2, 21; 4:17, 11; and 1 Pet 2:11; 4:12. The usage here clearly connects, beyond Jude, with Pauline epistolary conventions. On this, see Ruf, Propheten, 147–­48. 629

368

Second Peter: Commentary

It has long been a matter of debate which other Petrine letter the author refers to here. In particular, the purpose given as common (ἐν αἷς) to this “second” letter and the implied first letter has raised doubts as to whether it is possible for this to refer to 1 Pet, which is so different in style and substance. In the context of various general hypotheses of authorship, assumptions have been presented which “seek to spare . . . the author of 2 Pet from a reference to . . . 1 Pet.”631 a) Hugo Grotius and some of his followers suggested that the phrase pointed to an older part of the letter, and thus that 2 Pet is not a single literary unit. Such hypotheses, however, cannot be substantiated. The text is unified linguistically and formally, and 2 Pet 3:1 must refer to a different letter.632 b) It has occasionally been proposed that the author alludes to Jude, since 2 Pet in fact has the closest literary relationship with this letter.633 It is uncertain, though, whether the addressees were acquainted with Jude, and rather doubtful that they would have in fact been able or expected to perceive this connection. ‘Peter’ does not refer to a different author.634 c) Some have suggested that the real author refers to a letter of his own that has been lost to us,635 but this is impossible to verify. d) Since the author of the letter claims to be Peter and no one else, the reference can only be to another Petrine text. As a “letter,” no text comes into question other than 1 Pet,636 even if other pseudonymous Petrine texts already existed and were possibly known to the addressees, such as Apoc. Pet. and perhaps Ker. Pet. cited in Clement. First Peter is the oldest known letter written in Peter’s name. This conclusion nevertheless raises new questions. Formally and stylistically, 2 Pet does not imitate 1 Pet, and the substantive connections are significantly more limited than those in Jude.637 The description of the two letters in 3:1 as a reminder of the 631

So Vögtle, Judasbrief, 211. So most recently McNamara, “Unity.” See the discussion in Spitta, Brief, 221–­27. On the unity of the letter, see above, pp. 178–­79. 633 Smith, Controversies, 77–­78, suggests that the author either composed Jude himself, or presupposes Jude as a text already recognized. 634 It is implausible that Judas, the brother of the Lord, is the author of both letters, as suggested by J. A. T. Robinson, Redating, 193–­95 and following him Riesner, “Petrusbrief.” How could the addressees have known that Judas was in fact the author, when 2 Pet so clearly claims Petrine authorship? 635 So G. L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, 123–­24; most recently Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 259. Those who regarded 2 Pet as an authentic letter of Peter, but took seriously the differences from 1 Pet, suggested a reference to a lost letter by the apostle (so Spitta, Brief, 221–­38; and Zahn, Einleitung, 2:44), who held both letters of Peter to be authentic, but unlike 1 Pet, which he considered to be written to the Gentile Christian diaspora, saw 2 Pet as addressed to Jewish Christians and therefore postulated another stylistically rather similar letter from Peter to the same addressees. 636 So most more recent authors, cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 146, 285–­86; Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 150; Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 229; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 211–­12. 637 The thesis of Boobyer (“Indebtedness”) that the author composed his text following the 632



Second Peter 3:1

369

words of the prophets and apostles only vaguely applies to 2 Pet (cf. 1:16-­21) and the same is true of 1 Pet, which presents a very different characterization of itself, especially in 1 Pet 5:12, as a brief depiction of true χάρις.638 The fact that both texts are concerned with eschatological hope639 is a relatively superficial point. The author apparently makes no attempt at congruency with 1 Pet—­not only in terms of form and language, but also in substance. He refrains from making the authorial fiction more plausible through a connection with the letter of Peter that is already known.640

Such a loose connection with 1 Pet becomes more intelligible if 1 Pet was not the only portrait of Peter available in literary form in the context surrounding the composition of 2 Pet—­that is, if 2 Pet was able to refer in part to the portrait found in Apoc. Pet. or there was already a plurality of Petrine portraits in the literary discourse. In the context of the present authorial fiction, the literary recourse to an acknowledged letter of Peter modifies and expands the image of Peter that the addressees “remember”641 insofar as the materials adopted from Jude are now also ‘Petrinized.’642 The depiction of the compositional intention in 3:1-­2 , however, must be understood entirely in terms of the situation and thought of 2 Pet itself. With the reference to an earlier letter from Peter and the motif of “awakening,” the author resumes the motif of the situation presented in 1:1-­2, 12-­15, as well as the theme associated with the testamentary character of the letter: the “reminder” of the Christian truth that was authenticated in its apostolic beginnings and is to be constantly “kept awake.” To this end, the author repeats the formulation used in 1:13, διεγείρειν . . . ἐν ὑπομνήσει, “rouse in memory”; and the introductory formula known from 1:20, τοῦτο . . . γινώσκοντες (“this [you should] know”), which is to be read as imperative,643 is repeated in 3:3.644 In contrast to the opponents, who “forget” things (1:9), and have even relapsed behind their former state of salvation (2:20), the addressees should prove to be steadfast with regard to the words of the prophets and the tradition of the model of 1 Pet, goes decidedly too far. See, by contrast, Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 286; see further above, p. 193. 638 Cf., for example, Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 150. Contra Weiss, Lehrbuch, 445; and Boobyer, “Indebtedness.” 639 So Ruf, Propheten, 153–­54. 640 So already Schelkle, Petrusbriefe. Judasbrief, 222: “Perhaps it is enough for him that the apostle Peter speaks in 2 Pet.” 641 Cf. the title of the book by Markus Bockmuehl, The Remembered Peter: In Ancient Reception and Modern Debate. 642 Cf. Ruf, Propheten, 157. 643 On the understanding of this participle, see Kraus, Sprache, 271. 644 Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 259, rightly emphasizes that “reminding” here is “a polite way of stating a teaching.”

370

Second Peter: Commentary

apostles (cf. 1:10; 2:14). Their memory should be kept alive so that they adhere to the genuine teaching uninfluenced by other views. This is likely what is meant by the phrase “pure understanding” (εἰλικρινῆ διάνοια). εἰλικρινής645 does not continue the imagery of “pure,” “impure,” or “polluted” that was previously applied to the opponents’ way of life.646 Instead, the phrase is concerned with the addressees’ capacity for thought and discernment (διάνοια), or with its result and thus their comprehension of the teaching.647 If this is to be “pure” (εἰλικρινής), this means that the addressees’ understanding should not be ‘contaminated’ with error, but instead correct and in accordance with the truth,648 and thereby opposed to the views of the “scoffers.” Whereas the latter “forget” the truth, the author wants his readers to keep their “memory” alive.

2 The addressees ought to “remember”—­with the help of the letter—­two things: the “words prophesied by the holy prophets” and the “commandment of the Lord and Savior (passed down) from your apostles” (i.e., the commandment of Christ). This once again takes up the dual notion of apostolic testimony and prophetic oracles introduced in 1:16ff. If this twofold formulation is still meant to be understood as characterizing both Petrine texts, it could point to 1 Pet 1:10-­12, where there is a similar coordination of the words of the prophets and the proclamation of the earliest Christian witnesses.649 However, 1 Pet has already receded into the distance, and intratextually the duality of apostolic proclamation and prophetic word has been oriented toward the eschatological hope in 1:16-­21, which was supported by the prophetic word and whose reliability was strengthened by the divine doxa of Christ witnessed by the apostles (1:19). The theme that was briefly hinted at with the reference to “power and arrival” in 1:16 is discussed more extensively in what follows here (3:4). 645 εἰλικρινής is otherwise found only once in the NT in Phil 1:10, then in the Apostolic Fathers in 1 Clem. 2.5 and 2 Clem. 9.8. Before 2 Pet, a reference to the εἰλικρινῆ διάνοια is attested only in Plato, Phaed. 66a (where the difference between thinking that relies on sensory perception and a ‘purer’ form of thinking is highlighted), and Philo, Congr. 143. See Ruf, Propheten, 147n348. 646 Contra Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 150, and Vögtle, Judasbrief, 213, who sees this as referring to the “unspoiled mentality.” 647 διάνοια denotes not just thinking but also its result, understanding. Cf. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 230, with reference to Let. Aris. 170–­71; Jos., A.J. 8.143, 166; 10.217, 234. See also Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 206. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 230, chooses the rendering “correct understanding”; cf. Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 351–­52: “pure understanding.” The rendering frequently used in German translations, lautere Gesinnung (Grundmann, Brief, 107; Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 148; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 209; Schmidt, Mahnung, 377), with its edifying tone, specifically fails to express the decisive point. 648 Philo uses εἰλικρινής repeatedly for true, pure knowledge, as opposed to sensory perception (see Leg. 1.88–­89; Ebr. 101, 189; Migr. 222; etc.), cf. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 230. 649 Cf. Schmidt, Mahnung, 377.



Second Peter 3:1-2

371

Verse 2 once more draws heavily on Jude. With almost complete retention of vocabulary, the source is precisely altered through small skillful additions in order to agree with the fiction of Petrine authorship: a) In deviation from Jude 17, 2 Pet no longer speaks of the “apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ,” but instead deliberately refers to the prophets and apostles. b) Unlike Jude 17 the appearance of the scoffers is not presented as a phenomenon “prophesied” by the apostles, but as a tenet (shared by the ‘apostolic’ author) that the addressees ought to “know” (v. 3). c) The “prophesied words” are no longer ascribed to the “apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ,” but rather to the “holy prophets” who are introduced here as a new point of reference. d) Conversely, with reference to the apostles, a second object of reminder is constructed—­namely, the “commandment of the Lord and Savior” (i.e., Christ), which was proclaimed or imparted by “your apostles.”650

Thus, in a transformation of Jude, the prophecy about the eschatological “scoffers” recedes and is ascribed to the “holy prophets” (cf. 1:19-­21), while the apostles are now entirely occupied with the message of Christ, the “commandment.” In Jude, there was a certain degree of inconsistency that could appear as a ‘crack’ in the fiction of an author from the time of the apostles, since this author now looks back upon the erstwhile prophecy of the apostles and so looks back on their lifetime.651 In contrast, the formulation in 2 Pet is more congruent with the present authorial fiction.652 In comparison with Jude, 2 Pet could thus appear as the older letter containing that very prophecy of the apostles, which Jude 17-­18 refers to, as an announcement made by Peter.653 The history of interpretation, in which Jude was long regarded as an extract from 2 Pet, attests to the success of this strategy.

For the author of 2 Pet, prophecy is apparently not a phenomenon of the present time.654 Rather, in this author’s view, prophets and prophecy are limited to the “prophetic word” (1:19) found in Scripture, and even the hope of Christ’s arrival at the Parousia appears to have its ultimate basis there. The addressees 650 There is no verb in this phrase. The genitive offers a certain sense of relation, but the construction remains somewhat unclear. 651 See above, pp. 30–­31; further Frey, “Autorfiktion,” 691–­92. 652 Cf. Frey, “Autorfiktion,” 710. 653 Cf. Schmidt, Mahnung, 378: “In Jude 17-­18 the author of 2 Pet finds as it were the literary evidence for his own composition, which alongside the adoption of paraenetic materials allows him the fiction of a later citation. The Letter of Jude creates an opening that 2 Pet, with a minimal shift in the voices of 2 Pet 3:1-­3, understands how to use so that it can present itself as the older letter.” 654 This presents a significant difference from Jude.

372

Second Peter: Commentary

are told to remember the prophetic word “foretold” (3:2), constantly heed it (1:19), and not doubt its reliability. We can only speculate about why the author suppresses or hides the phenomenon of prophecy that was so prominent in earliest Christianity—­not least for Paul and among his congregations. This is also connected with a striking suppression of statements about the Spirit in 2 Pet as compared with Jude. The Holy Spirit is only mentioned in the context of the inspiration of the OT prophets (1:21), and no longer in connection with the life of faith or the prayer (cf. Jude 20) of the community. This presents an even more significant difference in comparison with the many statements of the Spirit in 1 Pet. Nor is the polemical message in Jude that the opponents there “do not have the Spirit” (Jude 19) incorporated into 2 Pet. Despite the brevity of the text, this is hardly a matter of chance. The question thus arises as to whether the reason for this is to be found in the author’s theology or in the opponents and their particular position. While one could still suppose that the opponents of Jude justified their disparagement of the angels pneumatically (probably even with reference to the Pauline/deutero-­Pauline tradition),655 the situation here seems to be different. The skepticism of the “scoffers” regarding the Parousia is apparently not justified in terms of possession of the Spirit or a pneumatic understanding of fulfillment. They were probably just as skeptical of pneumatic phenomena as of the eschatological expectation, and so a pneumatological argumentation against their objections would not have been possible. It is likely that the author’s use of language also reveals his own theological position, which emphasizes teaching and knowledge, and seeks rather to curb the freedom represented by the Spirit. This tendency can be seen in the emphasis on reconnecting with the commandment of the Lord transmitted by the apostles and the apostolically authenticated teaching, and in the reference to the Scriptures and a body of emerging Christian letters, whose comprehension must be guarded against misinterpretation (cf. 3:15-­17).656

The addressees are to remember the “words foretold by the holy prophets.” This need not refer to particular statements, such as the judgment of the godless; the reference is rather to the entirety of scriptural prophecy (cf. 1:19-­21), in which the eschatological hope is grounded.657 The (biblical) prophets are, strikingly, honored here with the epithet “holy” (cf. Wis 11:1; Luke 1:70; Acts 3:21), which expresses the dignity of their inspired and thereby divinely authorized prophecies.658 They are contrasted with the “false prophets” (2:1) and with Balaam, the 655

See above, pp. 42–­4 4. This is, however, not appropriately described with the term “early Catholic,” since there are no indications of an official structure. 657 So Vögtle, Judasbrief, 213n10, correcting his previous opinion (Vögtle, Zukunft, 125–­ 26). Cf. also Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 287; Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 151. 658 Cf. also Justin, Dial. 82.1, where the “holy prophets” are contrasted with the “false prophets” and “false teachers”; further Ign. Phld. 5.2 and Theoph., Autol. 1.14; 2.32, 34; 3.17. On this, see Ruf, Propheten, 139–­41. 656



Second Peter 3:2

373

‘model’ for the “false teachers” (2:15-­16).659 Their word stands on the same level as the “holy commandment” (cf. 2:21) of Christ, proclaimed by the apostles. The apostolic proclamation and the prophetic word are inextricably linked. The second thing the addressees should remember is the commandment of Christ. This ought to be taken here broadly as “the Christian teaching in its entirety,”660 which is regarded as congruent with scriptural prophecy. Yet it is noteworthy that the Christian teaching of faith is for its part now considered a command. In this, the ethical aspect especially comes to the fore.661 In a somewhat labored construction, ἐντολή is modified by two genitives, as determined by the modified adoption of Jude 17: the author has already ascribed the “foretold words” to the prophets, and must therefore ascribe a second object of the proclamation to the “apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 17)—­namely, the “commandment.” However, since the fictive author ‘Peter’ can hardly discuss the “commandment of the apostles,” but only the commandment of Christ, or in his words “of the Lord and Savior,” the apostles are added in a second genitive as the transmitters of this commandment. But since the genitive attribute of Jesus Christ, which modifies ἀπόστολοι in Jude, has already been ‘used up’ elsewhere, the apostles are given “the personal pronoun recast in the second person (ὑμῶν) as a replacement attribute.”662

The language of “your apostles” creates distance between the fictive author and his addressees. They did not receive the commandment of Christ from Peter himself. In any case, the authorial fiction does not presuppose a direct relationship between the fictive author and the communities of the addressees. This certainly fits with the notion that Peter, facing his death in Rome, is composing his testament with a view to Christians of a later generation. The authorial fiction is maintained more tightly and consistently here than in Jude, where it becomes somewhat shaky in v. 17.663 A comparison with other texts of the postapostolic period shows that the conjunction of the prophets and apostles is characteristic of later texts, which are able to look back upon the apostles as a distinct group. This language is not yet found in the ‘apostolic’ period, for example in Paul, and first occurs in Eph 2:20 (cf. 3:5; 4:11), which takes up and modifies 1 Cor 12:28-­29. There, however, the reference is still to early Christian 659

Cf. Vögtle, Judasbrief, 213–­14. Ruf, Propheten, 141; cf. also Vögtle, Judasbrief, 214. 661 The closest parallels are found in the references to the ἐντολαί of Christ in 2 Clem. 3.4; 4.5; 6.7; 8.4; 17.1, 3, 6; and in Ign. Eph. 9.2. See the discussion in Ruf, Propheten, 143–­45. 662 Schmidt, Mahnung, 377n163. 663 On this, see above, p. 30. A greater problem for the authorial fiction is presented by the statement, not cited until 3:4, that the “fathers” have died, which, if one considers them to be witnesses of the first generation of followers of Jesus, is hardly conceivable for Peter’s own lifetime. 660

374

Second Peter: Commentary

prophets. The parallel between the apostles and the prophets of Scripture occurs still later. It appears in the structure of Jude (vv. 5-­16 // vv. 17-­18) and, being drawn from Jude, is programmatic in 2 Pet; it also occurs in the Apostolic Fathers (e.g., Pol. Phil. 6.3 and Ign. Phld. 9.1).

The commandment “of the Lord and Savior” is the “ ‘holy commandment handed down’ at one time to the false teachers as well, from which they, however, have fallen away to their own ruin.”664 This commandment includes the contents of faith and moral instructions,665 and because of their “pure understanding” and the author’s reminder, the addressees should be able to recognize the opponents as dogmatically and ethically reprehensible “scoffers” who are condemned to judgment. They must hold fast to the promise guaranteed by the apostles and keep themselves ethically “pure” and “unblemished” (cf. 3:11, 14, 17), in order to prove their worth on the day of the Parousia and the judgment. 3 Following the reference to the prophets and apostles, the author introduces the statement about the eschatological appearance of “scoffers” as a teaching that the addressees should know.666 From the multitude of teachings potentially encompassed in v. 2, one object is selected: the eschatological appearance of false teachers, who now become the object of discussion, with a focus on their teaching. Apparently, their position presented a grave threat in the eyes of the author. The confrontation with that position should be regarded as the central theme in the composition of 2 Pet. Intratextually, 3:3 draws on 2:1, where ‘Peter’ had announced the existence of “false teachers.”667 While the opponents’ teaching was not explicated at first and only their reprehensibility and condemnation was highlighted, 3:3-­4 introduces their position, which is presented in v. 4 in direct speech. The announcement of “scoffers” is adapted from Jude 18 with only slight modifications: The term “scoffers” (ἐμπαῖκται) is taken from Jude. This served in Jude 18 only generally to discredit the opponents, who were accused of verbal lack of respect in other passages, but in this specific context only of ethical offenses—­namely, a life “in accordance with their own impious desires.” In 2 Pet 3:3-­4, the “scoffing” is explicated in a quotation in v. 4, although the ethical disqualification of the opponents is also incorporated in 3:3; these scoffers also live “in accordance with their own desires.” The future tense of the announcement is also adopted from Jude, although in 2 Pet 3:3 ἐλεύσονται (instead of ἔσονται) strengthens the resonance with other early 664

Vögtle, Judasbrief, 214. Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 107; Knoch, Petrusbrief, 247. 666 On the imperative sense of the participle γινώσκοντες, see Kraus, Sprache, 275. 667 On the analogous structure of 2:1 and 3:3-­4, see Ruf, Propheten, 483. 665



Second Peter 3:2-4

375

Christian eschatological prophecies (cf. Matt 9:15b; 24:5; Luke 17:22; 21:6),668 and the emergence of the opponents is more clearly marked. The connection of the announced events with the ‘end times’ (“in the last days”) is also adopted, with slight modification.669 A small amplification is added to the “scoffing”: the insertion of ἐν ἐμπαιγμονῇ670 specifically identifies the “scoffing” and thus negatively characterizes the statement quoted in v. 4 in advance.

By connecting the appearance of the opponents with the eschaton, the text identifies the present time of the author and his addressees as the eschaton. In this, 2 Pet agrees with Jude. To a certain extent, this does maintain an imminent expectation of the Parousia, though without a defined timeline: the duration of these end times remains undetermined (cf. 3:8-­9). The message is aimed at the addressees, who need to recognize the urgency of their situation. At the same time, it ironically underscores the blindness of the opponents, who do not know the lateness of the hour and thus have a false sense of security, while for the author they serve as a sign of the imminent eschaton. The content of their scoffing is now clarified, but here once again—­just as in 2:1-­22—­the polemic disqualification of the opponents comes first: their ethical reprehensibility and their nature as “scoffers,” and thus as adversaries of the righteous (cf. 2:7-­8), are emphasized before their thinking is presented. In the following verse, their “scoffing” is explicated in the form of a rhetorical question followed by its rationale. 4 “Where is the promise of his Parousia? For since the fathers have fallen asleep, everything remains as (it has been) since the beginning of creation.” Whether the quotation in fact reflects the diction of the opponents verbatim or is simply a pithy summary of their objection is a secondary consideration.671 The fact that the author abandons Jude as a source here and no longer uses it in what follows supports the notion that he seeks to accurately identify the main 668

On this, see Ruf, Propheten, 484. The somewhat unusual phrase in Jude ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου [τοῦ] χρόνου is replaced by the more common phrase ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν (“in the last days”). Cf. the parallel introduction of a prophecy about the future in 2 Tim 3:1: Τοῦτο δὲ γίνωσκε, ὅτι ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις, or also Did. 16.3: ἐν γὰρ ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις. 670 This formulation is not a Septuagintism (contra Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 289), since the neologism ἐμπαιγμονή, which fits with the noun ἐμπαίκτης, is unattested in the LXX (see Kraus, Sprache, 293, 298, 323). 671 Adams, “Promise,” 108n11: “The actual wording of the citation . . . is probably the author’s.” If it were correct, as Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 282–­85, suggests, that the author here used an otherwise lost written source, more specifically a Jewish apocalypse, this would be less relevant to understanding the opponents’ position. But this is improbable (cf. Adams, “Promise,” 108n10: “simply conjecture”). 669

376

Second Peter: Commentary

point of the opponents’ teaching,672 and the dispute can thus be reconstructed on this basis.673 The quotation expresses doubt that the promised Parousia or coming of Christ will come to pass in a skeptical rhetorical question. This implies a negative answer: the “arrival” has not occurred thus far and will not occur in the future. The rationale points to two lines of argument: first, an apparently long-­ passed ‘deadline,’ the death of the “fathers,” then the evidence of the apparently unaltered existence of the world since the creation—­that is, the constancy of πάντα (i.e., of the world; cf. John 1:3; Rom 11:36; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 3:9; Col 1:16-­17, 20; Heb 1:2). The author then addresses these two arguments in reverse order (vv. 5-­7: on the permanence of the world; vv. 8-­9: on the argument of “delay”). Several questions arise in interpreting this passage:674 Is the objection actually concerned with the promise of Christ’s Parousia, or rather with the promise of God’s coming (for the judgment)?675 Is it Jesus’ own promise (such as in Mark 13:30, and elsewhere) whose fulfillment is “delayed,”676 or biblical prophecies (and which ones), or is it a matter of a general early Christian hope with no specific scriptural reference? Who are the “fathers”? And what significance does the argument about the stability of the world since creation have here? The answer depends upon which texts are preferred as points of reference (OT, early Jewish literature, early Christian texts of the first century, or of the second century). While the majority of more recent scholars read the statement in terms of Christ’s Parousia and consider it a core piece of evidence for the phenomenon of the “delayed Parousia,” others suggest a reference to biblical (or early Jewish) promises of God’s coming.677 From this starting point, the particulars of the opponents’ objection are still defined in various ways. Since scholars today no longer support the hypothesis of a gnostic orientation for the opponents,678 the discussion centers around whether they simply represented skepticism of 672 To suppose a complete misunderstanding here would be hermeneutically problematic, and there is nothing to suggest it. Contra Talbert (“Delay”) who wanted to argue that the opponents were in fact gnostics. 673 So, rightly, Adams, “Promise,” 109. 674 On the interpretation, in addition to the commentaries, see above all von Allmen, “L’apocalyptique”; Adams, “Promise”; Ruf, Propheten, 489–­501. 675 There is no explicit reference to Christ, at least in vv. 5–­13, which raises the question of how the event of judgment described here is related to the anticipated Parousia (on this, see below, pp. 399–­400). 676 So, e.g., Witherington, Hellenized Christians, 371. 677 So Adams, “Promise.” 678 Thus many older interpreters, as well as Käsemann, “Apologie”; and further Talbert, “Delay.”



Second Peter 3:4

377

faith in the Parousia (which was growing with the passing of time),679 or their position rested on the (Epicurean) tenet that the gods do not intervene in the events of the world,680 or on the (rather Peripatetic) cosmological doctrine of the immutability of the world.681 In this discussion, it must be borne in mind that we are dealing with a secondhand description, the author’s adversarial portrait,682 even if it can be assumed that this portrait is more likely to correspond with reality in the substantive argument in 3:1-­13 than in the preceding polemic.683 The quotation of the opponents is also likely to be shaped by the author in parts of its formulation, both rhetorically and substantively. Excursus: A Jewish apocalyptic source behind 3:4? Before we come to the interpretation of this verse the question of its source must be discussed. Based on older proposals684 R. J. Bauckham has expressed the suspicion that 2 Pet 3:4 quotes a source that he regards as Jewish apocalyptic, which he suggests is also quoted in the parallel statements in 1 Clem. 23.3 and 2 Clem. 11.2. Bauckham wants to see in this the lost book of Eldad and Modad.685 It remains unclear, however, what the author’s intention might have been in specifically taking the sketch of the opponents’ teaching (and then its refutation) from a Jewish source text. Aside from that, the hypothesis is untenable both philologically and substantively. The two corresponding passages read as follows: (1 Clem. 23.3:) May this Scripture (γραφή) be far from us, where it says: “Miserable are those whose soul is divided, who doubt in their soul, who say, ‘We heard these things even in the time of our fathers, and look! We have grown old, and none of these things has happened to us’ ” (Ταῦτα ἠκούσαμεν καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν καὶ ἰδού γεγηράκαμεν καὶ οὐδὲν ἡμῖν τούτων συνβέβηκεν). This is followed in v. 4 by the parable of a grapevine on which a bunch of grapes grows ripe in the end, and the affirmation that the fulfillment will occur “in just a short time.” (2 Clem. 11.2:) For the prophetic word also says, “Miserable are those whose soul is divided, who doubt in their heart, who say, ‘We heard these things long ago, 679

So Vögtle, Judasbrief, 218–­23; Hoppe, “Parusieglaube,” 445, cf. also Meier, “Response.” Thus, first Neyrey, “Form and Background”; further Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 231; in agreement, but with a different approach, Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 294; Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 155–­57; Knight, 2 Peter and Jude, 67; Kraftchick, Jude, 2 Peter, 152–­53; Perkins, Peter, James, and Jude, 189. 681 So Adams, “Promise,” 114–­22. 682 Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 157, wisely makes this observation. 683 So Fornberg, Church, 65; Adams, “Promise,” 109. 684 von Allmen, “L’apocalyptique.” 685 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 285; most recently Bauckham, “Eldad and Modad.” 680

378

Second Peter: Commentary

even in the time of our fathers, but although we have waited day after day, we have seen none of these things’ ” (Ταλαίπωροί εἰσιν οἱ δίψυχοι οἱ διστάζοντες τῇ καρδίᾳ οἱ λέγοντες Ταῦτα πάλαι ἠκούσαμεν καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν ἡμεῖς δὲ ἡμέραν ἐξ ἡμέρας προσδεχόμενοι οὐδὲν τούτων ἑωράκαμεν). This, too, is followed by the parable of the grapevine and the affirmation of fulfillment. Both passages refer to a “scripture” (γραφή) or prophetic word, the quotation is identical in the first part and deviates slightly in the second part, and this is followed by instruction for the “ignorant” (ἀνόητοι), which likewise agrees verbatim in part, involving the parable of the grapevine and the affirmation that the promise will soon come to pass. Thus, a common apocryphal source behind the two quotations is likely, although they probably already existed in different forms of tradition.686 Since this source is called a γραφή in 1 Clem., a Jewish (or Jewish Christian) background is plausible.687 Because of the frequency of the otherwise rare word δίψυχος in Hermas, Lightfoot suspected the use of the book of Eldad and Modad referenced in Herm. Vis. 2.3.4688 and Bauckham follows this hypothesis.689 The assumption that 2 Pet 3:4 quotes the same source,690 however, is a bold construction that helps Bauckham to anchor 2 Pet in a Roman milieu alongside 1 Clem., 2 Clem., and Herm., and at the same time to explain the origin of the apocalyptic concepts in 2 Pet 3:5ff.691 The quotations in 1 Clem. 23.3, 2 Clem. 11.2, and 2 Pet 3:4 correspond substantively and structurally in that an eschatological promise is questioned because of the passage of time and in that “fathers” are referred to (though in different ways). Terminologically, however, the points of contact between 2 Pet 3:4 and the other two texts are minimal. The quotation in 2 Pet 3:4 contains the terminus technicus παρουσία,692 which does not appear anywhere in 1 Clem. and 2 Clem., and the reference to “the fathers” is more specific insofar as the deaths of “the [apparently specific] fathers” is mentioned, rather than just the old ‘era of the fathers.’ The quotation in 2 Pet 3:4 is 686 See the analysis in Pratscher, “Parusieerwartung,” 199–­200; Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 187–­88. 687 So Harnack, Einführung, 111. Resch, Agrapha, 326, tried to derive the quotation from an unknown Ezekiel apocryphon. 688 Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 1:2.81; others suggest instead a reference to the Apocryphon of Ezekiel. Lona, Clemensbrief, 292, rightly observes, “In this question one can come no further than conjectures.” 689 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 284–­85; cf. now also Bauckham, “Eldad and Modad,” 250–­51. 690 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 284, must admit that the author of 2 Pet “has not copied his source but rewritten it.” 691 See Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 283–­84, with reference to von Allmen, “L’apocalyptique,” 256– ­64. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 284, sees the grounds for this in the similarity between 2 Pet 3:10, 12, and another quotation transmitted in 2 Clem. 16.3. 692 For the “doubt” criticized in 1 Clem. 23.3, no particular reference to the Parousia is discernible (cf. Lindemann, “Clemensbrief,” 76).



Second Peter 3:4

379

somewhat ‘more apocalyptic’ in its terminology than those in 1–­2 Clem.693 In addition, there is no trace of the instruction with the parable of the grapevine that is connected with the quotations in 1–­2 Clem.; instead, the response to the skepticism emerges precisely as a refutation of the two arguments identified in the quotation—­namely, the permanence of the world (vv. 5-­7) and the ‘delay’ of the promise (vv. 8-­9). The opponents are not described as δίψυχοι or ἀνόητοι, as they are in 1 Clem. 23 and 2 Clem. 12, but as ἐμπαῖκται, corresponding with Jude 17. This also speaks against the suggestion that the author adopted an entire “apologetic complex of argumentation”694 from any source. The use of a Vorlage, especially a Jewish apocalypse, cannot be proved as the source for the quotation in 2 Pet 3:4, or for the refutation presented in 2 Pet 3:5-­13.695 The background for the concepts of cosmic conflagration and judgment in 3:5-­10, 12, must therefore be sought independently, rather than in connection with the quotation in 3:4. In both cases it is helpful to consider the connections with Apoc. Pet. (see below, pp. 386, 398–99, and 401), yet this is also freely adapted and not used as a direct source.

The quotation of the opponents in 3:4 is thus not a quote from a source but rather a potentially free rendering of the opponents’ teaching, who are to be identified with the “false teachers” introduced in 2:1. With their rhetorical question “Where is . . . ?” these opponents express their rejection of the aforementioned hope, which the author maintains in accordance with tradition and defends. The language in which ‘enemies’ pose skeptical, provocative questions to God or the faithful is familiar from the OT: in this way, the opponents of the lamenting psalmist ask, “Where is your God?”;696 in Jer 17:15 the prophet’s opponents ask, “Where is the word of the Lord? Let it come!”; Ezek 12:22 even asserts an ‘extension of time’: “The days are prolonged, and every vision comes to nothing.” The “where” question suggests that the prophecy is invalid or God is powerless, and implicitly demands proof of God’s power. It is uncertain whether this formulation originates with the opponents. Perhaps the author seeks to position his opponents within the sphere of biblical ‘enemies’ or “scoffers” by casting the question in this rhetorical form.

The promise whose fulfillment they doubt or dispute is called the ἐπαγγελία τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ, and thereby employs the terminus technicus—­in early Christian discourse and in the context of an early Christian text—­for the arrival or ‘second coming’ of Christ.697 Intratextually the term points back to 693

So Pratscher, “Parusieerwartung,” 200. Thus the description of commonalities in Ruf, Propheten, 497. 695 See also the summary analysis in Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 187–­91. 696 LXX Pss 41:4, 11; 78:10; 113:10; Joel 2:17; Mic 7:10. Malachi 2:17 uses similar wording in reference to the “God of judgment.” 697 The term is found in the LXX only four times in late texts, and in a mundane sense (not of the arrival of God or of the day of YHWH). In early Christianity it soon becomes a widely 694

380

Second Peter: Commentary

1:16, where the content of the apostolic proclamation was discussed as the “power and arrival” of Jesus Christ. With this, the connection of παρουσία with Christ is clear, even if ἐπαγγελία will refer to the “day of God” in 3:12. The reference in 3:12 cannot justify the notion that παρουσία in 3:4 ought to refer to a nonchristological coming of God.698 This passage, like the argumentation in vv. 5-­13, shows that along with Christ’s Parousia his coming for the judgment was called into question.699 The connection between Parousia and the judgment can already be found in a few other NT texts (1 Thess 3:13; 5:23; Jas 5:7-­9; Matt 24:38-­42). The term ἐπαγγελία, which is rare in the LXX but common in early Christian language, designates in NT texts a confirmation (usually of salvation) given with a view to the future700 and is also used in this way in the Greek fragment of Apoc. Pet. (R) 14.701 The term is also common in the Apostolic Fathers, often with the implication that the promise must be believed or held firm, and that a corresponding way of life is necessary in order to ultimately obtain what has been promised.702 Intratextually, ἐπαγγελία points back to the ἐπαγγέλματα, used terminus technicus for the anticipated ‘arrival’ of the Lord Jesus Christ: thus already in Paul (1 Thess 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 1 Cor 15:23; as well as deutero-­Pauline in 2 Thess 2:1), in 1 John 2:28 (also clearly with reference to Christ), and in Jas 5:7-­8 (παρουσία τοῦ κυρίου, where the reference to Christ is not clear, but probable), in the Matthean eschatological discourse (Matt 24:3, 27, 37, 39), and then in texts of the second century (Ign. Phld. 9.2; Diogn. 7.6). 698 Contra Adams, “Promise,” 110–­11, who cites the OT prophecy of an eschatological arrival of God in the OT and in some Jewish apocalypic texts, just as in v. 13 the OT prophecy from Isa 65:17 and 66:22 is adopted. It is true that v. 4 does not refer to a promise of Christ and the response in vv. 5-­13 is also relatively unchristological. This will be taken into account in the following interpretation. However, the importance of the use of the early Christian terminus technicus can hardly be overstated. At least Apoc. Pet. 4.1 also speaks of the “day of God” and proceeds to describe first the resurrection of the dead and the end of the world (in the form of a cosmic conflagration) and only afterward the Parousia of Christ. If 2 Pet has adopted the scenario of Apoc. Pet., the terminology used here is no longer puzzling. See below on v. 12. 699 Cf. Hoppe, “Parusieglaube,” 446, who tries to extrapolate this from the OT connotations of ἐμπαῖκται. 700 Cf. Rom 4:13 and elsewhere on the promise to Abraham; Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:4 on the promise of the Spirit; 1 Tim 4:8 and 2 Tim 1:1 on the promise of the (present and future) life—­similarly 1 John 2:25; in Heb often for the promise of entry into salvation. 701 “I will depart, I and my jubilant elect . . . into my eternal kingdom. And I will fulfill for them my promise, which I promised them . . .” (trans. following Kraus and Nicklas, Petrusevangelium, 128). 702 Thus with regard to God’s (1 Clem. 10.2; 26.1) or also Christ’s (2 Clem. 5.5) promises of salvation and their fulfillment (cf. 1 Clem. 34.7; 2 Clem. 10.3; 11.7, in connection with the entry into the kingdom of God). The faithful have received promises (Barn. 15.7; 16.9; Herm. Vis. 1.3.4; 3.2.1), should believe them (2 Clem. 11.1; Herm. Sim. 1.1.7), and receive what has been promised (1 Clem. 34.7; 2 Clem. 10.3; 11.7 [to enter into God’s kingdom]; Herm. Vis. 2.2.6).



Second Peter 3:4 

381

the promises, mentioned in 2 Pet 1:4; and concretely, the victory over perishability (1:4) and the entry into the eternal kingdom of Christ (1:11). While it was said there that these promises were given by Christ, here it is left open whether the promise of the Parousia can be traced to specific sayings of Jesus (such as Mark 13:30 par.),703 or simply cites the early Christian hope of the Parousia (which of course is regarded as congruent with biblical prophecy).

The reference to the “promise of his coming” denotes the eschatological expectation connected with Christ’s Parousia as a whole, which implies the fulfillment of salvation (cf. also 3:13) and the judgment of sinners or the world. The quoted dictum consequently reveals that the opposing teachers have disputed this eschatological expectation, which the author maintained and had already alluded to (cf. 1:16; 2:9). What was the specific background of this dispute? This can be clarified by the rationale, which identifies two issues: the observation of the death “of the fathers” (which had already happened) and the conviction that “everything” remains as it has been since the beginning of creation (i.e., the immutability of the cosmos). The connection between the two ἀπό clauses is not unambiguous: while “from the beginning of the creation” refers to the permanence of the world, the text does not explicitly state what ought to have been the case since the time of the death of the fathers.704 This is clarified by the preceding rhetorical question: since the death of the fathers, the hope that the Parousia would come to pass has been shaken or become doubtful. Two arguments can therefore be reconstructed here: (a) the expectation of Christ’s Parousia has become implausible because of the death “of the fathers”—­that is, it must have been associated in some way with their life or death; and (b) a visible alteration of the cosmos (as is anticipated in the Parousia) is implausible in view of the given immutability of the world. It is these two arguments that the author takes up in vv. 8-­10 and 5-­7. The reference to the fathers’ death (or, in a common euphemism, of “having fallen asleep”) as an argument against the expectation of the Parousia is unique to 2 Pet 3:4. It cannot be explained by 1 Clem. 23.3 or 2 Clem. 11.2, where the δίψυχοι only indicate that they heard something already “in the time of our fathers” and none of it has (yet) taken place. The speakers there refer to the time of their (own) fathers (i.e., their youth); the argument against the plausibility of the promise is only the passage of time from the “days of the fathers” to the 703 So Witherington, Hellenized Christians, 371. But sayings about earthly matters are hardly in view in 2 Pet. 704 ἀ φ᾽ ἧς could be an attraction to παρουσίας or an elliptical expression for ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἡμέρας (Kraus, Sprache, 229; also Vögtle, Judasbrief, 219n32).

382

Second Peter: Commentary

present. There is neither a reference to the fathers’ death, nor to a specific point in time. The statement in 2 Pet 3:4 therefore has no analogy. It has been debated whether the πατέρες should be taken in reference to the patriarchs or the righteous of Israel705 or—­as interpreted by the majority—­to the witnesses of the first Christian generation, Jesus’ disciples. In fact, πατέρες most often refers to the fathers of Israel in early Christian (as in Jewish) usage, and the usage of this term for the earliest Christian witnesses would be unique here, although this does not make such a reading impossible. The quotations from 1 Clem. 23.3 and 2 Clem. 11.2 do not help because the speakers there refer to their own natural fathers.706 Nor does the reference to the creation require that the “fathers” be seen as the patriarchs. If the fathers of Israel were meant, it would be especially unclear what they might have to do with the “promise of his arrival,” since neither the OT/early Jewish announcement of God’s coming nor the early Christian hope of the Parousia are associated with the “fathers” of Israel.707 Rather, the former (and, in a certain sense, the latter) is based on prophecy, which the author could have mentioned here (cf. 1:19-­21) if he had intended this statement to relate to it.

“Fathers” should therefore be taken in reference to the first ‘Christian’ generation of witnesses and contemporaries of Jesus. Thus, “the actual author [discusses] the generation of the fictitious author—­that is, the apostolic period.”708 The Parousia or the eschatological fulfillment was indeed associated with the lifetime of the first generation in some early Christian statements. Not only did Paul (1 Thess 4:17; 1 Cor 15:50-­51) expect the Parousia in his own lifetime, but the disciples of the earthly Jesus, or the first generation, were also supposed to experience it (Matt 10:23 and Mark 13:30); this was limited to “some” probably somewhat later in Mark 9:1 par., and ultimately in John 21:22-­23 to perhaps one last surviving witness.709 With the passage of a fixed date, every ‘scheduled 705

This interpretation is preferred primarily by authors who defend genuine Petrine authorship (e.g., Guthrie, Introduction, 829; Ellis, Making, 295–­96; Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 373) and want to dismantle the evidence against the authenticity of the text that lies in the description of the first Christian witnesses as “fathers.” Most recently, and without this intention, Adams, “Promise,” 111–­14, has also argued for an interpretation in reference to the OT fathers. 706 So also Adams, “Promise,” 112. Against the backdrop of his hypothesized source, Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 291, explains the usage through adoption from the Jewish source, whereby the author, however, must have then omitted ἡμῶν and inserted the death of the fathers, and so made a far-­reaching alteration to the text after all. 707 Adams, “Promise,” 114, cites 1 En. 1:3-­9 as evidence. However, Enoch is not a good witness for the concept given here, since according to the biblical account he did not die, and second, because the author of 2 Pet specifically omits the citation of Enoch from Jude 14-­15. 708 Hoppe, “Parusieglaube,” 444. 709 On this see Frey, Eschatologie, 3:19–­22.



Second Peter 3:4

383

imminent expectation’ had to deal with disillusionment, and an explanation was necessary (cf. 3:9) if the hope was to avoid being discredited. The opponents’ skepticism of the Parousia was likely kindled in this way. The death of that first generation, which was still characterized by an imminent expectation of the eschaton, manifestly contradicted their hope and destroyed the promise of the Parousia.710 This reference to the death “of the fathers” becomes even more plausible when the prophecy of Peter’s death in Apoc. Pet. ([R] 14.4) is taken into account, which has thus far been neglected in the exegesis of 2 Pet 3:4. There the martyrdom of Peter in Rome is associated with the expectation that this initiates the events of the eschaton: the demise of the “son of the one who is in Hades” (which can refer to Nero or an ‘antichrist’), as well as the fulfillment of Christ’s promises of salvation to the elect and the judgment of sinners.711 If this ‘Petrine’ tradition was known in the author’s milieu and—­decades after Peter’s death—­inevitably raised questions and doubt, then the statement placed on the lips of the opponents becomes even more easily and more precisely comprehensible: ‘Peter (and the other apostles) have died, and yet the promise of the Parousia (pronounced by Jesus himself) has not occurred; rather, the world is still unchanged.’712 It then becomes all the more plausible that with his testament ‘Peter’ now counters this skepticism and the misunderstanding of a fixed date for the eschaton in ‘his’ revelation. “Peter is one step ahead of the false teachers. He has already announced his death in the letter and thus taken the wind out of their sails. The fathers have died . . . But even in anticipation of his approaching death, Peter had maintained his testimony, had once again reinforced it.”713 The conclusion of v. 4 expresses a second argument, which does not necessarily follow from the first but is certainly plausible as a generalized implication: the unchanged state of the world, which has remained as it is not just since the passing of the fathers, but since its beginning.714 This argument raises the question of the extent to which influences from philosophical discourse can be concretely demonstrated here. 710

Cf. Schmidt, Mahnung, 380. On this, see in detail Nicklas, “Drink the Cup”; Grünstäudl, “Petrusbild.” 712 Perhaps the unclear reference to the “fathers” should be explained such that from the pen of the pseudonymous author, ‘Peter’ could not speak as directly as, e.g., Jude 18 about the apostles and thus had to use a ‘more open’ term. 713 So Schmidt, Mahnung, 381 (who, however, does not refer to Apoc. Pet.). 714 The reference to the creation here indicates the reception of cosmological discourses. 711

384

Second Peter: Commentary

The postulate of the immutability of the world is found in Aristotle (Cael. 282a) and Philo (Aet. 93, and elsewhere); in Philo (Aet. 12) it is also ascribed to the Pythagoreans, and Plutarch (Mor. 1114a) even ascribes it to Epicurus. However, the Epicurean Lucretius argues specifically against the permanence of the cosmos and on the basis of previous destructions anticipates a possible collapse of the world (Nat. 5.345–­ 350).715 On the other hand, the head of the Peripatetic school in the second century BCE, Critolaus, argued for the immutability of the world on the basis of its constant fecundity (Philo, Aet. 61). A strict view of the indestructibility and eternity of the world would of course also exclude the notion of the world’s creation—­however, the opponents need not have been strict philosophical representatives of this position, and the formulation in 2 Pet 3:4 likely stems from the pen of the author in any case. The argumentation in 2 Pet 3:5-­7, which points to a single cosmic disaster in the past, the flood, and incorporates elements of Stoic cosmology, confirms the impression that the opponents likely presupposed the permanence of the world, not just as a result of disappointed hopes for the Parousia, but out of philosophical conviction. In any case, in connection with this issue the teaching attributed to them is most ‘compatible’ with a philosophical perspective.716 4.2 The refutation of the opponents’ claims (3:5-­13)

The next section begins anew after 3:1-­4, presenting a multipart refutation of the quoted claims; its conclusion in 3:13 is clearly distinguished by the address to the readers in 3:14.717 Linguistically, this refutatio is structured by the repeated use of λανθάνειν (vv. 5, 8) and by the contrast between “them” (v. 5: the opponents) and “you” (v. 8: the addressees). Taking into account the vocative in v. 11, an internal structure in three parts is revealed: first (a) the argument about the permanence of the course of the world (v. 4b) is rebutted in a long period (vv. 5-­7), then (b) the fact that the Parousia has not yet occurred (v. 4a) is explained on the basis of Scripture (vv. 8-­10), before (c) the ethical consequences for the addressees are emphasized (vv. 11-­12) and the hope shared by the author and his addressees (“we”) for a “new heaven and a new earth” is articulated (v. 13), bringing this section and, with it, the letter body to a close. The duality of “heaven [always in the plural οὐρανοί] and earth” identifies the ‘cosmos’ in its entirety, on the one hand following the style of biblical language and tradition (like the succession of three worlds: the antediluvian, the present, and the new), and on the other incorporating Hellenistic—­primarily 715

Cf. Adams, “Promise,” 115–­16. Adams, “Promise,” 117, argues convincingly that the author’s argumentation in vv. 5-­7 would have had to be different if the Epicurean doctrine of the gods’ noninterference in world events had been the issue under discussion. In that case, other biblical examples beyond the flood such as the destruction of Sodom, etc., should have been invoked. 717 Kraus, Sprache, 402. 716



Second Peter 3:4-13

385

Stoic—­cosmological motifs and discourses with regard to cosmogony (v. 5), the cataclysm (v. 6), and the ekpyrosis (vv. 7, 10, 12).718 This Stoic influence does not just apply to the motif of the cosmic conflagration (ἐκπύρωσις), which occurs only here in the NT. It is also noteworthy that in contrast to the OT tradition of the flood, which only refers to destruction of the earth, not heaven, v. 6 indicates a destruction of (the) heavens and the earth (i.e., the entire cosmos) in typological congruence with the anticipated destruction of the present world in fire (vv. 10, 12). Here the author deviates significantly from the biblical tradition.719 At the same time, in contrast to Stoic cosmological models, there is no notion of an eternal series of worlds but decidedly the (biblically based) succession of only three worlds: (a) a first, “old,” world (cf. 2:5) that was destroyed by water in the flood (3:6); (b) a second, present, world that will be destroyed by fire on the day of the Lord (3:10, 12); and (c) a third, new, world that is anticipated in accordance with biblical prophecy (Isa 65:17; 66:22), for which there is no implication of a further destruction. This cosmological conception—­especially in its level of detail—­is unique within the NT, whereby as a specifically ‘biblical’ feature it is striking that the creation, preservation, and destruction of the worlds is attributed to the word of God.720 The connection of biblical with Hellenistic cosmological (particularly Stoic) motifs characterizes this argument, which is anything but a simple dogmatization of an early Christian eschatological topos. Rather, it shows the author to be a competent and creative theologian in dialogue with his intellectual surroundings. Here, too, there is a question of sources: It has been noted that the argumentation in vv. 5-­7, 8-­10 is entirely unchristological and—­even as a defense of the Christian expectation of the Parousia—­nowhere refers to Christ, but only to OT traditions. This by no means requires that the author incorporated a Jewish source here. It is true that Jewish apocalypticism is aware of a destruction of the world by water and a second by fire,721 but such motifs are also present in Hellenistic discourses about the existence and destructions of the world. Thus, a reference to Jewish concepts is not the only possible explanation for this nonchristological argumentation. On the basis of parallels between 2 Pet 3:5, 7 and 1 Clem. 27.4 and between 2 Pet 3:8-­10 and 2 Clem. 16.3, Bauckham presumes that the Jewish source he sees behind 1 Clem. 23.3–­4 and 2 Clem. 11.2–­4 718

Thus the terminology in Ruf, Propheten, 501–­23. Cf. Adams, Stars, 216–­20, who mentions the creation of heaven and earth “through water” (v. 5) as a third Stoic feature. 720 According to Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 160, the crucial point is that the three ages of the world are determined by the creative word. 721 So von Allmen, “L’apocalyptique,” 260. Cf., for example, L.A.E. 49, according to which the wrathful judgment will come upon Eve’s descendants “first with water and then with fire”; similarly, Jos., A.J. 1.70, which perhaps takes up the same tradition. 719

386

Second Peter: Commentary

(and then assumes as background for 2 Pet 3:4) inspired the argumentation in vv. 5-­10.722 It is, however, entirely impossible to prove this hypothesis, which is a bold attempt to explain how the author here (but also in 1:11!) goes beyond Jude and introduces apocalyptic motifs independently. But there is no reliable evidence that 1 Clem. 27.4 and 2 Clem. 16.3 are based on any fixed sources at all,723 and the assumption that the same source underlies this text and 2 Clem. 11.2 is entirely unfounded. Since 2 Pet 3:4 can hardly be traced back to the source behind 1 Clem. 23.3 and 2 Clem. 11.2 (see above, pp. 377–­79), and the continuation of the argument in 1 Clem. 23.4 and 2 Clem. 11.2–­3 is entirely different from that of 2 Pet 3:5-­10, 12, Bauckham’s derivation of these passages from a Jewish apocalypse remains pure speculation.724 The question of the origin of the motifs used here demands a more complex answer, and in seeking it we must above all take into account Apoc. Pet., which has for the most part been neglected until now (as it was dated after 2 Pet).725 But if, as has become clear in other passages, this text was available to the author of 2 Pet (and perhaps even gave the opponents cause to question the hope of the Parousia with its fixed imminent expectation of the eschaton), then this parallel must be included as a possible source for the ideas found here. It at least contains the language of the “day of God” (v. 12; cf. Apoc. Pet. 4.1) and a detailed depiction of the ekpyrosis (Apoc. Pet. 4), which occurs there before Christ’s Parousia (Apoc. Pet. 6) and in this respect (like the depiction in 2 Pet 3) is not directly linked with Christ and his actions.726 Precisely the unchristological character of the image of the ekpyrosis in vv. 5-­13 can best be explained against this backdrop. a) The refutation of the argument of the world’s permanence (3:5-­7) (5) For it escapes the notice of those who want this (to be true) that heavens were at one time and earth (made) of water and through water, held together by the word of God. (6) Through these (two)727 the world of that time, flooded with water, was destroyed. (7) But the present heavens and the (present) earth have been stored up by the same word for the fire, preserved for the day of judgment and destruction of the impious people. 722

Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 284, 296–­97, and 304–­5. On 1 Clem. 27.4, see Lona, Clemensbrief, 316–­17; on 2 Clem. 16.3, see Pratscher, “Clemensbrief,” 198–­200; and Tuckett, 2 Clement, 272–­73. 724 Vögtle, Judasbrief, 225, observes that in any case the author added the decisive arguments for his line of reasoning himself. 725 But cf. Grundmann, Brief, 114, who suggests a Petrine tradition here, which 2 Pet takes part in. 726 Cf. also Grünstäudl, “Feuer,” 194, which further points out that in the world of 2 Pet (and likewise in some contemporaneous texts; cf. 2 Clem. 12.1–­2; Herm. Sim. 5.5.3; Ep. Apos. 17; T. Jud. 22:2; also Jas 5:7-­8; 1 John 2:28) “a sharp division of roles between God and Jesus Christ . . . is not a primary concern (anymore).” 727 On textual criticism and the text of v. 6, see below, pp. 390–92. This translation is based on the reading δι’ ὧν (against ECM and NA28). 723



Second Peter 3:5-13

387

5 The refutatio refers to the opponents directly and in the present tense.728 The author presupposes that his addressees are able to identify the “scoffers” quoted in v. 4 as contemporaries. Distancing them from the addressees, the author speaks of them as “those who want this.”729 Their position, quoted in v. 4, thus appears not as a consequence of their experience, or even an observation of a situation, but as mere opinion, grounded in ignorance or even willful suppression of essential facts, and thus stands in opposition to the truth.730 The opponents have turned away from the faith that has been passed down and from the “holy commandment” (2:21), in order to scoff at and deny the expectation of the Parousia and judgment and—­unchecked by it—­to live according to their own desires. With regard to the postulate of the world’s stability, the author cites biblical evidence (whose arrangement, however, shows the influence of Hellenistic cosmological thought): the creation and the biblical account of the destruction of the world in the flood, which are meant to prove the claim that everything “remains as it has been from the beginning of creation” to be gross error. The author’s argument depends upon this destruction, while the creation in itself does not seem to be a decisive point of the discussion. It is only mentioned for the sake of the cycle of the ‘creation, existence, and destruction’ of the world. Thus vv. 5-­6 begins with a statement about the creation, existence, and downfall of the first ‘world.’731 Only in v. 5 is the former existence of the antediluvian world mentioned explicitly, but the underlying cosmogonic concept can be roughly detected. However, the syntax in v. 5 is unclear: it is uncertain whether (a) in οὐρανοὶ ἦσαν ἔκπαλαι καὶ γῆ . . . συνεστῶσα both οὐρανοί and γῆ are the subjects of ἦσαν or (b) ἦσαν has only οὐρανοί as its subject, so that for γῆ an ellipsis with a periphrastic conjugation ([ἦν] συνεστῶσα) should be assumed. In the first case, the heavens and earth are both discussed in their being “held together.” In the second case, it would be said of the heavens “that they had long been in existence, while the earth came to be after them,”732 and “out of water and through water” would refer only to the (first) earth, not the heavens. Grammatically, the feminine singular συνεστῶσα, which is incongruent with 728

With this, the author departs from the testamentary framework, in which he could only refer to “false teachers” (2:2) and “scoffers” (3:3) in the mode of prophecy. It thus becomes clear here, at the latest, that this is a pressing problem for the author. 729 According to the most probable linguistic usage, αὐτούς refers to the scoffers cited in v. 4, while τοῦτο is connected with θέλοντας (Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 101) and denotes the content of the statement quoted in v. 4. 730 Cf. Grundmann, Brief, 112; Kraftchick, Jude, 2 Peter, 155; Adams, Stars, 210. 731 κόσμος (v. 6) again picks up the duality of “heavens” (pl.) and “earth” from v. 5. 732 So Grundmann, Brief, 113.

388

Second Peter: Commentary

ἦσαν, could speak for (a). On the other hand, the singular could also be attracted by the nearest noun, and thus does not preclude a reference to heavens and earth.733 This is more plausible in substance, as the statement envisages specifically the entirety of heaven(s) and earth in existence and destruction. Water and God’s word apply to the heavens and the earth. A creation of heavens and earth in two stages would run directly counter to this argument.734 The interpretation according to option (a) is therefore preferable, although the translation is able to convey this ambivalence somewhat.

What the opponents ‘overlook’ is “that heavens were at one time and earth of water and through water endured by God’s word.” The terms “heavens and earth,” “water,” and “word (λόγος) of God” demonstrate that the author refers to the creation narrative in Gen 1 (including the tradition of its interpretation). The word ἔκπαλαι,735 which occurs in the NT only in 2 Pet 3:3, 5, identifies the primeval character of the situation being described. The existence of heavens and earth and their being sustained by God’s word describes the antediluvian state of affairs, which then faces destruction by the flood. The (indefinite) plural οὐρανοί used here (and throughout 3:5-­13) strikingly does not correspond with the LXX, which appropriately renders the Hebrew dual ‫ ַה ָש ַמיִ ם‬in Gen 1:1 with the singular τὸν οὐρανόν. The plural is thus not to be seen as a reflection of the biblical text but rather as resonating with a cosmology in which there is a plurality of heavens or heavenly spheres.736 References to the element of water are prominent, which has as much to do with the formation (v. 5) as with the destruction (v. 6) of the world:737 ἐξ ὕδατος reflects the concept, which already underlies OT views (Gen 1:6-­8; Pss 24:2; 33:7; 136:6; cf. Jub. 2:1-­7), that the world exists in the midst of chaotic waters that surround the earth in rings, are under it, and are held back above it by the firmament, and thus that heavens and earth were created from this water.738 To this extent the description is still ‘biblical.’ But the term συνίστημι, which occurs in early Christian statements about the creation (Col 1:17; 1 Clem. 27.4; Aristid., Apol. 4.2), is a terminus technicus of Hellenistic discourses about cosmogony, which entered into early 733

So Knopf, Briefe Petri und Judä, 312; Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 358. Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 160. 735 The lexeme is also absent from the LXX, but occurs in Hellenistic Judaism (see Kraus, Sprache, 323). Cf. πάλαι in Jude 4 and 2 Pet 1:9. 736 This is equally possible in the context of the Jewish (and Christian) apocalyptic tradition (cf. Paul in 2 Cor 12:2) as it is in Hellenistic cosmologies. In the NT and the Apostolic Fathers both forms occur; for example, around the same time as 2 Pet, the plural occurs in 2 Clem. 16.3 and repeatedly in Diogn. 737 On the following, see Adams, “Creation”; idem, Stars, 212–­13; Ruf, Propheten, 504–­9, whose search for analogous connections of the prepositions ἐξ and διά + verb in the context of the creation or cosmogony (e.g., Ps.-­Arist., De mundo 397b) does not lead to a definitive clarification regarding the significance of the water, but makes clear that the author uses the language of contemporary philosophy here. 738 So, among others, Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 297; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 225–­26. 734



Second Peter 3:5

389

Christian usage by way of Hellenistic Judaism.739 In this respect, v. 5 provides a link between the creation tradition and Hellenistic cosmogonic language. It is especially difficult to interpret δι᾽ ὕδατος: here water appears to be the ‘means’ of creation or formation. If συνίστημι were to be interpreted only in the sense of the ‘maintenance’ of the world by God’s word (cf. Heb 1:3), then this would relate “to the continuation of the creative division and retention of the waters.”740 Yet the term usually has to do with the formation of the world or the ‘cohesion’ of its parts. Such a concept, then, does go significantly beyond Gen 1.741 Gen 1:2, though, is also aware of the chaotic primal waters from which the world was created. This was able to be connected with Greek conceptions: the view that water is the original element from which everything has come to exist is found already in Thales.742 More closely related is the Stoic cosmological view that the elements merge into one another, and thus from the primary matter of fire/ether water comes into existence in a transitional state from which the world is then formed. Seneca (Nat. 3.13.1–­2) is thus able to say, largely in agreement with Thales, that when the fire of the cosmic conflagration is extinguished, humidity remains in which is hidden the hope of a future world.743 Although they are not entirely clear, such Stoic ideas apparently underlie the argumentation in v. 5, or they are superimposed upon the biblical tradition adopted here. This is confirmed not least by the additive use of the two prepositional phrases with ἐξ and διά, which are entirely in line with the “prepositional metaphysics”744 popular in the thought of Middle Platonism and in some NT texts (1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16; Heb 2:10).

It is no accident that the author once again mentions the divine word here—­ this word contains creative power (cf. John 1:1-­3) as well as the power to judge (cf. Heb 4:16-­17), the expectation of the Parousia and judgment is grounded in the prophetic word (cf. 2 Pet 1:19), as is the hope for a new eschatological world (3:13). 739 On this, see Fornberg, Church, 67; Adams, Stars, 211–­12. The material from which the world was formed is often expressed with ἐκ/ἐξ, thus Plato, Tim. 31b, 69c; Philo, Plant. 6; Her. 281, 311; Aet. 4; and elsewhere. 740 Vögtle, Judasbrief, 226. 741 The old explanation that διά should be understood here in spatial terms (like LXX Gen 1:6 ἀνὰ μέσον) is inadequate. 742 Cf. Arist., Metaph. 983b; Diog. Laert. 1.27; Sen., Nat. 3.13; Hippol., Haer. 1.1. Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 358, suspects that the view of Thales is adopted here, but in the author’s day this view had for a long time been developed further in other systems (thus the critical assessment in Adams, Stars, 212). 743 On this, see Adams, Stars, 213. Against this explanation, Ruf, Propheten, 505–­6, objects that, strictly speaking, the cycle of the elements is only attested in the sources in the context of the ekpyrosis, not in the cosmogony. 744 On this “prepositional metaphysics,” see Ruf, Propheten, 506–­7; Sterling, “Prepositional Metaphysics,” 220–­31.

390

Second Peter: Commentary

6 In a direct connection with v. 5, v. 6 now introduces the biblically attested catastrophe, the flood, which is not discussed here with the substantive κατακλυσμός (as it is throughout the LXX), but rather with the rarer related verb κατακλύζειν.745 In a significant deviation from the biblical narrative, the flood is depicted here not just as the annihilation of life on the earth’s surface (as in Gen 6) but as the destruction of the cosmos that consists of heavens (pl.) and earth. The “world of that time” (ὁ τότε κόσμος), “flooded with water, was destroyed.” Intratextually, ὁ τότε κόσμος points back to the “old world” or the “world of the impious” mentioned in 2:5 in connection with Noah and the flood. However, while κόσμος there appears to have referred primarily to the human world, here the clear reference to “heavens and earth” (v. 5) and “the present heavens and (the present) earth” (v. 7) indicates the entire created world, the universe.746 In this the author deviates significantly from the biblical narrative of the flood. The flood becomes here a cosmic catastrophe, where the language of “destruction” (ἀπώλετο) terminologically facilitates the figurative application of these ideas to the destruction of the godless in the final judgment747 and thereby paves the way for the fundamental correlation between the former catastrophe of the flood and the anticipated catastrophe of the ‘destruction of the world’ in fire on the day of judgment, or the destruction (ἀπώλεια) of the impious (v. 7). It is more difficult to determine how the author thinks this destruction will occur. The beginning of v. 6 raises serious text-­critical and substantive problems: The relative pronoun is attested in two textual variants worthy of consideration, which differ only minimally in appearance and phonetics: with the long vowel, δι᾽ ὧν, and with the short vowel, δι᾽ ὅν. Such an alteration can be easily explained by an auditory error during dictation, and it is impossible to determine which direction of change is more likely.748 The vast majority of textual witnesses have the plural reading δι᾽ ὧν (“through which”), which can best be taken in reference to the two previously mentioned ‘factors’ of water and God’s word:749 “Through these two [i.e., water and word] the world at that time was destroyed, flooded with water.” However, the identification of these two elements creates a “linguistic difficulty” with the following (ὕδατι), mentioned on its own.750 Why should water and the word be the factors identified, when the cosmos 745

See, however, Wis 10:4; Jos., B.J. 5.566; Ps.-­Clem. Hom. 9.2.1. On the usage of the word, see Ruf, Propheten, 509. 746 Cf. also Dennis, “Cosmology,” 159; 747 Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 161. 748 See the detailed discussion by Blumenthal, “Omikron.” 749 Other attempts, for example to relate “this” to “heavens and earth” (so Reicke, Epistles, 174–­75) or only to the heavens or the (upper and lower) waters (on this, see Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 298) are unconvincing. 750 Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 161.



Second Peter 3:6

391

is ultimately destroyed (only) by flooding with water? This difficulty justifies the substantive correctness of the second variant, δι᾽ ὅν, which as an accusative is to be taken in reference to the word of God (“on account of which”).751 According to this (simpler) variant, water alone is the means of destruction, which has occurred “on account of the word of God” (i.e., at God’s judgment or God’s volition). In its tendency toward eclectic methods of textual criticism, the ECM (and subsequently NA28) has recently chosen the singular-­accusative reading as the initial text, which, however, is attested only in one majuscule (P) and a few minuscule manuscripts, as well as parts of the Latin tradition. Verse 6 then reads: “On account of which [i.e., because of the (aforementioned) word of God] the world at that time, flooded with water, was destroyed.” This would make good sense with regard to ὕδατι in v. 6, and likewise in connection with the emphatic τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ (“by the same word”) in v. 7b, which once again underscores the role of the (same) word of God as the agent of the existence and destruction of the present world. In fact, however, this is an extremely weakly attested variant as well as the lectio facilior. According to classic text-­critical methodology, this should be regarded as a probable ‘simplification’ and thus unlikely to be original, and it may only be preferred over the lectio difficilior δι᾽ ὧν for internal reasons if the latter is entirely unintelligible and thus impossible. The decision of the editors of the ECM apparently presumes such unintelligibility and considers that the ‘mistake’ δι᾽ ὧν must have entered into the tradition at an early stage, while the original text was only maintained in a small branch of the tradition.752 This raises the question of whether this course of events is historically plausible. The decision is by no means uncontroversial, and this case demonstrates how much ‘wiggle room’ is possible in the decisions of critical editions (cf. also v. 10d). Against the argument apparently presupposed in the ECM, Christian Blumenthal has successfully shown that the plural variant does indeed serve a strategic function in the argumentation of 2 Pet 3 by accentuating the continuous role of God’s word as agent in judgment and salvation.753 In addition, the evidence of ancient translations seems to add to the weight of δι᾽ ὧν.754 A definite decision based on ‘internal’ grounds 751

The emendation proposed by Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 101, of a singular δι᾽ οὗ (“through which”; i.e., the word of God) is not attested anywhere. 752 Interpreters have since been divided. The plural reading, favored through NA27, is preferred by most commentaries (see, e.g., Vögtle, Judasbrief, 226; Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 161; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 296). By contrast, Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 101, conjectures the singular genitive δι᾽ οὗ (“through which”), and J. B. Mayor was an early proponent of the singular preferred by the ECM (deemed “a desperate proposal” by Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 360). But the decision of the ECM, which has been adopted in the common critical editions NA28 and the Greek New Testament, SBL edition, has already prompted exegetes to follow this as the new initial text (so Schmidt, Mahnung, 382n173). 753 Blumenthal, “Omikron.” 754 On this Blumenthal, “Omikron,” which further refers to a unique reading of διό in only one minuscule; its weight, however, for the reconstruction of a stemma should not be overestimated.

392

Second Peter: Commentary

is not possible, but (against ECM) the best attested and ‘difficult’ plural text should be accepted here.

According to this text, then, with somewhat “objectionable”755 style, two different causes of destruction, the word of God and water, are brought together in one pronoun. Despite the grammatical difficulty, this duality of the cause and concrete means of destruction is certainly fitting in context: just as water (as ‘matter’; cf. Gen 1:2) and the creative logos of God participated in the genesis and formation of the cosmos with a somewhat unclear cooperation according to v. 5, so too were they involved in the destruction of this ‘old’ world according to v. 6. This is plausible according to the biblical account: the flood occurred because of water (Gen 7:4, 17) but was caused by the judging word of God (Gen 6:7, 13; 7:4). The same word of God also maintains the present world and preserves it for the judgment (v. 7), when the destruction by fire will take place. But this event is also, in the eyes of the author, an act of judgment announced and initiated by the prophetic word. The word of God is thus the continuum756 that was at work in the creation and destruction of the antediluvian world just as it guarantees the judgment of this sinful world and ultimately the hope of a new just world (cf. 3:13). The catastrophe of the flood is employed as a paradigm of judgment in various early Jewish and early Christian texts, not least in the synoptic tradition in Luke 17:26-­27, where the “day of Noah” is parallel to the “day of the Son of Man.” That text emphasizes the aspect of the sudden, unexpected arrival of the destruction, which also plays a role in 2 Pet 3:10 with the synoptic saying about the “thief.”757 In several early Jewish texts, the catastrophe of the flood is associated with other biblical paradigms of judgment such as the destruction of Sodom (by fire).758 Both examples (in modification of the source in Jude 6-­7) are also taken up in 2 Pet 2:5-­ 8. An association of the flood with the destruction of Sodom is also found in Luke 17:26-­30, as well as Josephus (B.J. 5.566) and Philo, who names both catastrophes “alongside one another explicitly as punishments for people’s unvirtuous life” (Mos. 2.53–­59).759 Other texts present an explicit association between these catastrophes and eschatological events, such as Luke 17:26-­30 (par. Matt 24:37-­39). Josephus writes in A.J. (1.70) of a prophecy from Adam that all things would be destroyed, in part by fire, in part by flood, and a parallel tradition occurs as Eve’s prophecy in L.A.E. 49.2. 755

Vögtle, Judasbrief, 226. Cf. Grundmann, Brief, 114: “The continuity of the world thus consists in the creative word of God and not in its substances.” “This is the decisive opposing standpoint against the conviction of the permanence and immutability of the world.” 757 On this, see Ruf, Propheten, 510. 758 On the early Jewish series of paradigms for judgment, see above on Jude 5-­7. 759 Ruf, Propheten, 511. 756



Second Peter 3:6

393

The Mekilta of Rabbi Ishmael (Amalek 3) combines the knowledge of the flood with the fear of a future catastrophe with fire. A clear correlation between the flood and a future judgment by fire is then also found—­only a little later than 2 Pet—­in a passage (extant only in Syriac) of the Apology of Melito of Sardis.760

The correlation of judgments by water and fire (cf. also Sib. Or. 3.690) is thus not unusual in Jewish and then in early Christian tradition.761 The fact that the author’s portrayal nevertheless goes beyond other Jewish and early Christian parallels can be seen primarily in one crucial point: the depiction of the flood is understood here as a destruction of the entire cosmos, of heaven(s) and earth, which has no parallel in the early Jewish and early Christian tradition.762 Instead, it is likely that 2 Pet 3:6 purposefully creates a parallel here with the motif of the cosmic conflagration taken up in what follows. Thus (despite all the differences), the Stoic idea of a sequence of several (or in the Stoa, theoretically infinite) acts of cosmic destruction and ‘rebirth’ must be taken into account. The author adopts this concept in vv. 7, 10, 12 (see below), but modifies it to align with the biblically attested sequence of three successive worlds. While the biblical and early Jewish expectation of an intervention of God by fire (also in the case of judgment by fire) anticipates that the judgment will strike sinners, but leave the righteous unharmed,763 Stoic cosmology is characterized by the notion that the entire cosmos is the object of periodic destruction. In this, the Roman Stoic Seneca even provides an example for the parallel destruction by fire and water.764 With regard to the argumentation in 2 Pet 3:5-­6, it is particularly interesting that the Epicurean (!) Lucretius, who argues against the postulate of the world’s indestructibility in his work De rerum natura (5.380–­415), cites the fact that the world had already suffered grave destructions by fire and by water in the past, and so the possibility of a cosmic catastrophe cannot be ruled out. This passage presents the closest parallel with our 760

On these passages, see Ruf, Propheten, 514. Cf. Ruf, Propheten, 510–­14; also Dennis (“Cosmology,” 174–­75), who, however, is not entirely able to refute the argument by Adams (Stars, 214) that 2 Pet goes significantly beyond Jewish tradition. 762 The oft-­mentioned parallel in 1 En. 83:3-­5, which depicts a cosmic catastrophe, does not describe a flood: heaven falls to the earth, and heaven and earth sink into the abyss of the chaotic depths. But there is no mention of water or fire. This passage therefore attests to the notion that the earth can be destroyed, but is not a precise parallel to v. 6. 763 On this, see van der Horst, “Elements,” 234–­36. 764 Sen., Nat. 3.28.7: “But at the time of the deluge the tide, freed from its laws, advances without limit. ‘On what principle?’ you ask. In the same principle in which the conflagration will occur. Both will occur when it seems best to god for the old things to be ended and better things to begin. Water and fire dominate earthly things. From them is the origin, from them the death” (trans. T. H. Corcoran [LCL 450]; cf. Adams, Stars, 118). The combination of fire and water is found already in Plato, Tim. 22a. 761

394

Second Peter: Commentary

author’s argumentation against the concept of the immutability or even indestructibility of the world quoted in v. 4.

While the opponents could have replied to the traditional accounts of the flood with the observation that all these events only affected the earth or the sublunar region but not the entire cosmos, the author is able to counter this argument with his depiction of the flood (as well as the ekpyrosis) as a cosmic catastrophe destroying “heaven(s) and earth.”765 With the reference to the flood understood in this way, the claim of the scoffers cited in v. 4 is shown to be mistaken: the world has by no means existed unaltered since the creation; rather, it has already been destroyed once, and that happened because of the very word of God the Creator. Thus precisely this example demonstrates the reliability of God’s word and of the prophetic expectation (cf. 1:19), and the skeptical challenge of this expectation proves to be false, even to be a rejection of the evident facts. 7 The following verse—­as a conclusion drawn from the biblical example—­ renews the eschatological expectation: just as the world at that time was created, preserved, and given over to destruction by the word of God, so too will the present world (heaven and earth) by the same word of God (τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ)766 be “preserved” for the judgment that has been declared for the godless (cf. 2:4, 6). The language of the ‘present world’ once again affirms that the preceding destruction in the flood was, according to the image created here, a complete annihilation of the old antediluvian world.767 The decisive factor of continuity, according to this argument, is the word of God, which determines creation, preservation, and judgment. Like the former world, so will the present cosmos (heaven and earth) come to an end on the “day of judgment and destruction (ἀπωλείας) of the impious people.” And as before in the flood, destruction in the judgment by fire lies ahead for the godless. With this, the author takes up the variously attested association of judgment by water and by fire, but—­following Stoic thought—­he anticipates an end by way of a cosmic conflagration. Excursus: The motif of the cosmic conflagration and its reception in Judaism and early Christianity 765

Adams, Stars, 218. This consideration of Hellenistic discourses about the stability of the cosmos and the possibility of its destruction demonstrates that the author of 2 Pet is quite capable of dialogue with his contemporaries. 766 The instrumental dative strengthens the notion that the word of God can serve as the means of destruction in v. 6, as well. 767 The author is silent regarding the presumed creation of the ‘present world’ after the flood.



Second Peter 3:6-12

395

a) Myth and Cosmology: The cosmic conflagration (ἐκπύρωσις) is an essential theme in ancient thought.768 The motif occurs in most detail in the myth of Phaëthon,769 the son of the sun god, who wants to drive the chariot of the sun but cannot control the fiery steeds, and so the entire earth melts in an inferno, the nearby stars catch fire, and because of the dry, cracked earth even the underworld is illuminated by daylight and destroyed. However, this destruction does not imply a complete and total end but rather a return to the chaos from which a new beginning will emerge. Furthermore, only the region of space ‘close to earth’ is affected, not the entire cosmos. The myth has connections with deliberations of ancient natural philosophy and science: for Heraclitus, the “pioneer of the ἐκπύρωσις doctrine,”770 fire is the eternally living principle of the cosmos, which is associated with the fiery primal element of ether. The ἐκπύρωσις became a widespread model in Stoic thought, which probably adopted eastern (Babylonian or Persian) ideas,771 and its prominence and influence extended beyond the Stoics themselves.772 According to Chrysippus, primary matter is eternal, but the elements “are destroyed when all things are resolved into fire” (so Diog. Laert., 7.134; trans. R. D. Hicks [LCL]). Another Stoic fragment asserts that after the destruction of all things in fire, only “matter” (ὕλη) and “god” (ὁ θεός) will remain.773 Cicero (Nat. d. 2.118) recounts the opinion “there will ultimately occur a conflagration of the whole world. . . . Thus nothing will remain but fire, by which, as a living being and a god, once again a new world may be created and the ordered universe be restored as before.”.774 The concept of a cosmic conflagration is associated elsewhere with the probably Pythagorean notion of a cyclical and eternal recurrence in connection with the revolution of the stars in a “great year.”775 Plato, with reference to the Phaëthon myth, had already claimed in Tim. that “there have been and there will be many and divers destructions of mankind, of which the greatest are by fire and water” (Plato, Tim. 22c). 768

Usener, “Ekpyrosis,” 150. On the following see this foundational article. Phaëthon is mentioned in Homer, Il. 11.735, and Od. 5.479, and elsewhere, without making use of the myth. It may have already been available in Hesiod but is not extant there. The depictions by Aeschylus (Heliades) and Euripides (Phaethon) have likewise been lost. In addition to the brief attestation in Hyginus (Fabulae 152 and 154; on this, see Usener, “Ekpyrosis,” 162–­63), the most detailed portrayal is in Ovid’s Metamorphoses (1.747–­2 .400; on this Usener, “Ekpyrosis,” 153–­61). 770 Usener, “Ekpyrosis,” 171; cf. also Adams, Stars, 114–­25. 771 So van der Waerden, “Große Jahr”; see Usener, “Ekpyrosis,” 171. 772 Epicurus and his followers were also aware of this theory; see Epicurus’ second letter Epistula ad Pythoclem, as well as Lucretius 5.392–­4­15, who speaks of a single occurrence of the cosmic conflagration and of the flood. On this, see Usener, “Ekpyrosis,” 176. 773 So von Arnim, SVF, 2:308 (Nr. 1047) according to Alexander of Aphrodias’ De mixtione; see Usener, “Ekpyrosis,” 175. 774 Trans. H. Rackham (LCL). See Usener, “Ekpyrosis,” 176. 775 On this, see van der Waerden, “Große Jahr.” 769

396

Second Peter: Commentary

In the nearby context (Tim. 39c–­d) the notion of destruction and renewal is likewise associated with a “great year.”776 In contrast to the biblical and early Jewish conceptions of intervention by fire, in the Greek tradition the cosmic conflagration is a very positive event, rather than negative. There is no notion of judgment here.777 Nevertheless, the concept is adopted in certain Jewish texts.778 b) Ancient Judaism: The Jewish reception of this motif requires a nuanced consideration. The first attestation of reception is possibly found in a poetic fragment dating to the second century BCE (Pseudo-­Sophocles, frg. 2), which speaks of the incineration of all things on earth and in the heavens, although the earth is simply empty afterward, and so this does not present a true ekpyrosis.779 Other texts without a true ekpyrosis contain theophanic fire imagery (such as the Qumran hymn 1QHa XI, 19–­36),780 only refer to a judgment by fire (1QpHab X, 5 and 13; 1QS II, 15; and elsewhere), or only associate the fire with the impious (Pss. Sol. 15:6; L.A.E. 49–­50). It is hardly a coincidence that the first fleshed out witnesses to the ekpyrosis concept in Judaism are found in Sib. Or., which originated in the Egyptian diaspora.781 Probably the earliest witness is from the first century BCE in Sib. Or. 3.80–­92, where a river of fire burns the earth, sea, and the fallen heavens, and everything melts into one pure material:  . . . and the whole variegated vault of heaven falls on the wondrous earth and ocean. An undying cataract of raging fire will flow, and burn earth, burn sea, and melt the heavenly vault and days and creation itself into one and separate them into clear air. There will no longer be twinkling spheres of luminaries, no night, no dawn, no numerous days of care, no spring, no summer, no winter, no autumn. And then indeed the judgment of the great God will come into the midst of the great world, when all these things happen.782 Further texts from Sib. Or.—­a ll from Egyptian Judaism between the first century BCE and the first or second centuries CE—­follow on this: And then a great river of blazing fire will flow from heaven, and will consume every place, land and great ocean and gleaming sea, lakes and rivers, springs and implacable Hades and the heavenly vault. But the heavenly luminaries will crash together, also into an utterly desolate form. For all the stars will fall together from 776

Trans. R. G. Bury (LCL). Cf. Usener, “Ekpyrosis,” 173–­74. On this, see van der Horst, “Elements,” 233–­34. 778 Cf. on this van der Horst, “Elements,” 234ff. 779 So van der Horst, “Elements,” 237; Adams, Stars, 67–­68. 780 On this, see Adams, Stars, 69–­71. 781 On the Egyptian background, see the foundational discussion in Collins, Sibylline Oracles. 782 Trans. J. J. Collins (OTP). For German, see Gauger, Sibyllinische Weissagungen. On this text, see also van der Horst, “Elements,” 238; Adams, Stars, 90–­91. 777



Second Peter 3:6-12

397

heaven on the sea. All the souls of men will gnash their teeth, burning in a river, and brimstone and a rush of fire in a fiery plain, and ashes will cover all. . . . But at once all will melt into one and separate into clear air. Then the imperishable angels of immortal God, Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Uriel, who know what evils anyone did previously, lead all the souls of men from the murky dark to judgment, to the tribunal of the great immortal God. (2.196–­205, 212–­219)783 But if you do not obey me, evil-­minded ones, but love impiety, and receive all these things with evil ears, there will be fire throughout the whole world, and a very great sign with sword and trumpet at the rising of the sun. The whole world will hear a bellowing noise and mighty sound. He will burn the whole earth, and will destroy the whole race of men and all cities and rivers at once, and the sea. He will destroy everything by fire, and it will be smoking dust. . . . And then there will be a judgment over which God himself will preside, judging the world again. As many as sinned by impiety, these will a mound of earth cover, and broad Tartarus and the repulsive recesses of Gehenna. But as many as are pious, they will live on earth again when God gives spirit and life and favor to these pious ones. (4.171–­178, 183–­190)784 Virgo, coming forth, and the sun, fixing a belt all about its brow, shall lead. There will be a greatly heavenly conflagration on earth and from the battling stars a new nature will emerge, so that the whole land of the Ethiopians will perish in fire and groanings. (5.209–­213)785 On the whole, the notion of the conflagration was only sparsely adopted in ancient Judaism.786 It is essentially limited to the Egyptian diaspora with the sibylline tradition. It is striking here that this motif is consistently modified: the conflagration is not a metaphysical process but a divine act of judgment, and it does not occur repeatedly (or in the sense of an eternal recurrence), but once at the end of history.787 c) Early Christianity: Such concepts were initially taken up very slowly and cautiously in early Christian texts as well. The only attestation in the NT is 2 Pet 3:7-­10, 12—­in the latest text by far of the corpus. Such conceptions are also found in 2 Clem. 16.3, where the day of judgment comes like a “blazing furnace (ὡς κλίβανος καιόμενος), and some of the heavens will melt and the whole earth will be like lead melting in 783

Trans. J. J. Collins (OTP). For German, see Gauger, Sibyllinische Weissagungen, 51–­53. Trans. J. J. Collins (OTP). For German, see Gauger, Sibyllinische Weissagungen, 123. 785 Trans. J. J. Collins (OTP). For German, see Gauger, Sibyllinische Weissagungen, 137. The fifth sibyl is the clearest evidence for the reception of Greek cosmology in Egyptian diaspora Judaism. Cf. further Sib. Or. 5.155–­161 and 5.274–­281, where the holy earth of the pious is apparently granted an exception. 786 van der Horst, “Elements,” 243. 787 So van der Horst, “Elements,” 243; Collins, Sibylline Oracles, 103–­4. The notion of restoration after the fire could be seen in 4.180ff., according to Collins (103). 784

398

Second Peter: Commentary

the fire; and then the hidden and visible works of human beings will come to light.”788 However, in 2 Pet (as in 2 Clem.) the terminus technicus ἐκπύρωσις does not appear. Following 2 Pet, this image occurs in Justin (1 Apol. 20.1–­4 and 2 Apol. 7.2–­3), who already seeks to distinguish a Christian doctrine of ekpyrosis from the Stoa, and in Tatian (Or. Graec. 25.2; cf. 6.1), Theophilus of Antioch (Autol. 2.37–­38), and Minucius Felix (Oct. 11.1–­3).789 It also appears in a distinctive form among the Valentinians (see Iren., Haer. 1.7.1), then Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 5.121.4, 122.1), and finally in Origen (Cels. 4.11–­13), who refutes Celsus’ charge that the Christians had misunderstood the philosophers, and proposes a spiritual understanding of the fire. d) Apoc. Pet. and 2 Pet: Though largely ignored in scholarship thus far, Apoc. Pet. (extant only in the Ethiopic tradition) presents a relatively extensive depiction of the ekpyrosis, which is particularly significant for 2 Pet. After the depiction of the resurrection of the dead (Apoc. Pet. 4) and before the Parousia of Christ (Apoc. Pet. 6), the judgment is described in Apoc. Pet. 5 as follows: And these things shall come to pass in the day of judgment of those who have fallen away from faith in God and have committed sin: cataracts of fire shall be let loose; and obscurity and darkness shall come up and cover and veil the entire world, and the waters shall be changed and transformed into coals of fire, and all that is in it (the earth?) shall burn and the sea shall become fire; under the heaven there shall be a fierce fire that shall not be put out and it flows for the judgment of wrath. And the stars shall be melted by flames of fire, as if they had not been created, and the fastnesses of heaven shall pass away for want of water and become as though they had not been created. . . . And as soon as the whole creation is dissolved, the men who are in the east shall flee to the west . . . and everywhere will the wrath of the fearful fire overtake them.790 If Apoc. Pet. originated in Egyptian/Alexandrian Christianity, the reception of the ekpyrosis motif could be easily explained against the background of Sib. Or. And if 2 Pet, perhaps in the same region, draws on Apoc. Pet., then it is little wonder that this motif, which is not otherwise broadly adopted in Judaism or emerging Christianity, occurs precisely here. It is certain that Apoc. Pet. is not a narrative development of the statements of 2 Pet, but rather presents an independent reception of the imagery that is also attested in Sib. Or. Conversely, while most individual elements of the depiction in 2 Pet 3:7, 10, 12, can be understood based on the texts of Sib. Or. or pagan contexts, Apoc. Pet. is particularly illuminating for certain aspects of the linguistic form in 2 Pet 3:7, 10-­12: 788

The background for this is Mal 4:1 and Isa 34:4; on this, see Grünstäudl, “Feuer,” 198. Cf. also the brief allusion in Herm. Vis. 4.3.3. 789 van der Horst, “Elements,” 248–­50. 790 Eng. trans. ed. R. McL. Wilson, New Testament Apocrypha, 627–­28, from C. D. G. Müller, NTApo6 2:569. Cf. Buchholz, Eyes, 189–­91. Some patristic quotations of Apoc. Pet. also contain these ideas (above all the quotations of the anonymous critic in Macarius Magnes, Apocriticus 4.6 and 4.7); see Kraus and Nicklas, Petrusevangelium, 92–­93.



Second Peter 3:6-12

399

Like 2 Pet 3:12, Apoc. Pet. 4 (before the presentation of the eschatological events) speaks of the “day of God.” This phrase is only attested in these two passages and constitutes a particularly impressive parallel.791 Like in 2 Pet 3:5-­13, in Apoc. Pet. the depiction of the end of the world has no reference to Christ, which should not be prematurely assessed as an indication that the eschatology of the passage is ‘unchristological.’ This would be an argument from silence. In Apoc. Pet. the Parousia does not occur until after the conflagration, and then Christ is of course involved in the judgment of the world. The ‘unchristological’ representation of the end of the world in 2 Pet would be easily explained if it presupposes such a scenario. In 2 Pet 3:10—­depending upon the text-­critical decision (see below)—­the earth is treated differently than the heavens and the celestial bodies: it is said that the earth (with the “works” upon it) will be “found”—­most likely in order to be presented for judgment. This also has a parallel in Apoc. Pet. (E) 4.11, 13, where the earth restores everything that is in it (i.e., the dead) in order to be judged—­and ultimately the earth itself (along with heaven) will be judged as well.792 Even more illuminating is the parallel in 2 Clem. 16.3. When 2 Pet 3:11 transitions to the reaction of humanity with a summary note (τούτων . . . πάντων λυομένων), this corresponds with a passage in Apoc. Pet. (E) 5, where the dissolution of the entire creation is quite similarly mentioned in preparation for depicting the reaction of humanity (“as soon as the whole creation dissolves, the men who are in the east shall flee to the west”).

The notion of the cosmic conflagration first resonates in v. 7, and after the argumentation about the length of time in vv. 8-­9, the motif is then taken up again in more detail in vv. 10-­12. It is clear here that the anticipated fire, like the flood, will bring complete and total destruction encompassing heaven and earth. In this, the author adopts a feature that had already emerged in Jude. There, a play on words refers to “preserving” (τηρεῖν) the Watchers for the judgment (Jude 6) and darkness for the impious (Jude 13). The same verb is used in 2 Pet 3:7, which in addition speaks of the world being “stored up” (θησαυρίζειν) for the fire, producing a striking twofold expression. The power that holds this world together (as it did the “old” world) and brings it to judgment is the word of God (cf. Heb 1:3). The world as a whole—­including the addressees and their opponents, who are blind to it—­is dependent upon this word, which is shown to be the actual agent of cosmic events, of creation and judgment, of judgment and new creation. By incorporating widespread cosmological conceptions, the author shows his capacity for contemporary philosophical discourse in shaping his 791

Bauckham, “2 Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter,” 295: “striking.” So also in the citation in Macarius Magnes, Apocriticus 4.6; see Kraus and Nicklas, Petrusevangelium, 92. 792

400

Second Peter: Commentary

presentation of the Parousia and judgment.793 But the theological accent in this is clear: the anticipated end of the world signifies the “day of judgment” and destruction (ἀπώλεια) of the godless. It is not just a ‘natural occurrence,’ but rather an event that aims toward the judgment, originating with and appointed by God. The dissolution of the cosmos in fire is ultimately only a preparation and prerequisite for judgment, not the judgment itself. In analogy with the early Jewish parallels or Apoc. Pet. 5 and 2 Clem. 16.3, the emphasis of the widespread Stoic view is thereby significantly shifted. Whereas the Stoic ekpyrosis is not frightening but instead an occasion of purification and fulfillment of the cosmos,794 here the aspect of judgment emerges emphatically. There is no mention of a ‘rebirth’ from the fire, and the new world anticipated in v. 13 is not conceived as a restoration from the old ‘elements’; it is a new creation of a fundamentally different nature.795 With regard to the judgment, v. 7 interestingly does not refer to a salvation of the pious (cf. 2:9) but only to the downfall, the destructive judgment of the impious. How the fate of the pious is to be imagined, how their ‘transition’ from this world into the new world is supposed to occur in view of the complete destruction of heaven and earth is not discussed here (similarly to Rev 21). b) The discussion of the argument that the Parousia has not yet occurred and the notion of a “delay” (3:8-­10)

Before the motif of the cosmic conflagration is further detailed, the author shifts to the refutation of the first argument of the “scoffers” according to v. 4: the assertion that the promised “arrival” (of Christ) has failed to materialize and is therefore no longer plausible. At the same time, the author discusses attempts to explain this situation within the community, which demonstrate that the addressees were likely also unsettled by the nonfulfillment of the promise (and perhaps also by the opponents’ arguments).796 (8) But do not let this one thing escape your notice, beloved, that one day with the Lord is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like one day. (9) The Lord does not delay the promise, as some believe it is a delay, but he endures patiently for you, 793 The discrepancies in detail and above all in the theological connotations do not serve as an argument against a connection with the Stoic concepts (contra Ruf, Propheten, 517); rather, they show how the author independently employs and modifies these concepts in order to position his own argument against the opponents. 794 So van der Horst, “Elements,” 233–­34. 795 On this see Ruf, Propheten, 517. 796 This is addressed primarily, then, to the recipient communities (thus, rightly, Schmidt, Mahnung, 384), although the first argument of the opponents is also implicitly in view, and is likewise implicitly refuted by the arguments in vv. 8-­10, 13.



Second Peter 3:6-12

401

for he does not want anyone to be destroyed, but (wants) all to progress to repentance. (10) But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a rush and the elements burned up will be dissolved and the earth and the works upon it will be found.797

This section begins with another address to the readers, and the phrase μὴ λανθανέτω, pointing back to v. 5, indicates that a new line of argument will follow here. The keyword ἐπαγγελία refers back to the first argument of the “scoffers” from v. 4. But whereas they probably denied completely that the promise would occur, the author now brings up an apologetic attempt to explain the situation, which “some” (among the addressees) advocate who want to hold fast to the promise, but regard its arrival as “delayed.” The Parousia’s failure to materialize has raised questions or caused disappointment among them as well. Whoever maintains hope must find an explanation when this hope remains unfulfilled.798 But since such calculation still presupposes a specific ‘fixed date,’ the author also rejects this thinking as misguided. The difference in the introduction to the arguments, however, is significant: whereas essential facts continue to “escape the notice” of the scoffers (v. 5) to their ruin, the apostolic interpretation must “not escape the notice” of the “beloved” (v. 8); rather, this must be brought to their attention with a “reminder” (v. 1). It is especially understandable that this ‘testament’ of Peter provides a different explanation for the nonfulfillment of the Parousia and rejects any ‘schedule’ for it if there was not just a general expectation of the Parousia that was fading with time in the addressees’ environment, but specifically a hope associated with an appointed time that was traced back to Peter himself, as is attested in Apoc. Pet. (14.4). The passage of this fixed date, then, was not just an argument that the skeptical opponents were able to use but also a reason for uncertainty among the addressees. Therefore, in the guise of Peter, the author reinterprets this phenomenon by pointing to the fundamentally different nature of divine time and the incalculability of the Parousia, which (in contrast to the opponents’ position) is nevertheless to be hoped for (v. 13). This lesson incorporates three elements of tradition:799 (a) the proposition of the incommensurability of human and divine measures of time, based on Ps 90:4, (b) a reflection on the meaning of the absence of divine action (perhaps associated with Hab 2:3), and finally (c) the early Christian logion of the thief, which illustrates the sudden nature of the arrival of the Parousia and the 797

On the textual criticism, see the excursus at v. 10, pp. 409–11. To speak of “impatience” here (so Schmidt, Mahnung, 384) is perhaps too much ‘mirror reading.’ 799 Cf. Ruf, Propheten, 527. 798

402

Second Peter: Commentary

eschaton. After this, the author shifts back to the depiction of the ekpyrosis, which constitutes the climax and conclusion of this short section in v. 10. 8 The first point that the addressees need to understand is the incommensurability of divine and human measures of time, which implies that the notion of a “delay” in God’s action rests on a fallacy. For this, the author draws on Ps 90:4, which was likely familiar to the addressees, but does so with an independent interpretation. The psalm’s salutation is transformed into a statement about “the Lord” and into a twofold ‘conversion ratio.’ Only the second ‘equation’ (“a thousand years is one day”) derives from the psalm, and it is inverted to create the first (“one day is a thousand years”). The addition παρὰ κυρίῳ highlights first that the author is concerned with the measure of time that defines God’s activity: “before the Lord” things are different than among people. But the modification of the psalm creates interpretive problems, and one might wonder whether the author here adopts a Jewish or (Jewish) Christian exegetical tradition.800 In the MT and the LXX, the psalm is formed as a prayer that (in the context of a lamentation over human perishability) discusses God’s sovereign dominion over time: “For a thousand years in your sight / are like yesterday when it is past, / or like a watch in the night.”801 The incomprehensible time span of a thousand years melts together before God in the blink of an eye. The verse does not provide a point of reference for the ‘conversion.’ In early Jewish tradition, the verse was soon used as a basis for various calculations.802 In Jub. 4:30, Adam’s life span is explained with the comment “for a thousand years are like one day in the testimony of heaven.”803 Justin (Dial. 81.8) and Irenaeus (Haer. 5.23.2) then formulate “one day of the Lord is like a thousand years.” The statement was often associated with the week of creation in Gen 1 and its days, resulting in speculation about the duration of the world as seven thousand years. Such speculations about weeks of the world first occur in 2 En. 33:1-­2 , then in L.A.B. 28.2 and L.A.E. 42, as well as later rabbinic traditions. The midrash Genesis Rabbah (8.2.1d) contains a structure largely parallel to 2 Pet 3:8: 1 day = 1,000 years, for 1,000 years = 1 day.804 In early Christian texts, conjecture about weeks of the world with reference to Ps 90:4 is found probably somewhat before 2 Pet in Barn. 15.3–­4 and later in Irenaus (Haer. 5.28.3), Hippolytus (Comm. Dan. 4.23), Lactantius (Inst. 7.14.9), and elsewhere. 800

So most recently, above all, Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 308–­9, who seeks to substantiate the Jewish apocalypse proposed in 3:4 here as well. 801 Cf. Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalmen 51–­100, 602. 802 On this, see Schrage, “Tag,” 268–­69; Ruf, Propheten, 528–­31. 803 Trans. Wintermute (OTP). This calculation derives from the exegetical problem of how Adam was supposed to die “on the day” in which he would eat from the tree (Gen 2:17), but then lived to be 930 years old. 804 On this, see Ruf, Propheten, 529–­30.



Second Peter 3:8-9

403

The author of 2 Pet is thus not the first to employ this saying from the psalm, and perhaps not the first to formulate the inversion ‘1 day = 1,000 years.’ He presupposes familiarity with the scriptural passage, and argues by using its content axiomatically, without marking the quotation as such. However, he neither incorporates the original sense of the insignificance of the human life span in view of divine eternity, nor does he adopt one of the aforementioned exegetical traditions805—­he is not interested in chronological calculations.806 The sentence does not provide a rule for conversion. Instead of expressing an ‘acceleration’ or a ‘delay,’ the author wants to emphasize the “incommensurability of divine and human perceptions of time,”807 which exposes any arguments about fixed dates and their possible delays as nonsensical. One of the early uses of 2 Pet 3:8, in a fragment perhaps falsely ascribed to Methodius of Olympus, is interesting in terms of Wirkungsgeschichte.808 There the citation of Ps 90:4 (LXX 89:4) is ascribed to the apostle Peter, but unlike the authors mentioned above who used it for the sake of a calculation, here it is used in the interest of the incalculability of the approaching “day of the Lord.”809

9 This biblical instruction is followed by a tenet with which the author counters the opinion of “some”810 and presents his own understanding of time. With this, he is likely reacting to explanations known to him among the addressed communities. At the same time, he picks up on the denial of the Parousia in 805 In seeking an explanation, the attempt by Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 308, to consider statements in Apoc. Ab. together with a rabbinic tradition that is difficult to date (Pirqe R. El. 28), where the duration of the four kingdoms (i.e., foreign rule) is supposed to last for only one day, hardly brings us to solid ground. Nor do other Jewish texts that Bauckham adduces, above all L.A.B. 19.13a (where Ps 90:4 is incorporated with regard to the secret of the eschaton), provide any support for his speculation that the exegesis in 2 Pet 3:8-­9 must have been drawn from a Jewish apocalypse (contra Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 309). 806 He certainly does not want to say that the day of judgment will last a thousand years. Such a millenarian expectation was suggested by Spitta, Brief, 253ff.; and Strobel, Untersuchungen, 93–­94. 807 Ruf, Propheten, 531. A statement such as L.A.B. 19.13a, which expresses the rapid decay of “this age” with an allusion to Ps 90:4, probably comes closest to the sense here (cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 309). 808 On this, Grünstäudl and Nicklas, “Searching,” 222. 809 Grünstäudl and Nicklas, “Searching,” 222: “The fragment follows this latter line of thought in countering a millenarian interpretation of Rev 20:5 by pointing to 2 Pet 3:8, yet it goes even further when it equates the ‘thousand years’ of Revelation with eternity (ho aperantos aiōn; cf. 2 Pet 3:18).” 810 Here the members of the communities are at least included, since the interpretation being referenced is not identical to the “scoffing” that completely denies the hope of the Parousia (v. 4). Nevertheless, the argumentation is also relevant to the opponents’ position.

404

Second Peter: Commentary

v. 4 and implicitly refutes it by offering a new positive interpretation of the fact that the promised Parousia has not yet come to pass. The author thus indicates that “some” people explain the nonfulfillment of the Parousia as a “delay”—­an explanation that makes sense in connection with a potentially fixed date, but also calls into question the reliability of God, who has made this promise. But in view of the incommensurability of the divine measure of time (v. 8), this rests on a fallacy; the alleged “delay” only applies within a human perception of time and results from an inappropriate ‘impatience.’ Biblical motifs are adopted in the articulation and refutation of this notion as well, although less clearly than in v. 8: the verb βραδύνειν is part of the Wirkungsgeschichte of Hab 2:3, the “locus classicus for the question of the eschaton’s failure to appear.”811 The verse derives from a prophetic liturgy and anticipates God’s intervention in the face of injustice.812 The statement affirms the relevance of the prophetic vision of the “end” (‫)קץ‬ ֵ and calls for patience even in the case of a delay. The eschatological reference of the statement is reinforced in the LXX: ὅτι ἐρχόμενος ἥξει καὶ οὐ μὴ χρονίσῃ (“what/he who is coming will [certainly] come and not delay”) was able to be read as a reference to a person, and thus messianically, and the verse influenced further passages of the LXX (Isa 13:22; 51:14).813 Other Greek versions also have βραδυνεῖ (so Aquila) instead of χρονίσῃ. Substantively, the Pesher Habakkuk from Qumran attests that Hab 2:3 played a role in a discussion of the anticipated eschaton (probably expected in the Qumran community around 70 BCE): there it is established that “the final age will be extended and go beyond all that the prophets say” (1QpHab VII, 7–­8), but the lengthening of the age does not preclude that “all the ages of God will come at the right time” (1QpHab VII, 13 [trans. García Martínez and Tigchelaar, DSSSE]). Finally, LXX Sir 35:19 offers the closest linguistic parallel to v. 9 with ὁ κύριος οὐ μὴ βραδύνῃ. There βραδύνειν also occurs alongside μακροθυμεῖν, although with reference to the judgment of sinners.814 The conceptual pair of “certainly come / not delay” (cf. LXX Hab 2:3; cf. Isa 13:2; Heb 10:37; 2 Bar. 20:5; 48:39) “belongs to the common stock of expressions concerned with the assurance of an (eschatological) arrival.”815

As indicated by the use of βραδύνειν, 2 Pet 3:9 is situated within this discourse. But the explanation offered by τινες is not just answered here with an opposing 811

Ruf, Propheten, 532. On this verse and its Wirkungsgeschichte, see Strobel, Untersuchungen. Strobel, Untersuchungen, 47–­48. βραδύνειν occurs in Aquila’s translation of Hab 2:3. The LXX has χρονίζειν, but both are antithetically contrasted with the “coming.” 813 Cf. Strobel, Untersuchungen, 53–­61. 814 Cf. Schlosser, “Les jours,” 34–­35, who even considers an influence of this passage on 2 Pet 3:9. 815 So Ruf, Propheten, 533. 812



Second Peter 3:9

405

assurance, but with an alternative positive explanation—­the reference to God’s “patience” and will for salvation, primarily with regard to the addressees. In Qumran, disappointment over the fact that the anticipated eschaton has not yet come to pass is answered doxologically with reference to the impenetrable “mysteries of God” (1QpHab VII, 3–­14). By contrast, 2 Pet adopts the OT Jewish notion of the forbearance of God who postpones judgment in order to ‘make room’ for repentance (cf. 4 Ezra 9:11) and thereby to emphasize God’s will for salvation (cf. Ezek 33:11). The addressees must—­if need be—­repent. The notion that God’s patience leads to repentance is found previously in Paul (Rom 2:4). First Peter 3:20 speaks of God’s patience for the sake of repentance in the time of Noah. The notion of God’s forbearance as enabling repentance is also found in other texts of the second century, such as 2 Clem. 8.1–­3; Herm. Sim. 8.11.1; 9.14.2; and Ps.-­Clem. Hom. 16.20.4; 9.19.1. There is no suggestion here of an ‘extension’ of a grace period or a revision of the divine order of time—­the notion of a delay is specifically rejected—­but rather a positive interpretation of the present age is offered.

The concluding statement about God’s will for salvation is strikingly positive: God does not want “anyone” (τινες) to be lost but rather wants “all” to come to repentance (cf. 1 Tim 2:4). Here the author probably has his addressees in mind (not the opponents, whose damnation has already been determined). He speaks warmly to the uncertain members of the community. They should benefit from the time granted for repentance and the probation of faith. The expectation of the Parousia and the judgment is maintained unchanged, but this is not set for a fixed date and therefore cannot be delayed. This explanation helps to take advantage of the present and to avoid doubts about the reliability of the promise. It should therefore guide the thought and action of the addressees. This train of thought is thus drawn from theoretical discussions of the validity of the promise or of possible reasons for its nonfulfillment and connected with the existential-­ethical level of the addressees’ present situation. Interestingly, this explanation also has close parallels in pagan discourses. In his work On the Delays of the Divine Vengeance (Sera) Plutarch addresses the Epicurean argument that the divinity shows slowness (βραδύτης) and hesitancy in punishing the wicked (Mor. 548c), which encourages them in their wickedness, and that furthermore a delayed punishment will no longer be recognized as such. Plutarch also ascribes μεγαλοπαθεία (compassion) to the divinity (Mor. 551c) and argues that the divinity sees “whether the πάθη of the diseased soul show a movement in the direction of μετάνοια” (Mor. 551d).816 It is a moot point whether conclusions regarding the argumentation with the opponents in 2 Pet can be drawn from this substantive parallel. More important is the fact that even the author’s intra-­Christian argumentation with his addressees takes place within the framework of contemporary philosophical discourse. 816

Ruf, Propheten, 538.

406

Second Peter: Commentary

Excursus: On the problem of an imminent eschatology and delayed Parousia in early Christianity and in New Testament scholarship Second Peter 3:9 is the only NT passage that explicitly refers to a “delay” of the Parousia. This contrasts with the significant position that the topos of the “delay of the Parousia” occupied in NT scholarship of the twentieth century.817 Although a confrontation with imminent eschatologies in late NT texts and the Apostolic Fathers can clearly be observed,818 the interpretation of this phenomenon is a matter of scholarly debate. The hope for Christ’s Parousia, his (imminent) “arrival” or “return” is attested in the early Christian movement from the early post-­Easter period. On the basis of Jesus’ statements about the imminent establishment of the kingdom of God (Mark 1:15 par; 14:25, and elsewhere), after his crucifixion and in the course of the Easter appearances and the experience of the effects of the eschatological spirit, this was reformulated as a hope that the kingdom of God would be established by the Parousia of the coming exalted Christ. The apocalyptic hope for God’s coming or God’s “day” was thus transformed christologically. Paul also expected the Parousia in his lifetime (1 Thess 4:15, 17; 1 Cor 15:51-­52), although he was later able to anticipate his own untimely death (Phil 1:23; 2 Cor 1:8-­9) without abandoning this apocalyptic expectation. Mark 9:1 attests to the hope of the ‘first generation’ to experience the establishment of the kingdom; John 21:22-­23 is perhaps one last relic of this hope with reference to a witness of the ‘early period,’ who then probably also died.819 The association of the eschaton with Peter’s martyrdom (Apoc. Pet. 14.4) stands within this context, but attests to a perception of delay and a search for ‘signs of the times.’ The significance of this phenomenon for theological exegesis is related to the fact that the modern historical perspective perceived the imminent eschatological expectations shared by Jesus and the apostles as an error and thus a challenge for the early Christian message. In the nineteenth century this led to apologetic attempts to interpret Jesus’ conception of the kingdom in a present internal sense and to dispute that his expectation was for the future, or to prefer John’s perspective, which is more oriented toward the present, as more historical, until ‘consistent eschatology’ (with J. Weiss and A. Schweitzer) made this liberal-­protestant construction impossible.820 In the Bultmann school, in which early Christian authors’ ‘perception of time’ was a central concern as a criterion of their theology, a temporally future expectation of the Parousia was regarded as a substantively inappropriate misunderstanding of (Jewish and early Christian) apocalypticism, which was overcome in the truly Christian self-­ understanding (most clearly in John). In scholarship defined by consistent eschatology 817

See the foundational discussion in Grässer, Parusieverzögerung. Erlemann, Naherwartung, is critical of Grässer and aims at a comprehensive reassessment of the topic. 818 Cf. 2 Thess 2:1-­10; 1 Clem. 23.3–­4; 2 Clem. 11.2–­4. 819 On this, see Frey, Eschatologie, 3:19–­22. 820 From these observations, Werner, Entstehung, derived his views about the formation of Christian theology from hellenization. For an examination of this position, see already W. Michaelis, Verheißung, who tries to establish that Jesus expected a certain interval before the eschaton, in order to keep him from error, and Cullmann, Zeit.



Second Peter 3:9

407

(and in the Bultmann school) the ‘development’ from an imminent expectation to a distant or constant anticipation (often understood as ‘hellenizing’) was viewed as an essential factor in the formation of truly Christian theology.821 Here Luke above all, with his resistance to knowledge of “times and hours” (Acts 1:7), served as an example of the transformation of earliest Christian eschatology into ‘early Catholic’ salvation-­ historical thinking, and John exemplified overcoming the hope for the Parousia with a present eschatology. In this context, 2 Pet appeared as a misguided apology for earliest Christian eschatology.822 Since then, it has become clear that the phenomenon of the delayed Parousia was overestimated in NT scholarship:823 a) The ‘delay of the Parousia’ does not appear to have led to such a fundamental crisis of faith in early Christianity as should be expected according to theories of ‘consistent eschatology.’824 The fact that the experience of an ‘extension of time’ need not lead to a fundamental challenge to or even rejection of foundational religious convictions is demonstrated by the Qumran community, which in 1QpHab VII, 3–­14 analogously laments the delay of the anticipated eschaton without its essentials being fundamentally endangered. b) The perception of time in early Christianity is neither strictly linear-­ chronological (Cullmann) nor existential (Bultmann) but rather “emotional-­a ffective.”825 It is determined by, among other things, the perception of one’s own situation—­that is, by social and psychological factors (political crises, social or religious marginalization and affliction, yearning for change, etc.).826 Various perceptions can be present alongside one another in texts or simultaneously among various groups. c) In such a temporal perspective, imminence is a very elastic concept.827 An imminent expectation and the experience of time stretching out (or of a “delay”) are not contradictory, but a pair of affects that belong together. In this respect, the notion of “delay” is not a stage in an inevitable process of development determined by some ‘law’ of human nature. d) References to temporal proximity or distance also have an expressive or argumentative function within texts. They serve to correct alleged inappropriate positions or as various forms of ethical exhortation.828 821

Aune, “Eschatology,” 606: “In the view of many scholars, the delay of the Parousia was the most important factor for the transformation of early Christian eschatology from an emphasis on the imminent expectation of the end to a vague expectation set in the more distant future” (emphasis added). 822 So Käsemann, “Apologie.” 823 Aune, “Significance,” 100; cf. Erlemann, Naherwartung, 416. 824 This is rightly emphasized by Erlemann, Naherwartung, 20. 825 Erlemann, Naherwartung, 365. 826 So Erlemann, Naherwartung, 20 and 398–­402. 827 Erlemann, Naherwartung, 387–­88. 828 Erlemann, Naherwartung, 397.

408

Second Peter: Commentary

e) A linear or consistent development from imminent to distant or constant expectation, or in the sense of a ‘deapocalypticization’ cannot be established. Rather, an imminent eschatological expectation is activated time and again in various situations, at least until the Constantinian turning point as well as throughout the course of church history.

10 In contrast to the notion of God’s patience, the author now introduces the logion of the thief, which emphasizes the suddenness with which the eschaton will break through. With this, following the OT traditions from Ps 90:4 and Hab 2:3, the author adopts a purely Christian tradition.829 In the Q tradition (Matt 24:43-­4 4 par. Luke 12:39-­40), Jesus compares the coming of the Son of Man with the coming of a thief at an unexpected hour. In Paul, the parable of the thief in 1 Thess 5:2 refers to the coming of the “day of the Lord,”830 the expectation of which is closely intertwined in 1 Thess with the expectation of Christ’s Parousia. Rev 3:3 and 16:15 explicitly speak of Christ coming “like a thief.”

Second Peter connects this widespread early Christian tradition with the discussion of God’s forbearance in order to underscore the sudden nature of the arrival of the eschaton (and thereby also the urgency of the appropriate way of life). It should be assumed that the author knows the synoptic tradition and probably also 1 Thess 5:2. Yet there is no reference here to Jesus as the origin of this saying, and as in Paul it does not refer to Christ’s coming,831 but rather, more generally (and in congruence with the context), to the coming of the “day of the Lord.” But the Pauline notion that the children of the light are not in darkness and cannot be surprised by the day of judgment (1 Thess 5:4) is not found here.832 By contrast, perhaps in order to avoid a false conclusion from the discussion of the thousand years and God’s forbearance,833 the author wants to emphasize specifically that the day of judgment will arrive with certainty and unexpectedly, and that constant readiness and ethical effort are therefore imperative. However, there is no explicit mention of an imminent arrival and thus of an imminent expectation. Although the present age is the end time (given the appearance of the “scoffers”), the author prudently avoids any semblance of a more detailed determination of a fixed date, and the expectation of the Parousia he represents is thus rather a constant, not an imminent, expectation. 829

On this, see Smitmans, “Gleichnis.” This is one of the few Jesus traditions that are attested in the synoptic tradition and in Paul; on these traditions, see Jacobi, Jesusüberlieferung. 831 This was probably in view in the quotation in 3:4. 832 So also Smitmans, “Gleichnis,” 61. 833 Vögtle, Judasbrief, 233. 830



Second Peter 3:9-10

409

With the keyword of the “day of the Lord,” 2 Pet 3:10 again picks up the topic of the cosmic catastrophe, the ekpyrosis, which resonated already in v. 7. This event, specifically the destruction of the individual components of the cosmos by fire, is described in detail: concretely, the heavens, the elements (i.e., the celestial bodies), and—­though exegetically difficult—­the earth and her works are mentioned. The final clause identifies the “meaning and purpose of the disappearance of the entire heavenly sphere”834 with regard to the judgment (cf. v. 7: εἰς ἡμέραν κρίσεως), when the deeds done on earth will be unconcealed and open to view. Excursus: On the text-­critical problem of 3:10d The text of v. 10d, however, raises serious problems.835 The ECM (and thus also NA28), diverging from NA27, prefers a variant that is not attested in a single Greek manuscript and is found only in the Sahidic translation.836 Since the decision to reckon with an early omission of a negation (οὐχ) and to postulate this as the ‘initial text’ is of great substantive consequence, the discussion must be briefly outlined here.837 The relevant variants are: (a) εὑρεθήσεται (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus), (b) εὑρεθήσεται λυόμενα (𝔓72), (c) κατακαυήσεται (Alexandrinus), and (d) ἀφανισθήσονται (Ephraemi rescriptus), as well as (e) οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται as conjectured by the ECM, following older exegetes, which is not attested in any Greek manuscript. In addition, (f) the entire clause is absent in some versions (e.g., Vulgate and others). Of all these, εὑρεθήσεται is “the best attested variant to occupy the predicate in v. 10d,”838 and the stemmatic development of the other variants can also be explained from this starting point. In this kind of textual development, a hypothetical initial text with εὑρεθήσεται would be improved by either a change in the verb (κατακαυήσεται or ἀφανισθήσονται) or the addition of the negation οὐχ or the participle λυόμενα, and the number of attempts at improvement indicates the difficulties copyists encountered in understanding the text. Substantively, the problem is clear: since the heavens are said to disappear and the elements/celestial bodies are said to dissolve, it seems inconsistent that the third structurally parallel clause does not also express destruction or disappearance for the (equally striking) pair “the earth and the works in it,” but apparently precisely the opposite—­that they will be “found.” All the ancient variants are based on the view that a statement about destruction would be necessary here as well, if in fact a cosmic conflagration, the total destruction of heavens and earth, is supposed to be conveyed, 834

So Vögtle, Judasbrief, 234. On this, see most recently the detailed discussion in Blumenthal, “Tag.” 836 The inference of a Greek reading of οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται from the negation in some Syriac Philoxenian manuscripts is not compelling (see Blumenthal, “Tag,” 122). The Harclean version is a witness for the variant κατακαυήσεται. 837 On this Blumenthal, “Tag,” 118–­45. 838 Blumenthal, “Tag,” 120. 835

410

Second Peter: Commentary

and the modern emendation arises from the same logic.839 The insertion of a negation appears to be the most obvious option for smoothing out the text or creating coherence.840 This rationale is also behind the emendation of the ECM, which had previously been proposed by some exegetes,841 but in fact should rather be regarded as an act of desperation.842 A similar sense results when εὑρεθήσεται is taken as a rhetorical question.843 Methodological considerations, on the other hand, demand that the variant determined to be the best according to internal and external text-­critical grounds, which is ultimately εὑρεθήσεται, must be interpreted. If this variant is not completely unintelligible, but is able to make sense (even with difficulty), as the following discussion will show is the case, then it should be presumed as the initial text.844 In comparison with this text, the oldest manuscript 𝔓72 presents an addition with its reading εὑρεθήσεται λυόμενα, which is inspired by λυομένων in v. 11 and evidently seeks to improve the connection between v. 11 and v. 10. Yet this earliest attested emendation is based on εὑρεθήσεται without a negation. To suppose that the negation was lost at such an early stage and throughout the textual tradition is pure speculation with little historical plausibility. A text-­critical decision can be exegetically supported insofar as the chosen initial reading (a) produces a plausible meaning in context and (b) is supported by contemporaneous parallels: Bauckham rightly observes that the author does adopt the concept of an ekpyrosis, but not in such a way that this must be strictly conceived as a destruction of all parts of the cosmos;845 rather, he used the concept independently such that the destruction of the world serves as an instrument of or preparation for the judgment of the wicked (v. 7).846 Significantly, the same sequence is found in Apoc. Pet. 5ff.: the cosmic conflagration (5) precedes the Parousia (6) and the subsequent judgment of sinners (7ff.), and after the statement that the stars and heavenly firmaments will be annihilated and the entire creation (!) will dissolve, there is—­inconsistently—­a description of people 839

So Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 317, who also presents and discusses the modern emendations. 840 So also Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 317: “As an emendation, the addition of οὐχ is the simplest proposed.” 841 So Bigg, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 213; Schrage, “Zweite Petrusbrief,” ad loc.; Fornberg, Church, 75–­77. 842 Thus Parker, Introduction, 308–­9, thinks that εὑρεθήσεται does not make sense in substance. Parker uses this passage in his text-­critical introduction as an example for the necessity of emendations in the text of the NT. On this, see Grünstäudl, “Feuer,” 200. 843 So Spicq, Épîtres, and Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, ad loc. 844 For criticism of the decision by the ECM see also J. K. Elliott, “Epistles,” 334; Kraus, Sprache, 16–­17. 845 The comparison with pagan and early Jewish (Sib. Or.) texts on the ekpyrosis shows that there was great variability in its depiction. 846 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 320.



Second Peter 3:10d

411

fleeing in all directions: from east to west, and from west to east—­apparently on the still-­existent earth—­and being overtaken by wrath (see above, p. 398). A further parallel is found in 2 Clem. 16.3. There, too, the day of judgment is compared with a blazing furnace in which some of the heavens and the entire earth melt like lead in the fire, but “then the hidden and visible works of human beings will come to light (φανήσεται)”. The earth melts, but like in 2 Pet 3:10, it is the works (of humanity) that are to become visible for judgment in the end. And here, too, the statements about destruction by fire lead to a statement about “works” (= deeds of humanity) becoming manifest, which corresponds in substance with the εὑρεθήσεται of 2 Pet 3:10.847 Conclusion: The difference between the statements about the destruction of the heavens and the elements, and the earth and her works “being found” can therefore be understood from the context (which is concerned with human actions being brought to judgment), and is supported by two contemporaneous parallels, 2 Clem. 16.3 and Apoc. Pet. The latter, though not an exact parallel, is especially illuminating in its overall structure of cosmic conflagration, Parousia, and judgment. Like in 2 Clem. 16.3, the motif of the cosmic conflagration is used here in the argumentative and above all paraenetic orientation toward judgment. Its literary depiction is intended to alarm readers and lead them to make ethical efforts (v. 11). This explains the abbreviated eclectic reception of the motif.

The depiction of the cosmic conflagration in v. 10b-­d follows the reference to the sudden arrival of the day of the Lord (v. 10a), and leads toward paraenesis regarding the coming judgment (v. 11-­12). In comparison with pagan and Hellenistic Jewish representations, above all in Sib. Or. (see above, pp. 396–97), this depiction is short and concise with three statements about the heavens (pl.), the “elements” (probably the celestial bodies below the firmaments, rather than the four elements of ancient cosmology), and the earth, which is notably linked with the “works in it,” showing that the concern here is not simply to present a taxonomy of the components of the cosmos, but rather that these components lead up to the observation of “works” and thus to the aspect of judgment. In v. 7 it was already emphasized that the present world (heavens and earth) is preserved for the fire on the day of judgment, when the impious will be destroyed. This is the aim of the depiction in v. 10 and v. 12, where the reference to the “day of the Lord” (v. 10) and “day of God” (v. 12) is emphatically repeated. The brief portrayals in vv. 7, 10, and 12 thus supplement and illuminate one another. The taxonomy of the depiction in v. 10 proceeds from ‘above’ to ‘below.’ First is the decay/disappearance of the heavens. The verb παρέρχεσθαι also occurs in the synoptic tradition (Matt 24:35 par.; Luke 16:17 par.) in connection with the 847

Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 320–­21.

412

Second Peter: Commentary

destruction of the heaven and earth. The notion that this is a destruction by fire is only indicated here by the onomatopoeic ῥοιζηδόν (“with a rush/whoosh”848), and it is striking that 2 Pet does not use the terms commonly employed in Stoic texts (ἀναλύεσθαι, διαλύεσθαι). When the statement about the heavens is repeated in v. 12, the wording is clearer and at the same time closer to common ekpyrosis terminology: the heavens will dissolve in fire (πυρούμενοι λυθήσονται). After the heavens, the στοιχεῖα (“elements”) are also said to dissolve in fire (καυσούμενα λυθήσεται). In Stoic texts, στοιχεῖα normally denotes the four elements,849 which will then disintegrate into fire, the primal element. But this sense is somewhat unlikely here; instead, the reference here between the heavens and the earth is probably to the celestial bodies, which according to a widespread conception were located between the heavenly firmaments and the earth.850 A series of other Christian texts of the second century used στοιχεῖα in this sense,851 and Apoc. Pet. 5, alongside the firmaments of heaven, also speaks of the stars of the heavens that will melt in the fire. Verse 12 then repeats the statement and affirms this sense with the use of the verb τήκεσθαι (“melt”): the elements (= celestial bodies) will melt in fire (στοιχεῖα καυσούμενα τήκεται).852 The third statement concludes with the earth and the works (performed) upon it. The assumption that this, too, must refer to destruction or incineration is not compelling. While v. 7 already says that heaven and earth are being preserved for the fire on the day of judgment, the significant aspect here is chiefly that they are being brought to judgment. Furthermore, the reference to works in v. 10 is noteworthy, for these are in fact the actual object of the divine judgment. When εὑρεθήσεται is used here in contrast to the two verbs of disappearance or dissolution in the first two parts, this surprising phrase directs the focus even more toward this concluding statement and its significance. If εὑρεθήσεται here (in the sense of a passivum divinum) is to be taken in reference to God as the acting agent of the entire event, then the sense of this statement is that the earth and (above all) the deeds done upon it will be “found” by God—­that is, they will stand open and unconcealed before God’s eyes. In addition, in a somewhat anthropomorphic image, the disappearance 848

On this see Kraus, Sprache, 344. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 316. 850 So also Ruf, Propheten, 518; Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 286; and cautiously Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 316; and Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 167. The reference is certainly not to angelic powers, which has been conjectured primarily based on the use of στοιχεῖα in Paul (Gal 4:3) and in Col 2:8, 20. 851 Cf. Theoph., Autol. 1.4–­6; 2.15, 35; Justin, 2 Apol. 5.2; Dial. 23.3; Polycrates of Ephesus, in Euseb., Hist. eccl. 3.31.2; and Tatian, Or. Graec. 9–­10; see Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 316. 852 Cf. 2 Clem. 16.3, where τήκεσθαι relates to “some of the heavens and the whole earth.” 849



Second Peter 3:10d-13

413

and melting away of the heavenly spheres and bodies serve to reveal the works of humanity, open and undisguised before God.853 This depiction also becomes clearer against the backdrop of Apoc. Pet. 5, where after the melting of the celestial bodies and firmaments of heaven, it is said that people will wander about fearful and defenseless upon the earth and “everywhere will the wrath of the fearful fire overtake them.” For 2 Pet 3:10 as well, Apoc. Pet. provides “a conceptual backdrop rich in imagery, against which the brief statements of the letter gain clarity.”854 The closest parallel, though, is found in 2 Clem. 16.3, where after the melting of heaven and earth, human works become the focus: “And then the hidden and visible works of human beings will come to light.”855 The fact that the descriptions of the ekpyrosis in vv. 7 and 10 culminate in the statement about the judgment reveals that that author is primarily concerned with this goal of the judgment, rather than the ekpyrosis itself. He therefore also draws more strongly on biblical and early Christian traditions than the technical terminology of Stoic thought. c) Ethical consequences and the hope for a new world (3:11-­13) (11) Since all these things will dissolve in this way, what sort (of people) must you be in holy ways of life and pieties, (12) you who anticipate and hasten the arrival of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be dissolved in fire and the elements melt away in a blaze! (13) But we await in accordance with his promise new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.

The final section of the eschatological argumentation focuses on the ethical implications of the upcoming judgment and the time still granted for repentance. The image of the cosmic conflagration is still in view here, before a closing aphorism drawing on the biblical promise articulates hope for the eschatological new creation. This final affirmation of the eschatological expectation concludes the discussion of the objections of the “scoffers,”856 before v. 14 then formulates 853 Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 319, who regards εὑρεθήσεται as synonymous with verbs like φανήσεται (“will come to light”), φανερωθήσεται (“will be made manifest”) or φανερὰ γενέσθαι (“will become visible”), which occur in comparable contexts; cf. Mark 4:22; Luke 18:17; John 3:21; 1 Cor 3:13; 14:25; Eph 5:13; and above all 2 Clem. 16.3. 854 Grünstäudl, “Feuer,” 201–­2 . The fact that Apoc. Pet. was then gradually forgotten could also explain why 2 Pet 3:10—­without this presupposed scenario—­“was no longer understood and (beginning already with 𝔓72!) a series of corrections were offered for the difficult εὑρεθήσεται containing the motif of destruction” (202). 855 Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 320, whose suggestion that 2 Clem. 16.3 draws on the same source as a 2 Pet 3:10, 12, however, is unconvincing. 856 As Kraus, Sprache, 402, remarks, the section vv. 5-­13 is delineated largely based on external considerations. Different outlines are thus proposed in Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 116 (vv. 10-­15a) and Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 321 (vv. 11-­16).

414

Second Peter: Commentary

the transition to the letter closing with an inferential διό and another address to the readers as ἀγαπητοί. 11 Verse 11 first connects with λυθήσεται from v. 10: “Since all these things will dissolve in this way . . .”857 The dissolution of “everything” summarizes the entire destructive event, the burning of the heavens and heavenly bodies, the destruction of the cosmos and and the judgment of the world that begins with this. The formulation is similar to the summary phrase in Apoc. Pet. (E) 5, which transitions analogously from the ekpyrosis to the reaction of humanity: “And as soon as the whole creation is dissolved, the men who are in the east shall flee to the west . . .” Of course, if the text-­critical preference for εὑρεθήσεται is correct, v. 10 does not speak of the dissolution or destruction of all parts of the cosmos. In this respect, the connection is not completely consistent, but it does link up with λυθήσεται in the statement about the ‘elements.’ With the backdrop of the depiction found in Apoc. Pet. 5, the summarizing phrase can be more easily explained. This does not create a compelling reason for a different text-­critical decision in v. 10d.858

The vivid scenario of v. 10 is apparently meant to make an impression on the addressees, and the exclamation “what sort of people must you be!” anticipates their fear in view of the reality of the conflagration and cosmic judgment. The direct address shows that this paraenetic implication is the author’s main concern.859 If God’s power is able to melt the elements of the world as suddenly as a thief in the night, as it has been described, then the greatest effort and utmost vigilance is required of the addressees in order to take advantage of the opportunity for repentance and strive for an ethical and “holy” way of life, and thus to avoid condemnation in the coming judgment. The plural formulations here are noteworthy: “holy way of life” and “piety” are both expressed in the plural. This probably refers less to a multitude of individual forms 857 The participle can be taken as temporal or causal (on this, see Kraus, Sprache, 273; Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 119). The reference to the future in v. 10 still determines the present participle here. Indeed, v. 10 specifically seeks to articulate the present ethical consequence of the anticipated judgment. Contra Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 366, who reads the present participle as emphasizing the threatening proximity of the eschaton. 858 The connection is even less able to justify the assumption (in Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 324) that a Jewish source is incorporated here in an abbreviated form. 859 Ruf, Propheten, 551, observes that the pronouns in the second person are used precisely where “important teachings are invoked” (v. 9) “or consequences are drawn from them paraenetically.”



Second Peter 3:11-12

415

of lifestyle860 than to the multitude of actions in which “holiness” and “piety” ought to be practiced concretely.861

The aim of the depiction of the cosmic conflagration is thus not only to engage with the opponents’ argument within the categories of contemporary cosmology but ultimately to convey the paraenesis, the admonition to prove oneself ethically in the context of the judgment that has defined this letter from the beginning. Conversely, the fundamental significance of eschatology is demonstrated precisely in the realm of ethics, especially if the opposing teachers have drawn ethical conclusions from their rejection of the expectation of the Parousia. 12 Verse 12 therefore again reaffirms the ‘orthodoxy’ of the addressees. In contrast with the opposing teachers, they are people who anticipate the “arrival” (παρουσία) with hope (even if they erroneously think it is “delayed”). At the same time, it is this anticipation that the author seeks to stimulate and keep alive in his addressees. It is striking here that the addressees’ activity is not limited to hopeful anticipation. Rather, they themselves “hasten” (σπεύδοντας) the arrival of the day of God. An additional power is ascribed to the expectation of the Parousia. This may come as a surprise given the emphasis on God’s sovereignty over the world, and such a positive assessment of the power of anticipation has—­probably for ideological reasons—­been disputed by some interpreters and in some translations.862 But such statements can certainly be made in the context of an emotional-­a ffective understanding of time in which temporal proximity and distance are not objective realities. For evidence, one can point to the rabbinic idea that human conduct such as repentance or observance of the Sabbath helps to bring about salvation.863 Though these later texts (mostly talmudic) could not have influenced the author, there is in older Jewish apocalypticism already the idea that the prayers and actions of the pious shorten the days of affliction and move God to intervene.864 Such statements reflect contemplation of the significance of human conduct in the events of the world and of salvation, and are appropriate precisely in this paraenesis, for they lend weight to the effort for a “holy way of life” and the hopeful anticipation of the Parousia. 860

So Grundmann, Brief, 118. Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 120. 862 Thus, without explanation, Maurer, “προσδοκάω,” 727, who claims that σπεύδω “can and must mean here: strive for, aspire to”; some translations of the Bible follow this weakened meaning. But see, in contrast, Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 367; Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 120; Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 170; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 241. 863 References in Grundmann, Brief, 118. 864 1 En. 104:3–­4; T. Dan. 6:4; As. Mos. 1.18; T. Ab. 29; cf. also Acts 3:19-­20 and 2 Clem. 12.6. 861

416

Second Peter: Commentary

It is striking that here, too, in the context of the expectation of the faithful, there is no mention of the “Parousia” of Christ but rather of the “Parousia” of the “day of God.” This formulation is “almost without analogy”865 in early Christianity and appears to aim at a cosmic finale rather than the personal arrival of Jesus Christ.866 Substantively, the expression may well correspond with the traditional notion of the “day of the Lord” (which was mentioned in v. 10a in a piece of Jesus tradition), but also deviates from it significantly, as well as from the language of the day of “his” (i.e., Christ’s) Parousia, which was more common in early Christianity and is also found in 2 Pet 1:16 and 3:4b. One can try to explain the chosen formulation by the largely unchristological language in 3:5-­13, in which the cosmic catastrophes (3:5-­7) are attributed to God or God’s word, as of course the new world in v. 13 rests on God’s promise (Isa 65:17; 66:22: “I will make”).867 This might then suggest the negative view that the author has abandoned the christological orientation of eschatology, which was fundamental to emerging Christianity, and has in a certain sense ‘fallen back’ to a view of world history and the judgment that is independent of Christ.868 Yet such (mis)judgments arise only if—­as in most commentaries thus far—­the context provided by Apoc. Pet. is not taken into account. Against the backdrop of Apoc. Pet. 5, not only are the individual features of the ekpyrosis depiction in 2 Pet 3:7, 10, 12, explained without difficulty, but so is the extensive absence of Christ or his Parousia in this event. A reference to the “day of God” and its arrival is attested in addition to (or before) 2 Pet 3:12 only in Apoc. Pet. (E) 4.1: “Behold now what they shall experience in the last days, when the day of God comes.” It is noteworthy here that Apoc. Pet. refers to the judgment as the “day of God,” but then fills this out substantively with the coming of Christ for judgment (Apoc. Pet. 6.1–­2), whereby Christ’s Parousia and the subsequent judgment of sinners is preceded by the dissolution of creation in the cosmic conflagration, and so this event is not yet associated with Christ and his activity. With this in mind, the claim that 2 Pet 3:5-­13 presents an ‘unchristological’ image of the end of the world, Parousia, and judgment is subject to critical scrutiny.869 This impression only arises if one disregards the scenario in Apoc. Pet., which underlies 2 Pet 3.

The closing of v. 12 again takes up the cosmic conflagration motif from vv. 7 and 10, though the scenario presented in v. 10 is not expanded any further, and only made clearer in particular aspects. Thus, the melting of the στοιχεῖα is mentioned here (cf. Sib. Or. 3.80ff.), which unambiguously clarifies that this 865

Vögtle, Judasbrief, 241. So Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 367. 867 Thus the explanation in, e.g., Vögtle, Judasbrief, 241–­42 and 274–­76. 868 Thus the striking polemic in Käsemann, “Apologie.” 869 Thus, rightly, Grünstäudl, “Feuer,” 195. 866



Second Peter 3:12-13

417

refers to the celestial bodies. The connecting prepositional phrase δι᾽ ἣν . . . is interesting: the heavens and celestial bodies will dissolve in a blaze because of the day of judgment, which here is called the “day of God” (as it is in Apoc. Pet. 4, and nowhere else). That is, the dissolution of the cosmos in the conflagration is only a preparation for the judgment of humanity and its works (cf. v. 10d)—­ it is not the judgment itself. This is also consistent with the scenario in Apoc. Pet. in which, on the “day of God” (Apoc. Pet. 4), only after the dissolution of the celestial bodies and the firmaments of heaven (Apoc. Pet. 5) does Christ appear at the Parousia (Apoc. Pet. 6) and the judgment begin. Against the backdrop of this text a number of aporias in the terminology and scenario of 2 Pet 3 are resolved. 13 The conclusion of the argumentative section begins with an antithesis: “But we await new heavens and a new earth (καινοὺς δὲ οὐρανοὺς καὶ γῆν καινὴν) in accordance with his promise.” The destruction of the old is emphatically contrasted with the expectation of the new. At the same time, there is a striking shift from the exhortative ‘you’ style to the inclusive ‘we’: with προσδοκῶμεν, which unites ‘Peter’ and the addressees, the author now articulates the positive hope for salvation, which he shares with the addressees and the apostolic tradition, and which is promised in biblical prophecy. This rhetorically reestablishes camaraderie with the addressees (despite the cautious criticism in v. 9), who together with the author and in contrast to the opponents hold fast to the eschatological expectation in accordance with the promise. This promise is also grounded in the prophecy of Scripture. In LXX Isa 65:17 and 66:22 “the new heaven and the new earth” (ὁ οὐρανὸς καινὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ καινή) are promised as God’s creation, although in those passages there is no mention of a preceding catastrophe870 and it remains unclear whether this indicates a different cosmos or rather the healing restoration of the one cosmos. The expression “new creation” is adopted and intensified in some early Jewish texts, where the disappearance of the present world becomes increasingly explicit and thus a truly new creation is implied. The first mention of the disappearance of the first heaven and the emergence of a new heaven is found in the Apocalypse of Weeks in 1 En. 91:16, which takes up Isa 65:17, and it is thus understood in the sense of a completely new creation. Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 3.10 also explicitly speaks of a different heaven and a different earth. Jubilees 1:29 and 4:26 refer to a “new creation” without explicitly mentioning a previous catastrophe, and in 4 Ezra 7:30 the old world falls into a seven-­day silence before waking anew. Other early Jewish texts seem to indicate more of a transformation or 870

A partial destruction could, however, be implied in Isa 66:15-­16; see Mayer, Weltenbrand, 104–­14.

418

Second Peter: Commentary

renewal of heaven and earth, as in 1 En. 45:4-­5; 2 Bar. 32:6; 44:12 (where there is still reference to a “new world”); 49:3; 57:2, and L.A.B. 32.17. In the NT, the notion of a completely new creation is clear in Rev 21:1 (cf. 20:11b), where it is explicit that the first heaven and the first earth are gone and no longer exist. Here—­despite the ‘earthly’ vividness in Rev 21–­22—­the concept of a “total demise of the existing cosmos”871 and a completely new creation can hardly be avoided.872 This also appears to be the sense of 2 Pet 3:13, where the dissolution of the entire cosmos has been vividly described beforehand. It remains unclear, however (as it does in Rev 21) how this new world will come into existence and how the faithful receive a share in it—­indeed, enter into it.873

The new creation after the catastrophe in preparation for judgment appears here in analogy to the formation of the present world after the flood (likewise understood as a cosmic catastrophe, cf. v. 6). In this respect, the Stoic concept of a theoretically unending cycle of cosmic conflagration and rebirth is corrected on a crucial point. This “new” world is not destined for destruction; rather, as the eschatological salvific state of existence, it is final, precisely because the destruction here is not understood as a natural event but as God’s judgment, and the threat of such a judgment no longer exists if the new world—­as promised here—­is characterized by “righteousness” and is free of sin. This is made explicit in LXX Isa 65:25 (although here only in reference to the “holy mountain” Zion), and is presupposed for the new creation, after the destruction of the godless in the judgment (2 Pet 3:7). Here 2 Pet 3:13 takes up a widespread image in early Jewish apocalypticism: the world to come is the world “in which corruption has passed away, sinful indulgence has come to an end, unbelief has been cut off, and righteousness has increased and truth has appeared” (4 Ezra 7:113-­114),874 and according to Rom 14:17 the kingdom of God is characterized by “righteousness, peace, and joy.” The statement that righteousness “dwells” in this anticipated new world indicates that the nature of this state of salvation is permanent and no longer contested. III. Letter Closing 871

Vögtle, “Dann sah ich,” 305; Adams, Stars, 238–­39. Exegetes are often—­above all for canonical texts—­anxious to avoid this conclusion and assert a continuity or the OT notion of a restitution; see most recently Stephens, Annihilation. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 326, also weakens the aforementioned apocalyptic texts in his comments: “It is nevertheless clear that they intend to describe a renewal, not an abolition, of creation.” 873 Ruf, Propheten, 525. 874 Trans. Metzger (OTP). On righteousness in the era of salvation, see also Isa 9:7; 11:4-­5; Pss. Sol. 17:40; 1 En. 5:8-­9; 10:16, 20-­21; 91:17; 2 En. 65:8. 872



Second Peter 3:13-18a

419

After this line of argument about the eschatological expectation and its impressive conclusion, the author begins the letter closing in 3:14.875 This consists of two sentences in vv. 14-­16 and vv. 17-­18. The beginning of this section is marked by another address to the readers (cf. Jude 20) and the inferential conjunction διό. The admonition in v. 15 turns into a short digression with the reference to Paul, his letters, and their misinterpretation (vv. 15b-­16). This is followed by two final imperative admonitions marked by another emphatic address (vv. 17-­18a), before the brief, closing doxology (v. 18b) brings the letter abruptly to an end.876 1. The Closing Admonition with Reference to Paul (3:14-­18a) (14) Therefore, beloved, because you expect these things, endeavor to be found stainless and without blemish before him in peace (15) and regard the forbearance of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you in accordance with the wisdom given to him, (16) as also in all letters when he speaks in them about these things, in which (letters) some things are difficult to understand, which the unlearned and unstable distort, as (they) also (distort) the other Scriptures to their own destruction. (17) But you, beloved, since you know in advance, take care lest you, led astray by the aberration of the lawless, fall from your own stability. (18a) But grow in grace and in knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

A letter closing normally does not need to add anything new: it draws the conclusions from what has been said, repeats what is known, and exhorts this again emphatically. This is true of vv. 14-­15a and 17-­18. Between the two, strikingly and in a prominent position,877 we find a surprising reference to Paul and his letters. In this regard the letter closing is certainly “rhetorically thought out.”878 14 The inferential διό and a renewed address to the readers mark the new segment,879 whereby the participle of προσδοκᾶν (“expect, wait for”) explicitly picks up on a keyword of the theme of eschatological anticipation (vv. 12-­13) and its ethical implications are presented: precisely because the addressees share this expectation of the arrival of the “day of God” and of the new creation defined 875

Watson, Invention, 135, sees this as a peroratio. For a more nuanced approach, see Ruf, Propheten, 161n386. 876 For the analysis, see Kraus, Sprache, 402. 877 One should not, however, overemphasize the fact that this is mentioned in the place where other letters have closing greetings (contra Frankemölle, 1. Petrusbrief, 2. Petrusbrief, Judasbrief, 116). The literary fiction of 2 Pet does not allow for closing greetings. 878 Ruf, Propheten, 160. 879 So also Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 172; with a different approach, but hardly plausibly, Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 323, takes vv. 11-­16 as a unit.

420

Second Peter: Commentary

by “righteousness,”880 they ought to follow through by using the time granted in forbearance for repentance (v. 9; cf. analogously 2 Clem. 16.1) and practice a holy and pious way of life (v. 11), or, as it is said here, make an effort (as the imperative σπουδάσατε demands) “to be found stainless and without blemish before him in peace.” When this day comes—­suddenly and unexpectedly—­ the addressees should be “in peace,” prepared for the encounter with the Judge and Savior.881 The closing section links back not only to the eschatological argumentation in 3:3-­13, but also to the ethical introductory section of the letter and the characterization of the opponents: the imperative σπουδάσατε picks up on the beginning of the virtue catalog in 1:5, 10, where the addressees were called on to make every effort (σπουδὴν πᾶσαν) for a virtuous life in accordance with the virtues of the savior Jesus Christ (1:5), or to eagerly endeavor (σπουδάσατε) to make their own calling firm (1:10). The attributes “stainless and without blemish” (ἄσπιλοι καὶ ἀμώμητοι)882 form a clear contrast with the characterization of the “false teachers” in 2:13 as “stains and blemishes” (σπίλοι καὶ μῶμοι). The expression “be found (εὑρεθῆναι) before him”883 picks up εὑρεθήσεται, which was surprising and difficult in v. 10d, and clarifies that this is concerned with a forensic event in that people and their way of life or their deeds will be “found” by God or Christ884 and subjected to examination on the day of the Parousia or the judgment. The formulaic phrase “in peace” (ἐν εἰρήνῃ) is not unambiguous, since εἰρήνη is otherwise used in 2 Pet only in the prescript (1:2) in the salutatio, 880

ταῦτα need not refer only to v. 13 but could also include the expectation of the arrival of the “day of God,” i.e., the day of judgment, mentioned in v. 12. 881 The distinction between God and Christ in “before him” is not specified more precisely, as is often the case in 2 Pet. 882 Both terms occur frequently in the NT and later texts, independently or with synonyms (see references in Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 326), often in an eschatological context to designate the state in which the faithful or the church ought to be found at the Parousia, including three times in connection with εὑρίσκειν (1 Clem. 50.2, Herm. Sim. 5.6.7, Ign. Trall. 13.3). ἀμώμου καὶ ἀσπίλου occurs in 1 Pet 1:19 with reference to Christ as the sacrificial lamb, although this is hardly concerned with a cultic context of a consecration (but cf. Jude 24), but rather the metaphorical sense of moral-­ethical purity. 883 The dative does not denote the agent of εὑρεθῆναι (which would rather be construed with ὑπό), but the relation: “before him,” “under his gaze,” especially in the forensic context. 884 This formulation (in the passive) occurs in 2 Cor 5:3; Phil 3:9; 1 Pet 1:7, and in the active in Mark 13:36; Matt 24:46; Luke 12:37-­38, 43; and Rev 3:2-­3. In the Apostolic Fathers cf. 1 Clem. 35.4 (found among those who wait for him); Ign. Trall. 13.3 (in the letter closing and with the attribute ἄμωμοι); and Herm. Sim. 5.6.7 (with the attributes ἀμίαντος καὶ ἄσπιλος). Cf. Ruf, Propheten, 161n367.



Second Peter 3:14-15b

421

where the term is conventional. Generally,885 an existence “in salvation” could be the intended meaning, in correct faith and the corresponding way of life. εἰρήνη points to “that comprehensive state of being of Christian praxis, which was already mentioned in the prescript.”886 It is questionable whether one may conclude from this that the author expects that his addressees will experience the eschaton in their own lifetimes.887 With such an imminent expectation, he would himself have succumbed to the temptation of setting a fixed date for the eschaton, which he rejects in v. 9. Verse 14 offers no indication that this is the case.

15a The final admonition of this sequence once again takes up the issue of understanding the time granted in the present or disputing a supposed “delay” of the Parousia, discussed in v. 9, which the author had instructed should be seen as God’s “forbearance,” grounded in God’s will for salvation. The phrase “our Lord” here is rather suggestive of Christ—­although the distinction between God and Christ in terms of their eschatological functions remains vague. The present is a time for repentance; it should be used for this purpose and thus be conducive to salvation. This is once again emphasized in a summary form: the “forbearance” (μακροθυμία) of God or Christ is—­as expressed in an equation that is not entirely coherent—­salvation (σωτηρία). That is, for the addressees it is the opportunity to make their salvation “firm” through repentance (cf. 1:10) and thus obtain the goal of salvation—­namely, entry into the “eternal kingdom of Christ” (1:11) or participation in the new world defined by righteousness. God’s forbearance is grounded in God’s will for salvation (v. 9) and serves the salvation of the addressees. The addressees ought to arrive at this point of view (which leaves no room for the notion of a delay or, indeed, the unreliability of God or Christ). 15b This is followed by a surprising note about Paul, his letters, and their misinterpretation by uninformed and unstable Christians. This comment is of the greatest significance for determining the historical situation of 2 Pet as well as for its interpretation and canonical status, and has substantially defined the 885 A more specific connotation in the sense of “peace with God” (cf. Rom 5:1) is not found here, nor does it fit with the language of 2 Pet; the same applies to “peace with other people” (cf. Heb 12:14). 886 Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 172. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 327, renders this “in the state of reconciliation with God,” but this is not concerned with concrete acts of repentance or reconciliation, nor with the later distinction between a state of (deadly) sin and a state of grace. Such ecclesiastical distinctions are far removed from 2 Pet. 887 So Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 327; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 262.

422

Second Peter: Commentary

scholarly discussion of this letter. The overarching questions in this discussion will be considered in an excursus following the exegesis. Verse 15b, linked to the preceding by means of a comparative phrase (καθὼς καί), first presents a sentence that adds an affirming parallel to the imperative exhortation in v. 15a (ἡγεῖσθε): “ just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you in accordance with the wisdom given to him.” An explicit reference to another text is uncommon in 2 Pet (cf. only 3:1), and passages from Scripture are never identified or even introduced with a quotation formula.888 Here, too, no specific passage is identified or quoted, and so the argument is simply that Paul somewhere wrote the same thing as expressed in v. 15a, that God’s forbearance serves the addressees’ salvation. There is no direct parallel in the Pauline letters.889 At best, one can point to Rom 2:4, where God’s μακροθυμία is mentioned and it is then said that God’s clemency “leads you to repentance.”890 However, Rom 2:4 presents more of a parallel to the argumentation in v. 9, where the verb μακροθυμεῖν and μετάνοια occur, and is only indirectly parallel to v. 15a. This raises the question as to why this confirmation was not included after v. 9 (i.e., in the course of the argument itself) instead of here. One further aspect must be considered; it is explicit that Paul has written this to the addressees (“you”). This presupposes that the corresponding statement—­if the reference is specific—­is available to the addressees of 2 Pet. However, the addressees cannot be identified with a specific letter by Paul (such as Romans), and 2 Pet 3:15 certainly offers no information about the destination of 2 Pet. More probable is the suggestion that the Pauline letters are already available to the addressees in the form of a collection (cf. v. 16). Such collections probably first came into existence after Paul’s (and Peter’s) death. It is likely that Rom 2:4 (and perhaps other texts) were known to the addressees in a collection of Pauline letters.891 Nevertheless, this comment does not aim to identify a precise ‘scriptural reference’ or a comparison text,892 888 In terms of language, καθὼς καί is comparable to the reference to Jesus’ prophecy of Peter’s death in 1:14, where an additional authority or source of information is similarly cited. 889 On attempts to identify the reference of the comment as being in v. 14, v. 15a, vv. 14-­15a, or the letter as a whole, see Ruf, Propheten, 164. 890 Other proposed passages such as 1 Cor 1:7ff. or Eph 4:30 or 1 Tim 6:14 are less clearly recognizable as parallels (on this, see Ruf, Propheten, 167–­70). On divine forbearance and its goal of leading to repentance and salvation, see further 1 Tim 2:4. 891 The author is apparently of the opinion that the Pauline letters apply, not just to individual congregations but also, as a collection, to all Christians (so Wehr, Petrus und Paulus, 334). 892 So already Knopf, Briefe Petri und Judä, 324, and Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 371: “Peter’s reference is . . . general.” Cf. also Ruf, Propheten, 172.



Second Peter 3:15b

423

but rather (especially in the context of the expansion in v. 16a) more generally to point out that Paul has written the same thing. Thus, the comment need not refer only or primarily to the preceding sentence (v. 15a) or its point of reference (v. 9) but can denote the ‘apostolic’ reminder and argumentation in a broader context of eschatology and ethics, for which the author now claims fundamental agreement with Paul. Finally, two other features emerge as noteworthy in the affirming comparison. First, the unreservedly positive introduction of the ‘coapostle’ as “our beloved brother Paul” is striking. This emphasizes the personal acquaintance with and esteem for Paul and should be regarded as a corroborating element of the Petrine authorial fiction.893 While Paul is not explicitly identified as an apostle here,894 his authority and high regard is clear. The author—­out of conviction or nolens volens—­presents a very positive image of Paul as equal to Peter. This is striking from a historical perspective, considering that Paul was by no means acknowledged by the Jerusalem apostles or even in Acts as being on par with the twelve apostles, even if historically this criticism or rejection is hardly likely to have originated with Peter. The fact that the relationship between Paul and Peter was not unproblematic is shown above all by Gal 2:11-­16. Unfortunately, there are no authentic extant statements from Peter’s perspective. Paul’s letters nevertheless show a positive acknowledgment of Peter (1 Cor 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11), which was perhaps also nolens volens; Peter’s authority was uncontested at the time of the Pauline mission, while Paul’s required constant justification. Second Peter 3 seems to reflect the reverse situation. ‘Peter’ pays tribute to Paul not just as a coapostle, but even emphasizes personal unity with him as a “beloved brother” (which ultimately manifests Pauline language).895 One can therefore surmise that Paul’s authority in the author’s context was undisputed, so that ‘Peter’ had to take this authority into account in all substantive disagreements and thus—­correctly or not—­emphasizes agreement with his brother Paul.

The second, somewhat less clear expansion is the phrase “the wisdom granted to him.” This also sounds quite positive and is based on a Pauline formulation in that Paul often speaks of the grace (χάρις) “given” to him (Rom 12:3; 15:15; 1 Cor 3:10; Gal 2:9).896 893

The fact that language of the “beloved brother” rather than the apostolic title is used here conforms to the fiction. This does not provide an argument with regard to either the authenticity of the letter or a refusal on the author’s part to acknowledge Paul as an apostle. 894 The notion that this title is intentionally withheld here (so G. Klein, Apostel, 105) is misguided. See also Vögtle, “Petrus und Paulus,” 280–­81. 895 On this, see Ruf, Propheten, 174. 896 Ruf, Propheten, 175.

424

Second Peter: Commentary

Later texts speak of other gifts “given” such as faith (Pol. Phil. 3.2; 4.2), knowledge (Barn. 9.8; 19.1), or spirit (Herm. Mand. 10.2.6; 10.3.2; 11.5). Mark 6:2 and Jas 1:5 refer to σοφία as a gift “given” or to be requested, but σοφία is also claimed by Paul himself, primarily in the Corinthian context; it acquires an even greater weight in Col and Eph, and according to Pol. Phil. 3.1, Paul is characterized by special wisdom. Not least, in Gal 2:9 the Jerusalem faction, including Peter, acknowledges the χάρις given to Paul and thus affirm his gospel. Martin Ruf (Propheten, 175) therefore suggests that the phrase κατὰ τὴν δοθεῖσαν αὐτῷ σοφίαν is intentionally reminiscent of Gal 2:9.

The giver of these gifts is of course God (passivum divinum), from whom Paul’s wisdom derives. In this respect, 2 Pet does not directly criticize Paul. Indeed, the image presented here of brotherly harmony between the ‘apostolic colleagues’ glosses over the tensions between Peter and Paul known from the period of emerging Christianity (Gal 2:11-­16). Instead, the apostles are depicted as a collective (cf. 2 Pet 3:2), and Peter and Paul as united teachers of the church in substantive agreement, just as they are presented together in 1 Clem. 5.3–­7 as “good apostles” and martyrs, or in Ign. Rom. 4.3 as teachers.897 This can be understood in a time when the specific disagreements of the apostolic period gave way in retrospect to a harmonious image of the ‘birth’ of Christianity.898 However, the formulation of the “wisdom granted to him” can also be read with a certain nuance, and it remains to be asked whether it is really meant to be “unreservedly positive,”899 or might contain some relativization of Pauline teaching after all.900 The wisdom “granted to him” is not identical to that of ‘Peter,’ and if the letters of Paul are so ambiguous that they bring some readers to an unhealthy reading, even into ruin (v. 16), then this wisdom cannot stand on its own without interpretation but must be read in view of the apostolic truth. The author, in the guise of Peter, seeks to recall this truth. Thus, while the comment in v. 15 does not express any criticism of Paul himself, the author does claim to know that Paul ‘actually’ wrote in accordance with his own teaching and must be understood in this way. But since on several points he sets a very different theological emphasis than Paul (in his authentic letters and the deutero-­Paulines), this can certainly be seen as a usurpation of Pauline tradition in a way that is in fact rather critical of Paul. 897

So also Kelly, Epistles of Peter and Jude, 370; cf. Frey, “Apostelbegriff,” 99–­106 and 110–­11. 898 Evidence of this abstraction and harmonization of the image of the apostles can already be found in Eph, then Acts, and the tendency continues in the Apostolic Fathers. 899 So Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 173. 900 On this, see Donelson, I & II Peter and Jude, 283: The indirect wording “may reflect the dangers that Paul’s Letters pose.”



Second Peter 3:15b-16

425

Even so, the issue of Peter’s “priority” over Paul,901 which is entirely inspired by the historically influenced discourse about the primacy of the bishop of Rome, hardly seems appropriate to the text. Even though the author, in the guise of Peter, asserts his own position as the standard for the correct interpretation of Paul, he does so with reference to an existing Pauline corpus, which the audience can compare with his statements and also—­with sufficiently sharp eyes—­observe disagreements. This would be the task of a ‘canonical’ reading, which is concerned not with priority, but rather with the simultaneity of various theological accentuations.

16 The statement of v. 15b is now expanded with another comparative phrase: Paul has written in this way “in all letters when he speaks in them about these things.” It remains unclear here what Paul is specifically supposed to have affirmed in all his letters. Is this statement still concerned with God’s forbearance and its salvific purpose, or is v. 15b already oriented toward a broader thematic context? The imprecise wording gives the impression that it is concerned with agreement on a larger scale, so that beyond individual parallels there is a broad harmony between the two apostles.902 It is historically interesting here that the phrase ἐν πάσαις ἐπιστολαῖς903 presupposes the notion of Paul’s letters as a complete unit, and thus a collection of those letters. The scope of this collection remains unclear, but one can assume that such collections probably did not take shape during Paul’s ministry in the communities of Asia Minor and Greece, but rather afterward, even after his death. First Clement already presupposes several letters of Paul; Ignatius (Eph. 12.2), 2 Clem., and Polycarp were probably acquainted with a collection of letters, as was Marcion, who likely adopted such a collection, which he then edited in accordance with his own views.904 The reference to “all letters” goes beyond the circumstances at the time of Paul and Peter. That is, the authorial fiction has been shattered to a certain extent (even if the addressees might not necessarily recognize this).

An additional statement follows: the author is apparently concerned not only with the agreement between Paul and Peter, or between himself and the Pauline tradition, but also with a current issue in the reading and understanding of Paul’s letters. They are indeed difficult to understand or ambiguous, and from the author’s perspective are in fact grossly misunderstood by some people. With 901

As Wehr, Petrus und Paulus, 335, seeks to demonstrate. It is therefore hardly justified to ask from this starting point which topoi this agreement is claimed for (such as eschatology; so Paulsen, Zweite Petrusbrief und Judasbrief, 174). General agreement is presupposed, but not supported with verifiable texts. 903 The ECM has chosen the variant ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς, which is attested in very few manuscripts and in Ps.-­Oecumenius. This is incorrect in my opinion, but the variant has no effect on the meaning. 904 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 331; cf. Schnelle, Einleitung, 429–­30. 902

426

Second Peter: Commentary

a relative clause whose antecedent is “all letters,” the author asserts that some things in them are δυσνόητος (difficult to understand). This rare word (a NT hapax legomenon) is elsewhere found in reference to the symbolic visions of Hermas (Sim. 9.14.4) or opaque philosophical texts such as Heraclitus (Diog. Laert. 9.13).905 The statement does not call Paul’s wisdom into doubt, but indicates the danger of misunderstanding and misinterpretation. This brings the letter to the level of the current dispute and the main concern of the author’s argument. It is probably the “false teachers” (2:1) whom he accuses of misinterpreting Paul’s letters. The reading and interpretation of these letters and other texts likely takes place in the context of community instruction (i.e., by teachers). If the reference here were simply to uncertain community members or those influenced by the opponents, we should probably expect a greater effort to instruct them here, but the characterization discrediting those concerned as uninformed and instable points to the opponents, who were treated similarly in 2:1ff. Above all, the identification of the negative soteriological consequence “to their own destruction” (πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν αὐτῶν ἀπώλειαν) brings to mind the “false teachers” of 2:1, 3; or 2:19.

They are now the subject of the following relative clause, where as in 2:1ff. they are only qualified in negative terms—­in contrast to their claim as teachers—­as “uninformed” and “unstable.” The latter could perhaps include those who have been led astray by the opponents (cf. 2:18),906 but even then those who cause their destruction are primarily in view. They are accused of “distorting” these things that are “difficult to understand.” στρεβλοῦν denotes twisting or perverting907—­ that is, probably the appropriation of the Pauline letters for positions that Paul, according to the author, cannot have supported. They are guilty of creating a misunderstanding, a false teaching, that leads to destruction (cf. 2:1, 3). It is not said specifically which positions are in view here, but this can hardly be the interpretation of the alleged delay of the Parousia or skepticism of the expectation of the Parousia alone.908 Rather, the concern here is the broad accusation brought against the opponents in ch. 2—­namely, seduction into an unethical, generally antinomian way of life, perhaps in connection with a proclamation of “freedom” (2:19). This could certainly be perceived as a Pauline ‘catchword’ (cf. Rom 8:2; 2 Cor 3:17), and their proclamation could appear to the author as an unacceptable perversion of the apostolic truth and thus as a misinterpretation. 905

Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 331; Kraus, Sprache, 322. So Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 331. 907 This is not about a rejection or refutation of Pauline teachings (contra Neyrey, “Form and Background” [diss], 56–­58). 908 One certainly cannot ascribe a complete present eschatology to the opponents as in 2 Tim 2:18. 906



Second Peter 3:15b-16

427

Such accusations of distorting early Christian statements for the sake of one’s own position or self-­indulgent lifestyle are frequently encountered in the second century. Polycarp (Phil. 7.1) condemns people who twist the words of Jesus in the interest of their own desires (ἐπιθυμία), and the pseudo-­Clementine letter of Peter to James laments that some people have distorted the words of Peter in order to justify the abrogation of the law.909 Primarily in the Jewish Christian perspective of the Pseudo-­Clementines, Paul is the source of antinomian transgressions.

This statement is given two further expansions: first, this misguided reading of Paul occurs “to the destruction” of those people—­that is, in the author’s view, it results in their loss of salvation. This supports the notion that the ethical dimension is at issue here and the ‘perversion’ of Pauline statements leads concretely to sinful behavior. The statement connected with a comparative ὡς further extends the scope of the reference: these people distort not only Paul’s letters but also “the other Scriptures” (τὰς λοιπὰς γραφάς). It is not specified which Scriptures are meant here. The texts of the nascent OT come to mind first, whereby the article interestingly already suggests a certain degree of completion here as well. Nevertheless, the possibility that other early Christian texts could be in view here must be considered. Since the phrase τὰς λοιπὰς γραφάς also includes the (collection of) Paul’s letters within the term γραφαί, this cannot be ruled out for other early Christian texts as well (such as the Gospels). Yet 2 Pet gives no immediate indications that could provide more specific information about the history and status of the emerging canon. The purpose of the digression in vv. 15b-­16 is thus, on the one hand, to support the fiction of Petrine authorship with the note about the agreement with his apostolic colleague, and on the other hand to claim the prerogative of interpretation of the Pauline letters, and thus also to represent his own theology as ‘covered’ by the authority of Paul (and other texts). Excursus: On the significance of the comment about Paul in 3:15b-­16 Before closing this section, the significance of the comment about Paul in 2 Pet 3:15b-­ 16 must be further specified in a few respects. a) Argumentatively: It is astonishing that the author mentions Paul and his letters at all, since he otherwise (aside from the reference to ‘his’ first letter in 3:1 and Jesus’ prophecy of his death in 1:14) does not refer to any sources; though he does use OT texts and (in 3:9) expects familiarity with them, he never identifies books or passages, and does not reveal his thorough use of Jude or the connection with the gospel tradition. At the same time, throughout the entire letter (above all on the basis of 3:16) an awareness of the Pauline letters is discernible, but there is no deep thematic or substantive 909

Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 333.

428

Second Peter: Commentary

adoption of Pauline ideas. Second Peter is in fundamental respects more critical of Paul than it is Pauline. Why does the author mention Paul and his letters here? Anton Vögtle has suggested that the author (in the guise of Peter) wanted to claim “his colleague Paul as an ally . . . who agreed with him on this point” to bolster his meager explanation for the fact that the Parousia had not yet occurred, the “weakest point in his argumentation.”910 On this view, Paul is invoked as a support for the author’s own argument. However, the comment about Paul is only vaguely related to the argumentation in 2 Pet 3, and in its expansion in v. 16 relates above all to the current dispute with the opponents. It is therefore more probable that the reference to Paul is necessitated by the situation. The author cannot ignore Paul, probably because others—­the opponents, or perhaps other “unstable” people in the communities—­referred to him in justifying their positions. The strategy of the argumentation is thus that the author first claims a comprehensive familiarity with the Pauline tradition, expresses wholehearted brotherly admiration for Paul himself, and maintains that his own position is in agreement with Paul’s. He thus claims to know the true meaning of the statements that are difficult to understand, and readings that deviate from this can only be ignorant misinterpretations. In the guise of Peter the author thus claims a position of authority in the interpretation of the corpus Paulinum and posits agreement where in fact there is some distance. Rather than using Paul ad hoc as an aid to support a weak argument, ‘Peter’ usurps the Pauline tradition and claims it for his own in order to thereby wrest it from his opponents. b) Substantively and theologically: The relationship between Paul and Peter is sketched as an apparently harmonious one in 2 Pet 3:15-­16. This indicates the perspective of a postapostolic period, in which the specific disputes of the early apostolic age were forgotten and the image of “the apostles” as the guarantors of the founding tradition was harmonized. Both Paul—­through the spread of his letters—­and Peter—­as a witness to Jesus and a martyr—­were undisputed authorities in broad segments of the church. Nevertheless, for the Pauline proclamation of freedom and righteousness, which was developed against the backdrop of the demands of the Jewish nomos and formulated in opposition to Judaizing opponents, the question arose as to how this proclamation was to be read in a later context no longer fundamentally affected by the questions of law and circumcision. The history of the understanding of Paul in the second century can be regarded as the story of a progressive misunderstanding, and 2 Pet with its reading of Paul should also be situated in this context. However, this can only be observed by a critical eye that is able to see and compare the relevant texts. From this perspective, 2 Pet does not appear as a continuation of Jewish theology and soteriology (like Matt)911 but represents an independent Gentile Christian conception in which virtues and morality play a decisive role as the appropriate response to the knowledge of Christ. However, this viewpoint is just as incapable of being 910

Vögtle, Judasbrief, 265. As suggested in Frankemölle, 1. Petrusbrief, 2. Petrusbrief, Judasbrief.

911



Second Peter 3:15b-17

429

systematically brought into agreement with Pauline thought as are the ideas of the Judaizing rivals of the Pauline mission: the necessity of works for salvation reduces the gospel from a divine salvific power (Rom 1:16) to a promise granted only on certain conditions. The two theological approaches by no means stand harmoniously alongside one another in the canon. c) Canonically: Second Peter 3:15 hints in nuce at the emergence of a two-­part textual canon. The letters of Paul (and probably other early Christian texts) appear as ‘Scriptures’ alongside the ‘prophetic’ texts of the nascent OT. This represents a stage of early Christianity in which the reading and teaching/interpretation of early Christian texts had been established alongside the reading of the Scriptures of Israel (or the LXX). At the same time, ‘within’ the NT this passage provides a synthesis not just of the apostles Paul and Peter but also of the gospel tradition (represented here by Peter, or the transfiguration episode) and the letter tradition (of Paul and Peter). The Gospels, Pauline letters, and segments of the emerging corpus of the ‘Catholic Letters’ are united here, and as an apocalyptic tradition, rather than Revelation, there is reception of Apoc. Pet., which was widely popular in the second century but was later not accepted in the canon. Thus, the contours of the later NT canon emerge in what is certainly that canon’s latest text, which ironically had the most difficulty in obtaining canonical acceptance itself. d) Hermeneutically: By referring to other texts and accusing the opponents of distorting them in 2 Pet 3:15-­16, the text implicitly invites comparison with these texts, especially given its late canonical position. The dispute over the texts and their interpretation, at the latest in the context of the NT canon, thus becomes a dispute over the truth of the various texts united in the canon, in which 2 Pet (or ‘Peter’) is unable to claim an unquestioned ‘primacy’ over ‘Paul,’ but rather both stand side by side—­in their similarities and differences. However, Peter Stuhlmacher’s suggestion that 2 Pet 3:14-­16 provides “the first outline of an ecclesial hermeneutic of the Bible”912 rests on a misunderstanding. Although ‘Peter’ does appeal to the apostolic truth and the tradition of faith, the correct (or ‘legitimate’) interpretation relies on neither the authority of a church office nor participation in the Holy Spirit.913 It cannot be determined on the basis of his text whether the author is ‘more ecclesial’ than his opponents, or whether the interpretation of those who appeal to Paul and arrive at a different theological position is ‘more unauthorized’ than his own. It is probably a case of opposing claims on equal footing, and the various understandings of the gospel can only be discussed critically—­and not so harmoniously as the author of 2 Pet would have it—­on the basis of the later canon and the juxtaposition of the extant texts.

17 After this prominent digression, the author returns to the admonition from vv. 14-­15a and further intensifies it. The addressees are once again addressed 912

So Stuhlmacher, Theologie, 2:328–­29. The theologoumenon that the Scriptures should be interpreted ‘in the Holy Spirit’ is unjustifiably applied to 2 Pet with such a view. 913

430

Second Peter: Commentary

directly and urged to “stability” in contrast to those who were previously referred to as “uninformed and unstable” (v. 16),914 who distort the Scriptures to their own ruin. Unlike these people, the addressees should achieve salvation. Thus, they are given the strict admonition to “guard” themselves (imperative: φυλάσσεσθε) in order to avoid being led astray by the “error” of the lawless (cf. 2:7) and falling915 from their own firm footing.916 This creates an interesting contrast to Jude, where the closing doxology refers to God as able to protect the addressees so that they do not fall in order to set them before his glory unblemished (Jude 24). Second Peter uses the same verb,917 but in a strict admonition to “protect” themselves from temptation. According to 2 Pet, too, the addressees should appear unblemished before God (v. 14), but to this end they are admonished to protect themselves rather than directed toward God’s protective power. This is hardly mere chance, since 2 Pet is so thoroughly reliant on Jude and chooses to follow the form of Jude in his closing doxology in v. 18b. Does the author not expect God’s protection for the elect, or does he not want to encourage a careless trust in this protection among the addressees? Such encouragement would probably run counter to the severity of the admonition. Yet this distinction once again reveals the increased rigor, as compared with Jude, of the ethics of 2 Pet, which inculcates this rigor as though everything hung on the stability and probation of the faithful and God’s protective power or helping grace did not exist. How this is connected with the notion of growing in grace in v. 18a is ultimately left open. The participle προγινώσκοντες here is striking: the audience is addressed as knowing “in advance.” With this the author emphasizes once again at the end of his letter the fiction that the entire text, including the argumentation of the opponents, is a testamentary declaration composed by Peter before his death as a reminder for the faithful in the time to come. The literary fiction in which Peter looks ahead to the arrival of “false teachers” (2:1) and “scoffers” (3:3) had fallen out of view in the depiction of the opponents (2:10b-­22) and the argument against their objections (3:4-­13). Now with προγινώσκοντες (and, of course, in the reference to his “brother” Paul) the fiction is taken up again. The addressees are informed in advance about the nature of the false teachers and the danger they pose, and should therefore be on guard against the temptation 914

There is a clear keyword connection between ἀστήρικτοι in v. 16 and στηριγμός in v. 17. ἐ κπίπτειν is probably chosen here because πίπτειν and other composites are conventionally used for apostasy and ethical decline (cf. Rom 11:11, 22; 1 Cor 10:12; Gal 5:4; Heb 4:11; Rev 2:5; 1 Clem. 59.4; 2 Clem. 2.6; 5.7). Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 337. 916 Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 337: “The author thinks of experienced and well-­instructed Christians as firmly established in a fixed position from which they ought not to be swayed.” 917 This is otherwise used only once in 2:5 for the salvation of Noah before the flood. 915



Second Peter 3:17-18b

431

to apostasy from the true faith and the ethical way of life, because this would inevitably entail the loss of salvation and destruction. 18 This severe warning is followed, in an evidently milder tone that returns to the consolation of the letter opening, by the positive exhortation to “grow” in “grace” (χάρις) and in knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. This formula, employed as a conclusion to the admonition, provides the only reference to Jesus Christ in the entirety of chapter 3, since Christ is not explicitly mentioned throughout the eschatological argumentation, and αὐτῷ in v. 14 has God in view (perhaps unlike τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν in v. 15). But there is no clear distinction between God and Christ. The sentence is somewhat uneven because of the slight difference in the relation of χάρις and γνῶσις to Jesus Christ. With regard to knowledge, τοῦ κυρίου . . . Ἰ. Χ. is an objective genitive (knowledge of Jesus Christ),918 whereas the relation to “grace” must be a subjective genitive (the grace given by Jesus Christ). It is not made explicit what exactly χάρις refers to, but it appears on the whole to indicate the connection between the gifted prerequisite to Christian life and the necessary progress in the virtues of the faith, thus also in “knowledge,” as was emphasized at the beginning of the letter in 1:3-­11. 2. The Closing Doxology (3:18b) (18b) His is the glory now and until the day of eternity. [Amen.]

The solemn final reference to Jesus Christ as “lord and savior” is followed abruptly with the short doxology, which is unusual in that—­unlike the extensive doxology in Jude 24-­25—­it is now clearly directed toward Jesus Christ, not God (cf. also Rev 1:5-­6; 2 Tim 4:18). This once again demonstrates the high Christology of the letter, but a fixed point of reference for dating the letter cannot be inferred from this.919 The doxology to Christ is also striking in view of the fact that Christ was not mentioned in the entire eschatological argumentation in 3:5-­13. His exclusion from the scenario of the cosmic conflagration, however, can be understood against the background of the portrayal in Apoc. Pet. (see above, p. 399). At the same time, it is clear that for the author a clear distinction between God and the “God and Savior” (1:2) Jesus Christ or a differentiation between the functions of the two is evidently unimportant. 918

This corresponds with the linguistic usage common throughout 2 Pet. Fuchs and Reymond, La deuxième épître, 127, and Vögtle, Judasbrief, 265, see both nouns as subjective genitives and understand the sentence as a statement about grace and knowledge, which are both given by Jesus Christ. In my view, however, it is doubtful that this accords with the understanding of grace in 2 Pet. 919 Thus, rightly, Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 338, with reference to Rev 1:5-­6.

432

Second Peter: Commentary

The form of the doxology is minimalistic: there is only an identification of the addressee (Jesus Christ) in the dative (αὐτῷ), a single predicate (δόξα), and a reference to the present and unlimited future, the latter in a formulaic expression of eternity. This, however, differs from the common form εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας (cf. Jude 25, and elsewhere), and once again introduces the term ἡμέρα (cf. v. 12): εἰς ἡμέραν αἰῶνος (“until the day of eternity”). It remains unclear whether this phrase is determined by a specific biblical image (Isa 60:19-­20; Sir 18:10). Perhaps this phrase, which is practically without analogy, reflects the notion of the incommensurability of the divine measure of time derived from Ps 90:4, which also shatters the idea of an (‘eternally’) ongoing period of eons.920 The doxology concludes the letter and in this 2 Pet again follows the form of Jude, decidedly deviating from the Pauline letters,921 Heb, 1 Pet, and 2–­3 John. Like in Jude (and in Jas), aside from the closing admonition, the typical elements of a letter closing are absent, such as personal greetings or the epistolary blessing. This is related to the form of the authorial fiction, which presupposes that there is no personal acquaintance between the addressees and the fictive author Peter, and instead has Peter explicitly address readers after his death and in an unspecified location. At the same time, the closing doxology is also substantively appropriate to the form of a literary testament: “The apostle’s last words are given in praise of Christ.”922 Whether the “amen” at the end of the texts was connected with the doxology from the beginning or was later added in the process of the dissemination of the text must remain open.923

920

So the suggestion in Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 338. The doxology at the end of Rom 16 is a secondary addition. 922 Schmidt, Mahnung, 308. 923 The ECM has now definitively determined to assess the “amen” as a (responsory) addition (ECM 4/1:36*). 921

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sources 1. Biblical Texts and Translations Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Editio secunda emendata, ed. W. Rudolph and H. P. Rüger, Stuttgart 1983. (BHS) Comfort, Ph. W. / D. P. Barrett (eds.): The Text of the Earliest Greek New Testament Manuscripts, Wheaton, Ill. 2001. Epistulae Catholicae, ed. W. Thiele, Vetus Latina 26/1, Freiburg i. Br. 1969. Junack, K. / W. Grunewald (eds.): Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus, vol. 1: Die Katholischen Briefe, ANTF 6, Berlin/New York 1986. Kasser, R.: Papyrus Bodmer XII. Actes des apôtres, épîtres de Jacques, Pierre, Jean et Jude, Genf 1961. Kubo, S.: 𝔓72 and Codex Vaticanus, SD 7, Salt Lake City 1965. Luther, M.: Die Bibel: mit Apokryphen. Bibeltext in der revidierten Fassung von 1984, Stuttgart 2013. Luther, M.: Die Bibel Einheitsübersetzung. Psalmen und Neues Testament, Stuttgart 2011. Luther, M.: Die Bibel: Elberfelder Übersetzung, Wuppertal 2006. Massaux, E.: “Le texte de l’épître de Jude de papyrus Bodmer VII (𝔓72),” in E. van Cauwenbergh (ed.): Scrinium Lovaniense. Mélanges historiques. Historische opstellen, Louvain 1961, 108–­125. 433

434 Bibliography

Novum Testamentum Graecum. Editio Critica Maior, vol. 4: Die Katholischen Briefe, 2nd rev. edn., Stuttgart 2013. (ECM) Novum Testamentum Graecum. Editio Critica Maior, vol. 4: Die katholischen Briefe, inst. 4: Der zweite und dritte Johannesbrief. Der Judasbrief, part 1: Text, ed. B. Aland et al., Stuttgart 2005. Novum Testamentum Graecum. Editio Critica Maior, vol. 4: Die Katholischen Briefe, inst. 4: Der zweite und dritte Johannesbrief. Der Judasbrief, part 2: Begleitende Materialien, ed. B. Aland et al., Stuttgart 2005. Novum Testamentum Graecum. Editio Critica Maior, vol. 4: Die Katholischen Briefe, inst. 2: Die Petrusbriefe, part 1: Text, ed. B. Aland et al., Stuttgart 2000. Novum Testamentum Graecum. Editio Critica Maior, vol. 4: Die Katholischen Briefe, inst. 2: Die Petrusbriefe, part 2: Begleitende Materialien, ed. B. Aland et al., Stuttgart 2000. Novum Testamentum Graece, post E. et E. Nestle, ed. B. Aland et al., 27th edn., Stuttgart 2006. (NA27) Novum Testamentum Graece, post E. et E. Nestle, ed. B. Aland et al., 28th edn., Stuttgart 2013. (NA28) Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum iuxta LXX interpretes. Editio altera, 2 vols. in 1, ed. A. Rahlfs and R. Hanhart, Stuttgart 2014. Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum, vol. 14: Isaias, ed. J. Ziegler, Göttingen 1939. Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament, 2 vols., ed. M. Karrer and W. Kraus, Stuttgart 2011. 2. Ancient Judiasm a) Anthologies

Der Babylonische Talmud, trans. L. Goldschmidt, 12 vols., Berlin 1929–­1936. Charles, R. H. (ed.): The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 2 vols., Oxford 1913. Charlesworth, J. H. (ed.): The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols., Garden City 1983/1985. (OTP) Diez Macho, A. (ed.): Targum Palestinense in Pentateuchum. Additur Targum Pseudojonatan ejusque hispanica versio, 5 vols., Madrid 1977–­1980. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, 40 vols., Oxford 1955ff. García Martínez, F. / E. J. C. Tigchelaar (eds. and trans.): The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2 vols., Leiden etc. 1997/8. Ginzberg, L. (ed.): The Legends of the Jews, 5 vols., Philadelphia 1909–­1938.

Bibliography

Josephus, De Bello Judaico, ed. and trans. O. Michel / O. Bauernfeind, 3 vols., München 1959–­1969. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, ed. and trans. H. S. J. Thackeray, LCL, London/ Cambridge, Mass. 1926–­1955. Kautzsch, E. (ed.): Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments, 2 vols., Tübingen 1900. Klein, M. L. (ed.): The Fragment-­Targum of the Pentateuch, 2 vols., AnBib 76, Rome 1980. Klijn, A. F. J. (ed.): Die syrische Baruch-­Apokalypse, JSHRZ 5/2, Gütersloh 1976, 103–­191. Kümmel, W. G. / Lichtenberger, H. (eds.): Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit, Gütersloh 1973ff. (JSHRZ) LeDéaut, R. (ed.): Targum du Pentateuque. Traduction des deux recension paléstiniennes, 5 vols., SC 245, 256, 261, 271, 282, Paris 1978–­1981. Lohse, E. (ed.): Die Texte aus Qumran. Hebräisch und Deutsch, Darmstadt 1971. Maier, J. (ed.): Die Qumran-­Essener. Die Texte vom Toten Meer, 3 vols., München/Basel 1995/6. Neophiti I Targum palestinense Ms. de la Bibliotheca vaticana, ed. A. Diez Macho, 6 vols., Madrid/Barcelona 1968–­1979. Philo von Alexandrien. Die Werke in deutscher Übersetzung I–­VII, ed. and trans. L. Cohn et al., 2nd edn., Berlin 1962–­1964. Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis, trans. from the Ancient Armenian version of the original Greek by R. Marcus, LCL 380, Cambridge, Mass. 1953. Schäfer, P. (ed.): Übersetzung der Hekhalot-­Literatur, 4 vols., TSAJ 17, 22, 29, 46, Tübingen 1987–­1995. Sperber, A. (ed.): The Bible in Aramaic, 5 vols., Leiden 1959–­1973. b) Individual Editions

Black, M. (ed.): “Apocalypsis Henochi Graece,” in: A. M. Denis / M. de Jonge (eds.): Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece, vol. 3, Leiden 1970, 19–­44. Black, M.: “Apocalypsis Henochi Graece; Addenda et Corrigenda,” in: The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch, SVTP 7, Leiden 1985, 419–­422. Black, M. (trans.): The Book of Enoch or I Enoch, SVTP 7, Leiden 1985. Böttrich, Ch. (ed.): Das slavische Henochbuch, JSHRZ 5/7, Gütersloh 1995. Charles, R. H. (trans.): The Books of Enoch, 2nd edn., Oxford 1912. Henning, W. B. (ed.): “Ein manichäisches Henochbuch,” SPAW (1934): 27–­35.

435

436 Bibliography

Knibb, M. (ed. and trans.): The Ethiopic Book of Enoch, vol. 2, Oxford 1978. Milik, J. T. (ed.): The Books of Enoch. Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4, Oxford 1976. Stegemann, H. / E. Schuller (eds.): 1QHodayota with Incorporation of 1QHodayotb and 4QHodayota–­f, DJD 40, Oxford 2009. Stuckenbruck, L. T. (ed. and trans.): The Book of Giants from Qumran, TSAJ 63, Tübingen 1995. Tromp, J. (ed.): The Assumption of Moses, SVTP 10, Leiden 1993. Uhlig, S. (ed.): Das äthiopische Henochbuch, JSHRZ 5/6, Gütersloh 1984. Walter, N. (ed.): Fragmente jüdisch-­hellenistischer Historiker, JSHRZ 1/2, Gütersloh 1976. 3. Early Christian Texts a) Anthologies

Bray, G. (ed.): James, 1–­2 Peter, 1–­3 John, Jude, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament 11, Downers Grove 2000, 129–164 (2 Pet); 245–260 (Jude). Goodspeed, E. J. (ed.): Die ältesten Apologeten, Göttingen 1914 (repr. 1984). Klostermann, E. (ed.): Apocrypha 1: Reste des Petrusevangeliums, der Petrusapokalypse und des Kerygma Petri, Bonn 1903. Lightfoot, J. B. (ed. and trans.): The Apostolic Fathers, part 1/1.2: S. Clement of Rome. A Revised Text with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, and Translations, London 1890. Lindemann, A. / H. Paulsen (eds.): Die Apostolischen Väter. Griechisch-­ deutsche Parallelausgabe, Tübingen 1992. Markschies, Ch. / J. Schröter with A. Heiser (eds.): Antike Christliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, vol. 1: Evangelien und Verwandtes, 2 parts, Tübingen 2012. (ACA) Migne, J.-­P. (ed.): Patrologia Graeca, 162 vols., Paris 1857–­1886. (PG) Migne, J.-­P. (ed.): Patrologia Latina, 217 vols., Paris 1844–­1864. (PL) Robinson, J. M. (ed.): The Coptic Gnostic Library. A Complete Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices, 5 vols., Leiden 2000. Schneemelcher, W. (ed.): Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, 6th edn., 2 vols., Tübingen 1997 (1990); Eng. trans.: New Testament Apocrypha, trans. R. McL. Wilson, rev. ed., 2 vols., Louisville 2003. (NTApo6) b) Collected Works

Clemens Alexandrinus, Protrepticus und Paedagogus, ed. O. Stählin / U. Treu, 3rd edn., GCS Clemens Alexandrinus 1, Berlin 1972.

Bibliography

Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata I–­VI, ed. O. Stählin / L. Früchtel / U. Treu, 4th edn., GCS Clemens Alexandrinus 2, Berlin 1985. Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata VII–­VIII, Excerpta ex Theodoto, Eclogae Propheticae, Quis Dives Salvetur, Fragmente, ed. O. Stählin / L. Früchtel / U. Treu, 2nd edn., GCS Clemens Alexandrinus 3, Berlin 1970. Cypriani Opera Omnia III/3, ed. W. Hartel, CSEL, Wien 1871. Eusebius von Caesarea, Kirchengeschichte, ed. H. Kraft, München 1967. Eusebius Werke. Vol. 8.1–­2: Die Praeparatio evangelica, ed. K. Mras, Leipzig 1954/1956. Hieronymus, De viris illustribus. Berühmte Männer, trans. Claudia Barthold, Mühlheim 2010. Irenäus von Lyon, Adversus Haereses I–­V, trans. N. Brox, FChr, Freiburg 1993ff. Origen, Contra Celsum, ed. and trans. H. Chadwick, Cambridge, U.K. 1953. Origenes, Vier Bücher von den Principien, ed. H. Görgemanns / H. Karpp, 3rd edn., Darmstadt 1992. Origenes, Commentarii in epistulam ad Romaons / Römerbriefkommentar, trans. and ed. Th. Heither, FC 2/1–­6, Freiburg 1990–­1999. Origenes, Homilien zum Hexateuch in Rufins Übersetzung. Die Homilien zu Genesis, Exodus und Leviticus, GCS Origenes 6, Leipzig 1920. Origenes, Homilien zum Hexateuch in Rufins Übersetzung. Die Homilien zu Numeri, Josua und Judices, GCS Origenes 7, Leipzig 1921. Origenes, Johanneskommentar Buch I–­V, trans. H. G. Thümmel, STAC 63, Tübingen 2011. c) Individual Editions

Cambe, M. (ed.): Kerygma Petri. Textus et commentarius, CCSA 15, Turnhout 2003. von Dobschütz, E. (ed.): Das Kerygma Petri kritisch untersucht, TU 11/1, Berlin 1893. Gauger, J. D. (ed. and trans.): Sibyllinische Weissagungen. Griechisch-­deutsch, Düsseldorf/Zürich 1998. Irmscher, J. / G. Strecker (trans.): “Die Pseudoklementinen,” in: W. Schneemelcher (ed.): Neutestamentlichen Apokryphen, vol. 2: Apostolisches, Apokalypsen und Verwandtes, 6th edn., Tübingen 1989, 439–­488. Kraus, T. J. / T. Nicklas (eds. and trans.): Das Petrusevangelium und die Petrusapokalype. Die griechischen Fragmente in deutscher und englischer Übersetzung, GCS NF 11/Neutestamentliche Apokryphen 1, Berlin/ New York 2004.

437

438 Bibliography

Oberg, E. (ed.): Amphilochii Iconiensis: Iambi ad Seleucum, PTS 9, Berlin 1969. Schenke-­Robinson, G. / H.-­M. Schenke / U.-­K. Plisch (eds.): Das Berliner ‘Koptische Buch’ (P 20915). Eine wiederhergestellte frühchristlich-­ theologische Abhandlung, CSCO 610/1, Scriptores Coptici 49/50, Leuven 2004. Schneemelcher, W. (trans.): “Das Kerygma Petri,” in: W. Schneemelcher (ed.): Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, vol. 2: Apostolisches, Apokalypsen und Verwandtes, 6th edn., Tübingen 1999, 34–­41. Zoepfl, F. (ed.): Didymi Alexandrini in epistolas canonicas brevis enarratio, NTAbh 4/1, Münster 1914. 4. Greco-­Roman Literature a) Anthologies

von Arnim, H. F. A. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, 4 vols., Leipzig 1903– 1924. (SVF) Diels, H. / W. Kranz (eds.): Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Griechisch und Deutsch, 3 vols., Hildesheim 2004/5. Schnelle, U. with M. Labahn / M. Lang (eds.): Neuer Wettstein. Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus, vol. 1/2, Berlin/ New York 2001. (NW 1/2) Strecker, G. / U. Schnelle with G. Seelig (eds.): Neuer Wettstein. Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus, vol. 2/1–­2 , Berlin/New York 1996. (NW 2/1–­2) b) Individual Editions

Cicero. De natura deorum, ed. and trans. U. Lank-­Sangmeister, Stuttgart 1995. Cicero. On the Nature of the Gods. Academics, trans. H. Rackham, LCL, Cambridge, Mass. 1933. Diogenes Laertius. Leben und Meinungen berühmter Philosophen I.II, trans. O. Appelt, 3rd edn., Hamburg 1990. Diogenes Laertius. Lives of Eminent Philosophers, trans. R. D. Hicks, vol. 2, LCL, Cambridge, Mass. 1925. Heraclitus. Fragments, ed. and trans. T. M. Robinson, Toronto 1987. Plato. Timaeus. Critias. Cleitophon. Menexenus. Epistles, trans. R. G. Bury, LCL, Cambridge, Mass. 1929.

Bibliography

Seneca. Natural Questions, trans. T. H. Corcoran, vol. 1, LCL, Cambridge, Mass. 1971. West, M. L.: The Orphic Poems. Oxford 1983. c) Inscriptions

Börker, C. / R. Merkelbach (eds.): Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, vol. 12/2, Bonn 1979. (IK) Cagnat, R., et al. (eds.): Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes I–­IV, Paris 1906–­1927. (IGR) Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, ed. A. Boeck, 4 vols., Berlin 1828–­1877. (CIG) Freis, H. (ed. and trans.): Historische Inschriften zur römischen Kaiserzeit, 2nd edn., Darmstadt 1994. Hicks, E. L. / C. T. Newton / G. Hirschfeld / F. H. Marshall: The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, 4 vols., Oxford 1874–­1916. (IBM) Inscriptiones Graecae, Berlin 1873ff. (IG) Inscriptiones Graecae. Editio minor, Berlin 1913ff. (IG2) Reference Works Aland, K. (ed.): Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments I: Die Katholischen Briefe, vol. 1: Das Material, ANTF 9, Berlin 1987; vol. 2/1–­2: Die Auswertung, ANTF 10/1–­2, Berlin 1987; vol. 3: Die Einzelhandschriften, ANTF 11, Berlin 1987. Balz, H. / G. Schneider (eds.): Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Eng. trans., 3 vols., Grand Rapids 1990–­1993. (EDNT) Bauer, W.: Griechisch-­deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, ed. B. and K. Aland, 6th edn., Berlin 1988. (BA) Blass, F. / A. Debrunner / K. Rehkopf: Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, 18th edn., Göttingen 2001. (BDR) Danker, F. W. / W. Bauer / W. F. Arndt / F. W. Gingrich: Greek-­English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edn., Chicago 2000. (BDAG) Freedman, D. N. (ed.): Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols., New York 1992. (ABD) Harl, M.: La Genèse, La Bible d’Aléxandrie 1, Paris 1986.

439

440 Bibliography

Harl, M. / G. Dorival / O. Munnich (eds.): La Bible grecque des Septante, Paris 1988. Ilan, T.: Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity I, TSAJ 91, Tübingen 2002. Kittel, G. / G. Friedrich (eds.): Theologische Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, Stuttgart 1932–­1979. (TWNT) Liddell, H. G. / R. Scott / H. S. Jones: A Greek-­English Lexicon, 9th edn., Oxford 1996. Metzger, B. M.: A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd edn., Stuttgart 1994. Morgenthaler, R.: Statistik des neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes, 2nd edn., Zürich 1973. Moulton, J. H. / W. F. Howard: A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 2: Accidence and Word Formation, Edinburgh 1956. Moulton, J. H. / N. Turner: A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 4: Style, Edinburgh 1976. Oates, John F. / Roger S. Bagnall / Sarah J. Clackson / Alexandra A. O’Brien / Joshua D. Sosin / Terry G. Wilfong / Klaas A. Worp (eds.): Checklist of Greek, Latin, Demotic, and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets, http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/clist.html, October, 2017. Rosenthal, F.: A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic, 6th edn., PLO 5, Wiesbaden 1995. Schattner-­R ieser, U.: L’araméen des manuscrits de la mer Morte 1: Grammaire, Instrumets pour l’étude des langues de l’Orient Ancien 5, Lausanne 2004. Siebenthal, H. von / E. G. Hoffmann: Griechische Grammatik zum Neuen Testament, Giessen 2011. Spicq, C.: Notes de lexicographie néo-­testamentaire, 2 vols. and suppl., OBO 22/1–­3, Freiburg/Göttingen 1972/1978/1982. Commentaries on Jude and Second Peter 1. Commentaries from the Early Church and Medieval Period Beda Venerabilis, PL 93:67–­86 (2 Pet), 123–­130 (Jude). Cassiodor, PL 70:1367–­1370 (2 Pet), 1375–­1378 (Jude). Clemens v. Alexandrien, Adumbrationes, ed. O. Stählin and L. Früchtel, GCS Clemens 3, Berlin 1970, 203–­209 (Jude). Cramer, J. A. (ed.): Catenae Graecorum Patrum in Novum Testamentum VIII, Oxford 1844, 84–­104 (2 Pet), 153–­170 (Jude).

Bibliography

Cyrill v. Alexandrien, PG 74:1007–­1024. Didymus v. Alexandrien, PG 39:1771–­1774 (2 Pet), 1811–­1818 (Jude). Donelson, L. R.: I & II Peter and Jude: A Commentary, Louisville, Ky. 2010. Euthymius Zigabenus, Commentarius in XIV Epistolas S. Pauli et VII Catholicas, vol. 2, ed. N. Kalogeras, 1887. Johannes Chrysostomus, PG 64:1057–­1060 (2 Pet). Pseudo-­Oecumenius, PG 119:577–­618 (2 Pet), 703–­722 (Jude). Theophylakt, PG 125:1253–­1288 (2 Pet). [Walafrid Strabo] Glossa Ordinaria, PL 114:689–­694 (2 Pet), 705–­710 (Jude). 2. Commentaries from the Reformation Period up to 1800 Bengel, J. A.: Gnomon Novi Testamenti: in quo ex nativa verborum VI simplicitas, profunditas, concinitas, salubritas sensuum coelestium indicator (1742), 3rd edn., Berlin 1860 (1773). Calvin, J.: Commentarius in Epistolam Iudae Apostoli (1551), in: Johannis Calvini Opera 55, Brunswick 1896, 481–­500. Calvin, J.: Commentarius in Petri Apostoli Epistolam Posteriorem (1551), in: Johannis Calvini Opera 55, Brunswick 1896, 437–­480. Grotius, H.: Adnotationes in Actus Apostolorum et in Epistolas Catholicas, Paris 1641. Herder, J. G.: Ueber die Briefe zweener Brüder Jesu (1775), in: B. Suphan (ed.): J. G. Herder, Sämmtliche Werke, vol. 7, Berlin 1892, 471–­573. Luther, M.: Die andere Epistel S. Petri und eine S. Judas gepredigt und ausgelegt (1523/4), WA 14, Weimar 1895, 14–­91. Semler, J. S.: Paraphrasis in epistolam II. Petri et epistolam Judae, Halle 1784. 3. Modern Commentaries (Selected) Aichele, G.: The Letters of Jude and Second Peter. Paranoia and the Slaves of Christ, Phoenix Guides to the New Testament 19, Sheffield 2012. Arichea, D. C. / Hatton, H. A.: A Handbook on the Letter from Jude and the Second Letter from Peter, UBS Handbook Series, New York 1993. Barclay, W.: Die Briefe des Johannes, der Brief des Judas, Wuppertal 1970. Bauckham, R. J.: Jude, 2 Peter, WBC 50, Waco 1983. Berger, K.: Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, Gütersloh 2012. Bigg, Ch.: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, ICC, Edinburgh 1901, 2nd edn. 1910. Brosend, W. F.: James and Jude, New Cambridge Bible Commentary, Cambridge 2004.

441

442 Bibliography

Callan, T.: Acknowledging the Divine Benefactor. The Second Letter of Peter, Eugene, Or. 2014. Cantinat, J.: Les Épîtres de Saint Jacques et de Saint Jude, SBi, Paris 1973. Cedar, P. A.: James, 1–­2 Peter, Jude, Communicator’s Commentary 11, Waco 1984. Chaine, J.: Les épîtres catholiques. La seconde épître de saint Pierre. Les épîtres de saint Jean. L’épître de Saint Jude, 2nd edn., EB, Paris 1939. Cranfield, C. E. B.: I and II Peter and Jude. Introduction and Commentary, TBC, London 1960. Davids, P. H.: The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, PNTC, Grand Rapids/ Nottingham 2006. deSilva, D. A.: “Jude,” in: J. Painter / D. A. deSilva, James and Jude, Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament, Grand Rapids 2012, 177–228. Elliott, J. H.: I–­II Peter, Jude, ACNT, Minneapolis 1982. Frankemölle, H.: 1. Petrusbrief, 2. Petrusbrief, Judasbrief, NEBNT 18/20, Würzburg 1987, 2nd edn. 1990. Fuchs, E. / Reymond, P.: La deuxième épître de Saint Pierre, l’épître de Saint Jude, CNT 13b, Neuchâtel/Paris 1980. Green, G. L.: Jude and 2 Peter, BECNT, Grand Rapids 2008. Grundmann, W.: Der Brief des Judas und der zweite Petrusbrief, THK 15, Berlin 1974. Haenlein, H. K. A.: Epistola Judae Graece Commentario Critico Et Annotatione Perpetua, Erlangen 1804. Harrington, D. J.: “Jude and 2 Peter,” in: D. P. Senior / D. J. Harrington, 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter, SP, Collegeville 2003, 159–­315. Hauck, F.: Die katholischen Briefe, 7th edn., NTD 10, Göttingen 1954. Heil, J. P.: 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude, Worship Matters, Eugene, Or. 2013. Hillyer, N.: 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, NIBCNT 16, Grand Rapids 1992. von Hofmann, J. Ch. K.: Der zweite Brief Petri und der Brief Judae, Die Heilige Schrift neuen Testaments zusammenhängend untersucht 7/2, Nördlingen 1875. Hollmann, G. / W. Bousset: “Der Brief des Judas und der zweite Brief des Petrus,” in: W. Bousset / W. Heitmüller (eds.): Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments: neu übersetzt und für die Gegenwart erklärt, vol. 3: Die Apostelgeschichte, der Hebräerbrief und die katholischen Briefe, 3rd edn., Göttingen 1917, 292–­318. Holtzmann, O.: “Die Petrusbriefe,” in: Das Neue Testament II: Die katholischen Briefe, Gießen 1926, 840–­871. Horrell, D.: The Epistles of Peter and Jude, Peterborough 1998.

Bibliography

Huther, J. E.: Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the General Epistles of Peter and Jude, Edinburgh 1881. James, M. R.: The Second Epistle General of St. Peter and the General Epistle of Jude, Cambridge Greek Testament, Cambridge 1912. Keil, C. F.: Commentar über die Briefe des Petrus und Judas, Leipzig 1883. Kelly, J. N. D.: A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude, BNTC, London 1969, 2nd edn. 1976. Kistemaker, S. J.: Peter and Jude, 3rd edn., NTC, Grand Rapids 1987, 1990. Knoch, O.: Der erste und zweite Petrusbrief. Der Judasbrief, RNT, Regensburg 1990. Knopf, R.: Die Briefe Petri und Judä, 7th edn., KEK 12, Göttingen 1912. Kraftchick, S. J.: Jude, 2 Peter, ANTC, Nashville 2002. Kühl, E.: Die Briefe Petri und Judae, 6th edn., KEK 12, Göttingen 1897. Mayor, J. B.: The Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter, London 1907. Michl, J.: Die katholischen Briefe, 2nd edn., RNT 8/2, Regensburg 1968. Moffatt, J.: The General Epistles: James, Peter, and Judas, MNTC, London 1928. Moo, D. J.: 2 Peter, Jude, NIV Application Commentary, Grand Rapids 1996. Neyrey, J. H.: 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 37C, New York 1993. Paulsen, H.: Der zweite Petrusbrief und der Judasbrief, KEK 12/2, Göttingen 1992. Perkins, Ph.: First and Second Peter, James, and Jude, Interpretation, Louisville 1995. Plummer, A.: The General Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, Expositor’s Bible, London 1891. Plumptre, E. H.: The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude. With Introduction and Notes, Cambridge Bible 17, Cambridge 1903. Reese, R. A.: 2 Peter and Jude, The Two Horizons New Testament Commentary, Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K. 2007. Reicke, B.: The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude, AB 37, New York 1964. Richard, E. J.: Reading 1 Peter, Jude, and 2 Peter: A Literary and Theological Commentary, Macon 2000. Schelkle, K. H.: Die Petrusbriefe. Der Judasbrief, HThK 13/2, Freiburg 1961, 3rd edn. 1970. Schlatter, A.: Die Briefe des Petrus, Judas, Jakobus, der Brief an die Hebräer, Erläuterungen zum Neuen Testament 9, Stuttgart 1964.

443

444 Bibliography

Schneider, J.: Die Briefe des Jakobus, Petrus, Judas und Johannes: die katholischen Briefe, 9th edn., NTD 10, Göttingen 1961, 10th edn. 1967. Schrage, W.: “Der Zweite Petrusbrief. Der Judasbrief,” in: H. Balz / W. Schrage: Die “Katholischen” Briefe. Die Briefe des Jakobus, Petrus, Johannes und Judas, 11th edn., NTD 10, Göttingen 1973, 122–­155 (2 Pet); 223–­239 (Jude). Schreiner, Th. R.: 1, 2 Peter, Jude, NAC 37, Nashville 2003. Seethaler, P.-­A.: 1. und 2. Petrusbrief, Judasbrief, 2nd edn., SKKNT 16, Stuttgart 1986. Sidebottom, E. M.: James, Jude and 2 Peter, Century Bible, London 1967. Skaggs, R.: The Pentecostal Commentary on 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Jude, London 2004. von Soden, H.: Hebräerbrief, Briefe des Petrus, Jakobus, Judas, 3rd edn., HC 3/2, Freiburg 1899. Spicq, C.: Les Épîtres de Saint Pierre, Sources bibliques, Paris 1966. Vögtle, A.: Der Judasbrief. Der zweite Petrusbrief, EKK 22, Solothurn 1994. Vrede, W.: “Judas-­, Petrus-­und Joh-­Briefe,” in: Die heilige Schrift des NT, 3rd edn., Tübingen 1924. Watson, D. F.: “The Letter of Jude. Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” in: L. E. Keck (ed.): The New Interpreter’s Bible 12: Hebrews–­ Revelation, 3rd edn., Nashville 1994, 471–­500. Windisch, H.: Die katholischen Briefe. Dritte, reworked 3rd edn. by H. Preisker, HNT 15, Tübingen 1951. Witherington, B., III: Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians: A Socio-­Rhetorical Commentary on 1–­2 Peter, Downers Grove 2007, 260–­418 (2 Pet). Witherington, B., III: Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians. A Socio-­Rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude, Downers Grove 2007, 559–­639 (Jude). Wohlenberg, G.: Der erste und zweite Petrusbrief und der Judasbrief, 3rd edn., KNT 15, 1923. Literature Surveys Bauckham, R. J.: “2 Peter: An Account of Research,” ANRW 25/5 (1988): 3713–­3752. Bauckham, R. J.: “2 Peter: A Supplementary Bibliography,” JETS 25 (1982): 91–­93. Bauckham, R. J.: “The Letter of Jude: An Account of Research,” ANRW 25/5 (1988): 3791–­3826.

Bibliography

Gilmour, M. J.: “2 Peter in Recent Research. A Bibliography,” JETS 42 (1999): 673–­678. Heiligenthal, R.: “Der Judasbrief. Aspekte der Forschung in den letzten Jahrzehnten,” Theologische Rundschau 51 (1986): 117–­129. Müller, P.: “Der Judasbrief,” Theologische Rundschau 63 (1998): 267–­289. Müller, P.: “Der Zweite Petrusbrief,” Theologische Rundschau 66 (2001): 310–­337. Monographs and Articles Abbott, E. A.: “Appendix V: The Second Epistle of St. Peter Contrasted with the Gospel of John,” in: From Letter to Spirit: An Attempt to Reach through Varying Voices the Abiding Word, London 1903, 443–­467. Abbott, E. A.: “On the Second Epistle of St. Peter,” ExpTim 2/3 (1882): 49–­63, 139–­155, 204–­219. Adam, A.: “Erwägungen zur Herkunft der Didache,” ZKG 68 (1957): 1–­57. Adams, E.: “Creation ‘out of ’ and ‘through’ Water in 2 Peter 3:5,” in: G. H. van Kooten (ed.): The Creation of Heaven and Earth. Re-­interpretations of Genesis 1 in the Context of Judaism, Ancient Philosophy, Christianity and Modern Physics, Leiden 2005, 195–­210. Adams, E.: The Stars Will Fall From Heaven. Cosmic Catastrophe in the New Testament and Its World, LNTS 347, London/New York 2007. Adams, E.: “Where Is the Promise of His Coming? The Complaint of the Scoffers in 2 Peter 3:4,” NTS 51 (2005): 106–­122. Ahrens, M.: “Der Judasbrief—­eine neutestamentliche Marginalie,” Texte und Kontexte 22/3 (1999): 39–­49. Aland, B.: “Welche Rolle spielen Textkritik und Textgeschichte für das Verständnis des Neuen Testaments?” NTS 52 (2006): 303–­318. Aland, K.: “Das Problem der Anonymität und Pseudonymität in der christlichen Literatur der ersten beiden Jahrhunderte,” in: Studien zur Überlieferung des Neuen Testaments und seines Textes, ANTF 2, Berlin 1967, 24–­34. Albani, M.: Astronomie und Schöpfungsglaube: Untersuchungen zum astronomischen Henochbuch, WMANT 68, Neukirchen-­Vluyn 1994. Albin, C. A.: Judasbrevet. Traditionen, texten, tolkningen, Stockholm 1962. Aletti, J.-­N.: “La Seconde Épitre de Pierre et le Canon du Nouveau Testament,” in: C. Theobald (ed.): Le canon des écritures. Études historiques, exégétiques et systématiques, LeDiv 140, Paris 1990, 239–­253. Alexander, Ph. S.: “Epistolary Literature,” in: M. E. Stone (ed.): Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, CRINT 2/2, Assen 1984, 579–­596.

445

446 Bibliography

Alexander, T. D.: “Lot’s Hospitality: A Clue to His Righteousness,” JBL 104 (1985): 289–­291. Allen, J. S.: “A New Possibility for the Three-­Clause Format of Jude 22-­3,” NTS 44 (1998): 133–­143. von Allmen, D.: “L’apocalyptique juive et le retard de la parousie en II Pierre 3:1-­13,” RTP 16 (1966): 255–­274. Appel, H.: Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Leipzig 1922, 120–­130 (Jude). Aptowitzer, V.: Kain und Abel in der Agada, den Apokryphen, der hellenistischen, christlichen und muhammedanischen Literatur. Veröffentlichungen der Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation I, Wien/Leipzig 1922. Arnold, C. E.: The Colossian Syncretism: The Interface between Christianity and Folk Belief at Colossae, WUNT 77, Tübingen 1995. Aune, D. E.: “Archai,” in: K. van der Toorn / B. Becking / P. W. van der Horst (eds.): Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, 2nd edn., Leiden 1999, 77–­80. Aune, D. E.: “Eschatology (Early Christian),” ABD 2:594–­609. Aune, D. E.: Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World, Grand Rapids 1983. Aune, D. E.: “Reconceptualizing the Phenomenon of Ancient Pseudepigraphy,” in: J. Frey et al. (eds.): Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen, WUNT 246, Tübingen 2009, 789–­824. Aune, D. E.: “The Significance of the Delay of the Parousia for Early Christianity,” in: G. F. Hawthorne (ed.): Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic interpretation (FS M. C. Tenney), Grand Rapids 1975, 87–­109. Avemarie, F.: “Die Werke des Gesetzes im Spiegel des Jakobusbriefs: A Very Old Perspective on Paul,” ZTK 98 (2001): 282–­309. Bachmann, V.: Die Welt im Ausnahmezustand. Eine Untersuchung zu Aussagegehalt und Theologie des Wächterbuches (1 Hen 1–­36), BZAW 409, Berlin 2009. Back, F.: Verwandlung durch Offenbarung bei Paulus, WUNT 153, Tübingen 2002. Barclay, J. M. G.: “Mirror-­Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case,” JSNT 31 (1987): 73–­93. Barnes, T. D.: “ ‘Another Shall Gird Thee.’ Probative Evidence for the Death of Peter,” in: H. Bond / L. W. Hurtado (eds.): Peter in Early Christianity, Grand Rapids 2014. Barnes, Th.: “The Epistle of Jude: A Study in the Marcosian Heresy,” JTS 6 (1905): 391–­411. Barnett, A. E.: Paul Becomes a Literary Influence, Chicago 1941. Barrett, C. K.: “Things Sacrificed to Idols,” NTS 11 (1964/5): 138–­153.

Bibliography

Bartholomä, Ph. F.: “Did Jesus Save the People out of Egypt? A Re-­examination of a Textual Problem in Jude 5,” NovT 50 (2008): 143–­158. Bartsch, Ch.: “Frühkatholizismus” als Kategorie historisch-­kritischer Theologie. Eine methodologische und theologiegeschichtliche Untersuchung, Studien zu jüdischem Volk und christlicher Gemeinde 3, Berlin 1980. Baskin, J. R.: Pharaoh’s Counsellors: Job, Jethro and Balaam in Rabbinic and Patristic Traditions, Chico 1983. Bassler, J.: “Cain and Abel in Palestinian Targums,” JSJ 17 (1986): 56–­64. Bauckham, R. J.: “2 Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter,” in: The Fate of the Dead. Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, NovTSup, Leiden 1998, 290–­303. Bauckham, R. J.: “The Apocalypse of Peter. An Account of Recent Research,” ANRW 25/6 (1988): 4712–­4750. Bauckham, R. J.: “The Apocalypse of Peter: A Jewish Christian Apocalypse from the Time of Bar Kokhba,” in: The Fate of the Dead. Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, NovTSup, Leiden 1998, 160–­258. Bauckham, R. J.: “The Delay of the Parousia,” TynBul 31 (1980): 3–­36. Bauckham, R. J.: “Eldad and Modad,” in: R. J. Bauckham / R. R. Davila / A. Panayotov (eds.): Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. More Noncanonical Scriptures, Grand Rapids 2013, 244–­256. Bauckham, R. J.: Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church, Edinburgh 1990. Bauckham, R. J.: “The Martyrdom of Peter in Early Christian Literature,” ANRW 26/1 (1992): 539–­595. Bauckham, R. J.: “A Note on a Problem in the Greek Version of 1 Enoch i.9,” JTS 32 (1981): 136–­138. Bauckham, R. J.: “Pseudo-­Apostolic Letters,” JBL 107 (1988): 469–­494. Baum, A. D.: Pseudepigraphie und literarische Fälschung im frühen Christentum. Mit ausgewählten Quellentexten samt deutscher Übersetzung, WUNT 138, Tübingen 2001. Baumeister, T.: “Zur Rolle des Petrus in gnostischen Texten,” in: T. Orlandi / F. Wisse (eds.), Acts of the Second International Congress of Coptic Study 1980, Rome 1985, 3–­12. Baumert, N.: Koinonein und Metechein—­Synonym?: Eine umfassende semantische Untersuchung, SBB 51, Stuttgart 2003. Baynes, L.: “Enoch and Jubilees in the Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church,” in: E. F. Mason et al. (eds.): A Teacher for All Generations (FS J. C. VanderKam), JSJSup 153/1–­2, Leiden 2011, 799–­818.

447

448 Bibliography

Becker, J.: Das Evangelium nach Johannes 1–­2, ÖTK 4/1–­2 , Gütersloh / Würzburg 1981. Bemmerl, Ch. / W. Grünstäudl: “Wahlverwandtschaften. Notizen zum Verhältnis von Jakobus-­und Judasbrief,” SNTSU 38 (2013): 5–­22. Bénétreau, S.: “Évangile et prophétie: un texte original (1 P 1,10-­12) peut-­il éclairer un texte difficile (2 P 1,16–­21)?” Bib 86 (2005): 174–­191. Bennema, C.: “Mimesis in John 13,” NTS 56 (2014): 261–­274. Berger, K.: “Apostelbrief und apostolische Rede. Zum Formular frühchristlicher Briefe,” ZNW 65 (1974): 190–­231. Berger, K.: Formen und Gattungen im Neuen Testament, Tübingen/Basel 2005. Berger, K.: “Hartherzigkeit und Gottes Gesetz. Die Vorgeschichte des antijüdischen Vorwurfs in Mk 10,5,” ZNW 61 (1970): 1–­47. Berger, K.: “Henoch,” RAC 14 (1988):473–­545. Berger, K.: “Die impliziten Gegner. Zur Methode des Erschließens von ‘Gegnern’ in neutestamentlichen Texten,” in: D. Lührmann (ed.): Kirche (FS G. Bornkamm), Tübingen 1980, 373–­400. Berger, K.: “Jesus als Pharisäer und frühe Christen als Pharisäer,” NovT 30 (1988): 231–­262. Berger, K.: “Streit um Gottes Vorsehung. Zur Position der Gegner im 2. Petrusbrief,” in: J. W. van Henten et al. (eds.): Tradition and Re-­Interpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature (FS J. C. H. Lebram), StPB 36, Leiden 1986, 121–­135. Berger, K.: “Der Streit des guten und des bösen Engels um die Seele. Beobachtungen zu 4QAmrb und Judas 9,” JSJ 4 (1973): 1–­18. Berger, K.: Theologiegeschichte des Urchristentums, Tübingen 1994. Berger, K.: “Unfehlbare Offenbarung. Petrus in der gnostischen und apokalyptischen Offenbarungsliteratur,” in: P.-­G. Müller / W. Stenger (eds.): Kontinuität und Einheit (FS F. Mußner), Freiburg 1981, 261–­326. Bertholdt, L.: Historisch-­kritische Einleitung in sämmtliche kanonische und apokryphische Schriften des alten und neuen Testaments, vol. 6, Erlangen 1819. Betz, H.-­D.: “Lasterkataloge / Tugendkataloge,” RGG4 5 (2002):89–­91. Bjerkelund, C. J.: Parakalô. Form, Funktion und Sinn der parakalô-­Sätze in den paulinischen Briefen, Oslo 1967. Black, M.: “The Christological Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament,” NTS 18 (1971/2): 1–­14. Black, M.: “Critical and Exegetical Notes on Three New Testament Texts: Hebrews XI.11, Jude 5, James I. 27,” in: W. Eltester (ed.): Apophoreta (FS E. Haenchen), BZNW 30, Berlin 1964, 39–­45.

Bibliography

Black, M.: “The Maranatha Invocation and Jude 14.15 (I Enoch 1:9),” in: B. Lindars / S. S. Smalley (eds.): Christ and Spirit in the New Testament (FS C. F. D. Moule), Cambridge 1973, 189–­197. Blinzler, J.: Die Brüder und Schwestern Jesu, Stuttgart 1967. Blinzler, J.: Die neutestamentlichen Berichte über die Verklärung Jesu, NTA 17, Münster 1937. Blumenthal, Ch.: “Es wird aber kommen der Tag des Herrn”: Eine textkritische Studie zu 2Petr 3,10, BBB 154, Hamburg 2007. Blumenthal, Ch.: “Omikron oder Omega. Zur Textkonstitution und Textgeschichte von 2 Petr 3,6,” in: W. Grünstäudl / T. Nicklas / U. Poplutz (eds.): Core or Fringe? Second Peter and the New Testament, Tübingen 2016. Blumenthal, Ch.: Prophetie und Gericht. Der Judasbrief als Zeugnis urchristlicher Prophetie, BBB 156, Göttingen 2008. Bockmuehl, M.: The Remembered Peter: In Ancient Reception and Modern Debate, WUNT 262, Tübingen 2010. Boehmer, J.: “Tag und Morgenstern? Zu 2 Petr 1,19,” ZNW 22 (1923): 228–­233. Bonnard, P.: Anamnesis. Recherches sur le Nouveau Testament, Cahiers de la Revue de théologie et de philosophie 3, Lausanne 1980. Boobyer, G. H.: “The Indebtedness of 2 Peter to 1 Peter,” in: A. J. B. Higgins (ed.): New Testament Essays. Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson, Manchester 1959, 34–­53. Boobyer, G. H.: “The Verbs in Jude 11,” NTS 5 (1958–­1959): 45–­47. Börstinghaus, J.: Sturmfahrt und Schiffbruch, WUNT 274, Tübingen 2010. Böttrich, Ch.: Petrus. Fischer, Fels und Funktionär, Biblische Gestalten 2, Leipzig 2001. Bousset, W.: Kyrios Christos. Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfängen des Christentums bis Irenäus, 6th edn., Göttingen 1967. Brändl, M.: Der Agon bei Paulus. Herkunft und Profil paulinischer Agonmetaphorik, WUNT 222, Tübingen 2006. Bremmer, J. N.: “Orphic, Roman, Jewish and Christian Tours of Hell: Observations on the Apocalypse of Peter,” in: T. Nicklas et al. (eds.): Other Worlds and Their Relation to This World: Early Jewish and Ancient Christian Traditions, JSJSupp 143, Leiden/Boston 2010, 305–­322. van den Broeck, R.: “Der Brief des Jakobus an Quadratus und das Problem der judenchristlichen Bischöfe von Jerusalem (Eusebius HE IV,5,1–­3),” in: T. Baarda et al. (eds.): Text and Testimony: Essays on New Testament and Apocryphal Literature (FS A. F. J. Klijn), Kampen 1988, 56–­65. Broer, I.: Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 2 vols., Würzburg, 2001.

449

450 Bibliography

Brosend, W.: “The Letter of Jude: A Rhetoric of Excess or an Excess of Rhetoric?” Int 60 (2006): 292–­305. Brown, R. E.: “Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?” in: Jesus, God and Man, Milwaukee 1967, 1–­38. Brown, R. E.: The Gospel according to John XIII–­X XI, AB 29/B, New York 1970. Brown, R. E.: An Introduction to the New Testament, Anchor Bible Reference Library, New York 1997. Brox, N.: Falsche Verfasserangaben. Zur Erklärung der frühchristlichen Pseudepigraphie, SBS 79, Stuttgart 1975. Brox, N.: Der Hirte des Hermas, KAV 7, Göttingen 1997. Buchholz, D. D.: Your Eyes Will Be Opened. A Study on the Greek (Ethiopic) Apocalypse of Peter, SBLDS 97, Atlanta 1988. Buono, A. M.: “A Golden Letter,” Homiletic and Pastoral Review 89 (1988): 59–­62. Burchard, Ch.: Der Jakobusbrief, HNT 15/1, Tübingen 2000. Burridge, R. A.: Imitating Jesus, Grand Rapids, 2007. Busto Sáiz, J. R.: “La carta de Judas a la luz de algunos escritos judíos,” EstBib 39 (1981): 83–­105. Byron, J.: Slavery Metaphors in Early Judaism and Pauline Christianity, WUNT 162, Tübingen 2003. Callan, T.: “The Christology of the Second Letter of Peter,” Bib 82 (2001): 253–­263. Callan, T.: “A Note on 2 Peter 1:19-­20,” JBL 125 (2006): 143–­150. Callan, T.: “The Soteriology of the Second Letter of Peter,” Bib 82 (2001): 549–­559. Callan, T.: “The Style of the Second Letter of Peter,” Bib 84 (2003), 202–­224. Callan, T.: “The Syntax of 2 Peter 1:1-­7,” CBQ 67 (2005): 632–­640. Callan, T.: “Use of the Letter of Jude by the Second Letter of Peter,” Bib 85 (2004): 42–­64. Cantinat, J.: “L’Épître de Jude,” in: A. George / P. Grelot (eds.): Introduction à la Bible. Édition nouvelle, t. III: Introduction critique au Nouveau Testament, 3: Les épîtres apostoliques, Paris 1959, 275–­302. Caulley, Th. S.: “The Idea of ‘Inspiration’ in 2 Peter 1:16-­21,” diss. theol., Tübingen 1982. Caulley, Th. S.: “ ‘They Promise Them Freedom.’ Once Again, the ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι in 2 Peter,” ZNW 99 (2008): 129–­138. Cavallin, H. C. C.: “The False Teachers of 2 Pt as Pseudo-­Prophets,” NovT 21 (1979): 263–­270.

Bibliography

Charles, J. D.: “The Angels under Reserve in 2 Peter and Jude,” BBR 15 (2005): 39–­48. Charles, J. D.: “Jude’s Use of Pseudepigraphical Source-­Material as Part of Literary Strategy,” NTS 37 (1991): 130–­145. Charles, J. D.: “The Language and Logic of Virtue in 2 Peter 1:5-­7,” BBR 8 (1998): 55–­73. Charles, J. D.: “Literary Artifice in the Epistle of Jude,” ZNW 82 (1991): 106–­124. Charles, J. D.: Literary Strategy in the Epistle of Jude, Scranton 1993. Charles, J. D.: “ ‘Those’ and ‘These’: The Use of the Old Testament in the Epistle of Jude,” JSNT 38 (1990): 109–­124. Charles, J. D.: “The Use of Tradition-­Material in the Epistle of Jude,” BBR 4 (1994): 1–­14. Charles, J. D.: Virtue Amidst Vice: The Catalog of Virtues in 2 Peter 1, JSNTSup 150, Sheffield 1997. Chase, F. H.: “Jude, Epistle of,” DB(H) 2 (1902): 799–­806. Chase, F. H.: “Peter, Second Epistle of,” DB(H) 3 (1902): 796–­818. Chatelion Counet, P.: “Pseudepigraphy and the Petrine School: Spirit and Tradition in 1 and 2 Peter, and Jude,” HTS 62 (2006): 403–­424. Christensen, M. J. / J. A. Wittung (eds.): Partakers of the Divine Nature. The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Tradition, Grand Rapids 2008. Coblentz Bauch, K.: “ ‘Awaiting New Heavens and a New Earth’: The Apocalyptic Imagination in 1–­2 Peter and Jude,” in: E. F. Mason / T. W. Martin (eds.): Reading 1–­2 Peter and Jude. A Resource for Students, SBLSBS 77, Atlanta 2014, 62–­82. Collins, J. J.: “The Origin of Evil in Apocalyptic Literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in: Seers, Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistic-­Roman Judaism, JSJSup 54, Leiden 1997, 287–­300. Collins, J. J.: The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, SBLDS 13, Atlanta 1974. Colpe, C.: “Formen der Intoleranz. Altkirchliche Autoren und ihre antipagane Polemik,” in: R. Kampling / B. Schlegelberger (eds.): Wahrnehmung des Fremden. Christentum und andere Religionen, Schriften der Diözesanakademie Berlin 12, Berlin 1996, 87–­123. Cook, J. G.: The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-­Roman Paganism, STAC 3, Tübingen 2000. Cowley, R. W.: “The Biblical Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church Today,” Ostkirchliche Studien 23 (1974): 317–­323.

451

452 Bibliography

Cozijnsen, B.: “A Critical Contribution to the Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti: Jude and Hesiod,” in: L. V. Rutgers / P. van der Horst / H. W. Havelaar / L. Teugels (eds.): The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World, CBET 22, Leuven 1998, 79–­109. Credner, K. A.: Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Halle 1836. Crehan, J. H.: “New Light on 2 Peter from the Bodmer Papyrus,” in: Studia Evangelica VII, Berlin 1982, 145–­149. Cullmann, O.: Christus und die Zeit. Die urchristliche Zeit-­und Geschichtsauffassung, Zürich 1946. Cullmann, O.: Petrus: Jünger—­Apostel—­Märtyrer. Das historische und das theologische Petrusproblem, 2nd edn., Zürich/Stuttgart 1960. Dahl, N. A.: “Anamnesis. Memory and Commemoration in Early Christianity,” in: Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church, Minneapolis 1976, 11–­29. Danker, F. W.: Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field, St. Louis 1982. Danker, F. W.: “2 Peter 1. A Solemn Decree,” CBQ 40 (1978): 64–­82. Daniel, C.: “La mention des Esséniens dans le texte grec de l’épître de St. Jude,” Mus 80 (1967): 503–­521. Davids, P. H.: “The Pseudepigrapha in the Catholic Epistles,” in: J. H. Charlesworth / C. E. Evans (eds.): The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation, JSPSup 14/SSEJC 2, Sheffield 1993, 228–­245. Davids, P. H.: “The Use of Second Temple Traditions in 1 and 2 Peter, and Jude,” in: J. Schlosser (ed.): The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition, BETL 176, Leuven 2004, 409–­431. Dehandschutter, B.: “Pseudo-­Cyprian, Jude and Enoch. Some Notes on 1 Enoch 1:9,” in: J. W. van Henten / H. J. de Jonge / P. T. von Rooden / J. W. Wesselius (eds.): Tradition and Re-­interpretation in Jewish and Early-­Christian Literature (FS J. C. H. Lebram), StPB 36, Leiden 1986, 114–­120. Deichgräber, R.: Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der frühen Christenheit, SUNT 5, Göttingen 1967. Deissmann, G. A.: “Zur litterargeschichtlichen Würdigung der zweiten Petrusepistel,” in: Bibelstudien, Marburg 1895, 277–­284. Delcor, M.: “Le mythe de la chute des anges et de l’origine des géants comme explication du mal dans le monde dans l’apocalyptique juive. Histoire et tradition,” RHR 190 (1976): 3–­54. Dennis, J.: “Cosmology in the Petrine Literature and Jude,” in: J. T. Pennington / S. M. McDonough (eds.): Cosmology and New Testament Theology, LNTS 355, London/New York 2008, 157–­177.

Bibliography

453

Desjardins, M. R.: “The Portrayal of the Dissidents in 2 Peter and Jude: Does It Tell Us More about the ‘Godly’ and the ‘Ungodly’?” JSNT 30 (1987): 89–­102. Dochhorn, J.: “The Motif of the Angel’s Fall in Early Judaism,” in: F. V. Reiterer / K. Schöpflin / T. Nicklas (eds.): Angels, Berlin 2007, 477–­495. Doering, L.: “Apostle, Co-­Elder, and Witness of Suffering. Author Construction and Peter Image in First Peter,” in: J. Frey et al. (eds.): Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen, WUNT 246, Tübingen 2009, 645–­681. Doering, L.: Ancient Jewish Letters and the Beginnings of Christian Epistolography, WUNT 298, Tübingen 2012. Dölger, F. J.: “Lumen Christi,” Antike und Christentum 5 (1936): 1–­43. Dschulnigg, P.: “Der theologische Ort des zweiten Petrusbriefes,” BZ 33 (1989): 166–­171. Dunn, J. D. G.: Jesus and the Spirit, London 1975. Dupont, J.: Gnosis: La connaisance religieuse dans les épîtres de Saint Paul, Louvain/Paris, 1949. Ebner, M.: “Der christliche Kanon,” in: M. Ebner / St. Schreiner (eds.): Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Studienbücher Theologie 6, Stuttgart 2008, 9–­52. Elliott, J. H.: “Peter, Silvanus and Mark in 1 Peter and Acts. Sociological-­ Exegetical Perspectives on a Petrine Group in Rome,” in: W. Haubeck / M. Bachmann (eds.): Wort in der Zeit. Neutestamentliche Studien (FS K. H. Rengstorf), Leiden 1980, 250–­267. Elliott, J. K.: “The Petrine Epistles in the Editio Critica Maior,” NovT 42 (2000): 328–­339. Ellis, E. E.: The Making of the New Testament Documents, BibInt 39, Leiden 2000. Ellis, E. E.: “Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Jude,” in: Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity, WUNT 18, Tübingen 1978, 221–­236. Enslin, M. S.: Christian Beginnings, New York 1938. Erlemann, K.: Naherwartung und Parusieverzögerung im Neuen Testament. Ein Beitrag zur Frage religiöser Zeiterfahrung, TANZ 17, Tübingen/ Basel 1995. Fahr, H. / U. Glessmer: Jordandurchzug und Beschneidung als Zurechtweisung in einem Targum zu Josua 5. Edition des MS T.–­S. B 13,12, Orientalia biblica et christiana 3, Glückstadt 1991. Farkasfalvy, D.: “The Ecclesiastical Setting of Pseudepigraphy in Second Peter and Its Role in the Formation of the Canon,” Second Century 5 (1985/6): 3–­29.

454 Bibliography

Feldman, L. H.: “The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, according to Philo, Pseudo-­Philo, and Josephus,” Henoch 23 (2001): 185–­198. Feldman, L. H.: “Josephus’ Portrait of Balaam,” Studia Philonica Annual 5 (1993): 48–­83, repr. in: Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, JSJSup 58, Leiden 1998, 110–­136. Feldmeier, R.: Der erste Brief des Petrus, THKNT 15/1, Leipzig 2005; Eng. trans.: The First Letter of Peter. A Commentary on the Greek Text, trans. Peter H. Davids, Waco 2008. Fischel, H. A.: “The Uses of the Sorites in the Tannaitic Period,” HUCA 44 (1973): 119–­151. Fitzgerald, J. T.: “Virtue/Vice Lists,” ABD 6:857–­859. Fitzmyer, J. A.: “Aramaic Epistolography,” in: J. L. White (ed.): Studies in Ancient Letter Writing, Semeia 22, Chico 1982, 25–­57. Fitzmyer, J. A.: “The Name Simon,” in: Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament, London 1971, 105–­110. Fornberg, T.: An Early Church in a Pluralistic Society. A Study of 2 Peter, CBNT 9, Lund 1977. Förster, W.: “σέβομαι κτλ.,” TWNT 7:169–­195. Fossum, J.: “Kyrios Jesus as the Angel of the Lord in Jude 5–­7,” NTS 33 (1987): 226–­243. Foster, P.: The Gospel of Peter. Introduction, Critical Edition and Commentary, TENTS 4, Leiden/Boston 2010. Frankemölle, H.: Der Brief des Jakobus: Kapitel 2–­5, ÖTK 17/2, Gütersloh /Würzburg 1994. Frenschkowski, M.: “Erkannte Pseudepigraphie? Ein Essay über Fiktionalität, Antike und Christentum,” in: J. Frey et al. (eds.): Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen, WUNT 246, Tübingen 2009, 181–­232. Frey, J.: “ ‘Apokryphisierung’ im Petrusevangelium: Überlegungen zum Ort des Petrusevangeliums in der Entwicklung der Evangelienüberlieferung,” in: J. Schröter (ed.): The Apocryphal Gospels within the Context of Early Christian Theology, BETL 260, Leuven 2013, 157–­195. Frey, J.: “Apostelbegriff, Apostelamt und Apostolizität. Neutestamentliche Perspektiven zur Frage nach der ‘Apostolizität’ der Kirche,” in: T. Schneider / G. Wenz (eds.): Das kirchliche Amt in apostolischer Nachfolge, vol. 1: Grundlagen und Grundfragen, Dialog der Kirchen 12, Freiburg i. Br./Göttingen 2004, 91–­188. Frey, J.: “Autorfiktion und Gegnerbild im Judasbrief und im Zweiten Petrusbrief,” in: J. Frey et al. (eds.): Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen, WUNT 246, Tübingen 2009, 683–­732.

Bibliography

Frey, J.: “Die Bedeutung der Qumrantexte für das Verständnis der Apokalyptik im Frühjudentum und im Urchristentum,” in: M. Becker / J. Frey (eds.): Apokalyptik und Qumran, Einblicke 10, Paderborn 2007, 11–­62. Frey, J.: “Between Holy Tradition and Christian Virtues? The Use of πίστις/ πιστεύειν in Jude and 2 Peter,” in J. Frey / B. Schliesser / N. Überschaer (eds.): Glaube. Das Verständnis des Glaubens im frühen Christentum und in seiner jüdischen und hellenistisch-­römischen Umwelt, WUNT 373, Tübingen, 609–­640. Frey, J.: “Different Patterns of Dualism in the Qumran Library,” in M. J. Bernstein / F. García Martínez / J. Kampen (eds.): Legal Texts and Legal Issues. Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization of Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995, STDJ 25, Leiden 1997, 275–­335. Frey, J.: “Disparagement as Argument,” in: J. van der Watt / R. Zimmermann (eds.): Moral Language in the New Testament, WUNT 296, Tübingen 2010, 275–­310. Frey, J.: “The Epistle of Jude between Judaism and Hellenism,” in K.-­W. Niebuhr / R. Wall (eds.): The Catholic Epistles and the Apostolic Tradition, Waco 2009, 309–­30, 463–­75. Frey, J.: “Eschatology in the New Testament: An Introduction,” in: J. van der Watt (ed.): Eschatology in the New Testament and Some Related Documents, WUNT 315, Tübingen 2011, 3–­32. Frey, J.: “Fire and Water? Apocalyptic Imagination and Hellenistic Worldview in 2 Peter,” in: Joel Baden / H. Najman / E. Tigchelaar (eds.): Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls. John Collins at Seventy, vol. 1, Leiden/ Boston 2016, 451–­471. Frey, J.: The Glory of the Crucified One, ed. and trans. W. M. Coppins / Ch. Heilig, BMSEC, Waco 2018. Frey, J.: “Herder und die Evangelien,” in: M. Keßler / V. Leppin (eds.): Johann Gottfried Herder. Aspekte seines Lebenswerks, AKG 92, Berlin/ New York 2005, 47–­91. Frey, J.: “Hermeneutical Problems Posed by Second Peter,” in W. Grünstäudl / T. Nicklas / U. Poplutz (eds.): Appendix oder Herzstück? Der 2. Petrusbrief und das Neue Testament, WUNT 397, Tübingen 2018, 9–­36. Frey, J.: Die Herrlichkeit des Gekreuzigten: Studien zu den Johanneischen Schriften I, ed. Juliane Schlegel, WUNT 307, Tübingen 2013. Frey, J: “Zur historischen Auswertung der antiken Essenerberichte. Ein Beitrag zum Gespräch mit Roland Bergmeier,” in: J. Frey / H.

455

456 Bibliography

Stegemann with M. Becker (eds.): Qumran kontrovers, Einblicke 6, Paderborn 2003, 23–­56. Frey, J.: Die johanneische Eschatologie, vol. 3: Die eschatologische Verkündigung in den joahnneischen Texten, WUNT 117, Tübingen 2000. Frey, J.: “Die johanneische Theologie als Klimax der neutestamentlichen Theologie,” ZTK 107 (2010): 448–­478. Frey, J.: “Der Judasbrief zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus,” in: W. Kraus / K.W. Niebuhr with L. Doering (eds.): Frühjudentum und Neues Testament im Horizont Biblischer Theologie, Tübingen 2003, 180–­210. Frey, J.: “Judgment of the Ungodly and the Parousia of Christ,” in: J. van der Watt (ed.): Eschatology in the New Testament and Some Related Documents, WUNT 315, Tübingen 2011, 493–­513. Frey, J.: “Eine neue religionsgeschichtliche Perspektive. Larry W. Hurtados Lord Jesus Christ und die Herausbildung der frühen Christologie,” in: C. Breytenbach / J. Frey (eds.), Reflections on Early Christian History and Religion—­Erwägungen zur frühchristlichen Religionsgeschichte, AJEC 81, Leiden/Boston 2012, 117–­168. Frey, J.: “On the Origins of the Genre of the ‘Literary Testament’: Farewell Discourses in the Qumran Library and Their Relevance for the History of the Genre,” in: K. Berthelot / D. Stoekl Ben Ezra (eds.): Qumranica Aramaica. The Aramaic Texts from Qumran, STDJ, Leiden/ Boston 2010, 345–­375. Frey, J.: “Paulus und die Apostel. Zur Entwicklung des paulinischen Apostelbegriffs und zum Verhältnis des Heidenapostels zu seinen ‘Kollegen,’” in: E.-M. Becker / P. Pilhofer (eds.): Biographie und Theologie des Paulus, WUNT 187, Tübingen 2005, 192–­227. Frey, J.: “Qumran und der biblische Kanon. Eine thematische Einführung,” in: M. Becker / J. Frey (eds.): Qumran und der biblische Kanon, Biblische-­ Theologische Studien 92, Neukirchen-­Vluyn 2009, 1–­63. Frey, J.: “Retter, Gott und Morgenstern. Metaphorik und Christologie im Zweiten Petrusbrief,” in: J. Frey / J. Rohls / R. Zimmermann (eds.): Metaphorik und Christologie, TBT 120, Berlin/New York 2003, 131–­148. Frey, J.: “Rez. A. Gerdmar, Rethinking the Judaism-­Hellenism Dichotomy. A Historiographical Case Study on Second Peter and Jude, CB.NT 36, Stockholm 2001,” TLZ 128 (2003): 393–­395. Frey, J.: “Second Peter in New Perspective,” in: M. den Dulk / J. Frey / J. G. van der Watt (eds.): Rethinking Second Peter. Radboud Prestige Lectures by Jörg Frey, Leiden/Boston 2018.

Bibliography

Frey, J.: “Vom Windbrausen zum Geist Christi und zur trinitarischen Person. Stationen einer Geschichte des Heiligen Geistes im Neuen Testament,” JBTh 24 (2009): 121–­154. Frey, J.: “Der zweifelnde Thomas (Joh 20,24–­29) im Spiegel seiner Rezeptionsgeschichte,” Hermeneutische Blätter 1 (2011): 5–­32. Gäckle, V.: Die Starken und die Schwachen in Korinth und in Rom, WUNT 200, Tübingen 2005. García Martínez, F.: “Eve’s Children in the Targumim,” in: G. Luttikhuizen (ed.): Eve’s Children. The Biblical Stories Retold and Interpreted in Jewish and Christian Traditions, Themes in Biblical Narrative 5, Leiden 2003, 27–­46. García Martínez, F.: “Sodom and Gomorrah in the Targumim,” in: E. Noort / E. Tigchelaar (eds.): Sodom’s Sin. Genesis 18–­19 and Its Interpretations, Themes in Biblical Narrative 7, Leiden 2004, 83–­96. Geiger, J.: “To the History of the Term Apikoros,” Tarbiz 42 (1972/3), 499–­500 (Heb.). Gerdmar, A.: Rethinking the Judaism-­Hellenism Dichotomy. A Historiographical Case Study of Second Peter and Jude, ConBNT 36, Stockholm 2001. Gese, H.: “Zur Geschichte der Kultsänger am zweiten Tempel,” in: H. Gese (ed.): Vom Sinai zum Zion, BEvT 64, München 1974, 147–­158. Geß, W. F.: Christi Person und Werk nach Christi Selbstzeugniß und den Zeugnissen der Apostel, part 2: Das apostolische Zeugniß von Christi Person und Werk nach seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Basel 1879. Gielen, M.: “Der Judasbrief,” in: M. Ebner / St. Schreiner (eds.): Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Studienbücher Theologie 6, Stuttgart 2008, 552–­558. Gielen, M.: “Der zweite Petrusbrief,” in: M. Ebner / St. Schreiner (eds.): Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Studienbücher Theologie 6, Stuttgart 2008, 522–­529. Gilmour, M. J.: The Significance of Parallels between 2 Peter and Other Early Christian Literature, AcBib 10, Atlanta 2002. Glickler Chazon, E.: “Moses’ Struggle for His Soul. A Prototype for the Testament of Abraham, the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra and the Apocalypse of Sedrach,” Second Century 5 (1985/6): 151–­164. Gnilka, J.: Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Freiburg 1999. Goldhahn-­Müller, I.: Die Grenze der Gemeinde. Studien zum Problem der Zweiten Buße im Neuen Testament unter Berücksichtigung der Entwicklung im 2. Jahrhundert bis Tertullian, GTA 39, Göttingen 1989. Goodspeed, E. J.: Introduction to the New Testament, Chicago 1937.

457

458 Bibliography

Grappe, Chr.: Images de Pierre aux dex premiers siècles, Etudes d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 75, Paris 1996. Grässer, E.: Das Problem der Parusieverzögerung in den synoptischen Evangelien und in der Apostelgeschichte, 2nd edn., Berlin 1960. Green, E. M. B.: Second Peter Reconsidered, London 1961. Greene, J. T.: “Balaam as Figure and Type in Ancient Semitic Literature to the First Century B.C.E., with a Survey of Selected Post-­Philo Applications of the Balaam Figure and Type,” SBLSP 29 (1990): 82–­147. Greene, J. T.: Balaam and His Interpreters. A Hermeneutical History of the Balaam Traditions, BJS 244, Atlanta 1992. Greene, J. T.: “Balaam. Prophet, Diviner, and Priest in Selected Ancient Israelite and Hellenistic Jewish Sources,” SBLSP 28 (1989): 57–­106. Grelot, P.: “Les Targums du Pentatateuque: Etude comparative d’après Genèse IV, 3–­16,” Sem 9 (1959): 59–­88. Grundmann, W.: “ἐγκράτεια κτλ.,” TWNT 2:338–­340. Grünstäudl, W.: “Ein apokryphes Petrusbild im Neuen Testament. Zur Konstruktion apostolischer Autorität in Off bPetr und 2 Petr,” in: J. Frey / C. Clivaz / T. Nicklas (eds.): Between Canonical and Apocryphal Texts, WUNT, Tübingen 2018. Grünstäudl, W.: “ ‘On Slavery.’ A Possible Herrenwort in 2 Pet 2:19,” NT 57 (2015): 57–­71. Grünstäudl, W.: Petrus Alexandrinus. Studien zum historischen und theologischen Ort des zweiten Petrusbriefes, WUNT 353, Tübingen 2013. Grünstäudl, W.: “Petrus, das Feuer und die interpretation der Schrift. Beobachtungen zum Weltenbrandmotiv im zweiten Petrusbrief,” in: L. Neubert / M. Tilly (eds.): Der eine Gott und die Völker in eschatologischer Perspektive, Biblische-­Theologische Studien 137, Neukirchen-­ Vluyn 2013, 183–­208. Grünstäudl, W. / T. Nicklas: “Searching for Evidence. The History of Reception of the Epistles of Jude and 2 Peter,” in: E. F. Mason / T. W. Martin (eds.): Reading 1–­2 Peter and Jude. A Resource for Students, SBLSBS 77, Atlanta 2014, 215–­228. Gundry-­Volf, J. M.: Paul and Perseverance, WUNT 37, Tübingen 1990. Gunther, J. J.: “The Alexandrian Epistle of Jude,” NTS 30 (1984): 549–­562. Gunther, J. J.: “The Meaning and Origin of the Name ‘Judas Thomas,’ ” Mus 93 (1980): 113–­148. Guthrie, D.: New Testament Introduction, 3rd edn., London 1970. Haacker, K. / Schäfer, P.: “Nachbiblische Traditionen vom Tod des Mose,” in: O. Betz / K. Haacker / M. Hengel (eds.): Josephus-­Studien (FS O. Michel), Göttingen 1974, 147–­174.

Bibliography

459

Hafemann, S.: “ ‘Divine Nature’ in 2 Pet 1,4 within its Eschatological Context,” Bib 94 (2013): 80–­99. Hagen, J. L.: “No Longer ‘Slavonic’ Only. 2 Enoch Attested in Coptic from Nubia,” in: A. A. Orlov / G. Boccaccini (eds.): New Perspectives on 2 Enoch. No Longer Slavonic Only, Studia Judaeoslavica, Leiden 2012, 7–­34. Hahn, F.: “Frühkatholizismus als ökumenisches Problem,” in: Exegetische Beiträge zum ökumenischen Gespräch, Gesammelte Aufsätze, vol. 1, Göttingen 1986, 39–­56. Hahn, F.: “Das Problem des Frühkatholizismus,” in: Exegetische Beiträge zum ökumenischen Gespräch, Gesammelte Aufsätze, vol. 1, Göttingen 1986, 57–­75. Hahn, F.: “Randbemerkungen zum Judasbrief,” TZ 37 (1981): 209–­218. Hahn, F.: Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 2 vols., Tübingen 2002. Hahn, F. / P. Müller: “Der Jakobusbrief,” Theologische Rundschau 63 (1981): 1–­73. Hahneman, G. M.: The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon, OTM, Oxford 1992. von Harnack, A.: Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius, 2 vols., Leipzig 1897/1904. von Harnack, A.: Einführung in die alte Kirchengeschichte. Das Schreiben der römischen Kirche an die korinthische aus der Zeit Domitians (I. Clemensbrief), Leipzig 1929. von Harnack, A.: Die Lehre der zwölf Apostel nebst Untersuchungen zur ältesten Geschichte der Kirchenverfassung und des Kirchenrechts, TU 2, Berlin 1886. Harnisch, W.: Eschatologische Existenz. Ein exegetischer Beitrag zum Sachanliegen von 1. Thessalonicher 4,13–­5,11, FRLANT 110, Göttingen 1973. Haubeck, W.: Loskauf durch Christus. Herkunft, Gestalt und Bedeutung des paulinischen Loskaufmotivs, Giessen 1985. Heckel, Th. K.: “Die Traditionsverknüpfungen des zweiten Petrusbriefes und die Anfänge einer neutestamentlichen biblischen Theologie,” in: R. Gebauer / M. Meiser (eds.): Die bleibende Gegenwart des Evangeliums (FS O. Merk), Marburger Theologische Studien 76, Marburg 2003, 189–­204. Heckel, U.: Hirtenamt und Herrschaftskritik. Die urchristlichen Ämter aus johanneischer Sicht, Biblisch Theologische Studien 65, Neukirchen-­ Vluyn 2004. Heckel, U.: Der Segen im Neuen Testament, WUNT 150, Tübingen 2002.

460 Bibliography

Heiligenthal, R.: Zwischen Henoch und Paulus. Studien zum theologiegeschichtlichen Ort des Judasbriefes, TANZ 6, Tübingen 1992. Hengel, M.: “Anonymität, Pseudepigraphie und literarische Fälschung in der jüdisch-­hellenistischen Literatur,” in: Judaica et Hellenistica. Kleine Schriften I, WUNT 90, Tübingen 1996, 196–­251. Hengel, M.: “Christologie und neutestamentliche Chronologie,” in: Studien zur Christologie. Kleine Schriften IV, WUNT 201, Tübingen 2006, 27–­51. Hengel, M.: “Jakobus der Herrenbruder—­der erste Papst?” in: Paulus and Jakobus. Kleine Schriften III, WUNT 141, Tübingen 2002, 549–­582. Hengel, M.: “Der Jakobusbrief als antipaulinische Polemik,” in: G. F. Hawthorne / O. Betz (eds.): Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament (FS E. E. Ellis), Grand Rapids/Tübingen 1987, 248–­278. Hengel, M.: “Jerusalem als jüdische und hellenistische Stadt,” in: Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana. Kleine Schriften II, WUNT 109, Tübingen 1999, 115–­156. Hengel, M.: Judentum und Hellenismus, 3rd edn., WUNT 10, Tübingen 1988. Hengel, M.: “Zum Problem der ‘Hellenisierung’ Judäas im 1. Jahrhundert nach Christus,” in: Judaica et Hellenistica. Kleine Schriften I, WUNT 90, Tübingen 1996, 1–­90. Hengel, M.: Der unterschätzte Petrus. Zwei Studien, Tübingen 2006. Hengel, M.: Die vier Evangelien und das eine Evangelium von Jesus Christus, WUNT 224, Tübingen 2008. Hengel, M. / R. Deines: “Die Septuaginta als ‘christliche Schriftensammlung,’ ihre Vorgeschichte und das Problem ihres Kanons,” in: M. Hengel / A. M. Schwemer (eds.): Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum, WUNT 72, Tübingen 1994, 182–­284. Henshaw, T.: New Testament Literature in the Light of Modern Scholarship, London 1952. Hiebert, D. E.: “Selected Studies from 2 Peter, Part 2. The Prophetic Foundation for the Christian Life. An Exposition of 2 Peter 1:19–­21,” BSac 141 (1984): 158–­168. Himmelfarb, M.: Tours of Hell. An Apocalyptic Form in Jewish and Christian Literature, Philadelphia 1983. Holmes, M.: “Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians,” in: A. Gregory / Ch. Tuckett (eds.): The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, Oxford 2007, 187–­227.

Bibliography

Hoppe, R.: “Evangelium im Widerstreit. Zum Problem innerkirchlicher Toleranz am Beispiel des Parusieglaubens,” in: I. Broer / R. Schlüter (eds.): Christentum und Toleranz, Darmstadt 1996, 35–­56. Hoppe, R.: “Parusieglaube zwischen dem ersten Thessalonicherbrief und dem zweiten Petrusbrief. Ein unerledigtes Problem,” in: J. Schlosser (ed.): The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition, BETL 176, Leuven 2004, 433–­449. van der Horst, P. W.: “The Elements Will Be Dissolved with Fire: The Idea of Cosmic Conflagration in Hellenism, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity,” in: Hellenism—­Judaism—­Christianity. Essays in Their Interaction, Grand Rapids 1993, 227–­251. Hossfeld, F.-­L. / E. Zenger: Psalmen 51–­100, 2nd edn., HThKAT, Freiburg i. B. 2000. Hübner, H.: “2 Petr 1,4. Eine Blasphemie, die keineswegs gotteslästerlich ist,” in: M. Öhler / W. Pratscher (eds.): Theologie in der Spätzeit des Neuen Testaments. Vorträge auf dem Symposion zum 75. Geburtstag von Kurt Niederwimmer, Gutachten und Studien 2, Wien 2005, 67–­79. Hübner, H.: Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, vol. 2: Die Theologie des Paulus und ihre neutestamentliche Wirkungsgeschichte, Göttingen 1993, 399–­410. Hultin, J. F.: “The Literary Relationships among 1 Peter, 2 Peter and Jude,” in: E. F. Mason / T. W. Martin (eds.): Reading 1–­2 Peter and Jude. A Resource for Students, SBLSBS 77, Atlanta 2014, 27–­45. Hurtado, L. H.: Lord Jesus Christ. Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, Grand Rapids 2003. Hutton, R. R.: “Korah,” ABD 4:100–­101. Jacobi, Ch.: Jesusüberlieferung bei Paulus? Untersuchungen zu Analogien zwischen den echten Paulusbriefen und den synoptischen Evangelien, BZNW, Berlin/New York 2015. Jakab, A.: “The Reception of the Apocalypse of Peter in Ancient Christianity,” in: J. N. Bremmer / I. Czachesz (eds.): The Apocalypse of Peter, Studies in Early Christian Apocrypha 7, Leuven 2003, 174–­186. Janßen, M.: “Antike (Selbst-­)Aussagen über Beweggründe zur Pseudepigraphie,” in: J. Frey et al. (eds.): Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen, WUNT 246, Tübingen 2009, 125–­179. Janßen, M.: “ ‘Evangelium des Zwillings?’ Das Thomasevangelium als Thomas-­Schrift,” in: J. Frey / E. E. Popkes / J. Schröter with Ch. Jacboi (eds.): Das Thomasevangelium. Entstehung—­Rezeption—­Theologie, BNZW 157, Berlin/New York 2008, 221–­248.

461

462 Bibliography

Janßen, M.: Unter falschem Namen. Eine kritische Forschungsbilanz frühchristlicher Pseudepigraphie, ARGU 14, Frankfurt a. M./New York 2003. Janßen, M. / J. Frey: “Einführung,” in: J. Frey et al. (eds.): Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen, WUNT 246, Tübingen 2009, 3–­23. Jessien, A.: De authentia epistolae Judae commentatio critica, Lipsiae 1821. Johnson, L. T.: “The New Testament’s Anti-­Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic,” JBL 108 (1989): 419–­4 41. Joubert, S. J.: “Facing the Past. Transtextual Relationships and Historical Understanding in the Letter of Jude,” BZ 42 (1998): 56–­70. Joubert, S. J.: “Language, Ideology and the Social Context of the Letter of Jude,” Neotestamentica 24 (1990): 335–­349. Joubert, S. J.: “Persuasion in the Letter of Jude,” JSNT 58 (1995): 75–­87. Jülicher, A. / E. Fascher: Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 7th edn., Tübingen 1931. Jung, F.: ΣΩΤΗΡ. Studien zur Rezeption eines hellenistischen Ehrentitels im Neuen Testament, NTA 39, Münster 2002. Kahmann, J.: “The Second Letter of Peter and the Letter of Jude. Their Mutual Relationship,” in: J. M. Sevrin (ed.): The New Testament in Early Christianity, BETL 86, Leuven 1989, 105–­121. Karpp, H.: “Bileam,” RAC 2 (1954): 362–­373. Karrer, M.: Jesus Christus im Neuen Testament, GNT 11, Göttingen 1998. Karrer, M.: “Jesus, der Retter (Sôtêr). Zur Aufnahme eines hellenistischen Prädikats im Neuen Testament,” ZNW 93 (2002): 153–­176. Käsemann, E.: “Eine Apologie der urchristlichen Eschatologie,” ZTK 49 (1952): 272–­296, repr. in: Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen I, Göttingen 1964, 135–­157; Eng. trans.: “An Apologia for Primitive Christian Eschatology,” in: Essays on New Testament Themes, London 1964, 169–­195. Käsemann, E.: Das Neue Testament als Kanon: Dokumentation und kritische Analyse zur gegenwärtigen Diskussion, Göttingen 1970. Kelhoffer, J. A.: “Reciprocity as Salvation. Christ as Salvific Patron and the Correspondendig ‘Payback’ Expected of Christ’s Earthly Clients according to the Second Letter of Clement,” NTS 59 (2013): 433–­456. Kienle, B. von: Feuermale: Studien zur Wortfelddimension “Feuer” in den Synoptikern, im pseudophilonischen Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum und im 4. Esra. Bodenheim 1993.

Bibliography

Kilpatrick, G. D.: “Ἀγάπη as Love-­Feast in the New Testament,” in: C. C. Marcheselli (ed.): Parola e spirito: Studi Onore di Settimio Cipriani, Brescia 1982, 157–­162. Klauck, H.-­J.: Die antike Briefliteratur und das Neue Testament, Paderborn 1998. Klein, G.: “Der zweite Petrusbrief und der neutestamentliche Kanon,” in: Ärgernisse-­Konfrontationen mit dem Neuen Testament, München 1970, 109–­114. Klein, G.: Die zwölf Apostel, FRLANT 77, Göttingen 1961. Klein, T.: Der Jakobusbrief und der Erste Petrusbrief als christliche Diaspora-­ Briefe, NET 18, Tübingen etc. 2011. Klijn, A. F. J.: “John XIV 22 and the Name Judas Thomas,” in: M. T. Rientsma et al. (eds.): Studies in John (FS J. N. Sevenster), NTSup 24, Leiden 1970, 88–­96. Klijn, A. F. J.: “Jude 5-­7,” in: W. C. Weinrich (ed.): The New Testament Age (FS B. Reicke), vol. 1, Macon 1984, 237–­244. Knight, J.: 2 Peter and Jude, New Testament Guides, Sheffield 1995. Knoch, O.: Die “Testamente” des Petrus und Paulus, SBS 62, Stuttgart 1973. Koester, H.: Einführung in das Neue Testament im Rahmen der Religionsgeschichte und Kulturgeschichte der hellenistischen und römischen Zeit, Berlin/New York 1980. Koester, H.: Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 1: History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age, New York 1987; vol. 2: History and Literature of Early Christianity, 2nd edn., Berlin/New York 2000. Koester, H.: “φύσις κτλ.,” TWNT 9:246–­271. Kollmann, B.: Ursprung und Gestalten der frühchristlichen Mahlfeier, GTA 43, Göttingen 1990. Konradt, M.: “Der Jakobusbrief als Brief des Jakobus,” in: P. von Gemünden / M. Konradt / G. Theißen (eds.): Der Jakobusbrief. Beiträge zur Rehabilitierung der “strohernen Epistel”, Beiträge zum Verstehen der Bibel 3, Münster 2003, 16–­53. van Kooten, G. H.: Cosmic Christology in Paul and the Pauline School, WUNT 171, Tübingen 2003. Koskenniemi, H.: Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr., Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae B 102/2, Helsinki 1956. Kraus, T. J.: “Acherusia und Elysion. Anmerkungen im Hinblick auf deren Verwendung auch im christlichen Kontext,” Mnemosyne 56 (2003): 145–­163.

463

464 Bibliography

Kraus, T. J.: “Fürbitte für die Toten im frühen Christentum: ‘Ich werde . . . den gewähren, den sie aus der Strafe erbitten,’ ” in: H. Klein et al. (eds.): Das Gebet im Neuen Testament, WUNT 249, Tübingen 2009, 355–­396. Kraus, T. J.: “Grammatisches Problembewusstsein als Regulativ für angemessene Sprachbeurteilung: Das Beispiel der griechischen Negation und 2Petr,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 14 (2001): 87–­99. Kraus, T. J.: “Die griechische Petrus-­Apokalypse und ihre Relation zu ausgewählten Überlieferungsträgern apokalyptischer Stoffe,” Apocrypha 14 (2003): 73–­98. Kraus, T. J.: “Hapax legomena. Definition eines terminus technicus und Signifikanz für eine pragmatisch orientierte Sprachanalyse,” NTS 59 (2013): 545–­564. Kraus, T. J.: “Von Hund und Schwein. Das Doppelsprichwort 2Petr 2,22 und seine Hapax legomena aus linguistischer, textkritischer und motivgeschichtlicher Sicht,” Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 30/1 (2013): 37–­61. Kraus, T. J.: “Παρὰ κυρίου, παρὰ κυρίῳ oder omit in 2 Petr 2,11. Textkritik und Interpretation vor dem Hintergrund juristischer Diktion und der Verwendung von παρά,” ZNW 91 (2000): 265–­273. Kraus, T. J.: “P.Vindob.G 39756 + Bodl. MS Gr. th. f. 4 [P]. Fragmente eines Codex der griechischen Petrus-­Apokalypse,” BASP 40 (2003): 45–­61. Kraus, T. J.: Sprache, Stil und historischer Ort des zweiten Petrusbriefes, WUNT 136, Tübingen 2001. Krauss, S.: Griechische und lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum, 2 vols., Berlin 1898, repr. Hildesheim 1964. Kubo, S.: “Jude 22-­23. Two-­d ivision Form or Three?” in: E. J. Epp / G. D. Fee (eds.): New Testament Text Criticism. Its Significance for Exegesis, Oxford 1981, 239–­253. Kubo, S.: “Textual Relationships in Jude,” in: K. Elliot (ed.): Studies in New Testament Language and Text. Essays in Honour of George D. Kilpatrick on the Occasion of his Sixty-­Fifth Birthday, NovTSup 44, Leiden 1976, 276–­82. Küchler, M.: Frühjüdische Weisheitstraditionen. Zum Fortgang weisheitlichen Denkens im Bereich des frühjüdischen Jahweglaubens, OBO, Freiburg 1979. Kuhn, K. G.: “Βαλαάμ,” TWNT 1:521–­523. Kümmel, W. G.: Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 21st edn., Heidelberg 1983. Kümmel, W. G.: Das Neue Testament. Geschichte der Erforschung seiner Probleme, OA 3/3, Freiburg/München 1958, 2nd edn. 1970.

Bibliography

Kümmel, W. G.: “Notwendigkeit und Grenze des neutestamentlichen Kanons,” in: E. Käsemann (ed.): Das Neue Testament als Kanon. Dokumentation und kritische Analyse zur gegenwärtigen Diskussion, Göttingen 1970, 62–­97. Kvanvig, H.: Roots of Apocalyptic, WMANT 61, Neukirchen-­Vluyn 1988. Lampe, G. W. H.: “ ‘Grievous Wolves’ (Acts 20:19),” in: B. Lindars / S. S. Smalley (eds.): Christ and Spirit in the New Testament (FS C. F. D. Moule), Cambridge 1973, 253–­268. Lampe, P.: Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten, 2nd edn., WUNT 18, Tübingen 1989. Landon, Ch. H.: A Text-­Critical Study of the Epistle of Jude, JSNTSup 135, Sheffield 1996. Laperoussaz, E. M.: “Le Testament de Moïse,” Sem 19 (1970): 1–­140. Lee, S. S.: Jesus’ Transfiguration and the Believers’ Transformation. A Study on the Transfiguration and Its Development in Early Christian Writings, WUNT 265, Tübingen 2009. Leipoldt, J.: Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, 2 vols., Leipzig 1907/8. Levison, J. R.: The Spirit in First-Century Judaism, Leiden 2003. Lewis, J. P.: A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish Literature, Leiden 1968. Lietaert Peerbolte, L. J.: The Antecedents of Antichrist, JSJSup 49, Leiden 1996. Lietzmann, H.: Messe und Herrenmahl. Eine Studie zur Geschichte der Liturgie, Berlin/Boston, 1967. Lindemann, A.: “Der erste Clemensbrief,” in: W. Pratscher (ed.): Die Apostolischen Väter. Eine Einleitung, Uni-­Taschenbücher 3272, Göttingen 2009. Lindemann, A.: Paulus im ältesten Christentum. Das Bild des Apostels und die Rezeption der paulinischen Theologie in der frühchristlichen Theologie bis Marcion, BHT 58, Tübingen 1979. Loader, J. A.: A Tale of Two Cities. Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament, Early Jewish and Early Christian Traditions, Kampen 1990. Lona, H. E.: An Diognet, Kommentar zu frühchristlichen Apologeten 8, Freiburg 2001. Lona, H. E.: Der erste Clemensbrief, Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vätern 2, Göttingen 1998. Losekam, C.: Die Sünde der Engel. Die Engelfalltradition in frühjüdischen und gnostischen Texten, TANZ 41, Tübingen/Basel 2010.

465

466 Bibliography

Lührmann, D.: “Gal 2,9 und die katholischen Briefe,” ZNW 72 (1981): 65–­87. Lührmann, D.: “Noah und Lot (Lk 17,26-­29)—­ein Nachtrag,” ZNW 63 (1972): 130–­132. Lumby, J. R.: “On the Epistles of St. Peter. The Second Epistle,” Exp 4 (1876): 372–­399, 446–­469. Lunceford, J. E.: “Judas,” in: Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, Grand Rapids 2000, 748. Magaß, W.: “Semiotik einer Ketzerpolemik am Beispiel von Judas 12f.,” Linguistica Biblica 19 (1972): 36–­47. Maier, F.: “Ein Beitrag zur Priorität des Judasbriefs,” ThQ 87 (1905): 547–­580. Maier, F.: Der Judasbrief. Seine Echtheit, Abfassungszeit und Leser (BSt 11,1–­ 2), Freiburg 1906. Makujina, J.: “The ‘Trouble’ with Lot in 2 Peter: Locating Peter’s Source for Lot’s Torment,” WTJ 60 (1998): 255–­269. Malina, B.: Die Welt des Neuen Testaments, Stuttgart 1993. Markschies, Ch.: “Gnosis/Gnostizismus,” RGG4 3 (2000):1045–­1053. Markschies, Ch.: Die Gnosis, 2nd edn., C. H. Beck Wissen, München 2001. Markschies, Ch.: Kaiserzeitliche christliche Theologie und ihre Institutionen. Prolegomena zu einer Geschichte der antiken christlichen Theologie, Tübingen 2007; Eng. trans.: Christian Theology and Its Institutions in the Early Roman Empire. Prolegomena to a History of Early Christian Theology, BMSEC, Waco 2015. Marmorstein, A.: “Les ‘Epicuriens’ dans la littérature talmudique,” REJ 54 (1907): 181–­193. Marrassini, P.: “L’Apocalisse die Pietro,” in: Y. Beyene et al. (eds.): Etiopia e oltre, Napoli 1994, 171–­232. Martin, R. P. : “The Theology of Jude, 1 Peter, and 2 Peter,” in: A. Chester / R. P. Martin: The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude, New Testament Theology, Cambridge 1994, 63–­163. Marxsen, W.: Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 4th edn., Gütgersloh 1984. Mason, E. F.: “Biblical and Nonbiblical Traditions in Jude and 2 Peter: Sources, Usage, and the Question of Canon,” in: E. F. Mason / T. W. Martin (eds.): Reading 1–­2 Peter and Jude. A Resource for Students, SBLSBS 77, Atlanta 2014, 181–­200. Mathews, M. D.: “The Literary Relationship between 2 Peter and Jude,” Neotestamentica 44 (2010): 47–­66. Maurer, Ch.: “προσδοκάω κτλ.,” TWNT 6:725–­727.

Bibliography

Mayer, R.: Die biblische Vorstellung vom Weltenbrand. Eine Untersuchung über die Beziehungen zwischen Parsismus und Judentum, Bonn 1956. Mazich, E.: “ ‘The Lord Will Come with His Holy Myriads.’ An Investigation of the Linguistic Source of the Citation of 1 Enoch 1,9 in Jude 14b-­15,” ZNW 94 (2003): 276–­281. McNamara, M.: “The Unity of Second Peter. A Reconsideration,” Scr 12 (1960): 13–­19. Meade, D. G.: Pseudonymity and Canon. An Investigation into the Relationship of Authorship and Authority in Jewish and Earliest Christian Tradition, WUNT 39, Tübingen 1986. Mees, M.: “Papyrus Bodmer VII (𝔓72) und die Zitate aus dem Judasbrief bei Clemens von Alexandrien,” in: T. Alonso (ed.): Miscelánea Patristica. Homenaje al Angel C. Vega, Madrid 1968, 133–­141. Meier, S.: “2 Peter 3:3-­7—­An Early Jewish and Christian Response to Eschatological Scepticism,” BzN 32 (1988): 255–­257. Merkt, A.: “1 Peter in Patristic Literature,” in: E. F. Mason / T. W. Martin (eds.): Reading 1–­2 Peter and Jude. A Resource for Students, SBLSBS 77, Atlanta 2014, 167–­179. Merkt, A.: Der erste Petrusbrief, Novum Testamentum Patristicum, Göttingen 2015. Metzger, B. M.: Kanon des Neuen Testaments, Düsseldorf 1993. Metzger, B. M.: The New Testament. Its Background, Growth and Content, London 1969. Michaelis, J. D.: Einleitung in die göttlichen Schriften des Neuen Bundes I, 4th edn., Göttingen 1788. Michaelis, W.: Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Die Entstehung, Sammlung und Überlieferung, Bern 1946, 3rd edn. 1961. Michaelis, W.: Der Herr verzieht nicht die Verheißung. Die Aussagen Jesu über die Nähe des Jüngsten Tages, Bern 1942. Michaels, J. R.: “Second Peter and Jude—­Royal Promises,” in: G. W. Barker / W. L. Lande / J. R. Michaels: The New Testament Speaks, New York 1969, 346–361. Michel, H.-­J.: Die Abschiedsrede des Paulus an die Kirche Apg 20,17–­38. Moivgeschichte und theologische Bedeutung, SANT 35, München 1973. Michl, J.: Die Engelvorstellung in der Apokalypse des Heiligen Johannes, München 1937. Miller, G. D.: “Attitudes toward Dogs in Ancient Israel: A Reassessment,” JSOT 32 (2008), 487–­500. Miller, R. J.: “Is There Independent Attestation for the Transfiguration in 2 Peter?,” NTS 42 (1996): 620–­625.

467

468 Bibliography

Miller, T. A.: “Dogs, Adulterers, and the Way of Balaam. The Forms and Socio-­R hetorical Function of the Polemical Rhetoric in 2 Peter (Part 1),” IBS 22, no. 3 (2000): 123–­144, 182–­191. van Minnen, P.: “The Akhmîm Gospel of Peter,” in: T. J. Kraus / T. Nicklas (eds.): Das Evangelium nach Petrus. Text, Kontexte, Intertexte, TU 158, Berlin/New York 2007, 53–­60. van Minnen, P.: “The Greek Apocalpyse of Peter,” in: J. N. Bremmer / I. Czachesz (eds.): The Apoalypse of Peter, Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha 7, Leuven 2003, 15–­39. Molland, E.: “La thèse ‘La prophétie n’est jamais venue de la volonté de l’homme’ (2 Pierre 1,21) et les Pseudo-­Clémentines,” ST 9 (1955): 67–­85. Moore, M. S.: The Balaam Traditions. Their Character and Development, SBLDS 113, Atlanta 1990. Müller, C. D. G.: “Offenbarung des Petrus,” in: W. Schneemelcher (ed.): Neutestamentlich Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, vol. 2: Apostolischen, Apokalypsen und Verwandtes, 6th edn., Tübingen 1999, 562–­578. Müller, U. B.: Zur frühchristlichen Theologiegeschichte. Judentum und Paulinismus in Kleinasien an der Wende vom ersten zum zweiten Jahrhundert n. Chr., Gütersloh 1976. Mullins, T. Y.: “Petition as a Literary Form,” NovT 5 (1962): 46–­54. Munck, J.: Discours d’adieu dans le Nouveau Testament et dans la littérature biblique, in Aux sources de la tradition chrétienne (FS M. Goguel), Bibliothèque théologique, Neuchâtel/Paris 1950, 155–­170. Muro, E. A.: “The Greek Fragments of Enoch from Qumran Cave 7 (7Q4, 7Q8, & 7Q12 = 7QEn gr = Enoch 103: 3–­4, 7–­8),” Revue de Qumrân 18, no. 22 (1997): 307–­312. Najman, H.: “Cain and Abel as Character Traits: A Study in the Allegorical Typology of Philo of Alexandria,” in: G. Luttikhuizen (ed.): Eve’s Children. The Biblical Stories Retold and Interpreted in Jewish and Christian Traditions, Themes in Biblical Narrative 5, Leiden 2003, 107–­118. Najman, H.: Seconding Sinai. The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism, JSJSup 77, Leiden/Boston 2003. Neugebauer, O.: Ethiopic Astronomy and Computus, SÖAW.PH 347, Wien 1979. Newman, J. H.: “Lot in Sodom: The Post-­Mortem of a City and the Afterlife of a Biblical Text,” in: C. A. Evans / J. A. Sanders (eds.): The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition, JSNTSup 154/SSEJC 6, Sheffield 1998, 34–­4 4.

Bibliography

469

Neyrey, J. H.: “The Apologetic Use of the Transfiguration in 2 Peter 1:16–­ 21,” CBQ 42 (1980): 504–­519. Neyrey, J. H.: “The Form and Background of the Polemic in 2 Peter,” JBL 99 (1980): 407–­431. Neyrey, J. H.: “The Form and Background of the Polemic in 2 Peter,” PhD diss., Yale 1977. Nickelsburg, G. W. E.: 1 Enoch 1. A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–­36; 81–­108, Hermeneia, Minneapolis 2001. Nickelsburg, G. W. E.: “Two Enochic Manuscripts: Unstudied Evidence for Egyptian Christianity,” in: H. W. Attridge / J. J. Collins / T. H. Tobin (eds.): Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins, Resources in Religion 5, Lanham, Md. 1991, 251–­260. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. / J. C. VanderKam: 1 Enoch 2. A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 37–­82, Hermeneia, Minneapolis 2011. Nicklas, T.: “Christliche Apokryphen als Zeugen der Vielfalt christlichen Lebens,” Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 23 (2006): 27–­44. Nicklas, T.: “ ‘Drink the Cup Which I Promised You’ (Apoc. Pet. 14:4). The Death of Peter and the End of Times,” in: J. Knight / K. Sullivan (eds.): The Open Mind. Aspects of Apocalypticism in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity (FS for Christopher Rowland), LNTS, Edinburgh 2014, 183–­200. Nicklas, T.: “ ‘Insider’ und ‘Outsider’: Überlegungen zum historischen Kontext der Darstellung ‘ jenseitiger Orte’ in der Offenbarung des Petrus,” in: W. Ameling (ed.): Topographie des Jenseits. Studien zur Geschichte des Todes in Kaiserzeit und Spätantike, Altertumswissenschaftliches Kolloquium 21, Stuttgart 2011, 35–­48. Nicklas, T.: “Jewish, Christian, Greek? The Apocalypse of Peter as a Witness of Early 2nd-Cent. Christianity in Alexandria,” in: L. Arcari (ed.): Beyond Conflicts. Cultural and Religious Cohabitations in Alexandria and in Egypt between the 1st and the 6th Century CE, STAC, Tübingen 2016, 27–­46. Nicklas, T.: “Der ‘lebendige Text’ des Neuen Testaments. Der Judasbrief auf 𝔓72 (P. Bodmer VII),” Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 22 (2005): 203–­222. Nicklas, T.: “Spuren der Offenbarung des Petrus in der Alten Kirche,” in: T. J. Kraus / T. Nicklas: Studien zur Offenbarung des Petrus: Historische Einordnung, Überlieferung, Theologie, WUNT, Tübingen forthcoming. Nicklas, T. / T. Wasserman: “Theologische Linien im Codex Bodmer Miscellani?” in: T. J. Kraus / T. Nicklas (eds.): New Testament

470 Bibliography

Manuscripts. Their Texts and Their World, TENTS 2, Leiden 2006, 161–­188. Niebuhr, K.-­W.: “A New Perspective on James? Neuere Forschungen zum Jakobusbrief,” TLZ 129 (2004): 1019–­1044. Nienhuis, D. R. / R. W. Wall: Reading the Epistles of James, Peter, John and Jude as Scripture. The Shaping and Shape of a Canonical Collection, Grand Rapids/Cambridge 2013. Norelli, E.: “Situation des apocryphes pétriniens,” Apocrypha 2 (1991): 31–­83. Normann, F.: Teilhabe—­ein Schlüsselwort der Vätertheologie, Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie 42, Münster 1978. Oleson, J. P.: “An Echo of Hesiod’s Theogony VV. 190–­2 in Jude 13,” NTS 25 (1979): 492–­503. Oropeza, B. J.: Paul and Apostasy, WUNT 115, Tübingen 2000. Osburn, C. D.: “1 Enoch 80:2-­8 (67:5-­7) and Jude 12-­13,” CBQ 47 (1985): 296–­303. Osburn, C. D.: “The Christological Use of 1 Enoch 1.9 in Jude 14, 15,” NTS 23 (1976/7): 334–­341. Osburn, C. D.: “Discourse Analysis and Jewish Apocalyptic in the Epistle of Jude,” in: D. A. Black (ed.): Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation. Essays on Discourse Analysis, Nashville 1992, 287–­319. Osburn, C. D.: “The Text of Jude 5,” Bib 62 (1981): 107–­115. Osburn, C. D.: “The Text of Jude 22-­23,” ZNW 63 (1972): 139–­144. Painter, J.: Just James. The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition, Edinburgh 1997. Parker, D. C.: An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts, Cambridge 2008. Paulsen, H.: “Judasbrief,” TRE 17 (1988):307–­310. Paulsen, H.: “Kanon und Geschichte. Bemerkungen zum Zweiten Petrusbrief,” in: Zur Literatur und Geschichte des frühen Christentums. Gesammelte Aufsätze, WUNT 99, Tübingen 1997, 154–­161. Paulsen, H.: “Das Kerygma Petri und die urchristliche Apologetik,” ZKG 88 (1977): 1–­37. Pearson, B. A.: “The Apocalypse of Peter and Canonical 2 Peter,” in: J. E. Goehring et al. (eds.): Gnosticism and the Early Christian World (FS J. M. Robinson), Sonoma 1990, 67–­74. Pearson, B. A.: “Enoch in Egypt,” in: R. A. Argall / B. A. Bow / R. A. Werline (eds.): For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, Harrisburg 2000, 216–­231.

Bibliography

Pearson, B. A.: “The Pierpont Morgan Fragments of a Coptic Enoch Apocryphon,” in: G. W. E. Nickelsburg / R. A. Kraft (eds.): Studies on the Testament of Abraham, Missoula 1976, 227–­283. Pearson, B. A.: The Pneumatikos-­Psychikos Terminology in 1 Corinthians, SBLDS 12, Missoula 1973. Pearson, B. A.: “A Reminiscence of Classical Myth at 2 Peter 2:4,” GRBS 10 (1969): 71–­80; repr. in: The Emergence of the Christian Religion. Essays on Early Christianity, Harrisburg 1997, 75–­87. Perkins, Ph.: Peter. Apostle for the Whole Church, Columbia, S.C. 1994. Peterson, E.: “Die ‘Taufe’ im Acherusischen See,” in: Frühkirche, Judentum und Gnosis, Freiburg 1959, 310–­332. Pfitzner, V. C.: Paul and the Agon Motif, NTSup 16, Leiden 1967. Pfleiderer, O.: Das Urchristentum, vol. 2, 2nd edn., Berlin 1902. Picirilli, R. E.: “Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers,” JSNT 33 (1988): 57–­83. Picirilli, R. E.: “The Meaning of ‘Epignosis’,” EvQ 47 (1975): 85–­93. Pietersma, A.: The Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres, the Magicians. P. Chester Beatty XVI (With New Editions of Papyrus Vindobonensis Greek inv. 29456 + 29828 Verso and British Library Cotton Tiberius B. v f. 87), RGRW 119, Leiden 1994. Pietersma, A.: “Jannes and Jambres,” ABD 3:638–­640. Popkes, W.: Der Brief des Jakobus, THKNT 14, Leipzig 2001. Poplutz, U.: Athlet des Evangeliums. Eine motivgeschichtliche Studie zur Wettkampfmetaphorik bei Paulus, HBS 43, Freiburg 2004. Porter, S. E. / A. W. Pitts: “ ‘τοῦτο πρῶτον γινῶσκοντες ὅτι’ in 2 Peter 1:20 and Hellenistic Epistolary Convention,” JBL 127 (2008): 165–­171. Pratscher, W.: Der Herrenbruder Jakobus und die Jakobustradition, FRLANT 139, Göttingen 1987. Pratscher, W.: “Die Parusieerwartung im 2. Klemensbrief,” in: M. Becker / M. Öhler (eds.): Apokalyptik als Herausforderung neutestamentlicher Theologie, WUNT 214, Tübingen 2006, 197–­210. Pratscher, W.: Der zweite Clemensbrief, KAV 3, Göttingen 2007. Prostmeier, F. R.: Der Barnabasbrief, KAV 8, Göttingen 1999. Puech, É.: “Sept fragments grecs de la Lettre d’Hénoch (1 Hén 100, 103 et 105) dans la grotte de Qumrân (= 7QHéngr),” Revue de Qumrân 18 (1997): 313–­323. Rappaport, S.: “Der gerechte Lot. Bemerkung zu II Ptr 2,7.8,” ZNW 29 (1930): 299–­304. Reed, A. Y.: Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity. The Reception of Enochic Lierature, Cambridge 2005.

471

472 Bibliography

Reese, R. A.: Writing Jude. The Reader, the Text, and the Author in Constructs of Power and Desire, BIS 51, Leiden 2000. Rehn, A.: “Vomunt ut edant, edunt ut vomant. Beobachtungen zur Epikurpolemik in der römischen Literatur,” in: R. Feldmeier / U. Heckel (eds.): Die Heiden. Juden, Christen und das Problem des Fremden, Tübingen 1994, 381–­399. Reicke, B.: Diakonie, Festfreude, Zelos, Uppsala 1951. Renan, E.: Saint Paul, Paris 1869. Rengstorf, K. H.: “δεσπότης,” TWNT 2:43–­48. Repo, E.: Der “Weg” als Selbstbezeichnung des Urchristentums, STAT B 132/2, Helsinki 1964. Resch, A.: Agrapha. Aussercanonische Evangelienfragmente, Leipzig 1889. Richards, W. L.: “The Present Status of Text Critical Studies in the Catholic Epistles,” AUSS 13 (1975): 262–­272. Riedl, H. J.: Anamnese und Apostolizität. Der zweite Petrusbrief und das theologische Problem neutestamentlicher Pseudepigraphie, Regensburger Studien zur Theologie 64, Frankfurt a. M. 2005. Riesner, R.: “Der zweite Petrusbrief und die Eschatologie,” in: G. Maier (ed.): Zukunftserwartung in biblischer Sicht, Wuppertal 1984, 124–­143. Robinson, J. A. T.: Redating the New Testament, London 1976. Robson, E. I.: Studies in the Second Epistle of St. Peter, Cambridge 1915 Roloff, J.: “Anamnese und Wiederholung im Abendmahl,” in: Y. Spiegel (ed.): Erinnern—­Wiederholen—­Durcharbeiten. Zur Sozialpsychologie des Gottesdienstes, Stuttgart 1972, 107–­130. Roose, H.: Eschatologische Mitherrschaft. Entwicklungslinien einer urchristlichen Erwartung, NTOA 54, Göttingen/Freiburg 2004. Rösel, M.: “Wie einer vom Propheten zum Verführer wurde. Tradition nd Rezeption der Bileamgestalt,” Bib 80 (1999): 506–­524. Röwekamp, P.: “Petrus-­Literatur,” in S. Döpp / W. Geerlings (eds.): Lexicon der antiken christlichen Literatur, 2nd edn., Freiburg 1998, 495–­498. Rowston, D.: “The Most Neglected Book in the New Testament,” NTS 21 (1974/5): 554–­563. de Ru, G.: “De authenticiteit van II Petrus,” Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 24 (1969/70): 1–­12. Ruf, M. G.: Die heiligen Propheten, eure Apostel und ich. Metatextuelle Studien zum zweiten Petrusbrief, WUNT 300, Tübingen 2011. Ruf, M. G.: “Ein neuer Versuch den Petrus-­Code zu knacken. Der zweite Petrusbrief als allographische Fortsetzung,” in: B. Becking / A. Merz (eds.): Verhaal als identiteitscode (FS Geert van Oyen), Utrechtse Theologische Reeks 60, Utrecht 2008, 256–­259.

Bibliography

Schäfer, P. / K. Herrmann: Übersetzung der Hekhalot-­Literatur, vol. 1: §§1–­80, TSAJ 46, Tübingen 1995. Schattner-­R ieser, U.: “Le ‘chien’ dans la tradition juive et dans la littérature biblique, extra-­ou postbiblique (Ahiqar, écrits de Qumrân et autres pseudépigraphes) et rabbinique,” Res Antiquae 6 (2009): 293–­304. Schelkle, K. H.: “Der Judasbrief bei den Kirchenvätern,” in: O. Betz / M. Hengel / P. Schmidt (eds.): Abraham unser Vater (FS O. Michel), Leiden/Köln 1963, 405–­416; repr. in: Wort und Schrift, Düsseldorf 1966, 300–­308. Schenke, H.-­M. / K. M. Fischer: Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. 2, Gütersloh 1979, 315–­320, 321–­330. Schimanowski, G.: Die himmlische Liturgie in der Apokalypse des Johannes, WUNT 154, Tübingen 2002. Schlatter, A.: Einleitung in die Bibel, 5th edn., Stuttgart 1933. Schlosser, J.: “Le corpus des épîtres catholiques,” in: J. Schlosser (ed.): The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition, BETL 176, Leuven 2004, 3–­41. Schlosser, J.: “Les jours de Noé et de Lot. A propos de Luc XVII, 26–­30,” RB 80 (1973): 13–­36. Schmidt, K. M.: Mahnung und Erinnerung im Maskenspiel. Epistolographie, Rhetorik und Narrativik der pseudepigraphen Petrusbriefe, HBS 38, Freiburg 2003. Schmidt, K. M.: “Die Stimme des Apostels erheben. Pragmatische Leistungen der Autorenfiktion in den Petrusbriefen,” in: J. Frey et al. (eds.): Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen, WUNT 246, Tübingen 2009, 625–­644. Schmithals, W.: Neues Testament und Gnosis, EdF 208, Darmstadt 1984. Schnackenburg, R.: Die sittliche Botschaft des Neuen Testaments 2. Die urchristlichen Verkündiger, HThKNTSup 2/2, Freiburg 1988. Schnelle, U.: Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 8th edn., Uni-­Taschenbücher 1830, Göttingen 2013. Schnelle, U.: Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Göttingen 2007. Schnider, F. / W. Stenger: Studien zum neutestamentlichen Briefformular, NTTS 11, Leiden 1987. Scholtissek, K.: “In ihm sein und bleiben.” Die Sprache der Immanenz in den johanneischen Schriften, HBS 21, Freiburg i. B. 2000. Schrage, W.: “ ‘Ein Tag ist beim Herrn wie tausend Jahre, und tausend Jahre sind wie ein Tag,’ ” in: E. Gräßer (ed.): Glaube und Eschatologie (FS W. G. Kümmel), Tübingen 1985, 267–­276. Schröter, J.: Das Abendmahl, SBS 210, Stuttgart 2006.

473

474 Bibliography

Schultheiß, T.: Das Petrusbild im Johannesevangelium, WUNT 328, Tübingen 2012. Schulz, S.: Die Mitte der Schrift. Der Frühkatholizismus im Neuen Testament als Herausforderung an den Protestantismus, Stuttgart/Berlin 1976. Schumacher, Th.: Zur Entstehung christlicher Sprache. Eine Untersuchung der paulinischen Idiomatik und der Verwendung des Begriffes πίστις, BBB 168, Göttingen 2012. Schürer, E. / G. Vermes / F. Millar: The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC–­AD 135), vol. 3/1–­2, Edinburgh 1986. Scott, E. F.: The Literature of the New Testament, New York 1932. Sellin, G.: “Die Häretiker des Judasbriefes,” ZNW 77 (1986): 206–­225. Sellin, G.: Der Streit um die Auferstehung der Toten. Eine religionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Untersuchung von 1. Korinther 15, FRLANT 138, Göttingen 1986. Sickenberger, J.: “Engels-­oder Teufelslästerer im Judasbriefe (8–­10) und im 2. Petrusbriefe (2,10–­12)?” in: FS zur Jahrhundertfeier der Universität Breslau, Breslau 1911, 621–­639. Siker, J. S.: “The Canonical Status of the Catholic Epistles in the Syriac New Testament,” JTS 38 (1987): 311–­340. Skarsaune, O.: “Jewish Christian Sources Used by Justin Martyr and Some Other Greek and Latin Fathers,” in: O. Skarsaune / R. Hvalvik (eds.): Jewish Believers in Jesus, Grand Rapids 2007, 379–­416. Smalley, R. S.: “The Delay of the Parousia,” JBL 83 (1964): 41–­54. Smit Sibinga, J.: “Une citation du Cantique dans la Secunda Petri,” RB 73 (1966): 107–­118. Smith, T. V.: Petrine Controversies in Early Christianity. Attitudes towards Peter in Christian Writings of the First Two Centuries, WUNT 15, Tübingen 1985. Smitmans, A.: “Das Gleichnis vom Dieb,” in: A. Feld / J. Nolte (eds.): Wort Gottes in der Zeit (FS K. H. Schelkle), Düsseldorf 1973, 43–­68. Snyder, G. F.: “The Tobspruch in the New Testament,” NTS 23 (1976/7): 117–­120. Snyder, J. I.: The Promise of His Coming. The Eschatology of 2 Peter, San Mateo 1986. Soards, M. L.: “1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude as Evidence for a Petrine School. With Addenda by V. O. Ward,” ANRW 25/5 (1988): 3827–­3849. von Soden, H.: Urchristliche Literaturgeschichte, Berlin 1905. Speyer, W.: Die literarische Fälschung im heidnischen und christlichen Altertum. Ein Versuch ihrer Deutung, Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 1/2, München 1971.

Bibliography

Spitaler, P.: “Doubt or Dispute (Jude 9 and 22-23). Rereading a Special New Testament Meaning through the Lense of Internal Evidence,” Bib 87 (2006): 201–­222. Spitta, F.: “Die Petrusapokalypse und der zweite Petrusbrief,” ZNW 12 (1911): 237–­242. Spitta, F.: Der zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas. Eine geschichtliche Untersuchung, Halle 1885. Staats, R.: “Ogdoas als Symbol für die Auferstehung,” VC 26 (1972): 29–­52. Stählin, G.: “ἡδονή,” TWNT 2:911–­928. Stählin, G.: “μῦθος,” TWNT 4:769–­803. Starr, J. M.: Sharers in Divine Nature. 2 Peter 1:4 in Its Hellenistic Context, CBNT 33, Stockholm 2000. Stein, H. J.: Frühchristliche Mahlfeiern. Ihre Gestalt und Bedeutung nach der neutestamentlichen Briefliteratur und der Johannesoffenbarung, WUNT 255, Tübingen 2008. Stephens, M. B.: Annihilation or Renewal? The Meaning and Function of New Creation in the Book of Revelation, WUNT 307, Tübingen 2011. Sterling, G. E.: “Prepositional Metaphysics in Jewish Wisdom Speculation and Early Christian Liturgical Texts,” in D. T. Runia / G. E. Sterling (eds.): Wisdom and Logos. Studies in Jewish Thought, BJS 312/SPhiloA 9, Atlanta 1997, 219–­238. Steudel, A.: “‫ אחרית הימים‬in the Texts from Qumran,” Revue de Qumrân 16 (1993/4): 225–­246. Steudel, A.: Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschata.b), STDJ 13, Leiden 1994. Strecker, Ch.: “Fides—­Pistis—­Glaube. Konxte und Kulturen einer Theologie der ‘Annahme’ bei Paulus,” in: M. Bachmann (ed.): Lutherische und Neue Paulusperspektive, WUNT 182, Tübingen 2005, 223–­250. Strecker, G.: “Orientierung an den Anfängen—­Judasbrief und 2. Petrusbrief,” in: F. W. Horn (ed.): Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Berlin/ New York 1996, 675–­689. Streeter, B. H.: The Primitive Church, London 1929. Strobel, A.: Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen Verzögerungsproblem auf Grund der spätjüdisch-­frühchristlichen Geschichte von Habakuk 2,2ff, NovTSup 2, Leiden/Köln 1961. Stuckenbruck, L. T.: 1 Enoch 91–­108, CEJL, Berlin 2008. Stuckenbruck, L. T.: Angel Veneration and Christology, WUNT 70, Tübingen 1995. Stuckenbruck, L. T.: “The Book of Enoch. Its Reception in Second Temple Jewish and in Christian Tradition,” Early Christianity 4 (2013): 7–­40.

475

476 Bibliography

Stuckenbruck, L. T.: “The Origins of Evil in Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition. The Interpretation of Genesis 6:1-­4 in the Second and Third Centuries B.C.E.,” in: Ch. Auffarth / L. T. Stuckenbruck (eds.): The Fall of the Angels, Themes in Biblical Narrative 6, Leiden/Boston 2004, 87–­118. Stuckenbruck, L. T. / M. D. Mathews: “The Apocalypse of John, 1 Enoch, and the Question of Influence,” in: J. Frey / J. A. Kelhoffer / F. Tóth (eds.), Die Johannesapokalypse. Kontexte—­Konzepte—­Wirkungen, WUNT 287, Tübingen 20112, 191–­235. Stuhlmacher, P.: “Anamnese. Eine unterschätzte hermeneutische Kategorie,” in: Biblische Theologie und Evangelium, WUNT 146, Tübingen 2002, 191–­214. Stuhlmacher, P.: Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testament, vol. 1: Grundlegung. Von Jesus zu Paulus, Göttingen 1992, 2nd edn. 1997, 3rd edn. 2005. Stuhlmacher, P.: Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testament, vol. 2: Von der Paulusschule bis zur Johannesoffenbarung, Göttingen 1992, 2nd edn. 1999. Sullivan, K. P.: Wrestling with Angels. A Study of the Relationship between Angels and Humans in Ancient Jewish Literature and the New Testament, AGJU 55, Leiden 2004. Szewc, E.: “ ‘Doxai’ in den katholischen Briefen und die qumranische Literatur,” Folio Orientalia 21 (1980), 129–­140. Taatz, I.: Frühjüdische Briefe. Die paulinischen Briefe im Rahmen der offiziellen religiösen Briefe des Frühjudentums, NTOA 16, Göttingen 1991. Talbert, C. H.: “II Peter and the Delay of the Parousia,” VC 20 (1966): 137–­145. Tellbe, M.: Christ-­Believers in Ephesus. A Textual Analysis of Early Christian Identity Formation in a Local Perspective, WUNT 242, Tübingen 2009. Theissen, G.: “Soziale Integration und sakramentales Handeln,” in: Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums, 2nd edn., WUNT 19, Tübingen 1989, 290–­317. Theodorou, A.: “Die Lehre von der Vergottung des Menschen bei den griechischen Kirchenvätern,” KD 7 (1961): 283–­310. Thrall, M. E.: The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 2 vols., ICC, Edinburgh 1994. Thurén, L.: “The General New Testament Writings,” in: S. E. Porter (ed.): Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period (330 B. C.–­ A. D. 400), Leiden 1997, 587–­607. Thurén, L.: “Hey Jude! Asking for the Original Situation and Message of a Catholic Epistle,” NTS 43 (1997): 451–­465.

Bibliography

Thurén, L.: “The Relationship between 2 Peter and Jude: A Classical Problem Resolved,” in: J. Schlosser (ed.): The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition, BETL 176, Leuven 2004, 451–­460. Thurén, L.: “Style Never Goes out of Fashion. 2 Peter Re-­Evaluated,” in: S. E. Porter / T. H. Olbricht (eds.): Rhetoric, Scripture and Theology. Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference, JSNTSup 131, Sheffield 1996, 329–­347. Tigchelaar, E.: “Is the Liar Bar Kokhba? Considering the Date and Provenance of the Greek (Ethiopic) Apocalypse of Peter,” in: J. N. Bremmer / I. Czachesz (eds.): The Apocalypse of Peter, Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha 7, Leuven 2003, 63–­77. Tigchelaar, E.: “Sodom and Gomorrah in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in: E. Noort / E. Tigchelaar (eds.): Sodom’s Sin. Genesis 18–­19 and its Interpretations, Themes in Biblical Narrative 7, Leiden 2004, 47–­62. du Toit, A.: “Vilification as a Pragmatic Device in Early Christian Epistolography,” Bib 75 (1994): 403–­412. Tóth, F.: Der himmlische Kult. Wirklichkeitskonstruktion und Sinnbildung in der Johannesofenbarung, ABG 22, Leipzig 2006. Touati, Ch.: “Le Purgatoire dans les littératures d’Égypte et d’Afrique du Nord (Ier–­IVe s. ap. J.-­C.),” diss. phil., Neuchâtel 2012. Trebilco, P.: The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius, WUNT 166, Tübingen 2004. Trimaille, M.: “Le ‘De sera’ de Plutarque et la patience de Dieu en 2 P 3,” in: J. Schlosser (ed.): The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition, BETL 176, Leuven 2004, 473–­481. Trobisch, D.: Die Endredaktion des Neuen Testaments, NTOA 31, Freiburg /Göttingen 1996. Tsuji, M.: Glaube zwischen Vollkommenheit und Verweltlichung, WUNT 93, Tübingen 1993. Tuckett, Ch.: 2 Clement. Introduction, Text and Commentary, Oxford 2012. Ullendorf, E.: Ethiopia and the Bible (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1967), Oxford 1968. Ullmann, K.: Der zweite Brief Petri, kritisch untersucht, Heidelberg 1821. van Unnik, W. C.: “Die Rücksicht auf die Reaktion der Nicht-­Christen als Motiv in der altchristlichen Paränese,” in: Sparsa Collecta, part 2: I Peter, Canon, Corpus Hellenisticum, Generalia, NovTSup 30, Leiden 1980, 307–­322. Usener, K.: “Ekpyrosis—­ein (nicht nur) mythologisches Denkmodell inder Antike. Der Weltenbrand in der antiken Literatur,” in: L. Neubert / M.

477

478 Bibliography

Tilly (eds.): Der eine Gott und die Völker in eschatologischer Perspektive, Biblisch Theologische Studien 137, Neukirchen-­Vluyn 2013, 149–­181. VanderKam, J. C.: “1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs, and Enoch in Early Christian Literature,” in: J. C. VanderKam / W. Adler (eds.): The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity, CRINT 3/4, Assen/Minneapolis 1996, 33–­101. VanderKam, J. C.: Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, CBQMS 16, Washington, D.C. 1984. VanderKam, J. C.: Enoch. A Man for All Generations, Columbia 1995. VanderKam, J. C.: “The Theophany of Enoch 1:3b-­7, 9,” VT 23 (1973): 129–­150. Verheyden, J.: “The Canon Muratori. A Matter of Dispute,” in: J.-­M. Auwers / H. J. de Jonge (eds.): The Biblical Canons, BETL 163, Leuven 2003, 487–­556. Vermes, G.: “The Decalogue and the Minim,” in: Post-­Biblical Studies, SJLA 8, Leiden 1975, 169–­177. Vermes, G.: “The Story of Balaam. The Scriptural Origin of Haggadah,” in: Scripture and Tradition in Judaism. Haggadic Studies, 2nd edn., StPB 4, Leiden 1973, 127–­177. Vermes, G.: “The Targumic Versions of Genesis 4:3-­16,” in: Post-­Biblical Jewish Studies, SJLA 8, Leiden 1975, 92–­126. Vielhauer, Ph.: Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur, Berlin/New York 1975, 589–­594. Vielhauer, Ph.: Oikodome. Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament, TB 65, München 1979. Viljoen, F. P.: “Faithful Christian Living amidst the Scoffers of the Judgment Day. Ethics and Ethos in Jude and 2 Peter,” in: J. G. van der Watt (ed.): Identity, Ethics and Ethos in the New Testament, BZNW 141, Berlin/New York 2006, 511–­533. Vogel, M.: Commentatio mortis. 2 Kor 5,10 auf dem Hintergreund antiker ars moriendi, FRLANT 214, Göttingen 2006. Vögtle, A.: “Christo-­logie und Theo-­logie im Zweiten Petrusbrief,” in: C. Breytenbach / H. Paulsen (eds.): Anfänge der Christologie (FS F. Hahn), Göttingen 1991, 383–­398. Vögtle, A.: “‘Dann sah ich einen neuen Himmel und neue Erde...’ (Apk 21,1): Zur kosmischen Dimension neutestamentlicher Eschatologie,” in: E. Gräßer (ed.): Glaube und Eschatologie (FS W. Kümmel), Tübingen 1985, 303–­333.

Bibliography

Vögtle, A.: “ ‘Keine Prophetie der Schrift ist Sache eigenwilliger Auslegung’ (2 Petr 1,20b),” in: Offenbarungsgeschehen und Wirkungsgeschichte, Freiburg 1985, 305–­328. Vögtle, A.: Das Neue Testament und die Zukunft des Kosmos, Düsseldorf 1970. Vögtle, A.: “Petrus und Paulus nach dem Zweiten Petrusbrief,” in: Offenbarungsgeschehen und Wirkungsgeschichte, Freiburg 1985, 223–­239. Vögtle, A.: “Die Schriftwerdung der apostolischen Paradosis nach 2 Petr 1, 12-­15,” in: Offenbarungsgeschehen und Wirkungsgeschichte, Freiburg 1985, 297–­304. Vögtle, A.: Die Tugend-­und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament, NTAbh 16/4–­5, Münster 1936. Vouga, F.: “Apostolische Briefe als ‘scriptura.’ Die Rezeption des Paulus in den katholischen Briefen,” in: H. H. Schmid / J. Mehlhausen (eds.): Sola Scriptura. Das reformatorische Schriftprinzip in der säkularen Welt, Gütersloh 1991, 194–­210. van der Waerden, B. L.: “Das Große Jahr und die Ewige Wiederkehr,” Hermes 80 (1952): 129–­155. Wall, R. W.: “The Canonical Function of 2 Peter,” BibInt 9 (2001): 64–­81. Wall, R. W.: “A Unifying Theology of the Catholic Epistles. A Canonical Approach,” in: J. Schlosser (ed.): The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition, BETL 176, Leuven 2004, 43–­71. Wanke, G.: Die Zionstheologie der Korachiten in ihrem traditionsgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang, BZAW 97, Berlin 1966. Wasserman, T.: The Epistle of Jude. Its Text and Transmission, ConBNT 43, Stockholm 2006. Wasserman, T.: “Papyrus 72 and the Bodmer Miscellaneous Codex,” NTS 51 (2005): 137–­154. Watson, D. F.: Invention, Arrangement, and Style. Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter, SBLDS 104, Atlanta 1988. van der Watt, J. G.: “Reciprocity, Mimesis and 1 John,” in: U. Poplutz / J. Frey (eds.): Erzählung und Briefe im johanneischen Kreis, WUNT 420, 2016, 257–­277. van der Watt, J. G. / R. Zimmermann (eds.): Moral Language in the New Testament, WUNT 296, Tübingen 2010. Webb, R. L.: “The Eschatology of the Epistle of Jude and Its Rhetorical and Social Functions,” BBR 6 (1996): 139–­151. Webb, R. L.: “The Rhetorical Function of Visusal Imagery in Jude. A Socio-­R hetorical Experiment in Rhetography,” in: R. L. Webb /

479

480 Bibliography

P. H. Davids (eds.): Reading Jude with New Eyes, LNTS 383, London/ New York 2008, 109–­135. Webb, R. L. / P. H. Davids (eds.): Reading Jude with New Eyes, LNTS 383, London/New York 2008. Webb, R. L. / D. F. Watson (eds.): Reading Second Peter with New Eyes, LNTS 382, London/New York 2010. Wehr, L.: Petrus und Paulus—­Kontrahenten und Partner. Die beiden Apostel im Spiegel des Neuen Testaments, der Apostolischen Väter und früher Zeugnisse ihrer Verehrung, NTA 30, Münster 1996. Weiser, A.: Der zweite Brief an Timotheus, EKK 16/1, Zürich 2003. Weiss, B.: Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Neue Tesament, Berlin 1886. Weiss, B.: “Die petrinische Frage. Kritische Unteruschungen II: Der zweite petrinische Brief,” ThStKr 39 (1866): 255–­308. Weiß, H.-­F.: Der Brief an die Hebräer, KEK 13, Göttingen 1991. Weiß, K.: “ἀρχηv,” EDNT 1:388–­392. Wendland, E. R.: “A Comparative Study of ‘Rhetorical Criticism,’ Ancient and Modern—­With Special Reference on the Larger Structure and Function of the Epistle of Jude,” Neot 28 (1994): 193–­228. Wendt, K.: “Der Kampf um den Kanon Heiliger Schriften in der Äthiopischen Kirche der Reformen des XV. Jahrhunderts,” JSS 9 (1964): 107–­113. Werdermann, H.: Die Irrlehrer des Judas-­und 2. Petrusbriefes, BFCT 17/6, Gütersloh 1913. Werner, M.: Die Entstehung des christlichen Dogmas problemgeschichtlich dargestellt, Bern/Leiptzig 1941. Whallon, W.: “Should We Keep, Omit, or Alter the οἱ in Jude 12?” NTS 34 (1988): 156–­159. Wick, P.: Die urchristlichen Gottesdienste. Entstehung und Entwicklung im Rahmen der frühjüdischen Tempel-­, Synagogen-­und Hausfrömmigkeit, 2nd edn., BWANT 150, Stuttgart etc. 2003. Wikgren, A. P.: “Some Problems in Jude 5,” in: B. L. Daniels / M. J. Suggs (eds.): Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament in Honor of Kenneth William Clark, SD 29, Salt Lake City 1967, 147–­152. Wilckens, U.: Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 2 vols. in 6 parts, Neukirchen-­ Vluyn 2002–­2009. Willi-­Plein, I.: Das Buch Genesis. Kapitel 12–­50, Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar Altes Testament 1/2, Stuttgart 2011. Windisch, H.: Taufe und Sünde im ältesten Christentum bis auf Origenes, Tübingen 1908. Windisch, H.: Der zweite Korintherbrief, 9th edn., KEK, Göttingen 1924.

Bibliography

Winter, M.: Pneumatiker und Psychiker in Korinth, Marburger Theologische Studien 12, Marburg 1975. Winter, M.: Das Vermächtnis Jesu und die Abschiedsworte der Väter, FRLANT 161, Göttingen 1994. Winter, S. C.: “Jude 22-­23: A Note on the Text and Translation,” HTR 87 (1994): 215–­222. Wisse, F.: “The Epistle of Jude in the History of Heresiology,” in: M. Krause (ed.): Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts (FS A. Böhlig), Leiden 1972, 133–­143. Wolter, M.: Der Brief an die Kolosser, ÖTK 12, Gütersloh 1993. Wolters, A.: “Partners of the Deity. A Covenantal Reading of 2 Peter 1:4,” CTJ 25 (1990): 28–­4 4. Wolters, A.: “Postscript to ‘Partners of the Deity,’ ” CTJ 26 (1991): 418–­420. Wolthuis, T. R.: “Jude and Jewish Traditions,” CTJ 22 (1987): 21–­41. Wolthuis, T. R.: “Jude and the Rhetorician. A Dialogue on the Rhetorical Nature of the Epistle of Jude,” CTJ 24 (1989): 126–­134. Wright, A. T.: The Origin of Evil Spirits. The Reception of Genesis 6.1-­4 in Early Jewish Literature, WUNT 198, Tübingen 2005. Zahn, Th.: Brüder und Vettern Jesu, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altchristlichen Literatur 6, part 2, Leipzig 1900, 225–­363. Zahn, Th.: Einleitung in das Neue Testament, vols. 1–­2, 2nd edn., Leipzig 1900. Zahn, Th.: Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, vol. 1: Das Neue Testament vor Origenes, part 1, Erlangen 1888. Zimmermann, R.: “Lügen für die Wahrheit? Das Phänomen urchristlicher Pseudepigrafie am Beispiel des Kolosserbriefs,” in: O. Hochadel / U. Kocher (eds.): Lügen und Betrügen. Das Falsche in der Geschichte von der Antike bis zur Moderne, Köln 2000, 257–­272. Zimmermann, R.: “Unecht—­und doch wahr? Pseudepigraphie im Neuen Testament als theologisches Problem,” ZNT 12 (2003): 27–­38. Zmijewski, J.: “Apostolische Paradosis und Pseudepigraphie im Neuen Testament. ‘Durch Erinnerung wachhalten’ (2. Petr. 1,13; 3,1),” BzN 23 (1979): 161–­171. Zwierlein, O.: “Petrus in Rom? Die literarischen Zeugnisse,” in: Petrus und Paulus in Jerusalem und Rom. Vom Neuen Testament zu den apokryphen Apostelakten, Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 109, Berlin 2013, 3–­30. Zwierlein, O.: “Sind Petrus und Paulus in Rom gestorben?,” in: Petrus und Paulus in Jerusalem und Rom. Vom Neuen Testament zu den apokryphen Apostelakten, Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 109, Berlin 2013, 105–­149.1.

481

This page intentionally left blank

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

Old Testament

18:20 91 18:23 332 19 90 19:4 333 19:5 91 19:8 91, 332 19:16 333 90 19:20-­22 91 19:24-­25 19:29 331 19:30-­38 332 22:2 198 22:11-­12 100 29:35 58 36:32 351 39:10 91 40:8 309 41:8, 12 309 40–­41 309 47:29–50:14 283

Genesis 1:1 207 389, 392 1:2 1:6 389 1:6-­8 388 2:7 138 2:17 402 4:8 105 4:14-­15 105 5 329 5:4 119 5:18 86 5:24 120 5:21-­24 119 6:1-­2 225 6:2-­3 329 6:1-­4 86, 87, 88, 91, 234, 326, 327 6:7, 13 392 6:1-­8 329 6:9 330 6-­9 124 7:4 392 7:4, 17 392 7:11 329 8:18 329 13:13 91 13:8-­13 332

Exodus 2:12 99 14:10-­12 84 15:11 96 15:25 130 16:2-­12 130 17:3 130 20:17 335 483

484

Index of Ancient Sources

Numbers 11:1 130 13:16 81 14 84, 129 14:2, 11 85 14:2, 27, 29 130 14:11 85 14:13-­14 85 106 15–­16 16 107 16:1 107, 108 16:1-­2 107 16:3 107 16:3-­4 107 16:5 108 16:11 130 107 16:9-­10 16:31-­35 108 16:32-­33, 35 107 130 17:6, 20 20:13 107 22:5 350 22:17 351 22:18 105, 351 22:23 350 351 22:28-­30 22:30 352 22:31 106 22:32 350 23:1 352 23:7 352 24:2 105 24:4 352 106 24:3-­4 24:11 351 24:13 105, 351 24:17 180, 305, 306 105, 350 22–­­24 351 23–­­24 26:9 108 26:64-­65 84 31:8 106, 351 31:16 106, 350 31:15-­17 352 Deuteronomy 1:27 130 5:15 83 5:21 335 7:7-­8 61 7:18 83 8:2, 28 83 9:23 85 10:17 132

13:6 319 13:2, 4, 6 94 18:20 316, 317 18:22 315 23:5 106 23:5-­6 349 28:50 132 29:23 90 32:3 157 32:15 61 32:51 107 32:20 85 33:2 128 33:1-­3 124 61 33:5, 26 33:8 107 33:26 300 34:5-­6 99 Joshua 23–­24 24:9-­10

283 106, 349

Ruth 4:13-­22

322

1 Samuel 12 283 12:23 350 17:43 364 30:17 305 1 Kings 15:26, 34 (LXX) 104 104 16:2, 19, 26 20:19 363 22:25 (LXX) 316 22:38 363 324 28:27 (LXX) 2 Kings 8:13 364 8:18, 27 (LXX) 104 16:3 (LXX) 104 1 Chronicles 1:43 351 16:36 159 29:11 157 2 Chronicles 11:17 104 19:7 132 21:6 104 Ezra 5:7 58 5:11 58



Index of Ancient Sources

Nehemiah 8:6 159 9:14 58 13:2 106, 349 Job 1–­2 100 3:9 305 8:19 331 11:17 305 13:10 132 21:17 331 22:8 132 24:13 362 27:7 331 38:12 305 40:20 328 41:10 305 41:24 328 42:17 351 Psalms 1:1 136 1:3 ­116 2:7 295 9:7-­8 136 13:1 136 23:5 156 24:2 388 24:5 156 26:1, 9 156 28:6 61 33:7 388 40:14 158 41:4, 11 379 41:14 159 42:44-­49 107 45:7 253 61:3, 7 156 64:6 156 72:19 159 78:9 156 78:10 379 80:8 107 84–85 107 87–88 107 89:3 58 89:4 180 89:53 159 90:4 180, 200, 400, 402, 403, 408, 432 91:1 156 95:8 129, 130 95:10-­11 129 95:8-­11 84

105:5 83 105:32 107 105:42 58 106:7 350 106:24-­25 129 106:25 130 106:48 159 109:3 305 110:3 305 113:10 379 119:30 322 119:51 136 119:105 304 121:4 324 136:6 388 145:5 300 Proverbs 1:22 136 2:5 255 2:13 350 350 2:13, 15 8:20 362 12:28 362 13:14 353 14:27 353 15:17 361 16:17, 31 362 17:23 362 18:4 353 18:5 132 19:22 276 362 21:16, 21 25:14 13, 115 26:11 180, 364 365 30:16 328 Qohelet (Ecclesiastes) 1:2 354 7:2, 5 361 10:16 345 Song of Songs (Song of Solomon) 2:17 305 Isaiah 1:9 90 3:4 136 5:1 61 5:11 345 5:8, 11, 18, 20-­22 104 5:27 324 6:3 158 9:7 418 10:1 104 11:4-­5 418

485

486

Index of Ancient Sources

13:2 404 13:19 90 13:22 404 14:12 305 29:18 354 34:4 398 40:10 127 41:8 10 42:1 198, 301 43:21 260 44:2 61 44:21 83 45:15, 21 156 45:17 67 46:13 67 52:7, 10 67 61 40–­55 51:14 404 52:5 322 56:10 94 57:4 348 57:19-­21 116 57:20 13, 116 60:19-­20 432 127 63:1-­6 65:17 180, 234, 385, 416, 417 65:25 418 66:15 127 66:15-­16 124, 417 66:22 234, 385, 416, 417 Jeremiah 5:31 316 6:13 315 6:14 317 14:3 353 14:14 317 14:15 317 14:13, 15 317 17:6 116 17:15 379 23:14 90 23:15, 32 317 23:17 317 23:21, 32 317 23:25 94 23:26 311 23:32 94 25:31 124 25:30-­31 124 27:9 317 28:16-­17 317 31:3 61

31:31-­32 207 33:7-­16 315 34:9 315 35:1 315 36:1, 8 315 36:8 94 49:18 90 50:40 90 Lamentations 4:6 90 Ezekiel 1:5, 18 114 7:2 114 12:22 379 13:2-­7 317 13:10 317 91 16:49-­50 23:31 104 199, 405 33:11 113 34:2-­3 34:2, 8 113 37:9 114 Daniel 2:1 94 2:28-­29, 45 134 3:31 58 3:33 281 4:1 63 4:10 128 4:17 158 4:31 197 6:20 58 7 282 7:10 128 7:8, 20 131 7:14 281 7:22 43 125, 281 7:27 8:13 128 10:14 134 11:20 134 11:36 131 12:1-­2 88 12:1-­3 135 12:3 117 Hosea 4:1 255 9:7 312 10:9 348 11:1 61 11:8 90



Index of Ancient Sources

14:4 61 14:10 350 Joel 2:2 354 2:17 279 2:28 94 Amos 4:11 90, 149 5:7 104 Micah 1:3 125 1:3-­4 124 2:1 104 2:17 379 3:5, 11 317 Nahum 3:1 104 Habakkuk 2:3 2:9, 15

180, 401, 404, 408 104

Zephaniah 1:15 354 2:9 90 3:4 312 Zechariah 3:1 100 3:1-­5 100 3:2 97, 99, 149, 152 3:2-­4 151 3:3-­5 152 10:2 94 13:2 315 126, 127, 128 14:5 Malachi 3:20 306 4.1 398 4:4 83

New Testament Matthew 1:16-­18 197 2:1-­20 305 3:8, 10 276 3:10 116, 150 3:17 197, 198, 294 3:20 180 5:7 148 5:22 150 5:43-­44 275

6:13 334 6:33 296 363, 364 7:6 7:12 123 7:13 319 7:15 72, 135, 316 7:17-­19 116 7:19 116 7:21 281 7:21-­23 77 9:15b 375 10:3 24 10:15 90 10:23 382 10:25 77 11:21 104 11:24 90 12:8 198, 301 12:18 198 12:27 300 12:33 116 12:45 360 13:24-­30 50 13:41 281 13:40-­42 150 13:54-­55 59 13:55 21 16:23 295 16:27 128 16:28 281, 295 17:5 198, 300 294 17:1-­9 17:1-­18 213 18:3 281 18:7 104 18:8 93 18:8-­9 150 18:17 153 18:15-­17 150 20:21 281 20:22-­23 291 21:21 151 21:43 276 61 22:3-­9, 14 22:43 145 23:13ff. 104 24:3, 27, 37, 39 380 24:5 375 24:11, 24 135, 314, 316 24:24 316 24:35 411 24:37-­39 392 24:38-­42 380

487

488

Index of Ancient Sources

24:43-­44 408 24:46 420 25:31 128 25:41 93, 150 50 25:31-­46 28:19 48, 143 Mark 1:11 197, 198, 294 1:15 406 1:16 196 1:19 21 2:17 61 3:17 21 3:18 21, 24 4:22 413 4:33 309 5:27-­28 153 6:2 424 21, 58, 59 6:3 6:11 90 7:22 74 8:33 295 8:34 293 8:38 128 9:1 295, 406 9:7 198 9:2-­8 293 9:2-­9 294 9:43 361 9:47-­48 150 10:15 281 10:19 123 10:39 287 11:23 151 12:30-­31 275 12:36 145 13:5-­6, 22-­23 314 13:22 316 13:22-­23 135 13:27 77 13:30 376, 381, 382 13:36 420 14:21 361 14:25 406 14:43 148 15:14 21 16:7 196 Luke 1:2 298 1:33 281 1:44 156 1:47 156, 254 1:51-­54 128

1:70 372 156, 254 2:11 2:25, 35 249 148 2:25, 38 2:27 145 2:29 76 3:9 116 3:17 150 3:22 197, 294 3:30 249 4:1 145 6:14-­16 24, 58 6:16 21, 23 6:24-­26 104 6:36 152 6:43-­45 116 7:25 345 9:26 128 9:27 295 9:28-­36 294 9:31 292 9:35 198 10:12 90 11:26 360 11:42-­44, 46-­47, 52 104 12:5 158 12:36 148 12:37-­38, 43 420 12:39-­40 408 13:2 68 13:6 116 13:6-­9 276 13:25 77 16:17 411 17:3 150 17:22 375 17:26-­27 392 84, 325, 329 17:26-­29 120 17:27-­28 17:29 90 17:26-­30 392 18:17 413 18:17, 25 281 19:21 145 20:21 132 21:6 375 22:19 83 22:22 104 22:29-­30 281 23:42 281 23:51 148 24 203 24:44 123 24:49 380



Index of Ancient Sources

John 1:1 207, 235 1:1, 14 207 235, 253 1:1, 18 1:1-­3 389 1:3 376 1:14 198 1:42 249 2:17, 22 83 2:18 134 3:2 264 3:5 281 3:21 413 3:22 198 4:14 353 4:22 67 4:23-­24 145 4:42 156, 236, 254 5:22-­23, 26-­27 148 5:22-­23, 26 300 5:22, 27 47 5:35 304 5:44 156 6:39, 40, 44 146 6:39, 40, 44, 54 134 8:34 358 10:28 146 11:24 134 12:16 83 12:28 197 12:33 288 12:41 82 12:48 134 13:15 271 13:23 197 283 13:31–­17:26 13:34-­35 271, 275 13:36 289 13:36-­37 288 23, 24, 58 14:22 284 14:25-­26 14:26 83, 251 15:2-­6 116 15:2-­8 276 15:9-­10 147 15:18 316, 359 16:2-­3 316 16:13 251 16:13-­15 48, 143 16:16 316 76, 156, 255 17:3 155 17:11, 15 17:12 319 17:15 62

489

17:21 61 18:9, 32 45 18:28 95 18:36 236 18:36-­37 281 20:28 235, 253 21 199 21:18 197, 204, 213, 287, 288, 291 21:18-­19 198, 262, 288 21:19 288 21:22-­23 288, 382, 406 Acts 1 203 1:4 380 1:7 158, 407 1:13 21, 23, 24, 58 1:16 72 1:18 351 2:17 94 2:19 274 2:41 348 2:46 110, 156 415 3:19-­20 3:21 372 4:12 67 4:14 76 5:17 318 156, 236., 254 5:31 7:38, 53 97 9:2 322 9:11 58 10 222 10:20 151 10:34 252 12:2-­3 21 12:3 59 12:17 21 13:1 249 13:10 250 13:23 156, 254 15:1 21 15:5 318 15:13 21, 59 15:14 184, 249, 250 15:22 23 15:22-­23 58 15:23 58 15:29 304 16:17 67 17:28 123 17:29 259, 264 18:25 322

490

Index of Ancient Sources

18:26 322 19:9 322 19:11-­12 153 20 215 20:7-­11 110 20:25 287 20:28 113 20:29-­30 135, 316 20:32 284 283 20:18-­35 21:11 287 21:18 21 22:16 277 23:11 288 23:26 58 24:5, 14 318 24:15 148 24:14, 22 322 24:25 274 26:5 318 112 27:39-­41 28:22 318 Romans 1:1 58 1:7 58, 61, 70, 254 1:16 67, 429 1:18 74 1:25 158 1:27 355 195, 405, 422 2:4 322 2:23-­24 3:8 16, 42, 44, 73, 74 3:23-­24 75 3:25 278 4:13 380 4:16 302 4:20 151 5 8 5:1 421 5:3-­4 274 5:3-­5 275 5:5 147 6:6 195 6:10 28, 70 6:12-­23 357 6:17-­18 319, 358 8:2 426 8:3 336 8:9 145 8:11 267 8:14 145 8:20-­21 357 8:21 357

145 8:26-­27 8:28 61 8:29 264 8:28-­30 279, 280 8:31 279 8:38 43, 87, 88 9:5 158, 235, 253 9:21 158 195, 319 9:22 9:29 90 10:1, 10 67 11:11 67 11:11, 22 430 11:36 158, 376 12:3 195, 423 12:10 275 12:19 64, 367 12:9-­19 143 13:10 275 13:11 67 13:12 306 13:13 74 14:17 418 14:23 151 15:4 73 15:5 195 82 15:14-­15 15:15 83, 423 15:30 68 16:25-­27 28, 154, 155 16:27 156, 157, 158 1 Corinthians 1:2 61 1:3 58, 254 1:7 422 1:9 264 137 1:10-­11 1:18 293 2:7 158 2:9 123 2:6-­16 103 2:13-­16 15, 138 2:14 44 2:15 138 144 3:9-­17 3:10 69, 423 3:11 144 3:13 150, 413 3:15 149, 150 3:22 423 4:15 271 4:16 271 14:25 413



Index of Ancient Sources

5 146 75 5:1-­6 5:11 153 42, 97 6:3 6:2-­3 88 6:11 277 6:12-­20 75 6:20 319 7:9 361 7:22-­23 58 7:23 319 8:1 144 8:1–­11:1 138 8:6 88, 376, 389 8:7 275 8:10 106, 144 9:5 21, 59, 423 9:19 , 31 107 9:24-­27 68 9:25 68 10 84, 85 10:1-­11 84 10:1-­12 86 10:1-­13 82, 146 10:6, 11 14 10:7-­11 84 10:11 83 10:12 430 10:14 367 10:16-­17 265 10:23 75, 144 10:29 357 11 111 11:1 271 11:18 318 135 11:18-­19 11:17-­34 109, 110 11:25 83 11:27-­29 113 145 12–­14 12:3 145 12:4-­6 143 12:28-­29 373 13 111 13:1 42 13:2 273 13:7 274 13:13 143, 271, 275 14 95, 110, 145 14:4 144 144 14:4-­5, 12, 26 14:17 144 14:23 322 15 264

15:5 423 15:7 21 15:12 231 15:23 281, 380 42, 88 15:24 15:44 15, 44, 138 15:44, 46 15:49 264 15:35 -­50 287 15:50-­51 382 15:51-­52 406 15:58 367 16:13 69 26:1, 9 107 2 Corinthians 58, 254 1:2 1:8-­9 406 1:20 157 3:17 357, 426 3:18 264 5 287 5:1 286 5:1, 4 286 5:3 420 5:3-­4 287 6:2 67 6:6 273 6:6-­7 270 6:16 144 7:1 64, 367 270, 271, 273 8:7 8:9 82 10:12 71 11:25 112 12 42 12:1-­3 94 12:2 388 12:19 64, 144, 367 12:21 74 13:10 144 13:13 147 20:7 61 Galatians 58, 254 1:3 1:5 158 1:7 71 1:6-­9 69 1:15-­16 61 1:18 423 1:19 21, 54 1:23 69 2:1 72 2:4 34, 317, 357

491

492

Index of Ancient Sources

2:5, 14 285 2:7 250 2:9 423, 424 2:9, 11 423 2:9, 12 21, 59 2:11 222 2:11-­14 196 2:11-­16 423, 424 2:12 21 2:14 244 3:19 97 3:23, 25 69 4:3 88, 412 4:3, 9 97 4:4-­5 319 4:6 145 357 5:1, 13 5:4 430 5:7 285 5:16 335 5:19 74 5:20 318 5:22 275, 276 5:22-­23 270, 271 5:23 274 6:1 150 6:7 343 6:10 69 6:16 63 Ephesians 1:1 255 1:2 254 1:4 155, 158, 193 1:6 301 1:13 67 1:17 255 1:21 43, 87, 88, 95 2:2 278 2:3 335, 348 2:4 147 2:7-­9 42, 75 28, 134, 144, 373 2:20 2:20-­22 144 3:3 73 3:5 134, 373 3:9 376 3:10 87, 88 3:20-­21 155 3:21 158 4:2-­3 143 4:3 278 4:5 69, 137 4:11 113, 373

4:13 255 4:19 74 4:12, 16, 29 144 4:30 422 5:5 281 5:8 348 5:9 276 5:13 413 5:23 156, 254 5:26 277 5:27 112, 155 6:6 58 6:12 87 6:18 145 6:21 194, 195 Philippians 1:1 58 1:2 58, 254 1:10 370 1:23 406 1:25 69 1:28 319 1:27-­30 68 2:5-­6 82 2:12 67, 367 2:25 155 3 58 3:9 420 3:10 260 3:19 319 3:20 156, 253 4:1 367 4:8 272 4:20 154, 158 4:3 68 Colossians 1:2 254 1:5-­6 285 1:9-­10 255 1:10 255, 276 1:13 281 1:16 43, 87, 88, 95, 336, 389 1:17 388 1:16-­17, 20 376 1:22 155, 193 1:23 69 1:29–­2:1 68 2:2 255 2:3 273 2:7 144 2:8 97 2:8, 20 412



Index of Ancient Sources

2:10 43 2:11 43 88 2:13-­15 2:15 43, 87, 88 2:16 43 2:18 43, 94, 98 3:1 260 3:10 255 3:12 61 3:14 275 143 3:16-­17 4:7 194, 195 4:12 58, 68 4:12-­13 68 1 Thessalonians 1:1 58, 250 270, 271, 275 1:3 1:4 61 1:6 271 1:10 254, 334 2:1 380 2:19 380 88, 380 3:13 2:5 83 2:14 271 3:13 127, 128, 380 4:5 335 4:9 82, 275 4:12 322 380, 406 4:15, 17 4:16 88 4:17 382 5:2 195, 408 5:4 408 5:8-­9 67 5:11 144 5:23 62, 380 2 Thessalonians 250 1:1-­2 127, 128 1:7 1:12 235 2:3 290, 319, 348 2:1-­10 406 2:13 61 3:3 155 3:5 147 271 3:7, ­9 3:12 67 3:15 150 1 Timothy 1:1 1:2

156, 254 63, 254

493

297, 298 1:4 1:6 354 1:17 156, 158 1:19 113 259, 275 2:2 2:3 156, 254 2:4 256, 285, 405, 422 2:18 38 3:16 259 4:1 135, 314 4:7 297, 298 4:7-­8 259 4:8 275, 380 68, 156, 254 4:10 4:12 270 5:14 322 5:20 150 5:24 71 6:1 320, 322 6:5 323 6:3, 5-­6, 11 259 6:6 275 6:9 319 6:11 270, 271, 274 6:12 68 6:14 193, 362, 422 6:15-­16 156 6:16 157 6:20 28, 255, 273, 298 2 Timothy 1:1 380 1:2 63, 254 1:10 156, 253 1:12 28 1:18 148 2:3 135 2:10 67 2:14 286 2:15 285 2:18 229, 426 2:19 104, 108 2:21 77 270, 271 2:22 2:24 58 2:25 256 3 314 3:1 375 3:1-­5 316 3:5 259 3:6 72 3:7 256 3:8 123 3:8-­9 84

494

Index of Ancient Sources

3:1-­9 135 3:10 270, 271, 274 3:15 67 3:16 307 4:1 281 4:1, 18 281 4:3-­4 316 4:4 297 4:7 68 4:7-­8 62 154, 158, 235, 281, 4:18 431 Titus 1:1 58, 250, 256, 259 1:3 156, 254 1:4 68, 156, 251, 253 1:7 338 1:8 274 1:10 354 1:11 323 1:12 123 1:14 297, 298 1:15 95 1:16 77 2:2 274 2:5 322 2:5, 8 322 2:10 156, 254 2:13 148, 156, 235, 236, 253 3:1 286 3:2 339 3:3 355 3:4 156, 254 3:5 277 156, 157, 253 3:6 150, 153 3:10 3:14 276 Philemon 1:15 195 Hebrews 1:1 12 134, 376 1:2 1:3 157, 207, 389, 399 253, 281 1:8 1:8-­9 235 1:14 67 2:2 97, 302 2:3, 10 67 2:9 82 2:10 389 2:11 276

278, 430 4:11 3:7–­4:11 84 4:16 148 4:16-­17 389 5:9 67 6:4 70 6:4-­6 360, 361 6:9 64, 67 7:27 28, 70 8:1 157 8:8-­9 207 9:17 302 9:26 134 28, 70 9:26, 28 9:28 67 10:2 70 10:26 256 360 10:26-­27 10:27 150 10:32 68, 83 10:33 264 10:37 404 10:39 319 11:5 120 11:26 82 11:37 123 12:2 282 12:14 421 12:15 95 12:17 360 12:22 128, 281 12:28 281 13:1 275 13:2 154 13:5 143 13:7 271 13:8 158 13:21 158 James 1:1

15, 16, 58, 59, 60, 63, 250 1:5 424 1:6 151 1:12 274 1:16, 19 64 1:25 357 2:1-­7 322 2:8 304 2:12 15, 357 2:14 272 2:20 276 3:12 116 3:15 15, 39, 138, 139



Index of Ancient Sources

3:16 15 3:18 276 4:1-­2 335 5:3 134 5:7-­8 380, 386 5:7-­9 380 5:19 322 5:19-­20 15, 150, 153 1 Peter 1:1 60 61, 63, 254 1:2 1:5 62, 68, 134, 155 1:5, 9-­10 67 1:7 420 1:10-­12 193, 370 1:11 82, 311 1:14 278, 348 1:15 258 1:16-­21 370 1:18 319 1:19 155, 193, 420 134, 158 1:20 275, 285 1:22 2:5 144 2:9 258, 260 2:11 335, 367 2:12 193, 299, 322 2:16 58 2:18 143 223 2:18-­19 2:20 274 2:22, 24 223 3:2 193, 299 3:1, 7-­9 143 3:3 223 3:7 273 3:8 275 3:16 322 3:17 361 3:18 28, 70, 193 193, 325, 329, 330, 3:20 348 4:3 74, 278 4:7-­10 143 4:11 157, 158 4:12 64, 334, 367 4:13 157 4:15 322 4:18 74 5:1 194, 201, 264, 293 5:2 113 5:11 154, 157, 158 5:12 192, 369

495

5:13 197 13 201 1 John 1:3 264 1:7 238 2:5 147 2:7 64, 83, 367 2:11 277 2:15 359 2:16 335 2:18 50, 109, 135, 146 2:21 285 2:21, 27 82 2:22-­23 77 2:24 61 2:25 380 2:27 83 2:28 147, 148, 380, 386 3:1 147 367 3:2, 21 3:6 360 3:9 238 3:11 105 3:12 104 3:14 275 3:2, 21 64 3:24 61 4:1 316 64 4:1, 7, 11 4:10, 16 147 4:14 156, 236, 254 4:13, 15-­16 61 4:17 147 4:17, 11 367 5:16 153 5:16-­17 360 5:20 235, 253 13:36 201 17:21 137 17:24 158 21:16 113 21:18-­19 201 2 John 2 254 4 285 9 83 10 72, 153 3 John 5-­8, 10

72

Revelation 1:1 58 1:5-­6 431

496

Index of Ancient Sources

1:6 157, 158, 235 1:6, 18 158 1:10 145 2:5 430 2:11 116, 344 2:14 104, 106, 110, 189, 350, 357 2:14, 20 84 2:19 270, 271 3:2-­3 420 3:3 83, 408 3:4 152 3:10 155, 334 3:17 277 4:2 145 4:6-­8 114 4:8, 9-­11 158 4:9, 10 158 5:9 319 5:11-­12, 13 158 5:13 157, 158 6:10 76 7:1 114 7:3 58 7:7 249 7:12 158 7:17 353 8:13 104 10:4 197 10:6 158 10:7 58 11:8 58 11:12 197 13:5 131 14:3-­4 319 155, 156 14:5 14:13 197 15:3 58 15:7 158 16:9 158 16:13 316 16:15 408 17:3 145 17:8, 11 319 19:3 158 19:9 61 19:13, 15 127 19:20 316 20:1-­6 281 20:5 403 116 20:6, 14 20:10 158, 316 20:11b 418 20:12 73

20:14-­15 150 21 400, 418 21:1 145 21:6 353 21:8 116 21-­22 418 22:5 158 22:6 58 22:12 127 22:15 364 22:16b 305

Early Jewish Texts

Assumption of Moses 1:18 415 7:9 131 Baruch 3:7 61 4:22 156 2 Baruch (Syriac Apocalypse) 8 6:8 134 10:4 329 13:1 197 68 15:7-­8 17:4 304 20:5 404 22:1 197 24:1 73 32:6 418 41:5 134 43:2 288 44:12 418 48:38 135 48:39 404 49:3 418 56:10-­14 87 57:2 418 59:2 304 63:3 131 67:7 131 76:1-­2 288 77:13, 15 304 77:16 304 78:1 58 78:2 58, 63 78:3 61 78:5 134 78:7 148 78–­86 283 82:2 148 84:1-­2 286 84:2, 7-­9 83



Index of Ancient Sources

3 Baruch 4:16 93 4 Baruch 6:6-­7

286

1 Enoch (Ethiopic Apocalypse) 1 123 1–­36 86, 114, 119 1:1–32:6a 124 1:1-­10 354 1:2 118 1:3 127 1:3-­9 382 1:4 127 1:4-­6 125 1:4-­9 124, 128 1:8 148 1:8-­9 116 1:9 13, 45, 48, 74, 82, 90, 124, 127, 128, 130, 148, 179, 187 1:9-­10 114, 125 2:1 114 2:3 114 2:1–­5:4 114, 115 5:1 114 5:4 114, 116, 126, 129, 130, 131, 157 5:6 148 5:8-­9 418 5:9 156 1–­5 129 120 6–­16 6:7-­8 87 7:1 95 9:1 341 9:8 95 10:1-­3 329 10:4-­5 89, 117 10:4-­12 327 10:5 89 10:6, 13 117 10:11 95 10:12 87, 89 10:14 74, 89 10:16, 20-­21 418 6–­11 86 12:2 128 12:3-­4 73 12:4 88, 95 13:8 197 14 120 14:5 89 14:20 300

497

14:23, 25 128 15:1 73 15:2-­3 95 15:3 88 15:8–­16:1 87 17–36 120 354 18:11–­19:1 18:15-­16 117 20:2 328 21:7 117 22:10-­11 335 22:11 89 27:2 129, 131 27:4 148 37–­­71 119, 120 39:5 128 45:4-­5 418 46:6 117 47:2 128 54:3 89 54:7–­55:2 329 57:2 128 60:1 128 60:8 119 61:8, 10, 12 128 61:10 87 63:6 117 65:1–­67:13 329 65:4 197 65:11 329 65:12 128 67:4-­13 93 67:5 114 67:5-­7 13 69:5 95 69:13 128 69:26-­29 81 86, 87, 97, 114, 119 72–­­82 80 114 80:2 114, 115 80:2, 3, 6 114 80:2-­7 115 80:3 116 80:6 87, 117 81:4 73 81:5 128 82:6 117 82:10-­20 87 83:3 329 83:3-­5 393 86:1-­6 354 88:1-­3 354 89 329 84:4 89

498 85:1 94 88:1 117 86–­88 87 89:61 73 90:24 117 91:3 64 91:16 417 91:17 418 93:3 119 93:9-­11, 14 135 104 94:6-­8 95:4-­6 104 104 96:4, 6-­8 97:7-­8 104 98:11-­15 104 104 99:1-­2, 11-­15 99:8 94 100:7 104 101:1-­3 115 101:3 129, 131 128, 300 102:3 103:5 104 103:8 117 104:1 156 104:3-­4 415 87 106:13-­17 106:18 329 73, 128 106:19 108:7 73 108:14 117 2 Enoch (Slavonic Apocalypse) 7:2 90 10:2 117 18 87 18:4 90 20:1 87 22:7 96 33:1 200 33:1-­2 402 55:1 288 65:8 418 1 Esdras 4:40 157 9:47 158 4 Ezra 1:15-­16 130 2:8 331 3:11 329 7:28 281 7:30 417 7:79, 81 136 7:92, 127-­28 68 7:113-­114 418

Index of Ancient Sources 7:118 87 8:29-­30 102 9:11 405 12:42 304 14:9, 13-­14 288 14:28-­36 257 14:34 148 Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 3:15 328 4:29 305 5:27 328 Joseph and Aseneth 14:1 305 Josephus Bellum Judaicum 1.70 392 1.71 251 2.118 318 2.120 274 231 2.164–­165 3.458–­459 254 4.319, 389, 393 251 4.483 92 90, 107, 390, 392 5.566 7.70-­71 254 7.323, 410 76 Antiquitates judaicae praef. 4 297 1.60 105 1.61 105 1.70 385 1.73 87, 328 1.74 330 1.92 110 1.194 91 4.102–­158 106 4.176–­327 283 4.178 285 4.189 292 5.39 58 370 8.143, 166 9.55 299 10.217, 234 370 10.262 102 12.119 251 13.171, 293 318 13.173 231 15.136 97 17.130 261 18.16–­17 231 18.23 76 20.197–203 59



Index of Ancient Sources

Contra Apionem 1.232 265 1.232–­233 267 2.213 102 2.240 328 Vita 12 318 232 339 Jubilees 1:27-­29 97 1:29 417 2:1-­7 388 2:2 87 4:30 402 5 329 5:6, 10 327 5:10 89 5:19 330 4:15, 22 87 4:26 417 6:22 83 7:20-­39 330 7:39 119 10 87 16:5 95 16:5-­6 91 16:6, 9 90 16:7-­9 332 17:15–­18:16 100 18:9-­11 100 18:12 100 84 20:2-­7 20:5 86, 90, 91 22:22 90 135 23:19, 21 35:6 288 36:10 90 Judith 12:16 91 16:6 87, 328 Liber antiquitatum biblicarum (Pseudo-­Philo) 3.10 417 6.3 332 9.8 304 15.6 304 16.1 107 18.12 352 18.13 106, 350 19.5 304 19.13a 403 24.3 284 26.13 123

200, 402 28.2 32.17 418 57.2 107 Life of Adam and Eve 19 335 42 200, 402 49 385 49.2 392 49–50 396 Letter of Aristeas 157 259 170–­71 370 1 Maccabees 4:43 335 2 Maccabees 2:7 148 8:1 72 8:15 300 13:14 68 15:13 300 3 Maccabees 2:4 86, 329 2:5 90, 91, 92, 331 2:4-­7 76, 84 2:9 300 2:26 74 3:8 344 6:4 131 6:5 131 6:11 61 6:29 156 6:39 155 7:23 158 4 Maccabees 2:6 335 5:34 274 10:15 89 11:20 68 12:12 93 13:19-­27 275 14:14, 18 102 17:10-­16 68 18:34 158 Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah 2:2 95 3:19 145 3:22 318 3:30 135 4:2-­3 201 9:13 134 9:32 96

499

500

Index of Ancient Sources

9:37 300 11:32 300 11:34 123 3:30 134 Odes of Solomon 3:7 301 Philo of Alexandria De Abrahamo 26 259 61 384 107 267 134 91 135–­136 91 141 92 243 297, 322 De aeternitate mundi 4 389 12 384 56, 68 322 93 384 De agricultura 112 68 119 68 De cherubim 32 354 351 33–­34 De confusione linguarum 6 322 155 259 106, 349, 354 159 De congressu eruditionis Gratia 61 322 143 370 De vita contemplativa 63 323 De decalogo 104 267 142–­146 345 156 322 Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat 32, 78 105 71 354 83 259 125 322 Quod deus sit immutabilis 106, 350 181 183 106 De ebrietate 4.4 305 101, 189 370 De fuga et inventione 121 297, 322

De gigantibus 6–­18 87 58 322 Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 259 309 281, 311 389 Legum allegoriae 1.64 270, 273 1.88–­89 370 2.14 261 2.18 251 3.43 303 Legatio ad Gaium 328 49, 103 De migratione Abrahami 60 345 113 106, 350, 354 106, 349 113–­114 222 370 De providentia 2.1 230 De vita Mosis 1.181 130 1.267–­268 351 1.268 351 1.272 352 1.281 309 1.281, 286 309 1.293 352 106 1.295–­301 392 2.53–­59 2.56 91 2.56, 65 329 91, 332 2.58 2.271 322 2.291 99 De mutatione nominum 59 322 121 81 152 297 106, 350, 351, 352 203 205 106 De opificio mundi 1.2, 157 322 157 287 De plantatione 6 389 117 303 De posteritate Caini 38–­39 104 52 322 173 119 De praemiis et poenis



Index of Ancient Sources

8, 162 323 152 328 Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 1.92 87 3.10 309 4.11 286 4.37 91 4.51 90 De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 8 251 13, 76 322 270, 273 27 52 105 131 251 De sobrietate 4 251 43 303 De somniis 1.122 286 1.172 297 De specialibus legibus 1.52 251 1.65 311 1.148 364 1.149–­150 274 1.181 251 2.2 259 2.63 274 4.49 309 4.97 275 4.119 110 4.197 339 De virtutibus 51 275 96 275 Psalms of Solomon 7:10 148 8:27-­28 148 8:33 156 10:4, 7 148 14:9 117, 148 15:6 396 15:10 117 16:5 67 17:3 156 17:11-­14 135 17:40 418 17:45 148 Qumran 1Q19 3 3 4Q180–­181

96 87, 120

4Q201 = 4QEna 124 4Q204 = 4QEnc 1 124 1 I, 15 126 1 I, 17 126 4Q208 = 4QEnastra 124 4Q247 120 4Q370 120 4Q394 8 IV, 8–­9 364 4Q396 1 II, 9–­10 364 4Q397 6–­13 2 364 4Q400 2 2 96 4Q401 14 I, 8 96 4Q403 1 II, 11 and 20–­21 87 4Q405 8–­9, 5–­6 87 87 23 II 4Q510–­511 120 4Q529 120 4Q542 120 283 4Q543–­548 4Q543–­549 100 4Q544 1 12 100 4QDa = 4Q266 84 3 II, 6 3 IV, 8 305 4QDb = 4Q267 2 2 84 4QEna 86 1 III, 23–­24 119 4QEnb ar IV, 11 89 4QEnc 1 I, 15–­17 124 4QMMT C 15, 22 134 4QTest 9–­13 305 6QD 3 84 Damascus Document II, 16–­20 87 II, 17–­18 86 II, 17–­III, 1 329 II, 17–­III, 12 78

501

502

Index of Ancient Sources

II, 17–­III, 12 84 III, 7–­9 84 III, 8 130 IV, 4 134 V, 17–­19, 84 VI, 4 353 VI, 11 134 305 VII, 18–­19 XIX, 5–­7 135 Genesis Apocryphon II, 1 87 Serekh Hayaḥad or Rule of the Community (1QS) 39 II, 4–­18 II, 5–­18 97 II, 8 93, 117 396 II, 15 IV, 14 117 XI, 8 128 Hodayota or Thanksgiving Hymnsa (1QHa) 87 IX, 11 XI, 19–­36 396 XVIII, 10 96 Milḥamah or War Scroll (1QM) I, 16 128 128 X, 12 128 XI, 1, 8 XI, 6–­7 305 XII 87 Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab) 14 134 II, 5–­6 II, 5–­10 135 IV, 2 96 VI, 15 312 405, 407 VII, 3–­14 VII, 4–­5 312 VII, 7–­8 404 VII, 13 404 134 IX, 6 X, 5, 13 396 Rule of the Congregation (1QSa) I, 1 134 Rule of the Blessings (1QSb) I, 5 128 III, 26 128 IV, 23 128 Midrash on Eschatology 14 III, 2, 12, 15, 19 134 V, 3 134 IX, 10, 14 134 134 X, 5, 7

XI, 7 134 134 XII, 6 Nahum Pesher (4QpNah) 14 3-­4 II, 9 96 Melchizedek (11QMelch) 14, 100 II, 4 134 Sibylline Oracles 328 1.101–­103 1.129 330 1.148–­198 330 1.280–­281 330 2.165–­166 135 2.231 87 2.279 95 3.80 416 3.80–­92 396 3.690 393 4.43 89, 117 4.186 328 5.155–­161 397 5.274–­281 397 5.516 305 Sirach 4:1 123 4:28 68 6:3 116 8 90 10:4 158 15:19 107 16 332 16:7 86, 87 16:7-­10 78, 84 16:10 84 16:18 327 18:10 432 18:30 274 24:25-­26 353 33:1 334 35:19 404 39:15 157 41:9-­10 348 44:16 119 44:17 329 44:27 330 48:1 304 49:14 119 51:1 156 Susannah 1:11, 39

91

Testament of Abraham 1–­7 288 29 415 Testaments of the 74 Twelve Patriarchs Testament of Asher 4:4 95 5:1 270 7:1 90 7:5 73 Testament of Benjamin 7:5 105 335 8:2-­3 9:1 91 Testament of Dan 6:4 415 Testament of Issachar 6:12 136 Testament of Judah 13:12 136 21:9 316 22:2 386 305, 306 24:1 25:2 96 Testament of Levi 1:2 288 3:4 300 3:8 87 14:1 73 14:6 91 17:8 335 18:3 305, 306 Testament of Naphtali 3:4 90 3:4-­5 78, 84, 91 87, 329 3:5 4:1 90 Testament of Ruben 5:5 90 5:6-­7 87 Testament of Zebulun 10:3 93 Tobit 7:12 63 8:8 158 14:10 117 Wisdom of Solomon 3:2 292 4:2 68 4:3-­5 116 4:4 116 4:43 355

Index of Ancient Sources

503

5:2 67 5:6 322 5:14 115 138 6–­10 6:17-­20 270 7:6 292 270, 273 8:7 8:21 274 9:15 286 10 327 10:3 105 10:4 330, 390 10:4-­6 332 90, 332 10:6 10:7 92 10:9 334 11:1 372 11:15 102 12:24 355 14:26 74 14:29 344 16:7 156 17:16 324 18:4 304 19:14-­15 91 19:17 332

Rabbinic Works

Babylonian Talmud Rosh Hashanah 7a 231 Sanhedrin 106a 106, 351, 352 Zebahim 116a 106 Leviticus Rabbah 29:11 119 Mishnah Avot 5:19 106 Sanhedrin 10:1 231 10:2 350 10:3 78, 84, 107 10:27d–­28a 108 Numbers Rabbah 22:5

106, 351

Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 25 91 Sifre Numbers 157 106

504

Index of Ancient Sources

Tanhuma Buber 69a 106 70a 106 Targumim Targum Neofiti 108 Targum Pseudo-­Jonathan 91, 107 Tosefta Sanhedrin 13:4–­5 231 Sotah 4:9 104 Yalqut Rubeni 43:3 100

Early Christian and Patristic Texts

Acts of John 271, 273, 275 29 90 294 106–­107 257 107 360 Acts of Paul and Thecla 1 301 17 271 25 109 Acts of Peter 273, 275 2 8 144 12 322 20 170 20–­21 294 37–­41 201 Acts of Thomas 56 364 111 152 143 294 Apocalypse of Peter: Akhmim Manuscript (A) 1–­2 316, 318, 319 1 135, 314, 316 2 317 21 204 23 364 22, 28 203, 322, 362 Apocalypse of Peter: Ethiopic Text (E) 1–­2 202, 296 1.6 299 3–­6 202 4 386, 398, 399, 417 204, 205 4–­6 4.1 380, 386, 416

4.11, 13 5

399 398, 399, 400, 410, 412, 413, 414, 416, 417 5.2–­8 205 6 386, 398, 417 6.1–­2 416 7 223 7–­13 203 7.7 362 8 203 11 223 12 203 14 203, 204, 291, 292 204 14.1–­4 14.4 203, 205, 241, 281, 282, 401, 406 15 169, 203, 204 15–­17 289, 294, 295, 301 170, 296 15.1 16.5 204 17 197, 295 16 235 Apocalypse of Peter: Vienna Papyrus (R) 262, 268, 280, 380 14 14.4 289, 291, 298, 383 Aristides Apology 4.2 388 265 7.1–­2 13.7 297 16 322 16.1b–­2 282 Augustine De civitate Dei 15.23 121 1 Clement 1.1 64, 338 259, 270, 271, 275 1.2 2.3 259 2.4 68 2.5 370 3.4 277 4.7 105 4.1–­7 104 4.12 107 5 68 5–­6 201 5.3–­7 424 5.4 262 7.1 64, 68, 199 7.3 350 7.5 76



Index of Ancient Sources

7.5–­6 199 7.6 330 8.2 76 8.2, 5 199 199, 300 9.2 9.3 121 76, 330 9.4 10.2 380 76, 199, 259, 332 11.1 11.19 332 12.8 64 14.15 74 15.1 259 19–­20 121 20.6 199 76 20.8, 11 20.12 157 21.1 64 23 379 377, 378, 381, 382, 23.3 386 23.3–­4 385, 406 23.4 386 64 24.1–­2 24.1, 5 76 262, 380 26.1 27.4 157, 385, 386, 388 28.1 148 32.4 259 33.1–­2 76 276 34.1, 4 34.7 262, 380 34:8 123 35.1 64 35.4 68, 420 35.5 199, 322, 350 36.1 64 36.2 157 36.2, 4 76 40.1 76, 259 42.1-­2 134 43.6 156 44.1 134 47.7 322 48.1 76 50.1 64 50.2 420 51.1 76 51.3–­4 104 51.4 107 53.1 64 56.16 76 57.7–­8 74 58.1 157 58.2 157

505

59.2 256 59.3 156, 298 59.4 76, 430 60.2 58 61.1–­2 76 61.3 157 270, 271, 274 62.2 64 154, 157 270, 300 64.1 64.4 271, 274 65.2 154, 157 2 Clement 1.1 200, 235, 253 1.7 355 1.8 258 2.4 258 2.6 430 3.4 362, 373 362, 373 4.5 5.1 258 5.5 262, 380 5.5–­6 279 5.7 430 6.7 362, 373 278, 281 6.9 68, 258 7 8.1–­3 405 362, 373 8.4 9.1 38 9.5 258 9.8 370 10.1 273 10.2 278 10.3 380 11.1 278, 380 11.2 148, 303, 377, 378, 381, 382, 386 386 11.2–­3 385, 406 11.2–­4 123, 281, 380 11.7 12 379 386 12.1-­2 12.6 415 13.1 200 13.3 200, 298, 322 14.2 134 15.2–3 278 16.1 420 16.2 7, 148 16.3 168, 378, 385, 386, 388, 397, 399, 400, 411, 412, 413 362, 373 17.1, 3, 6 17.7 77

506

Index of Ancient Sources

18.2 278 19.1 259 20.2 68 20.4 259 20.5 156, 157 Clement of Alexandria Adumbrationes in epistulas canonicas 59 Eclogae propheticae 41, 48–­49 202 Excerpta ex Theodoto 41 292 Hypotyposes 8.4–­12 197 9.4–­20 197 Paedagogus 1.60.3 81 2.1.4 109 2.2.25.1 110 2.7.60.1 107 3.8.44 8 Stromateis 1.2.2 365 1.19 287 1.24.163 305 1.98.4 259 1.182.3 207 2.68.2 207 2.68.3 365 3.2.10 36, 109 3.2.11 8 3.110.1 193 4.129.2 193 5.11.77 77 5.94.3 286 5.121.4, 122.1 398 6.5.39 207 6.15.128 299 6.39.4–­40.2 207 6.41.2–­3 207 6.41.4–­6 207 6.58.1 207 6.72.2 268 6.128.1–­2 207 7.37.4 259 7.46 274 7.95.2–­3 268 Clementis quae feruntur Recognitiones 5.12.4 195, 358 Didache 2.7 3.6

7, 142, 150 7, 338

4.1 95, 336 5.2 323 9.4 157 9.5 364 10.3 76 72 11–­12 11.5 316 15.3 150 134 16.2–­3 16.3 135, 316, 375 Didymus of Alexandria (Didymus the Blind) Commentarii in Job 9 Enarratio in epistulam II Petri 172 Epiphanius Panarion (Adversus haereses) 30.13.7–­8 295 Epistle of the Apostles 15 109, 110 17 386 Epistle of Barnabas 1.7 76 2.2 274 2.3 273 2.2–­3 270, 271 2.10 7, 72 3.4 7 3.6 113, 301 4.1 355 4.3 76, 121, 123, 301 72, 134 4.9 4.11 68, 144 4.12 351 4.13 279 5.4 362 5.9 134 6.15 144 7.1 348 7.11 281 9.7 145, 348 9.8 424 10.5 74 11.1 277 11.7 74 12.8 81 12.8–­10 81, 82 14.5 355 15.3–­4 402 15.4 168, 200 15.5 74 15.7 380 15.9 330

16 144 16.5 121, 123 16.9 380 19.1 424 19.8 267 20.2 323 21.9 348 Epistle of Clement to James 1.3 289 1.5 289 2.1-­2 289 Epistle to Diognetus 6.8 286 7.6 380 8.7 76 10.1 255, 256 11.5 254 11.8 264 12.9 154 Eusebius of Caesarea Historia ecclesiastica 1.7.14 21, 26, 76 1.13 23 2.15.1–­2 197 2.23 59 2.23.4 59 2.23.25 8 2.25.8 201 171, 172 3.3.1 3.3.4 172 22, 26 3.20.1–­6 60 3.20.1–­7 3.25.3 8, 172 3.31.2 412 3.32.1–­3 174 3.35.5–­6 21 3.39.3–­4 133 3.39.14–­15 196 3.39.15 291 4.22.5 318 4.22.6 316 5.1.36, 55 292 5.2.3 292 6.12.1–­6 171 6.12.3 218 6.14.1 170, 202 6.14.6–­7 197 6.25.8 171, 193 Praeparatio evangelica 5.19 324 9.8 84 Gospel of the Hebrews 8

Index of Ancient Sources Gospel of Peter

507 124, 171, 202, 218, 254

Shepherd of Hermas Mandate(s) 1.1.2 273 4.1.5 264 4.1.9 95 4.1.11 158 4.2.3–­6 360 4.3.1–­2 278, 360 4.3.2 278 4.3.4 361 6.1.1 270, 271 6.2.5 345 8.1.9 274 8.3 345 8.9 270, 271 10.2.6 424 10.3.2 424 11.5 424 11.1.1–­7 316 11.2, 5, 7, 9, 21 259 12.1 270 12.2.1 345 12.3.1 272 Similitude(s) 1.1.7 1.9 76 4.1.4 276 4.2-­3 309 5.1 309 5.3.1-­2 309 5.5.3 386 95, 336 5.6.1 5.6.7 420 5.7.2 95, 335 6.1.4 273 6.2.1 318 6.5.5 345 7.1 309 8.10.1 273 8.11.1 309, 405 9 144 9.10.5 309 9.12.3–­8 281 9.14.2 405 9.14.4 199, 426 9.15.2 270, 271 9.15.3 74 9.17.5–­18.2 361 9.18.1–­2 360 9.19.2 276 9.26.6 360 11.9 309

508 13.9 309 16.2–­4 281 19.16.7 309 Vision(s) 1.3.4 380 2.2.2 74, 321 2.2.4–­5 76, 361 2.3.4 181, 378 3 144 3.2.1 380 3.7.1 322 3.7.2 74 3.7.3 136 3.8.1 271 3.8.5, 7 275 3.8.7 259, 270 4.1.6 259 Hippolytus De antichristo 2 309 Commentarium in Danielem 1.9 305 3.22.4 195, 358 4.23 402 Refutatio omnium haeresium (Philosophoumena) 1.1 389 5.17.10 318 7.29.8 318 9.7 364 Traditio apostolica 47 109 Ignatius of Antioch To the Ephesians Inscr. 235, 253 4.2 267 6.2 318 7.1 364 7.2 235, 253 9.1 72, 144 9.2 373 10.3 278 11.1 134 12.2 425 14.1 271, 275 18.2 235, 253 19.2-­3 305 19.3 235, 253 To the Magnesians 6.1 134 7.2 134 8.1 298

Index of Ancient Sources 8.2 259 134 13.1–­2 To the Philadelphians 1.1 354 2.1 113, 348 5.1 134 5.2 372 9.1 134, 374 299, 380 9.2 9.3 254 To Polycarp 8.3 235, 253 To the Romans 1.1 248 235, 253 3.3 4.3 424 9.1 113 To the Smyrnaeans 248, 301 1.1 4.1 153 7.1 254 8.1 134 8.2 110 10.1 235, 253 To the Trallians 2.2 134 3.1, 3 134 6.1 318 7.1 134, 235, 253 8.2 322 13.2 134 13.3 420 Kerygmata Petrou frg. 9

299

Martyrdom of Polycarp 7 Inscr. 63 2.3 123 6.2 264 11.1 360 14.1 256 14.3 157 17.1 264 18.3 156 20.2 154, 155, 157 20.2.1 282 21 154, 157 Irenaeus Adversus haereses (Elenchos) 1.7.1 398 3.1.1 196, 292 4.16.2 121 4.27.2 360



Index of Ancient Sources 5.5.1 121 5.23.2 402 5.28.3 402

Jerome Epistulae 172, 192 120.11 Adversus Jovinianum 1.21 81 De viris illustribus 1 172 9, 121, 122 4 Justin Martyr Apologia i 398 20.1–­4 32 259 32.12 305 33 311 61 278 61.3 76 67 110 Apologia ii 5.2 88, 121, 412 7.2-­3 398 Dialogus cum Tryphone 8.2 254 19.3 121 23.3 412 29.1 198 35.3 135, 316, 318 51.2 318 81.1–­3 208 81.8 402 82.1 169, 316, 372 208 82.1–­3 82.2 316 105.5 292 106.3 196 106.4 305 120.3 81 138.1 330 Lactantius Divinarum institutionum 3.17 230, 357 7.14.9 402 Minucius Felix Octavius 398 11.1–­3 31 109 Origen Contra Celsum 1.37 297

1.59–­60 305 2.55 297 3.28 268 4.11–­13 398 5.22 89 5.52 93 5.54 181 6.78 324 Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 2.12 8 5.3 171 6.25 181 13.17.194 206 Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei 10.17 8, 10, 23, 59 11.250 84 15.27 172 17.30 8, Commentarii in Romanos Praef. 24 3.6 8 5.1 8 Homiliae in Exodum 11.3 81 12.4 358 Homiliae in Jeremiam 8 Homiliae in Jesu Nave 1.1 81 7.1 172 De principiis 1.8.4 172 3.2.1 8, 99 Polycarp, To the Philippians Inscr. 63 1.2 223 2.1 354 3.1 424 3.2 168, 200, 424 4.2 424 6.3 134, 374 7.1 427 7.2 200, 317 9.1 134, 200 10.2–­3 322 12.2 235, 253 Protevangelium of James 9.2 107 Pseudo-­Clementine Homilies 2.22 309 3.35 198 3.39.2 331

509

510

Index of Ancient Sources

3.53 197, 294, 295 9.2 329 9.2.1 331, 390 9.19.1 405 10.25.3 282 13.14.2 282 16.20.4 405 16.21.4 135 Tatian Oratio ad Graecos 6.1 398 ­9–10 412 15.3 286 25.2 398 Tertullian Apologeticum 39 109 De baptismo 218 17.4–­5 De cultu feminarum 1.3 8, 24, 181 1.3.1 123 1.1-­3 121 3 122 De iunio adversus psychicos 17 109 De pudicitia 20 361 Theophilus of Antioch Ad Autolycum 1.4–­6 412 1.14 372 2.9 304 2.9.22 312 2.13 170, 304 2.15 117 412 2.15, 35 2.32, 34 372 2.37–­38 398 3.12 312 303, 372 3.17 3.19 330

Greek and Roman Texts

Aristotle De caelo 282a 384 Metaphysica

983b 389 Meteorologica 1.9 353 Politica 4.4 137 4.4.8 137 7.4.8 259 Cicero De finibus 3.10.35 345 De natura deorum 1.9.51 324 1.114–­117 357 2.118 395 2.162 230 3.79–­85 230 Tusculanae disputationes 1.22, 51 286 4.6.13–­14 345 Corpus hermeticum 3.2a 137 13.7–­9 273 13.15 286 Diodorus Siculus 1.93.4 297 1.96.5 318 19.44.1 328 Diogenes Laertius 1.27 389 6.39 364 7.110 346 7.111 345 7.114 345 7.134 395 7.148, 156 266 9.2 351 9.13 426 230 10.93–­114 10.133 230 10.135 230 Epictetus Dissertationes 2.8.2 266 2.22.30 272 4.3.7 272 4.11.29 364 Hesiod



Index of Ancient Sources

Theogonia 617–­735 328 729 89 Homer Ilias 11.735 395 21.56 89 Odyssea 5.479 395 89 11.57, 155 18.105 363 20.356 89 Juvenal Satires 1.103 345 1.141 342 Lucian of Samosata Alexander the False Prophet 17, 25, 28, 43–­46, 61 230 47 357 Lucretius De rerum natura 5.345–­350 5.380–­415

384 393

Plato Ion 533d 259 Leges 3.691e 259 Phaedo 66a 370 69c 364 Phaedrus 253a 266 Timaeus 22a 393 22c 396 26e 297 31b, 69c 389 39c–­d 396 Pliny the Younger Epistulae 10.96.7

109, 235, 253

Pliny the Elder Naturalis historia 8.81 342

18.73.306 328 Plutarch De defectu oraculorum 434d 230 396e–­f 230 Moralia 328d 318 358e 265 395c 322 398d 297 441a 270 528e 347 535 260 548c 405 551c 405 551d 405 671a 364 312 759b, 763a 942d 305 1114a 384 Philopoemen 5.4 302 De sera numinis vindicta 548c, 549b 230 230 548c–­d 549b 230 Symposiacs 4.5 364 Seneca (the Younger) Naturales quaestiones 3.12.1–­2 389 3.13 389 3.28.7 393 Strabo Geographica 3.1.9 305 15.3.20 251 Tacitus Annales 15.4.4 288

511

INDEX OF NAMES

Abbott, E. A., 166, 184 Adam, A., 22 Adams, E., 375, 376, 377, 380, 382, 384, 385, 387, 388, 389, 393, 394, 395, 396, 418 Ahrens, M., 3 Aichele, G., 138 Aland, B., 7, 167 Aland, K., 6, 79, 140, 218 Albani, M., 98, 114, 119 Albin, C. A., 3, 6, 10, 79, 82 Alexander, Ph. S., 58 Alexander, T. D., 332 Allen, J. S., 150 von Allmen, 376, 377, 378, 385 Appel, H., 22 Aptowitzer, V., 105 Arichea, D. C., 130, 62 Arnold, C. E., 43, 88 Aune, D. E., 87, 219, 407 Avemarie, F., 15 Back, F., 264 Barclay, J. M. G., 33 Barclay, W., 62 Barnes, T. D., 288 Barnes, Th., 36

Barnett, A. E., 195 Barrett, C. K., 97 Barrett, D. P., 6, 175 Bartholomä, Ph. F., 79, 81 Baskin, J. R., 105 Bassler, J., 105 Bachmann, V., 86 Bauckham, R. J., xxxiv, xxxv, xxxix, xl, 3, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 37, 38, 61, 62, 66–­69, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80–­85, 87, 89, 90, 92, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, 102, 104, 108, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 125, 126, 128, 129, 132, 133, 134, 136, 137, 140, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 157, 166, 167, 168, 169, 177, 180, 181, 184, 191, 192, 193, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 210, 213, 214, 216, 219, 220–­23, 226, 228, 229, 230, 248, 249, 250, 252, 256, 257, 258, 259, 262, 267, 271, 273, 275–­79, 280, 282, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 292, 294, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 306, 308, 309, 311, 312, 315, 316, 317, 318, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 334, 335, 336, 337, 339, 340, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 356, 358, 363, 368, 369, 372, 375, 377, 378, 382, 385, 512



Index of Names

386, 388, 390, 391, 399, 402, 403, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 418, 419, 420, 421, 425, 426, 427, 430, 431, 432 Baum, A. D., 171, 218 Baumert, N., 264, 265, 267 Baynes, L., 122 Becker, J., 210, 283 Bemmerl, Ch., 15 Bénétreau, S., 193 Bengel, J. A., 114, 184 Bennema, C., 271 Berger, K., 33, 35, 39, 40, 63, 84, 85, 100, 120, 121, 126, 166, 201, 214, 220, 225, 226, 229, 230, 270 Betz, H.-­D., 270 Betz, O., 270 Bigg, Ch., 7, 37, 111, 113, 142, 167, 168, 184, 199, 213, 216, 220, 228, 248, 249, 250, 257, 258, 410 Bjerkelund, C. J., 68 Black, M., 120, 125 Blinzler, J., 197 Blumenthal, Ch., 3, 14, 17, 19, 35, 38, 50, 63, 79, 81, 94, 98, 103, 107, 136, 138, 163, 175, 390, 391, 409 Bockmuehl, M., 201, 369 Bonnard, P., 83 Boobyer, G. H., 107, 193, 368, 369 Börstinghaus, J., 112 Böttrich, Ch., 14, 120 Bousset, W., 166, 262, 263, 264 Brändl, M., 68 Bremmer, J. N., 203 Brenz, J., 10, 173 van den Broeck, R., 22 Broer, I., 214 Brosend, W. F., 3, 25, 35, 38, 52, 53 Brown, R. E., 213, 221, 253, 288 Brox, N., 218, 360 Buchholz, D. D., 168, 201, 202, 398 Buono, A. M., 4 Burchard, Ch., 29, 139 Burridge, R. A., 271 Bury, R. G., 396 Busto Sáiz, J. R., 3, 12 Byron, J., 58 Callan, T., 166, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 223, 305 Calvin, J., 174 Cambe, M., 206

513

Cantinat, J., 29 Caulley, Th. S., 356, 357 Cavallin, H. C. C., 184 Cedar, P. A., 51 Chaine, J., 7, 29, 100, 167, 172, 177, 184, 211, 220, 258, 259, 317, 320 Charles, J. D., 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 15, 17, 26, 44, 63, 94, 249, 260, 270, 273, 275 Charles, R. H., 125 Chase, F. H., 170, 172, 176, 184 Chatelion Counet, P., 52 Chemnitz, M., 10 Christensen, M. J., 263 Collins, J. J., 86, 330, 396, 397 Colpe, C., 71 Comfort, Ph. W., 6, 175 Cook, J. G., 258 Corcoran, T. H., 393 Cowley, R. W., 122 Cozijnsen, B., 12 Credner, K. A., 25 Crehan, J. H., 185 Cullmann, O., 201, 406, 407 Dahl, N. A., 83 Danker, F. W., 166, 254, 256, 257, 259, 269 Davids, P. H., xxxv, 3, 6, 12, 25, 37, 44, 47, 48, 53, 61, 84, 85, 103, 110, 126, 127, 132, 134, 140, 143, 145, 147, 148, 150, 153, 155, 185, 252, 262, 267, 268, 272, 273, 276, 306, 308, 315, 320, 321, 329, 338, 340, 345, 346, 352, 353, 368, 369, 370, 412 Dehandschutter, B., 126 Deichgräber, R., 28, 155 Deines, R., 181 Delcor, M., 86 Dennis, J., 328, 390, 393 deSilva, D. A., 112 Desjardins, M. R., 51, 94 Diels, H., 365 von Dobschütz, E., 206 Dochhorn, J., 8 Doering, L., 58, 60, 194 Dölger, F. J., 305 Donelson, L. R., 214, 320, 424 Dschulnigg, P., 165, 198 Dunn, J. D. G., 145 Dupont, J., 273 Ebner, M., 244 Ehrman, B., 298, 332, 362 Elliott, J. H., 94, 222

514

Index of Names

Elliott, J. K., 175, 410 Ellis, E. E., 14, 23, 25, 31, 214, 215, 216, 220, 382 Enslin, M. S., 195 Erlemann, K., 166, 406, 407 Fahr, H., 81 Farkasfalvy, D., 195 Fascher, E., 165, 176, 184, 221 Feldman, L. H., 90, 105, 106 Feldmeier, R., xxxi Fischel, H. A., 270 Fitzgerald, J. T., 270 Fitzmyer, J. A., 58, 249 Fornberg, T., 163, 182, 184, 185, 187, 188, 223, 229, 248, 249, 253, 256, 258, 268, 270, 297, 298, 300, 306, 324, 331, 356, 377, 389, 410 Förster, W., 274 Fossum, J., 81 Frankemölle, H., 17, 36, 62, 64, 66, 67, 76, 97, 127, 139, 148, 165, 179, 253, 258, 306, 314, 336, 347, 419, 428 Frenschkowski, M., 219 Frey, J., xv, xvi, xxxi, xxxiii, xxxvi, xxxvii, xxxviii, xxxix, xl, xli, 4, 12, 15, 18, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 33, 40, 49, 52, 71, 86, 94, 100, 108, 119, 122, 123, 134, 153, 156, 164, 166, 167, 174, 185, 187, 196, 215, 218, 219, 225, 226, 235, 239, 253, 264, 281, 283, 304, 313, 314, 321, 342, 365, 371, 382, 406, 424 Fuchs, E., 11, 66, 73, 79, 80, 82, 97, 101, 113, 126, 127, 130, 132, 137, 140, 157, 184, 185, 214, 220, 221, 224, 250, 251, 252, 253, 256, 258, 287, 299, 307, 320, 324, 330, 335, 336, 358, 359, 374, 413, 414, 415, 431 Gäckle, V., 138 García Martínez, F., 90, 105, 312, 404 Gauger, J. D., 396, 397 Gerdmar, A., 4, 13, 18, 37, 106, 166, 176, 185, 198, 222, 228 Gese, H., 107 Geß, W. F., 178 Geiger, J., 231 Gielen, M., 214, 222, 223 Gilmour, M. J., 163, 166, 168, 169, 183, 185, 186, 188, 191, 193, 195, 197, 199 Ginzberg, L., 105, 107, 108 Glessmer, U., 81 Gnilka, J., 36 Goldhahn-­Müller, I., 360 Goodspeed, E. J., 195

Grappe, Chr., 201 Grässer, E., 406 Green, E. M. B., 216 Green, G. L., 51, 183, 228, 258, 368 Greene, J. T., 105 Grelot, P., 105 Grotius, H., 10, 22, 174, 178, 179, 184, 228, 368 Grundmann, W., xxxiii, 7, 36, 59, 61, 66, 68, 71, 73, 76, 84, 93, 97, 103, 181, 184, 221, 222, 223, 228, 247, 252, 256, 258, 259, 276, 284, 298, 306, 319, 322, 335, 337, 341, 342, 356, 360, 370, 386, 387, 392, 415 Grunewald, W., 6 Grünstäudl, W., xxxiii, xl, 7, 15, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 221, 222, 223, 224, 243, 273, 280, 289, 290, 291, 294, 295, 296, 317, 358, 378, 379, 383, 386, 398, 403, 410, 413, 416 Gundry-­Volf, J. M., 146 Gunther, J. J., 23, 32 Guthrie, D., 185, 382 Haenlein, H. K. A., 10 Hafemann, S., 263, 264, 265, 266 Hagen, J. L., 120 Hahn, F., 4, 6, 15, 17, 24, 29, 38, 44, 46, 47, 60, 70, 77, 233 Hahneman, G. M., 8 Harl, M., 91 von Harnack, A., 22, 203, 378 Harnisch, W., 356 Harrington, D. J., 151, 321, 331 Hatton, H. A., 62, 130 Haubeck, W., 319 Hauck, F., 221, 248 Heckel, U., 63, 113 Heil, J. P., 19 Heiligenthal, R., xxxix, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 29, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44, 105, 127, 131 Hengel, M., xxxii, 26, 29, 59, 181, 197, 216, 218, 247, 328 Henning, W. B., 120 Henshaw, T., 22 Herder, J. G., 25, 174 Hicks, R. D., 395 Hiebert, D. E., 303 Hillyer, N., 183 Himmelfarb, M., 15



Index of Names

Hoffmann, E. G., 248 von Hofmann, J. Ch. K., 213 Hollmann, G., 165, 166, 262, 263 Holmes, M., 200 Holtzmann, O., 258 Hoppe, R., 38, 136, 377, 380, 382 Horrell, D., 67, 70, 110 van der Horst, P. W., 393, 396, 397, 398, 400 Hossfeld, F.-­L., 402 Howard, W. F., 176 Hübner, H., 123 Hultin, J. F., 183, 184 Hurtado, L. H., 216 Hutton, R. R., 107 Ilan, T., 58, 249 Irmscher, J., 289 Jacobi, Ch., 195, 408 Jakab, A., 202 Janßen, M., 23, 218, 219 Jessien, A., 25 Johnson, L. T., 71 Joubert, S. J., 3, 11, 18 Jülicher, A., 165, 176, 184, 221 Junack, K., 6 Jung, F., 156, 253, 254 Kahmann, J., 183, 185 Karpp, H., 105 Karrer, M., 156, 253, 254 Käsemann, E., xxxiv, 4, 46, 69, 70, 164, 165, 166, 228, 237, 241, 242, 263, 298, 306, 356, 376, 407, 416 Keil, C. F., 213 Kelhoffer, J. A., 278 Kelly, J. N. D., 61, 66, 73, 85, 91, 113, 126, 127, 128, 157, 176, 181, 223, 248, 249, 258, 273, 277, 287, 297, 307, 320, 334, 335, 353, 356, 359, 370, 388, 389, 391, 410, 414, 415, 416, 422, 434 von Kienle, B., 150 Kilpatrick, G. D., 109 Kistemaker, S. J., 98 Klauck, H.-­J., 19, 58, 64, 184, 185, 211, 219, 283 Klein, G., 22, 165, 179, 423 Klein, T., 60 Klijn, A. F. J., 23, 92, 286 Klostermann, E., 206 Knibb, M., 125 Knight, J., 377

515

Knoch, O., 11, 64, 67, 70, 76, 103, 112, 115, 165, 210, 220, 222, 258, 320, 335, 336, 374 Knopf, R., 206, 221, 262, 263, 266, 388, 422 Koester, H., 23, 263 Kollmann, B., 110 Konradt, M., 15 van Kooten, G. H., 43 Koskenniemi, H., 67 Kraftchick, S. J., 330, 377 Kranz, W., 365 Kraus, T. J., xiv, xvii, xxxiii, 163, 166, 167, 168, 169, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 184, 185, 187, 188, 191, 193, 194, 197, 198, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 209, 210, 211, 212, 221, 223, 231, 248, 251, 255, 268, 270, 275, 277, 280, 284, 285, 287, 289, 290, 292, 294, 299, 300, 304, 305, 307, 309, 314, 316, 317, 318, 321, 323, 328, 335, 337, 338, 353, 363, 364, 365, 366, 369, 374, 375, 380, 381, 384, 388, 398, 399, 410, 412, 413, 414, 419, 426 Kubo, S., 6 Küchler, M., 365 Kühl, E., 5, 37, 178 Kuhn, K. G., 105 Kümmel, W. G., 5, 9, 10, 22, 23, 29, 36, 174, 213, 221 Kvanvig, H., 119 Lampe, G. W. H., 229 Lampe, P., 70 Landon, Ch. H., 6, 79, 81 Laperoussaz, E. M., 99 Lee, S. S., 169, 294, 300 Leipoldt, J., 8, 9, 10, 172, 173, 174 Levison, J. R., 311 Lewis, J. P., 329 Lietaert Peerbolte, L. J., 168 Lietzmann, H., 110 Lightfoot, J. B., 378 Lindemann, A., 196, 199, 267, 279, 378 Loader, J. A., 90, 91 Lona, H. E., 199, 287, 378, 386 Losekam, C., 87 Lührmann, D., 24, 330 Lumby, J. R., 183 Lunceford, J. E., 58 Luther, M., xvi, xxxii, 5, 9, 25, 27, 133, 173, 174, 184, 192 Magaß, W., 108 Maier, F., 6, 7, 15, 25, 36, 184, 213 Makujina, J., 333

516

Index of Names

Malina, B., 65 Markschies, Ch., 8, 36, 97, 170 Marmorstein, A., 231 Marrassini, P., 168, 201, 202 Martin, R. P., 44, 176, 211, 233, 239 Marxsen, W., 36 Mason, E. F., 181 Massaux, E., 6 Mathews, M. D., 120, 185 Maurer, Ch., 415 Mayer, R., 417 Mayor, J. B., 62, 73, 183, 184, 192, 195, 297, 391 Mazich, E., 125, 126 McNamara, M., 179, 368 Mees, M., 6 Meier, S., 377 Merkt, A., 54, 168, 170, 223 Metzger, B. M., 8, 9, 81, 168, 176, 324, 418 Michaelis, J. D, 5, 10, 174, 184 Michaelis, W., 406 Michaels, J. R., 213 Michel, H.-­J., 210, 288 Michl, J., 88 Milik, J. T., 86, 89, 119, 124, 125, 126 Millar, F., 14 Miller, G. D., 364 Miller, R. J., 169, 197, 198, 204, 294 Miller, T. A., 313 van Minnen, P., 120, 124, 202 Moffatt, J., 142, 184 Molland, E., 229 Moo, D. J., 25, 214, 216, 252 Moore, M. S., 105 Morgenthaler, R., 11 Moulton, J. H., 176 Müller, C. D. G., 201, 202, 298 Müller, P., 3, 4, 6, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 27, 28, 29, 34, 40, 41, 167, 176, 213, 222, 223, 229, 230 Müller, U. B., 4, 98 Mullins, T. Y., 68 Munck, J., 210 Muro, E. A., 14 Musculus, W., 10, 173 Najman, H., 105, 206 Neugebauer, O., 122 Newman, J. H., 90, 91 Neyrey, J. H., 18, 38, 65, 81, 130, 142, 166, 184, 211, 223, 230, 231, 248, 249, 250–­53,

266, 272, 297, 298, 303, 317, 318, 320, 323–­25, 338, 339, 340, 345, 355, 356, 357, 361, 368, 370, 377, 426 Nickelsburg, G. W. E., 8, 86, 87, 119, 120, 121, 122, 124, 125 Nicklas, T. xiv, xxxiii, 7, 167, 168, 172, 173, 201, 202, 203, 205, 280, 288, 289, 290, 316, 317, 380, 383, 398, 399, 403 Niebuhr, K.-­W., 15, 29 Nienhuis, D. R., 166, 245 Norelli, E., 168, 201, 206 Normann, F., 268 Oekolampad, J., 10, 173 Oleson, J. P., 12 Oropeza, B. J., 146 Osburn, C. D., 13, 18, 73, 79, 81, 82, 108, 114, 125, 140, 141 Painter, J., 59 Parker, D. C., 410 Paulsen, H., xxxiv, 6, 11, 32, 34, 35, 37, 40, 41, 42, 44, 62, 66, 70, 74, 76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 95, 96, 97, 101, 103, 112, 115, 125, 126, 127, 130, 133, 137, 139, 142, 143, 144, 150, 167, 176, 192, 206, 210, 214, 221, 224, 225, 226, 233, 236, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 256, 258, 261, 262, 268, 276, 284, 302, 303, 307, 308, 312, 315, 317, 318, 324, 327, 328, 331, 333, 334, 336, 337, 339, 341, 342, 344, 345, 350, 353, 356, 358, 359, 361, 368, 369, 370, 372, 377, 385, 388, 390, 391, 412, 415, 419, 421, 424, 425 Pearson, B. A., 121, 139, 188, 328 Perkins, Ph., 208, 377 Peterson, E., 289 Pfitzner, V. C., 68 Pfleiderer, O., 36 Picirilli, R. E., 168, 199, 255 Pietersma, A., 84 Plisch, U.-­K., 207 Plummer, A., 184 Popkes, W., 29, 32, 139 Poplutz, U., 68 Pratscher, W., 59, 200, 223, 378, 379, 386 Prostmeier, F. R., 362 Puech, É., 14 Rackham, H., 395 Rappaport, S., 332 Reed, A. Y., 87 Reese, R. A., 3, 6, 62, 112, 265



Index of Names

Rehn, A., 71 Reicke, B., 29, 32, 62, 183, 229, 249, 262, 339, 356, 390 Renan, E., 37 Rengstorf, K. H., 319 Repo, E., 322 Resch, A., 378 Reymond, P., 11, 66, 73, 79, 80, 82, 97, 101, 113, 126, 127, 130, 132, 137, 140, 157, 184, 185, 214, 220, 221, 224, 250, 251, 252, 253, 256, 258, 287, 299, 307, 320, 324, 330, 335, 336, 358, 359, 374, 413, 414, 415, 431 Richards, W. L., 15 Riedl, H. J., 83, 163, 166 Riesner, R., 183, 184, 229, 368 Robinson, J. A. T., 25, 31, 51, 183, 184, 213, 216, 220, 222, 229, 250, 368 Robinson, T. M., 365 Robson, E. I., 179, 183 Roloff, J., 83 Roose, H., 43 Rösel, M., 105, 350 Rosenthal, F., 125 Röwekamp, P., 201 Rowston, D., 3 de Ru, G., 185 Ruf, M. G., 163, 166, 168, 169, 179, 180, 182, 193, 194, 195, 197, 198, 199, 200, 204, 209, 210, 249, 259, 260, 261, 264, 266, 267, 269, 270, 271, 274, 280, 282, 283, 287, 289, 291, 294, 295, 299, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 311, 319, 322, 324, 325, 328, 329, 331, 332, 333, 336, 338, 339, 342, 344, 348, 351, 352, 354–­59, 361, 364–­67, 369, 370, 372–­76, 379, 385, 388, 389, 390, 392, 393, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 412, 414, 418, 419, 420, 422, 423, 424 Schäfer, P., 121 Schattner-­Rieser, U., 125, 364 Schelkle, K. H., 6, 36, 66, 68, 69, 76, 83, 103, 128, 147, 165, 167, 181, 220, 222, 228, 248, 250, 252, 258, 259, 298, 302, 306, 320, 337, 344, 346, 369 Schenke-­Robinson, G., 207 Schimanowski, G., 158 Schlatter, A., 66, 68, 75, 76, 94, 214 Schlosser, J., 16, 54, 84, 329, 330, 404 Schmidt, K. M., 163, 166, 169, 193, 194, 201, 208, 210, 211, 219, 223, 258, 284, 285, 286, 293, 325, 341, 342, 343, 350, 352, 354, 363,

517

365, 366, 370, 371, 373, 383, 391, 400, 401, 432 Schmithals, W., 97, 356 Schnackenburg, R., 6 Schneemelcher, W., 206, 207 Schneider, J., 152, 221, 248 Schnelle, U., xxxii, 29, 32, 44, 192, 201, 210, 211, 214, 218, 221, 222, 232, 233, 425 Schnider, F., 60 Scholtissek, K., 61 Schrage, W., 4, 36, 59, 67, 73, 113, 126, 164, 165, 200, 211, 228, 248, 249, 252, 258, 263, 306, 334, 402, 410 Schreiner, Th. R., 25, 37, 53, 62, 73, 151, 185, 214, 216, 250, 252, 308, 382 Schröter, J., 110 Schultheiß, T., 197 Schulz, S., 4, 165 Schumacher, Th., 272 Schürer, E., 14 Scott, E. F., 164 Seethaler, P.-­A., 36, 206, 228 Sellin, G., 4, 16, 37, 40, 42, 43, 44, 72, 73, 75, 92, 138, 139, 152 Semler, J. S., 174, 184 Sickenberger, J., 97 Sidebottom, E. M., 176 von Siebenthal, H., 248 Siker, J. S., 8, 9, 168 Smit Sibinga, J., 305 Smith, T. V., 166, 183, 201, 207, 320, 368 Smitmans, A., 408 Snyder, G. F., 361 Soards, M. L., 52 von Soden, H., 67, 142, 164, 248, 317, 344 Speyer, W., 218 Spicq, C., 112, 183, 220, 224, 251, 252, 262, 299, 305, 410 Spitaler, P., 142, 151 Spitta, F., 36, 85, 168, 184, 192, 197, 203, 213, 248, 277, 368, 403 Stählin, G., 297, 298, 345 Staats, R., 330 Starr, J. M., 235, 249, 256, 258, 263, 265 Stein, H. J., 110, 111 Stenger, W., 60 Stephens, M. B., 418 Sterling, G. E., 389 Steudel, A., 14, 134 Strecker, Ch., 272

518

Index of Names

Strecker, G., 233, 241, 289 Streeter, B. H., 22 Strobel, A., 403, 404 Stuckenbruck, L. T., 86, 88, 119, 120, 121, 122 Stuhlmacher, P., 83, 233, 244, 429 Szewc, E., 97, 229 Taatz, I., 58 Talbert, C. H., 376 Tellbe, M., 70 Theissen, G., 109 Thiele, W., 79 Thrall, M. E., 286 Thurén, L., 4, 67, 72, 176, 183, 184, 211, 212 Tigchelaar, E., 90, 168, 203, 312, 404 du Toit, A., 33, 35, 71, 72, 323 Tóth, F., 49 Touati, Ch., 150 Trebilco, P., 70 Trimaille, M., 210 Trobisch, D., 244, 292 Tromp, J., 99 Tsuji, M., 60 Tuckett, Ch., 386 Turner, N., 176 Uhlig, S., 86, 89, 115, 119, 121, 125 Ullendorf, E., 121 Ullmann, K., 179 van Unnik, W. C., 322 Usener, K., 395, 396 VanderKam, J. C., 87, 119, 120, 125 Verheyden, J., 8, 170 Vermes, G., 14, 105, 108, 231 Vielhauer, Ph., 23, 29, 30, 36, 97, 144, 176, 210, 221, 228 Viljoen, F. P., 37 Vogel, M., 286 Vögtle, A., xxxiv, 4, 6, 11, 27, 28, 38, 39, 44, 46, 52, 60, 62, 65, 66, 69, 72, 73, 76, 77, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 103, 111, 112, 113, 125, 126, 129, 131, 133, 136, 137, 139, 144, 145, 147, 148, 152, 156, 157, 158, 159, 165, 167, 171, 214, 219, 221, 222, 236, 249, 250, 252, 253, 255, 258, 261, 265, 272, 273, 276, 284, 285, 287, 288, 292, 295, 301, 306, 307, 313, 317, 320, 324, 334, 335, 336, 337, 339, 341, 344, 346, 353, 356, 358, 359, 362, 363, 364, 368, 370, 372, 373, 374, 377, 381, 386, 388, 389, 391, 392, 408, 409, 415, 416, 418, 421, 423, 428, 431

Vouga, F., 195 van der Waerden, B. L., 395 Wall, R. W., 16, 54, 55, 166, 245 Walter, N., 119 Wanke, G., 107 Wasserman, T., 3, 6, 7, 25, 57, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 116, 126, 141, 154, 167, 184, 185, 187 Watson, D. F., xxxv, 3, 6, 11, 18, 19, 64, 129, 133, 163, 166, 176, 187, 190, 211, 315, 419 van der Watt, J. G., xxxiii, 271 Webb, R. L., 49, 118 Wehr, L., 422, 425 Weiser, A., 210, 283 Weiss, B., 184, 213, 369 Weiß, H.-­F., 360, 361 Weiß, K., 88 Wendland, E. R., 3, 18, 19, 64 Wendt, K., 122 Werdermann, H., 36, 97, 228 Werner, M., 406 Whallon, W., 109 Wick, P., 110, 111 Wikgren, A. P., 81 Wilckens, U., 233, 240, 242 Willi-­Plein, I., 91 Windisch, H., 36, 62, 66, 73, 82, 103, 105, 112, 130, 187, 192, 248, 249, 251, 253, 256, 259, 263, 276, 287, 297, 299, 302, 303, 307, 315, 317, 318, 328, 333, 336, 356, 358, 360, 362, 387, 391 Winter, M., 138, 210, 283 Winter, S. C., 152 Wisse, F., 33, 34, 38 Witherington, B., III, 376, 381 Wittung, J. A., 263 Wohlenberg, G., 62, 184, 211, 213, 220 Wolter, M., 43, 88 Wolters, A., 263, 265 Wolthuis, T. R., 3, 12, 18 Wright, A. T., 87 Zahn, Th., 24, 59, 73, 170, 174, 181, 192, 197, 213, 220, 228, 351, 368 Zenger, E., 402 Ziegler, J., 13 Zimmermann, R., xxxiii, 218 Zmijewski, J., 83, 165, 286 Zwierlein, O., 201