Jude and 2 Peter. Andrew M. Mbuvi
Читать онлайн книгу.
lies with those who maintain the authenticity of Jude while the burden of proof is with those who think otherwise. Davids concurs, and after a lengthy analysis of the evidence finds that “. . . none of the explanations why someone would use Jude as a pseudonym is convincing.”38 It therefore makes more sense to maintain the authenticity of the Jude in this regard.
Date
The same split that we see in the arguments about authorship happens with regard to the dating of the letter. Scholars who maintain the authenticity arguments date the letter fairly early, either as early as the 50s/60s 0r 80s CE, while those who think it is pseudepigraphical date it as late as the 90s CE. The guideline dates that serve as points of reference are the well established date of the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE, and the traditional dating of the death of Jude’s brother James as 62 CE. And since we have no record of Jude’s death, these serve as the plausible references to the period within which the letter was constructed. Jude’s reference to himself as “the brother of James” (Jude 1) would assume he was still alive and influential in the early Christian community (even though the reference does not require that James be alive) and would make most sense if that is the authority with which he seeks to align himself in getting his letter accorded the respect he desires. If that is the case then, one would assume that the letter would have been written before 62 CE.
Relationship to 2 Peter also assists in trying to situate the letter, depending on when one dates 2 Peter. Since 2 Peter utilizes and replicates a substantial amount of the material in Jude, one must assume that there was enough time for the letter of Jude to circulate among the churches and be familiar to the author of 2 Peter but, at the same time, not be well known by his audience who presumably did not know about Jude. That would be the reason that the author of 2 Peter would have included such a fair amount of the letter of Jude in his own letter while also performing some significant editorial work on it.
Eschatology
The issue of eschatology is important in both letters, but more pronounced in 2 Peter where the scoffers questioned what they perceived to be a delayed return of Jesus (Parousia) in 2 Pet 3:8–10. Whether they had misunderstood the timeline as presented earlier by some Pauline letters or they had simply misunderstood the anticipation of the earlier apostles, these scoffers referred to this perceived delay to argue that the message they had received about the Gospel could not be sustained since none of the expected or predicted events had taken place. Second Peter then turned to Psalm 90 to unearth a philosophical response to this accusation: “To the Lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years, like a day.”
Opponents
Over the years, the opponents in Jude have been conflated with the pseudodidaskaloi (false-teachers) in 2 Peter, even though nowhere in Jude are they referred to as false-teachers.39 However, a close analysis of the two letters reveals significant differences between the opponents in Jude and the false-teachers in Jude. In Jude, the opponents seem to have emanated from the community and there still seems to be hope for them to be saved, while in 2 Peter the false teachers seem to have crossed the red line and are beyond redemption.40 While in Jude the opponents are already in the community, 2 Peter is ambiguous in reference to the presence of false-teachers as he speaks of their arrival in the future tense (2:1).
Identity of Jude’s opponents has ranged from “Gnoctics”41 to “antinomian/ libertines,”42 besides the letter’s own reference to them as “intruders”/“infiltrators,” and “scoffers.” The abundance of stereotyping language in Jude’s rhetoric—vilifying the opponents—makes it virtually impossible to make any identification based on the described characterization possible.43 Recent arguments have sought to connect the opponents with Jewish libertines, perhaps those reflected in Acts 15 and in Paul’s letter to the Galatians, who seem to have misunderstood Paul’s teaching on freedom.44 The judiciousness of Thomas Schreiner to avoid any attempts at identifying the opponents with any labels is a more commendable perspective.45 Overall, Gene Green is probably most accurate when he states that the identity of the opponents “cannot be fixed with any precision” and there is no sufficient data to positively identify them with any known specific philosophical groups from antiquity.46
2 Peter
Date and Authorship
The author in this letter introduces himself as “Peter, slave of Jesus Christ and a brother of James,” and goes on to present elements in his writing that would portray a person intimately familiar with the life of Peter the apostle (talks of impending death [1:14] prophesied by the Lord), awareness of an earlier letter he wrote (3:1), familiar with the Gospels (reference to Jesus’ Transfiguration—1:17–18, described in Matt 17:1; Mark 9:2–7; Luke 9:28–35) and also familiar with the writings of Paul (3:15). All these personal anecdotes would usually provide sufficient grounds on which to attribute the letter to the self-identified author. However, in the case of 2 Peter, it has not proved to be conclusive and, in fact, has become the premise of counter-arguments against a Petrine authorship.47
Arguments about dating are closely related to those on authorship. Basically, the positions seem to fall into two categories; of Petrine authorship (including use of amanuensis), which would give it an early pre-70 CE dating, versus pseudepigraphic writing which puts it between 70 CE and 125 CE. But if it was written before Peter’s death then it has to be dated before 64 CE. This letter is perhaps the one NT writing to which most modern scholars overwhelmingly assign pseudepigraphic authorship. From very early on in the life of the church, the authenticity of this book has been questioned, albeit for differing reasons. While the letter very clearly states its author as “Simeon Peter, slave and apostle of Jesus Christ” (1:1), it does not seem to have a clear historical trail among the canonical writings for the first two centuries of the Church. The first time the letter is clearly mentioned by name is by Origen at the beginning of the third century, who though clearly citing it as Scripture, explained that it was still a disputed writing within the Christian circles.48
Nonetheless, studies have shown that there may be plausible references of 2 Peter in earlier writings such as Epistle of Barnabas (ca. 70–150),49 1 Clement (ca. 95 CE), 2 Clement (ca. 135 CE) and Shepherd of Hermas (ca. 120 CE).50 Third century Church historian Eusebius (ca. 260–340 CE) says that it was by then accepted as Scripture even though he himself raises concerns about its authenticity.51 Jerome (Epist. 12.11) was the first to offer the possibility that 2 Peter was written by a secretary (amanuensis) giving its distinct style. Their initial rejection (or lack of mention) in the Syrian Church of 2 Peter (and Jude) may have been more to do with their references to angels, a subject the Syrian Church may have been eager to quell since it had dominated Jewish angelology in the region.52
In the Reformation period (sixteenth century) there were also misgivings about the letter; Luther is said to have included it, among other NT writings whose authenticity he is famously known to have questioned (antilegomena), Calvin cautiously accepted it stating, “If it be received as canonical, then we must allow Peter to be its author . . .”, while Erasmus rejected it as a forgery.53