Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 67:1 (Mar 2024)
Article: “Memories” About The Old Testament In Jewish And Christian Tradition Inform 2 Peter And Jude, Part 1
Author: Herbert W. Bateman IV

JETS 67:1 (March 2024) p. 103

“Memories” About The Old Testament In Jewish And Christian Tradition Inform 2 Peter And Jude, Part 1

Herbert W. Bateman IV*

*Herbert W. Bateman IV is a retired professor of New Testament studies. He may be reached at [email protected].

Abstract: Introductory issues for 2 Peter and Jude often involve discussions about “false prophets” and “false teachers” as well as the order in which the letters were written based on literary dependence. Yet did both Peter and Jude confront “false prophets” and “false teachers”? Was 2 Peter written first, with Jude dependent on it? Or was Jude written first, with 2 Peter dependent on it? This essay argues that Peter and Jude addressed two entirely different adversaries, that they wrote independently of one another, and that both relied on their “memories” of events in common with their Jewish and Christian traditions.

Key words: literary dependence, Jewish tradition, Christian tradition, 2 Peter, Jude, false teaching, rebellion

Assumptions! Assumptions are like a building’s cornerstone, a vital part of the foundation on which something is built. A commentator’s assumptions about a NT text’s background information often, but not always,1 serve as a cornerstone on which interpretations are built. Yet if fractures in foundational claims or lines of reasoning appear, it may be time for reevaluation—as was the case during the mid-1900s regarding the interpretation of Hebrews. Spicq and others, at one time, insisted that the recipients of the book of Hebrews were Hellenistic Jewish Christians with a Philonic background.2 In fact, prior to the discoveries at Qumran, it was

JETS 67:1 (March 2024) p. 104

assumed that the best hermeneutical approach to the book of Hebrews was based on a particular understanding of Philo. After numerous manuscript finds in the region of the Dead Sea, however, Spicq and others reconsidered their assumptions and replaced the Philonic cornerstone on which they had interpreted Hebrews with one that involved Jewish exegetical practices observable in numerous scrolls.3 In corresponding fashion, perhaps it is time to rethink a few assumptions about 2 Peter and Jude.

Admittedly, entry-level matters such as authorship, recipients, date, and occasion for 2 Peter and Jude are challenging. The two assumptions most frequently accepted, on which many interpretations are built, are that both letters confront false teachers and that they involve literary dependence. But why are these assumptions hel...