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

JETS 67:2 (June 2024) p. 285

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

Herbert W. Bateman IV*

* Herbert W. Bateman IV is a retired professor of New Testament studies. He may be reached at [email protected]. Part 1 of this article (JETS 67.1 [2024]: 103–12) argues that Jude is not addressing false teachers, as 2 Peter is.

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, Second Peter, Jude, false teaching, rebellion

II. On Whom Did Peter And Jude Depend?

Having considered in the first part of this study theories about rivals that 2 Peter and Jude oppose, a second question to tackle involves dependency. It was once argued that Jude (a lesser figure) borrowed from Peter (a prominent figure), a position the early church assumed and several modern scholars still consider viable.1 Yet Jude’s canonical acceptance before 2 Peter has led many contemporary studies to doubt 2 Peter’s authenticity and is often cited as evidence for 2 Peter’s dependence on Jude.2 In fact, 2 Peter is one of the few NT books that has had “a

JETS 67:2 (June 2024) p. 286

very rough passage down the centuries.”3 Thus, the discussion regarding the prominence of the author has shifted: the author of 2 Peter, considered pseudonymous and thus the lesser figure, is now thought to have borrowed from Jude, now considered the more prominent figure.

Furthermore, the case for Peter’s dependence on Jude has also been made by way of a basic rule typically employed in textual criticism and Gospel studies, namely, that Jude’s shorter letter is more likely original because authors tended to augment, not abridge, a text.4 Kistemaker, in arguing for Jude’s priority, argues that “we apply the basic rule that the shorter text is more likely to be the...