RDBIBLI

N■ Ⅳ ヽVOLLME 50

Jucle,Z PeterⅢ J.BAuCKⅣ皿

WORD B00KS′ PUBLISHER● WACO′ TEXAS

Word Biblical Commentary:Juor, 2 PnrnnCopyright @ 1983 by Word, Incorporated

All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced in any form without the writtenpermission of the publishers.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication DataMain entry under title:

Word biblical commentary.

Includes bibliographies.l. Bible-Commentaries-Collected works.

85491.2.W67 220.7'7 8l_71768ISBN 0-8499-0249-5 (v. 50) AACR2

hinled in tlv United States of Amnica

Unless otherwise indrcated, Scripture quotations in the body of the commentary are from theRevised standard version of the Bible, copyright 1946 (renewed lg?g), 1956,

"ita 6l tszt uy

the Division of Christian Education of the Naiional Council of the Churches of Christ in thiUSA, and are used by permission. Those marked NIV are from the New International Versionof the Bible,,copyright @ 1973 by New York Bible Society International. The aurhor's owntranslation of the text appears in italic type under the heading ..Translation."

To Mv MorHnnAND IN Msrvrony or My Fernnn

Contents

Ediιοttαι 2“麟“Иπιλογt Praル“Иιι

=鴨jαιjθ

“s

Jutu

Introducti.on

Form and StructureLanguageSourcesCharacter of the LetterThe OpponentsDateAuthorshipDestinationAttestation

Address and Salutation (aa 1-2)Occasion and Thane (aa 3-4)Three Old Testammt Types (uu 5-10)Exanrsus: Th,e Bachground and Source of Jud,e 9Three More Old, Testammt Types (aa II-13)The Prophecy of Enoch (aa 14-16)The Prophcq of the Apostles (aa 17-19)The Affeal (au 20-23)Cl,osing Doxology (aa 24-25)Bibliography

2 JR7ιθr

IntroductionForm and StructureLanguageLiterary RelationshipsCharacter of the LetterThe Opponents

・Ⅸ．粗“ｍ

３

３

６

７

８

１

３

４

６

６

・９

２８

４２

６５

７７

９３

０２

０８

‐９

２５

１

　１

　１

　１

　１

１

　１

　１

　１

131131

135

138151

154

CONTEM「S

Date

Authorship and Pseudonylnity

Attestatlon

Иttess αηごSα滋′α′jοη (frf-2)動"″

/Saππαり0/2″b Masscr(ffキ ff)

066銀jOη′ルレ b Tasたπ

“

ι (Iff2Lf5)Rψり ′οOり″′jοη ff(α )4り OS′ο

“`助

郷 j′zSS(I′ f6二 fθ)

Rψりわ0り“ι:οπ rr(b)=レ /aレ 0/0″ ■S″囮 ′

ル|クあり (fff9)

R″りわ0り“ιjοη 2r rtt hψ jrari04 0/OT Prap切 (I120-21)

&″ s hettε′iο■o/島お′ルαε麟 (2rf―Jα )

Rψウ′οO″″

“

οη Jf 7レ Ctttajηりo/Ja砲″れι (2f夕b―I物 )

D““ηαα′jθπ o/ル λおθ ttα磁

“(α)(2rfθ卜r6)

D“zηaαιjoη 。/′ルλおθ■%ιλars(b)(2rf7-22)2レむλ′″αjοη o/SttS(Jfr_ィ )

Rψりわ Ottε′jοηイr(α)動θ SOυθη♂り0/Gοごb助″ (JrJ-7)R″ウわ0″″ιjοηイr(b)=レ Foめ

“raη

“o/ιルLOだ (Jf卜 fθ)

Exλοrraι jοη (夕rf f-16)

Gοηc転jοη (Jrf 7-f∂ )

3ib“c♂ψりれ″影s

157

158162

165

172

194

204

２２３２２８２３６濯２５８２７．２８２２９６３０３３２３３３６３３９３４３

EditoHal Preface

The launching of the word Biblical commentary brings to fulfillment an enter-prise of several years' planning. The publishers and the merrrbers of theeditorial board met in 1977 to explore the possibility of a new commenraryon the books of the Bible that would incorporate several distinctive features.Prospective readers of these volumes are entitled to know what such featureswere intended to be; whether the aims of the commentarv have been fullvachieved time alone will rell.

First, we have tried to cast a wide net to include as contributors a numberof scholars from around the world who not only share our aims, but are inthe main engaged in the ministry of teaching in university, college and semi-nary. They represent a rich diversity of denominational aliegiance. The broadstance of our contributors can rightly be called evangelical and this term isto be understood in its positive, historic sense of a commitment to scriptureas divine revelation, and to the truth and power of the christian gospel.

Then, the commentaries in our series are all commissioned and writtenfo_r the purpose of inclusion in the word Biblical commentary. Unlike severalof our distinguished counterparts in the field of commenriry writing, rhereare no translated works, originally written in a non-English language. Also,each commentator was asked ro prepare his own rendEring oflhJoriginalbiblical text and to use those lanlguiges as the basis of his- own commenrsand exegesis. What may be claimld is distinctive with this series is that itis based on the biblical languages, yer ir seeks ro make the technical andscholarly approach to a theological understanding of scripture understandableby-and useful to-the fledgling studenr, the working minister as well as tocolleagues in the guild of professional scholars and teachers.

Finally, a word must be said about the format of the series. The lavoutin clearly-defined sections has been consciously devised to assist readeis atdifferent levels. Those wishing to learn about the textual wirnesses on whichthe translation is offered are invited to consult the section headed "Nores."If the readers' concern is with the state of modern scholarshipon fly given portion of scripture, then they should turn ro the sections on"Bibliography"and "Form,/structure,/setting." For a clear exposition of thepassage's meaning and its relevance to the bngoing biblical ievelation, thec-oncluding "Explanation" is designed expressly to meet that need. There isthe_refore something for everyonC who may pick up and use these volumes.

If these aims come anywhere near realization, the intention of the editorswill have been met, and the labor of our team of contributors rewarded.

General Editors: Dauid A. HubbardGbnn W. Barhn

Old Testament: John D. W. WattsNew Testament: Ralph P. Martin

Author's Preface

No NT books have been more neglected by scholars than Jude and 2Peter. Most of the convenrional scholarly opinions about them lerive froma past-era of-NT_scholarship.- This commentary is therefiore an atrempt todrag. the study^of these two books into the 1980s. Arthough I am dieplyindebted to a few important recent contributions to the uiderstanding'o?Jude_and 2 Peter (such as those of Fornberg, Neyrey and Ellis), for the riostpart I have been unable to draw on the mlss oi recent research in articlesand monographs which is available to commentators on most other NT books.consequently I regard this commentary as in many respects an exploratory*gI\.opening.up lines-of thought and investigation which I hofe otheriwill discuss and pursue further, whether or not they confirm my conclusions.. The.gerreral scholarly neglect of these books probably reflecis the conven-

tional judgments that rhey-are late in date ani of litile theological value.Yet, even if these judgments were correct, Jude and 2 peter wo-uld still bevaluable evidence of the early history of Chriitianity. Any Christian documenrfrom the first century and a half of Christian history is relevant to the investiga-tion of christian origins and deserves the closesr study for that reason aloie.If my conclusions about the background and character of the two works arecorrect, then their historical interest is considerable:Jude offers a rare glimpseinto .those original- Palestinian christian circles in -which

Jesus' owribtobd-relations were leaders, and 2 Peter documents the way ii-t which one formof early christianity managed the difficult transition fiom the apostolic tothe postapostolic generation. I hope this commentary also showi that thesetwo books do not deserve the contempt with whicli scholars have all toooften regarde^d them. of- course they do not have the cenral theologicalimportance of the Gospels or the Pauline letters, but when a serious"andpatient attempt is made to understand them in their own terrns, they canbe seen to be worthy of rheir place in the canon of scripture and to maketheir own distinctive'contributions to the message of the w"ra of God eventoday.The.moral imperative of the Gospel still needs to be urged in oppositionto ethical libertinism, and the christian eschatological hope still needs tobe sustained in the face of shallow skepricism.

. Among those who ha-ve given me generous assistance, in various ways,during the plepggtion of thiJcommentiry, I should like to thank Dr. LovedayAlexander, Pr._Philip Alexander, Mr. Malcolm Harrison, Dr.John Kane, pro-fessor c. F. D. Moule, Miss Gillian shepherd, Dr. Terry Smith, and Dr. DavidWenham.

University of Manchester,November l98l

Rrcnano Beucxnnnr

Nola.' The author has written his_commentary using the'sequence of booksJude2 Peter, therebydeparting from the order in modem editioni of rh1 NT. the reason for iiris change lies in hii

Autnon's Pnsrecs

argument that Jude was in fact written first, and that 2 Peter shows signs of literary dependenceon the earlier work. This explains the sequence followed in the subsequent Pages.

Alf references to the IXX are to A. Rahlfs ed. Scptuaginta: ld csl Vchu Tcstawnhtm grctaiuta LXX intctprcks.2 vols. 8th ed. Stuttgart: Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1965.

Biblical and other translations arc the author's own unless otherwise indicated.

Abbreviations

)Иみο′ル RαιbiNα

`λ

α"ИεおOJ」Oλ

"Иεむ0/Rα“′

Hamburg Papy‐rus ofthe Иιお

OJPa“′Иεお0/Pa2ι a認

動“

Jα

ИεおOJR″И

`おOJ■ 0綺曖

Иα“

ンレ“ル鷺sas

(Latin versionoFthe Иεおo/

&″)

Иra И滋 ′′Eυ″

Andreas Caesa‐riensis(An‐

drew ofCaesarea)

′ροa,ρ腸■OJ」Oλη均♭ο

“Jypsθ OJ/bra‐

滋 π

Syriac 4,ο

“孵

OJBα磁カGreck 4,ο

“孵

0/3α ttλ

Coptic И″“りがθ

OJE′ Jαλ4♭ο

“Jypsa O/Pa“′

¨“り鰤 OJ&″

“

OCattθグル続Creck frag‐

ment frOmAkhmim

″ο“ウ鰤′Or&″′

Bodleian frag‐

ment々ο

“りがθげ&″′

Ethiopic veト

S10n

“

ο“昴配OJR″「

Rainer fra辟ment

“

ο“

Jypsθ OJ

ル ο"騒

as

b.くИあοa Zar

Bar

Bα籠.

0.B.βα`.

み.Bo Mcs.

BG

ら.■4『

Bjう。И"`.

a κθ磁

ι.Mttα

`

ら・●磁

|.働られ

ら,Sa“た

ら.yom

Cant

Caηι Raa

Ancient literature>Abot R. Nal.

Acls JohnAcLs PauI

PH

Acls Paul A Tfucla

Acts Pet.

Acls Thom.Act. Vaa

Adam and EucAndr. Caes.

Ap. lohnApoc. Abr.

2 Apoc. Bar.

3 Apoc. Bar

Apoc. EL

Apoc. PaulApoc. Pet.

Apoc. PeL A

Apoc. Pel. B

Apoc. Pct. E

AM. Pct. R

Apc. Thom.

位腕

“　∴

И

′

Ascension of IsaiahAsumption of

MosaBabylonian Tal-

mud tractate<Abodn, Zara

Baruch (l Ba-ruch)

Eptttle of EamabasBabylonian Tal-

mud tractateBaba Batra

Babylonian Tal-mud tractateBaba Me5i<a

Berlin GnosticCodex

Babylonian Tal-mud tractateI.IagEa

Pseudo-Philo,Libn Antiquita-tum Biblicarum

Babylonian Tal-mud tractateKclubot

Babylonian Tal-mud tractateMmaftot

Babylonian Tal-mud tractateQdduiin

Babylonian Tal-mud tractateSabbat

Babylonian Tal-mud tractateSanlwdin

Babylonian Tal-mud tractateYoma

Canticles (Songof Songs)

Midrai Rabbahon Canticles

・ｘⅣ　

ＣＣ

AssnsvrerloNs

Nag Hammadi Gnostic Apa Pa.Gnostic Codi-ces Gos. Eb.

I Chronicles2 Chronicles Go* Eg.I Cbtnail2 ClcwnlClement of Alex- Gos. Heb.

andriaPseudo-Clemen- Gos.pet.

tine Honilies Gos. phiLPseudo-Clemen-

tine Recogni- Gos. Thom.tioru

Colossians Gos. TntthI Corinthians2 CorinthiansApocryphal cor- Hab

fespOnqenCe HzsofPaul and the ii;B

,ffii;H,L, Herm' Mand

Daniel

?;u'*';H&'* Herm' sdzr

EcclesiastesMidrai Rabbah

on Ecclesiastes tlerm' '/ls'

Apocabpse ofEaoci (Ethiopic * Greek lo'I"a e."-ri. lgn. Eph.

sJlllil'l;; - rgn. Magn.

$pse of EnochEPith o! tlu ,tpos- lgn' Phl'c'

llzsEoistb of AristeasE7itilt;f Pan to lgn' PoL

Philib (CG8.2)Ephesians lgn' Rom'

Epistle of lere-'miah " Ign. SmynI Esdras (IJ(X)Esther IsaExodus JasEzekiel JdtFragmenlary Ta* Jer

I Chr2 ChrI Cltn.2 Cltn.Clem. Alex.

CImu Hom.

Clnn Rec.

ColI Cor2 Cor"3 Cor"

Corp. Herm.DanDeutDiogn.EcclEccL Rab.

I Enoch

2 Enoch

Ep. ApsL

Ep. Arist.Ep. Pet. PhiL

EphEpJer

I EsdrEsthExodEzekFrg. Tg.

Josephus, lzL

Apocalypse of Petn(cG 7,3)

Gospel of tluEbionites

Gospel oJ tlw Eglp-tinns (CG 3,2and 4,2)

Gospel of tlv He-brtus

Gospel of PetaGospel of Philip

(cG 2,3)Gospel of Tlwus

(cG 2,2)Gospl of h'uth

(CG 1,3 andt2,2)

HabakkukHaggaiHebrewsHermas, Tfrz

Shephrd: Man-dnles

Hermas, TieStwphnd Simil-ilu.dzs

Hermas, TfreSheplvr* Vi-sdom

HoseaIgnatius, lz0n lo

lhe EptusiarcIgnatius, I*ttr to

tlw MagwsiarcIgnatius, Leltn lo

tht Philadcl-phiau

Ignatius, bttn loPolycarp

Ignatius, Letln lotlw Romarc

Ignatius, ltttu tolhe Smymaeans

Isaiah

JamesJudithJeremiahJosephus,

Antiquilabs Ju-daicat

Josephus, EeltzzJunaicun

仇αＲ

Ｃａ‐Ｃｅｎ鉱

gunGalatiansGenesisMidrai Rabbah Josephus, Brf

on Genesis

Josephus, C. Apiotr

Josephus, /it.JoshJrdgKr. Pet.I Kgdms

2 Kgdms

3 Kgdms

4 Kgdms

I Kgs2 KgsIamLevLczt, Rab.

I)(XI Macc2 Macc3 Macc4 MaccMalMart. PoL

MattMeh^

MicMidr. k.ttt- Sanlu

m. Sola

MTNahNehNTNumNml Rab.

ObadOdzs SoLOTPap. Oxy.

Paral. Jr.

PorC. R.

′bb御:α′:ο富

JOSephus,cOη′ra l PetИンjοηm 2 Pct

JO,ephus,,4ι α PhilJOShua Phi10,′ら■JudgeSKり騨 ル trO■ Philo,′

『

l KingdOms(LXX=I Sam)Phil。 ,c麟.

2 KingdOms(LXX=2 Sam)Phl。,0ヴ

3 KingdOms(LXX=l Kgs)Phil。 ,Decαl

4 Kingdoms Philo,D′ ム(LXX=2 Kgs)

l Kings2 Kings Philo,Eら■Lamcntations Philo,GなLcviticus

″ :′陥F Rαιらαλ Philo,Lg.И 鳳on Leviticus

Septuagint Philo,吻l Maccabees2 Maccabees

Philo,ハイに3 Maccabees4 Maccabees

Philo,ハイ“ム

Malachi

XV

I Pcter

2 Pcter

Philippians

Philo,D′ Иbra‐

力απο

Philo,Dθ 4Ⅲ

“

み′z“α

Philo,E″ CM‐ら,π

Phlo,20ψ ‐

siοη′乙jη♂協ππ

Philo,Dθ D“αJogo

Philo,9“ο′D′″‐

西霞 Poι

`ο

五

`"‐s,aα ri s。ルα′Philo,Dθ Eι五′″″

Philo,Dθ G"“じj‐

み雷

Philo,切π ИJ2‐

gomttπPhilo,D′ ルを,♂喀‐

`:ο

π Иbttλαπ

`Philo,Dθ /i`α

Mosお

Philo,Dθ ハイ“ra_

′ね“

Nο協|"“π

Philo,Dθ PJaπ ra‐

J,ο Pta

Philo,Dι Pas″

"‐ra`i cα iηづ

Philo,Dθ Pma■浩

″ Pa"おPhilo,ぃ

“J:ο露

′`Sa滋 `:ο

能なれ'

G"“ :"

Philo,Q“πs′ね鰍“a sο滋

`ね

″shEЮ′

“π

Philo,oお“飩 π

aυ tηαππ R篠ヽ

s,′

Philo,Dθ Sοみ五″

じα″

Philo,D′ Sοπηjお

Philo,2シ滋 ル

わ霞 LFgib雷

PhilemonSayings of the

CeWiSh)Fa‐thers(in theplishna)

A4θ Rabιj E′″π

MαrryraOπ OJPary‐

`α暉"(Lctter ofthe Smyrnae‐

ans)

MatthewMeλ :λαMicah

Philo,P麟“.

Philo,Pasa

Philo,Pram.

Иごぼ“

Psatt Ph■ 0,Q昭′・物・Mishna tractate

Sαηル′五"Mishna tractate Philo,ぃ ょExoa

sOra

Masoretlc text

Nahum Phi10,oι おH絆、NehemiahNew TestamentNumbers Philo,Soι .

νl醸よ Rα夕らαλon Numbers Philo,Sm

Obadiah Phi10,SttC・ Lg.Odtt arSaあποηOld Testament PhilemOxyrhynchus Pa‐ 臓雫 フια

pyrusPattι″οttηα」a_

■""tOttPaS″″Rαわらαtt Aη

`R.El

xvl

Pol. Phil.

Pr Man

kot. Jas.

Provh. Thanhs.

Ps, PssPss. So/.

4qr76,177, 182, 183

4Q<Amrarn

lQapCCn

4QDibHam

4QEn

4QFlor

lQH

lQM

llQMelCh

lQpHab

4QPIsaa'b'C

AnsnnvIatloNs

Polycarp, btttr to 4QpNahthe Philippiaw

Prayer of Manas-seh I lQpPs"Zion

holnangekum ofJames

Proverbskayn of Thanhs-

gtuing (CG 6,7) lqsPsalm, PsalmsPsalms of SolomonTexts from

Qumran Cave4 4QTestim

Teslamml of Am-ram (Vkions of<Amram) from RevQumran Cave Rom4 lSam

Grnesk Apocryphon 2 Samfrom Qumran SiD. Or.Cave I Sir

Words of the Heau-m\ Lights T Abr.from QumranCave 4 T. Ashn

Aramaic frag- T. Bmj.ments of .lEnoch from T. DanQpmran Cave Testim. Truth4

Pasλ″οηハしλ“π

frOm QumranCave 4

瀾りηη`ο

ZiOm in

the Psalmsscron from

Qumran cavell

S“たん。ッッαヵαご(COma“ηjり

R“ル)frOmQumran cavel

ras`jπ oηね text

frOm QumranCave 4

Rcvelation

RomansI Samuel2 SamuelSiりJli″ Orarルs

Ben Sira(Eccle‐

siasticus)

rasra寵鷺′。JИ bra_

力απ

Tasra寵鷺′0/′SレTas′α観鷺′OJβ

“‐

′αml

ras″燿鷺′。/Daηras`,π。り。/詢′λ(CC 9,3)

Targum,Taトgums

ルs″π"`o/CaJ物響πNげ五′

rattμπ Rttdο‐

」0"α

`肱“l Thessalonians2 Thessa10niansBοοl oJttοπaSル

Co"′″″ (Cc2,7)

ras″躍鷺′げrssa_

`滋r

rasra能鸞′。/」Oι

rasねπ“′。J」OSPλ

rasたm′ ミ、 ヵ2s″― ′0/L崩ras′α_′ グMoS“

(oFten calledИSS■4ρ′

'0"√ハイοs“ )

Floril.egium fromQpmran Cave4

Hodayt (Thanks-giaing Hymru)from Q;rmranCave I

Milfiamah (WarScroJl) fromQumran CaveI

■ , 71多 6L

■ 6α′

宅 Nげ宅 PS・ メ

1,「hess

2 Thessa。協。coηム

」Иθたんた雄 たtext r fss.frOm QumranCave H ■」Ob

Pasレ οπ施うαλ‐ ■/as.121 frOm 2ノ滅Qumran cave r&ヮ :

1 ■ MOs.Pas力αrim οη rsaねたfrOm QumranCave 4

■ Ⅲ` ム

Tob■ 12 Pa`■

rraa′ . s′

`λ

3 Rab.

■ S続 .

`.Sο `α

Иbbγθυjα

`ね

富

ras′α″η′げNψλ‐ ■2ら・ra“

Tobitras′α

“り1ぉ OJ`ル

T″ノυ′Par"‐

arcヽ

Sttηごrraa`配 げ

`λ

θ Graa`Sarλ

(CG 7,2)ras勧鷹′グR静

ι“

xvu

Teslamail of Zebu-lun

Wisdom of Solo-mon

Yalqu! RubniYalqu! Sim<oni

Jerusalem Tal-mud tractateSanhedrin

Jerusalem Tal-mud tractateTa<anil

ZechariahZephaniahTheodotion's

version

Collezione "Amici delleCatacombe"

Cambridge Bible Commen-tarY

Catholic Biblical QnrtnlyCatholic Biblical Quarterly-

Monograph SeriesCambridge Bible for

Schools and CollegesCiutad de DiwCambridge Greek Testa-

ment for Schools andColleges

Coniectanea biblica. NTSeries

Conicc taua neo les tamntlicaCalwer theologische Mono-

graphienJ. Hastings ed., Dd,ctiorury of

the Apostolic Church

J. Hastings ed., Dictionary oftlu Bibb

L. Pirot, H. Cazelles, and A.Feuillet ed., Suppllmml auDictionnairc dc lo Eibh

F. Vigoroux and L. Piroted., Dictionnairc dc la Bible

Documenta et MonumentaOrientis Antiqui

Etudes bibliquesE studios ccclesids licosEuangelical QnrterlyTlu ExpositorExpositor's Bible

Wis

施 lR“ι.

施ムまがο晟

ツ・ Sa"λ・

ツ・ TaCα ll・

Modern serials, journals, reference works, Bible versionsAnBibИPOT

ATANT

AV

BAC

Bampton kcturesF. Blass, A. Debrunner, and

R. W. Funk, A CreehGram-mar of lhe NT

Beitrlge zur Fdrderungchristlicher Theologie

Beitrdge zur historischenTheologie

BiblicaBlack's New Testament

CommentariesBonner Orientalistischen

ConB.NT

Cο"ⅣT

CThM

a4c

D3(H)

DBSap

ras`α爾協′。rsia_ zech

Tosqpha trac‐ :ephtate Sο′αヽ、、

Analecta biblica キ CACatR脇

臨 島 ″ :躍a cBc

ο″ ras′αm"′

懲哩躙思鵠∫鳳注ε:鵠s

TestamentsAuthorized(KingJames) CBSC

W卜路「ι縫量f視1聟 8鵠C

♂お力蹴 0■ OJル NT

ぶ置息a ncd。」m DttηNorvegica DMOA

3み施ル 笏麟 びBeiheFte zur 2И И/ EBibBeiheFte zur ZN″ EEB楊ぶL″胤″熱

ａＬ

ＤＦ

Ｂ

Ｂ

BFCT

BIrr

Bめ

BNTC

BOS

BTN

BZBZAWBZNWBZRCC

XVlll

ExPrinFRLAM

CCS

CNBCRβS

HKNT

HNT

r岬

″TR〃υ《ンICC

島ψOSiraり ■滋 s

Forschungen zur ReligiOnund Literatur des Alten

und Neuen TestamcntsCriechische christliche

Schriftstener

Cood News BibleC“″れRomaち α

“″BJza"riv

S翻燃

Handkommentar zumNeuen Testament

Handbuch zum Neuen Tes‐tament

Herders the010gischerKommentar zum NeuenTestament

Hαr“だ r20JagiraJ Rω渤ル う

“劉 ιttjοη Ca′を ′

""“′

International CHtical COm‐

mentary

JeruSalem Bibleル■n3aι げ3b」ira′ 鷹rra睦」02rm′ グメ郷お力SttSルan3ar O/磁 r Fastt S"山」0“m′ arttjあJo0

」0切にJJOrル s′■ orJz滋おπ,η ′ル Pas麟ち H′JJ2お′″α"′

Rοπα"′

をガο′

」0●r“′Or rpo′ρ♂滋′sa″燃Lyman's Bible Commen‐

tarles

Co Wo H.lampe,Paヵ 由′セGttI I″れ

“η

M粗:踊彗

BdtttgF zur

H.A.W.ヽ〔eyer,Kritisch_exegetischer Kommentaruber das Neuer「 estament

MttηFsル あヵarrJ ο"れ

た″

雀:沼需″&協」°SPカ

MofFatt New TestamentCommentary

″ :′麟ル昭“

滋r sarasおελ"G“θ:競リ タr/。歯1・滋

(BreSiau)ル M襲あηNew Century BibleNew English BibleNみあηおrtOれⅢ議η湾げ

Ivaaras″m籠ぬ餡

Asannvrerlotls

NCWGoPH

NHSNIVNουTNovTSup

NrAbh

Ⅳr■。a

Nachrichten der Gesell-schaft der Wissenschaf-ten in Gdttingen.Philologisch-historischeKlasse

Nag Hammadi StudiesNew International VersionNoturn TestamentumSupplements to Nouum Tes-

larnentumNeutestamentliche

AbhandlungenE. Hennecke, W. Sch-

neemelcher, and R. McL.Wilson ed., Nat TatammtApocrypha

Das Neue TestamentDeutsch

New Testament MessageNnt Testament StttdbsNew Testament for Spiri-

tual ReadingOrbis Biblicus et OrientalisProclamation Commentar-

ies

J. P. Migne, Patrohgia graccaPelican Guide to Modern

TheologyJ. P. Migne, Palrologia htituRnw bibliquRecherches bibliquesRnu dzs ltudzs slauaReslorution QnrtnlyRnw de QunranRnu dt I'hisnire dzs rcligionsRiuista biblicaRegensburger Neues Testa-

mentRnw dcs sciences digiwsaRevised Standard VersionRanp dc tldologie et de philosu

phieRevised VersionSources bibliquesSociety of Biblical Litera-

ture Dissertation SeriesSociety of Biblical Litera-

ture Septuagint and Cog-nate Studies

Stuttgarter BibelstudienStudies in Biblical Theol-

ogySources chr6tiennes

ｍ　ｍ耐ＮＴｓＲ　ｏＢ。ＰＣＪＢμが郷″″　　β」ＢＣ　れMBTh

MeyerK

JFFOB

M「 C

MSG″

M富

NCBNEB磁 露

渤 ′

PCPCr

PLRBRcchBibRES′

R“′QRωQR〃RRわBRNT

RSRRSVR″

RVSBSBLDS

SBLSCS

SBSSBT

SC

Studia ad Corpus Hellenis-ticum Novi Testamenti

SoiptureS crip t a H inos o lymi tanaStudies and DocumentsStudia EvangelicaSemiticaStudies inJudaisrn in Late

AntiquitySociety for New Testament

Studies Monograph Se-nes

Sitzungsberichte der preus-sischen Akademie derWissenschaften (Berlin).Philosophisch-historischeKlasse.

Studia postbiblicaStudia tlwologicaSuomalaisen tiedeakate-

mian toimituksia. An-nales academiaescientiarum Fennicae.

H. Strack and P. Billerbeck,Kommmtar zum NeuenTestarnant au Talrnud und,Midrasch

Studien zur Umwelt desNeuen Testament

Studia in Veteris Testa-menti pseudepigrapha

St. Vhdinir's Tlwological

QuartnlyTorch Bible Commentaries

XlX

G.Kittel ed.,τルοJqθ

“

′Dみ

`,ο

ηαりo/ル Nω rastam′Today's English VersionTexts and StudiesTheologischer Handkom‐

mentar zum Neuen fres‐tament

Tyndale New TestamentCommentanes

職 oιqgttα′Sι

“a“

Texte und Untersuchungen

つηあ″B“JJari"

Tyndale New TestamentLccture

=麟ね炒 ZaittψUntersuchungen zumNeuen Testament

Uppsala un市 ersitetsars_

skrift

夕υ′滋`λ

油滋"″降

`霞

Tas`απ"″

π

West:ninster Commentar‐ies

WissenschaFtliche Untersu‐

chungen zum Neuen'「 es‐

tamentZ″お説ψ 」伽r`ル α

“

ras″懃 ト

“`ル

″審sθぉ昴ara

笏おC呻力r aθ 名協rasねπ"ト

Jirλ′″審s郷説ψZ凛お

`′

レブレメ″r20Jq″“だ

κκル

笏お昴ψ pr tts籠ぬ″“

歳r20JOgia

manuscmpt,manuscnpts

Parallel tO,and Parallelsunderundcrstandunder the wordtranslator,transiated byvanant reading

Иbbttωねιjοぉ

SCHNT

Sα

Sα機

SDSES"SJLA

SMSMS

SPAW.PH

SPBSTSTAT

Str‐B

SUNT

svrP

S哩

TBC

TDNT

TEVTextsSTHKNT

TNTC

"sTUTynBTynNTL

TZUNT

UUA

Ｍ

κ″ＷＣ　ＷＵ

Z4″

ZN″

zrK

Z昭

Miscellaneousα′ap.

らおed。

EVVfragm.

lit.

and other MSScptad (quoted in)twiceedition, edited by, editorEnglish versionsfragmentliterally

MS,MSSpani

Sa

∫. υ.

tr.

■ 1

動θルιιθr o/ルル

Introductian

Most introductory issues can really only be settled as a result of detailedexegesis. This Introduction is therefiore dependent on the discussions of par-ticular verses and passages throughout the commentary and gathers togelhersome of their results. Thus wherever its statements are supported by refCrenceto verses ofJude, the interpretation of those verses argued in the commentaryis presupposed.

Form and Structure

The letter ofJude is a real letter. Formally, this is shown by the lerter-opening (w l-2) which conforms ro the style of rhe ancienr Jewish letrer.It was the letter-opening which was the really essential formal constituentof the ancient letter. Jude-then states the occasion and theme of his messagein a passage which corresponds formally to the "body-opening" of the ancientletter form (w 3-4). The body of the lerrer, however, is more like a homilythan a letter: it consists of a midrash on a series of scriptural referencesand texts (w 5-19) and a paraeneric secrion (w 2O-23). The work closeswith a doxology (w 24-25), a conclusion more appropriate to a homily thanto a letter.

We might therefore regard the work as an "epistolary sermon." i.e. a workwhose main content could have been deliveiEd as a homily ifJude and hisreaders had been able to meet, but which has been cast in letter form sothat it can be communicated to readers whomJude could not visit in person.This practice of delivering a sermon at a distance by writing it within anepistolary framework was a natural extension of the genre bf the letter, andwas probably already in use before Jude's time. The letter from Baruch tothe exiles in 2 Apoc. Bar. 7846 is a fictional example of the genre, but thefiction presupposes that this form of letter could be written in fact. It musttherefore have existed in Judaism as well as in primitive Christianity. NTletters vary in the extent to which they resemble private letters, and in severalcases are really written homilies or theological treatises with very little episto-lary framework (Hebrews,James, I John). InJude's case the formal characteris-tics of the letter are quite sufficient to establish its right to belong to thegenre of the letter.

Jude is also a genuine letter in the sense that it was written for and sentto specific addressees. The content of the work makes it clear that it is not atract against heresy in general (as Wisse, 'Jude," argues), but a messagefor a specific situation in which a specific group of false teachers were troublinga specific church or group ofchurches. There is therefore no need to regardthe occasion for the letter (v 3) as fictional, and, despite the generality ofthe address (v l), we should not see it as a "catholic letter" addressed toall Christians, but as a work wrirten with a specific, localized audience inmind.

4 lrvrnopucrroN

The statement of the theme of the letter (w 34) contains two Parts: anappeal toJude's readers ("to carry on the fight for the faith") and the back-giound tothis appeal (v 4: the false teachers, their character and their judg-ment). The two parts of the body of the letter correspond to this division.The midrash (w S-19) is devoted to the background of the appeal: it estab-lishes, by exegesis oftypes and prophecies, that the false teachers are peoplewhose behavior is condemned and whose judgment is prophesied in OTtypes and in prophecy from the time of Enoch to the time of the apostles.Its purpose is to demonstrate that the false teachers constitute a seriousdanger to the church(es). It therefore prepares the way for the real purposeof the letter, which is Jude's appeal to his readers to fight for the faith. Thisappeal, stated as the theme of the letter in v 3, is spelled out in detail in w20-23.

Commentators have usually been misled by the length and central positionof the midrash (w 5-19) into regarding it as the main content of the letter,but this is a serious mistake. The structure of the letter indicates that themidrash, though important, is impoltant only as necessary background tothe appeal (w 2G23), which is Jude's main purpose in writing. The appealoccupies the position it does toward the end of the letter, not because it isa kind of postscript or "closing exhortation," but because it is the climaxof the letter to which all the rest leads up. Recognizing this is a vital key tothe understanding of the work as a whole.

That the section w 5-19 is in the form of a midrash has been shown byEllis (hopluq and Hammsutic), though his detailed analysis will be somewhatmodified in this commentary. (fhe word "midrash" is used here in the generalsense of an exegesis of Scripture which applies it to the contemporary situa-tion, not with the implication thatJude's midrash bears any close resemblanceto the forms of later rabbinic midrashim.) In order to demonstrate the state-ment in v 4, that the character and judgment of the false teachers has beenprophesied, Jude cites a series of l'texts" (w 5-7, I l, l4-15, l7-18), thoughhis "texts" are not always actual quotations. The first two "texts" are summaryreferences to two sets of three OT types (w L7, ll); he then quotes aprophecy of Enoch (w 14-15) and a prophecy of the apostles (w 17-18).Each "text" (indented in the translation in this commentary) is followed bya passage of interpretation (w 8-10, 12-13, 16, l9) which, by pointing tothe character and behavior of the false teachers, identifies them as those towhom the type or prophecy applies. In one case, a secondary text (v 9) isintroduced in the course of a passage of interpretation (w 8-10); there arealso less explicit allusions to other texts in other passages of interpretation(w l2-13, 16).

Two main stylistic features mark the alternation of "text" and interpretationin the midrash. The past tenses (w S6,9), prophetic aorists (w ll, l4),and future tenses (v 18) of the citations, representing historical types andprophecies, are matched by present tenses in all the interpretations, whereJude explains the fulfillment of the prophecies in the present. Secondly, al-though the "texts" are introduced in no consistent way, the passages of inter-pretation are consistently introduced by the words oirro ("these people")or oinu eiou ("these people are")n a formula which resembles one sometimes

Ivrr,ooucmoN 5

used in exegesis at Qpmran (see FonnlS trurture/Scttirng'section in the commen-tary on w 5-10). A further general stylistic characteristic ofJude's midrashicmethod is his considerable use of catchwords to link the exposition to the"text": catchwords in the "text" are picked up in the interpretation bothbefore and after the citation of the "text," and sometimes also link the "texts"together. Catchwords are not entirely limited to rhe midrashic section, butthey are most prominent there.

Principal examples are ose9is/sre\(u/aoikn (w 4, 15, l8), oqpE (w 7-8, 23),9l,siWpeiv/9\sn0tl$ia (w 8-10), il.oo,rl/trl\@riftr4s (w ll, l3), )\c)\eiy (w 15-16),Kqrq,rdt itr0v4as roFwpevu (w 16, l8), fi0os . . . nlpeiy (w 6, l3), nlpeU (w l,6, 13,2l).

_Jude's midrashic method bears some comparison with the pesher exegesisof-Qymran. Thele is the same conviction that the ancient texts are eschatologi-cal prophecy which the interpreter applies to rhe events of his own time,understood as the time of eschatological fulfillment. Whereas the main Qum-ran pesharim are commentaries on whole passages or whole books of theOT ("continuous pesharim"), there are also "thematic pesharim" (4QFlor,I lQMelch, 4q 176, 177, 182,183) which are commenraries on a collectionof texts on one theme, in this resemblingJude's midrash. (The terms "peshercontinu" and "pesher thematique" are those ofJ. Carmignac, "Lr documentde Qumran sur Melkis6deq," ReuQ 7 [1969-71] 360-61.) But there are alsodifferences betweenJude and Q;rmran. The Qumran pesharim offer no analo-gies forJude's quotations from apocryphal books (w 9, 14-15) or from oralChristian prophecy (vv 17-18, perhaps v. ll), or for his use of summariesof scriptural material instead ol an actual quotation from the OT (w 5-7,I l). Moreover, Jude's use of typology (w S-7, I l) is not really to be foundin the Qpmran pesharim, which are concemed only to interpret the textsas prophecy. Jude applies Scripture to rhe last days not only as prophecy,but also as typology, in which the evenrs of redemptive history are seen roforeshadow the eschatological events: this perspective he shares with Jewishapocalyptic and with the primitive Church generally

Ournnn, or Srnuc'runn

l-2 Address and Greeting34 Occasion and Theme of the Lerrer3 A. The Appeal4 B. The Background to rhe Appeal5-19 B. The Background ro the Appeal: A Midrash on rhe Prophecies of

the Doom of the Ungodly5-7 (l) Three OT Types8-10 p/u.s interprerarionI (la) Michael and the Devil

I ! (2) Three More OT Types12-13 pJres interpretation

In'rnoougrror.t

14-15 (3) The Prophecy ofEnoch16 plu,s interpretation17-18 (4) The Prophecy of the Apostlesl9 plns interpretation20-23 A. The Appeal24-25 Closing Doxology

I-anguage

Jude's command of the Greek language is best shown in his wide and effectivelyused vocabulary. Considering its brevity, the letter includes a high number of NThapax legomcna. There are fourteen words not found elsewhere in the NT (riro&opifep,v 19; dtrratmos,v24;1,ttwrits,v 16;&jqpa,vTiiraTaileo0ot,vS;&agptlew,v l3; pegrfipapos, v 16; rapewliweut, v4; oadt<is, v 12;Nwqrapvb, v 12;0wu<6;f,,v l0; drropmkv, v 7; il. olvivt6, v 18; ftrixett, v 7), and of these only four occurin the LXX (&,nrqnrq, v 24; 3 Macc 6:39; itsropveinv, tt 7; r\aifrqs, v 13; Hos9:17; inrixew, v 7). Moreover, there are three more words which occur elsewherein the NT only in 2 Peter, which borrowed them from Jude (iptroircrr6, v l8; 2Pet 3:3; wverrcy€w1ot, v 12;2 Pet 2:13; imepc.yxas, v 16;2 Pet 2:18). Of course,some discrimination is needed in assessing the significance of this list: some words(6e4qo' grrorrod6, inelev) are relatively common words which other NT writers hap-pen not to use; some (oad\ds,00worotpu6s, r\wirrysl are rather specialized wordswhichJude's subject matter requires; some (Tqnuoris, tpnoircrqg are cognate withwords (7ay7ufe.v, "fulTwltc6, epnai(e, dtttrcaT p6g which are found elsewhere in theNT and are characteristic of biblical Greek; some (tizodrotilev, Cra0pt(ecr) are rare.More important than the statistic isJude's evident ability to vary his vocabulary andchoose effective and appropriate words (cf., e.g., w 12-13; tvnwroi pep9itmpar,v 16) and expressions from good literary, even poetic, Greek (urd (6@v, v 6; rcitpo.rd

d1p.o,, v l3). His command of good Greek idiom is also noticeable ftdoat orcu6i1vrototpevn, v 3; nfu<ewtot Alw, itrcnv imixonol, v 7; rcptotv dreveTcip, v 9; rc rilo?cfQc, v l0).

If the vocabulary is rich and varied, the sentence construction is relatively simple,though parataxis is largely avoided (but cf. v ll). But sentence construction ishandled with considerable rhetorical effect.

Semitisms can be found, but are not very prominent, probably less commonthan in mostJewish Greek. (Those in w l4-15 result from direct translation fromthe Aramaic.) Examples are: dr 7i6 N^yinrov, v 5; od.roi cueois, v ll; ia rfr i$Q rot Kauthopeb0qout, v ll:,9auplowes rfuona, v 16; o?rioc, with the genitive, v 7; perhapsomission of the article before tcpiow,v 6, and dlafin, v 21, through the influenceof the construct state. Also to be noticed are the "prophetic" aorists in w ll,14, the use of synonymous parallelism (v 6) and antithetical parallelism (v l0),the chiasmus in v la and perhaps in the structure of the whole letter (see theoutline on pages 5 and 6). The author's fondness for triple expressions is a markedstylistic trait, evident throughout the letter, but is not necessarily Jewish (cf. E.von Dobschiitz, "Zwei- und dreigliedrige Formeln," JBL 50 [931] I 17-47): usedto this extent, it must be an individual stylistic preference.

The style is lively and vigorous, and the whole work gives evidence ofcareful composition. Close exegesis soon reveals great economy of expression.Single words, phrases, and images are chosen for the associations they carry,and scriptural allusions and catchword connections increase the depth of

Ix'rnooucrroN 7

meaning. The section w ll-13 is perhaps especially effective in its use ofcarefully chosen vocabulary, a series of vivid images suggested with almostpoetic economy of words, scriptural allusions, catchword connections, andthe use of climax. The modern reader requires study in order to appreciateit. The much praised doxology (w 24-25) is more readily accessible to modernappreciation.

Sources

Despite his competence in Greek, the author's real intellectual backgroundis in the literature of Palestinian Judaism.

It is usually assumed that Jude, like many NT authors, habitually usedthe OT in its Greek version, the [XX, but this assumption is mistaken. Ofcourse,Jude shows himself familiar with the usual Greek renderings of certainOT Hebrew expressions, used both in the LXX and in later Jewish Greekliterature (note especially:. iwrurcleoilaq "to dream" v 8i flaupalew rpiloanra,"to show partiality" v 16; and cf. tanumitg "grumbler" v 16), but this isunremarkable. Much more significant is the fact that at no point where healludes to specific verses of the OT does he echo the language of the LXX.In two of these cases he must depend on the Hebrew text because the Septu-agint does not give even the meaning he adopts (v 12: Prov 25:14; v l3:Isa 57:20), while in three other cases his vocabulary notably fails to correspondto that of the LXX (v ll: Num 26:9; v 12: Ezek 34:2; v 23: Amos 4:ll;Zech 3:3). This evidence shows conclusively that it was the Hebrew Biblewith which Jude was really familiar. When he wished to allude to it he didnot stop to find the Septuagint translation, but made his own translation,in terms appropriate to the context and style of his work.

His use ofJewish apocryphal works is at least as extensive as his use ofthe OT. He has a close familiarity with / Enoch (w 6, 12-16), from whichhe takes his only formal quotation from a written source (w 14-15). It seemsto be the Aramaic text that he uses (w 6, l4), though he probably knewthe Greek text (v l5). As for his knowledge of the various parts of our .l

Enoch, he certainly knew chaps t-36 (w 6, 12-13, 14-16, cf. v 8), probablychap 80 (w 12-13), perhaps chaps 83-90 (v l3), but there is no conclusiveevidence that he knew chaps 37-71, the Parables (cf. w 4, L4) or chaps 9l-107 (perhaps cf. w 8, ll, 16). The otherJewish apocryphal work which heusedis theTestammtof Moses (hereafter T. Mos.),bothitsextanttext(probably,v 16; cf. v 3) and its ending, which is no longer extant (v 9).

In addition to these written sources, Jude was familiar with Jewish parae-netic and haggadic traditions which cannot be pinned down to any particularwritten source (w 5-7, I l). These had probably already been adopted intoJewish Christian instruction.

There is no convincing case of allusion to a written Christian source, though6f courseJude is familiaiwith traditional catechetical (w 20-23) and liturgical(w 24-25) material, while the purpose of his midrashic section (w &-19) isexplicitly to remind his readers of instruction which they received, in substanceat least, from the apostles at the time of the founding of their church(es).In v 18 he gives a quotation from the apostles which is probably a summary

8 lvrnoouctrox

in his own words of the kind of apocalyptic warning which all the early Chris-tian missionaries included in their instruction to new converts. It is possiblethat v I I is a quotation from an oracle of a Christian prophet. There seemsto be no allusion to gospel traditions, but, given the brevity of the letter,this hardly distinguishes Jude from most other NT letters.

Most commentators repeat the now well-established scholarly tradition thatJude is indebted to the ideas and terminology of Paul. But this assertiondoes not stand up well to detailed investigation. It depends on the too readyassumption that ideas and terminology which Paul uses are distinctively Pau-line, so that other writers who use them must be dependent on Paul or "Paulin-ism." [n fact, of course, as Pauline scholarship has shown and as should inany case be expected, Paul took over a great deal from the common traditionsof primitive Christianity, and great care is needed in distinguishing ideasand terminology which are so distinctively Pauline that they must derive fromPaul. No alleged case of "Paulinism" in Jude can really be substantiated.The contacts with Pauline language all belong to the common vocabularyof the early church (see commentary on "called," "loved," v 2; "saints," v3; "grace," v 4; rltuxtrci, "people who follow natural instincts," v 19; "buildyourselves up," "pray in the Holy Spirit," v 20; and the doxology, w 24-25).

The relationship betweenJude and 2 Peter is discussed in the Introductionto 2 Peter, where the judgment of most modern scholars, that 2 Peter isdependent onJude, not aice ausa, is accepted.

Allusions to classical Greek literature, which have sometimes been sug-gested (w 6, l3), are most unlikely.

Character of the ktter

Is it "Early Catholic" or Apocalyptic Jewish Christian?Where should the letter ofJude be placed on the map of early Christianity?

The usual answer to this question is thatJude, along with the Pastoral Epistles,Luke-Acts, 2 Peter and perhaps other NT books, should be seen as a productof the developing "early Catholicism" of the postapostolic generation of Chris-tians.

The whole concept of "early Catholicism" as NT scholars have used itto illuminate the history of first-century Christianity is ripe fior radical reexami-nation. It has undoubtedly promoted too simple a picture of the developmentof Christianity. Martin Hengel has recently stated: "If we want to, we canfind'early catholic traits'even inJesus and Paul: the phenomena thus denotedare almost entirely a legacy ofJudaism" (Acts and llw Htstory of Early Christianity[London: SCM Press, 1979] 122). But even if the usual theory of early Catholi-cism is accepted,Jude's right to be included in the category must be seriouslyquestioned.

A recent discussion of early Catholicism in the NT (J. D. G. Dunn, Unityand Diaersity in tfu Nr-,w Testammt [London: SCM Press, 1977] chap. XIV) distin-guishes three main features: (l) the fading of the Parousia hope, (2) increasinginstitutionalization, (3) crystallization of the faith into set forms. None ofthese three features is evident inJude: (l) The Parousia hope is liVely andpervades the letter (vv l, 14, 21,24). The whole argument of the midrash

Ixrnoousnor Isection (w 5-19) hinges on the belief that the false reachers are to bejudged!y tt. Lord at his coming (w 14-15) and therefore presupposes an imminintParousia. (2) There is no mention of ecclesiastical omcials inJude (see com-mentary o! w 8, ll, 16), and no hint of a tendency to emphasize officeand order in reaction to the dangers represented by the false ieachers. Thefalse teachers themselves were itiheranicharismatics who claimed propheti$revelations (v 8), and they were evidently accepted as propheis in thechurch(es) to which Jude writes (v l2). Jude deni-es their ilaim to be menof the spirit (v l9), but he does not respond by asserting that charismaticactivity musg !e subject to properly constituted officials oi by stressing thatit is the officials who are endbwid with the spirit. He does not;ddress himselfto elders or bishops who have a special responsibility for guarding the faithag-ains-t heretical deviations. Instead he addresses the'whole comminity, whoall enjoy the inspiration of the spirit in charismatic prayer (v 20) and areall responsible for upholding the gospel (v 3). His r-espbnse to rhe threarfrom the false teachers is quitCdifferintlrom that of lgnatius, with his assertionof episcopal authoriry, or even from that of the Pastdrals, with their emphasison office. (3) The case for,classifyingJude as "early catholic" usually restslargely 9n v q, undersrood to refer-to a fixed body of orthodox doitrine,g3ss_ed-!ow.n from the-apostles, which only has to be asserted against heresy(O._J. Uqlilgton, "The 'Early Catholic' Writings of the New-Tesramenr,;'in_ R. J.-Clitr-od qd G, W. MacRae [eds.], TIw-Word in tlv WorM: Essays inHonm-of Frednich L. Moriarty [cambridge, Mass.: weston college press, lgzS]107; schelkle, "spdtapostolische Brie6," 226). But this is a miiinterpretationof v 3, which refers. s_imply to the gospel itself, not ro any formalized andunalterable "rule of faith," and which, in opposition to deviant teaching,urges its readgrl to remain faithfut to rhe gospel which rhey received at theirconversion. This is e3,acrl-r the tactic which Paul used against false teaching(Gal I :G9; Rom 16: I 7). The "early catholic" interpretation of v 3 is pecuriarfinappropriate since the dispute between Jude and his opponents was notconcerned with orthodoxy a1d heresy in beliel but with- the relationshipletwge_n the gospel and moral obligation. whether or not a ser form of chris-tian belief existed inJude's churchbs, he had no occasion to refer to it, sincehis concern was with the moral_implications of the gospel, which cerrainlyfeatured in Christian carechesis from the beginning. - '

since the developmenr of "early catholiciim," tith its growing insistenceon institutional order and on creedal orrhodoxy, is usuallyittribtited in largepa.rt t9 thefading.of the imminenr escharology and ro rhe siruggle with hereJy,it is clear thatJude does not belong to this development at all: The primitiveeschatological p_erspective remains dominant, and ihe response to falie teach-ing is quite different from the "early catholic" response. so there is notjult- a lack of evidence for Jude's "early catholicism," there is compellingevidence against it.

Is there a more appropriate category in which Jude can be placed? Mostrecent commentators have recognized the stronglyJewish charatter ofJude'schristianity, but the caregory of Jewish christianiiy is a large and flixibleone. There are two or three features of the letter which per[aps enable usto be a little more specific:

(l) Jude's attitude ro the law of Moses can be gathered at all only by

l0 lvrnooucrroN

4eading between the lines. Against its rejection by the false teachers, he seemsto imply that it remains a moral authority for Christians (w 8-9), but hedoes not stress the law of Moses in his response to antinomianism. He refersrather to the moral authority of Christ (w 4, 8) and the holiness of Christianlife on the basis of the gospel (v 20, cf. v 24). No doubt he saw the Lawfulfilled in the gospel. Perhaps it would be safe to say that his attitude tothe Law, while perhaps more conservative than Paul's, was not the hard-line position of the right wing of theJerusalem church.

(2) As we have alriady noticed, Jude's brief letter is remarkably full ofallusions to the apocryphal books I Enoch and the T. Mos. This is one featurewhich setsJude rather-apart from most first-century Christian literature, andalthough I Enoch seemi to have become mo1e popular in second-centuryChristianity, the L Mos. was never widely used in Christian circles. I Enoch

and the T. Mos. areJewish apocalyptic works, andJude's evidentty h.rSlt resp€ctfior them, along wiih otheiaspecis of his letter, places him definitely withinthose early Christian circles whose Christianity was of a strongly apocalyptickind. Their Jewish apocalyptic outlook was now reinterpreted and focusedonJesus, and it was not unnatural that some of them should have interpretedthdewish apocalypses in the light ofJesus, just as tlrgY did the OT. Jude'slettCr gives us a rare glimpse of those circles which did this.

(3) Another indication of the character ofJude is to be found in his argu-ment about the false teachers. We have seen that he does not respond tothem in an "early Catholic" way, insisting on the authority of ecclesiasticaloffice. A common complaint of the commentators is that he indulges in "meredenunciation" (V. Taylor, "The Message of the Epistles: Second Peter and

Jude," ExpTim 45 [1933-341439; cf. Kelly,223:'Jude's almost unrelievedly-denunciatory tone"), but this rests on a failure to enter Jude's apocalypticworld of thought. Jude does not merely denounce, he eng-ages in a seriousargument whiih, though strange to modern readers, carried conviction initJown context. His midrash (w 5-19) demonstrates that the false teachers'behavior incurs divine judgment, by the exposition of eschatological typofogyand apocalyptic prophCcy. Its hermeneutical principle is the apocalyptic princi-ple that inspired Scripture speaks of the-last days in which the interpreteris living. The same principle enabled the Qpmran community to see its ene-mies p6rtrayed in Habak[uk and Isaiah. In the NT it is- widespread, but theexegelical work is often below the surface, presupposed rather than explicit.

Jude offers us a sustained example of this kind of exegesis-. _- Apocalyptic was a very considerable influence on the whole Christian move-mer,-t frotti the very beginning, and its influence was still strong in second-century Christianity in, for example, Asia Minor. To say that Jude belongsto apocalyptic Jewish Christianity is not a very precise statement, but thedominance of the apocalyptic outlook inJude and his use of theJewish apoca-lypses at any rate lbcateJhim in circles whelg !P!!{ypti_c was^not just oneinhuence, but the dominant vehicle through which faith inJesus found expres-sion.

Rowston (NTS 2l a1974-751561-62; and Setting, l00-l9) argues thatJudeused apocalyptic in a deliberate attempt to counter a developing antinomianGnosticism.'Gnosticism developed out of Paulinism and apocalyptic, but away

IxrnooucTroN IIfrom the apocalyptic sources of Paul's theology. Jude attempted to reversethis trend, to revive the apocalypticism of Paul and the apostolii church againstthe postapostolic drift toward Gnosticism. But this ii too subtle a view ofJq{e's strategy. He does not assert apocalyptic eschatology against denialsof it (as Paul in I Cor 15 does, and as 2 Pet 3 does). Jude's apocalyptic isnot at all self-conscious. It is the world-view within which he naturally ltrintcsand which he takes it for granted his readers accept.

The Opponents

Jude's opponents are a group of itinerant charismatics who have arrivedin the church(es) to which he

-writes. Everything else Jude tells us about

them is related to their antinomianism, which is thi target of his attack.Th.yreject all moral authority, whether that of the law of Moses (w 8-10) o'rthat of christ himself (w 4, 8), even rhough rhey claim to be followers ofchrist. Evidently they understand the grace of Godin christ (v 4) as a deliver-ance from all external moral constraint, so that the man who possesses thespirit-(v 19) becomes-rhe only judge of his own actions (cf. v-9), subject tono other authority. when accused of sin by the standard of the law ofVosesor of the moral order-of -creation, they ipeak disparagingly of the angelswho gave the Law and administer the moral order ofthE world, a[efrngthat they are motivated by ill will toward men and women (w 8-10). fhi:tactic enables them to detach accepted moral standards from the will of Godhimself, attributing them only to malicious angels, but Jude sees their con-temptfor the commandments as presumptuousness in relation to God himself,rooted in resistance to his will: sb their iomplaints about rhe commandmentsand their arrogant, insolent words are direcled against God (v 16), and theircharacteristic attitude is irreverence (v l2). It is i plausible, but not cerrain,deduction, that they denied the reality of future judgment (this depends onthe mention of cain in v ll)-or perhaps they?eniied that as min of theSpirit-they themselves would be subject to the judgment.

In line with their rejection of m6ral authoity,-they indulge in immoralbehavior, especially sexual misconducr (w ffi, l0i; in this they riay be deliber-ately flouting accepted standards ofJewish morality and conforming to thepermissiveness of pag-an society. For their authoriiy to behave in this waythey. appeal to their charismatic inspirar,ion, manifesied in prophetic visioni(v- 8J, jn which perhaps they receiv-e revelations of the heiverily world andof their own exalted starus above the angels of the Law. such visions andsimilar gcstatic_phen_omena are probably-for them the mark of possessionof the spirit (cf. v-19), and so they gather rheir own group of followers inthe congre-gation-whose enjoyment ofEcsntic experiencJgivis them the statusof spiritual people, to which more conventionil chrisdlns have not yer at-tained (v l9).- It is clear that Jude's opponents are not simply members of the church,but teachers (w ll-13). They are present at the church's fellowship meals(v l2), where no doubt -they impait their prophecies and teachingi to therest of the community. Like othei itineranr ieachers in the early chuich, theyare dependent on the hospitality and support ofthe churches, andJude accuses

12 lrrnoouc-rrox

them of being motivated by greed for the material gain they receive fromthe church or from their particular followers (w I l-12). Their lax moralteaching helps them to ingratiate themselves with their fiollowers,Jude implies(v 16).

Most of these characteristics can be paralleled from other early Christianliterature. Itinerant charismatics were frequently a source of trouble in thechurches (Matt 7:15;2 Cor l0-ll; lJohn 4:l;2John l0; Did. ll-12), andtheir reliance on the support of the churches was easily abused (Rom 16:18;I Tim 6:5; Tit l:ll; Did. ll:5-6, l2). Their claim to possess the Spirit inecstatic experience and the €litist implications of this have parallels in I Corin-thians, and the appeal to the authority of private visionary experience is alsofound elsewhere (2 Cor 12:l-3; Col 2:18; cf. Rev 2:24). Again, their antino-mianism resembles the attitude of the Corinthians (l Cor 5:14; 6:12-20;10:23) and the prophetic teaching of 'Jezebel" and her followers (Rev 2:14,20-22). Only the blaspheming of angels seems to have no parallel.

There are some reasons, though not conclusive ones, for thinking thatPauline teaching may have had some influence on the false teachers. Notonly did Paul recognize and oppose the danger of an antinomian distortionof his teaching on Christian freedom (Rom 3:8; 6:1, 15; Gal 5:13), but alsothe otherwise unparalleled feature of blaspheming angels is not too distantfrom some of Paul's teaching about the angels of the Law and "the elementalspirits of the world" (rd, oruT3Tn roit rcinpu) (Gal 3:20; 4:3, &-9; Col 2:8-23; Rom 8:33-39).

If the exegesis supporting the above sketch of the false teachers is soundthey cannot be called Gnostics. What is missing from their teaching is thecosmological dualism of true Gnosticism. Even though their sense of moralautonomy and spiritual status and their attitude to the angels of the Lawresemble the views of many later Gnostics, Jude provides no evidence thatthey saw these hostile angels as creators and lords of the material world,thereby detaching not only morality but also all other features of this materialcosmos from the will of the supreme God. Nor do we know that their indul-gence in sins of the flesh was linked to a disparagement of the body as material.In the absence of cosmological dualism, it is misleading even to call theirteaching "incipient Gnosticism." It is better to see their antinomianism assimply one of the streams that flowed into later Gnosticism, but which atthis stage is not distinctively gnostic.

Many commentators have detected truly gnostic doctrines as the targetof some ofJude's attacks: a docetic Christology (v 4), doctrines of the demiurgeand the archons which deny the unity of God (w 4, 8, 25), and the gnosticdivision of mankind into pneumatics and psychics (v l9). On these groundsthey have dated Jude as late as the second century, when such developedGnosticism first appeared (so, most recently, Sidebottom). But such teachingshave to be read into Jude's words. It is unlikely that Jude should opposesuch serious and extensive deviation from common Christian belief with themerest hints of disapproval. If his polemic is really aimed against Gnosticismit is singularly inept. Of course, it is always possible thatJude was ill-informedabout the full extent of his opponents' heretical teaching, but in that casethe modern scholar has no means of knowing it. The strength of the view

Ixrnooucrron 13

of Jude's opponents argued in this commentary is that it both provides acoherent picture of the false teachers themselves and accounts for the kindof argument which Jude uses against them.

Date

Q-trestions relevant to the date of the letter have already been discussedin previous sections. Jude is not dependent on "Paulinism," nor does theletter display features of the "early Catholicism" of postapostolic Christianity.The opponents confronted in the letter are not second-century Gnostics.Jude belongs to the milieu of apocalyptic Jewish Christianity and combatsteachers of antinomian libertinism, who may have been influenced by Paulineteaching. These features make it unlikely that the letter could be later thanthe end of the first century e.o., but they do not really place it more preciselythan in the second half of the first century. Comparable antinomianism canbe found in Corinth in the 50s, but also (if the book of Revelation is rightlydated in the reign of Domitian) in Asia in the 90s. ApocalypticJewish Christian-ity remained a strong influence in the church throughout the first century.All the same, once one has cast off the spell of the early Catholic and anti-gnostic reading ofJude, the letter does givl a general impression of primitive-ness. Its character is such that it might very plausibly be dated in the 50s,and nothing requires a later date.

The relationship to 2 Peter is relevanc to the date, but if Jude is priorand 2 Peter is not written by the apostle himself (the position argued inthe commentary on 2 Peter) it gives no very firm indication of the date ofJude. All that can be said is that if 2 Peter belongs to the later first century,it favors an earlier rather than a later date for Jude.

The tendency of modern scholars to prefer a date at the end of the firstcentury or the beginning of the second has resulted not only from the earlyCatholic reading of v 3 and the gnostic interpretation of the false teachers,but also from the usual interpretation of v 17, in whichJude is thought tobe looking back on the apostolic age as an era now past. This is a misunder-standing. In v 17, as in w 3, 5,Jude is recalling his readers to the instructionthey received at their conversion, from the apostles who founded theirchurch(es). It is not the apostles themselves, but their missionary activity infounding these particular churches, which belongs to the past. Jude's state-ment is exactly parallel to many of Paul's in which he refers his readers backto the teaching he gave them when he founded their church (1 Cor l5:l-3;Gal l:9; I Thess 4:l-2\, with the one difference that, sinceJude was evidentlynot one of the founding missionaries of the church(es) to which he writes,he speaks of the apostles' teaching rather than his own (but cf. Rom 6:7;16:17). In fact w 17-18 put not a lower but an upper limit on the date, for"they said to you" (E} rtovtt{w, v l8) implies that most of the original convertsare still living.

Only one other issue has an important bearing on the date: the authorship(see next section). If the letter is pseudonymous it must have been writtenafter the death of Jude the Lord's brother, if authentic before his death.We shall argue for the second alternative, but unfortunately we do not know

14 INrnooucrron

when Jude died. It could have been as late as n.o. 90 (see next section).J. A.T. Robinson (Redating, 197) argues that ifJames (v l) were dead hewould probably be given some epithet such as potco,pns ("blessed"), dlo.06s("good"1, or liiroros ('Just": his usual epithet: Hegesippus, ap. Eusebius, Hist.EccL.2.23.4; Gos. Thon.2l), and soJude must be dated beforeJames's martyr-dom in e.n. 62. But this cannot be regarded as a very conclusive argument.

Authorship

The Jude (fudas) named in v I is almost certainly Judas the brother ofJesus, and his brother James is James "the Just," leader of the Jerusalemchurch. (Other suggestions are discussed and this conclusion argued in thecommentary on v l.) Most modern commentators agree on this, but disagreeas to whether the real author was Jude himself or someone who used Jude'sname as a pseudonym. The pseudepigraphal hypothesis has prevailed in mostrecent commentaries (Barnett, Schelkle, Reicke, Sidebottom, Kelly, Grund-mann; also Rowston, Setting), but largely because the arguments for a latedate have been held to place the letter outsideJude's probable lifetime. Thesearguments have already been shown to have no force.

Against the pseudepigraphal hypothesis, it has often been asked why anyoneshould adopt as a pseudonym the name of so obscure a figure as Jude. Thisobjection does not hold ifJude comes from the milieu of Palestinian JewishChristianity, that "dynastic Christianity" (Rowston) in which the family ofJesus was revered and Jude would be a figure of authority. In that case,however, it is inexplicable that the letter does not call Jude "the brother ofthe Lord," the title by which he was always known in such circles and bywhich his authority was indicated. The description of Jude as "brother ofJames" only (v l) is much more easily explicable on the hypothesis of authen-ticity than on that of pseudepigraphy (see commentary on v l).

We know little about Jude the brother of Jesus. One of f,our brothers ofJesus, probably younger thanJames (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3), he was presum-ably, like the other brothers, not a follower ofJesus during his ministry (Mark3:21, 3l;John 7:5), but became a believer after the resurrection (Acts l:14).According to I Cor 9:5, the brothers of the Lord were traveling missionaries;Jude is very likely included here, especially as James probably is not. Hismissionary labors were no doubt amongJews, but not necessarily in Palestineonly: he could have gone to the Diaspora. Julius Africanus (ap. Eusebius,Hist. Eccl. 1.7.14) says that the relatives of Jesus, u \eonoouvu, spread thegospel throughout Palestine, starting from Nazareth and Cochaba (in Trans-jordan). According to the Acts of Paul (NT Apoc. 2,388), Judas the Lord'sbrother befriended Paul in Damascus, but this is no doubt based only onidentifying the Judas of Acts 9: I I with rhe brother of the Lord.

Hegesippus (ap. Eusebius, Hirr. Eccl. 3.19.1-20.8) has a story about thegrandsons of Jude (whose names are given in another fragment as Zoker[i.e. Zechariah] andJames: C. de Boor, Neuc Fragmente dcs Papias, Hegaippttsund Pinius ITU 5/2; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1889] 169). They were broughtbefore Domitian as belonging to the royal family of David and thereforepolitically dangerous: But when they explained that they were only poor farm-

16 lurnopucnon

the authenticity of the letter, it would be unwise to consider this extremelyuncertain question of language an insuperable obstacle.

Finally, we should notice that the general character of the letter, itsJewish'ness, its debt to PalestinianJewish literature and haggadic traditions, its apoca-lyptic perspective and exegetical methods, its concern fior ethical practicemore than for doctrinal belief, are all entirely consistent with authorship by

Jude the brother ofJesus.

Destination

Attempts to determine the locality of the church(es) whichJude addressesare largely guesswork. Since Jude recalls his readers to the teaching whichthey re-eived from the apostles at their conversion, but not to his own teach'ing, it is probable that he himself was not one of the missionaries who foundedthose churches, though he may have visited them at a later date. It is naturalto think of predominantly Jewish Christian churches, both because they evi-dently come within the area of Jude's pastoral concern and responsibility,and also because of the high degree of familiarity with Jewish literature andtraditions which Jude's allusions presuppose. The latter is not necessarily adecisive argument, since suchJewish material was no doubt used in the instruc-tion of Gentile converts and since a writer does not always tailor his allusionsto the knowledge of his readers. It is usually said that the antinomianism ofthe false teachers argues a Gentile background, but it should be noticedthat the false teachers are itinerant teachers who have arrived in the church(es)from elsewhere (v 4), and also that antinomianism was not unknown evenin first-centuryJudaism (Vermes, "Decalogue"; and cf. perhaps Matt 7:21-23, fior Jewish Christianity). Nevertheless the antinomian problem finds itsmost plausible conte_xt.jg1 a church in a Gentile environment (as in Paul'sCorinth, and the chtiiches of the book of Revelation). A predominantly, butnot exclusively, Jewish Christian community in a Gentile society seems toaccount best for what little we can gather about the recipients ofJiiile's letter.

A destination in Syria [ras often been suggested and would be appropriate,except for the fact that this was the one area of the later church which didnot acceptJude as canonical (see Chaine,26m7, for details). Asia Minor,with its largeJewish communities, the influence of Paul, and antinomian move-ments attested by Rev 2:14,20,is a strong possibility, and the contacts between

Jude and the MarQrdnm of Polycarp (hereafter Mart. Pol.) (w 2, 25; Mart.PoL inscr., 20:2) could point in this direction. Another possibility is Egypt,whereJude was accepted as canonical by the time of Clement of Alexandria,and from its use by Clement and Origen seems to have been a popular work.

Atteststion

Passages from the Didaclu, I Cl,e"nent, the Epistb of Barnabas, Polycarp, theMart. Pol., Justin, Attrenagoras, and Theophilus have often been cited (e.g.;Bigg, 307-308; Chaine, 261-62) as showing the influence ofJude, but noneis a really convincing case of dependence. The only clear early witness is 2Peter, if the priority of Jude to 2 Peter is accepted. But that such a brief

Ivrnopucrror l5

ers, supporting themselves by their own labor, and that the kingdom of Christthe-y expected was eschatological and heavenly, the Emperor dismissed themas harmless and ordered the persecution of the church to stop. Hegesippusadds that they became leaders of the churches and survived dll the reifri ofTrajan.

It is remarkable how uncritically most scholars writing on Jude have ac-cepted this-story from Hegesippus, whose legendary account of the martyrdomof James does not inspire confidence in liis historical accuracy. The storygl!!. grandsons ofJude has clear apologetic features, and historical improba-bilities (the investigation before Domitian himself; the cessation ofpersecutionas a result). Although there is no doubt some historical fact behind it, itwould not be wise to put too much trust in the chronological implication whichcommentators on Jude have usually drawn-that Jude had grandsons whowere adult in the reign of Domitian, when Jude himself was-dead. There iseven some question whether Hegesippus referred to grandsorc of Jude, asin the text in Eusebius, or ro sons ofJude (H. J. t awloi, htsebiaru [Oxfiord:Oxford University Press, l9l2l 4445).

Even if we can trust Hegesippus' story, it does not tell us how longJudelived. It probably implies that Jude himself was dead when the incideru oc-curred, but he need have died only recenrly. As Mayor calculated (cxlviii),if Jude, as one of the youngest of Jesus' brothers, was born in e.p. 10, hetgyld have had grandsons aged thirty in e.p. 90, when he himself was eighty.This enables commentators such as Mayor who hold rhe lerter to be authJntic,still to date it as late as c. A.D. 80 (cf. also Zahn, Introduttion, 255). But inany case we have already seen that the letter itself contains no evidence whichrequires so late a date.

The one real difficulty in the way of attributing the letter to the brotherofJesus is the language. Although the author was Certainly a Semitic speaker,who habitually used the OT in Hebrew and probably the book of Enoch inAramaic (see third section), he also had a considerable command of goodliterary Greek. It is true that many recenr studies have shown that botf, theGreek language and Hellenistic culture had penetrated Jewish Palestine toa much, greater extent than used to be supposed, but it is still surprisingthat a Galilean villager should show such a high degree of competince inthe Greek language. On the orher hand, it must be admitted that our knowl-edge is insufficient to set limits on the competence which the brother ofJesus could have acquired. He was probably still a very young man whenhe became a Christian missionary, and if his missionary travCls took himamong strongly Hellenized Jews there is no reason why he should not havedeliberately improved his command of Greek to increase his effectivenessas a preacher. A wide vocabulary, which Jude has, is easier to acquire thana skill in literary style, whereJude's competence is less remarkable. The kindsof skills he shows are the rhetorical skills which a Jewish preacher in Greekwould need. Moreover, the features of good literary Greek, both vocabularyand idiom, with which he shows himself familiar, need nor have been acquireddirectly from the reading of secular Greek literature; familiarity with Hellenis-ticJewish literature and much listening toJewish and Christian serrnons wouldbe sufficient to account for them. Since there are no other reasons for denying

Irrnooucrrox 17

work should not have left unambiguous marks on the Christian literatureof the second century is not surprising. More remarkable is the evidencethat by the end of the second centuryJude was widely accepted as canonical:by Tertullian in North Africa, Clement and Origen in Alexandria, the Murato-rian Canon in Italy (for the detailed evidence see Chaine, 263-67). It wasonly subsequent to this general acceptance that doubts about the book, at-tested by Origen, Eusebius, Didymus, and Jerome, arose because of its useof the apocryphal books I Enoch and the Assumption of Moses (hereafter ls.Mos.l. (Tertullian, on the other hand, had been able to citeJude as evidencefor the authority of I Enoch: De cultufm. 1.3.) These objections do not seemto have had a serious effect on the acceptability ofJude except in the Syrianchurch, where it was not accepted as canonical until the sixth century.

20 Juon l-2

still held by Plummer (376), Windisch, Reicke, Krodel (92), and Wisse('Jude"). Most modern commentators, however, have recognized that -lUdgaddresses a specific situation in which false teachers of a specific kind-wereactive, and so he must have,intended his letter for a specific church or groupof churches. It is possible that the destination was omitted when the letteriias copiCd for wider circulation, perhaps in the second century when itsrelevance to the problem of Gnosticism throughout the church was seen.Alternatively, Jude did not include the destination in his parties' formula,either because his messenger would in any case know where to deliver it,probably with additional verbal messages, or perhaps because it was intendedfor a large group of churches which Jude intended the messenger to visitin turn, allowing each church to make its own copy.

(b) The salutation (v 2) is somewhat closer than many other early Christianexamples to Jewish forins. This kind of salutation originates from_ b!gs^s!n-q

formulae (K. Berger, "Apostelbrief und apostolische Rede," ZNW 65 [1974]19l-201): the writer desires God to bless the recipients. All such salutationswish peace to the recipients, some add mercy G\-.-q!, correspondin-g-to TDn)-The one extant "*"-pl. in a Jewish letter is 2 Apoc' Bar. 18:2: "lt'lercy 119peace be with yo,." (fot the iext see P' Bogaert,- Ap991b!se dz Barurh ISC\++lS;Paris: Editions du Cerf, 19691 l, 68, 70; cf.2,142\, but non-epistolarlblessings provide other parallels (Num 6:25-26; Tob 7:12 N; cf. I Enoch 5:6;

and foi"inercy" in bleisings, cf' also 2 Sam 2:6; 15:20; Ps 33:22)' I1 e?{yChristian letteis dteos occuis in I Tim l:2; 2 Tim l:2; 2 John 3; Pol. Phil.

inscr.; Mart. PoI., inscr. (cf. also Gal 6:16, in a letter-ending): like J,rd9'!'these represent a continuation ofJewish practice. The third element inJude'ssalutation, however, is a Christian addiiion to the formula: apnn ( !gve-")is found in noJewish example, and in only one other-early Ch1istil1 ex1nlRle1

ihb salutation\n Mart. PoL'(though cf. aiso 2 Cor l3:14; F'Ph-6:23; ") Cor"'3:40, in letter-endings). Finally, -rhe use of "increase]' (r),400ueru, AramaicNJIDj again derives fiom blessings formulae (i(. Be_rger, 'Apostelbrief undapoitoiirche Rede," ZNW 65 tl974l195-96 and n.29; and to his references

udd H"r*. Sirn. 9:24:3), and is found in both Jewish and early Christianletter salutations (G. R. Driver, Aramaic Docunmts of thz fifth Cmtury s.c. [Ox-.ford: Clarendon Press, 19571 nos. I, II, III, XIII;-A. Cowley, Aramaic Papriof the Frfth Cmtury s.c. [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923] nos' 38-42; Dan

d:31 [Aiam.]; Dan 4:l 0;4:37c LXX;6:26 [Aram.),0; b.Sanh. lloi ySanh'

t8d; i Pet 1:2; 2 Pet l:2; t Ctnn. inscr.; Pol. Phil. inscr.; Mart. PoL inscr';Ep. Apost. l). It is used as a "divine passive" to wish that God may give

blessings abundantly.Thui, apart from'the addition of d:yann,Jude's salutation follows the form

of Jewish i.tt"rr. It should be noted thai Jude does not adopt two otherChiistian adaptations of the salutation whicli are extremely common in early

Christian lettirs. One of these, the use of XdptS ("grace"1, is nearly universal:it occurs in all the NT letters which have this kin-d of salutation (all Paulineletters; I Pet l:2;2 Pet l:2;2John 3; Rev l:4) and in I Cfun. Among early

Christian letters which have tliis kind of salutation, XtiprS is lacking only in

Jude; Pol. Phil.; and Mart. Pol." The orher common feature of early Christian letter salutations whichJude

Address and Salutation (Jude 1-2)

Bibriograpり

SPicq,C4♂Ⅲ 36“7.

Transra′ね"

υ嗜影霧琢嚇鰍幾海箔″和饒 ・:λ“′υλο a″“J晟筋 嬌

棚『

吼脚ド織■慧肝獣L総1鷺iξl常思謂鴬鳳J諸l:I::it癬:F淵鳳よ羅

乃m/Stttc′“″/Sa“姥

劇鸞鮮珊 憮 榊繊::

caππ"′ 21

協∬:計∬1)肝翻乱R艤1鷺fT温闘湾rtl,1∬辮離緊お∬iT:黒Jれ輩サ協i`辮.卵ま跳∫

a‖

願:協詐1愚 :

固蹴齢L鵬肥:rttt淵1:謂話#il鶴:itti詰have been made:

au∫[r鷺鷺鶴::lぽ11潔電ボ点事:i配螺

路llttj場鷲讐1強軍『 ‖I

22 JuDE l-2

H:亀l甜議留庶'総

1岬躍電霜Ъよ:rarttar青潔brother);(b)Jude dOes not call himself“ apostle."

山瑠u詭さ耀軍∫I蝸盟attI冊熙li鳳嶋ir胤認ギ∬露欝1aSJudas ThOmas orJudas“ the twin"(Eusebius,″お′.E“11.13.11:И

`お =たοπ.′

憾齢納輔蹴 蝦憮

灘聾撫琴鼎鷲彎搬

猟淵器麗:ぶ電:留:働∫ピ毘師出:誕¶魚謁ily譜壇r認

Conmmt 28

it would be hard to understand how the work of such an author could havecome to be widely regarded as authoritative throughout the church by theend of the second century.

(6) Moffatt (24446) thought the author was probably an otherwise un-knownJudas, brother of an equally unknownJames. This-fails- to take accountof the iact that to identify oneself by reference to one's brother, rather thanone's father, was extremely unusual'and requires explanation. (The only-the-ory which does explain it-is that which identifies James as tlu James whomeveryone knew.)

The traditional identification (l) remains the best. On whether the letteris an authentic writing of the Lord's brother, or a pseudepigraphal letterwritten under his name, see Introduction.

'Irl/r/ots XporoD 6oD)\os, "a servant of Jesus Christ." The phrase occurs inletter-openinss at Rors-L!; Phill:'l (plural, of Paul and Timothy);Jas l:l("servant of -God [tf, the Lord Jesus-Christ"); 2 Pet l:1. Elsewhere, Paul

uses it of himself (Gal l:10), of Epaphras (Col 4zl2), of Timothy (2 Tim2:241, and of Christians in general (l Cor 7:22;Eph 6:6). In the backgroundlies ihe Jewish term "serva--nt of God," used especi4ly g;n=lgggrinc+idgforleadjrs such as Abraham (Ps l0b:42), Moses (Neh 9:14: Rev l5:3;Josephus,ffisFFfi,David (ps 8g:3), Daniel (Dan 6:20). TheJewish title was sometimesused of Christians (1 Pet 2:16; Rev 7:8; I Clsn. 60:21 or the apostles (Titl:l), but the more characteristic Christian phrase became l'tg*?l-t of LesusChiist," suggesting the idea that Christians have been-bough-t b1 C!rig.fro^1captivity or-ilaver! and now belong to him as his slaves (l Co1 7:23). $fChristians were thg:efore-seryanrs-of Jesqs*qd$' -b,rt thq.ph139q"9o..t4d

6e use-a -OnnAG-called to special service, Christian workers, not as an rndtca'tilin oFlirivileged iank, bui, as in the casi<if*tffir-lCirii"&iircvos ("servant"),indicating thaf the Christian worker exegplifies,the.seryan-LtoJe.-n'hich allGod's pe6ple are called to play. ProbaSlffihis coriteit af Jude's self-designa'tion, ii contains a claim tir authority, but an authority based on his call toserae the Lord rather than on his family relationship with the Lord. Thoughthe term "servant of Jesus Christ" could be used of apostles, it was not initself equivalent to "lpostle" (cf. Rom l:l; 2 Pet l:l), and so we shouldprobably infer that, while;ude exercised some kind of leadership role inihe chuich, he was not given the title "apostle."James l:l (whether or notthe letter is authentic) indicates that "apostle" was not thought an appropriatetitle for his brother either. On the other hand, Jude 17 (see Commmt onthat v) does not necessarily excludeJude from the category of tle apostles.

Whether Paul included the Lord's brothers among the apostles is not quiteclear (l Cor 9:5; l5:7; Gal l:19). Paul's understanding of the "apostle" as

ott. *i o had received a missionary call from the risen Lord in person-mightexcludeJames, who was not a misiionary; other brothers, probably including

Jude, dil exercise a missionary role (l Cor 9:5), but whether they had seen

ih. rit.tt Christ we do not know (possibly Acts l:14 permitsa guess thatthey had). Perhaps what these Pauline texis- re-ally indicate is that-although

James and the oiher brothers of Jesus might be regapded as-qnlifying.for'the title "apostles," by Paul's criteila, they were not usually cglled "apostles,"simply beciuse their usual title was "the Lord's brothers." Their blood-rela-

24 Juon l-2

called "the s brothers," but also lewish Christians increasi

tionship toJesus put them in a special category, in the eyes of the first Chris-tians, and they preferred a title for them which indicated this special caregory,rather than including them in the general category of apostles. Hence Paulseems to class them ariti the apostles, but early Christian literature neverglplicitly calls them "apostles." Jewish-Christian tradition, represented byHegesippus (ap. Eusebius, Hdsr. Eccl. 2.23.$ and the Pseudo-Clementines,distinguishedJames from the apostles. (Of course, we do not know for certainthat Paul's understanding of apostleship was accepred in the cirles in whichJude moved, and another possibility is that the restriction of the title "apostle"to the Twelve is not a late feature in Acts, but a characteristic of Palestinianchristianity from the first. In thar case,Jude did not see himself as an aposr,lebecause he was not one of the Twelve.)

If the brothers of the Lord were not known as "apostles," it is naturalthat they should not call themselves "apostles." But from Jude I and (if itis authentic) Jas l:1, it seems that they also avoided calling- thmtselaes by thetitle which others used of them: "brother of rhe Lord." This is not surprising.It is perfectly credible that rhey should have been more conscious thin theirfiollowers of the fact that mere blood-relationship to Jesus could give themno authority (cf. Mark 3:33-35). It is not so much bbcause of modesty, asmany commentators have suggested, that they refrain from mentioning theirrelationship toJesus. The point is rather that the self-designation in theletter-gpgning must establish their aurhoriry to address theii readers, as paul'shabitual mention of his apostleship in his letter-openings does. For this pur-pose they adopt the designation "iervant ofJesus chrisl' (as Paul and rimo-thy, who was not an aposrle, did in Phil l:l).

It seems reasonable,_ theref,ore, to seeJude I andJames l:l as reflectingthe characteristic way in which the brothers describld themselves. This iimuch more plausible rhan attributing the description to later wrirers, usingthe pseudonyms ofJames andJude at a time when, not only were they regularlycalled "the Lord's brothers." but also lewish Christians-increasinslv lookedcalled・`the Lord's brothers,"but alsoJewiSh ChHstians i

lp tte tttily_OfJe,■ ,aS luthOntalVe,政口,,Wb,宙 rtue

m9Lordi lt'is ittrediЫ e thatJude Sh6ild bこ h卜elo,LOrd。 1に ls incredible that Jude ShOuld be a pseudepigIthiζ“dynastic Christianity"(as Rowston,NrS 21[1974-75] and Sc&ldng argues), and yer not state Jude's kinship to Jesus explicitly. There isno evidence fior Kelly's suggestion that growing reverence fior the Lord madethe claim to blood-relationship seem presumptuous.

d6€Idds 6l-'lar<6fu), "and brother ofJames." Afrer the death ofJames thes_on of Zebedee, only one early christian leader was commonly cafled simply'James," without the need for further identification (Acts 12:17; l5:13; 2l:18;I Cor l5:7; Gal 2:9, l2); and only one pair of brothers called James andJ"4T are- krrown-from the NT (Mark 6:3). Jude therefore uses this phraseto identify himself by reference to his more famous brother. of couise, hemust have been known to the churches he addresses, butJudas was too com-mon a name, even among Christian leaders, to identi$ him alone (cf. Luke6: 1 6; John .

14:22; Acrs l 5:22). Unlike'lrpol Xrr.mol 6oD)\os, "servanr of Jesuschrist," th_is phrase must be simply for identification, not to establishJude'sauthority.rf mere kinship toJesus should convey no authority, still less shouldmere kinship to James. But ifJude could not use his usual'title "brother ofthe Lord" to establish his authority, why could he nor use it simply to identify

25Commml

himself? The answer may be that it was generally understood as conferringauthoritative status and could not be used without this implication. Moreover,"servant and brother ofJesus Christ" may have seemed an incongruous combi-nation.

Ellis argues that ri6e)t0os means not "blood-brother" but "co-worker"('Jude," 2271, and this enables him to identifyJude asJudas Barsabbas, oneof the "brothers" of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:22). But it is unlikelythat tide)\ffi in Acts ever means more than "Christians" (against E. E. Ellis,"Paul and his Co-Workers," Prophecy and Hermenrutic in Early Chrutianity

[WUNT t8; Tiibingen:J. C. B. Mohr, 1978] l5-17). Pauline usage is anothermatter; sometimes, at least, d6€Id seems to approximate to a technical termfor Paul's fellow-workers in the Christian mission (Ellis, 14-15). But this isnot a very secure basis for supposing that ri6e).@o5 'larcapou could be easilyunderstood to mean "one ofJames'co-workers."

tvileQrard.rflarnpivus, "*ho are loved in God the Father." It is possiblethif all three terms with which Jude describes his readers derive from theServant Songs of Isaiah, where Israel is described as called, loved and kep^t

by God (caliid: Isa 4l:9;42:6;48:12, 15; 49:l; 54:6; loved:42:l;43:4; cf.4i:2 I.){X; kept: 42:6; 49:8). Following early Chris-tian usage, Jude applies

them to thi'church as the eschatologiial people of God. According to the -

OT, God's love for Israel (cf. Deut 7:7-8;Jer 3l:3: Hos ll:l; l4:4; 2 Apoc'

Bar. 78:E) is shown especially in the salvation-event of the Exodus and inthe eschatological salvition-event of the new Exodus, which the NT sees

fulfilled in Cf,rist. In the LXX, (6) i1lannpivos becomes almost a title foris.ael (Deut 32:15; 33:5, 26; 2 Chr 2d:7; Ps 28:6; Isa 5:l; 44:2; Bar 3:37)

-ano rn me prayer rn 3 Macc 6:ll theJews are oi itanqpiuu--qou.-"your loved

ot ir." fnJlqfos usage, ilarnpivuafplied to Christians is closely associated

with othJ tirms trailsfeiied lro* thi old Israel to the new ("chosen": Iin.r" l:4, drcIay?; 2 Thess 2:13, ei\aro; Col 3:12, ir)\ercrod; "holy": Col-$:12,af,o1), j.r.i asJude associates it with rerqprllrezot ('kept") and rctrnrd ("called")

Ch. ;ft lgn."Trall. inscr.). This transference of titles from the old Israel toihe churci'as rhe eschatoiogical Israel was universal in primitive Christianity,and there is no need to r.iJ,rd.'s use of i:|/arnpivot as-influenced-by Paul.

The perfect participle (it;rqpivw) implies that God's love, once bestowed

on his people, remains (cf.Jer 3l:3; Rom 8:39).- th.Lne*pected phrase-dir_pe e rarpt, "in God the Father," has been much

discussed. Since it is cleaf iliat jude ii speaking not of his own love for his

readers, but of God's love, it it ttutu."i to eipect a reference to God as

aqenr (;f. I Thess l:4:itarnpivg-tnb0eo0;2 Thesi 2:13 itarnpivuinrbtuptov\.g"ut it is unlikely that ihe instrUmeUtal use of iz pan be extended-,.9-v.qq-..bJi

S.*iiiri;, L gii. in. tr,.unittg t'toied-6y-Giia;; (t Cbi 6:2, ii"iwt, is not ai6il-!fiEltel Secause it is a tdchnical for forensic-usage), and such uses as

"in tire sight of" (cf. I Cor l4:l l, iv ittoi), and "in the department of" (Moul-,

aon, GrailmaA tOg) give no sense that Jude can have- preferred to that ofinb leo0. Most commJnhtors therefore try to give meaning to the local sense,..in God the Father": "by God" must be imfticit in ilamtpivu, and iv qeQ

rtrrpi must convey some further idea.'itre pauline usage of du ^11tore, "in Christ," and iy ,fupl(qJ, "in the Lord,"

is hardly relevant;Tn the Paulinecorpus only I Thess l:l and 2 Thess l:l

―

Juon l-2

uscわ 艇ф7ar● (adding幽魔w,9'Iησ00 Xpcστф)in a(prObably)loCal sense.l●cれEl寝追噸,"

as one side of the recip

¬

26

since it is closely related to love: the indwelling is that of an intimate loverelationship (see especially t John 4:16). It should be noted that Jude 2l("keep yourselves in the love of God") also approximates to a Johannineidea (John 15:9-10; I John 4:16).Jude may therefore mean that those whomGod loves are taken into the intimate fellowship of God's love, embracedand enfolded by his love. To be in God's love is to be "in God."

'lnool XpwrQ rerqpryAvocg, "kept fior Jesus Christ." This phrase has aneschatological sense: Chris-iians are kept safe by God fior the Parousia ofJesus Christ when they will enter into their final salvation in his kingdom.(Perhaps the metaphor is: Christians are the property ofJesus Ch;ist, keptsafe for him until he comes to claim it; cf. I Pet l:4, where the inh,:ritanceof Christians is kept safe lrernpnrftrnwl for them in heaven until, at the Parou-sia, they can claim it.) For this eschatological sense, cf. I Thess 5:23 ("mayyour spirit and soul and body be kept irnmleinl sounfffi-riil*6lanl'eless althe coming of our LordJesus Christ"); I Pet l:5 ("guarded ffipvpy;;pvovslby God's power through faith for a salvation ready to be revealeflin thelast time"); and Jude 24 (where gv\dooew has the same sense as rqpiv, "rokeep,'l here, cf. John 17:12). The idea that God must keep Christians safe(also inJohn l7:ll, 15; Rev 3:20) clearly belongs ro no one tradition ofearly Christianity but was widespread (Chaine, 277, thinks it is from rhe com-m^on primitive catechesis). It has a special appropriateness at the beginningolJude_'s letter, with irs concern that its readeiJbe kept safe from the inhuenc6of the false teachers. The eschatological orientation also belongs to the letteras a whole (cf. v 2l).- 4Sui" the perfect participle (rerqptlpeuus) expresses rhe secure state ofbeing in God's safekeeping.

ds . . . d\rlrots, "to those who are called." This is another title transferredto Christians from OT Israel, especially from Deutero-Isaiah (4L:g; 42:6;48:12, l5;49:l;54:6; cf. also Hos ll:l; the Qpmran community appliedthe title to themselves as rhe faithful of Israel: cD 2:9;4:4).Israel's-"ciliing"is closely linked with God's "choice" or "election" of Israel (Isa 4l:8,3;42:l; 43:10- 44:L, 2; 49:7; cf. CD 4:4): God's choice takes effecr in his callto Israel to be his servant people. The idea expresses the divine initiativeto which man must respond in faith, and in the Nt t<a\dp ("to call") becomesa technical term for the process of Christian salvation. It refers to God'scall to men and wome-n, through the gospel, to enter his kingdom, to belongto the^new peo-ple of God. Alongside ihe Ot background, there may b6the influence ofJesus' parables in which the call to enter the kingdom isrepresented by the invitation (rccLerz) to a marriage feast (Matt 22:5-9, 14;Luke l4:8, 16-24; Rey lg:9). With the technical use of rca\dy goes also theuse of r),4nis as a substantive (as here) as a technical term foi Christians.Both are characteristic of Pauline usage, but by no means confined to paul.Christians are xl,4roi nor only in Rom l:il7; 8:28; I Cor l:2, 24 (as noun:Rom l:6; I Cor l:24), but also in Matt 22:14; Rev 17:14; I Clm. inscr.;Bam.4:13-14; Si6. Or.8:92 (as noun: Rev 17:14; I Clsn. inscr.; SiD. Or. 8:92;

Explanation 27

cf. Heb 9:15, oi rcerclv1pivu). In the parties' formula of a letter, rc)\rpdg isfound in Rom l:7; I Cor l:2; I Clem. inscr., as well as inJude l.

2. d\eos ttpfr,v ttsi rjpfu rcd dtarn rltr1puvfleq, "May mercy, peace, and lovebe given you-ifr-iaiffiillnce." TheJewish gi6eting,-"Mercy ind peace" (cf.2 Apoc. Bar. 78:21, is a comprehensive expression of God's blessing, whichJude asks God to lavish on his readers. "Mercy" (OT Tun, "steadfast love")is the divine attitude of kindness toward the covenant people, t'peace" (OTEl)U) is the well-being which resuks. No doubtJude'i readers-would readiffiewish greeting with Christian overrones: God's mercy shown in Christ,and Christian salvation in Christ. The Christian interpretation is reinfiorcedby the addition of dyarq, "love," found in no Jewish salutation (though itmay be worth noticing that 2 Apoc. Bar.78:3, following the salutation, contin-ues: "I bear in mind, my brothers, the love of him who created us, wholoved us from of old . . ."). The central Christian perception of the love ofGod in Christ was expressed in the frequent use of this word in primitiveChristianity, and this distinctive Christian sense of God's love accounts forthe addition of d1anq here, even though theJewish greering already containedthe idea of God's love in the word dtreos ("mercy"). The love of God is afavorite theme ofJude (w l, 2, 2l).

Fxfilanation

Jude identifies himself as the brother of James (i.e. James "rhe Just" ofJerusalem, the Lord's brother). His authority to address his readers doesnot rest on his kinship toJesus, which he omits to mention, but on his commis-sion to serve Jesus Christ. Although (as one of "the Lord's brothers") hewas not known in the early church by the title "apostle," he should probablybe understood to have exercised a leadership role alongside the apostles,which is expressed in the term "servant ofJesus Christ."

He addresses his readers in terms drawn from the descriptions of Israelin Isa 40-55, applied now to Christians as members of the eschatologicalpeople of God. They are those whom God has called into his kingdom, whoare embraced by God's love, and whom God is keeping safe through thedangers of their life in this world until Jesus Christ at his Parousia claimsthem for his own. In the light of rhe rest of the lerter, it appears that theterms of this description have been carefully chosen. Threatened by the falseteachers, these Christians are in danger of apostatizing from their callingand incurring the judgment which awaits the false teachers at the Parousia.Jude knows that the divine action in calling, loving, and keeping safe mustbe met by a faithful human response, and when he takes up rhe themes ofv I in v 2l it is to put the other side of the matter: his readers must heepthnrcelaes in the love of God and faithfully await the salvation which will betheirs at the Parousia. The divine action does not annul this human responsi-bility. But in his final doxology Jude will return to the note on which hebegan: his confidence that the God who is their Savior through Jesus Christcan keep them safe until they come to their eschatological destiny (v 24).

The salutation is a Jewish form, invoking divine blessing in abundance,but adapted by the addition of "love" to make reference to the blessings ofGod's love in Christ.

Occasion and Theme (Jude 34,

Bibliography

Maier, F. "Zur Erklirung desJudasbriefes (fud 51." BZ 2 (1904) 877-97.lirhitaker,G. H. "Faith's Function in StJude's Epistle." ExpTim 29 (1917+8) 425.

Translation l,\ r*t^deq1"*" i tt*58 My dear frinds, although I am aer! eagn tQ wriu te you about (rur cornnon

saluation, I fud " it ucessary to write appealirg to_lgr! to carr! (m tlw fght for tlufaith which-uas orue andfi alt detivied niffiis. . Fm'cntnin iitoru narcinfltratedb among you, who wnc Long ago dtsignated for this condmmation, asungodly mm, who peruert tlw grace of our God into imnorality ard dmy tur onlyMastcr and l-ord. Jesus Chrkt.

Notes

tdolot epistolary aorist, more naturally rendered as a present tense in English. (Greek usesa tense appropriate from the standpoint of the readcrs at the time of reading, English a tenseappropriate at the time of writing.)

b The meaning is the same whether rapwe$qoav (B) or rap€od&pcr (all other MSS) is read.

Form / Structure / Se tting

These verses correspond to the "body-opening" of.the Greek letter, i.e.the introduction to the body of the letter: this is "the poinr at which theprincipal occasion for the letter is usually indicated" (White, Body, l8).

As in spoken conversation, a starting point common to both parties mustbe established (White, Bod,y, l9), and this may be the formal function ofJude's reference to his intended letter about "odr common salvation." Hethen proceeds to indicate the purpose of his actual lerrer, and to do so employsthe form of the "petition," the form in which both official and private requestswere presented in the literature of the period. T. Y. Mullins ("Petition as aLiterary Form," NoaT 5 tl962l 4U54, does not includeJude &-4 in his listof NT petitions, presumably because tdptto,llaiv ("to appeal") is not in thefirst person, butJude 3-4 should be seen as a minor adaptation of the petitionform with Tapaxs)t€u, which, of the f,our verbs generally used fior petitions,was "the most personal and intense," the favorite verb in personal letters(Mullins, "Petition," 4849). Mullins analyzes the petition into three basicelements: (a) background, (b) petition verb, (c) desired action, with optionalelaborations including (d) the address. Jude 3-4 has these four elemenrs:(a) v 4, following the petition and introduced by 1ap,as in I Cor l:ll (cf.White, Body, 74); (bl rcW<o,lv;tt, "appealing"; (cl &raTaileoila4 K.r.I., "tocarry on the fight" (v 3); (d) 'Alamfrci, ttptt, "My dear friends, you" (v 3).

Commmt 29

A close formal parallel, at a comparable point in a NT letter, is I Cor l:l l-12 (cf. also Philem 8-10).

It is important to notice how w 3-4 relate to the rest of the letter. Thesection w 5-19 consists of a midrash intended to establish from Scripture(and other prophecies) the statemenr of v 4, namely that the sin andjudgmentof the false teachers has been prophesied. In other words, w S-19 reallybelong to the background ofJude's petition, to his explanation of the siruationwhich requires his appeal in v 3. The petition itself is not further explaineduntil v 20. This means that w 20123 are in no sense an appendix toJude'shomily ("closing exhortations," as commentaries sometimeJcall them): theyare actually the section which spells out the content ofJude's peririon, whichv 3 announces as the purpose of the letter. Jude's appeal to his readers tocontend for the faith is contained in w 20-23.

Thus v 3, the appeal, is the statement of theme for the exhortatory sectionw 20-23, while v 4, the background, forms a statement of theme for themidrash section, w 5-19. These relationships are reinforced by the catchwordconnections: in v 3 ayius rimet with a7u'nar71 . . iloret (v 20); in v 4 rcptpa. . . doepeis with rfolu (w 6, l5), dnepeis, dseleias, iloEfupav (v l5), dnepeuin(v l8).

'Alarnrci (also in w 17, 20) is a common address in Christian letters(Rom 12:19;2 Cor 7:l; l2:lg; Heb 6:9; I Pet 2:ll;4:12;2 Pet 3:1,8, 14,l7; l John 2:7; 3:2, 21; 4:1, 7, ll:' I Clem L:I; 7:l; l2:8; 21:l; 24:l-2; 35:l;36:l;50:l;53:l; cf. I Enoch 9l:3).

The marked alliteration of the "p" sound in w 34a is a rhetorical feature.If, as is argued in the Comrnml, \eoilnqv ("Master," v 4) refers to Christ,

the end of v 4 presents a binitarian formula with the two members in parallel-lsm:

(l) rrl roi 0eo0 iyttisv yapna perar0ivres eis doi\lemt(2) rcai rin p6vov &,otr6rr7v xni rcfsptav ipti;lv'lqooDv ytorbv d,pvoitltou.(l) "Who pervert the grace of our God inro immorality"(2) "and deny our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ."

Commmt

3. raoa, orov!fiv ruobpevog, "although I am very eager." The expressiononov&i1 rqdy is good classical Greek, and rfu,cost otots}iv fiueiv, where ndpavmeans "the utmost," is frequently found (Chaine,293; Moulton and Milligan,Vocabulary, 586). The phrase means either "to be very eager to" or "to makeevery effiort to," and so could indicate either thatJude was intending to write(nsv) or that he was already engaged in writing (Nns). The former seemsthe more usual meaning and makes good sense here.

rd,ow onouEtp tanbpevos Wageu i,ttfry . . . antrcrp Eoxov lpaltu, "althoughI am very eager to write to you . . I find it necessary to write." Does Judehere refer to two letters or only one? Our translation (rendering the partiCipialphrase "although . . .") embodies the exegesis, adopted by a majority ofscholars, according to which Jude had been intending to write one letter, ageneral treatment of the Christian faith, but interrupted this plan to writeanother letter which the urgent necessity of the moment required. Some

30 Juoe 34

scholars, however (Knopf, Windisch, Reicke; Rowston, Setting, I 14-18), adopta different exegesis (with the participial phrase meaning "when . . ." or "be-cause . . .") according to which Jude refers to only one letter, which hewas intending to write and then actually wrote. The following are the mainconsiderations in the issue:

(a) The contrast between the present infinitive Wa$ew ("to vrrite") andtlre aorist infinitive warltat (cf. 3 John l3; Barn. 4:9; 2l:9) is probably notdecisive. If it is to be pressed, the distinction will be between the generalintention of writing (or perhaps the process of writing already begun) andthe concrete action actually carried out. But this distinction could apply eitherto one letter, intended and then actually written (Reicke), or'two letters,one intehded, the other written.

(b) Does nepi ri6 rcuvig ittir oonnptcs ("about our common salvation")describe the letterJude actually wrote? According to Windisch, it is synony-mous with "the faith which was once and for all delivered to the saints." Inthat case, Jude does not mean that he intended to write about the conbntof "our common salvation," but an appeal to his readers to stand up for itagainst heresy. This isjust possible, but it is easier to take "about our commonsalvation" to refer to an exposition of the content of the Christian gospel,and Jude's actual letter is clearly not that.

(c) The view thatJude refers to only one letter "makes the sentence unnec-essarily laboured and repetitive" (Kelly), in contrast toJude's normally tersestyle.

(d) Rowston (Setting, ll7) objects to the view thatJude is an emergencyletter, dashed off in immediate response to the news of the crisis, on thegrounds that it is a polished literary product. This is true, but the view thatJude refers to two letters need not mean that he could not have taken reasona-ble time and trouble to compose the letter he actually wrote. The contrastis simply between the letter he had been planning, probably at considerablelength, on a general theme, and the short letter to which he turned his atten-tion instead, when the news from the church(es) required a letter specificallyabout the danger from the false teachers.

It then, Jude refers to a letter he intended to write, but, so far as weknow, never in fact wrote, there is some force in Zahn's contention (Inlroduction,269) that this is an indication of the authenticity of our letter. Such a referencemakes little sense in a pseudepigraphal letter; it is very unlikely that therewas a well-known work inJude's name (now lost) to which the author mightbe supposed to be referring, but even if there was, one would not then expectsuch a vague reference to Jude's intention of writing it.

Robinson, arguing for the authenticity ofJude, thinks thatJude laterfulfilledhis intention of writing "about our common salvation," and that the resultwas 2 Peter, written byJude as Peter's

^gent (Rednting, 1934). The proposed

subject matter ("our common salvation") is somewhat more appropriate to2 Peter than toJude, but the difficulties in the way of attributing both lettersto the same author are insuperable (see Introduction to 2 Peter). A.-M. Du-barle ("R6dacteur et destinataires de I'Epitre aux H6breux," BB 48 [939]506-29) suggested that the intended letter is Hebrews, of which Jude wasthe redactor, while the "word of exhortation" mentioned in Heb 13:22 is

Gοππ“

′ 31

the letter ofJude;but,apart f3om anything else,thc prOblcms ofthe churches

addressed in Hebrews andJude Seem wholly difFerent.7cpt ri"Kνぉ lμιン●鰤■

“

αs,“ abOut our common salvation."The phrasel照B"σ〈J「ηメα Was used in sccular Creck to mean“ the safety of the state"

(references in BAC,s.υ .Kot力s):Jude's usc lnight be a Christian adaptationof the secular phrase,but could be merely coincidental.The term ooTη ρ

`α

,

“salvation,"had a religiOus sensc in the inystery religions,but also inJudaiSm(1しXX ISa 45:17;46:13:52:7, 10;Wis 5:2;Ps. Sθ l 16:5)before being quitewidely adopted in primitive Christianity to refer to the eschatological deliver‐

ance,accomplished and to bc fulnned by“ God our Savior"(v25)thrOughJCSuS Christo ChaSe(D3(H)2,p.805;and in Mayor,19)thOughtJude WrOte“our 6ommοη salvation"as a JcWiSh Christian writing to Centile Christians:this is possible,but it is likcly thatJudC'S rcaders were predonlinantlyJeWiSh

Christians, and the phrase would be quite natural in any case。 “It bringsout the corporate nature ofsalvation as understood byJudaiSm,with its con¨sciousness ofbeing the people ofGod,and even more vividly by Christianity,

"ith its cOnvictiOn of fel10wship in Christ"(Kelly)。But there is no ground

for Kelly's further assertion, that``salvation" here lacks the eschatologicalaspect it has in Paul and in l Pet l:5;on the contrary,in view of v 21,wenlight expect thatJude'S intended treatise would have stressed the salvation

which is cOnling for the faithful at the Parousia.

濡躍譜諸11・洗鍛魚`露路寵t厭駐

tttl牌蹴・『 1寓窯

J鵡割既讐ギ器黛1場離曝ド郡獄:1拙寵博」淵常脱お,¶淵R跳盤 ¶f:B;:棚魔汎鰐踊b絶鵠cttγXo●

:`1¶蹴癬手糀鼈驚:∫織:謂:薗Lseofにrms■omthe athictic contests of the Creck games.Such l■ ctaphors had bccn popular‐

鳳震∬潔鷺肌燎l隠遺ぷ懇:辞:膜 T∫郡札::瞬蹴導槙widcly used in Hellenistic Judaism(V.C.Pntzner,Paa′ αηごじλθ Иgoη ル′ο′r[NovTSup 16;Lciden:EoJ.Brill,1967]chap 3)and are fOund even in Palestin‐ianJeWiSh Writings(4 Ezra 7:92,127-28;2/争 οa Bα■ 15:7-8).In the primitivechurch they occur especially in the Pauline corpus(Ronl 15:30;l Cor 9:24-27; Phil l:27-30;4:3;Col l:29-2:1:4:12-13; l Tim 6:12; 2 Tim 4:7),butalso elsewhere(Heb 10:32;I CJ4. 2:4;5;7:1;35:4;2 CJA. 7;20:2;Bα m。

4:11)。 We need not therefore sec Jude'S usage as influenced by Paul.Themetaphor frequently became a very pale metaphor, often suggesting little

t鵬露∬i瓶圧蹴i鶏.棚it電忠器∬お∬電胤甜躙

sense in this verse is dimcult to tell.

驚 藩l露罵騒讐職壁蹴紺誌1,mm計譜■1踏i珊111デ留tF蹴躙Tξ協肥」

t寵

32 Juor 34

missionaries (Phil 4:3; I Tim 6:12), all Christians shaqe,iJr-it (Rom 15:30;Phil l:27-30). Perhaps the best pauliie-paiille-l-t;1iidJ 3ti-Bbil Li2?-90:Likg P3g!Jude'ss5-1he metaphor for t6e conresr 6n behalf dI*irF'E63FH("the faith," see below). It should be noted that, neither for paul nor ForJ-ude, is this contest simply a defense of the gospel; it is offensive, promotingthe gospel's advance and victory. Nor is the contest fought only verbalylFor Paul it involves a way of life which is faithful ro the gospel (rm t:27;I Tim 6:ll; cf. Heb 10:32-34), andJude's idea of contending for the faithincludes the exhortarions of w 20-21. His phrase should not therefiore suggestprimarily the negative task of opposing the false teachers. He appealJ tohis readers to continue the positive exertions of Christian life in thi serviceof the gospel. But to do this they must resist the influence of the false teachers,since the latter have betrayed rhe cause of the gospel and given up the struggleby denying the moral implications of the gospel.

The structure of the letter is most imporrant for establishing what Judeintended his readers to do to continue th; fight for the fairh (seJForn/Smc-ture/setting section). what his appeal means he spells out in w 20-23, whichcontain e_ntirely positive exhorrations. The common mistake of supposingthat, forJude, contending for the faith means denouncing opponents, ariselfrom a misunderstanding of the significance of w F-lg. Thbse verses arein-tended to awaken Jude's readers to the dangerous reality of their situationwhich makes Jude's appeal necessary, but it is only when he has done thisthat Jude.goes on (in w 20-23) to explain how they musr conrinue the fightfor the faith.

rfi fural napa6o0eiop rds d.tius nimeq "the faith which was once and foralfdClivi:red to the saints." since this phrase has often been taken as-a mar|3r{"early catholicism" inJude (e.g. windisch, schelkle), it must be exilminedc_arefully. It is said to reflecr the idea of a fixed body of orthodox doctrine,the'deposit" of tradition, unalterable and normative, authoritatively transmit-ted from the p_ast. clearly it is not difficult to read this idea intoJude's words,if a late date for rhe letter is already presupposed, but it is much less clearthat Jude's_ words demand this interpretatio;. The contrast set up betweenJude and the christianity of the first generarion generally resulti from (l)underestimating the role of tradition in christianity from the first, and (2)exaggerating. the extent to which Jude's language implies a fixed body offormal doctrine.

The word niorrs ("faith") here refers to the content of what is believedlfde1 qwe nldiny, not fidzs qua creditur). This usage can already be found inPaul, most clearly in Gal l:23 (einryetriferar rip tlmu, "preaches the faith"),where niorts is -equivalent to "the gospel," "the Christian message." Greekhad a well-established "objecrive" use olriorrs ro mean "a belief, a inviction"(e.g.Josephus, C. Apion 2:163), but this is probably not the main source ofthe early christian usage. In Gal l:23 rip riozv doei not mean "the christianhi,.h:" as disting]rished from other faiths, so much as,'the faith, " the messagewhich demands faith. It was because the Christian gospel wis characteristicailya message demanding faith (Rom l0:8: "the word-of faith") that it couldcome to be called "the faith." Thus "to obey the faith" (Acts 6:7; and perhapsRom l:5; 16:26) is equivalent ro "to obey the gospel" (Rom 10:16; l The;s

Commmt 33

l:8; I Pet 4:l7l; it means to respond to the gospel in faith. (Other instancesin Paul where rriorls may mean "the gospel" or "the Christian religion" areI Cor 16:13; Gal 3:23, 25; 6:10; Phil l:25; Col l:23; cf. Eph 4:5; and seeBultmann in TDN? 6, 213.) The objective use of rior5 ("faith") as fdzs ryntcreditur becomes especially common in the Pastorals (l Tim 3:9; 4:1, 6; 2Tim 4:7; other instances are less certain) and is occasional in the apostolicFathers (lgn. Eph. 16:2; Pol. Phil. 3:2 ?), but since it goes back to Paul thereis no ground for treatingJude's use of it as evidence of a late date. Moreover,there is no reason to suppose that Jude means by rimls anything other than"the gospel." It need not refer to confessional formulae (Grundmann), thoughsuch formulae were already known in Paul's time, nor does it imply the ideaof a defined body of orthodox doctrines, which commentators frequentlyattribute toJude.Jude's readers are to contend, not for some particular formu-lation of Christian belief, but for the central Christian message of salvationthrough Jesus Christ. (In fact this is probably still the meaning in the laterinsrances otilors as "rhe faith" in lgn. Eph. 16:2; Pol. Phil. 3:2.)

The faith is that which has been "delivered to the saints." As most commen-tators recognize (against Spitta), "the saints" are not the apostles, who re-ceived the gospel from Jesus Christ, but the Christians of the church(es) towhich Jude writes, who received the gospel from the apostles who foundedthe church(es). (The use of oi d1tu,"the saints," for Christians, though appar-ently not common to all strands of early Christian tradition, was not peculiarlyPauline: cf. Acts 9:13,32,41; Heb 6:10; 13:24; Rev 5:8;8:3; ll:18; l3:7,l0; 14:12; Herm. Zis. l:l:9; l:3:2; Asc. Isa.4:13,14, 16; Did. 16:7; Ign. Smrz.l:2.) Almost certainly it is the apostles who are the agents implied innapMeioT ("which was delivered"). The technical use of rap,fi.fuot ("tohand on, deliver" a tradition, equivalent to Hebrew ? r un) with its correlativetap,\a1$arcur ("to receive" a tiadition, equivalent to ln )EP) was taken overby early Christianity from its use with reference to Jewish tradition: "in thePauline epistles we find the wholeJewish paradosil terminology" (O.Cullmann,"The Tradition,t' in Tlw Early Church [London: SCM Press, 1956] 63).Jude'sidea of the tradition of the gospel conforms exactly to the Pauline usage(on which sec Cullmann, "Tradition," 59-99; P. Fannon, "The Influence ofTradition in St Paul," SE 4/l [: TU 102; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1968]292-807; G. E. Ladd, "Revelation and Tradition in Paul," in W. W. Gasqueand R. P. Martin (eds.l Apostolic History and tlw Gospel [F. F. Bruce Festschrift;Exeter: Paternoster, 19701 22&-30; and most recently, J. I. H. McDonald,Kerygma and Didaclw [SNTSMS 37; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,19801 chap. 4). Paul uses rcpc&Eduar ("to deliver") and raplvpftiev ("toreceive") with reference to his initial instruction of the churches he founded:he delivered the traditions to the churrhes and they received them fromhim (l Cor ll:2,23; l5:3; Gal l:19; Phil4:9; Col2:6; I Thess 2:13;2 Thess2:15; 3:6; cf. Rom 6:17). The central content of these traditions was thegospel itself (l Cor l5:l; Gal l:9), but they also included traditions aboutthe life ofJesus (l Cor ll:23) and instructions on Christian conduct andchurch practice (l Cor ll:2; Phil 4:912 Thess 3:6). Probably these variouselements should not be distinguished too sharply. Particularly noteworthyare Paul's injunctions that his readers should "hold fast" or "maintain" (again

34 Juon 34

technical terminology, cf. Mark 7:8) these traditions (l Cor ll:2; l5:2; 2Thess 2:15), and his appeal to them as a standard by which teaching andpractice may be judged (2 Cor ll:34; Gal l:8-9; Col 2:6-8;2 Thess 3:6;implicitly in I Cor ll:2,17;2 Thess 2:15).

Jude's appeal to his readers to contend for the gospel they originally re-ceived does not go beyond these Pauline ideas. The word rincf ("once andfor all") emphasizes that because the gospel is the message of the "onceand forall" salvific action of God in Christ (Rom 6:10; Heb 9:12;9:26-28;10:10; I Pet 3:18) it cannot change, and so it is the gospel as they firstreceived it when they became Christians to whichJude's readers must remainfaithful. This emphasis, too, is thoroughly in line with Paul, who similarly,when confronted with false teaching, appealed to the gospel as originallyreceived by the churches from their founding apostles (Rom 16:17;2 Corll:4; Gal l:9). Both Paul andJude are reflecting a common principle ofthe early Christian mission.

Jude's concern is especially with the moral implications of the gospel (notwith doctrinal orthodoxy; hence the idea that "the faith" means a set ofdoctrinal formulae is quite inappropriate). No doubt he has in mind particu-larly the instruction in Christian conduct which accompanied the gospel inthe initial teaching given by the apostles, but he refers to the gospel itselfl,t7 rim6, because it is the gospel itself for which his readers will be fightingwhen they remain faithful to its moral demand and resist the antinomianismof the false teachers. Antinomianism is a perversion of the gospel itself, andsojust as Paul in Galatians opposes the imposition of circumcision as contraryto the gospel his converts first received from him, soJude opposes antinomian-ism as contrary to the gospel his readers first received from the apostles.

Two differences between Jude and Paul are sometimes invoked at thispoint, in support of a later date for Jude. In the first place, it is pointedout that in Paul's understanding of tradition it is not seen as the rigid preserva-tion of fixed formulae, as excluding the necessary role of the Spirit in inspiringand interpreting the radition, or as ruling out the kind of theological develop-ment to which Paul himself subjects the tradition. All this is true, but rhecorresponding claim that these implications 4re present inJude's undersrand-ing of tradition has no basis in the evidence. They cannot be deduced fromhis strong opposition to what he sees as a gross distortion of the gospel,any more than they can be deduced from Paul's equally strong oppositionto what lu sees as gross distortions of the gospel.

Secondly, with rather more justification, it is said thatJude does not seekto refute his opponents by theological argument, as Paul does. This observa-tion, however, may simply tell us thatJude is not Paul, rather than thatJudeis later than Paul. Theological argument of the Pauline kind is not Jude'sstyle, but it was quite probably not the style of many of Paul's fellow apostlesstyle, but it was quite$ryre, our rr was qurte proDaDry no[ [ne sryte or many or raur s tettow aposueseither. In factJude offers his own style of theological argument in the midrashofw 5-19.

A parallel to v 3 has been noticed in T. Mos 4:8: "the two tribes shallremain in the faith first laid down fior them" (in the Latin version: ptrmanebuntin praeposita fidz nnl. Jude was acquainted with the T. Mos. (see w 9, 16)and perhaps the phrase had stuck in his mind, but his words are fully explicableon the basis of early Christian usage.

Comrnmt 35

4. tapeoe\inoat lap rves &firy^nru, "For certain persons have infiltratedamong you." The verb zrapero6is(v)sut, "to infiltrate" (only here in NT; otherexamples in Mayor, xi, 24) need not invariably, but tends to carry the connota-tion of secrecy or stealth (cf. the noun ncpeioduors used of the activity ofthe devil in Bam 2:10; 4:9; Paul's use of napeoqlcrr and napao€ngo0al inGal 2:10; napoa|ev in 2 Pet 2:1, of heretical teachings; raryonopebeoflo.tused with tre)t406r<,-rs in 2 Macc 8:l). The use of rueg ("certain persons") todesignate a definite group of people, well-known to the readers, is common(Rom 3:8; I Cor 4:18; 15:34; 2 Cor 3:l; 10:12; Gal l:7; I Tim l:3, 19; 2Pet 3:9; lgn. Eph. 7:l; 9:l): it is often used of opponents, with a hint ofdisparagement.

Jude's language suggests that the troublemakers were itinerant prophetsor teachers, perhaps with a group of followers. Such wandering teacherswere a feature of early Christianity, as of the contemporary religious worldin general, and frequently occur in early Christian literature as the cause oftrouble in the churches (Matt 7:15; 2 Cor 10-ll; I John 4:l;2 John l0;Did. ll-12; Ign. Eph.9:ll. Jude is not reflecting a theological claim thatheretical teaching must come from outside the church (Wisse, 'Jude," 136),because he means only that the false teachers have come from outside theparticular church(es) to which he writes, and w SS imply that he regardsthem as apostate believers; he is reflecting the reality of the situation.

u na}ut rpvyeypappivu eis rotro rb xptry, "who were long ago designatedfor this condemnation." This phrase bristles with difficulties. The adverbnd)\ar. usually means "long ago," but can sometimes mean simply "in thepast" and refer to the recent past (classical examples in Chaine, 296); withthe perfect rpo1e1pagrcva it could mean "for a long time." At any rate raltotseems to indicate that rpo in rwfelpaptrrdrra should have a temporal sense("written beforehand," as in Acts l:16; Rom l5:4; Eph 3:3, rather than "plac-arded publicly," as in Gal 3:1, or "enlisted," as in I Macc 10:36), but somehave pointed to the technical use of ngyft,peu with reference to "the pro-scribed," i.e. those whose names were entered on a register of outlaws, accord-ing to Roman practice (Polybius, Hkt. 32.5.2; 6.1; Lucian, Tim. 5l). For theinterpretation of the words ura\otrpuye1pgrcvuthere are three main possi-bilities:

(l) The false teachers and their condemnation have been recorded in theheavenllbooks (Clement ofAlexandria, Windisch, Kelly). (This idea canffico*i--porate the meaning "proscribed" for fiprle'ypa$pduor,.) Many of the Jewishtexts usually cited in this connection are not relevant, since the idea theyemploy is that the sins of the wicked are recorded at the time when theyare committed, so that they can be brought in evidence at the last judgment(Rev 20:12; 2 Apoc. Bar. 24:l; I Enoch 89:61-71; 98:7; 104:7). Rather differentand less common is the predestinarian idea that the condemnation of thewicked is already set down in the heavenly books, before they sin (I Enoch108:7-an appendix to I Enoch whichJude is unlikely to have known). Thisidea really belongs to the deterministic notion of the heavenly tablets ofdestiny, on which the whole of history is set down in advance (1 Enoch 8l:l-2;93:1,3; 103:2; 106:19; T. Ashtr 7:5).Jude could have taken up this ideaof the heavenly tablets of destiny from I Enoch, but how did he know whatwas written on them? Had he been granted a special revelation of their con-

36 Juoe 3-4

tents, like Enoch (1 Enoch 8l:l-2)? The only plausible reply to this is thatJude applied to the false teachers the prophecies ofjudgment on the wickedwhich he found in I Enoch, where they allegedly derived from Enoch's readingof the heavenly tablets. But in that case it is much simpler to suppose thalfipallelpa,ppiua refers directly to the prophecies of Enoch, rather than to theheavenly books (see interpretation (3) below).

(2) The false teachers and their condemnation have been prophesied in3l1..?P9gq9lic-Prophecy, either 2 Pet 2:l-3{ (Zahn, Introductioni%tg-52), orother prophecies such as rhe oneJude quotes in w 17-18 (cf. Acts 20:29-30; I Tim 4:l-3; 2 Tim 3:13). Zahn's case depends on his interpretation ofrctroritrcptpa ("this condemnation") as referring back to ra6ne6tnpav ("infil-trated"), so that the prophecy is about the infiltration of the false teachersin the particular church(es) to whichJude wrires. This is unlikely (see below),but without it we need a written apostolic prophecy of the condemnationof the false teachers, which neitherJude's quotation (v 18) nor any otherextant apostolic prophecies, except 2-P_etgr, seem to supply. This view there-fore really depends_on the priority of 2 leter.- (3) Th'e falie tealhers

"trd their condEmnation have been prophesied_.ln

pre-Christian prophecy, eirher in the form of the OT types bf rlv g-2, Tl-(Maier, 8z 2 tfgdal584-91; Grundmann) or in the boo['of Enoch (Mayor,Chaine, Cantinat). This interpretation gives full weight to rttlcr, "long ago,"and can make better sense of rotrro rb rclpo ("this iondemnation"l than 1lyor (2) can (see below).

It also_ provides a more satisfacrory link with the following verses. Thisstructuml consideration, however, requires a modification of this interpreta-tion, for vv 5-19 are really a unity, inwhichJude cites a series of typei andprophecies to substantiate the claim made in v 4, that the false teachers andtheir doom have been prophesied. Thus the whole section w 5-19 servesas explanation of d Tal' gtfipufetparrpevgreisrdnorbrcptln, and it is unneces-sary.to select only part of w S-19 as containing the prophecy Jude has inmind in v 4. Not even rhe apostolic prophecybf v 18 need-be excludedfrom Jude's thought in v 4, for if it is only one of a series of propheciesreferred to in v 4 it need not contain a reference to the false teacheri'condem-nation or bear the full weight of nril\ar. Nor need thg types and propheciesof w 5-19 exhaust the propheciesJude has in mind in v lidralvtrpyeyp4t-$evuis a general s-tatement, whichJude backs up by expounding some exam-ples, not necessarily an exhaustivelist.

eis rotno rb tcp,t1n, "for this condemnation." The main difficulty in thisphryse is to explain rotro ("this"); the following suggestions have been made:(ll rctno refers backward, either to v 3b, which implies rhe condemnationof the false teachers in the defense of orthodoxy (Maybr), or to rarr;wefiirqoat("infiltratedil v 4a), understood as a judgment on the churches in whichthe false teachers hal'e a-ppeared (7-ahn,-Introdtution,24g). Both these explana-tions are very unnatural.

(2) roitro refers forward to the immediately succeeding words in the restofv 4, understood as the verdict pronounced by prophecy dn the false teachers(spitta). However, although rcrt1n (condemnation;) does refer to the verdictrather than to the punishment, it seems very weak in this context to take it

Comment 37

as a mere statement of their sin; it should be the judicial sentence pronouncedon their sin and leading to punishment.

(3\ rotno referg. forward to part or all of vv 5-15 (Clement of Alexandria,cantifi?f'Grdiid-ilan").^ffre'fimartii'hete'is'thiit'the poinr of reference istoo remote, but the difficulty is at least eased by the following considerations:(a) The rest of v 4 (aoe$eis . . . dpvoitpezor) is not simply additional descriptionof rpes att9posnu ("certain persons"), but should be taken closely with oira\ot rpvy?lpappevu eis rooro rb rcpipa ("who were long ago designated forthis condemnation"), not in the sense of constituting the condemnation, as

in (2) above, but in the sense of specifying the sins for which prop\ecy hassaid they will be condemned. In other words, it is as ungodly men, whopervert God's grace into immorality and deny the Lord, that prophecy hasdesignated them for condemnation. In the following verses (5-19) Jude sub-stantiates from prophecy both their sins and the condemnation which theirsins will incur. This makes the separation of roDro from its point of referenceby v 4b less difficult, since v 4b belongs with ro0ro rb rcpipa to a statementwhich as a whole looks forward to w 5-19. (b) The use of ro1ro will seemmore natural once it is seen that v 4 is the announcement of the themewhichJude expounds in w 5-19. (c) This intimate connection with w 5-19is strengthened by the observation that in v 4Jude is already using his exegeti-cal method of linking text and exegesis by means of catchwords, so that eisrottro rb rcrl1pa, "for this condemnation," (v 4) links up with eis rpiotv (v 6)and xptow, "judgment" (v l5). The latter link is especially clear since aoe\ds("ungodly"), immediately following xphn in v 4, is emphatically linked withthe double or,ekis in Enoch's prophecy in v 15.

Thus roDro rb rcphn refers to the condemnation at the Parousia, which isprophesied typologically in vv 5-7,ll, and directly in vv 14-15. ThatJudeuses rcpi;rc, referring to the sentence of condemnation more than to the punish-ment, fits his purpose of countering the antinomianism of the false teachers.He does not wish to prove simply that ttrty are heading for destruction,but that their immoral behavior will incur divine condemnation.

fue$as ("ungodly") "may be almost said to give the keynote to the Epistle(cf. w 15, 18) as it does to the Book of Enoch" (Mayor). Certainly this isthe word which sums up Jude's indictment of the false teachers. His briefletter contains six occurrences of the words in the word-group ooe|- (doelis,doipew, d.oepeiv), which is more than any other writing of the NT and theapostolic Fathers (except Bam., which also has six). However, no less thanfour of these occurrences are in the quotation from I Enoch (vv 14-15) and

Jude has probably there followed the vocabulary of the Greek translation.Nevertheless he will have selected the quotaticin partly because of its strongemphasis on the "ungodliness" of those who are to be judged. He thenpicked up the term in his wording of the apostolic prophecy (v l8). Hereinv 4 doel€B is a catchword, linking this statement forward to the two prophe-cies (w l4-15, l7-18) which clinchJude's argument for it.

Jude's (and the Greek Enoch's) use of the aoe|- words must be understoodagainst the background of their use, not in secular Greek, but inJewish Greek,especially the lXX. The words are common in the LXX (translating especiallyy[ll), and especially in the Wisdom literature, which contrasts the wav of

38 Juou 3-4 q lf ',i3.., a.$ i +

評犠繊 離椰 紺 制出 椰 11苗糧撒

瓢鮒柵 ぶ撚 lttS譜じ:躙蹴 s跳認淵 辮驚

ぶ:ittT:lttL:鵬 :臨瞭iげ晰la凛‖職

r圏:1諄宙tお

irt庶怪:』:ちら:,I調器I鷺翻胤∫寵」Ftふ留]庶

Commnt 39

The suggestion that the charges of immorality are merely conventionalpolemic against heretics (Wisse, 'Jude," 137) is unacceptable, since all ofJude's charges against the false teachers are of teaching and practicing antino-mianism. He has not first labeled them heretics fior some other, purely doc-trinal, error, and then concluded that, like all heretics, they must lead immorallives. Their rejection of the moral demands of the gospel is his only concern.

rbv p6vov &.or6rqv rcai rcfipnv ripisv'b1ooitv xpor6v, "our only Master andLord Jesus Christ." Does the whole phrase refer to Jesus Christ, or doesrbv pdvov konhqv ("the only Master") refer to God the Father? The absenceof the article before rctp,'ov ("Lord") cannot decide the issue because thearticle is often omitted before rcbp.q.The term &oninr6 ("Master") was widelyused of God inJudaism (LXX, Philo,Josephus), and the phrase 6wvosieorinryis found $osephus, BJ 7:323,4LO; Ant. 18:23: in all three cases God as theone deozrdrrlg is contrasted, not with other gods, but with Roman rule). EarlyChristianity took over this usage, especially in prayer and liturgical formulae,and used &oninns almost always of God the Father (Luke 2:29; Acts 4:14;Rev 6:10; I Clcn. 7:5; 8:2; 9:4; I l:l; 20:8, ll; 24:1, 5; 33:1, 2; 36:2, 4; 40:L;48:l; 52:l; 56:16; 59:4; 6l:l-2; Did. l0:3; Barn. l:7;4:3; Herm. Vis.2:2:4-5;Sdm. l:9; Diogn.S:?;Justin, I ApoI.6l:3). This evidence might seem decisive,and it is not surprising that several manuscripts and the Syriac version clarifythe text by inserting 0e6v ("God") after 6eon6rqv. There are, however, threepieces of evidence which point in the other direction:

(l) 2 Pet 2:1, which is the only NT text (apart fromJude 4) to use &ondntsof Christ, evidently understood Jude 4 in that sense. This is not decisive,but it does show that the weight of early Christian usage of 6eormr6 didnot prevent one early reader ofJude 4 from taking &orurqg to refer to Christ.

(2) According toJulius Africanus, who lived at Emmaus in the late secondcentury, the family ofJesus were known as oi 6eordowu (ap. Eusebius, HdsLEccl. 1.7.14). This distinctive usage must imply thatJesus was known as 66eorrnrrr,, "the Master," in the Palestinian Jewish circles in which his familywas known. It therefore brings us close-perhaps closer than the other earlyChristian usage listed abov+to the terminology current inJude's own milieu.

(3) The term 6eonhr6 is appropriate to the image ofJesus as the Masterof his household slaves. This is how it is used in 2 Pet 2:l ("the Masterwho bought them"), and it is how the equivalent term ohcdeotrot6, "themaster of the house," is used, figuratively, of Jesus in Matt 10:25 and, inparables, in Mark 13:27; Luke 13:25 (where P75 has &orcrq$. Of course,xbpi'rs was used in the same way, but as a Christological title it rapidly acquiredmuch broader and more exalted connotations. Perhaps, then, it was in orderspecifically to invoke the image of Christ as the Master of his Christian slavesthat &oror?s was used in (2) above, and this will explain why Jude shouldadd &orinr6 to rc0ptog. For Jude, rctpos is the title of Jesus' divine authorityas the one who exercises the divine function ofjudgment (v 14, and perhapsw 5-6, 9); in v 4 he adds ileoninqg to convey the thought that, as Christians,the false teachers belong to Jesus as his slaves whom he has bought. Theyare both disowning him as Master and flouting his authority as universalJudge.

A minor issue is the parallel in I Enoch 48:10: "They denied the [.ord of

40 Juoe 3-4

Spirits and his Messiah" (tr. Knibb). Jude has sometimes been thought tohave modeled his words on this, but it occurs in the Parables of Enoch (IEnoch 37-71), a section of I Enoch which has not been found among the

Qumran fragments and which is now commonly dated in the late first centurye.o. It seems unlikely that Jude knew the Parables; there is very little otherindication in the letter thaihe did (but v 14, cf. I Enoch 60:8). This parallelcan therefore scarcely be invoked in favor of referring &otrorqv to God.

Jude's use of patw, "only," with &ormqv seems at first sight to favor thereference to God (cf. v 25: pwqs ileQ, "only God") but a reference to Christas the only Master is intelligible ifJude is here concerned with the immoralbehavior of the false teachers (see below, on d,pwbpevu). To indulge in suchbehavior is to serve other masters (cf. Matt 7:24; Rom 6:12-23; Gal 4:3, 8-9; 2 Pet 2:19). Thus, by their conduct, the false teachers disown Christ, theonly Master of Christians, and subject themselves to other masters.

d.pvobpevw, "deny." Does this refer to doctrinal denial or ethical denial?Those who think the reference is to doctrinal error usually suppose thatsome kind of Gnostic belief is in view: denying the one God (if &oilnnvrefers to God) by postulating a demiurge as creator of the material world,and denying the Lord Jesus by a docetic Christology (cf. I John 4:2-3; 2

John 7). But the rest of the letter provides no evidence of such beliefs, andif the false teachers did believe in a gnostic demiurge it is remarkable thatJude accuses them only of blaspheming angels (v 8). It is more consistentwith the evidence of the letter as a whole to take the denial of Christ as afurther reference to their libertinism (so Luther, Plummer, Chaine, Cantinat,Grundmann, and so on), thus creating a parallelism of meaning betweenthe two participial phrases at the end of v 4. The ungodly behavior of thefalse teachers (rioe0eis) is (l) in relation to God the Father, a perversion ofhis grace, and (2) in relation to Christ, a denial of his lordship.

The idea of denial of God by conduct is attested in Judaism and earlyChristianity (1 Enoch 38:2; 4l:2; 45:2;46:7;48:10; 67:8, lG-but all theseexamples are from the Parables; Titus l:16: "They profess to know God,but they deny him by their deeds"). The Rabbis taught that to reject one'sobligation to obey God's commandments is to deny God (references inE. P. Sanders, Paul and PalzstinianJudaism, [London: SCM Press, 1977] 136):a concept relevant to Jude's libertines. References to denial of Christ bydeeds are rarer, but 2 Cbn. l7:.7 says of the wicked who are punished atthe LastJudgment that they "deniedJesus by their words or by their deeds"(and cf. 3:14), while the thought, though not the terminology, is found inMatt 7:21-23. Jude means that by refusing to obey Christ's moral demandsthe false teachers are in effect, though not in words, disowning him as Masterand rejecting his authority as Sovereign andJudge. "They regard themselves,not Him, as their Lord" (Luther).

Explanation

In this section Jude explains the background and purpose of his letter. Itis not the extended discussion of Christian salvation which he has been plan-ning to write, but a more ad hoc work, called forth by the disturbing newshe has received from the church(es) he addresses.

Expl,anation 4l

A group of itinerant prophets has arrived in the church(es).Jude describesthem as people of irreligious conduct, who pervert the grace of God intoan excuse for immorality. Evidently, like the Corinthians whose slogan was"All things are lawful for me" (l Cor 6: l2; 10:23), they take Christian freedomto mean that the really spiritual man is free from the restraints of conventionalmorality. Especially they seem intent on flouting accepted standards of sexualethics, in line with the greater permissiveness of pagan society. Althoughthey claim to be followers of Jesus Christ, Jude says that by rejecting hismoral demands they are in fact disowning him as their Master and repudiatinghis authority as Lord.

This description of the false teachers, however, is more than empiricalobservation. For just such people, Jude claims, were long ago described inprophecy, which also predicted their condemnation by God. This is the claimwhich Jude will go on to substantiate by means of his midrash on a seriesof types and prophecies in w 5-19.

Jude's purpose in seeking to demonstrate that the false teachers and theircondemnation have been prophesied is not to comfort his readers with theassurance that all is happening according to God's plan-though this maybe an incidental effect. Still less is he indulging in mere denunciation. Thepoint is to prove that the libertine teaching and practice of these peopleputs them into a class of people who, according to Scripture, incur God'swrath and condemnation, and that therefore they constitute a severe danger,which Jude's readers must resist, to the churches. Jude is alerting them toone of the great dangers of the last times in which they are living. The methodof argument he will adopt is therefiore appropriately the method of apocalypticinterpretation of OT types and prophecies (w 5-19).

This danger (v 4, substantiated in w 5-19) is really the presuppositionfor Jude's main purpose in writing his letter, stated in the appeal of v 3.He writes to urge his readers to continue the fight on behalf of the Christiangospel. In the false teachers' attack on the moral implications of the gospel,Jude sees the gospel itself ("the faith") at stake, and here he is at one withall the NT writers. God's purpose in the gospel is to save sinners, not topromote sin.

Like other NT writers, Jude identifies the true gospel as the one whichthe apostles who founded the churches preached to the first converts. Thisappeal to the past, and to a form of tradition, is not to be seen as an "earlyCatholic" fossilization of the faith into fixed formulae of orthodox belief.Rather it was present in early Christianity from the start, bound up withthe notion of the apostolate, and necessarily inherent in a message aboutGod's saving action in historical events. It excludes neither the living inspira-tion of the Spirit nor legitimate theological development, but requires thatthey be tested against the standard of the original gospel.

Jude's appeal to contend for the faith is not further developed until w2U29, in which he will explain what it involves.

Three Old Testarnmt Types Uude 5-10)

Bibtiography (including Bibliography for the Excursus on Jude 9)

Barett, C. K. "Things Sacrificed to [dols." NfS ll (19ffi5) 138-53. Berger,IL"Der Streit des guten und des biisen Engels um die Seele: Beobachtungen zu 4QAmrbund Judas 9." ,/Srf 4 (t973) l-18. Berger, K. "Hartherzigkeit und Gottes Gesetz,die Vorgeschichte des anti-j0dischen Vorwurfs in Mc 105." ZNW 6l (1970) l-47.Black' M. "Critical and exegetical notes on three New Testament texts Hebrews xi.I I, Jude 5, James i. 27;' Apophoreta: Festschrift fiir Ernst Hamchen BZNW 30. Berlin:Alfred Tiipelmann, 19fr. 3945. Charles, R. H. Ti€ Assumption of Mosa. London:A. & C. Black, 1897. Cramer, J. A. ed. Catmae Graecontm Pattum in Noaum Testaneilltm.vol.8. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1844. 16()-63. Daniel, C. "La mention desEss6niens dans le texte grec de l'6pitre de S.Jude." Mus 8l (1968) 503-21. Delcor,M. "Le mythe de la chute des anges et de l'origine des g6ants comme explicationdu mal dans le monde dans I'apocalyptique juive. Histoire des traditions." fHR 190(1976) &-53. 1: Delcor, M. Etudes bibliqtus et orimtalzs de religions compardes. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979. 263-313.) Denis, A.M. Fragnmta Psailzpigraphorum Grarca.ln Psailtpi-graplw Vetots Teslammti Graeca 3, ed. A. M. Denis and M. de Jonge. kiden: E. J.Brill, 1970. 63-67. Denis, A. M. Introdurlion aux Pseudlpigraplws grecs d'Ancictt Testammt.SVTP l. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970. 128-41. Dubarle, A. M. "Le p6ch6 des angesdans l'6pitre de Jude." Memorial J. Chainc. Lyons: Facult6s Catholiques, 1950. 145-48. Glrasson, T. F. Grah Inflwrce in Jeuish Eschatohgy. London: S. P. C. K., 1961.6247. Haacker, K. and Schilfer, P. "Nachbiblische Traditionen vom Tod des Mose."Josephu-Studiat: Untnnrchungm zuJosEhus, dm antihmJudmtum und dmt Neum Teslamml:Otto Miclvlzum 70. Gebur&ng ganihnet, ed. O. Betz, K. Haacker, M. Hengel. Giittingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht , 1974. 147-74. Hanson, A.T. Jens Chr;st in lLc OA TesntnanLLondon:S.P.C.K., 1965. l3G38.James,M.R. Tlul-ostApoctyphaof tluOld,Testammt.London: S. P. C. K./New York: Macmillan, 1920. 42-51. Kee, H. C. "The Terminologyof Mark's Exorcism Stories." NfS 14 (1968) 23246. Kelletg E. E. "Nore onJude5." ExpTim 15 (19034) S8l. Laperrousaz, E. M. ltTcstammtfu Mdtsq2942. Loewen-stamm, S. E. "The Death of Moses." Studies on the Testammt of Abraham, ed. G. W. E.Nickelsburg,Jr. SBLSCS 6. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976. 185-217. Maier, F."Zur Erkl?irung des Judasbriefes gud 5)." BZ 2 (1904) 377-97. Mees, M. "PapyrusBodmer VII (n?2) und die Zitate aus dem Judasbrief bei Clemens von Alexandrien."CDos l8l (1968) 551-59. Milik, J. T. "4Qvisions de 'Amram er une citation d'Ori-gdne." RB 79 (1972) 77-97. Reicke, B. Diahonit, 355-59. Schlosser, J. "Les jours deNo6 et de [,ot: A propos de Luc, XVII, 26-30." ft8 80 (1973) 13-36. Sickenberger,J."Engels- oder Teufelsl?isterer im Judasbriefe (8-10) und im 2. Petrusbriefe (2, l0-l2)?" Feslschrifl zur Jahrhurulntleier der Uniaqsitiit zu Breslau, ed. T. Siebs : MSGYK13-14 (l9ll-12) 621-39. Wikgren, A. "Some Problems inJude 5;' Studizs in tlwHistory and, Text of tlu Ncu Teslamcnt in honor of Kenwth Willis Chrh ed. B. L. DanielsandJ. M. Suggs. SD 29. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1967. 147-52.

Translation

6 Nou I should like to ranind !ou, though you haae bem infonned of all thingsonce and, for all,"

Notes 43

that llw Lordbwlw saaed a peoph out of tlu land of Egypt, on tlu second occasion fustroyedthose who di.d not bekne. 6 The angeb, too, who did not keep their own positionof authority, but abandoned their propn home, he has kept in etemal chai'ns

in tlu nethn darkness c until the judgnmt of the great day. 7 Similarly Sodom

and Gsmonah and the ruighboring townq which practiced imnorality in tlwsanw way as tlw angeb and hanhned dtn d strange flesh, are ahibited' as anexampb by undngoing the pun*hnmt of etemal fre.t Yet in llu same way ako tluse peopl,e, on the strength of their dreans, dcrtb fic

fesh, reject tlw authority of the Lord, and slandn tlu glori,ous ones.s But whm Michael tlw archangel, in d,ebate uith the dnil, disputed about the

body of Moseq he did not presu:nu to condunn hi,mfor slandn,' but said, "Maytlu Lord, rebuke you!"

ro But tluse peopb sl,ander whatnn thq do not undnstand, whib by the thingstllel do undmtnnd, irutincti,aely, hke unreasoning animab, they are dtstroyed.

Notes

.d*at is placed by some MSS (R l73g al) after rupos, "Lord," but this reading (thoughdefended by-Mayor and Black, "Notes") should probably be seen as an attempt to supply a"6rst time" corresponding to the difficult rb 6einepw, "the second occasion." The oppositionto tb &inept is possible (examples in Mayor, 29), but dnal strictly means "once only" ratherthan "first in a s-ries," and v 3 supports the connection with ei&has, "having been informed."

bMost MSS read m&os (or 6 rupros), but some important MSS and versions (A B vg cop''b eth Origen) have 'lrporls, a few have 6 &rh, and p72 has 0eos p,oros. Probably rupros shouldbe preferred since it could have given rise to the other readings as attempts to resolve theambiguity in rarpros (cf. the similar readings at I Cor l0:9). It is not likely that Jude wouldhave used 'lnoOs of the preexistent Christ (despite Hanson, Jesu"s Christ, 165-67; F. F. Bruce,This is Thot [Exeter: Paternoster, 1968] 35-36): other NT examples (2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:5-6; andperhaps Heb 2:9) have the lncarnation directly in view. Nor could Jude have used 'l?ooris for-he

OTJoshua (asJerome, InJovin. 1.21, thought; also Kellett, "Note"; Wikgren, "Problems,"t4S-{9) sinceJoshua did not destroy the unbelievers (v 5b) or keep the angels in chains (v 6).In the second century, however, the coincidence of names between Joshua son of Nun and

Jesus Christ was frequently exploited in the interests of typology (8cra. l2:8;Justin, Dal. 24.2|75.1-2; Clement Alex., Paed 1.60.3), andJoshua as a type ofJesus could be said to have ledthe people out of Egypt (Justin, Diol. 120.3r. This typology could not have been intended by

Jude (since it could not apply to v 6, which has the same subject), but could have attracted ascribe (who could miss its pitfalls) and account for his changing rupos to 'l4ooDs, rather thanto Xprorrh (which would, as Spitta objects, be expected otherwise, and is the correspondingvariant in I Cor l0:9).

c Lucifer and one MS of the Old Latin add dtit:v dtl6\ott before linb fri'gou; Clement Alex.adds d:tri<* (read dricoy?) dll€\ttt after [nolriwu. lt is possible that this addition belongs tothe original text, and refers to Raphael and Michael, who, in I Enoch lO:4-5, I l-12, are responsiblefor chaining the fallen angels (cf. Milik, Enaci, 177't, but Mees (CDros 18 t [968] 555-6) considersit an explanatory gloss.

d lit. "went after" (dzetrOotloar dnioc,r), cf. the LXX idiom ropekodu &rioos 0edtt hegar "to goafter other gods" Qudg 2:12; 3 Kgdms I l:10).

a xg.ou drarcltcitt Fl,o&1xria,s. Many translations and commentators take 0\co6adas to be a"genitive of quality," equivalent to a Semitic adjectival genitive (Moule, Idiom Booh, 175; Chaine,2761;"a revilingjudgment" (Rsv), "a slanderous accusation" (Nrv). This appears to fit the contextinJude, and is also in line with 2 Pet 2:ll (p\ooQrtpwxrtov,"a slanderous judgment"). Butthe meaning of Jude's phrase must be determined in the first place by his source, accordingto which Satan had "slandered" G!\ot6ipett<nral Moses by accusing him of murder, and Michael,not tolerating this slander (Flraoftqptal, appealed to God's judgment against him (see texts D,

44 Junn 5-10

M and N in the Excursus). From this context it seems the point is not that Michael refrainedfrom, slandering the devil, nor even that he refrained from bringing a clnrgc of slander againstthe devil (Nea Margin: "to charge him with blasphemy"), since Michlel's words virtually amountto -such a charge. The point is that he refrained from taking it upon himself to pronouncejudgment on Satan for his slandering of Moses. Only God could judge Satan's aciusation tobe false, i.e., slanderous. Thus a rgiout p\aopqpias would be a condemnation of the devil forhis slander.

Form / S tructure / Se t ting

- At th_e beginning of this secrionJude moves from the opening ro the mainbody of his letter by means of a version of the stylistic device wtrictr White,in his study of the form of the Greek letter, calls "the fuller disclosure fiormula."The standard form of this is "I wish you ro know thar . :*:t (e$frirles Fromthe papyri in White, Body, 3; some NT examples are Rom l:13;- I l:2b; 2Cor l:8;8:l; Gal l:ll).Jude's version, "I wish b remind you that. . ." is

luperficially an example of convenrional polite style (cf. Rom lb:I4-lb;2Pet l:12; I Clnn.53:l) but also makes alerious point (see Comnent).The"fuller disclosure formula" signifies a major transition (White, Body, 38),whichJude does not again indicate unril he uses a similar form at v 17. This supporrsthe-exegesis that what Jude wishes to "remind" his readers covers noi justw 5-7 but the whole section w 5-16, which comprises his OT proptieticmaterial.

This section contains, in w 5-7, the first ofJude's four citations of typesand prophecies of the ungodly people of the last days and their doom, followedby his interpretation, in w 8-10, which establishes the fulfillment in the falseteachers now troubling the churches to which Jude writes. In this case thecitation consists of a summary of scriptural material relating to three OTtypes^(the first of two sers of three rypes, cf. v I l), andJude's itylistic prefer-ence for triple expressions is evident not only in the selection of three types,but also in the three characteristics of the false teachers which he fiiti inthe interpretation in v 8 (reinforced, whether intentionally or not, by therJryme: paivouow, . . dileroinly . . . 9\onfitpot'ow: "they defile. . . rejeci.slander").

Verse 9 is a free quotation (from the T. Mos., see below) which is linkedback to v 8 and forward to v l0 by the catchword gtsfiQqpotuu/g\osttt4tas,"they slander"/"slander." But this does not mean that w 9-10 are an indepen-dent section comprising rexr (v 9) and interprerarion (v l0). Rarher, v-g isa secondary quotation introduced in the course of the interpretation of thetypes of w 5-7. -This is shown by the fact that v 9 does not supply a rypeor prophecy of the false teachers, but an example with which thly ire cbh-trasted. Moreover, v l0 does not simply interpret v I but continues the inter-pr€tation begun in v 8. Thus v 9 (as the catchword p\aogrlpias indicates)relates to the lasr clause of v 8, which v l0 therefore takes up again in itsfirst clause. But v l0 then continues by reverting to the subject of the firstclause in v 8, and finally (with iz roinws gaei@lr,o/1ends the exposition ofthe.three types by making explicit what v 8 had nor yet menrionid: that theantitypes, like the types, have incurred judgment.

The structure of the section is therefoie: citation (w 5-7), fiollowed byinterpretation (w 8, l0), with a secondary quotation (v 9) introduced to help

Form/Sttttcturc/Selting 45

the interpretation. (This introduction of a secondary quotation in the courseof the exegesis can be found occasionally in Qpmran pesharim: 4QFlor l:4,12-13, 15-17; 4QIrIsa", see M. P. Horgan, Pesharim: @mran Intnpretatiotx ofBiblical Boofu [CBQMS 8; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Associationof America, 19791 95.)

The pattern of citation and interpretation is marked by the change oftense (past tenses in w L7, except tf$rceuttot, "are exhibited," and v 9;present tenses in w 8, l0) and the use of o&ror, "these people," to introducethe interpretation (w 8, l0). The latter requires some discussion.

Jude\ Uw of dwuEach of Jude's sections of interpretation, following the reference to types or

the citation of a prophecy, begins with the word o0ror ("these people") which heappears to use as a formula, though in somewhat varying forms: 6poic,rs pdvtu t<oi

o0ror and o0ror 6e (followed by verbs, w 8, l0), twu eiow (followed by predicates,v 16), and twice o0ra eiow ei (followed by participles, w 12, l9).

The last three instances in particular have often been compared to the standardformula ("This is . . . ," "These are . . .") used in the interpretation of apocalypticdreams and visions (Dan 5:2F-26; Zech l:10, 19-20;4:10, 14; Rev 7rl4; ll:4;l4:4; I Enoch 46:3, and so on). Recently Ellis ('Jude," 225) has comparedJude'suse of o0ra to the use of the similar formula sometimes us'ed in the pesher exegesisof Q;rmran to introduce the interpretation of a text (4Qplsab 2:6: "These are thescoffers who are inJerusalem";2:10: "This is the congregation of scoffers whoare inJerusalem";4QFlor l:2: "This is the house which..."; l:3, ll, 17-18;2:l;4Qplsa'3:9; cf. CD 4:14). Although this fiormula is rare in the Qumran texts,as compared with the more usual formulae including the word "pesher," it is per-haps significant that it occurs especially in the "thematic pesher" 4QFlor, which-resembles Jude's midrash more ihan the "continuous pesharim." An example ofa similar usage in the NT is Gal 4:24 ("These women are . . .").

In both of these formulae, the apocalyptic formula and the pesher fiormula,the demonstrative pronoun refers to that which is to be interpreted, a figure inthe vision or an object mentioned in the text. Thus 4Qplsab 2:L7 means: "These(people to whom the text refers) are the scoffers who are in Jerusalem (in ourtime)." In the two instances whereJude uses olrrol eioutcr (w 12, l9), "these.arethe ones who . . ." (exactly equivalent to the QJumran: . . .'luJN . . . Dn il)N),he conforms to this usage. In v 12 oinu refers to the people mentioned in v ll;in v 19 o0ra are the scoffiers ofwhom the apostles prophesied (v l8).

But Jude's use of the formula is flexible, and in the other cases ofrror does notrefer to that which is to be interpreted, but to those people to whom the interpreta-tion applies, the contemporary fulfillment of the text (so w 8, 10, 16): it means"these people we are talking about, the people who have infiltrated your churches."Here the formula is used to introduce a statement about the false teachers whichdemonstrates that they are the fulfillment of the type or the prophecy, but it doesnot state the identification directly in the way that the more usual use of the formuladoes. Perhaps this variation results from Jude's desire, not simply to autl thatthese types and prophecies refer to the false teachers, but to show that the falseteachers' behavior corresponds to them.

A partial parallel to this use of ofrrot, especially in v 8, can be found in I Tim3:8:'?sJannes andJambres. . . , so also these people. . ." (oit@s tcoioinu).

For Jude's use of roinus (v 14) in the inroduction to a quotation, see on vt4.

46 Junn 5-10

Tlu Bachground and Sourca of w 5-7For his list of three examples of divine judgment on sinners in w S-7, Jude

has drawn on a traditional schema in which such examples were listed. Otherpassages which provide evidence of this tradition are Sir l6:7-10; CD 2:17-3:12;3 Macc 2:4-7; T. Napht. 3:4-5i m. Sanh. l0:3; 2 Pet 2:4-8 (partially dependenronJude). Most of these passages are studied by Berger, ZNW 6l (1970) 27-36;and Schlosser, RB 80 (1973) 2U34, who demonstrate the connections betweenthem; but Berger's interpretation of Sir 16:6-10 is corrected by D. Liihrmann,"Noah und Lot (Lk tTze-zs; - ein Nachtrag," ZNW 63 (1972) l3l. The variationsin the examples listed in these passages are clearly variations in a traditional list:

Sira議

gtants

Sodomsons ofJacob

Canaanites Israel in Egypt Pharaoh and

generation ofthe Israel at Kadesh Egyptians

wildemess

ルみ`麟

T Nψ λ`α

“giants sOdOmSodom watchers

籠.Sαれた。

generation of the

Floodgeneration of thedispersion

Sodom Sodom

sPres

generation of thewildernesscompany of Korah

lud, 2 Petngeneration of the Watchers

CDWatchersgiantsgeneration of theFloodsons of Noah

3 Macc

giants

wildernessWatchersSodom

generation of theFloodSodom

Jude's three examples in fact form the core of the traditional list. (The Watchersand their sons the giants are closely related examples. Israel at Kadesh [the wilder-ness generation] is omitted for good reason in 3 Macc 2, where the historicalcontext has led to the substitution of Israel's enemies the Egyptians, and in ?1Napht. S and Jub. 20:5, which are represented as spoken before Exodus.) It shouldbe noted that the lists usually follow chronological order: only the I, Naplrt. andJude diverge from this order.

The main context of the traditional schema was Jewish paraenesis in whichthe hearers were warned not to follow these examples (cf. especially the contextsin Sir 16:6-14; CD 2:14-17; T. Napht. 3:14; Jub. 2O:2-7; but in 3 Macc 2 thetradition is used in the context of a prayer for similar divinejudgment), and usuallyth_e examples follow, as illusrations, a general maxim aboutbod's punishmenlof sin (Sir 16:6; CD 2:16; 3 Macc 2:34a; cf. T. Napht. 3:3). Apart from 3 Macc2, the emphasis is on sin as apostasy (Sir 16:7, l0: revolt, hardness of heart; CD2:17-3:12: stubbornness of heart, rebelling against and not keeping God's com-mandments, choosing their own will; t Napht. 3:2-5: departure frbm the God-given order of their nature), andJude also reflects this emphasis on apostasy.

Probably thisJewish schema had been taken up in the paraenesis of the primitivechurch and used in the initial instruction of converts: hence Jude can rifer to it

Fonn/Shucture/Setting 47

as already well-known to his readers (v 5a). But the use Jude makes of it is notparalleled in the Jewish texts. In Jude the examples are not given as warnings tohis readers, but as prophetic types of which the false teachers (oinoq v 8) are theantitypes. So instead of a general maxim and paraenetic application of the examples,Jude adds in w 8-10 an interpretation of the three types, applying them to thefalse teachers. In doing so, he treats his version of the tradition practically as ascriptural citation, no doubt because it represents a traditional summary of scripturalmaterial. WasJude's use of the tradition as typological prophecy of the false teachershis own innovation, or had it already been adapted in this way in the Christiantradition with which his readers were familiar? In favor of the latter, it could beurged that such use of OT types is found elsewhere in NT writings (l Tim 3:8-9; Rev 2:14,20;' cf. CD 5:18-19).

There are some detailed contacts with the radition which should be noted.The idea of Sodom as an example (6ei7pa, v 7) is found in 3 Macc 2:5 (trapiteqpq).The stylistic link between Jude's second and third examples (ds . . . 61tuw, v 7),and between the three examples and the false teachers (6poic.ls pdwu. wi, v 8), isused in T. Napht. S:5 to link the two examples of Sodom and the Watchers (6potc^n6e rai; cf. also 4:l); it must have been a feature of the radition asJude knew it.Moreover, the parallelism between the kinds of sin of which Sodom and the Watcherswere guilty, which this stylistic link conveys in T. Napht., reappears inJude.

For the detailed description of his second example, the Watchers, Jude hasdrawn on the account in I Enoch (see the passages quoted in the Comment), whichhe knew well. The fact that Jude's vocabulnry, however, does not reflect that ofthe Greek version of I Enoch, while at one point ("the judgment of the greatday," see Connent) he seems to depend on a phrase as it stands in the Aramaic,but not in the Greek as we have it, may indicate that he knew I Enoch in itsoriginal Aramaic form rather than in its Greek translation. (Much stronger evidencefor this conclusion will be found in v 14.)

The Background and Source of a 9See the detailed discussion in the Excursus, where it is argued that Jude has

drawn his information from the lost ending of the ?. Mos. and the story he foundthere is reconstructed. It belonged to a tradition of stories in which Satan, as theaccusing angel, and the chief of the angels, acting as the patron of God's people,engaged in legal disputes over the people of God. This tradition goes back toZech 3, from which Jude's source drew the words ("May the Lord rebuke youl")with which Michael appeals to God against the devil's slanderous accusation.

The story in the T. Mos. about the burial of Moses was one of a number oflegends which grew up around the death and burial of Moses, stimulated by theaccount in Deut 34:l-6, in which Moses, though debarred by God from enteringthe Promised Land, was granted the unique privilege of burial by God himself,in a grave unknown to man. In line with the general tendency of intertestamentalliterature, the T. Mos. ascribed the burial to Michael, acting as God's agent. AtMoses' death on Mount Nebo, the archangel was sent by God to remove the bodyto another place where he was to bury it, but before he could do so he encounteredthe devil, intent on a last attempt to gain power over Moses. The T. Mos. mayhave attributed to him the desire to bring Moses' body to the Israelites for themto make it an object of worship. He certainly wished to deprive Moses of thehonor of burial by the archangel.

The devil therefore engaged in a dispute with Michael for possession of thebody. This was a legal dispute, in which Satan played his traditional role of accuser,

48 Juon LlO

albeit a malicious accuser. He endeavored to prove Moses unworthy of honorableburial by charging him with murder, on rhe grounds that he had killed the Egyptian(Exod 2:12).

The T. Mos., however, described this accusation as slander (Fltorofirt ti@, andrelated how Michael, not tolerating the devil's slander, said to him, "May the lordrebuke you, devill" This was an appeal to God to assert his authority over Satanand dismiss Satan's case against Moses. The devil was thereby silenced and tookflight. Michael was now able to take the body away fior burial.- Th9 story functioned primarily to demonstrirte thar, in spite of the apparentblemishes on his record, God vindicated Moses as his servant, worrhy of the uniquehonor of burial by his archangel, against Satan's attempt to claim him as a sinntr.

In Jude's reference to the story the words r<ir &c&il<rr fuxpldpetq &e)\eterorcpt rc0 Mouiio6<os ou1rcrog ("in debate with the devil, disputed about the body ofMo9es") are probably quoted from the T. Mos. (cf., in similar stories, 4Q(Amrambl:lGll: "disputed about me. . . were carrying on a great contest about me";Origgn, Hom.l5 on Luke: "disputing"; and text B in the Excursus), as are thewords "May the lord rebuke you!" (texts A, E, M, N in the Excursus).

Comment

5. 'Ttroltfpot de 0rrtts paiitoltot, ei&hcs dtralrfura, "Now I should like toremind you, though you have been informed of all things once and fior all"is more than a tacrful formula, complimenting his readerJon their knowledge(such as we find in I Clnm.53:l). iike similir NT passages (Rom l5:14-ib;I Th_ess 4:9; I John 2:21, 271 it has theological lignidcance. dnal ("onceand for all") recalls v 3. The apostolic faith, in whiih Jude's reidirs were'thirroughly instructed at the tim-e of their conversion, is-definitive and com,plete; it does not need supplemenring. Therefore Jude need not give freshinformatibn, as perhaps the false teathers did, bur need only remind hisreaders.

"Remi1di,1g" and "remembering" (v l7) are essenrial to biblical religionas grounded in God's acrs in history (cf. B. s. childs, Menory and Traiitionin Israd ISBT 37; London: SCM Press, 1962]). AsJewish writCrs urged theirreaders to "remember" the tradition of God's redqmptive acts (especiallyin Deuteronop.y)_a$ commandments (e.g. Num l5:3g40; Mal 4:4;1ib.6:2i;2 Apoc. Bar- 84:2,7-9), so early christiin writers recalled their rladers tothe tradition of theapostolic gospel (Rom 15:lb; I Cor ll:2;2Thess 2:b;2 Tim 2:8, 14; 2 Pet l:12; 3:l-2;-Rev 3:3). Though this becomes especiallyprominent in-contexts where the faithful preservation of the tradition againsiheretical deviations needs emphasis, theie is no need to regard it as i latefeature in Jude (against, e.g., Schelkle). Nor need such an lmphasis implystale repetition; it is b-y recallilg the gospel that its meaning is more deellyunderstood and its relevance freshly ixp-erienced

- g%:&("all things") could r_nean siggly 'jalLhat t+ish to tell you"- (soSpitta, Mayor clxxxiv, Grundmann), but with &raf, "once anil- foiTlll'-\norenaturally means "all the essentials of the faith in which the apostles instructedyou at th^e time. of your conversion" (cf. v l7). tn this original instructionthe specific subjects ofJude's reminder here (w 5-lG) werl included. Thisneed not mean that all the detailed content of these verses was already familiar

Commmt 49

to Jude's readers, but since his references to OT and apocryphal materialsare not always self-explanatory, he may be drawing to a considerable extenton traditional material. In w 5-7 his examples, which follow a traditionalJewish list (see Form/Strurture/Setting section), may have been used in Chris-tian, as in Jewish, paraenesis as illustrations of the general maxim that, sin,especially apostasy, incurs divine judgment, and in that case it isJude himselfwho intetprels the tradition as typological prophecy of the false teachers andtheir coming judgment. Similarly in vv ll and 14-15 it may be thatJudehimself is responsible for the application of traditional material to the falseteachers. On the other hand, for the comparison of the false teachers ofthe last days with OT prototypes, 2 Tim 3:&-9 and Rev 2:14,20 provideparallels which suggest that Jude's OT types may already have been inter-preted in this way in the traditions he used. At any rate it is certain that hisreaders'original Christian instruction did include the warning that false teach-ers of immoral life were prophesied for the last days, along with their inevitabledivine judgment $ude l7).

rup,os ("the Lord"). In the Notes we have argued for this reading ratherthan 'l4ooDs, but the question remains whether xi.tptos itself refers to God orto the preexistent Christ (as Bigg; Hanson, Juus Christ, 137; Ellis, 'Jude,"232 n.40, argue). The former is the interpretation presupposed in 2 Pet 2:4,but this cannot decide the issue. The latter, it should be noticed, involvesattributing not only the events of the Exodus, but also the imprisonment ofthe angels (v 6) to Christ.

A decision must involve two considerations: ( I ) Are references to the activityof the preexistent Christ in OT history rare in the NT (John 12:41; I Corl0:4, 9 are the most commonly admitted) or very common (as Hahson argues)?Few have found Hanson's case fully convincing. (2) Does Jude use rcbflosconsistently ofJesus? The evidence may not be sufficient to decide this. Judeuses rctiptos four times with 'Jesus Christ" (vv 4, 17, 21,25), once in a quotationfrom an apocryphal writer (v 9) who certainly meant "God" but could havebeen interpreted by Jude to refer to Jesus, and once as an interpretativegloss in a quotation (v l4), where Jude certainly intended a reference toJesus. Moreover, v 5 follows immediately the reference to "our Lord JesusChrist" in v 4. It is also true that NT writers rarely use rctiptos of God, outsideOT quotations, and sometimes (though by no means always) interpret thercbptos of OT texts (representing the Tetragrammaton) asJesus (John l2:41;Rom 10:13; Heb l:10; cf. I Cor l0:9).

It is difficult to weigh these factors, but it may be that, in view ofJude'sgeneral usage, he has used rcfptos here ofJesus, not so much because he isconcerned to explain the preexistent activity of Christ, but rather becausein his typological application of these OT events to the present it is theLord Jesus who has saved his people the church and will be the Judge ofapostates.

rois ttirnreinanas illrt't\€o€r, "destroyed those who did not believe," refersto the account of Num 14, where, discouraged by the report of the majorityof the spies returning from Canaan, the people of Israel "murmured," showi-tl.glack of faith in God's promises to give them the land and so refusing to- gointo Canaan. As a resuit, God decreid that all the Israelites guilty of di=slieliEfl

50 Juon 5-10

i.e. all aged twenty and over, with the exception ofJoshua and Caleb, shoulddie in the wilderness. (Num 26:64-65 records the fulfillment.) Jude's specificreference to disbelief (an act of disbelief indicated by the aorist participle)identifies the occasion he has in mind, for disbelief is mentioned in Num14: I I and in other references to the same incident (Deut l:32; 9:23; Ps 106:24;Bib. Ant. 15:6; Heb 3:19;4:2); it was, of course, disbelief which issued indisobedience (Deut 9:23; Ps 106:25; Heb 3:19;4:6, ll). Since virtually thewhole generation was guilty of disbelief and died in the wilderness, Judewill intend no contrast between the )\c6S ("people") whom the Lord savedand the unbelievers whom he destroyed. His point, reinforced also by theparticipial construction, is that precisely those people whom the Lord savedafterward incurrred judgment (so Maier, BZ 2 U9041 393-94).

This apostasy and judgment of Israel in the wilderness was a well-knownexample of sin and judgment, used both in the traditional schema whichJude follows in these verses (note especially CD 3:7-9, where it receives specialemphasis; Sir lQ:10) and elsewhere (Ps 95:8-11; Heb 3:74:Ll). The rabbisdebated whether the wilderrtess generation would have a share in the worldto come (m. Sanh. l0:3). Paul in I Cor l0:7-ll-refers not to this but toother examples of sin and judgment in the wilderness, but his comment thatthese things "were written down for our instruction, upon whom the endof the ages has come" (10:ll nsv), together with the extended use of theexample in Heb 34, show how Christian tradition used the experiences ofthe people of God in the period of the Exodus as instructive for the eschatolog-ical people of God in the period of the new Exodus. Jude depends on thistypological tradition for his own application to the false teachers.

Probably it was this especially close parallel between Israel and the churchwhich led Jude to make this the first of his three types, out of chronologicalorder. It recalls the.iudgment of the very people whom God had saved bythe great salvation-eieni of the Exodus, attd sb was of special relevance toapostate Christians. Jude's use of it implies that he did consider the falseteachers to be apostate Christians.

rb letnepv ("on a second occasion") is hard to explain with precision.To suggest. that a second destruction of Israel in e.n. 70 is in mind (Zahn,Introduction, 253-55, 26 1-62) makes Jude's point improbably involved. Some(Spitta; Berger, ZNW 6l tl970l 36) suggest a second occasion of disbelief,corresponding to a first occasion at the Red Sea (Exod 14:10-12; Ps 107:7),but ( I ) there were many other intervening instances of unbelief (Num 14:22;Ps 78:40-41), and'(2) in that case we should expect rb iebrepu to followro0s. It is more likely that Jude intends to distinguish a first occasion onwhich God acted to save his people (at the Exodus) and a second occasionon which he acted to judge their disbelief (Chaine, Schelkle, Kelly, Cantinat,Grundmann). In that case the point of rb \eitrepov is to emphasize that thisis an act ofjudgment on apostasy; the people whom the Lord had savedwere not theieby immune from subsequent judgment. Applied to the anti-types, Jude means that the first occasion on which the Lord acted in relationto Christians, to save them, will be followed by a second occasion, the Parousia,when he will judge apostate Chrisrians.

6. rizleMus are the angels (known as the Watchers) who, according to

Commail 5l

Jewish tradition, descended from heaven to marry human wives and cornrptthe human race in the period before the Flood. This was how the accountof the "sons of God" in Gen 6:14 was universally understood (so far as

our evidence goes) until the mid-second century e.o. (/ Enoch 6-19;21; 86-88; 106:13-15, 17; Jub. 4:15,22;5:l; CD 2:17-19; lQapGen 2:l; Tg. Ps.-J.

Gen. 6:l-4; T. Reub. 5:il7; T. Napht. 3:5; 2 Apoc. Bar. 56:10-14), thoughthe tradition took several varying forms. From the time of R. Simeon b.Yohai in the mid-second century A.D., the traditional exegesis was replacedin Judaism by an insistence that the "sons of God" were not angels butmen. In Christianity, however, the traditional exegesis had a longer life, ques-tioned only in the third century and disappearing in the fifth century.

Originally the fall of the Watchers was a myth of the origin of evil (so IEnoch tl9), but by the first century e.o. its importance was already waningas the origin of evil was focused rather on the fall of Adam (e.g. Rom 5; 4Ezra). This is no doubt why there are only a few allusions to it in the NT(l Pet 3:lg-20; 2Pet2:4; perhaps I Cor ll:10; I Tim 2:9). But it was stillwidely known and accepted, especially in thoseJewish Christian circles wherethe Enoch literature remained popular. Perhaps it was largely owing to theinfluence of those circles and the continuing popularity of the Enoch literaturein second-century Christianity that the fall of the Watchers retained its placein the Christian tradition longer than inJudaism, where the Enoch literaturefell out of favor in rabbinic circles.

Jude's reference is directly dependent on I Enoch 6-19, which is the earliestextant account of the fall of the Watchers (from the early second centuryB.c. at the latest: Milik, Enocft, 22-25,28, 3l), and he shows himself closelyfamiliar with those chapters. They tell how, in the days ofJared (Gen 5:18),two hundred angels un.der the leadership of Semi[razah and (A5a'el, filledwith lust for the beautiful daughters of men, descended on Mount Hermonand took human wives. Their children, the giants, ravaged the earth, andthe fallen angels taught men forbidden knowledge and all kinds of sin. Theywere therefore responsible for the total corruption of the world on accountof which God sent the Flood. The Watchers were punished by being boundunder the earth until the Day ofJudgment, when they will be cast into Ge-henna. Their children, the giants, were condemned to destroy each otherin battle (10:9), but their spirits became the evil spirits responsible for allevil in the world between the Flood and the Day ofJudgment (15:8-16:l).It is clear that for the author of these chapters the judgment of the Watchersand men at the time of the Flood prefigured the final elimination of all evil.at the Last Judgment. The parallel will also have been in Jude's mind whenhe used the Watchers as a type of the false teachers of the last days. 1

It is unnecessary to suppose that Jude is dependent on'the Greek mythof the Titans, recounted in Hesiod's Theogony. The resemblances betweenthe Greek andJewish myths is probably largely due to their common derivationfrom ancient Near Eastern myth. The Greek myth may have had some minorinfluence on theJewish tradition (cf. Glasson, Inftnnce,63-67; Delcor, RFlft190 [976] 30, 39"-40, 44) and certainly some Jewish writers identified theTitans with the fallen angels or with their sons the giants (see Commmt on2 Pet 2:4). ButJude's use of leopci ("chains") and fd$os ("darkness"), which

Fa",

52 Juon 5-10

are also used of the Titans chained in the darkness of Tartarus (Hesiod,Tlvog. 718,729) is insufficient to show that he made this identification orknew Hesiod.

Older exegetes understood Jude 6 to refer to the fall of Satan and hisangefs befiore the fall of Adam; but Jude's dependence on I Enoch is clearfrom the close parallels in this verse (see below) and also from the allusionin v 7 (see below) to the fact that the angels' sin was sexual intercoursewith mortal women. Dubarle ("P6ch6") accepts the allusions to I Enoch inv 6, but suggests that Jude is making primary reference, in terms of themyth of the fallen angels, to the spies (drye)\orn: messengers) in Num 13,who fiorsook their eminent position(riplriu) among the people and abandonedthe land (dxtripwl which God had promised them. But it is hard ro seehow Jude's readers could have detected this supposedly primary layer ofmeaning, and again the allusion in v 7 to the angels'intercourse wiih womenrules it out.

driyr1 here means a position of heavenly power or sphere of dominion,which the angels exercised over the world in the service of God (cf. Jub.2:2;5:6; I Enoch 82:lG-20; IQM 10:12; IQH l:ll;Justin, 2 ApoL 5.2). (Cf.d,pxai as a rank of angels in T. Itui g:8; 2 Enoch 20:l; and as cosmic powersin Rom 8:38; Eph l:21; 3:10; 6:12; Col l:16; 2:15.) Papias (ap. Andr. Caes.,in Apoc. 34:12) says that to some of the angels God "gave dominion (d,pXevlover the affairs of the earth, and ordered them to rule (&,pXew) well . . . .But their order (rtdu) ended in nothing."

dro\urhnasrbifircvdxqrfiptw, "abandoned their proper home": cf. I Enochl2:4; l5:3: "you left (Greek &relthere'1the high, holy and eternal heaven";l5:7: "the spirits of heaven, in heaven is their dwelling" (Greek iTxalrutct1otsfrr6:v).

The two participial phrases, in synonymous parallelism, srress the apostasyof the angels, which Jude intends to compare with that of the false teachers.The fact that sexual immoraliey was also involved in the angels'sin will becomeapparent in v 7.

eis rcgow pezti)tm iptpas, "until the judgment of the great day": cf. I Enochl0:12 1:4QEnb l:4:l l, Milik, Enoch, 175): Michael is to bind the fallen angels"for seventy generations in the valleys of the earth, until the great day oftheir judgment." The adjective "great," lost in the Greek and Ethiopic ver-sions of I Enoch, iS...now found in the 4Q Aramaic fragment (Aramaic:Nl'l Nnl' TU). the plggq,e phrase "great day ofjudgment" is unusual, cf.I Enoch 22:ll; $*.4+;f{Neoi Deut. Sl:84; more i,r,tit ir "grear day of theLord" (Joel 2:ll,3l [: Acts 2:20]; Zeph.l:I4; Mal 4:5; 2 Enoch 18:6), cf.Rev 6:17 ("great day of their wrath"); 16:l\("grear day of God Almighty");I Enoch 54:6 ("that great day").

&opocs rifiots inb fi@t rerfipt1ce4 "he has kept in eternal chains in thenether darkness": cf. I Enoch 10:44: "Bind (A$)el hand and foot, and casthim into the darkness (Greek orcorq): and make an opening in the deserr,which is in Daddu)el (see Milik, Ezocft, 30), and casr him therein. And placeupon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness lorinosl,and let him abide there fiorever, and cover his face that he may not seelight. And on the day of the great judgment he shall be cast into the fire."

Commmt 53

lude's language reflects both this judgment on (A6a)el and the judgment onSemihazah and the rest of the fallen Watchers in 10:12 (quoted above). Hisphrase inb(ifiov (not in the Greek Enoch) is commonly uiia i" G"fgg! poetryfor the underworld (Homer, II. 2l:56; Od. ll:.57, 155; 20:356; Hesiod, Tfuog.729; Aeschylus, Pers. 839; SdD. Or. 4:43).

The chains, to which Jude refers, are very prominent in the tradition ofthe fall of the Watchers (cf. I Enoch l3:l; l4:5; 54:3-5; 56:l-4; 88:l;4QEnGiants" 8:14 [Milik, Enoch, 3l5l; Jub. 5:6; 2 Apoc. Bar. 56:13; Origen,C. Cck.5.52; Oxford MS. 2340 S 19, quoted Milik, Enoci, 332).

The angels' imprisonment is -gnly temporary, until the Day ofJudggg"g;twh?n- thev will be transferred to the fire of Gehenna, but the chains arecalled ttternil;

1titfios, synonymous with oit'vicry v 7, no doubt chosen forstylistic variation, cf. 4 Macc l0:I5).Jude's terminology seems here to dependon I Enoch l0:5, where (A6a)el is bound "forever" (Greek C: eis rorn oi6vas;S: eis rdv dt;va\.-until the judgment. Here "forever" must mean "for theduration of the world until the Day ofJudgment" (: the seventy generationsof 10:12). The same usage appears in l4:5 (:4QEn" l:6:15, Milik, Enoci,193, 195): "to bind you (the fallen angels) for all the days of eternity" (Ara-maic: [ND)]y 'ltlr ?t: ry); Jub. 5:10 (evidently dependent on I Enoch l0):"they were bound in the depths of the earth forever, until the day of thegreat condemnation." (Cf. also Josephus, BJ 6.434, where 6.olr,is q,ioflius,"eternal chains," refers to life imprisonment.)

With rcrfipqt{err, "kept," cf. 2 Enoch 7:2: the Watchers, imprisoned in thesecond heaven, are "reserved fior and awaiting the eternal judgment"; l8:4:they are "kept in great darkness" in the second heaven, until (18:6) theyare "punished at the great day of the Lord." The coincidences of languagewith jude are striking, but may reflect only common dependence on I Enoch(wittr "kept" as a chance coincidence), or even the influence ofJude 6 on 2Enoch. Cf. also T. Reub 5:5 (of women such as those who seduced the Watch-ers): eis rcit\onwrdaibvosrerfipqra4 "has been kept for eternal punishment."

One reason for Jude's use of rq(Eiv, "to keep," here is to make a grimplay on words with pa nlgiloorras ("did not keep") in the first part of theverse. Since the angels have not hept their position, the Lord now fte4s themchained. This is an example of the common practice of describing a sin andits judgment in corresponding terms, so that the punishment fits the crime(tn talionis; cf., e.g., I Cor 3:ff; Rev 16:6). rqpcitt seems to be one ofJude'scatchwords (cf. w l, 13, 2l). The angels contrast with faithful Christianswho should heep their position in, God's love (v 2l) and whom God heeps

safe, not for judgment but for salvation at the [,ast Day (v l). Such playson the word are not unlikely, since rnpeiv, a common word in early Christian(especiallyJohannine) vocabulary, is similarly played on elsewhere (fohn 17:6,I l-12; Rev 3:10).

7. 266ott tui f:ilttoppa, "Sodom and Gomomah," had long been regardedas the paradigm case of divine judgment (Deut 29:23; Isa l:9; l3:19;,Je123:14;49:18; f0:+0; tam 4:6; Hos ll:8; Amos 4:ll; Zeph 2:9; Sir 16:8;3Macc 2:5; Jub. 16:6,9; 20:5; 22:22;36:10; T. Ashn 7:l; Philo, @aest. in Gqn.

4:51;Josephus, 8./ 5.566; Matt l0:15; ll:24; Mark 6:ll; Luke l0:12; l7:29).oiiefi ounis rb)ters, "and the neighboring towns." The five Cities of the

54 Juon 5-10

Plain ivere Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim andZoar, but Zoar wasspared the judgment (Gen t9:2G-22).

rbv 6truw rp$trw roinqs itcnopveinooot Kd furel\ilotn& imioco oapcb iripas,"which practiced immorality in the same way as the angels and hankeredafter strange flesh." The second clause explains the first. As the angels fellbecause of their lust for women, so the Sodomites desired sexual relationswith angels. The reference is to the incident in Gen l9:4-l l. oaprcbs Cr4ro;g,"strange flesh," cannot, as many commentators and most translations assume,refer to homosexual practice, in which the flesh is not "different" (irdq$;it must mean the flesh of angels. The sin of the Sodomites (not, strictly, ofthe other towns) reached its zenith in this most extravagant of sexual aberra-tions, which would have transgressed the order of creation as shockingly asthe fallen angels did. The two cases are similarly brought together in LNapht.3:4-5.

In Jewish tradition the sin of Sodom was rarely specified as homosexualpractice (though Philo, Abr. 135-36 is a notable account of Sodomite homosex-uality, and cf. M0s.2.58). The incident with the angels is usually treated asa violation of hospitality, and the Sodomites are condemned especially fiortheir hatred of strangers (Wis lg:14-15; Josephus, Ant. l:194; Pirqe R. EI.25), their pride and selfish affiuence (Ezek 16:49-50; 3 Macc 2:5; Josephus,Ant.1.194;Philo, Abr. 134; Tg. Ps.y'. Gen 13:13; 18:20), or their sexual immo-rality in general (Jub. 16:54; 20:5; T. lni L4:6; T. Bntj. 9:l). So it is notvery likely thatJude means to accuse the false teachers of homosexual practice(Kelly), and we can hardly speculate that they desired sexual relations withangels+ven in their "dreams" (v 8).

Jude's intention in stressing here the peculiar sexual offenses of both theWatchers and the Sodomites is probably to highlight the shocking characterof the false teachers'.luiolation of God-given__-order. This is the emphasis inT. Napht. 3, which b6to,nEs-io-tffinff-i6diiion"as Jude uses here ("Sun,moon and stars do not change their order; so should you also not changethe law of God by the disorderliness of your deeds . . . that you becomenot as Sodom, which changed the order of her nature tdr4?Ilat€ ralw Qineoxo0rqsl. In the same way also the Watchers changed the order of their na-ture . . ."; and cf. the same idea of sin as violation of the created order inI Enoch 2-5). In rejecting the comihandments of God, the false teacheisiiere rebelling against the divinely established order of things as flagrantlyas the Watchers and the Sodomites had dorte. Moreover, in doing so theywere motivated, like the Waichers and the Sodomites, by sexual lust, and,like the Sodomites, insulted angels (v 8).

zz.y'a<suttot 6ei7pa, "are exhibited as an example" (cf. Josephus, B,/ 6:103:ttrilfr,tlll.a rpacena4 "an example is exhibited"). According to 3 Macc 2:5,God made the Sodomites "an example Qrapdkqpa) to those who shouldcome afterward,," &i1pameans "sample," and so here "example" in the senseofan actual instance of sinners punished (E. K. Lee, "Words denoting'Pattern'in the New Testament," NTS 8 [961-62] 167), which serves as proof ofdivine punishment fior later generations, who can still view it @.M"Wg,_pI_9s:€Itljgrryi). The idea is that the site of the cities, in antiquity located on theiStth-"6Fttre Dead Sea, a scene of sulfurous devasration, prbvided ever-present

0

Commmt 55

evidence of the reality of divine judgment. This is partly why the examplewas so often cited, and why the particular features of the iudgment of Sodomand Gomorryh (fire and b;iffi6;E-ihesmbking unfriffi19:24-25,^ 28) became *o,gk imagerJ.pf.&l-ur-e-judgnsq! (Deut 29:23; Isa34:9-10; Jer 49:17-18; Ezek 38:22; Sib. U. 3:5O4-7; Kev 14:10-ll; l9:3;20:10). So, according to Wis [0:7, the wickedness of the Cities of the Plain"is still attested by a smoking waste" (Nnn); Josephus says that "vestiges ofthe divine fire" can still be seen there (BJ 4.483\; and according to Philo,"even to this day the visible tokens of the indescribable disaster are pointedout in Syria-ruins, cinders, brimstone, smoke and murky flames which con-tinue to rise from the ground as from a fire still smoldering beneath"(Mos.2.56; cf. Abr. l4l). (It is interesting to note that according to anothertradition S-e.hqt.sp.nngt3.nd-oulfurgu,;.nqtsrg"oJ.!.!rs.Pppd-$'.3,r.gip"-tt lesultedfrom the fact ftat $1e plipo-n of the fallen angels was.lp.utg9 beneath it:-IEnoch6T:4-i3; Origett,''i. AU. b.b2.) '-. -" ' --*'

nlos akniou, "eternal fire" (the same phrase is used in 4 Macc 12:121,IQS 2:8; T. Zeb. l0:3; J Apoc. Bar, 4:16; Matt l8:8; 25:41) could be takenwith 6eiypc or with 6ir4u, but perhaps better with the latter. Jude meansthat the still burning site of the cities is a warning picture of the eternalfires of hell.

8. dpacos pbnu xs) ofttu, "Yet in the same way also these people." Thesins of the false teachers to be described in this verse correspond to thoseof their typgE"as described in the preceding three verses. But the three sinsspecified in v 8 cannot be correlated each with one of the three types: bothihe Watchers and the Sodomites defiled the flesh, all .{rr9-9 types floutedthe authority of the Lord, only the Sodomites abused ""g.iilAif

three sins,it should be noted, are attributable to the Sodomites, and it may be that interms of the sins specified in v 8, Jude's list of three types was constructedto reach a climax with the third. In one sense, as we argued above, Igg_eljq the wilderness was the most forceful analogy for Christiins and was t-hai;:fiore placed first, but in terms of specific sins it may be the Sodomites whomost resemble the false teachers. Thus while blrciors ltirtru, "yet in the sameway," relates generally to all three typei, its immediate relation to the thirdi3- appropriarcl4ftwu(i'yet") will mean: in spite of these well-known exarfiftsof divine punishment, and particularly in spite of the fact that Sodom's punish-ment is eyid-ent,"for all to see, these people commit the same sins.

bwwrclfintu, "on the strength of their dreams." This participle (lit."dreaming") relates to all three main v-9;!9, and so cannot, with &,prca pn'ivoww (i'defile the flesh"), refer to erotic dreams. Nor does it refer simplyto imagination, which is not a usual sense of Evwvnlio0ac, "to d*re-a1n " orto the slumbers of those sunk in the torpor of sin (Calvin, Plummer) or"hypnotized" (Reicke). The reference, as most modern commentators agree,is to dreams as the medium of prophetic revelation, andJude will have chosenthe tlerm since, although it can.refer to authentic revelation (Dan 2:l;Joel2:28 : Acts 2:17; and cf. I Ercch 85:l), it is used rather oftgq-ln thS"..9,7of the dreams of false prophets (iwnunlioilct, in LXX Deut l3:2, 4, 6; Isa56i10; Jer 23:25; 36:8; and cf . ivhrvn {eu6tr, "false dreams," Jer 23:32; Zechl0:2). He may also have remembered 1 Erceh 99:8: the sinners of the last

56 Junn 5-10

days "will sink into impiety because of the folly of their hearts, and theireyes will be blinded through the fear of their hearts, and through the visionsof their dreams" (tr. Knibb). (Daniel, Mus 8l tl968l 503-21, thinksivwrvtaldpevor translates D'111, "seers," which he takes to be the Essenes' namefor themselves, but one would expect u 6pdvres, "the seers," as usually inLXX.)

lhis information about the false teachers is not derived from the typesi[F5AA;d must indicate that they claimed visionary experiences in whichffi"ffceived revelation.(cf. lCor'12l-3; Col 2:18). 'fhis is the first realhint thatJude's opponents were guilty not simply of antinomian practice, butalso of antinomian teaching, for which they claimed the authority of pqophericrevelations. Since, however, it is in the next section (w ll-13) thatJudewill focus on their character as teachers and corrupters of other people, weshould probably take the reference to their visions hlre as indicating primafilythe authority they claim for their own antinomian practice, rather than theauthority they claim in teaching others to sin, though no doubt their visionsdid also serve the latter function.

Visionary revelations were common to apocalypticJudaism, primitive Chris-tianity, and contemporary paganism, and so we cannot say that ihis characteris-tic identifies the false teachers as Gnostics.

The relation of the particle ivvnvrcl6pevu to the three main verbs shouldprobably be taken to mean, not that they commitred these offenses whileexperiencing visions, but that it was. q.he revelations received in their visions

.6G-..,,,n_b.*.-

"they defile the flesh." I Enoch repeatedly refers tothど 言ヽ:盛漁淵認岬壷b露」L「」ξ堪品婚lic点雄詳1満蔦胤17えよμιatνεσθa,“ tO deflle themselves": I Eη θθλ 7:1:9:8: 10:11: 12:4: 15:3.4:c■7:1;9:8; 10:11; 12:4; 15:3,4;cF69:5;4QEnGiants", Millk, Enoch, 308; Oxford MS. 2340, quoted Milik, Enoch,331), while according to Jub. l6:5 the Sodomites "defile themselves and com-mit fornication in their flesh." Jude is therefore identifying the sin of thefalse teachers as corresponding to that of the second and ihird types, andmust intend a reference to sexual immorality (for the precise phrase od,paffi€w, "to defile the flesh," cf. Si6. Or. 2l.279; Herm. Mand. 4:l:9; Sdm.5J:2; and cf. pwiveu rd o6:pa, T. Ashn 4:4 a.l.; cf. also Apoc. Pet. A 32; El0; Acts Paul €l Thecln l0). See Commm, on v 4 (aoi\7erut).-

rcupmnra&dilero\ow, "reject the authority of the Lord." The word wpmqghere (which is the abstract noun from rupros, "Lord," meaning "lordship")has been interpreted in three ways: (l) human aurhoriries, ecilesiasticalorcivil (Calvin, Luther): but this seems out of place in a verse which is applyingthe types^ of vv 5-7 to the false teachers, and Jude shows no other lign olconcern for this issue; (2) the class of angels known as rcvptbrrpeg (Col l:16;Eph l:21; Gruk Le-gend of Ascmsion ol Isaiah 2:22; cf. 2 Enoch 20: l; and angelscalled rcbptuinApocalypseof ZephantEh, quotedClementAlex., Strom. b.ll.77)(so Werdermann, Irrlehrer,3l; Moffat0: but in that case the singular wpwrrya,is difficult (the variant reading rcupwrqrag in N and Origen is an arrempt toeliminate the difficulty), and this clause would mean the same as the next;(3) the.lordship of God (as in Did.4:l) or of Ch{g (as in Herm. Sim. 5:6:l)(so most modern commentators). In view of Jude's exegetical method of

ハ

Commmt 57

using catchword connections, yg-s.bgg!C-!!*\1glgh.W-gwi:b ruprg (v 5), and"reject the authority of the f6ftf-im;-6;Aoilai-Aquivalent to

-"deny our

only Master and LordJesus Christ" (v 4). As in v 4, the rejection will probablybe practical: the false teachers were not teaching Christological heresy, butby their libertine behavior they effectively rejected the judicial authority ofthe Lord who (according to w 5-7) judges sin.

&i{cs & p\aoSqlniotv, "slander the glorious ones." The term &itat (lit."glories") for angels is attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls (E.T13J: IQH l0:8;and perhaps llQPs"Zion 22:13) and in apocalyptic and Gnostic literature(2 Enoch 22:7, lO; Asc. Isa: 9:32; Codex Brucianus, in C. Schmidt and V.MacDermot, Tlu Boohs of Jeu and the Untitltd Taet in tlv Bruce Codax [NHS 13;Leiden: E.J. Brill, 19781 24849, 266-69; All.ogmes 50:lg; 52:14;55:17-18,34;57:25; probably also Exod l5: I I IXX). Probably they are so called becausethey participate in or embody the glory of God (cf. T. lud, 25:2; T. Lnil8:5; Heb 9;5; Philo, Spec. lzg. 1.8.45). It is true that IITIIJ can also referto illustrious men, noblemen (Isa 3:5; 23:8; Nah 3:10; Ps 149:8; lQpHab4:2;4QpNah 2:9;3:9;4:4; IQM l4:ll), but in these cases the Septuagintdoes not use &ifq".and one would expect a more idiomatic Greek renderingif this were Jude's meaning. It is in any case an unlikely meaning, especiallyin view of the parallel statement in v l0a. Clement of Alexandria alreadyinterpreted Jude's 6rifa as angels.

The false teachers "slander" (or "revile, insull")1he anggls.This is unlikelyto be riieiCly an implication of their.antinomian behavior (like rejecting theauthority of the Lord), but must mean that for some reason they spoke dispar-agingly of angels. It is important, for assessing the gharacter of the falseteaching, to notice that while Jude apparently cannot accuse the libertinesof teaching which is acplicitly blasphemous toward God or Christ, he doesaccuse them of slandering angels. This feature appears to be unique amongthe false teachings combated in the NT (except 2 Pet 2:10), a fact whichconfirms the view thatJude confronts a specific and actual case of false teach-ing, not a generalized caricature of heresy.

Some commentators have thought that the 6otc must be, or at least include,evil angels, partly on the grounds that v 9 provides.an example of respectfor the devil. But this is a misinterpretation of v 9 (see below). The term66toajs-not elsewhere used of evil angels, and seems intrinsically unsuitablefoiiuCh] uie (Sickenbergbr, "Engels,;'6'j6-29). It also seems most improba.ble that Jude should have objected so strongly (both here and in v lOa) toinsults directed at evil angels. There are no parallels to the idea that evilangels should be treated with respect (at Qpmran there were liturgies forthe cursing of Satan and his fiollowers:4Q280-82,28C87). While the angelsin question may have been regarded as evil by the false teachers, Jude musthave seen them as angels of God who deserve to be honored. This conclusionis reinforced by the close connection between this clause and the preceding.It is unthinkable thatJude should, in the same breath, have accused his oppo-nents of rejecting the authority of the Lord and slandering the forces ofSatan. Moreover, if the connection with w t7 is to be preserved, it is relevantth{W4g mlggs y9l9-.m:^s.s.gn-sgjl gf$pd.

This already eliminCtesTwo plincipitint-erpf6iatiohi'oFtlie false teachers'

58 Juon 5-10

behavior, which regard them as either underestimating the power or denyingthe existence of the supernatural forces of evil. These are: ( l) in their confidenlimmorality the false teachers are contemptuous of the demonic powers. Asfree spiriiudl-meii ihey arb victoriou.'ou.. the forces of Satan, and so ifthey are accused of falling into their power they mock them as powerlessand inferior to themselves (Werdermann, Inlehrn, SS). (2) C. K. Barrett (NfSI I [964-65] 139-40) suggests that the problem of food sacrificed to idolsis in view (cf. I Cor 8; Riv 2:14, 20J. f,iiie thE Corinthians (l"Cbi-811) thefalse teachers deny the idols any real existence, but in doing so fail to recognizethe demonic powers (l Cor 10:20) who are at work in pagan religion. But,apart from the objections above, neither of these interpretations adequatelyexplains the word pl..o;gyrcinw, "they slander."

Another interpretation (3) explains the false teaching in the light of second-century Gnosticism, in which the creation of the world was attributed todlle angels or archons. In this cise the angels are the powers of this materialworld, enemies of the transcendent God and of.the Gnostic, who revilesthem to demonstrate his victory over them (cf. Sidebottom; Bultmann, Tfuologyof tlw Nat Testamntt, tr. K. Grobel [London: SCM Press, 1952] l, 170). Thisview has the merit of explaining the angels as good angels in Jude's viewbut evil angels in his opponents'view. But it depends on a developed gnosticdualism of which there is no clear evidence in the NT, and which, if Jude'sopponents held it, we should expect him to oppose much more directly andfiorcefully. If they were really teaching that the material world was crearednot by God but by inferior powers hostile to God, is it likely thatJude shouldmerely hint at this doctrine and combat it so ineffectively? The citation in v9 is a ludicrously weak response to such teaching.

It is possible (4) that the false teachers' contempt for the angels was simply3F-egr-ession of their superiority, as spiritual men who in their visions enteredthe heavenly realms, exalted above the angels (cf. I Cor 6:3). Such visionaryexperience seems, however, to have normally promoted excessive reverenc€for angels (Col 2:18; cf. Rev 19:10; 22:8) rather than the opposite.

Much more plausible is (5) the view that it was the angels.as givers andguardians of the law of Moses whom the false reachers slandered (Chaine)-and, we may add, the angels as guardians of the created order. This viewhas the advantage of cohering with what we know for certain about the falseteachers-their antinomianism-and of making the three accusations in v 8a closely connected series. All three are their rejection of the moral orderover which the angels preside.

According toJewish belief, the law of Moses was mediated by angels (.,/zD.l:27-29;Josephus, Ant. 15.136; Acts 7:38, 53; Heb 2:2) and angels watchedover its observance (Herm. Sinr. 8:3:3). They were also, more generally, theguardians of the created order (the office from which the Watchers aposrarised,v 6), and (according'ro the most probable interpretation of I Coi ll:10) iris to this function oFthe'iiigels thit Paul refers when he recommends properconduct in the Christian assembly "because of the angels." We can well imag-ine that the false teachers, reproached for conduct which offended the angelsas the administrators of the moral order, justified themselves by proclaimingtheir liberation from bondage to these angels and speaking slighringly ofthem. They understood Christian freedom to mean freedom from moral au-

Conmmt 59

thority and therefore from the authority of the angels. No doubt they alignedthe angels with the forces of evil from whose power the Christian was deliv-ered, and accused them of imposing the Law out of envy and malice towardmen. In other words, their "slandering" of the angels was a way of detachingthe Law from God and interpreting it simply as an evil.

It is tempting to supposg._that.4t --thjgpqillt, they were taking up Paulineteaching about the Lary. For Paul, too, was able to use the traditional roleof the angels to the disadvantage of the Law (Gal 3:19), and in associatingthe angels of the Law closely with rri orotyeiarol rcfupov, "the elemental (pow-ers) of the world" (Gal 4:3, 9; cf. Col 2:8-23; Rom 8:33-39) imply a stronglynegative attitude toward them. lhe Law and its guardians belonged to theold-era of slavery from which ChfGt-trls aelivered tle Christian (sedespeciallyB.'ReickC, "The Law and This World According to Paul" JBL 70 tl95[259-76). It is quite possible that in this respect the false teachers were closerto Pauline teaching thanJude was, thoughJude's precise attitude to the Lawcannot be inferred from his brief letter. On the other hand. for Paul theLaw is "holy and just and good" (Rom 7:12), its moral content is the perma-nent divine standard of righteousness, and he firmly resisted such antinomianconclusions as the false teachers drew. If they were inspired by Paul, theyrepresent an exaggerated and seriously distorted Paulinism. Against suchantinomianism, Jude and Paul are agreed that the Christian is liberated for,not from, righteousness.

The attitude ofJude's opponents to the Law and its angels can be foundinlater Gnosticism (cf. Irenaeus, Ada. Haer. 1.23.4, on Simonianism; l-24.5,on Basilides; Tieat. Sat[ 64:l-lO; Testim. Truth 29 ll-30:17; and on gnosticlibertinism, see G. W. MacRae, "Why the Church Rejected Gnosticism," inJntish and Christian Self-Definiti,on, vol. l, ed. E. P. Sanders [London: SCMPress, 19801 128-30), often as an interpretation of Paul (F"agelx&*h*0F67). But in Gnosticism it became part of a much more thorough-going dualismTn which the creation of the material world was also attributed to the archons.Without this cosmological dualism-which Jude's opponents lack-we cannotreally speak of Gnosticism. Perhaps the antinomianism combated in Judewas one of the streams which flowed into later Gnosticism, but in itself it isnot specifically gnostic.

Finally on v 8, it is worth noticing thatJude's use of ,rev. . .6e. . .&has the effect of dividing the list of three sins between, on the one hand,oaprcn pb pniwwur ("de6le the ffesh"), and, -gn..the other hand, wponvatE dfrerotorv,Dotcs 6e fl\co QnpoDow ("reject the auffiiifr of the Lord and slanderthe glorious ones"). The first item of the list is the immoral behavior ofthe false teachers, the latter two items are their rejection of authority (ofthe Lord himself and of his ministers) on which the behavior is based. Jhedivision corresponds to that, in v 4, between rqv rott 0efr ry$n7gpra pero:rb1iwes eig doi)\yerar ("pervert the grace of our God into immorality"), andrbv pbvov leororr1v wi rcbptw itttltv'lnootr Xporbv dpvobpatot ("deny our onlyMaster and Lord Jesus Christ"). This supports our view of the significanceofdofagDe p\aog4poDoru("slander the glorious ones"). In v l0 the same twofoldcharacterization of the false teachers' error is found, this time (because vl0 takes up the end ofv 8 and v 9) in the reverse order.

9. Mrxori)\6 apxaneltq, "Michael the archangel." In Dan'I2:l and rabbinic

60 Juon 5-10

usage (b. HaC. l}b; Mmah. ll0) Michael is "the great prince" ()tt.lit 'lun;Dan. l2:l 0: 6 d,p1av 6 pelas), and in Dan 10:13 "one of the chief princes"(E'lUR''ln E''tUi] TTIN; 0: eis rcisv d,pt6wow rdn rg'ncn). The Greekap1gl7elos (in NT only here and I Thess 4:16) came i,nto use as equivalentto these expressions, usually applied either. to the four (cf. I Enoch 40) orto the seven chief angels (l Enoch ?0:7), otherwise called "the angels ofthe Presence." In either case Michael is included in the group, and oftentakes the leading role (cf. Asc. Isa.3:16: "Michael the chief of the holy angels"), 'especially as the patron of Israel (Dan l2:l; lQN,f 17; probably T. Mol l0:2)and therefore the opponent'of Satan (cf. Rev l2:7). He played these rolesin the story about the burial.of Moses to which Jude alludes. In that story,as the T. Mos. told it, Moses was the advocate for God's servant Moses in alegal dispute with Satan his accuser.

r<it 6rc&i)\C &axptt6pevq 6rc)\e7ero rert rot MorDodc^n oc';,Wras, "in debatewith the devil, disputed about the. body of Moses." The words refer to alegal dispute (&axpu61rcvos as inJoel4:2 LXX). The devil in his ancicnt roleas accuser tried to establish Moses' guilt, in order to prove him unworthyof honorable burial and to claim the body for himself. (See details of thqstory in Form/Structwe/Seltdrng section and the Excursus.)

otrcCr6\.wpev t<piow Crcve7tceitt f,llofr{iqptcs, "he did not presume to condemnhim for slander." The translation-given is justified (see the N-otc),ftom thecontext of the story to which Jude alludes. In that story it was the devilwho brought a slanderous accusation (6\aofitpra) against Moses. There isno question of Michael slandering the devil. The point is rather that Michael,who was the advocate and not the judge, did not take it on himself to rejectthe devil's accusation as malicious slander; instead he appealed to the [,ord'sjudgment.

Most commentators, however, prefer the translation: "he did not presumeto pronounce a reviling judgmenl upon him" (nsv), on the grounds that it"fits the context better" (Kelly). Jude has complained (v 8) that the falseteachers speak abusively of Moses, and so (it is said) he now conrasts theirbehavior with that of the archangel Michael himself who treated even thedevil with respect, not using abusive language against him. If this interpreta-tion has the merit of being relatively simple, it also seems an odd way forJude to have made his point. The idea that the devil should not be insultedis an unparalleled idea in.fewish and early Christian literature, a questionableprinciple in itself, and not a necessary deduction fromJude's text. It is worthasf,ing whether closer attention to the story to which Jude refers can makebetter sense of his reference to it.

In the first place, we should notice that the connection between Flrrctql,lotlow (w 8, l0) and P|rofiOrlpi.f,. (v 9) is primarily a catchword connection.It createsa verbal, rather than necessarily a strict conceptual, link between the quotationand its application to the false teachers. It is therefore not necessary to insistthat rcSiout g}.oo0npiu,s means "a slanderous judgment" on the grounds thatthe false teachers' aluse of the angels must be paralleled by Michael's notabusing the devil.

!

So far as we can tell, the principal characteristic of the false teachers wastheir claim to be free from moral authority. We have argued that they "slan-

Comment 6l

dered" the angels (v 8). as the givers and guardians of the Law. They heldthat it was only out of envy and ill-will toward men that the angels had imposedthe law of Moses. If it was pointed out to them that their behavior laid themopen to the accusation of sin by the standards of the Law, they rejectedthe accusation as founded only on the malice of the angels who gave theLaw. They were free men, not subject to the Law, and in rejecting its accusa-tions needed to appeal only to their own authority as spiritual men. Theauthority by which spiritual men will judge angels (l Cor 6:3) is sufficientto reject any accusation made against them by the angels whose mouthpiece_is the Law.

To expose the presumption in this attitude, Jude reminds his readers ofthe story, which they presumably knew, of the dispute between Michael andthe devil over the body of Moses, in which the devil charged Moses withmurder, i.e. with sin according to the standards of the Law itself. This wasa story in which an accusation in the name of the Law was made by an angelicaccuser (the devil) who was undoubtedly motivated by malice. Moreover, itwas brought against Moses himself. According to the currentJewish estimateof Moses; if anyone was entitled to reject such an accusation as slanderous,it was Moses. Yet, asJude points out, Moses'advocate Michael, the archangelhimself, did not take it on himself to condemn the devil for malicious slander.In countering the devil's accusation, he could not dismiss it as unjustified,on his own authority. He could only appeal to the Lord's judgment.

The point of contrast between the false teachers and Michael is not thatMichael treated the devil with respect, and the moral is not that we shouldbe polite even to the devil. The point of contrast is that Michael could notreject the devil's accusation on his own authority. Even though the devilwas motivated by malice and Michael recognized that his accusation was slan-derous, he could not himself dismiss the devil's case, because he was notthejudge. All he could do was ask the Lord, who alone is judge, to condemnSatan for his slander. The moral is therefore that no one is a law to himself,an autonomous moral authority. Even if it were true-as the false teachersalleged-that when the Law accused them of sin it was only the malice ofthe angels whlch prompted those accusations, they would still not be justifiedin rejecting them on their own authority. Even if they were as righteous as

Moses and had the authority of an archangel, they would not be above accusa-tions of sin under the Law. They remain subject to the moral authority ofthe Lord.

This interpretation has several advantages. It makes Jude's choice of thistext for use against his opponents more intelligible. When its reconstructedcontext in the T. Mos is brought into the picture it can be seen to fit thecase of the false teachers much better than if considered in isolation. Thisinterpretation also allowsJude to be making a much more serious point thanthe questionable idea that even the devil should not be insulted. It is not aquestion of respect for the devil as such. Jude's argument hinges on thedevil's role of acaner, bringing accusations under the Law. Not Michael'srespect for the devil himse[ but his response to the devil's accusation, isexemplary. Finally, this interpretation exempts Jude from the charge thathis own polemic against the false teachers is more insulting than Michael's

62 Juon 5-10

response to the devil. It is not a question of insulting language. Jude's treat-ment of the false teachers is in fact quite consistent with his own principle;he does not condemn them on his own authority, as though he were judgeover them, but appeals to the coming judgment of the Lord (vv. 14-15).

'Enntpilootowrcitptos, "May the Lord rebuke you!" The words were alreadyquoted from Zech 3:2 (LXX: 'Etrrtpipat rcitptos iv oci,6rra;po}e, "the Lord rebukeyou, O devil") in the T. Mos. (see Excursus). As Kee has shown, itrvtpfui,as a translation of ''l !), frequently has a stronger sense than "reprimand."These words "carry the connotation of divine conflict with the hostile powers,the outcome of which is the urrerance of the powerful word by which thedemonic forces are brought under control" (Kee, NTS 14 [1968] 238): hencethey are used for God's eschatological subjugation of his enemies (".g. 2Apoc. Bar. 2l:23; Asc. Isa. 4:18) and in the accounts ofJesus' exorcisms (Markl:25 etc.). Something of this sense is appropriate in Zech 3:2 and the LMos., though there is no eschatological reference and we must rememberthe context of legal dispute in both cases. Satan's power over men (overJoshua and his people in Zech 3:2, over the body of Moses in the T. Mos.)rests on his ability to sustain accusations against them. Thus when the angel(reading illnr JN)n in Zech 3:2) asks God to "rebuke" Satan, he asks hlmto dismiss satan's accusation and thereby assert his authority over satan (cf,Kee, NIS 14 il9681 239).

ForJude, the point of the words is their appeal to God ro asserr fril authorityover satan. our interpretation ofJude's iniention here (see above) receivessome support from b. Qjdd. 31ru (Str-B l, 140), which evidently illustrateslater rabbinic use of the words, "May the Lord rebuke you." This story tellshow Pelimo used to say every day, "An arrow in Satan's eyes!", i.e. a defiantcurse. One day, however, Satan got the better of him, and then asked himwhy he always cursed him in these terms. Pelimo asked Satan what wordshe ogglt to use in order to repel him. Satan replied, "You should say, 'TheMerciful rebuke satan!' " The contrast is apparently between Pelimo's habitualcurse, which was a defiant expression of his own ability to overcome Satan,and the words quoted from Zech 3:2, which are an appeal to God to overcomeSatan. Probably further evidence of this kind of understanding of the wordsfrom Zech 3:2 inJudaism is provided by Ad,amand Eae 39:l,ln which Sethsilences the Serpent's accusations agairrst Eve with the words, "God the Lordrevile thee" (tr. in APOT).

ln Zech 3:2 and the Z Mos. rcisptos, of course, referred to God, but it isprobable that Jude interpreted the term as a reference to Jesus (see Commmto_n v 5)_. Jesus had the authority to rebuke Saran, both during his ministry(Mark 8:33) and at the Last Day (Asc. Isa.4:18).

10. o8ra 6e 6oa piv obrc dfuou Fltao|qpolow, "Bur these people slanderwhatever they do not understand." Having illustrated the pioper responseto accusations under the Law, Jude resumes the direct attack on thC falseteachers. Their attitude to the angelic guardians of the Law shows that theyhave no real understanding of the actual role of the angels as rhe ministeriof the divin-e r.awgiver and Judge. The clause is probably direct polemicagainst- the false teachers' claims to understanding, for no doubt it was pre-cisely the heavenly world of the angels into which, like the apocalyptic lnd

Explanation 63

gnostic visionaries, they had ascended in their visions and into which theyilaimed special insight. At the same time, the Sodomites' treatment of theangels may still be inJude's mind, for T. Ashn 7:l speaks of "Sodom whichknew not (ilvhpe) the angels of the Lord, and perished for ever."

ina k flwrcdx dx rd, d)tota lQa intoravr@t, "while by the things they dounderstand, instinctively, like unreasoning animals." This clause correspondsto oapxa piv ptaivowur ("defile the flesh") in v 8, with 0uorrcirs, "instinctively,"correspondingto oa,6a. "flesh," and no doubt refers to the sexual indulgenceof the false teachers. This is what they do understand-on the level of merelyinstinctual knowledge. Though they claim to be guided by special spiritualinsight gained in heavenly revelations, they are in fact following the sexualinstincts which they share with the animals.

&\qa l4u is a standard phrase (Wis ll:15; 4 Macc 14:14, 18;Josephus,C. Apion. 2.2131' Ant. 1O.262) for the animals as contrasted with human rational-ity. (Cf. Xenophon, Cyropaed^ 2.3.9, quoted by Mayor and Windisch, for asimilar comparison between what men and beasts know lirwranar] by instinct[@uoer].) For the comparison of sin with the behavior of animals, cf. 4 Ezra8:29-30.

Cv roinus @eipvtot ("they are destroyed"): not that by their sexual indul-gence they contract fatal diseases, but that they incurjudgment, as Israel inthe wilderness and the Cities of the Plain were destroyed (cf. I Cor 3:171.(The idea which 2 Pet 2:12 introduces, that destruction is the natural fateof unreasoning animals, was probably not inJude's mind.)

F.xplanation

To help his readers resist the influence of the false teachers, Jude remindsthem thai their initial instruction by the apostles at their conversion andbaptism included teaching about God's judgment on disbelief and disobedi'ence, and specific warnings of false teachers who would incur this judgment.

To illustrate this, he takes up first a well-known traditional list of OTexamples of divine judgment: the extermination of the faithless wildernessgeneiation of Israel after the Exodus, the punishment of the angels whoibandoned their heavenly position for the sake of illicit relations with mortalwomen, and the destruction of the Cities of the Plain. For Jude, these arenot just warning examples from the past, but also types. In common withJewish apocalyptic and early Christian writers generally, he sees the greatacts of God in the salvation-history of the past as prefiguring the eschatologicalevents. The examples he gives are theiefore typological prophecies of theeschatological judgment at the Parousia which threatens apostate Christiansin these last days.

The first of the three types, whose significanceJude highlights by placingit first out of chronological order, makes especially clear that the Lord's ownpeople, who have experienced his salvation, are not therefore less but morein danger of judgment if they repudiate his lordship. The other two typesare probably cited also for the outrageous extremes of immorality they illus'trate, including the Sodomites' insult to the angels.

In v 8 Jude applies the three types to the false teachers, instancing sins

64 Juon 5-10

which correspond to the types and which therefore put them under threatof divine judgment corresponding to that of the types. Like the Watchersand the Sodomites, the false teachers indulge in sexual immorality. Uke allthree types, they reject the [,ord's authority by repudiating his command-ments, and like the Sodomites they insult the angels. The last accusationprobably means that they justi$ their transgression of the t aw by denigratingthe angels as its authors and guardians. Thus all three sins are aspects oftheir antinomianism. In addition, all three rest, for their pretended religiousauthority, on visionary revelations, which Jude probably intends, by the useof the word "dreaming," to condemn as false prophecy.

In w 9-l0aJude takes up, fior further treatment, the charge of slanderingangels. The presumptuousness involved in the false teachers'attitude to theangels of the [.aw is highlighted by comparison with the behavior of thearchangel Michael in the story about the burial of Moses, which Jude andhis readers knew from the T. Mos. The devil, in his traditional role of maliciousaccuser, had accused Moses of murder. Michael, disputing with the devil asadvocate for Moses, knew the accusation to be slander, but did not presumeto condemn the devil for his slander. Instead he referred the matter to thedivine Judge who alone has the authority to rule out an accusation broughtunder the Law. Michael's behavior contrasts with that of the false teacherswhen they reject the accusations which the angels, as spokesmen for the[,aw, bring against them. They do so because they claim to be above allsuch accusations, subject to no moral authority. In fact, even if they hadthe status of Moses or Michael, they would remain subject to the divine Law-giver andJudge. Given the context of the allusion, whichJude's readers knew,v 9 effectively exposes the spiritual conceit of the false teachers, whose attitudeto the angels reveals a resistance to moral authority which will not even besubject to God.

In slandering the angels (v l0) they show how little they actually understandthe heavenly world which they purport to explore in their visions. If theyreally understood the angelic world, they would recognize the angels as theministers and messengers of God, but like the Sodomites they fail to dothis. On the other hand, their behavior demonstrates that what they under-stand only too well is how to follow their sexual drives. In doing so, thesepeople who claim to be spiritual men, superior to the angels, prove themselvesto be living only on the subhuman level of the beasts.

The section concludes, most effectively, with the final respect in whichthe three types corespond to their antitypes, the false teachers. This is thereal point of the whole comparison. Since the false teachers resemble thetypes in their sins, they will also resemble the types in their destruction.

Excursus: The Background and Source

0/Jaル 9

Although the source ofJude's story of the dispute over the body of Moses is notextant, a wealth of material is available from which it should be possible to reconstnrctthe story whichJude knew. Much of this material has been assembled before (Charles,Assumption, l0Gl0;James, Apouypha,42-51; Denis, Fragmenta,6S-€,T), but it has notbeen subjected to the kind of critical investigation which is necessary if it is to providereliable access to the content ofJude's source.

The discovery of 4C['Amram has recently stimulated some fresh discussion of thebackground toJude I (Milik, RB 79 [972] 77-97: Berger,,/S/ 4 tl973l l-18), andit has become clear that the reconstructioh of Jude's source must take account ofthe general background which is provided by other comparable stories. Awarenessof the tradition in which Jude's story belongs will aid investigation of the evidencefor the story itself. We shall therefore begin by discussing this general backgroundbefore turning to the extant sources which may preserae the actual storyJude knew.

l. GeNrnaL Becxcnouno

Evidently the words of Michael, quoted in Jude's source, derive from Zech 3:2,The vision in Zech 3:l-5 is a courtroom scene in which the accusing angel, "theadversary" (lul0n), and the angel ofthe Lord confront each other in a legal disputein which the defendant is the high priestJoshua. EvidentlyJoshua's guilt, as representa-tive of Israel, has placed him in the power of Satan his accuser. When the angel ofthe Lord (Jude's source must have read illil' JN?n "the angel of the Lord" for MTilli'l' "Lord" in Zech 3:2), as the Lord's representative, silences Satan with the words,"May the Lord rebuke you, Satan," he dismisses Satan's case againstJoshua. As Keeobserves (NfS 14 tl968l 237), the translation "rebuke" is rather weak:'llll heredenotes more than a reprimand. It refers to God's commanding word which assertshis authority over Satan, delivering Joshua and his people from Satan's power (cf.Pss 9:5; 68:30; Isa 17:13; Mal 3:ll; and Kee's discussion of 'llll: NTS 14 [1968]235-38).

The idea of a contest between Satan and the angel of the Lord was later appliedtootherepisodesinthehistoryoflsrael..,/u6. l7:15-18:l6tellsthestoryofthesacrificeof Isaac within the framewor( of a heavEnlf trial of Abraham (cf. Job l-2), in whichthe prince of the Mastema (: Satan) again appears as accuser, arguing that Abraham'sfaithfulness should be tested. When Abraham proves faithful, it is the angel of thepresence who, on God's behalf, intervenes to save Isaac (cf. Gen 22:ll-12), while"the prince of the Mastema was put to shame" (r[zD. 18:12). (With this account comParethe tradition preserved in Yal. Rub.43:3, quoted by Chaine,3ll: "When Isaac wasbound, there was a debate-between Michael and Satan. Michael brought a ram tofree Isaac, but Satan wanted to keep him offso that Isaac should be sacrificed.")

The book ofJubilees makes further use of the theme of the contest between Satanand the angiel, especially in chap 48, to illuminate the career of Moses and the Exodus.According to 48:2-3, it was the prince of the Mastema (not the Lord, as in Gen4:24) who tried to kill Moses, and it was the angel of the presence who deliveredMoses from his power (48:5). Though Satan's motivation here plainly derives fromhis enmity toward God and God's people (48:4), it may be that the author still intendshim to be seen in the role of accuser: it was Moses' failure to circumcise his son(Gen 4:25) which put him into Satan's power.

66 ExcuRSUS

Then the pHnce ofthc Mastema oppOsed Moses in his confrontation with Pharaoh,and aided the Egyptian magicians against him (48:9),while the angels ofthe presence

assisted Moses by destroying thenl(48:11).ThiS Particular confrontation is recalled

also by the Damascus Rule(CD 5:17-18):``MOSes and Aaron arose by the hand ofthe Prince oflights and Satan in his cunning raised up JanneS and his brother"(tr.

Vermes).HoWever,according toJubilees,the宙 ctory over the magicians did not yetresult in the“ shaming"ofSatan(48:12)becauSC he took further action:the Egyptians'pursuit of lsrael“ 8:12,1(卜 17).The angels then del市 ered lsrael from him at theRed Sea(48:13).Again it should be noticed thatin this account Satan's power against

nl::wttf:∬漁:寵Υ:y=農i:響響器淵計淵《造翼e盤

認t写

accusation(cn also Rev 12:10)。

ボ鷲爾鸞縦鍛織糧繋:期灘齢露欄 1

撻電掛選淵犠紺為織榊詰期議鋼1鷺雌嚇 鯨葛鮮1弊椰柵 椰 鰤 lHiI上CAmram(Or Testament of《 Amram),in which Moses'father CAmram relates a dream

》I批i∫驚襴窺鷺:冊割F瀞艇1脚i丼欄

問轟鵬 暴椰 躙 綴椰椰灘

The Lost Ending of the Testammt of Moses 67

recurrence of the idea of dispute (among Berger's texts, note especially: Origen,Hom. 352 supr Abraltae saluU ei interitu disceptantes, "debating about the salvation anddeath of Abiaham"; Syriac Apoc. Paut ll;'ia dispute between those good angels andthose bad angels") derives fiom the common dependence on the general tradition,rather than from a dependence byJude 9 on the specific tradition identified by Berger.

II. Tnu Losr ENpINc oF TI{E TnsreunNr oF MosEs

There is widespread agreement that Jude's source in v 9 was the lost ending ofthe work preservCd for ul only in L,atin translation, in the incomplete and ratherpoor text of a sixth-century manuscript in Milan, a work sometimes known as theAs. Mos,, but more appropriately known as the T. Mos. This work, of Palestinianorigin, has commonly Seen dated at the beginning of the first century A.D', thoughsome have argued for its origin in the Maccabean period, with some revision in theearly first ceniury e.o. It seeirs likely thatJude in v 16 made use of that part of-thewori< which is now extant (see Comment on v 16), and may therefore have used itslost ending in v 9. Moreover, although some have argued that Jude's story of thedispute over Moses' body seems to belong to a different kind of literature from whatwe-have of the ?1 Mos.,-it could be argutd, from our text of the Testanat't, that itmust have ended with a story of Moses' death and burial, since (l) testaments usuallyend with an account of the'subject's death and burial (T. 12 Patr., T' Abr', T. Job),and (2) T. Mos. I l:6-8 raises the question of Moses' burial and seems to require anaccount ofhis burial in an unknown grave.

Although the ending of the T. Mos. is no longer extant, a number of Christiansources r.i* to have pieserved the substance of thi story it contained. These requiredetailed discussion in turn:

A. Palau HistoritaOf tle death of Moses. And Moses said toJesus the son of N-ave, "[rt^us go.uP

into-the mount;in." And when they had gone up, Moses saw the land of promise,and he said toJesus, "Go down to the people and tell them that-Moses is dead."And Jesus werri down to rhe people, but Moses came to the end of his life. AndSamiel (>cpouril) tried to brihg his body (otcbv.a,W) down to the people, so- thatthey mighr make him (iQ a go-d (ileorutpGnv ainint, u.l. curd). But Michael thechiif ca[tain (dpx:67ryrwq) -by the command of God came to take him (iQ andremoveloworeil,cl) him (it), and Samuel resisted (ht0ioraro) him, and they fougtrt(&epqxowo). So the chief captain was angry and rebuked him, saying, "May theLord rebuke you, devilt" (irirtltg,oe r0posi6rtipoLe). And so the adversary (itvrt-tcetlr

a{s) was defeated and took flight, but the archangel Michael regrovgd the body(oxitvupa) of Moses to the plaie where he was cohmairded by Christ our God,and no one saw the burial-place (or, burial: rc,Qffi of Moses.(Greek text in A. Vassiliev,- Awcd.ota Graeco-Byzantinc [Moscow: Imperial UniversityPress, 18931 257-58. Thrc Pal.oza is a Byzantine collection of biblical legends. Forits value in preserving old Jewish traditions, see D. Flusser, "Palaea Historica:An Unknown Source of Biblical lrgends," SdHis 22 [1971] 48-79.)

This text is almost certainly independent of Jude 9: there is a striling lack ofcoincidence in vocabulary (oniy Dragl)toS and ripXdffetros), except,in the words ofrebuke, but even here thb words are not quoted from Jude (who has ifitrtttioat' ouxire).If the author drew these words from Jude 9, he also missed Ju-de's point'which ir that Michael himself did no, rebuke the devil, but appealed to the Lord torebuke him.

The following features of the text should be noted:

68 Excunsus

(l) The death of Moses raises no problem for this tradition. There is no trace ofthat resistance to the idea that Moses should have to submit to the fate of sinfulmen, which is found in so many Jewish traditions about the death of Moses (seeespecially Loewenstamm, "Death of Moses"). There is no trace of the idea of thebodily assumption of Moses which was current in some circles as early as the firstcentury-A.D. (reflected, though countered, in the accounts of Moses'death inJosephus,Ant. 4.326, and Bib. Ant. 19:16:' see Haacker and Schlifer, "Traditionen," ISS-S6;Loewenstamm, "Death," 197-98; and rabbinic passages in Str-B l, 7b4-bb). Nor isth_ere any trace of the idea of Moses' own reluctlnce [o die, and of the unwillingnessof the angels and the inability of the angel of death to receive his soul, which wereelaborated in the rabbinic traditions (sipre Deut. 30b; Deut. Rab. ll lo; Midr. peliratMoie). There is not even any question oi the ascension of Moses' soul to heaven. Inthis account the death of Moses is straightforwardly related, and the interest focuseson the question of the burial of his corpse. This is precisely what we should expectin a conclusion to the extant text of the ?. Mos., in which Moses looks forward tohis death in a matter-of-facr way, accepring ir without argument (l:15; 10:12, 14)and without implying that there would be anyrhing remarkable about it. (fhe wordreceptione (10:12), which may mean "assumption," has generally been regarded as aloss; see section (III) below.) The unique dignity of Mbses leads Joshui ro expect,not a unique manner of dearh for Moses, but a unique form of burial ( I l:5-8). Burialby the archangel Michael in an unknown grave fulfills this expectarion.

(2) The account begins withJoshua accompanying Moses up the mountain, beforeMoses sends him down again. This feature, which does not derive from the biblicaltext, is rare in the tradirions of Moses'dearh (but cf.Josephus, Ant. 4.326).It would,however, have followed on well from the text of th; Te;tumnr of Mosl,t as we knowit. There it isJoshua whom Moses addresses throughout the book, who is commissionedto succeed Moses (10:15), who responds with consternation to the news that Mosesmust die (ll) and has to be reassured by Moses (12).

(3) The name xcpouri),, i.e., Samma)el, for che devil is known from rhe Asc. Isa.(where in l:8 he is identified with Malkira, i.e. the Melkireia( of 4eAmram, and inI l:4 I with satan) and from rabbinic sources ("the chief of all the saians," Dnt. Rab.ll:10). In rabbinic traditions of Moses'death he appears as the angel of death, com-m_a1ded by God to take Moses' soul but unable to-do so. A remnint of his disputewith Michael survives in these traditions, but transposed from the context of Moses'burial to that of his death (Midrash pelirat Moie ll; Dail. Ra6. ll:10).

(4) The removal of Moses' body (wvoror)rerv must here mean "remove," despitethe rlity of this meaning)-to be buried elsewhere-corresponds to the tradiiionfguld i.n Ts et.-[. r|^eut 34:6 ayd stpe Deut. 955, in which G-od or his angels carry!E Ugaf four miles from the place oT his death to bury it (see Haack.r

"nd Schefei,

"Traditionen," l6H6). This feature is intended to explain Deur 34:6.(5) Unlike the rabbinic traditions of Moses' burial, however, this account ascribes

the burial not to God himself but to Michael, carrying out God's cornmand. It istlRical of the Jewish literature of the intertestamental piriod to inroduce angels asGod's agents, in actions which the OT attributes directly to God. In relation to f,loses'burial (by God, according to Deut 34:6 MT) the LXX ("they buried") may alreadyintend to introduce angelic- agents. The later rabbinic traditions, however, i"y g.."tstress on the fact that God himself ("none other than God," according to m.-so1cl:9) buried Moses, in order to enhance the unique dignity of Moses (fraacker andSchiifer, "Traditionen," 165). Our text probably pieservis a'tradition which antedatesthat tendency.

(6) our texr is alone in suggesting rhar saaan rried to take Moses' body to thepeople for them to worship it, but the idea that Moses' grave was unknown so that

動 ,IIosι Eη″昭 OJル raS′α物 ′0/Mθ∫

“ 69

idolatrOus use shOuld nOt be made Ofit is a widespread feature of the traditiOns Of

絶淵S脇

槻」`殿

1島':器

11躍啜朧鰍

鷲鸞

鳳ザ常嘘曲£認11乳∬蹴ぽ::

70 Excunsus

accusation, as they are in Zech 3: l-2. tt is an impressive indication of the complemen-tary value of the divergent accounts A and B, that A preserves the archangel's wortlswithout the accusation-, whereas B preserves the accusation without the archangel's

reply. The accusation from B and the archangel's reply,from A-together-form a coherentruin'."ty of the dispute. We may therefori be cbnfident that the devil's _cfrlg_e 9fmurder'against Moses formed part of the lost ending of the T. Mos. which Juderead.-

On the other hand, the other new feature in B-the thunder and lightning-look"like a late embellishment.

C. Psailo-Oeatnmitts, In lud. 9- It il said that tvtichall the archangel served the burial of Moses- For the devil

,no"fJ "o,

accept this, but broughi an accusation because of the murder of the

ngypii"t" r" thl grounds that Ml-oses was guilty of it, and because of this would

nii'allow him to-receive honorable buriaf (Gieek text in-Dcnis, Fragntnta, 67'

The translation "on the grounds that Moses was guilty of iC' follows the emendation

of o-oO to airiou prrpde Uy e. Hitg."f._td, "Die Pialmen Salomo's und die Him-

melfahrt aes Uoses,'8,;-ifr ZZ tl8:681 299; the text as it stands is meaningless')

D. Fron Cramer's CabtwWhenMosesaiedonthemountain,Michaelwassenttoremove(perq'0ipQv).

the'b;lt. Wiin tt e deuit slandered Moses (rcrri ro0 Mouod<,r p\w$11nuwes) and

;;;.1;#J him a murderer because he smotethe E_gyptian, the angel, not tolerating

the slander "S"i"rt

hi*, tuid a; th. devil, "May doi rebuke youl" (drrtgriou ou

6 oeos). (Greek text ;; A;;ii,-cot^*, 163, lines 18-22; and in Denis' Fragmm'tn'

67; Charles, AswmPlion, 109-10')

several scholia and anonymous comments in the catmoz are very similar to c and

D (see Denis, FragwnA di,-i"a texts M-and N below)' The points of contact with

A ;;; S sttouta U". "oii.ia, D agrees with A that Michael's mission was to remove

;il;;Jy (i;, U"ri"f .G*ft.re);"Uotn lgree^with B on the accusadon. It is also of

interest, for the...g.il';J;;'glt-tt",B..Lrs to the devil's accusation as ql'oopwi's

against Moses.'" $;il;iconflict between C and A is the question of the devil's motivation' In

A he wishes to present the body -to

the people'for use.as an.idol' whereas in C he

simply wishes ,o pr.n.r,i-tuto..J f.o* r&eiJing the unique dignity of burial by an

;;;'#g;i; ".g"i"i th"i, ", " -,,d.'"',-Moses is unworthy of this' The two motives

are not necessanry #fi;tbi;,G; if . .noi.. must bi made_between them, the

version in c should u. pi..r.r..a ", -orr otiginal, since it belones to the devil's

proper role as ".*r., ii a legal dispute' rnl"ttii"t in A' althoilgh::: :t^.|1::

seen, it draws on "n

oia ioai,io'n, ."y b. alater introduction into the story, requlred

bv the fact that n ft"riotiii'hi-Liii. a.uit:i-icctuin. role. On-the other hand' it is

if*iur. in"ilh;;ffi;;i sio'ry .o.,t"i'ed both motiv-es of the devil' each fulfilling a

fic;;; iil;; f;#';;;;iilil;;;;; in c serves the storv's intention by

showing that Moses ;;;;e-,h; ;iq"t.h;;ot "f L"'i"t !r lttt archangel' while

the motive in e servei-t'J;pl"t" *hy ilti.nult removed the body and buried it in a

senet grave t". " pr..",rii.!:;?d.id;i;ffi; reverence for the bodv)' Both these

general themes are to be fourid in the Jewish traditions about the death of Moses'

;ill. i.6il;lorriUi" G"i-the cor,.l,r.ilor, ol the T. Mos. incorporated both.

E. Snenr of AntiwhHere [in Deut 34] by means of a bodily image God tT gjtl a mystery which

occurs.orr..-irrgiiti."j""'ii;;te' the'souti.p"ot.t from the body' after its

The Lost Ending of tlw Testament of Moses 7l

departure hence both good angelic powers and a very evil band of demons cometo meet it, so that according to the quality of the deeds, evil and good, which ithas done, either one group or the other may carry it off to the appiopriate place,to be guarded until the last day, when we shall all be presented for judgment,and led away either to eternal life or to the unending flame of 6re. God, wishingto show this also to the children of Israel by means of a certain bodily image,ordained that at the burial of Moses, at the rime of rhe dressing of the body andits customary depositing in the earth, there should appear before their eyes theevil demon as it were resisting and opposing, and that Michael, a good angel,should encounter and repel him, and should not rebuke him on his own aurhority,but retire from passing judgment against him in favor of the Lord of all, andsay, "May the Lord rebuke you!", in order that by means of these things thosewho are being instructed might learn that there is a conflict over our souls aftertheir departure hence and that it is necessary to prepare oneself by means ofgood deeds in order to secure the angels as allies, when the demons are gibberingjealously and bitterly against us. And when this divine image had appeared beforetheir eyes, it seems that then some cloud or shining of light came upon that place,obscuring it and walling it off from the onlookers, so that they might nor knowhis grave. Therefore also the holy Scripture says in Deureronomy, "And Mosesthe servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab by the word of the Lord.And they buried him in the land of Moab near the house of Phogor. And noonesaw his death (releurt1l (or, his grave Faflivl) until this day." [Deut 34:5-6]. . .These things, it is said, are found in an apocryphal book which contains the moredetailed account (\erroriput afurnqou) of the genesis or creation. (Greek text inCramer, Catmae, 16l,line 2Gt62, line l7; and partly in M. R.James, TlwTatammtof Abrahan [TextsS 2/2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1892] 17, whosetext includes the last sentence, not in Cramer. With this text, cf. also Cramer,Calmae, 16l, lines 9-18, attributed to Severus in James, Apocrypha, 46; and thefurther quotations from Severus in Cramer, Calmac, 162, lines 17-30; 162, line3l-163, line 10.)

This passage contains a number of new features:(l) The explicit statement that Michael, in saying, "May the Lord rebuke you!",

was refraining from giving ajudgment on his own authority, looks as though it dependson Jude'3 interpretation of his source in Jude 9, rather than on the source itself. Itwas Jude's use of the source, rather than the source's own interest, which requiredthis point to be made explicit.

(2) In explaining that the contest between Michael and the devil was shown tothe people to teach them what happens to the soul at death, Severus makes contactwith the tradition represented by the texts which Berger has assembled (see sectionI above). [t is, however, a somewhat unsatisfactory use of the story of the contest,which was over Moses' body, not his soul, and must be regarded as a secondary,homiletical adaptation of the story.

(3) The idea of the dazzling cloud which prevented the onlookers from seeingwhere Moses was buried is found in other accounts (Josephus, AnL 4.t26; MtmarMarqah 5:3 [tr.J. Macdonald, vol. 2 (BZAW 84; Berlin: Tiipelmann, 1963) 202]; quota-tion from "an apocryphal and mystical codex" in a calena, quoted Charles, Assumplion,xlviii). It was evidently a fairly widespread tradition, but in these other accounts thecloud hides Moses from view already before he dies. In Severus' source it has beentransposed to follow the dispute between Michael and the devil, since the latter hasbecome a public spectacle. The transposition is evident in the quotation from Deut34:5-6, which is guoted in a form designed to show that no one saw Moses die (re)\eur?v), but then is glossed according to the usual form of the text, to convey the sense

72 Excunsus

that no one saw his burial or grave (ro&i1). This is a further indication that theexhibition of the dispute over the body to the peoPle is a secondary feature of thetradition. Whether the luminous cloud originally played any part in the narrative ofMoses'death in the T. Mos. it is impossible to tell.

(4) As James points ouJ (Apoqplw, 46) Severus apparently ascribes his accountto the book of Jubilzes (also known 4s l*ptogaresis). This must be a mistake, but Severusseems to have had his information at second-hand, at best. An apocryphon containingan account of Moses' death could easily have been regarded as a sequel to./uD. andattached to it: this may be the cause of the error. But what was this apocryphon?Plainly not the T. Mos., but probably a later work which took from the ?. Mos. thestory of the contest between Michael and the devil, but adapted it to illustrate thegeneral principle of the contest for the soul at death. If the explanation that Michaelrefrained from passing judgment on the devil on his own authority is to be attributedto Severus' source, rather than to Severus himself, then the apocryphon was perhapsa Christian work acquainted with Jude 9. In any case, Severus provides us with noreliable information about the source which Jude himself used.

F. Frotn Cramer's CabnaMichael, since he lacked the authority, did not bring upon him (the devil) the

punishment appropriate to blasphemy (rgpls.ofil,tias), but left him to thejudgmentof his Master. For when he brought Moses onto the mountain where the Lordwas transfigured, then the devil said to Michael, "God lied in bringing Mosesinto the land which he swore he should not enter." (Greek text in Cramer, Calmu,16l, lines,l-8.)

This text is clearly a Christian attempt to explain Jude 9 without any knowledge ofits Jewish background. Assuming that the devil's QlraofiUra, mentioned in Jude 9,was blasphemy againsl God, the writer tried to explain what such blasphemy, in connec-tion with a dispute over the body of Moses, might have been. Not realizing thatJude 9 refers to the time of Moses' burial, he placed the dispute at the time of thetransfiguration ofJesus, when Moses'appearance on the mountain apparently contra-dicted God's declaration that Moses should not enter the promised land.

AlthoughJames (Apooyplw, 47481, relying on text N below, supposed these wordsof the devil to come from the conclusion of the T. Mos., they cannot do so, because(a) they are incomprehensible apart from the Christian story of the transfigurationofJesus, and (b) they do not constitute an accusation agairct Mosas, but an accusationagaiut Go4 which is out of keeping with the devil's role in the story of the disputeat the burial of Moses.

This concludes the review of texts which could provide reliable evidence of thestory of the dispute over Moses' body as Jude knew it, i.e. in the form in which itwas told in the lost ending of the T. Mos. (Other texts which have been thought toprovide.such evidence, but in fact probably reflect another version of the story, willbe discussed in section III below.) Discounting texts E and F (which have been shownnot to be reliable evidence of the storyJude knew), and secondary features ofothertexts (the physical combat in A, the thunder and lightning in B), we may reconstructthe outline of the story as follows:

Joshua accompanied Moses up Mount Nebo, where God showed Moses theland of promise. Moses then sent Joshua back to the people to inform them ofMoses' death, and Moses died. God sent the archangel Michael to remove the

The Assunption of Moses 73

body of Moses to another place and bury it there, but Samma)el, the devil, opposedhim, disputing Moses' right to honorable burial. The text may also have said thathe wished to take the body to the people for them to make it an object of worship.Michael and the devil therefore engaged in a dispute over the body. The devilbrought against Moses a charge of murder, because he smote the Egyptian andhid his body in the sand. But thls accusation was no better than slander (Bltaofitpia)against Moses, and Michael, not tolerating the slander, said to the devil, "Maytlie Lord rebuke you, devil!" At that the devil took flight, and Michael removedthe body to the place commanded by God, where he buried it with his own hands.Thus no one saw the burial of Moses,

Evidently the intention of the story was primarily to dramatize the issue of Moses'supreme worthiness in God's sight. In spite of the apparent blemishes on his record,to-be found in the biblical account and brought in evidence against him by Satan'Moses was vindicated as worthy of the unique honor of burial by God's archangel.(fhat the account of Moses'killing the Egyptian in Exod 2:12 was something of aproblem toJewish exegetes can be seen fromJosephus, Ant. 2.254, where the explana-iion of Moies' flight hom Egypr omirs to menrion rhis incident, and from Philo,Mos. 1.44, whichjustifies Moses'action.) If the motif of Satan's desire to make thebody an idol is original, the story had the secondary function of explaining why Moseswas buried in a secret grave (Deut 34:6).

III. Tns Assuugnon oF MosEs

Before the conclusion reached in section II can be allowed to stand, it is necessary

to consider the evidence of several of the Fathers who refer to a work called the ls.Mos. as supptying the source of Jude 9 and ascribe to that work details of a disputebetween Miinaefand the devil which seems to diverge from the story given in thetexts in section II. It will be convenient to list all the relevant texts before discussingthem.

G. Cbncnl af Alaondria, Fragm. in Ep. Jun.(On Judi 9:) This corroborateJ the Assumption of Moses (lssumptionem Moysi).(latin text in Charles, Assumplion, 107.'1

H. Didynus tlu Blind, in ep. Jud. man.They take exception to ihe present epistle and object to the.Assumption of Mos€s(tvloyseos Assumptioni), on acaount of ihat place where the archangel's word to thedevil concerning the body of Moses is indicated. (Latin text in Charles, Assunption,

108.)

l. Oign, De hinr. 3:2:IIn benesis the serpent is described as having deceived Eve, and with regard tothis, in the Ascension of Moses (in Adscensione Mosis) (a book which the apostle

Jude mentions in his epistle), Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil aboutttre body of Moses, says that the serpent, inspired by the devil, was the cause ofthe transgression of Adam and Eve. (Latin text in Charles, Assumption, 108-)

J. Cela.siru Cyziceuu, Hist. Eccl. 2. 17.17as ii is writren in the book of the Assumption of Moses (du 0i0lc rivakigec"rs

Moodc,rS), Moses having summonedJesus the son of Nave and disputing with-him,said, "And God foresaw me belore the foundation of the world to be the mediatorof his covenant." (Greek and L,atin texts in Denis, Fragzlenta, 63-)

74 Excunsus

K. Gelasiw Cyzictnul Hist. Eccl. 2.21.7And in the book of the Assumption of Moses, Michael the archangel, disputing(6tcl'eTogeros) with the devil, says, "For from his holy spirit we werC all created.;And again he says, "From the face of God his Spirit wenr forrh, and the worldwas made." (Greek text in Denis, Fragzlenta, 64)

L. From Cramer's CalenaFor the devil resisted (dvrdiTg); wishing to deceive, (saying) "The body is mine,for I am the Master of matter," and was answered by the-angel, "May the Lordrebuke you," that is, the Lord of the spirits of all flesh. (Grelk text in Cramer,Catenae, 160line 29-16l line l.)

M. A scholion on Judc 9when Moses died on the mountain, the archangel Michael was sent to removeQrcra1rpav) the body. But the devil resisted (braX4, wishing to deceive, saying,"The body is mine, for I am the Masrer of matrer," or sland-ring (g\opQnpobwosxlarci) t[9 holy man, because he smore the Egyptian, and proclaiming him a mur-derer. The angel, not tolerating the slandei against the holy man, said to thedevil,-"May God rebuke you!" (Greek rext in Denis, Fragmmla,6T; Charles, Assump-,ion, I10.)

N. A scholion onJudz 9For the devil resisted (dvreiyev) wishing to deceive, saying, "The body is mine,for I am the Master of matter," and was answered by, ';May the Lord rebukeyou," that is, the Lord who is Master of all the spirits. others say that God, wishingto show that after our departure hence demons oppose our souls on their upwardcourse, permitted this to be seen at the burial of Moses. For the devil also slandered(tp\aoQqoet rard) Moses, calling him a murderer because he smote the Egyptian.Michael the archangel, not tolerating his slander, said to him, "May the Lo-rd Godrebuke you, devil!" He also said this, that God had lied in bringing Moses intothe land which he swore he should not enter. (Greek text in Jam-s ,-llu Testam.ent

lf lbryham, [TextsS 2,/2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Piess, l8g2] 18, fromMS. Bodl. Arch. E.5.9; translation adapted fromJames, Apooyptn, 4G.)

Texts L, M and N have been included in this list because it is clear that thevsupply the words of the devil ("The body is mine, for I am the Master of matter'ito which Michael replies in rext K, and so must provide information from the samesource as text K explicitly quotes. Texts M and N, however, are clearly conflatedaccounts. Text M combines-the tradition represented by D with the tradition repre-sented by L, while text N has brought togethei material from a whole series of divergenttraditions, represented by texts D, E, F and L. These conflated versions are not eviddncethat all these elements derive from a single source, but represent the scholiasts' at-tempts to_gather together the various versions.of the story which they found in theirsources. The material derived from the raditions already discussed in section II cantherefore be discounted as evidence of the content of rhe As. Mos.

Texts I, K, L, M, and N provide an outline of Michael's dispute with the devilwhich is quite distinct from that of the texts in section II. Here the devil claims thatthe body. of Moses belongs to him because he is the Master of matter. Michael evidentlyrejects-this claim by arguing that the material world, including human bodies, wascreated by the Holy spirit of God, and therefore belongs to God. The devil is notthe rightful Lord of the marerial world, but a rebel wlio, from the time of Adamand Eve, has tempted God's creatures to sin against God. Therefore when Michael,with the words, "May the Lord rebuke you!",1ppeals to thejudgment of God, he

Tfu Assu,.mption of Moses 75

appeals to the one Creator of the world to whom Satan, like all other spiritual beings,is subject.

There have been attempts to combine this dispute with the dispute found in thetexts in section II (fames, Apoctypha,4849; Charles, Assumption, 105-7; Loewenstamm,"Death," 209-10), but these attempts are mistaken. The two versions of the disputeexist in two distinct sets of texts, and are brought together only by the late schalia(M and N) which themselves indicate that they are found in distinct sources. Moreover,the role of the devil and the character of the dispute are quite different in the twoversions. In the texts in section II, the devil remains the malicious accuser ofJewishtradition, trying to prove Moses' guilt. In the alternative version, the devil has becomea kind of gnostic demiurge, claiming to be lord of the material world, and Michael'srefutation of his claim is the anti-gnostic assertion that the one God, to whom thedevil himself is subject, created the material world. The whole concern of the narrativehas now become the debate with gnostic dualism. Each version provides a coherentaccount in its own terms, but the attempt to combine them into one narrative canonly produce incoherence.

If the story of the dispute over Moses' body existed in these two versions, werewe correct to identify the version in section II with the lost ending of the T. Mos.and the source of Jude 9? At first sight, the texts in this section seem to indicatethat it was the ls. Mos., with its anti-gnostic version of the dispute, which Jude readand which included the text represented by the Latin manuscript we have called theT. Mos., for (a) texts G, H, and I explicitly link Jude 9 with the ls. Mos.; and (b)text J quotes from the ls. Mos. (evidently the same work as is quoted in text K)words which are found in the l,atin T. Mos. (l:14). A reply to (a) is not difficult. Ifthe Alexandrian Fathers knew only that version of the dispute over Moses' body whichwas found in the ls. Mos., they would naturally have linked that version with Jude9, especially as both versions seem to have contained the words, "May the Lordrebuke you!", whichJude quotes.

However, the quotations in textsJ and K constitute a more serious difficulty. Theyrequire us to suppose citlw that the text represented by the extant latin manuscriptwas concluded by the anti-gnostic version of the dispute over Moses'body, and knownas the As, Mos.: or that the ls. Mos. was a rnised ausion oI the earlier T. Mos inwhich some material, including T. Mos. l:14, remained unchanged. (Laperrousaz,Testamqrt, 60-61, simply rejects the testimony of texts J and K as unreliable, sinceGelasius' account of the Council of Nicaea, in which they occur, is widely regardedas historically untrustworthy. But this is not an adequate ground for suspecting Gela-sius' attributions of the quotations to the As. Mos.l Of these two alternatives, thesecond is preferable. It is hard to believe that a Palestinian work of the early firstcentury e.p. would have included the kind of refutation of dualism which the textsquote from the ls. Mos. lt is much more plausible to attribute the ls. Mos.' versionof the dispute over Moses' body to the concerns of Christian anti-gnostic argumentin the second century A.D.

Of course, if Jude were written against teachers of precisely this kind of gnosticdualism, as some have argued, then it might perhaps be thought appropriate thatJude 9 should refer to this anti-gnostic version of the dispute over Moses' body. Infact, however, th€re is no evidence in the letter that Jude's opponents did espousea developed Gnosticism or believe in a demiurge who was lord of the material world.If they did, it is incredible that Jude should refer to the story in the ls. Mos., butnot exploit it as an argument against their dualism. For the purposes of his polemic,Jude seems interested only in the fact that Michael appealed to the judgment ofGod against the devil.

The anti-gnostic version of the dispute over Moses' body in the ls. Mos. may,however, have been connected withJude 9 in another way. IfJude was not written

76 Excunsus

against developed Gnosticism, it must have been alad against developed Gnosticismin the second and third centuries. (Clement of Alexandria thoughtJude wrote propheti-cally against the Carpocratians; Didymus the Blind took his opponents to be the disci-ples of Simon Magus.) Perhaps it was the fact thatJude, understood as an anti-gnostictract, made polemical use of the dispute over the body of Moses, that inspired asecond-century Christian to rewrite that dispute in the form of a refutation of gnosticdualism.

We have not yet discussed the title 'Ard)\lgrs M<.roCc.rs, "Assumption of Moses."It might be considered a further sign that the traditions in section II do not derivefrom this work, that they contain no hint of an assumption either of Moses' body orof his soul. Moreover, the extant section of the L Mos. contains no expectation ofan assumption, except perhaps in the word reccpliotu (10:12), which if it does mean"assumption" (see below) is so out of keeping with the rest of the work (cf. l:15;10:14; ll:4-8) that most scholars have considered it a gloss. On the other hand,the texts (given above) which explicitly quote rhe As. Mos. are equally silent aboutan assumption. There are, however, accounts of an assumption of Moses, given withoutnaming their sources by Clement of Alexandria and Origen, who knew the As. Mos.It is a fair conclusion that these derive from the ls. Mos. (The accounts are in Clement.Strora 6.15.2-3; Origen, In lib.Jesu Naae Hom.2:l; cf. also Evodius otUzala, Epist.ad Atq. 158:6; and a further reference to Moses' dlualvt&ls ("assumption") in Clement,Strom. 1.23-l: texts printed in Denis, Fragnmta" 946.) The assumption describedis one in which Moses was seen in one form ascending to heaven wiih angels, whilein another form he was buried in the earth. (on this story, cf.J. D. Purvis, 'lsamaritanTraditions on the Death of Moses," in G. W. E. Nickelsburg (ed.) Stu/las on tlv Testammlol Mosa [SBLSCS 4; Cambridge, Mass.: Scholars Press, 1973] ll3-14; Philo, Mos.2.291; Denis, Inhoduttbn, 132. The combination of the burial of the body and theassumption of the soul is paralleled in other Hellenistic Jewish testaments: T. .,/o0,T. Abr.l It is therefore a kind of assumption which is compatible with the srory ofthe dispute over the body of Moses which the ls. Mos. contained. Thus we mayconclude that the fragments of an account of Moses' assumption preserved by theAlexandrian Fathers derive from the second-century work which they knew as theAs. Mos.

The word raeptiotu in T. Mos. lO:12 (morle rcceptionctn, usually corrected ao mortercceptiotu mza, "my death (and) reception") remains to be considered. It has generallybeen taken to be a translation of furil\a/rs ("assumption"), and in that case constitutesthe only hint of an assumption of Moses to be found in the extant Latin text of theTcslorneil. Laperrousaz (Tatamml, 4146) argues that it need describe nothing morethan a normal death (cf. T, Mw. ll:5: "What place will receive (ruipbt) youi", i.e.,'be your grave"), but it remains a plausible translation of dpd\Agrs (see l,aperrousaz,Tcslamntt, 42 n. 3, 43) and should probably be taken in that sense. If so,'ir may bea gloss added by a scribe who knew the tradition of Moses' assumption. Alternatively,it is possible that the revision which transformed the Testamml into the As. Mos. wasalmost entirely confined to the concluding part of the work, leaving the part coveredby the l,atin fragment untouched except for this gloss (cf. Charle-, Assimption, xlix,44, 89), but this is perhaps less likely.

Finally, our hypothesis of a T. Mos. which was subsequently rewritten and entitledthe ls. Mos., would explain the presence of two works, a T. Mos. (Asfriq Mc,rtbdc^n)and an As. Mos. ('Ardlqfrs M<,rtlodos), in the ancienr lists of apocryphal books. Charles'salgument, that the As. Mos. to which the lists refer was a work dealing only withthe death and assumption of Moses, founders on rhe length assigned to the ls. Mos.in the Sticlwnctrl of Nicephorus (1400 sticlui, compared with the Testammt's ll00slichoi): it seems much too long for such a work. lf the Assumption was a revised versionof the Tcstament, the Srichorrutrl's statement of its length can be more easily believed.

Three More Old Testament Types

(Jude II-13,Bibliography

Boobyer, G. H. "The Verbs inJude ll." NfS 5 (1958-59) 4H7. Jones' H. S.">nlAAt.-AnAPXH INETMATIOX.",frs 23 (1922) 282-83. Knox, A. D. ">nl-AAAE>." /rS 14 (1913) 54749. Knox, A. D. "Erd\ds.",ITS 16 (1915) 78. Oleson,J. P. "An Echo of Hesiod's Tlwogony w. l9G-2 inJude 13." NTS 25 (1978-79) 492-503. Reicke, B. Diakonb, 35247. Spicq, G. Agap,368-72. Spicqr C. Notes dz Lacicogra-phic Nfio-Testanentaire. vol. 2. OBO 2212. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires/Gdttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. 809-ll. Vermes, G. "The story of Balaam-Thescriptural origin of Haggadah." Soipture and Tradition in Judaism: Hagadic srzdus. SPB4. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1961. 127-77. Vermes, G. "The Targumic Versions of Genesis4:3-16." Post-Bibli,calJatish Studits. SJLA 8. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1975. 92-126.

Translation

rr Woe to thmt!For they walhed a in the way b of Cain,they plunged^ into Balnatn's enorfor proft,and through the controansy of Korah thq pnished^

12 Tlwse are thcpeoplt'whofeastwithyouatyowfellowshiprneak,a withoulreannre,lihe dangnous reefs. Thq are slvphnds who only look aftn tlwmselaes. Tlrty areclouds blown along by the wind without giaing rain; auturnnal trees bearing no fnit,dcad twice oan, uprooted; Ls uild waaes of tlu sea casting up the foam of theirabominatioru; wandning stars for whom the nethn gloom of d,arhrcss has been resmted

for nn.

Noles

I For the translation of these verbs, see Comwnt section.b For the dative o6<ir in this expression, cf. Acts 14: 16; Herm. Mand. 6:l:2; BDF t 198, 5.ctl is omitted by NK al probably because they connected it with olrrtrd6es, "reefs," which is

feminine; in fact it relates to owrl,ri"lxdtlarllrcr,, "feasting together," with ordtrifes in apposition.d For dltircrs rip6u, "your agapes," A reads dnarats aurocr, "their deceptions": a correction

because the presence ofthe false teachers at the agapes seemed too scandalous (cf. 2 Pet 2:13).

Form / S tructure / Se tting

Jude I I is a woe oracle, a form of speech which, although it may haveWisdom origins, was used with great frequency by the OT prophets andoccurs in the OT almost exclusively in the prophetic books (a useful reviewof recent study of the OT woes is D. E. Garland, Tlw Intention of Mauhett 2i[NovTSup 52; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979] 72-80). It was a flexible form, adapta-ble to different purposes, but within and after the OT (although it couldstill be used primarily as a lament: "alas!": cf. Matt 24:.19:' Cos. Pet. 7l itdeveloped an increasingly imprecatory character, becoming a prophetic pro-nouncement of judgment on sinners. This, for example, is the function of

78 Juoe ll-13

the large numbel of woes (thirty-two, more than in any other ancientJewishwork) in I Enoch 92-105 (on which see G. W. E. Nickelsburg, "The apocalypticmessage of I Enoch 92-105," CBQ 39 tl977l 309-28; R. A. Coughenour,"The Woe-Oracles in Ethiopic Enoch," ISI I tl978l 192-97). Even there,however, a note of sadness and lament fioi the fate of sinners is not excluded(l Enoch 95:l).

The form of woe oracles varies. Those in I Enoch (also Jdt 16:17; Sir4l:8-9) follow the pattern: (l) "Woet" (frequently with a second person ad-dress, "to you"); (2) specification of the sins of the wicked; (3) pronounc€mentofjudgment. But-there are woes which lack (3) (Luke lt:4244), and, veryrarely, woes which lack (2) (Barn. 6:21. Frequently a 6a clause, as in Jude,is used, specifying the cause of the exclamaiion, but this can be either thesin (Luke ll:4244,4U7,52) or the coming judgment (Luke 6:2b; I Enoch99:16).Jude, in the three clauses which follow hiJdz, specifies Dol[ the sinsa.nd_ the ju.dgm91t to which they lead, by reference to the OT types. His"Woe to thern!" is very unusual (cf. Hos 7:13 LXX), since the more usualfiorms are impersonal ("Woe to those who . . .") or direct address (.,Woeto youl"), but it is determined by his context and purpose.

The use ofa woe implies prophetic consciousnesion the part of the speakeror writer, as one authorized to announce divine judgment (Nickeliburg,"Apocalyptic message," 317), and the prophetic charictei of v I I is confirme?U !h. three aorist verbs, representing ihe Semiric use of a "prophetic perfect."This means either thatJude himself here delivers a proph-edC oracle, or rhathe quotes.an already-existing oracle, presumably of an early christian prophet(as Ellis, 'Jude," 224, suggests). It is scarcely possible to decide betweenthese alternatives. It mighr be argued thar jist as he cites his first set oftypes (w 5-7) according to a traditi,onal list, so he cites the second set accord-|1g to a well-known oracle. One rabbinic texr (t. Sopa 4:g, quoted Vermes,"Balaam," 134) Iists cain, Korah, and Balaam as a group of notorious sinners,but this is insufficient evidence to show that they werb a well-known set ofthree in established Jewish rradition. At least in the cases of Balaam andK93h, however,l^ude was not the only early Christian ro use these typeswith reference to false teachers in the church (Balaam: Rev 2:14; Korah: anlpplication to false teachers is implied in 2 Tim 2:lg, quoting Num l6:b; .lcbn- 5l:34; and cf. the Jewish evidence on Korah given ii the comnentsection), and this may_well point to a piece of christian prophetic teachingwell-known in the early church (and khown ro Jude's reideis according t5v 5). On the other hand, itis possible thatJude, though taking up an estab-lished typology, has himself iast his reference to it in the f6rm of a woeoracle.

In either case, v I I stands here as equivalent to an OT text, which Judet-h-en app-li9s tor $e false reachers in w l-2-13 (beginning oincieiou, as It wt6 and l9). This is the only case in which Jude;s "reir" appears ro referdireclly to the_false teachers, but it does so oirly in saying thif they conformto the types. It is w 12-13 which actually deicribe ihJerrors of the farseteachers in order to show that they do conform to rhe types. The pattern istherefore the same as in the exposition of the first threi types in w &10,and just as that ex_p_osition introduced an additional text (v g) to help theexposition, so w 12-13 contain allusions to other texts (Ezek 34:2;'prov

Commmt 79

25214; Isa 57:20; I Enoch 80:6). The link between the original "text" andthe exposition is helped by the catchword connection ilvv1, "error" (v lll/n\atrrot, "wandering" (v l3). Finally, just as the exposition in w 8-10 con-cluded by inferring the judgment of the false teachers, so does the expositionin w 12-13.

The remarkable accumulation of metaphors (six in all) is unusual inJewishliterature, but cf. the series of similes inWis 5:9-12, 14; EpJer 70-71; andIQH 3:6-7; the series of metaphors for the writer's enemies in IQH 5:G8;and the accumulated imagery in 4 Macc 7zl-l;Jas 3:2-8.

The last four of Jude's metaphors comprise a set of four images fromnature, probably inspired by reflection on / Enoch 2:l-5:4; 80:2-8, and se'lected to represent the four regions of the universe (see Conmmt section).Like much ofJude's letter, these verses are carefully composed, and the accu'mulated imagery, culminating in the image ofjudgment, is rhetorically effec'tive.

Comment

I l. What distinguishes this second set of types (v I l), with their exposition(w 12-13), from the first set (w 5-7), with their exposition (w 8-10)? Mostcommentators assume that Jude varies his illustrations, but largely repeatshis charges. Having compared the false teachers with three notodouts groupsof sinners, he now compares them with three notorious individual sinnersfrom the OT. Closer eximination, however, suggests that Jude's purpose is

more precise. Whereas in w 5-10 he portrayed the false teachers simply as

sinners, in w ll-13 he portrays them as false teachns who lead other peopleinto sin. This interpretalion will give a unity of theme to the section w I l-13, and will enablew 12-13 to be seen as an application of the three typesof v I I to the false teachers, rather than as simply a series of loosely connecteddenunciations.

It is therefore largely this section which will justify regardingJude's opp-o-

nents as false teach,srs. They were not simply members of the church guiltyof immoral conduct (Chase, DB(H') 2, 804; Plummer, 390), but people whotaught antinomianism, no doubt on the authority of their visions (v 8), andtheieby enticed other Christians into sin (cf. the teaching of "Balaam" andthe prophetess 'Jezebel" in Rev 2:14,20).

rnifuitrr'0rcei-enopeifrnoa!"they walked in the way of Cain." In postbiblical

Jewiih tiadition, Cain became not simply the first murderer, but the a-rchetypaliinner and the instructor of others in sin. Some writers saw him as the proto-type of hatred and envy toward one's brothers (T. Bmj. 7:5; I John 3:ll; ICien. 4).Josephus (Ant. l.b2-G6) portrayed him as guilty ofgreed, violenceand lust, ana as the great corruptei of mankind ("he incited to luxury andpillage all whom he met, and became their instructor in wicked

^practices":i.Otll-oeU tr.). For Philo Cain was the archetypal egoist (Det. 32,78), andthe leader of others in the ways of sin (Post. 38-39). Several of these character-istics, but perhaps especially Cain's role of enticing others to sin, make himappropriate as a tvpe of lude's opponents.appropriate as a type ofJude's opponents.

In addition. however. it is possible that- in idaition, however,lt is possible that Jude also has in mind a tradition

found in the Targums, which represented Cain as the first heretic. All the

80 Juon ll-13

I?{g"Tr, except Onqelos, include ar Gen 4:8 a haggadic expansion of thebiblical text in which cain's murder of Abel is reprliented ai the outcomeof an argument about the righteousness of God- (see vermes, "Targumicversions"; P. Grelo.t, "Les Targums du pentateuque: Etude compaiatived'aprds Grnise, IV, 3-16," Sen g tlgSgl 59-88). The argument takis placein two stages. (though tle Frg. rg. combines them into ondexchange betweenthe brothers). In the -first itagi cain complains that God's acclptance ofAbel's offering and rejection oT cain's offeiing is unjust; it shows'that Goddoes not.govern rhe world justly. Abel replies that-the world is governedjustly, and it was because o_f the righteousneis of Abel's deeds that hiI offeringwas accepted. only this first stage is given in the Geniza fragment of rhlPalestinian Targum, but Pseudo-Jonathin and Neofiti take the aigument intoa second stage, in which cain denies that there will be justicJin a futurelife.-He-says:_"There is no Judgment, there is no Judge,-there is no otherworld, lh..19 it no gift of good leward for the jusi and no punishment for![.ySEa" (Tgr, Ps.-J., Neof., cf. Frg.; tr. in Vermes, "Targumic Versions,"97-99). To this Abel replies: "There isJudgment, rhere is"ayudge, there isanother world. There_is the gift of goodreward for the just aird funishmentF_. ,!^. *i.k.-q" (TSs, a.7, Niof., ct. Frg.,. rr. in Vermes, ..iargugrii Versions,"97,99; !9. N*f.adds: "in the worldlo come"). Particuhrly in this secondstage of the argument, cain is represented not only as a wicked man, butalso as the first hereric: he indulgeJin wickedness o.t ih. srrengrh of religiousske_pticism about the divine rigtrieousness and the reality of ftiturejudgient., . with regard. to the dating of this tradition great caurion is requirld. -proba-bly the second stage of the argument is a llter development ihan the first:lagg, but.it m^ay still-be as early as the first century a.o. jvermes, ..Targumicversions," I l6; but the argument of s. Isenberg, "An Anti-sadducee po"lemicin the Palestinian Targum Tradition," Hrn 63 tlgzol4g344, that it reflecrspolemic against the Sadducees'denial of a future lifeis not decisive evidenceof date). If this tradition was familiar to Jude and his readers, rhe menrionof cain would suggest a man who makes denial of futurejudgmenr a prerexrfor wickedness, and Jude's hererics would thus be followelrs o."f cain nbt onlyin their immorality, but also in their religious teaching that there will be nofuture jud.gmenr in which- God will punish their immo-rality. Though we arenerrer explicitly.told that this was pait of their reaching, it siems a r6asonableinference that it was: rheir freedbm from the Law elitailed immunity fromany future judgment.

The sense of "walked in the way of cain" is probably that they have followedil9l".r footsteps b-y imitating his sin. (For the expression, cr. rxx 3 Kgdmsf !:26, iropetfrq iv itue rot rairiq oinol; 15:34; 16':2, lg, 26; 4 Kgdms "g:lg,27 16:3;2 Chron ll:17; 2l:6; Ezek 2I:31; in all these cases iimeans tofollow someone's moral example. ropeiseo1ot, "to walk," frequently, inJewishGreek, refers ro conducr or manner of life.) Boobyer (NTs'b tlgbg-b"gl 4b-47), however, argues that all three verbs in this ienter,ce are used rynotry-mously to refer to the destruction which the false teachers have inturridon account of their sin. nopebeo1at would then be used as a euphemistic expres-sion for g^oing to one's death (cf. LXX 3 Kgdms 2:2: nopeinpat iv ifie iaorlsrf6 'lrls;2 Chron 2l:2O; Luke 22:22), equivalent to dtrc,t\owo. ,,they pei-

Comtnmt 8l

ished." Boobyer translates: "they go to death in the path of Cain." But: (l)this is not the most natural meaning of the phrase (Kelly, 269), and (2) al-though Cain was sometimes used as an example ofjudgment (7. Bmj. 7:5;cf. Wis l0:3; lub. 4:31), the emphasis was ofren on the mitigation of hispunishment (Gen 4:13-15;Josephus, Ant. 1.58; Igs. Gen. 4:13, 24), whichmade him less suitable as an example ofjudgment. It seems best to rejectBoobyer's suggestion, though it is possible rhat Jude's choice of expressioncontains a hint that to follow in Cain's path will lead to Cain's fate.

rfi rr}ro;,tg rui Br,llcilt WiloE ife.4ifrqoa4 "they plunged into Balaam's errorfor profit." Again, Jude's reference to Balaam is dependent on the develop-ment of traditions about Balaam in postbiblicalJudaism (on which see Vermes,"Balaam"; Ginzberg, Izgmds 3, 354-82), in which Balaam was almost, alwaysportrayed in a bad light, as "Balaam the villain," one of the great enemiesof the people of God. The disciples of Balaam are contrasted with the disciplesof Abraham (Pirqe 'Abot 5:22: the disciples of Balaam have "an evil eye, agreedy soul, and a haughty spirit," and "go down to Gehenna").

Although according to the biblical account Balaam refused to be persuadedto curse Israel for the sake of monetary reward (Num 22:18;24:13; but cf.Deut 23:4; Neh l3:2),Jewish traditional exegesis represented him as acceptingBalak's invitation out of greed for the large rewards promised him (Tgs. Num22:7; Philo, Mos. 1.26648; Mig. ll4:'>Abot R. Nat. 1.29; Num Ra6. 20:10).Although Balaam of course failed to curse Israel, he made up for the failure,according to haggadic tradition, by advising Balak to entice Israel into sin(cf. Num 3l:16). Balak's advice, in Pseudo-Philo's version, was: "Select themost beautiful women among you and in Midian, and set them before themnaked, adorned with gold and jewels. And it shall come to pass that whenthey see them, they will sin against the Lord their God and they will fallinto your hands, for otherwise you cannot overcome them" (Bib. Ant. 18:13;cf. Tg. Ps.y'. Num 24:L4,25; 3l:8; Philo, Mos. | 295-300;Josephus, Ant. 4.12G30; y. Saafr" 10.28d; and cf. Rev 2:14). In this way Balaam was regardedas responsible fior the apostasy of Israel recorded in Num 25:l-3, and theresulting divine judgment which caused .the death of 24,000 Israelites (Num25:9; cf. Num 3l:16, which gave rise to this interpretation). The fact thatBalaam was with the Midianite kings when the Israelites killed him (Num3l:8;Josh 13:21-22\ was explained in the exegetical tradition by the supposi-tion that Balaam had returned to collect his reward for his successful advice:"What business had Balaam there? R. Jonathan said: He went to receivehis reward for the 24,000 Israelites whose destruction he had encompassed"(b. Sanh. 106a, Soncino tr.; cf. Num. Rab. 20:20;22:5; Si4ra Numbns 137).

Thus, by highlighting and developing certain aspects oflthe biblical account(especially Num 3l:16),Jewish tradition remembered Balaam primarily as aman of greed, who for the sake of reward led Israel into debauchery andidolatry. The parallel with Jude's opponents will be that, like Balaam, theywere enticing the people of God into sexual immorality (idolatry, thoughmentioned in Rev 2:14, does not appear in Jude), and doing so becausethey received financial rewards for their teaching. It may also be relevantthat Balaam was in some sense a prophet, who received revelation in dreamsand visions; sometimes Jewish exegetes saw him as a true prophet who had

82 Juou ll-13

become a mere soothsayer or interpreter of dreams (0. San[. l06a; cf. Tgs.Num 22:5; Bib. Ant. l8:2; Num. Rab.20:71

The precise meaning of rfi r\ottp ro0 fu,l.oh1t ptoflol dfe4frqpa4 "theyplunged into Balaam's error for profit," is not easy to determine. Boobyeragain argues that the verb should be synonymous with draltwro, and trans-lates, "they are themselves cast away in the error of Balaam" (cf. nv Margin:"they cast, themselves away through the error of Balaam"), but his parallelsto this use of the verb are not really convincing. On the other hand, thisverb (passive of dqgeirr or tnlinew, "to pour out") can be used in the senseof "to abandon oneself to" or "to plunge into" (examples in Mayor, andBAG s.u. ), occasionally with the dative instead of the more usual els. In thatcase r)\darp (equivalent to eis a)\tiyqy) will be that into which the false teachersplunged.

Although the verb is appropriate to sexual immorality (cf. T. Rarb. l:6)and although Jewish tradition sometimes accused Balaam of this (bestialitywith his ass: Ig. Ps.y'. Num 22:30), this sense is ruled out here by po0o0("for profit"). The false teachers cannot be said to give themselves up tosexual indulgence for the sake of financial gain. Probably Jude refers to theidea, found in the Jewish exegesis, that Balaam, enticed by the prospect ofreward, hurried with great eagerness to go and curse lsrael (Mnn. Rab.20:12;b. Sanh 105b, interpreting Num 22:21); and, by telescoping the srory, thiswould mean that he hurried to give the advice that led Israel into immorality.Similarly, the false teachers, greedy for money, have rushed to follow hisexample.

At the same time, Jude may well intend a hint that to plunge into thiserror of Balaam's is to plunge to destruction. For Balaam's eagerness, whichJewish exegesis found in Num 22:21, was connected with the words of Godin the preceding verse. This verse was understood to mean that becauseBalaam so much wished to go, God let him have his desire, but in doing sosent him to his destruction ("Villaint I have no wish that the wicked shouldperish, but seeing that you are eager to go and to perish out of the world,rise up, go!": Num. Rab. 20:12, Soncino tr.; cf. Bib. Ant. l8:8). The sameinterpretation was given to Num 22:35 (Phito, Mos. 1.274; Num. Rab.20:15;cf. Ginzberg, kgmds,3, 367).

Balaam's "error" Ur} oary means literally "wandering" from the right path)must refer primarily to his advice to Balak which led Israel into sin. Ii wasfior this advice that he was rewarded. z)\tiza should therefore be taken in ana€tive sense (as in Matt 27:64;2 Thess 2:ll): his leading others astray. Butthe passive sense need not be excluded: in leading others astray, he himselfwent astray (cf. n\afiro4 "wandering stars," v l3: the false teachers are them-selves stars which have wandered from their courses; and 2 Tim 3:13). Again,there may also be a hint ofjudgment, cf. Nun. Rab. 20:9: "Balaam appearedon the scene and led mankind astray into lewdness. And as he led othersastray so he was himself led astray. By the counsel that he gave he was himselfqripped up. And the Holy One, blessed be he, led him aitray; for so it is infact written, 'He causeth the nations to err, and destroyeth them' (fob 12:23)"(Soncino tr.).

For their antinomian teaching the false teachers take payment (po0o0, cf.Philo, Mig. ll4: ini pw1Q, referring to the fact that the Moabites "hired"

Conmcnt 83

Balaam; LXX Deut 23:5; Neh l3:2: two0dnano). In the primitive churchthe traveling missionary's or prophet's right to be supported by the churches(l Cor 9:4; Did. l3:l) was all too easily abused (Rom 16:18; I Tim 6:5;Titus l:ll1' Did. ll:SS, l2). Hence the concern, which is frequent in theNT, to protect the church's leaders from any suggestion that they might bemaking profit out of their work (cf. Acts 20:33-34; I Thess 2:9; 2 Thess3:8; I Tim 3:3,8; Titus l:7; I Pet 5:2; Did. li:l;Pol. Phil. 522\.

rrt furt}wlt+ raD Kbpe anx'itotno, "through the controversy of Korah theyperished." Korah, who with Dathan and Abiram led a rebellion against theauthority of Moses and Aaron (Num 16:l-35; 26:9-10; cf. Ps 106:16-18; Sir45:18-19), was a notorious figure inJewish tradition. He became the classicexample of the antinomian heretic. This was partly because, in addition tothe material already in the biblical text of Num l6,Jewish exegetical tradition,represented by Pseudo-Philo (BiD. Ant. 16l) and Tg. Psado-Jonatlrcn (to Numl6: l-2), interpreted Korah's revolt in connection with the immediately preced-ing account of the law of the fringes (Num 15:37-41). Korah and his fellow-conspirators complained that this was an intolerable law (Bi'b. Ant. 16:l). Incontravention of it they "made garments with completely blue fringes, whichthe Lord had not commanded" (Tg.Ps.y'. Num 16:2; cf. Mnn. Rab. l8:3).Korah accused Moses of adding his own inventions to the Torah (Num. Rab.l8:3, l2). Later rabbinic tradition attributed to Korah the heresy of the Minimthat God gave only the Decalogue, and represented Korah as claiming, "Th-eTorah is nbt from heaven" (Vermes, "Decalogue," l78i cf. Ginzberg, ltgmds,6, lo0-l0l).

It should also be noticed that the Targums (Neof Num 16:l; 26:9; Ps.y'.

Num. 26:9) say that Korah, Dathan and Abiram "made a schism" (literally"divided," J)Ei; perhaps cf. 4QpNah 4:l). This characterization of them as

schismatic is also reflected in I Clen. 5l:14, which comPares those "whoset themselves up as leaders of rebellion and dissension" (orti;,oe<,r5 t<ai &Xoo-raoias) with Korah and his fellows, who rebelled (oraonl6urr.ru) against Moses(cf. also I CIen. 4:12). The implication of Num 16:2,.that Korah, with Dathan,Abiram, and On, was responsible for inciting others to rebel, is strengthenedby Nurn. Rab. l8:2, which interprets "took men" to mean that Korah "drewtheir hearts with persuasive wolds" (cf. Josephus, Anl. 4.15-21). Korah was

therefore a naturil type for heretical teacheis, and 2 Tim 2:19 (along witht CItn. 51:14) suggists that Jude was not the only early Christian writerto apply this type to false teachers within the church. The allusive characterof tlii rbf.renci in 2 Tim 2:19 (quoting Num 16:5) suggests a well-establishedtradition.

Jude's use of Korah as a type of the false teachers has often been thoughtto-indicate that he accuses them of rebelling against ecclesiastical authorities(Zahn, Introd.uction, 24445; Werdermann, Irlzhrn, SS; Bigg, Windisch, Bar-nett, Kelly, Reicke), but this is not necessarily _the case. Korah's rebellionwas againit God as much as against Moses and Aaron (Num 16:ll;26:9),and Jide may have seen Mosei in this context as representing the L,aw, I!is tiiely that the real significance of Korah for Jude is as one who deniedthe divine authority of the Law.

For Korah's rebellion, Jude does not use mo,otS ("sedition"; as in I Cltn^

5l:1, 3;Josephus, Ant. 4:12-13) or iroinr@ot5, "uprising" (as in IXX Num

― ―― ^ ―一― ― ノ

84 Juon ll-13

!6_:9), but tird\o.yic, "controveisy" (used of Korah's rebellion in kot. tas.9:2; LXX uses it to translate Meribah in Num 20:13; 27:14; Deut 32:51; 33:8;Ps 80:8; 105:32). Although anitvyia can, by exrension, refer to oppositionin act (Moulton and Milligan, vocabuhry, s.u.), its root and commonmeaningis unbal gPPosition, quarrel, dispute. It is appropriate to Korah as a heretica-ileader who advanced antinomiln opinioni

-in controversy with Moses (cf.

Hrqe >Abot 5:22: "the conrroversy tni)nnl of Korah").-we have argued that in the cases of cain and Balaam, Jude has referred

primarily-to their sins, though perhaps also hinted at theirjudgment. In rhecase of Korah, however, he refers explicitly to Korah's judgm--ent. This (asBoobyer rightty points out) is not likely to be because hi seis Korah as themost heinous sinner of rhe three. It is more probably because the exceptionalcharacter of Korah's fate made it a much inore striking example of diuit ejudgment than those of cain and Balaarn. This will al6 expliin why Judehas placed Korah lasr, our of chronological order 1cf. a sJ.ra 4:lg,'#hichlists them in chronologrcal order: cain,-Korah, Balaam). The sequence ofthree clauses reaches a climax in the final word &rot}owo ("have pirished").

^ Although ^K9ott was sometimes thought to have been consumed by thefire (Num^16:35;Josephus, Ant.4.bG), h'e was usually held to have sharedthe fate of Dathan and Abiram, when the earth swallowed them up and theywent down alive to Sheol (Num 26:10; Bib. Ant. 16:6; hot. Jas. g:2; ct. Nui.Ra6. 18:19). This uniq-ue (Num 16:30) fare was frequently cited as a warning:TTpl^.^"ldivine judgment

_(Num 26:10; ps l06ilZ; Sir 4b:19; Josephus]$ S..S0ql .Bib. Ant. 57:2; I Cl.m. 4:t2: 5t:4; hot. Jas. 9:21. Accbrding toPseudo-Philo, Korah and his company remain alivein sheol until the LstDay, wh^en they.will be destroyed-without sharing in the resurrection (BdD.Ant. 16:3;cf.tAbot R. Nat.36:2; Nunt. RaD. l8:l3i

The aorist &rr"l,long is equivalent to a "prophetic perfect," i.e. it viewsthe futurejudgment of the faise teachers with thl certainty of in event whichhas already occurred. This perspective necessarily also puts the sins of thefalse teachers into the completid past; hence the aoriit tense of the twopreceding verbs.

P- ev rarg dTanus t1t6sv, "in your fellowship meals." This is the earliestoccurrence of the term 'agape" in the sense of ihe Christian fellowship meal,1 loage which afterwardtego-TT. fairly freqlent (2 pet 2:lr v.t.; tgnl srayn,l:l;-QP.:!Post-.15; Acts Paul €l Thech 2b; Cj.-ent Alex., pad.'2.i.4; Stion3.2.1_0; Tertullian, Ap-ol.

-3g; De jejun. lz-18). It is equivalenr ro the much

less frequent term "ihe Lo!{'s Ju-pper" (wpu<bv &triw,l cor ll:20; rtif-polytus, A!os!. Trad..26.5; Clem.nf Alex.,

-paed. 2.2, quoting I Cor t'l:2d).

-, In ,h: ba^ckgro,nd to the pracrice_ lie the common rireah 6f.Judaism 1e.!.the.meals of the ho!!ro! and those of the eumran secr and the iherapeuiaE;and the communal living of the earliest bhristian communiry lRctl 2:4+-!6)'. but mo_re espefially the meals, including the Last suppir,'which thedtsctples ot-Jesus celebrated with him both before and after his resurrection.J\e.1Sape or Lord's Supper was a real meal (l Cor lt:2UB+; Acts 2:46),held in tLe e-vening lActi

-20:2, I l), and was not, in the NT period, distinii

tr_o_m the L,ucharist (see.M-.J._Townsend, "Exit the Agape?" eipr;n g0 [lgzs-791 356-61; I. H. Marshaill, tast supper and Lord,'s sr6ih tgxiii., paterr,osrer,

―

・‐一

Commmt 85

19801 I l0-l l) for which NT writers have no term which disringuishes itfrom the agape. Probably lgnatius still uses the term ayarq to intlude theEucharist (Smym.8:2), and the close association of agape and Eucharist contin-ued well into the second century @p. Apost. l5), though by the time ofJustinthe two had become separate, at least in some placei. The agapes to whichJude refers certainly included, as rheir focal point, the sharing of the loafand the cup which was later distinguished as the Eucharist. Their name musrderive from the dominant early Christian sense of the love of God reachingm91 tlgoughJesus Christ and creating a fellowship of love among Christians-.This- fellowship was expressed and enacred in the fellowship meal.

The mention of the agapes here is probably nor, as has often'been thought,because they were subject to particular abuse by the dissolute false teachlrs(cf. Clement of Alexandria on the agapes of the Carpocratians: Strom. 2.2),but because they were the focal point of rhe common life of the Christiancommunity, and so the presence of the false teachers, behaving in their usualirreverent manner @Ao$ta,s), was there especially dangerous.

orilri0eg, "dangerous reefs." The meaning of onrtrdfes here has been muchdiscussed.

(l) The majority of the commenrarors (Spitta, Knopf, Bigg, Windisch, Side-bottom, Grundmann, Cantinar; Spicq, Agape,368-69; and already the Vulgate:maculne) and most English translations take onr)ds to be here equivalent toorilog, meaning "blot, blemish, spot." This is supported mainly by 2 Pet2:13 (oril\ol), andJude's own use of the verb onrl.oDu ("to defile;') in v 23.But this meaning of ozrd\ds, which presumably arose by confusion with ozriLos,isextremely rare (apparently only one known instance: the orphic book Lithaca614, from the fourth century n.o.). In view ofJude's good command of Greekvocabulary it is not likely that he simply confused the rwo words.

(2) A few take orrutrcis as an adjective, "dirty" or "polluted," equivalentto iord\<..rpeuo9 (v 23), and so here: "polluted persons" (so apparently Didymus:maculati; Hesychius: peptaopevu; Zahn, Introduction, 245,258 n.5; cf. BDF $45). Jude means that the false teachers parricipate in the fellowship meals"polluted by their unchastity" (Zahn, Introduction, 258). This gives a slightlydifferent sense from (l), and accords with Jude's description of the lalseteachers in v 8. But the usage is hard to parallel.

(3) Knox UrS 14 tlgl3l 54749; /"S 16 tlgl5l 78; cf. Jones, JTS 23[l922] 282-83) has argued that onr],<is can mean "foul wind" (adjectival onA<iswith rivelros understood). But even if his evidence for this use is accepted, itgives no good sense in Jude 12, where it occurs too early to be connectedwith the later wind metaphor.. (4) The usual meaning of ozrr).<iS is "rock," especially at sea or on theshore, and hence a reef which can cause shipwreck (examples in Mayor, Spicq,Lacicographu, 809-10, and BAG). This interprerarion (adopted by Ps.-Oecu-menius, Plummer, Mayor, Reicke, Green, Kelly) is not only the natural mean-ing of the word; it also makes excellent sense. In context the word shouldindicate the danger which the false teachers present to Jude's readers bytheir close association with them in the fellowship meals. The false teachers,he says, are like dangerous reefs; close contact with them will result in ship-wreck. (For the metaphor, cf. I Tim l:19; Barn.3:6; and cf. the more common

\_-.-

86 JUDE ll-13 ,

metaphors of the snare and the rock of stumbling: of persons, Isa 8:14-15;Matt 13:41; 16;23. It is in keeping with Jude's style that he substitutes aless common and livelier metaphor.) orttrriDes are sometimes said to be hidden,submerged rocks (cf. Etymologicum Magnum, quoted Mayor; Kelly, Reicke)but this need not be the case (see especially Anth. Pal. 11.390, quoted Bigg;Josephus, BJ 3.420; Plummer, 428). They can be visible rocks, jutting outfrom the seashore, and such rocks are also a danger to shipping.Jude certainlydoes not think the false teachers are in any way "hidden"; they are identifiableby their teaching and scandalous conduct. His point is that close proximityto such people is dangerous, and should be avoided, as a sailor keeps hisship clear of the rocks.

It is not impossible, in view of Jude's use of catchword connectians (cf.n}.lcrvn, "error" (v I l) and r\avfp,oc, "wandering" (v 13) in this section; andthe remarks on rqpdtt in the Commmt on v 6) and his use of ortloD/, "todefile," in v 23, thatJude intends the pun orivjrfies/otrfi\o6 "dangerous reefs,/blots."

oi . . . ouvevc'syoitpevot d,Q60<'x, "the people who feast with you . . . withoutreverence." The article oi relates not to ond\ddes, which is feminine, but toouveuayobpevu, (cf. the same construction in v l9); ondtdfes is in apposition(Chaine, Kelly).

ouveua1p[pevor could mean simply "feasting together," by themselves(Spitta, Bigg, nsv), and this could be supported by the following phrase dauroisrupaivones ("feeding themselves"), if this refers directly to their behaviorat table, and by v 19 (furo&opilovres, "making divisions"): they forme,' theirown group at table (cf. I Cor ll:18-21). But whether or not they diil this;it is not likely to be the point Jude is making. After du rcd,s d.laro.ts itttcitt("in your fellowship meals") the natural meaning of owewtxofspevuis "feastingwith you" (thus C and 2 Pet 2:13, which add tgiv, are correct interpretations).In line with the theme of this secrion-the false teachers as those who enticeothers to sin-Jude's point relateF to the danger of such close asso'.' ,{ionwith them.

There is not necessarily anything reprehensible about "feasting" at theagape, but coupled with riQo9<^n, "without reverence," there may be the impli-cation that, in accordance with ttreir sensuality (v l0), the false teachers treatit as a mne banquet, an occasion for gratifying their appetites, rather thanfor fellowship with the Lord and their fellow-Christians (cf. I Cor ll:2G-22, 33-34). Some take d0o9<x with the following phrase (Zahn, Inlro&rction,258; Mayor, Bigg), but when understood as "irreverently" (as in LXX Provl5: l6) it goes well with wveva1pispevor and supplies the note of condemnationwhich would otherwise be lacking in this phrase. The irreverent attitude (alsoat Corinth: I Cor ll,27-29) probably relates to the spiritual arrogance ofthe false teachers, who behave as though they were their own masters, notsubject to the Lord. There is no reason to think they made the agape anoccasion for blatant debauchery. The dangerJude sees is from the influenceof their general attitude and behavior. We should also remember that theagape was probably also a time when prophecy and teaching took plare (cf.Acts 20:7, I l), so that the false teachers' presence exposed the church totheir teaching. It may be that in this way this opening phrase of v 12 connects

Commmt 87

fairly directly to the rest of w 12-13, which concern the teaching activity ofthe false teachers.

The danger of close association with the false teachers may have beenconnected inJude's mind especially with Korah (v ll), since the account ofKorah's revolt lays great stress on the danger to the rest of Israel from proxim-ity to Korah and his company (Num 16:24,2U27,34; Bib. Ant. 16:7).

douro0s nupaivoweg, "shepherds who only look after themselves." Thisphrase has often been taken closely with the preceding: they selfishly concen-trate on having a good meal themselves, like the Corinthians who could notwait for their brothers before starting their own meal (l Cor I l:21) (so Plum-mer, Moffatt, Kelly). But twlnivoweg, "shepherding," is the activity of shep-herds, and the metaphor of shepherding for Christian leadership was socommon in early Christianity Qohn 2l:16; Acts 20:28; I Cor 9:7; Eph 4:ll;I Pet 5:2; lgn. Phld. 2:l; Ign. Rom. 9:l; cf. CD 13:9-10) that it must beimplied here. Bigg thinks the phrase refers to the rebelliousness of the falseteachers; instead of submitting to the pastors of the church, they wish tobe their own shepherds. But the more natural meaning is that they claim tobe leaders in the church, but instead of tending the flock they only lookafter themselves. This meaning becomes certain when it is seen that Jude isalluding to Ezek 34:2, which indicts the shepherds (i.e. rulers) of Israel forfeeding themselves at the expense of the sheep. The sheep provide themwith meat and wool, but they do not tend the sheep (34:3). Similarly thefalse teachers are making a good living out of the church. (Cf. also Asc. Isa.3:24: "many elders will be lawless and violent shepherds to their sheep andwill become ravagers [ofthe sheepl, since they have no holy shepherds":tr. in NTApoc 2, 648.) The phrase connects with the example of Balaam(v I l), the prophet who hired out his services for financial gain.

Jude's allusion is evidently to the Hebrew of Ezek 34:2 (LXX has pitBfurcwurupives ianrois; "do shepherds feed themselves?" cf. Symmachus: d rwln-ivowes icuro0s, "shepherds who only look after themselves").

veQeltat &n6W. tnb aftpcn napaftpopeva,t "They are clouds blown alongby the wind without giving rain." This is the first of four metaphors fromnature, all of which relate to the false teachers' claim to be prophets andteachers. This metaphor probably derives from Prov 25:14: "Like clouds andwind without rain is a man who boasts of a gift he does not give" (nsv).(AgainJude must be dependent on the Hebrew text, fior the LXX completelyobscures this sense.) On summer days on the coasts of Palestine and Syria,clouds are sometimes seen approaching land, promising rain, but. then pass,blown on by the wind, without producing any rain. Similarly, the false teachersare all empty promise. They make great claims for the value of their teaching,but it provides nothing beneficial at all.

6ev6pa Q0worc':pttd, dxopra, "autumnal trees bearing no fruit." The precisesignificance of Q1worc'spwbs is disputed: (l) some hold that it refers to a timewhen the trees are bare, after the season when the fruit is harvested (Bigg,Chaine, Kelly); (2) others take it to refer to the end of the season of harvest,when any tree's fruit, if it has any, should be ripe (this view is argued inMayor's long note, 55-59). It seems that evidence can be cited for eitherusage, no doubt because the reckoning of seasons varied. But (l) seems an

88 Juon ll-13

unsatisfactory sense in context; a tree cannot be blamed for bearing no fruitwhen the season for fruit has passed. The second suggestion provides a goodparallel with the previous phrase; just as the clouds promise rain but givenone, so the trees promise fruit but yield none. Like the fig tree in the parable(Luke 13:6), these trees are bare when fruit is expected.

The image of a tree and its fruits is common in the biblical literature,with various meanings (Ps l:3; Jer 17:6, 8; Wis 4:3-5; Sir 6:3; Matt 3:10par. Luke 3:9;Jas 3:12; Herm. Sim. 4l; of particular relevance is Matt 7:16-20 (cf. Matt 12:33 par. Luke 6:43441, where false prophets are known bytheir evil fruits. It may be, however, thatJude's image was primarily inspiredby a passage in I Enoch which describes how "in the days of the sinners"(80:2) the regularity of nature will be internrpted: "all things on earrh willchange, and will not appear at their proper time" (80:2; on the relevanceof this passage as a whole to w 12-13, see below). One instance of this isthat "the fruits of the trees will be withheld at their proper time" (80:3, tr.Knibb). In this picture of lawless natureJude saw a meraphor of the lawlessmen troubling his churches.

&.s d,noilaftma ircpt|5o$ina, "dead twice over, uprooted." The metaphorof the trees is an advance on that of the clouds, in that it describes thejudgment of the faise teachers, picturing it, as in v I l, as though alreadyaccomplished. This extension of the tree metaphor is traditional (trees cutdown: Matt 3:10 par. Luke 3:9; Matt 7:19; Luke l3:9; uprooted: Ps 52:5;Prov 2:22; Wis 4:4; Matt l5:13). It is hard to give "twice dead" a botanicalmeaning; Mayor suggests that they "may be called doubly dead, when theyare not only sapless, but are torn up by the root, which would have causedthe death even of a living tree." But the term has clearly been chosen fiorits application to the false teachers. Some think it is as apostares thar theyare doubly dead; they have returned to their preconversion condition of spiri-tual death (Mayor, Bigg, Green, Grundmann). More probably Jude refersto the term "the second dearh," by which the fate of the wicked after theLastJudgment was known (Rev 2:l l; 20:6, 14; 2l:8; fior "the second death"in the Targums, see I. Abrahams, Stud.ies in Pharisaism and tlte Gospk, 2ndSeries [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1924] 4149; McNamara,Targtm, ll7-25).

It. rcitpra hpu,fla^oro16 inagrtlowa rd,s Aandt qioxbvas, "wild wavesof the sea casting up the foam of their abominations." This third of themetaphors from nature is probably based on Isa 57:20: "the wicked are likethe tossing sea; for it cannot rest, and its waters toss up mire and dirt"(nsv). (The last clause is missing in IXX; so again it is clear thatJude dependson the Hebrew.) It is noteworthy rhat this verse of Isaiah is twice echoed inthe Qpmran hymns, to describe the assaults of the wicked on the wrirer (lQH2:12-13: "they have roared like turbulent seas, and their towering waveshave spat out mud and slime"; IQH 8:15: "they cast up their slime uponme": tr. Vermes; for the wicked as wild waves, cf. also IQIi 2:21-28; 6:23).(Note also that T. Jud. 2l:9 predicts false prophets like storrns at sea.)

- In his paraphrase of Isa 57:20,Jude shows his command of good literaryGreek (for the use of rilpros for a turbulent sea, and the rare word inogSilew,"to cause to splash up like foam"; cf. Euripides, Hna.tlesfurms 851:Pra\osoat

Comment 89

dtps'; Moschus, Idytl. 5:5: &, & fla\o,ooa nsprbv €raflpl711; Wis l4:l: &7ptcrciswra; Sib. U. 3:778: d'fpa xtpara lliyrov, "wild waves of Pontus"), butthere is no reason to think he depends on any particular Greek source. Oleson(NfS 25 t1978-791 492-503) argues thatJude alludes to the myth of Aphro-dite's birth in Hesiod, Theog. 147-206, with a secondary allusion to Euripides,Hncal.es furens 85G52, but there is no vnbal contact with the former exceptthat Hesiod uses ti@pos, "foam," while the connection Oleson makes withthe passage in Euripides is tenuous in the extreme.

Jude's language has broken through his metaphor: the abominations belongto the false teachers, no[ to the waves, but Jude compares them with thefilth which the waves cast up on the shore. It is not certain whether the"abominations" (lit., "shames") are shameful dteds (so most commentators;and cf. the refs. for this usage in BAG) or shameful words (Reicke). In eithercase, the metaphor makes a rather different point from those of the cloudsand the trees. They produced nothing; the waves produce something, butthe product is horribly unlike the teaching and conduct of the true Christianprophet. Instead of edifying other Christians, it soils them like the dirt thrownup by a stormy sea.

d,ortpes r\afiya4 "wandering stars." It is widely agreed thatJude has bor-rowed this image from ^l Enoch. Jewish apocalyptic thought of the heavenlybodies as controlled by angels (see, e.g., I Enoch 82), and inherited Orientalmyths in which the apparently irregular movements of the planets were at-tributed to the disobedience of heavenly beings, and probably also such phe-nomena as comets and meteors were interpreted as heavenly beings fallingfrom heaven (cf. Isa 14:12-15; Rev 8:10;9:l). Thus in I Enoch 18:13-16;2l:3-6, the Watchers (whose fall from heaven and judgmentJude mentionedin v 6) are represented as seven stars "which transgressed the command ofthe Lord from the beginning of their rising because they did not come outat their proper times" (18:15, tr. Knibb; cf. 2l:6). This imagery is taken upin the later Book of Dreams (l Enoch 83-90), which in its allegory of worldhistory represents the fall of the Watchers as the fall of stars from heaven(86:l-3); then, in a passage corresponding to I Enoch l0 (whichJude quotedin g0I the archangels cast the stars down into the darkness of the abyssand bind them there (88:1,3) until theirjudgment at the End, when theywill be cast into the abyss of fire (90:24). IfJude is alluding to these passages,as many think (Plummer, Mayor, Windisch, Chaine, Kelly; Milik, Enoch,239),then he is once again, as ina.p, comparing the false teachers with the fallenangels. His phrase doripesi). c,rnrr@ ("wandering stars") was normally usedof the planets (references in IDNT 6,229 n.7), and was still so used, eventhough in Jude's day astronomers were aware that in fact their movementsare regular (Cicero, De rutwa deorum 2.51, quoted Mayor). This correspondsto Enoch's reference to "salen stars" (l Enoch 18:13; 2l:3), though the fallof the stars (86: l-3) would perhaps better suit comets or meteors.

A minor criticism of this view would be that in I Enoch darkness is thelemporary fate of the fallen angels (l Enoch 88:l; cf. 10:4-5), as it is inJudeQ, until at the l,astJudgment they are thrown into the fire (I Enoch 9O:24;cf. 10:6, 13; 2l:7-10). InJude l3 darkness is the eternal destiny of the stars.But this may indicate only that Jude is using his source material flexibly.

90 Juon ll-13

There is, however, another passage in I Enoch which may have a betterclaim to have been immediately inJude's mind: the passage already mentioned,in I Enoch 80, which describes the lawlessness of nature in the last days:"And many heads of the stars in command will go astray, and these willchange their courses and their activities, and will not appear at the timeswhich have been prescribed for them" (80:6, tr. Knibb). The following versedescribes how they thereby lead people.astray. These "wandering stars"Judetakes as an image of the false teachers who stray from the path of obedienceto God in order deliberately to entice others into sin. The use of rlanipot,"wandering," establishes a catchword connection with Balaam (v I l), theprophet who went astray in leading others astray (trlrarn).

The words t\atfu ("to lead astray") and nltoln ("error") were regularlyused to describe the activity of the false prophets of the last days (Matt 24:4-5, Ll,24; I Tim 4:l; 2 Tim 3:13; lJohn 4:6; Rev 2:20; l3:14; cf. TDNT 6,24 l, 24Ug) . pl ggr_e_q9_f _Alexan d ril ap pl yin g J ude's ima ge of the wanderin gstars to the Carpocratians, coFectly perceived its force: "For these are the'wandering stars' (dloripe s iltatrfino:) referred to in the prophecy, who wander(ttlspupevw) from the narrow road of the commandments into a boundlessabyss of the carnal and bodily sins" (Izttn to Theodorus 1.il7, tr. in M. Smith,Clement of Alanndria and a Seret Gospel of Mark [Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniversity Press, 19731446). Theophilus of Antioch (Ad AutoL 2.15.17-19),whether or not inspired by Jude, saw the fixed stars as images of righteousmen who observe God's laws and the planets as representing men who havestrayed from God and abandoned his laws.

cfs 6 lri0os ro0 orcorcvs eis ai6va rcrqprpa4 "for whom the nether gloomof darkness has been reserved for ever." In I Enoch the place of final damna-tion is usually represented by fire, but Jewish thought also knew the idea ofconsignment'to Lternal darkness ffob t+:tO; I Enoch 46:6; 636"P;C Sd[-l4:9; l5:10; cf. Matt. 8:12;22:13;25:30), and the two images were sometimescombined (l Enoch 103:8; 108:14; Sib. Or. 4:43; IQF 2:8;4:13; 2 Enoch l0:2). _

Jude will have chosen the image of darkness here because it is a more appropri-ate fate for stars. Unlike the true Christian teachers who are to shine likethe stars in heaven (Dan l2:3), the misleading light of the false teacherswill be extinguished in darkness for ever.

With regard to the whole group of four images from nature, two finalobservations can be made. Firstly, as Reicke points out, it may be significantthatJude has chosen an image from each of the four regions of the physicalworld: clouds in the air, trees on the earth, waves in the sea, stars in theheavens. But this observation is really only significant when connected withthe second (first made by Spitta), that this sequence of metaphors is relatedto 1 Enoch 2:l-5:4 and 80:2-8. The first of these passages follows immediatelythe verse of I Enoch (l:9) whichJude quotes in w l4-15, and at 5:4 it returnsto the theme of l:9. It fiorms a kind of comment on l:9, addressed directlyto the wicked whose judgment is foretold in l:9, and it is therefore likelythatJude had reflected on it.

The theme of the section is that the works of God in nature conform tothe laws which God has ordained for them, by conrrast to the wicked whotransgress God's law. The illustrations of this include rhe four natural phenom-

―、

Explanation 9l

ena which Jude takes up: "Consider the summer and the winter, how thewhole earth is full of water, and clouds and dew and rain rest upon it" (2:3,tr. Knibb); "Contemplate how the trees are covered with green leaves, andbear fruit" (5:1, tr. Knibbh "Behold how the seas and rivers likewise accom-plish and do not alter their tasks from his commandments" (5f, tr. fromGreek); "Contemplate all the events in heaven, how the lights in heaven donot change their courses, how each rises and sets in order, each at its propertime, and they do not transgress their law" (2:1, tr. Knibb). But in contrastto these pictures of law-abiding nature,Jude has chosen corresponding exam-ples of nature transgressing these laws, not fulfilling its appointed functions.His examples from nature are therefore not (as in I Enoch) contrasts butparallels to the lawless behavior of the wicked.

Jude will probably also have known a later passage of I Enoch (in the"astronomical" section) which predicts the last days ("the days of the sinners,"80:2), when nature will no longer present a law-abiding contrast to the waysof wicked men,.but will itself go astray into lawlessness. Here parallels tothree ofJude's four images may be found: "the rain will be withheld, andheaven will retain it" (80:2); "the fruits of the trees will be withheld at theirproper time" (80:3); "many heads of the stars in command will go astray"(80:6).

It seems likely that these two passages in I Enoch have inspired Jude'sseries of metaphors. He represents the lawlessness of nature, prophesiedfor the last deys, by selecting an example from each of the four regions ofthe world, and sees in them figures of the lawless teachers who are alsoprophesied for the last days. He has then filled out this general conceptionby working in allusions to Prov 25:4 and Isa 57:20.

Fxplanation

In this sectionJude focuses on the false teachers as teachers and coruptersof others, and shows that in this capacity, too, they conform to OT types ofsin and itsjudgment. Again he uses prophetic types probably already familiarto his readers from the catechetical tradition, and he refers to them in theform of a prophetic woe oracle against the false teachers, an authoritativepronouncement ofjudgment, which he either quotes from earlier Christianprophecy or utters on his own prophetic authority.

The oracle compares the false teachers first to Cain, the great Prototypeof sinners, who corrupted the race of Adam, and also (if this tradition canbe dated toJude's time) the first heretic, whojustified his antinomian behaviorby denying divine righteousness and judgment. Secondly, they are comparedto Balaam, the prophet who, in his greed for financial gain, hurried eagerlyto give the advice which led Israel into the disastrous apostasy at Beth-peor.Thirdly, they are compared to Korah, the archetypal schismatic, who contestedthe authority of Moses and disputed the divine origin of certain laws, gatheringfollowers around him. The mention ofjudgment is reserved for this thirdtype, since it is the spectacular fate of Korah which illustrates most effectivelythe doom which awaits Jude's opponents.

The detailed application of the oracle to the false teachers (w 12-13)

3

92 Juon ll-13

opens with a reference to the church's agapes or fellowship meals, whichwere at this period not distinguished from the Eucharist and were the centerof the church's life of worship and fellowship. In these fellowship meals thefalse teachers participated fully, and with their customary lack of reverence,so that the danger which their influence constituted fior the church as a wholeis focused on their presence at the fellowship meals. It is encapsulated inthe first of six metaphors with which Jude describes them in this secrion;they are dangerous reefs, and ifJude's readers come too close to them theyrisk shipwreck.

With a reference to Ezek 34:2, the second metaphor describes the waythey exploit the roles of leadership which they claim in the community, proba-ql-y Uy requiring the church to supporr them at a high standard 6f tiving.They are shepherds, who instead of tending the sheep, look after themselvesat the sheep's expense.

The four metaphors which follow are drawn from nature, one from eachregion ^ol$e un_iverse (air, earth, water, heavens) and each an example ofnature failing to follow the laws ordained for her. In this lawlessness of n-ature,such as apocalyptic writers expected to characterize the last days, Jude seespictures_of the lawlessness of the false teachers of the last days.

The first two of these images-rhe clouds which fail to give rain and thetrees which fail to provide fruit-make the same point: despite the claimsthey make for the value of their teaching, the false ieachers aie of no benefitto the church at all. Therefore, just as a barren tree is uprooted, they willincur the second death.

Not only do these reachers have no beneficial effect. Like the turbulentsea which throws up filth on the shore, they have an actually harmful effect,corrupting those who come under their influence.

Finally, they are compared ro stars which go astray from their God-ordainedcourses'- as the planets did in the old astrological myths, misleading thosewho look to them for guidance. The raditionaljudgment of such disobedientstars is to be extinguished in the erernal blacknesJof the underworld._ _

Much^ 9f -th-. impact of this passage derives from its imaginative force.Many of Jude's readers no doubt found the false teachers iirpressive andpersuasive, a1{ n11 ofJude's rask musr be to shift their whole imaginativeperception of the false teachers and show the false teachers in a wholf differ-ent light. with this aim he provides a series of imaginatively powerful'imageswhich will influence the range of mental associations with-which his readirsperceive the false teachers.

動θ Propλθり。/助0磁 (ルルノイ」6)

Bibliogrdphy

Bauckham, R. J. "A Note on a Problem in the Greek Version of I Enoch i. 9." jffs32 (1981) 13&38. Black, M. ed. Apocalypsis Hcnochi Grazcc. ln Psadepigraplw VeterisTestamanti Graeca 3, ed. A. M. Denis and M. de-fonge. leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970. Black,M. "The Christological Use of the Old Testaireni in the New festament." NfS 18(1971-72) l-14. Black, M. "The Maranatha Invocation and Jude 14, 15 (I Encichl:9)." Clrist and Spiit in llu New Testananl: in honow of Charlzs Francis Digby Moulz,ed. B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.Charles, R. H. Tru Booh of Enoch or I Ewch. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912.Knibb, Nl. A. Tlu Ethiopic Booh oJ Enoch. Yol.2. Laperrousaz, E. M. Iz Tcslammt d.c

Mota 5l-58. Milik, J. T. f,v Boohs of Enoclr. Osburn, C. D. "The ChristologicalUse of I Enoch i. 9 in Jude 14, 15." NfS 28 (191f.-?7) 334-41. vander Kam, J."The Theophany ofEnoch I 3b-7,9." m 23 0973) 129-50.

Translation

r' It was ako about these a lhat Enuh, tlw snmth in descentfrom Adam, propfusicd;saying,

Behold, tlu Lord camcb uilh his tms of thousands of holy onzs,c ri to ffieailejud$cnt on all, and to convict all tlu ungodly of all tlu ungodly deeds whichthey had commitlpd in tluir ungodlinessd and. of all tlte lnrd things e whithungod,$ sinnns had spokm against him.

tG Tluse people are disconlanted murtnurns, who follow their own dzsires. Th,eir moutluutler anogant words and they show partiality for tlu sake of gain.

Notes

rThis use of the dative rowcs is odd, but must bear this meaning.bThe aorist fl&rr represents a 'prophetic perfect.'c On the variant readings see Osburn, NfS 23 (197f-771 337-38. The addition of rirndtr<.p

in some manuscripts, including e72, is probably an explanatory gloss, since dlc alone, in ordinaryChristian usage, came to mean Christians, rather than angels.

dThis phrase is intended to represent in the English the repetition of the stem doep, whichin the Greek is contained in the verb ioAfupat

'The addition of trdlr.r, (N etc.), asin I Enoch l:9 (C), is probably an explanatory gloss.

Form / S truc tur e / S e t tin g

This is the only section of his midrash in which Jude provides a fiormalquotation from a written source as his text, and he indicates this by using astandard fiormula of introduction (cf. 4QIrIsao 2:7; 4QFlor l:16; Acts 2:16;4: I I ) in which roinqs, "these," identifies the false teachers as those to whomthe prophecy applies. In accordance with early Christian practice he makes

94 Juou 14-16

certain modifications of the text (see below) which reflect his exegesis of it(cf. Osburn, NfS n U97U77l34041).

In the interpretation (v 16) the use of the phrase rcard,rd.s irtflupias ainGsvropeubpevu, "following their own desires," creates a catchword connectionwith the next quotation (v l8).

The Test of tlw Quotation from I Enoch

In these versesJude quotes I Enoch l:9. For the text of this verse we have afragment of the original Aramaic, from Q;rmran (4QEnc l:l:lS-17: Milik, Enoci,184 and Plate IX), the Greek version in Codex Panopolitanus (C) (given in thetable from Black's edition), the Ethiopic version (grven in the table in Knibb'stranstation), and a Latin version in Pseudo-Cyprian, Ad Novatianum 16 (text inCharles, Enoch, 2751, which has been widely regarded as derived directly from IEnoch rather than from Jude. Comparison of Jude with these witnesses to thetext of I Enoch l:9 raises two questidns: (a) HasJude followed the Greek version(C) or made his own translation from the Aramaic? (b) Has Jude adapted thetext to meet his own requirements?

The following points whereJude diverges from C need to be considered:(l) i6o0: hereJude agrees with Ethiopic and Ps.-Cyprian against (C), and almost

certainly follows the Aramaic text (so vander Kam, W 23 [973] 14748; Black,"Maranatha," 195; Osburn, NfS 23 [197t771335-36; against Milik, Enoci, 186).(Both i6o0 and C's &tt may derive from an original rl N [as Knibb, Enoctr, 59, sug-gests], or perhaps from an original Nn t'lN, the phrase with which the Targumrenders ilJil rl in Mic. l:3 [a theophany text on which I Enoch l:4-6 depends]where the IXX has 6uhr i6ou; cf. vander Kam, W 23 (1973) 14748)

(2) rildal Jude's aorist (agreeing with Ps.-Cyprian) represents a Semitic "pro-phetic perfect," and will be the more literal translation of the Aramaic, whereasC and Ethiopic are more idiomatic renderings (vander l(am, W 23 [973] la8;Osburn, NfS 23 [197t77] 337; for the Aramaic prophetic perfect, see Black,NfS l8 [97]-72] l0n.; "Maranatha," 196).

(3) rupos. ln I Enoch the subject of the sentence is God, named in l:4.Jude'srupros, which has no support from the other versions, has no doubt been suppliedby him, probably as a Christological interpretation, in order to apply the verseto the Parousia ofJesus Christ (Black, "Maranarha," 195; Osburn, NTS 23 [97C771 337), but perhaps also by analogy with other theophany texts (Isa 40: l0; 66: I 5;Zech 14'5: cf. I Enoch 9l:7) which were also applied to the Parousia in primitiveChristianity.

(4) dt &yias puptirll curo0: hereJude agrees with the Ethiopic and the Aramaicfragment against C. (For an attempt to explain C's longer reading, as a Christianinterpretation of the text, see Bauckham, "A Note.") Even if the expansion ofthe text in C is the result of a secondary gloss or scribal error in the Greek version,the fact that Jude uses the Semitism dy instead of C's ow shows that he is nothere following the Greek (cf. Zahn, Intro&rction, 287).

(5) ,(oi dldfar rfuras rous doe0eis. Comparison of the versions shows that Judehas here abbreviated the text. According to the Ethiopic, Ps.-Cyprian and C, thereare three purposes of God's coming: (a) to judge, (b) to destroy, (c) to convict.By combining (b) and (c) into one phrase Jude omits the idea of destruction,which one might have expected him to retain (cf. w. 5, l0), but he also omitsthe original object of (c): "all flesh." This omission has the effect of applying thetext exclusively to the fueQeis, whom Jude wishes to identify as the false teachers(cf, Osburn, NfS 23 |1976-7?1338). The omission of "destroy," (which comes

．り０』０一“０●０」

一Ｃ●∽

““ぅｏｏ“ｏ●ａ【。●

ｏ”●げ

●〓α口〓

∽一●』ｏ＞

∽●０一●Ｅ

ｏ

ｏつ

一●

ｏ一。Ｃ口一“ロョ』ｏｏと

。●５。

一日ヨＥＯ一α●〓

●一一ｏ一〕

∽５０【ｃ日

０

●●

日

ＯｃＦ“０

日

Ｏｃｃ口０

０Ｌ０３ぁＦ●

一〇

の０一Ｑ“〓

ｏＯ〓日

０

ｏ』ｏ「二ｏＬ

一ｏ

∽う０一〓日

０

〇一

日

●■薔●●】ｏ』ｏ２Ｃ

一ＥＥＥＯつ∽

一ＥＥＥＯ「目”●

ｏ５０〓■●

●】一“●●””目●●

一“目０

，

０００日

ミ■０‐ど

‘こミ

楚

Ｑ

き

〓

‥

ミ

き

短

”

―

ミ

Ｆ電

ａ

ト

ヽビミＦヽヒ

理

３こ

８〓

哺

‥

‥ミ

”

ａ

ミ

ｒ

嘔こ

程

一こミ

鷺

‥

こ

海

一電

・‥

理

ミ

Ｓ

ｓ

３

８

い

●‥

ョミＸ、■ぃ●ヽも

ａ

なこつ

よ

峯電籠

ミミ

‘こミ

楚Ｑきξ

‥

・豊

、巳

ξ

嘔

Ｓ

ｅ

ａＦミ晨ヽ世

ヽ

゛ス。卜●κミ８κだ０

、増

量

Ｆ電■

ョ

日ヽ８」もやヽも

‥

菫

ミ

●ＯＬ●ヾヽＣヽ”

ゝ３・〓３ト

リヽ●ト

潮雛酢悩

一普

業”理

一愚

場

ぃ電Ｆ贄ＦｅＬ

“Ｅ理８ヽ■ミ

ゞ３Ｅミミ０卜ｕＲ

§

ｕ

ｓｔ８Ｌ

ご電Ｐ雪電ｏい鷲

書

ミ

奎

安Ｆ■Ｉ員ヽこぅ■と、ト

〓

‥

”ミ

へυ）ミ

，０

．●〓〓

“∽Ｃ一”“”

一〓“５ｏし´

０口”

ｏ口ｏつ

ｏ＞”〓

∽ぅ。一。●〓

ｏ〓一

●〓“

∽』ｏＣＣ】∽

ｏ〓一

〓０一〓〓

“目一〓“

，ヽ」ｏンｏ

“●“Ｅ』ｏｏ口ｏ９

〓∽ｏＣ

〓”

〓〓３

●●ｏ一目ｏ●ｏ一●Ｃ“

∽ヨｏ【α“〓

ｏこ一

ヽｏ』一りｏつ

０一

●●“

日

０〓一

ｃＯα●

“●ｇＥ昴●コ「ｏ一コ●ｏＸｏ

Ｏ“

＾∽０●０

メ【０〓

０●“∽

，ｏ〓一

●２

■一一〓

∽。日Ｏυ

ｏ〓

¨●【０〓０〇

一●く

ヽヽ

ミミ

″トロＬ

【ｒ同］ｒ口”

ヽ卜ｒロニＥＬ

【ｒロニ％属

ヽ武『ｉヽ通むヽ

96 Juon 14-16

rather oddly before "convict" in I Enoch) emphasizes their judicial conviction,which must precede their destruction.

(6) rept r&yrotv t<bt ox\ryiw tat eXaXWrrr, xar' &ino1. The longer text in C maybe explaine-4 by dittography (Charles, Enocl\ 8; Knibb, Enoch, 60), unless Judihas again abbreviated the text, as the Ethiopic has certainly done here. Aglinstall the versions, the Aramaic fragment has "great and hard," as in 5:4 (Greek:rctd)\an Kd oKttlqis trayous; Ethiopic: "proud and hard words"). Jude has thesense of this in v 16 (inr€pvxsl.

- Jude's divergences from C do not seem to be explicable by the supposition!!lt tt: I3l quoting the Greek version from memory (Chaine,-Kelly). Ai points(3) and (5) he has deliberately adapted the text to suit'the interpretation he wishesto put on it, but at points (l), (2), (4) and perhaps (6) he seems to be closer tothe Aramaic original than to C. On the othei hand elsewhere his translation coin-cirles closely with C. This coincidence might just possibly be accidental, assumingin both cases a literal rendering of the Alamaic (tf. Milik's reconstruction of thiAramaic), but this is unlikely.

The simplest explanation is that Jude hwut the Greek version, but made hisown translarion from the Aramaic. Other possibilities are that the text in C is acorruption.of the Greek version whichJud-e quotes, or that the translator of theGreek version was a christian who knewJude;s letter (z-ahn, Inbo&rtion,2BZ).

Comment

14. 'Er.6o,pTreuoer,- "prophesied." While this word indicates that Jude re-g.arded the prophecies in I Ercch as inspired by God, it need n6t implythat he regarded the book as canonical siripture.'At epmran, for example,the Enoch literature and other apocryphal woiks were eviiently valued withbuibein_g included in the canon of Scripture.

E96opos ana 'AOcg, "the seventh in descent from Adam": a traditional descrip-!i9q gf Enoch (I Enoch 60:8; 93:3 : 4QEng t:3:23-24; !ub. 7:3g: tn.R;b.29:ll), arrived at-by reckoning the generations inclusiiely (Gen. b:3-lg).As the number of-perfection, ii indicltes Enoch's very special character inthe genealogy of the patriarchs, as the man who walked with God and wastaken up to- heaven (Gen 5:24)-the root of all the legends and literatureabout Enoch in intertestamental Judaism. The descriptlon here is probablyintended to stress, not so much Enoch's antiquity, as 6is special status whichgives authority to his prophecy.

itl$ev rcbrr';q, "the Lordtame." rci:pas ("the Lord") is probablyJude's inter-pretative gloss on-the text (see Form/stnrcture/setting seition aboie), by whichhe applies 3 pr-ophecy of the eschatological comin[ of God (r Ercch'r:4) tothe Parousia of the Lord Jesus. In doing so he fol-lows whai seems to travebeen a widespread practice in primitivd christianity, of applying or the-9p!a_ny texts to rhe Parousia (e.g. Isa 40:10 [Rev.22:l2l; lsa 65:l-6 [Rev19:13, l5l; Isa 66:15 [2 Thess l:Thzech l4:5 tl rhess-3:13; Ditt. 16:71).The opening section of I Enoch is in fact based on a series of such ottexts, especially thosg which depict the coming of the Divine warrior (seevander Kam, VT 23 [19731 129-b0).

^ That early christians expecred the eschatological theophany to take thefiorm of the Parousia of the Lord Jesus has considerable imporiance for thestudy of the earliest christologicil developments, for it wis one route by

Commmt 97

which divine language came to be used of Christ. Like most early Christology,this was a functional identifrcation ofJesus with God; as God's representativehe will carry out the divine function of eschatological judgment (and salvation,see on v 2i). Even thoughJewish messianic expectation could also transfersuch functions to the Meisiih (4Ezra l2:31-33; 13:37-38; 2 Apoc. Bar.40:l;72:2), it is noteworthy that much early Christian thinking about the Parousiadid not derive from applying OT messianic texts toJesus but from the directuse of OT texts aboui the coming of God. Jude is clear evidence that thistook place in Palestinian Jewish Christianity.

Blick (N?S t8 tl97l-721 l0-ll; "Maranatha") suggests that I Enoch l:9'in the form given in Jude 14, is the source of the Maranatha formula, butthis presupposes (l) that / Enoch l:9 was widely used in early Christianity,and i2) thal ruproS is not Jude's own but a traditional Christian adaptationof the text. If (l) were acceptable, (2) would be plausible enough, butJudelsuse of I Enoch is rather exceptional among NT writers (by contrast withsecond-century Christian writers, who surprisingly allude to I Enoch morefrequently), and we cannot be very confident that / Enoch l:9 was used ofthe-Parousia much outside the circles to which Jude belongs. It is of coursepossible thatJude is one of our very few witnesses from precisely those Ara-maic-speakinf Christian circles in which Maranatha originated. But it wouldbe safer to connect the formula more generally with the early Christian useof OT texts which refer to the coming of the Lord (Deut 33:2; Ps 68:17;Isa 40:10; 66:15; Mic l:3; Zech l4:5). It is with one of these other texts(Isa 40:10) that the formula seems to be linked when it is used in Revelation(22:12,201.

ht ayiats ,tupts,ou ainol, "with his tens of thousands of holy ones." Theauthor of I Enoch l:9 derived the phrase from Deut. 33:2 (understandingthe text as "tens of thousands of holy ones with him," as in Tg' Onq.; cf.Ps. 68:17, and vander Kam, VT 23 tl973l 148-50), in accordance with themention of Sinai in I Enoch l:4. The "holy ones" are angels, the heavenlyarmy of the Divine Warrior, as in Zech l4:5, which was probably the mainsouice of the early Christian expectation that the Lord at his Parousia wouldbe accompanied by a retinue of angels (Matt l6:27; 25:31; Mark 8:38; Luke9:26;2 Thess l:7; perhaps I Thess 3:13; see Bauckham, "A Note")-

15. tunpot rcpiow tcofi, rottruv, "to execute judgment on all." The phraserefers to adverse judgment, condemtration (cf. v 4, rcpipa), and, especiallyinJude's adaptatio-n of the text, not to all men but to all the ungodly (do:p€.csJ.

-doeleiS, "the ungodly": see Commmt on v 4. The quotation. is remarkablefor its repetition of tn'e stem tioep' (doe!€is twice, <ioepeias, ioe\noav), andthis must be one reason why Jude chose it. It is probable that for him thiswas really the key text which demonstrates that the false teachers and theirjudgmeni are prophesied, and that v 4 (u ra}g;t lrpoTelpaPpivot eis tolto rb rcp'

iwlA6reks\ pbinis forward, n-ot exclusively, but especially, to-this quotation'Ted tanc,nt r6v oK\np6y &v i\attnoay rcar' sbrol, "of all the hard things

whicir . . . had spoken against him." The ungodly are to be condemnedboth for their deCds and (in this phrase) for their words. It is on the latteraspect thatJude will concentrate inhis interpretation (v l6), probably because

hi has already dealt with the former aspect quite fully (vv 5-10) and is now

98 Junn 14-16

more concerned with the false teachers as teachers. To speak "hard things"(cf. I Enoch 5:4;27:2; 101:3; also LXX Gen 42:7,30; I Kgdms 20:10; 3Kgdms 12:13) is associated in / Enoch 5:4 with being "hard-hearted," andprobably in I Enoch means to express stubborn resistance to God's will.

16. 1ay1wrci, "murmurers." The connotations of the phrase "hard things"(orc\qpdv) in the quotation from I Enoch takeJude's mind back to the Israelitesin the wilderness (cf. Ps 95:8; and for Israel in the wilderness as rhe classiccase of "hardness of heart," see Berger, ZNW 6l t1970] 147), whom hehas already cited as types in vv 5 and I l. For the verbal expressions oflsrael'sstubbornness, her complaints against God and resistance to his will, are againand again in the Pentateuch and later literature described as "murmuring"(117, lll; tXX: 'lvyTitlep, \wlaffblep,.lu,l"lvo,tos; and see K. H. Rengstorfin TDNT 1,728-37). (Jude's "roTporai is a hapax in LXX and NT, but isfound in Symmachus, Prov 26:22: Isa 29:24; and Theodotion, Prov 26:20.)Israel's disbelief at Kadesh, to which Jude referred in v 5, was expressed in"murmuring" (Num l4:2,27,29, 36; Deut l:27; Ps 106:25; CD 3,8), as wasKorah's revolt (Num 16:ll; for other instances of Israel's murmuring in thewilderness, see Exod 15'24; 16:2,7-9, 12; I Cor 10:10; 4 Ezra li5-16).Though, of course, the word could be used in other contexts (Sir 10:25;It.-Srt 16:ll; IQH 5:23; lqs ll:l; Matt 20:ll; Luke 5:30;John 6:41,43,6l;7:32; Did. 3:6; 3 Apoc. Bar. 8:5; l3:4), its associations with Israel in thewilderness were so strong that Jude must intend them here.

The reference is not to the false teachers' complaints against the churchauthorities (Werdermann, Inlzhrn, 58-59; Zahn, Intro&rction, 247), becauseJude is interpreting the "hard things" of Enoch's prophecy, which the ungodlyspoke against the Lord Qcar' ainol). Jude means rhar the false teachers, likeIsrael in the wilderness, dispure the authority of God (or christ). Instead9f lccepting his will for rhem, they resist it and complain about it (cf. Num14:2-3). Jude is again rhinking of their antinomianism. No doubt the falseteachers said that no good came of keeping rhe commandments of the Lawand regarded them as a burdensome restriction of human freedom.

pepltitrrup, "discontenred." This word (which should probably be takenas an adjective with ToyTuorai, "murmurers") adds little io the meaning of1uyywrai, but strengrhens rhe rhetorical impact. Another NT (and LXX)hapaq it refers to people who are disconrenied with their lot. philo (Mos.l.l8l) uses pepry'4rorpeiv of Israel's murmuring in the wilderness, andJudemay have taken the word from T.Mos. 7:7 (quamt [. . .], restored by Chirles,Assurnplion, as quamrlosi, which in the vulgare arJude 16 translates trep{ritmpo';ibut against this view" see Laperrousaz, Testammt, 5t-52).

The false teachers are not content with the moral restrictions God hasimposed on them, and wish to throw off such restraints.

rcard, ras in$upias air6v ropeu6pevw,.'following their own desires.,' Thecorollary of their rejection of God's will is that they follow their own will.Although ir$upia frequenrly has the bad sense of sinful desire, Jude's pointhere is not so much that they indulge particular sinful desires, wh?ther sixuallust or greed, but that they follow their own desires rather than God's. Anillum.inating comparison is with the catalogue of historical examples of sinand judgment in CD 2:14-3:12 (which is ielated to Jude's list in w. b-7),

Commmt 99

where the repeated phrases describing sin are: "walked in the stubbornnessof their heart," "did not keep the commandment(s)," and "chose their ownwill" (cf. also CD 8:7-8;Jer 18:12). The last is the equivalent ofJude's phrase(cf. also Isa 65:2; T.J"d. l3:2;2 Tim. 4:3; Aristides, Apol. 71.

ro orbpa ain 6v \alci tri payrca, "Their mouths utter arrogant words." TheQumran Aramaic fragment of I Enoch l:9 (4QEn" l:l:17) says that the wickedspoke "great and hard things" (l'ulPl lll[]11): ifJude read this text, heomitted "great" in his quotation, but now takes it up in his interpretation.In any case, the phrase is repeated in I Enoch 5:4 (4QEne l:2:13), whichresumes the theme of l:9: "you have spoken great and hard words (Greek:peTd)\ous rai orctrqpous layous) with your unclean mouth against his mqjesty."This passage is again echoed in I Enoch l0l:3: "you speak with your mouthgreat and hard things (pe7alv rcoi orclqpa) against his majesty" (cf. also 27:2).Jude may also have recalled the same expression in T. Mol 7:9 (os eorum

hqutur ingmtia, an exact equivalent ofJude's phrase) and Dan 7:8, 20 (IXXand 0: orbpa )\c)\oDrr peya\a, "a mouth uttering great things,") (cf. also Ps

l2:3 [XX ll:4]; Rev l3:5;2 Apoc. Bar. 67:7).In place of the usual literal Greek rendering pelallc- ("great"),Jude uses

inigyxn (lit. "huge"; elsewhere in NT only at 2 Pet 2:18), which is betterGreek idiom, since the word can be used of speech and of arrogance (seethe quotations from Plutarch in Mayor; Theodotion, at Dan I l:36, has )\d\rioeitn{payxa, "he will speak arrogant words"). But the Semitic idiom must deter-mine Jude's meaning, which is not that the false teachers are, in the usualsense, boastful (as in nsv, JB, NIv, etc.). Their big words are uttered againstGod (I Enoch 5:4; l0l:3), like those of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Apoc. Bar. 67:7),Antiochus Epiphanes (Dan 7:8, 20; I l:36) and the Antichrist (Rev l3:5). Theyexpress their arrogant, presumptuous attitude toward God, their insolentcontempt for his commandments, their rejection of his moral authority whichamounts to a proud claim to be their own moral authority.

flapalones rpooura clge)\eics xapu, "showing partiality fior the sake ofgain." Neither the connection-of this phrase with what precedes nor its precisemeaning is easy to understand. The expression flolpalev rfinc'ww or ty'mutais a common translation of the Hebrew idiom lltlS NDJ (used in [XX: e.g.Deut l0:17;28:50;2 Chron l9:7;Job l3:10;22:8; Prov l8:5; the alternativetranslation in IXX is lw$fuiev qinuww).It does not always carry a badsense (cf. Gen 19:21; Deut 28:50), but when in the OT it does it usuallymeans to show partiality in the administration ofjustice, and is often linkedwith perverting justice by taking bribes (Deut l0:17; 16:19;2 Chron l9:7;Prov 28:21; Sir 35:12-13).

InJude 16 the term has commonly been translated "flatter" (nsv,.;s, Nw),but there is little precedent fior this meaning (cf. Job 82:21-22).It couldmean "show partiality" in a very general sense, as in Jas 2:l-9, where thefault is that of showing honor to the rich while neglecting the poor. Then,as most commentators argue, Jude means that the false teachers curry favorwith the rich and influential members of the church. This gives a good senseexcept that it seems very loosely linked to what precedes.

It-may be that the meaning is rather more precise. There are a numberof passages in which the sin ol "respecting persons" is linked to the activity

100 Juon 14-16

of religious teachhg. These are closely related to rhe usual judicial conrextof the term, since just as the judge may pervert the Law to favor the richand powerful or for the sake of a bribe, so may the teacher of the [,aw adapthis teaching to what his hearers may wish to hear. He may, in his teaching,overlook the sins of those on whose favor he depends. so Mal 2:9 denouncJsthe priests who show parriality in their teaching-of rhe Law (IXX: t\apparcrerfuoxrabwpe; and cf. Mic 3:l l), and the ideil of rheJewish teacher accord-i"g !o Luke 20:21 (cf. Matt 22:16; Mark 12:14) is one riho shows no partiality(oit lvpparets rfiourw) but truly teaches the way of God. We might als6compare the instructions in the early christian catechesis, that whln it isnecessary to reprove a Christian brother for a fault, it should be done withoutpartiality (Did 4:3; Barn. l9:4; Ep. Apost.46, cf. 38,42',.

141"y gg-Tentators-rhink thatJude has T. Mos. 5:5 especially in mind,and if so this should settle themeaning. Although the rext is sbmewhat corrupt(see charles, Assumplion, 72-75), it appears to speak of teachers of the Law(nagistn, dnctores cont:n-notjudges, who are mentioned later in v 6) whojpspeg.t persons" (mirantes pnsonasl and pervert justice by accepting bribes.(A similar passage t9- q later passage of chriitian apocalyptic a6out thefalse tea.chns in the Church in thi last days is Ep. Apost

- gZ; ina cf. also lsc.Isa.3:25))

Jude's opponents set themselves up as teachers in the church, but insteadof faithfully-presenting_G9d'! moral demands without fear or favor, theyset them aside, because,Jude alleges, they hope in this way to make themselvesacceptable to those members of the community on whose generosity theydepend-for_their living. rli: interpreta-tion has'the advantafe or providin!an intelligible connection with the rlst of the verse. The wholJverse concernstheir rejectio-n of the will'of God in their teaching. This reflects, says Jude,not only their presumptuous arrogance in relation to God ("Their'm6uthsutter -arrogant words"), but also their sycophancy toward men. The sameteaching in which they utter their "big words" against God is intended toplease their patrons because it offers them freedoir fro* moral restraint.

F*planation

. . Thg.qugtation from Enoch is probably to be seen as Jude's key text inhis midrash. Interprete$_by the iddition'of the word "L6rd," it speaks ofthe-coming .of the !-91d Jesus to judge the wicked. Its emphatic repetitionof the- word 'ungodly" hammers hbme the message ofJude'i whole midrash:that those who indulge in "ungodly" conduct, aJ the-false teachers do, arethose on whom judgment will fall.

-

. In applying the pT-onhgcy.to the falsg teachers, Jude takes up especiallyits mention of the "hard rhings" which the ungodly have spoi.n againslthe Lord, and highlights the bmds of the false-teachers as ihor. of" -.r,who will not submit to the divine will. Like Israel in the wilderness they"murmur" against it, c-omplaining of the restraints which the Law imposeion people.^In the-clash between-God's will and their own, rhey rejeit theformer to follow the latter.-frgy a" this with shameless

"r.og"tr..,-.ettingthemselves up as a moral authority competent to set aside the coinmandmenti

Explanation l0l

of God. They also do so with an eye to the favor of those members of thechurch on whom they depend for their prosperous living, hoping that a doc-trine of moral laxity will appeal to these others as much as it appeals tothemselves.

The passage adds little to our knowledge of the false teachers, but thatis not its purpose. It turns entirely on the fact that they are antinomians,and it is only this fact with which Jude is really concerned. His effiorts aredirected to persuading his readers that such antinomian teachers belong withthe sinners of all ages condemned in Scripture, and especially with the sinnersof the last days whose judgment at the Parousia is prophesied. The valueof the prophecy of Enoch was that it made this point very effectively.

The Prophecy of the Apostles (Jude 17-19)

Translation

17 But you, my dzar friends, should rmwnbn tlw predktioru of thc apostlcs ofour LordJexs Christ, 18 how thq said to you,

In the fnal age lhme will be scofns, who will follow their own dzsira for ungod-lirwss.s

rs These people are the ones who oeate diuisions, who follou m,sre natural insti,ncls,and dp not possess tlte Spirit.

Notes

.16* dseftui* could be a genitive of quality, perhaps a Semitism ("ungodly desires"), or1n objective genitive ("desires for ungodly deeds"): the plural makes thelatter rather morelikely. The words are an example ofJude's catchword technique, and so should not be rejectedas a gloss (as Spitta proposes).

Form / S truc ture / S e tting

The opening phrase, with the vocative d,yan1rw, "my dear friends," indi-cates-a ma.jor transition (see White, Body, 15-16,38), in whichJude repeatsthe thought of the opening phrase in v 5. This formal transition inditatesthe transition from OT types and prophecies (w 5-16) to an aposrolic proph-ecy (w f 7-19).Jude is still recalling his readers ro the teaching they receivedat the time of their conversion, but he now moves from the OT material inwhich they were instrucred to the prophecies which the aposrolic foundersof their church(es) gave them on rheir own aurhority.

Jude's quotation, which has no close parallel except in 2 Pet 3:3, maynot be a precise quotation from a written or oral sourie, but a statement inhis own words of the general sense of some of the prophetic material whichwas often included in early Chrisrian teaching. That the words are his ownis suggested by the fact that tcard,ras €awcisv irrlvpias nopeuilpaturciu dsepeuiat("who will follow their own desires for ungodliness") echo, in catchwordfashion, v 16 and the repeated osep. words in the quorarion from Enoch (vl5). On the other hand, it is also possible thatJude quores a fixed form ofwords, which he has selected becaue of its use of the catchword aoegeEyand in v 16 deliberately anticipated its wording.

Comment

17. 0peZs de, "But you," indicates a contrast with the false teachers (v 16),but not, as many commentators think, a contrast between this section andthe preceding verses (5-16). It is not thatJude now turns from denouncingthe false teachers to exhorting the faithful. in this section he is still explainin[to his readers that the false teachers are the people of whom they were warned

Comment 103

in prophecy. But throughout the midrash section his intention has been thathis readers, heeding these warnings, should no longer be tempted to followthe false teachers.

pvrlo?rfre r6:u pr1parc'v rdsv rpxtprlpiv<,sv ttnb rdsv anoor6\ov roD rcuplou itnltrtIWol X&orot, 6rt d\e7ou it1.fut, "you should remember the predictions of theapostles of our LordJesus Christ, how they said to you." The interpretationof this passage is crucial for the date and character of the whole letter, sinceit has often been understood as requiring a postapostolic date of writing. Itis said to represent the age of the apostles as belonging to the past.

Against this view there are two decisive considerations: (l) The formalconnection with v 5 (see Forrn/Struture/Setting section) indicates thatJudeis still recalling his readers to their original Christian instruction, receivedat the time of the founding of their church(es). Once this is realized, thewhole passage can be read naturally in a way which does not at all requirea postapostolic date. It is not the apostles themselves who belong to thepast, but simply their instruction ofJude's readers at the time of their church-founding visit to the area. (2) This interpretation is supported by the explicitinformation that it was Jude's readers themselves (it1fut, "to you") whom theapostles taught. This sets the only limit that can be gathered from this passageon the length of time which had passed since the apostles' prophecies weregiven. It implies that most of the original converts were still living whenJude wrote. The word rpretprlpevav ("spoken beforehand") does not requirethat a long period of time had passed; its function is only to indicate thatthe predictions preceded their fulfillment.

Against this argument that Jude here refers only to his readers' initialChristian instruction, it might be objected that the imperfect Elrclov ("theysaid") implies that the teaching was "often repeated" (Mayor). But (l) it isdoubtful whether in the case of this verb the distinction between the imperfectand the aorist can be pressed (see BDF $ 329; and cf., e.9., Matt 9:34; Mark3:21-22); (2) even if it could be pressed, the repetition need be only in thecourse of one visit by the apostles. Paul's Thessalonian letters provide instruc-tive parallels, for he uses three imperfects (npoelGlopev, I Thess 3:4; Elrc1ov,2 Thess 2:5; rapnl"rillopeu, 2 Thess 3:10) with reference to his teachingduring his one initial visit to Thessalonica. Moreover, Paul's rrrr\iyopev ("wesaid beforehand": I Thess 3:4) parallelsJude's rpxtprTpivau ("spoken before-hand") as a reference to an apostolic prediction, given only a short timebefore, but already fulfilled at the time of writing. The parallel is closer stillif Paul's prediction is interpreted as the apocalyptic expectation of the timeof eschatological tribulation. A further parallel with Jude's words is foundin 2 Thess 2:5 ("Do you not remember that when I was still with you Itold you l€\elwitttutl these things"): here Paul (if 2 Thessalonians is authentic)recalls his readers to the apocalyptic teaching about the coming of Antichristwhich he gave them during the missionary visit when he founded their church.Unlike Paul,Jude refers in the third person to the apostles, because he himselfwas not one of the founding missionaries of the church(es) to which he writes.But his words do not necessarily require any longer interval of time thanthat between Paul's visit to Thessalonica and his writing of the Thessalonianletters.

rdw prynron, lit. "the words." The plural seems most naturally taken as

104 Junn 17-19

"sayings," in which case the quotation that follows is only a sample or summaryof the apostles' prophecies.

r<iv aroor6\uv ro1 xuptou ilttilv'lqool Xporot, "the apostles of our LordJesus Christ," are not all the apostles, "the apostolic college" seen throughthe reverent eyes of a later generation (Kelly), but, naturally in the context,those apostles who founded the church(es) to which Jude writes. The fullexpression is not paralleled elsewhere in the NT (in the Pauline writings,the usual expression is "apostle of Christ Jesus"; but cf. Eph 3:5: "his holyapostles"), but it stresses the authority of the apostles as derived from theLord, in a way which is quite natural from a contemporary of the apostles.

Almost all commentators think that Jude here excludes himself from thenumber of the apostles, bur he need only be excluding himself from thenumber of those aposrles who founded the church(es) to which he writes.In fact, as "the Lord's brother," he was probably not known as an apostle(see on v l), but that conclusion cannot be derived from this verse.

18. ezr' Eo,4arov roD ynvou, "in the final age." The OT expression E'll'iln'''l nNl ("in the latter days") is rendered in the Septuagint and early Christianliterature in a wide variety of ways, of which the most common are dzr ioxarovrhv rTpe gi:v and iy (rafrs) ioxarslg qpipats. Sometimes rcaty'og ("time") is usedinstead of ipipa ("day") (l Tim 4:l; I Pet l:5; Did. 16:2; Ign. Epft. ll:l),but xpozos ("time") is used only here and in I Pet l:20 (€r'iolgrov r6nxltovritv, "in the last times"). Again we have evidence of the relatively indepen-dent character ofJude's translations of Semitic material. The rather awkwardexpression ("improved" by those MSS which omit roD) results from the useof ioyarou as a substantive, equivalent to the Hebrew n''lnN ("latter part"or"final part"), as in the more usual rendering eir' doyarov rA, ipe$it (LJ\XNum 24:14;Jer 23:20;25:19; Dan l0:14; Heb l:2).

As used in the OT, the phrase usually refers simply to the future (G. W.Buchanan, "Eschatology and the 'End of Days,"'JfNES 20 [196l] 188-93),but later, in apocalyptic literature and elsewhere, it became a standard expres-sion for the time when the OT prophecies would be fulfilled, and hlncethe "eschatological" furure (CD 4:4;6:ll; lQSa l:l; lQpHab 2:5;9:6:2Apoc. Bar.6:8;41:5; 78:5). Early Christian writers, with their sense of livingu!.udl in the time of fulfillment, can use it with reference ro rhe comingof Christ in the past (Heb l:2; I Pet l:20; 2 Cbm. l4:2; Asc. Isa. 9:13; cf.Heb 9:26) and to their own presenr (Barn.4:9;lgn. Eph. ll:l; cf. I John2:18), as well as to the still outstanding future (fas-5:3; I Pet l:5; Did.16:2,3; Asc. /sc. 3:30). The same writer can use it with reference to both pastand future ( I Pet I :5, 20). Hence rvhenJude represenrs the apostles as predict-ing events for the last days, he is not denying that they saw themselves asliving already in the last days. The phrase is a flexible one, which was no{9ubt used in apostolic predictions of the apocalyptic future in the earliestchristian_teaching. For its use in contexts similai to that ofJude 18, cf.lQpHab 2:54; I Tim 4:l;2 Tim 3:l; Did. 16:3; Asc. Isa. 3:3O.

ipnoixran, "scoffers." In the Widsom Literature of the OT the "scoffer"(I)) is the man who despises and ignores religion and morality (Ps l:l; Provl:22;9:74; l3:l etc.; and cf. 4 Ezra 7:79,81), and it is in this general sense

Commmt 105

that Jude uses the Greek equivalent dpnaitcrr6. This word and its cognatesare typical of Jewish Greek (Ewraqpa, dturol.ry,pdry,, iprat1pwil, ipraixrr6 arefound only in LXX and NT, dpzcircrr6 only in Isa 3:4;2 Pet 3:3; Jude l8),but usually in the context of the persecution of the righteous by the wickedwho mock them (see TDNT 5, 633). They are never used in the Septuagintto translate f?. AgainJude's Greek is relatively.independent of Septuagintusage. (In the Qpmran texts, "the scoffer" [lls?n UrN] and "the scoffers"are the sect's terms, probably derived from Isa 28:14, for their enemies theWicked Priest and his allies: CD l:14; 4Qplsau 2:6, 10.)

tclazrd, rds iandv r.ndvpias rcpevbpevu rdn doepeuJn, "who will follow theirown desires for ungodliness." The addition of rcisrt dtepauitu (lit. "for ungodlydeeds") to the phrase whichJude has already used in v 16 gives it a differentnuance: not simply their oun desires, but their desires to indulge in wickedruss.(Cf. Herm. Vis. 3:7;3: fiopeinvratra\w inioot r6u irtflvpuint qindnt rdv fiwqg;a4"they go once more after their evil desires"; 7i /ss. 6:12; T. Ju.d. 13:12.)

Jude has not cited a prophecy explicitly about false prophets or false teach-ers, although such prophecies were common in early Christian eschatologicalteaching (Maa 7:15; 24:11,24; Mark 13:22. Acts 20:29-30; I Tim 4:l-3;2 Tim 4:84; I John 2:8; 4:l-3; Did. 16:3; Apoc. Pet. A l; SiD. Or. 2:165-6).Probably because he wished to end his series of texts with one which againstressed the antinomian character of his opponents, he has cited a prophecyon a closely related and equally traditional theme: the apostasy of believersfrom true religion and morality in the last days (2 Tim 3:l-5; Asc. Isa. 3:21,25-28; cf. Matt 24:12; Did. 16.34). With his conviction that such prophecieswere now being fulfilled, cf. I John 2:18; 2 Tim 3:l-9.

19. tiro6ropd|owes, "who create divisions." This very rare word (a strongerform of &prl(ew or dfuptlew) was used, by Aristotle (Pol. 4.41 in the senseof "to define," "to make a distinction" in order to classify (see also the lateroccurrences in Maximus Confessor and Severus, quoted by Mayor), and somecommentators have thoughtJude uses it in the same sense: the false teachersmake distinctions within the community. This is especially suitable fior theinterpretation of the false teachers as Gnostics; they classify themselves aspneumatics and the ordinary Christians as psychics (so Mayor, Windisch,Chaine, Kelly, Grundmann, Nna). But dto&r,pt(ew can also (like Dropileiv andd,|opileu) mean "to separate," as in Corp. Hmn. 3:2a, where it is used ofthe separation of the upper from the lower elements in the creation of thecosmos, and this seems to be a more obvious sense inJude. The false teachersare causing divisions in the church (so Spitta, Bigg, Reicke). Since they stillparticipate in the common fellowship-meals (v l2), Jude cannot mean thatthey have gone into complete schism, but that they gather their own factionwithin the church, like Korah (see on v ll). The tendency of their teachingis divisive because it creates an 6litist group who regard themselves as thosewho truly possess the Spirit (see below).

The fact thatJude introduces this theme in his interpretation of the apostles'prophecy (v 18) may indicate that this too was a theme of the eschatologicalprophecies of the early Christian missionaries. Cf. the agraphon, "There willbe divisions and factions" (€owto,t, oxiopara tai dipeoe6, Justin, Dial. 35.3;

J. Jeremias, Unhnown Sayings of Jesus, tr. R. H. Fuller [London: S. P. C. K.,

106 Junn 17-19

19571 59-61), and I Cor ll:lg: "rhere must be factions (aipeoec) amongyou." Thus one mark which identifies the false teachers as the prophesied"scoffers" is the fact that, as prophesied, they create factions.

M. R. James (xlv) makes the interesting suggestion that Jude took theword rirro&opifoureg from 21 Mos. 7:7, where, immediately before rynu,losi(: peprlipotrtclt, "discontented," as inJude 16), the Latin text has extanninatores,"destroyers."James conjectures that this is a literal rendering of &r&opi(oweg(since &og.lev can carry the same sense as Latin ntmninare), but it is difficultto see what dro6ropiforrres could have meant in the context (admittedly frag-mentar/) of T. Mos. 7:7,

fu1gxri, peBW pi Exornes, "who fiollow mere natural instincts, and do notpossess the Spirit." gruXros (pertaining to rltuyil, "soul" or "life") is used inI Cor 2:14; 15:44, in a contrast with nevqrucbs (pertaining to twelpa, "theSpirit"): it refers to merely physical life, the life of this world, without theeschatological gift of the Holy Spirit. InJas 3:15 (the only other NT occur-rence) {ruxuos has a similar but even more sharply negative sense: the God-given wisdory "from above" is contrasted with the wisdom that is "earthly,unspiritual, devilish" (iri1r,e'r.s, fiuxtrci, 6a4nvub6ns).

- Although Paul's use of zzeulrczrais and hryrccg, in I Cor 2:14-lb is widely,tho^ugh not universally, regarded as echoing the terminology of his opponerrisat Corinth, no fully convincing source for this terminology has yet bLin dem-onstrated. The second-century gnostic use of rveuparw6g and guxuah (8. A.Pearson, Tlu htarmatihos-Psychikos Tarninol,ogy in I corinthiaru [SBLDS 12; Mis-soula, MT: scholars Press, 19731 chap. 6) derives from their exegesis of paul(Pagels, Paul, 59, 163-64).

_ Hellenistic-Jewish wisdom theology is a more promising source (pearson,htnmatihos-Psychikos), but not only is the terminology rvevltartnis and tuxtrrr.itself unattested; there is not even a regular anihropological distinctionbetween weipa ("spirit") as the higher element and htXi-(soul") as thelower element in man (R. A. Horsley, "Pneumatikos vs. Psychikos," H?R69 [1976] 27u73, criticizing Pearson). Although some Hellenistic anthropol-ogy did distinguish the rlruXri, ("soul") as a lower element from yoDs 1"mind,')as the hrghe,r element, the devaluation of ry'ryri ("soul") by comparison withtue$w ("spirit") must result from the early christian belief in the spiritnot as a constituent of human nature, but as the gift of God to the beliiver.

Since the background to Paul's use of truevparmos and 0uxtrc6s is so uncer-tain, we cannot draw firm conclusions as toJude's relationship to it: whetherthat Jude- bo-rrowed the term fiuruxbs from Paul, or that Jude's opponentsborrowed it from Paul, or thatJude's opponenrs shared ir with pauiis oppo-nents. It is safer to interpretJude's words in their own context.

- Cfe3rly flqw pi ilowes ("not possessing the Spirit") explains {nrprcci:the false teachers do not possess the spirit br cod, but live-purely at rhelevel of natural, earthly life. As most cbmmentators recogniz-e, it is liketythatJude here contradicts hisopponents'claim to possess the spirit. probablythey connected this claim with their visionary exp-erience and rhe revelationsthey received in their-visions (v 8). The spirit'of pi'ophetic inspiration inspiredthem, and as men of the spirit they claimed tobe-free from moral resiraintand superior to moral judgments. Jude's denial of this claim rests on their

Expl.anatian 107

immoral behavior, which shows that they cannot be led by the Spirit of God,but merely "follow their own desires for ungodliness" (v l8). Such peopleare merely rltvytrcoi, devoid of the Spirit. Whether {uxxotwas the false teachers'own term for other Christians, who did not share their charismatic experienceand moral freedom, is less certain. It is possible that Jude turns the tableson them in this way, but equally possible that gvxtrcu is simply his own judg-ment on them.

If there is a connection with dno&oplwres ("who create divisions"), itwill be that the false teachers are gathering a faction which claims to possessthe Spirit by contrast with more conventional Christians. Those who see thefalse teachers as Gnostics find inJude's words a reflection of gnostic anihropol-ogy; the false teachers and their followers see themselves as pneumatics (rrueu-

parucw) with a higher knowledge and destiny, while the ordinary Christiansare psychics (,lnxuroi) (Windisch, Moffatt, Barnett, Sidebottom, Kelly, Grund-mann). This fully gnostic interpretation differs from the view already sug-gested in that it posits not merely an €lite (which others may join), but afixed division of mankind into naturally distinct classes. But this theory cannotbe shown to have been taught before the second century, and even thendid not characterize all gnostic groups. There is no need to read it intoJude's words, which require not a developed heretical system of this kind,but an antinomian distortion of common early Christian notions of the Spirit.

F.xplanation

For his final "text"Jude turns to apostolic prophecy, reminding his readersof the apocalyptic predictions which were part of the teaching they receivedfrom the apostles who founded their church(es). The words he quotes areprobably his own summary of the kind of prophecies the early Christian mis-sionaries gave. They predict that in the final period of history there will beenemies of true religion and morality in the church.Jude sees this expectationfulfilled in the false teachers, who are now further characterized as peoplewho cause divisions in the church. They gather an 6litist faction of peoplewho share the same kind of prophetic inspiration as they themselves claim.But this claim Jude dismisses. Their immoral behavior is for him sufficientevidence that in reality they do not possess the Spirit of God, but live purelyon the level of natural, unredeemed life.

The Appeal (Jude 20-231

Bibliography

B19de1l{. "Judas 22 f.: O0s 6e ddre tv A6pe);' TZ 6 (1950) 75-77. Bir&rll, J. N."The'Text ofJude in p?2." JTS 14 (1963) 394-99. Marshall, l,H, Keptby ttw pouetof Go( Lo.ndon: Epworth Press, 1969. 16l-63. Mees, M. "Papyrus Bodmer VII lnzr;und die Zitate aus demJudasbrief bei clemens von Alexandrien." cDios l8l (lgo8)551-59. Osburn, C. D. "The Text ofJude 22..23;' zNW 63 (1972) lg9-44. Spicq,C. Agape, 372-74.

Translation

. ? !yt.J.ou, m! dtar frirnds, build yourselues up a on the foundation of your mostholy faith,b pra2 a in the Ho\ Spirii, 2r heep yourselaes in- tlw lnue of God, uait.fo, ^!!n_m,uq

of our Lord Jens Christ to grant you etatnt tife.22 Snatch some from lhe fire,n but on lhose who dispute. haae mnq with fear,6 hating nm tfu ctnthing

lhat has bem soibd by the fiesh.

Notes

.On.the participles in these verses, probably used as imperatives, see Fonn/Structurc/Scttingsection below.

_ ,b lrobally the dnl in drrattcfr,pfilr'es, "build up," here retains rhe sense of ..(build) oz" (asin I Cor 3:12; Eph 2:20), and the dative rfiilme4-,,the faith," therefore indicates the fioundationon -rvhich.th.e. building is-crected. This seems preferable to an instrumental dative (suggestedby Reicke): "by means of your most holy faith.;'

c For this translation of &axputopevws, see Commenl.drhe translation of w 22-23a follows the text of ptt: see the note on the text below.

Ttu Text of Jwlz 22-23a

- It is probably-impossible to reach an assured conclusion as to the original text

of w 22-23a, which is_"undoubtedly one of the most corrupt passag.i in NewTestament literarure" (Osburn, zNw Gg tlg72l 139). The manuscripts a-nd versionspresent a baffiing variety of readings, which can, however, be divided into twomain groups: a shorter text consisting of two clauses and a longer text consistingof three clauses. scholars have been divided, not only in pre-ferring either thEshorter or the -longer text, but also in selecting particular fo.mr oI each. Thefollowing are the principal readings, togerher iith translations which illustratethe diversity of scholarly judgments-.

@, ffu Two-Clatrse Tactl. p?2: ofrs pevircrrurr6d.pndoarc

&axpropivaa & d)\eeire ev QoF,+t.

This is the text translated above. Also by Moffatt:

Snatch some from the fire,and have mercy on the waverers, trembling as you touch them.

Nο`ω

109

It is supported by Clement of Alexandria, Strorn. 6.8.65:

oljs pd/ d.rc nM dptra(ere&wcplopewts & e)reeire.

and by the Latin version in the Liber Commicus, the Philoxenian Syriac and Sahidicversions, and the l,atin version inJerome, Ez. 18, omitting, like Clement, dv @frq)(these texts are given by Osburn, ZNW 63 [972] 139-40).

2. C: oOs pht ildtxerc &oxaiwttiuovsoOs & o<dere irc nurir, &allra(ones iv @fup.

3. K, L, P, S: ofn pdu dleeire &oxptu6pevuoOs 6e dv @fu+t ottlere irc rupbg apnalovreg.

Translated by ev:

And of some have compassion, making a difference:and others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire.

(Also translated byJ. B. Phillips, Reicke.)

4. B: oOs ttiv i\edre &ucptwltivovs ool(ere dx rufhs aptralottresdus & d)\e&re e, @9e.

Translated by Nea:

There are some doubting souls who need your pity; snatch them from the flamesand save them.

, There are others for whom your pity must be mixed with fear.

(Also translated by rnv (1966),.;n Margin, Kelly.)

@) ffu three-clause textl. N: oOs pdli}ad,re &.ste.wtkvrus

oOs 6e o6fere irc mfxr. apralovresofn & d)\edre dv 0'riqtc.

Translated by nv:

And on some have mercy who are in doubt (Margin: while they dispute withyouh

and save some, snatching them out of the fire;and on some have mercy with fear.

(Also translated by rnv,/cNs (1976), Htv.)

2. A: oOs pdiu d)\dryere finxpuoltivovsoOs & ocirfere irc lrlugrr' itpnalovresoOs 6d dtredre ev bi,fut.

Translated by nsv:

And convince some, who doubt;save sorne, by snatching them out of the fire;on some have mercy with fear.

(Also translated by;s, Nen Margin.)In addition to tlies. readingi, some scholars have proposed emendations not

supported by any manuscript:-in an attempt to achieve a satisfactory climax -inthi'three-clause text, Wind-isch suggested that d),edre, "have mercy," in A be

110 Junn 20-23

:∬翻∫(幾鴇織甥謂嚇鮒 盤I搬需ぽ胤監morc dimcult to explain the textual confusion.

A good casc for thc Originality of the shortest reading,in P72,can be made,on the grounds ofits attcstation,its suitability to the context inJude,and because

I醐輔壽:鮒醐鸞襲懇笹鸞byヽ4ofFatt[244]and Bigg[340-42,but with σあζcrc. . .aρπdζO″cS].)

鰤限軍爵懸鋭赫脚i懲11暉i鸞牲I熱畿繕¥i絲壺癬1酵l翻球i署l懸

」出f橙露this cannot be pressed against Other considerations.」 ude WOuld not have:nanuFac‐

1ぷ灘 鷲堪郡勇得茅義捕標li籍淵齢鰹

猟l響締∫m詭■:11胤釜』:F滞1鑑nli『:肥I鰻!盤翼∫lfittt場

熙 樅聟ぎ鶴 F蹴 鯖冒欝蟹蹴 l岬諄臀躍臨Finally,special mention must be made ofthe relationship lo_ρ凛 2:7:

Oυ μι●170CtS 7ma dttθμ"π

ωaλλa ott κν d澪

“

ιS7Cメ

“

″ πttε jξη漱 腱 aγαπ

"医

ιs昴ぞρτうν

"苅′∞ュ

Thou shalt hate no inan;but some thou shalt reprove,and for some thou shalt pray,

and some thOu shal1love mOre than thine own life(Loeb trans.).

112 Juon 20-23

Heb l3:5; I Pet 2:18; 3:1, 7-9; 4:7-10) a special use of participles with animperatival sense is found, sometimes interspersed with true imperatives, itmay well be that Jude also follows this usage. The explanation of the usageis probably to be found in the theory put forward by D. Daube ("Participleand Imperative in I Peter," in E. G. Selwyn, Tlw First Epistlz of St Petn (London:Macmillan, 1946) 467-38) that they reflect a usage found in rabbinic Hebrew,where the participle can be used in rules and codes of conduct, though notin direct commands. In that case, the NT examples will derive from earlycodes of Christian conduct, originally formulated in Hebrew (or,less probably,Aramaic). (On such codes, see also W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinir Judaism[London: S. P. C. K., 1948] 12245.) (fude's direct address to his readerswill represent his adaptation of the traditional form, such as Daube postulatesin Col 3:16; I Pet 3:7.)

There are two patterns to be observed in the set of fiour injunctions. Thefirst, third and fourth represent the familiar triad faith, love, hope, which is-

probably a traditional, pre-Pauline, Christian formula (A. IvI. Hunter, Paulind his frrdtcotors,2nd ed. [London: SCM Press, 196l] 33-35), here expandedinto a tetrad by the addition of prayer. The second, third and fourth injunc-tions correspond to a trinitarian formula: Holy Spirit, God, Christ. Eitheror both of ihese patterns may have guided Jude's selection of injunctionsfrom traditional material; or perhaps-he has expanded a traditional set ofthree injunctions which was constructed according to one of these patterns.

In vv 22-23 the allusions to Zech 3:24 (see Comment) probably indicatethatJude himself composed these instructions, but he may have been rephras-ing i catechetical tradition which is also found in Did 2:7 (see the note onthE text ofJude 22-23aabove) and which distinguished the differing treatmentto be given to two different classes of sinners.

Comment

20. i':rot<&ttowres Ea,noif,, "build yourselves up." The concept of theChristian community as the eschatological temple goes back to the earliestPalestinian Christianity (cf. the "pillarr' apostles: Gal 2:9) and is thereforefound in many strands'of early Christian tradition (l Cor 3:9-15; 2 Cor 6:16;Eph 2:19-22;'l Pet 2:5; Bam.4:ll; 6:15; 16; Herm. Vis. 8; Sim. 9; tgn-.E!h.9: l). Probably from this concept derived the image of "building" the Christiancommunity, which was used in various ways, especially in the Pauline writings(Rom l4:i9; l5:2, 20; I Cor 3:9-15;8:l; 10:23; l4:&-5, 12, 17,26;2 Corl0:8; 12:19; 13:10; Gal 2:18; Eph 2:18; 2:20-22;4:12, 16; Col 2:7; I Thess5:ll) but also elsewhere (Mati 16:18; Acts 9:31; 15:16;2O:82; I Pet 2:5;Bam. 16:&10; Ign. EFh. 9:l;Pol. Phil. 8:12; l2:2; Otus !o!. 22:12). There isno need to-derive all these non-Pauline occurrences of the metaphor fromPauline usage. Paul himself will have been dependeqt on common Christianusage, and it is probable that exhortations to "build up" the- community-orto 'iedify" one's Christian brother, both in Paul and elsewhere (Rom 14:

l9; l5:2; I Cor 14:12,26; t Thess 5:ll; I Pet 2:5;Jude 20), go back totraditional catechetical material.

Jude does not mean that each of his readers should build himself up-

Fo爾t/Sι劉に′“″/&′′:,T 111

Comparison withiarn. l9:3-! and the l-atin Doctrina apostolorum (f. P. Audet, taDidaiha [Paris: Gabatda, [s56f 142) shows that the second and thiid clauses werenot in the "Two Ways" document on which the Didache here depends, but wereprobably added from Christian catechetical tradition, partly in dependence on Lev19:17-18 LXX. Onlyif the text of C orA (including d)\dTxere) is read inJude isthere any verbal relationship toJude, and so it is unlikely that there is any directdependence of Jude on the Did or aice versa. It is, however, possible that theDid. preserves a piece of traditional Christian teaching which d-istinguished twoclasses of sinners (some to be reproved and reclaimed; others, mori hardened,for whom it was only possible to pray), and that Jude rephrased this tradition inU.r oq"_ygds (the two-clause text). The final clause in Did 2:7 (which comes6om tFelTwo'Wilys" docuihent, cf. Bam. l9:5) can hardly refer to a third ctassof sinner; presumably it refers to faithful Christians. Il therefore offers no supportto the three-clause readings inJude.

l,ater scribes evidently tried to bring these two texts into closer iorrespondence.The_reading d)\dryere in Jude in c and A may be influenced either by the Diditself or by the catechetical tradition behind the Did Influence in the othei direcrionis eviden-t in Apostolic constitutions 6:4, which reproduces Did. 2:7, but adds anotherclause, o0s 6e dl\eriroeis, "and on some thou shali have mercy," after oOs rriy dtre*ers.Perhaps both this and the three-clause readings in Jud6 are attempts to adaptthe texts to a three-stage system of ecclesiastical discifline (private reiroof, publicwarning, excommunication; cf. Matt 18:15-lZ: four siages).-

Form / S truc ture / Se tting

These verses contain Jude's appeal ro his readers to fight for the faith,as announced in v 3, and are therefore not an appendix io the letter, butits climax (see on w 34, Fonn/structure/setting seciion;. The opening phrase,as in v 17, again indicates a major transirion, and a link with v 5 is esiaLtistredby the catchword connection between rfi aYurarq bp6sv nioret, "your mos[holy faith," in v 20 and rds ayius rioret,..faith . . . to the saints," at iheend of v 3. There are also links beteen v 2l and v l, both in content andby catchwords (v 2l €v dlann 0eo0 rqgipare, "keep yourselves in the loveof God"; v l: dy ileQ rarpt ilanqpivus . . . rerqpnpeyors ..loved by God theFather.-. . kept"). In w 22-23, whereJude turns to his readersi behaviortoward the false teachers and their f,ollowers, the links are with w 7-g: mrp s(v 22) with rupos (v 7); &u<pwoltivovs (v 23) with itoxpwfireuos (v g); dno rfisgqprr6 €ortlv'sltivov (v 23) with oapca . . . pwivoww (v 8, cf. also orru)ttifes, vl2); and the allusions to Zech 3:24 (see commmt) with Michael's words (Zech3:2) in v 9.

In w 20-21Jude selects four injunctions from traditional catechetical mate-rial. The parallels to rhese four-injunctions elsewhere in the NT (and notonly in the Pauline corpus) (see commmt) are evidence, not ofJude's depen-dence on other NT authors, but of his indebtedness to the com-tt paraenetictradition of primitiv-e christianity. Ir is possible that the grammalical formof his exhortations also reflects their traditional nature. Heirses three partici-ples (draxo6opo0wes, "building yourselves up";rpooevy61rcvu, ..prayingi; npoo-

*.ry,t?n,-"waiting") and one imperative -(rqprpare,..keep"i.

Theie is nodifficulty in explaining the construction as normal Greek us"ge, the participlesdependent on the imperative. But in view of the fact that-ersewh'ere in'theparaenetic sections of NT letters (Rom l2:g-lg; Eph 4:2-8; Col 3:16-17;

Comm.ant I l3

which would be contrary to the ordinary Christian use of the metaphor-but that all should contribute to the spiritual growth of the whole community.As with the metaphor of "fighting" in v 3, it is difficult to tell how far "build"retains its live metaphorical sense, how far it has become a pale metaphor,like the English "edify." The mention of a foundation, which follows, suggeststhat the picture of erecting a building has not entirely faded.

The use of the metaphor forms a contrast with the activity of the falseteachers in the preceding verse: whereas. they disrupt the church and tear itapart (riro6oflfoureg), Jude's readers are to construct it.

rrt afonarn tgltt trioreL "on the foundation of your most holy faith."riors ("faith") is here the gospel, as in v 3, and it is holy because it comesfrom God (fior the expression "holy faith," cf. Act Vuc. 8). It is the faithwhich Jude's readers received when the gospel was first preached to them(v 3), and therefore "your fairh," distinguished from the message of the falseteachers. No doubt Jude's main thought is that when the church lives onthe basis of the gospel, its life will be holy, by contrast with the immoralitywhich results from the antinomian principles of his opponents.

Jude's view of the gospel as the foundation of the church is a different(though not contradictory) perspective from Paul's view ofJesus Christ himselfas the foundation (l Cor 3:ll; cf. Eph 2:20).

iv netpan a$q rpooeuTg6pevw, ("pray in the Holy Spirit"). The phrase du

(rQ'1 nebpart ("in the Spirit") in early Christian literature frequently means"in the control of the Spirit" or "under the inspiration of the Spirit" (Matt22:43; Mark 12:36; Luke 2:27; 4:l; Acts 19:21; Rom 8:9; I Cor l2:3; Revl:10;4:2; Bam.9:7; Asc. Isa.3:19; Polycrates, 4p. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 5.24.2,5; cf. Did. I l: 7-12), and with reference to prayer indicates charismaticprayer in which the words are given by the Spirit (see J. D. G. Dunn, .,/asu"r

and the Spirdt [London: SCM Press, 1975) 23940). Praying in the Spirit in-cludes, but is not restricted to, prayer in tongues (l Cor 14:l$-16; Dunn,

tenls and tlu Spiit, 24546: "A reference to charismatic prayer, including glos-solalic prayer, may therefore be presumed forJude 20").

Prayer in the Spirit is attested not only in the Pauline writings (Eph 6:18;cf. Rom 8:lS-16, 2il27; Gal4:6), but also in the Fourth Gospel $ohn 4:23-24). There is therefore no need to see specifically Pauline influence onJudehere, but the close verbal parallel with Eph 6:18 QrWaryhpevu Q t@ral rcnpQht rwetparq "pray at all times in the Spirit"), including perhaps in both cases

the imperatival use of the participle (see ForrnlStructure/Setling section), sug-gests that both reflect traditional paraenetic material.- Again there is a contrast with the false teachers, who lay claim to propheticutterance in the Spirit, but show by their behavior that they "do not possessthe Spirit" (v l9).

21. iaurorrs iv &laq iled rqpipare, "keep yourselves in the love of God."Most commentators take 0eo0 ("of God") as a subjective genitive (God's lovefor you), but a few (Chaine, Cantinat) think it must be objective (your lovefor God), because the imperative requires an action on the part of Christians.However, in the parallel in John l5:9, "remain in my love" (pebare b tl1dtarn rfi eprtl, the love is certainly Christ's for his disciples. They remainin it by obeying his commandments (15:10). Similarly Jude probably means

114 Juon 20-23

that God's love for Christians (v l) requires an appropriate response. Withoutobedience to God's will, fellowship with God can be forfeited, and this isthe danger with which the antinomian doctrine of the false teachers threatensthe church.

The similarity toJohannine passages (lohn 15:9-10; I John 4:16) impliescommon dependence on paraenetic tradition. For the catchword ponnectionsof rnpipare 1"keep"), see Comrnml on v 6.

rry&x6pary rd d\eos rcD w6iw ilpt;n'lqool Xporol, "wait for the mercyof our LordJesus Christ." "Mercy" (d\eos) was a traditional term with refer-ence to the eschatological hope of God's people (2 Macc 2:7 a.l.; Pss. SoL7:lO;8:27-28; l0:4, 7; l4,9; 11:45; I Enoci l:8J 5:6; 27:4; 2 Aboc. Bar. 78:7;82:2; 4 Ezra 14:84; Mau 5:7; 2 Tim l:18; I Ctm. 28:l; Heim. /is. 3:9:8;Sdn. 4:2). Usually, of course, the reference is to God's mercy, and Judebphrase "the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ" (cf. 2 Tim l:18: d\eog rcprintptw, "mercy from the Lord"; 2 Clcn. 16:2: ro1 d)\dous 'lrloo0, "the .mercyofJesus") belongs with his Christological interpretation of I Emch l:9 in v14: it is to the Lord Jesus that God has commirted the final jrtrdgment. If

Jude's readers remain faithful by following the previous three exhorrations,they can expect not, like the false teachers, condemnation at the Parousia,but salvation. But of course, not even the faithful Christian escapes condemna-tion except by the Lord's mercy.

_Throughout early Christian literature "waiting" describes the eschatologi-cal expectation (zrpoo6el6eo0ar: Mark 15:43:' Luke 2:25, 38; 12:36; 23:51; Aits24:15. Titus 2:13; 2 Clen. ll:2; rpoobrin1ot: Matt ll:3; Luke 7:19-20;2Pet 3:12-14; I Cbm. 23:5; Ign. PoL S:2; ttc6g6o0at Heb 1l:10; Bam. l0:ll;2 Cbn. l2l; fure<ifieoOar: Rom 8:23; I Cor l:7; Gal 5:5; Phil 3:20; Heb9:28; anpivew: I Thess l:10; 2 Clcn. ll:5), though not often in exhortations(2 Pet 3:12;2 Clmt. l2:l; cf. Hab 2:3;2 Apoc. Bai.83:4). (Sir 2:7: htalrcivarerd d)\eos aino\, "wait fior his mercy," is not eschatological.) The popularityof the term may derive in part from Hab 2:3 ("wait for it"; I.XXz {mopeivwdtrbv, "wait for him"), which had long been a classic text for the eschatologicalexpectation (see A. Strobel, Untnsu,chungm zum eschatologischen Vaziigmtng{prob-bm auf Grund, dn spiitjiidisch-urchristlichen Geschi,chte uon Habakuk 2, 21fr

-[Notfsup2; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 196ll Part l), and from other prophetic texts whichwere interpreted eschatologically (Isa 30:t8; 49:28;51:5; 60:9;64:4, especiallyLXX (64:3): tmophmww d)\eo4 "(they) wait for mercy"; Dan 12:12; Mic 7:7;Zeph 3:8). It does not, of course, indicate a merely passive attitude, but anorientation of the whole life toward the eschatological hope.

eis f<^r)y oiuvtw, "to (grant you) eternal life." Eternal life, i.e. the resur-rection life of the age to come, is the gift which Christ in his mercy willbestow on the faithful Christians at the Parousia.

22. o0s pev irc n(b &,ptrooare, "snatch some from the fire." This is thefirst of two allusions in these verses to the vision in Zech 3:l-5, a passageto which Jude's attention must have been drawn as a result of hiJ use ofthe T. Mos. in v 9, where the words, "May the Lord rebuke you," deriveultimately from Zech 3:2. In rhe same verse rhe high priestJoshua is describedas "a brand plucked from the fire" (nsv); the same phrase occurs in Amos4:l l, in connection with a reference to the judgment on Sodom 4nd Gomor-

Commmt ll5

rah, but sinceJude 23 probably alludes to Zech 3:3-4 (see below), it is probablethat Zechariah rathef than Amos was the source of Jude's image in v 22.As usual,Jude shows no dependence on the LXX translation (Amos 4:lland Zech 3:2: 6d\ds dEeofiaopevos Ercrupin).

The fire is that of final judgment in hell, as in v 7. Jude does not meanthat the people to whom he iefers are already in the fire (Windisch), butthat they are on the brink of it and can be snatched back before they fallinto it. They are sinners who are in imminent danger of judgment at- theParousia (cf.'w l4-15). Here the extent to whichJude's eschatological outlookis governed by the imminent expectation of the primitive church is especiallyclear.

Those who are to be snatched from the fire are evidently church memberswho, under the influence of the false teachers, are indulging in sinful behavior,but will repent when their error is pointed out to them. It is not necessaryforJude toexplain how his readers are to snatch them from the fire, becauseit was understood everywhere in the early church that an erring brother mustbe rebuked and warned in a spirit of brotherly love (Matt 18: 15-17; Lukel7:3; Gal 6:l; 2 Thess 3:15; l-Tim 5:20; Titus 3:10; Jas 5:19-20; Did. 2:7;

'u'il'. ***ouivous could here mean "those who are underjudgment" (Bird-sall,.,/TS 14 U9631 398), and would refer to those who, remaining unrepentantwhen reproved by the church, have been excommunicated (cf. I Cor 5:

3-5). Alihough this would make good sense in the context, there are twoconsiderations which may carry some weight against it: (l) It is p-ossible thatthe false teachers were too dominant in the church(es) for a formal procedureof excommunication to be practicable (Bieder, TZ 6 tl950l 75). -(2) Judeused the same verb in v g in the sense of "dispute," and while that neednot determine his use here, it should be noticed that v 9 contains the allusionto Zech 3:2 which probably suggested Jude's allusions t_o-Zech 3:24 inw 22-23.It is therefore qnite hlEly thaihis earlier use of 6tucptveo0a'twasin his mind when he selected it for use here.

The meaning, "those who dispute," makes good sense^ -i-n

the context.

Jude refers to tfiose who will not atcept the rebuke of their fellow-Christians,L,rt argt . against it, trying tojusti$ thlirbehaviorby means of the antinomiandoctriies.lich the false-teaih.rs'*.re propagating. The people in questionwill be either the false teachers themselvei o1 disciples of theirs. Probablythe two groups which Jude distinguishes in these verses are differentiatednot by thi degree to which they have been influenced by the false teachers,so much as by their response io the reproof. It is not out of th^e questionthat some of ihe false tCachers themselves could be among the first group'the repentant.

An6ther possible meaning of }toxpttopiaotss is "those who doubt" or "hesi-tate," but ilthough this m6aning is suitable in variants of the text whichuse the word to d]escribe the firsigroup (see the note on the text above), itis inappropriate in the text we arJfotlbwing, where it describes a group ofpeople whb must be treated more cautiout than the first foup.' dieeire ev ObPe, "have mercy with fear." The implication is that those whopersist in sin and continue to argue in support of their antinomian behavior

116 Junn 20-23

constitute a serious danger toJude's readers. The following phrase will explainthat the danger is from contamination by their sin. The "fear" may be fearof this contamination, fear of being influenced by these people (so mostcommentators), but more probably it is fear of God (Kelly, Green). The motivefor avoiding the dangerous influence is fear of God's judgment on sin, sinceJude's readers know that antinomian behavior will incur God's judgment.In that case dy gopqp ("with fear") here contrasts with d,Aoki,s ('withouf rever-ence"), which characterized the attitude of the false teachers in v 12.

The danger from these people does not, however, mean thatJude's readersshould not continue ro love them and to desire their salvatiofi. They ar-e to"have mercy" on them, imitating the divine mercy (Luke 6:36) which theythemselves have received (v l) and expect (v 23). Jude does not say howthis mercy is to be expressed in action, but certainly some kind of hction,not merely a benevolent attitude, is intended. Perhaps the most likely formof action is prayer (cf. Did. 2:7), a resource available even when the dangenis such that all conracr with a person has to be avoided (Ign. Smyrn. 4al).whether in this case Jude intends his readers to avoid all dealings with thesinners-, so that prayer is the only possible means of having mercy on them,depends on the interpretation of the next phrase

pwoavres xo) rbv d.nb rf:s oaprcb iont\apivov xlr6)ya, "hating even (he cloth-ing that has been soiled by the flesh." Probably there is an allusion to Zech3:34, whereJoshua is "clorhed with filthy garments" (nsv). AgainJude showsno dependence on the LXX (iparn gnapa), and Chase (DB|HI 2, 800-l)plausibly suggests that he in fact alludes ro rhe associarions of the Hebrewword which is translated "filthy" in Zech 3:3-4 (E'NIS).

This word is connecred with the words il{g and i1tfS, which are mostoften used in the OT ro refer ro human excremenr (Deut 23:14; 2 Kgs 18:27;Prov 30:12; Isa 36:12; Ezek 4:12; in Isa 28:8 ilt{S reGrs to drunkardi'vomir,119. i" Isa 4:4 is figurative for wickedness). Jude therefore interprets rhe"filthy garments" ro mean clorhes which have been soiled by the bbay. fneytr<irv ("Iunic") was the garment worn next to the skin._ Th. picture is therefore a vivid and intentionally unpleasant one, whichJude uses to-sugg€st that whatever comes into conract ivith these people iscontaminate.d by their sins. For a somewhat similar use of the image of joiledclothes, 9f. R9v 3:4. Jude's reference to "the flesh" does not imply that heregards_ the^physical bqdy as intrinsically sinful, bur rather that he-is thinkingprimarily of the sins of the flesh in which the false reachers indulged (cf. vi8, l0).. The phrase suggests that Jude's readers, while exercising mercy toward

these. people,- must maintain their abhorrence of their sin and everythingassociated with it, lest they themselves be infected by it. Most commentatorstake it to mean that fude intends his readers to have no contact with themat all, and if his woris do not quite require that inrerprer;rion (plummer),it is rendered probable by the prictice ofthe early churih atrested elsewhere.Avoidin-g personal contact with other professed christians was commonlydemanded in two cases: those who had been excommunicated for persistenciin sin (Matt 18:17; I Cor 5:ll; Titus 3:10) and false reachers (2;ohn tO-ll; Ign. Eph.7:l; Smym. 4:l;7:2).In the former case rhis was as much for

Exp滋

“ぁ"

tt7

the offender's good as for the church's (l Cor 5:5), but in the latter casewas largely prudential, because the influence of such people was dangerous.This seems to be the kind of situation Jude envisages.

Nevertheless, there is no question of abandoning such people to theirfate. That Jude continues to hope for their salvation is suggested not onlyby d)\eelre ("have mercy"), but also by the source of his picture of the soiledgarments in Zech 3:3-4. Joshua's "filthy garments" were removed and re-placed by clean oneE, as a symbol of God's forgiveness (3:4-5). Similarly, ifJude's opponents will abandon their sin and all that is associated with it,fiorgiveness is available for them.

F.xplanation

In this section Jude comes to the main purpose of his letter, which is togive his readers positive instructions about how, in the situation in whichthey find themselves, they are to "carry on the fight for the faith" (v 3).

Four injunctions, probably drawn from raditional catechesis, summarizethe duties of the Christian life in the Christian community. First, the gospelwhich they received from the apostles is to be the foundation for the church'slife, and.on this fioundation they must erect the Christian community as theeschatological temple. The church's life built on this foundation will embodythe moral implications of the gospel which the antinomians are subverting.Secondly, they must engage in prayer under the inspiration of the Spirit,thereby realizing the true charismatic nature of the church, by contrast withthe false claims to inspiration made by the false teachers. Thirdly, they mustmaintain their place in God's love by obeying his will. Finally, they mustlive with their hope set on the Lord's coming, when those who remain faithfulto him will receive, in his mercy, final salvation. Thus the four injunctionsset out a path of obedient discipleship leading to eschatological salvation,by contrast with the path of ungodliness leading to eschatological judgment,which Jude has set out as the way the antinomianism of his opponents isleading them and all who come under their influence. To "fight fior the faith"against antinomianism is therefore to resist its influence and not be deflectedfrom the positive tasks of Christian obedience.

Jude continues with instructions on how his readers are to behave towardthe false teachers and those who have been influenced by their teaching.The accepted Christian practice toward erring brothers and sisters, pointingout their sin and warning them in a spirit of Christian love, will rescue fromthe impendingjudgment those who respond with repentance. But those whorefuse to repent and continue, as the false teachers have done, to arguetheir freedom from accusations of sin, are a serious danger toJude's readers,who must exercise Christian mercy toward them only in conjunction withthe greatest care to avoid being influenced by them. They must fear thejudgment of God which they too will incur if they are infected by the sinsof these sinners.Just as earlierJude had compared the false teachers to rocks,close contact with which causes shipwreck (v l2), so now he uses the metaphorof clothes soiled by the body's excretions to suggest the contaminating effectof their sin on everything around them. Probably his advice is therefore that

ll8 Juoe 20-23

his readers must avoid any dealings with those of the false teachers and theirfollowers who persist in their errors. But he does not give up hope of theirsalvation: his readers are to continue to exercise Christian love toward them,even if prayer is now the only practical means of doing so. In these instructionsJude combines abhorrence fior the sins which the false teachers are promotingand a strong belief in God's judgment on sin with a genuinely Christianconcern for the reclamation of even the most obstinate.

Closing Doxology (lude 24-25)

Bibliography

Crafer, T. W. "The connexion between St Jude and the Magnificat." Tlu Intnpretr4 (1908) 187-91. Deichgriiber,R. Cotashymntr und Christushymnus in dcrfriihen ChrLttm-fuir. SUNT 5. Giiuingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967. 25-40,99-101.

Trdnslation

- 2a Now to the one who is ablz to heep you from stumbling, and to present ,ouwithout blanish in tlu presmce of hi^s glory, with rejoicing, % to tlu only God ouSauior, through Jau Christ ow lard, belong ^ ghry, majesty, pown and authoity,befme all lime, now and for eumnore. Ampn

Notes

rThe verb is undersrood, and most translations supply "be," making the doxology a prayer.For the indicative meaning presupposed in this translation, see Fonn/Shtehnc/&tting sectionbelow.

Form / S truc fir e / Se tting

The letter concludes with a doxology which no doubt follows a traditionalliturgical form, though, some of its detailed wording may be due to Judehimself.

The basic form of early Christian doxologies is given by Deichgr:iber (Gol-tahy.mnus,25) as:

&/4/dnQ/oriri 6lifc eis :rin a),tuas. qip.("To whom/him/you the glory for ever. Amen.")

It divides into four parts: (l) the person praised, usually in the dative; (2)the word of praise, usually 6ofc ("glory"); (3) the indication of time; (4)"Amen" is usually added (in all NT examples except some manuscripts of2 Pet 3:18), representing the response with which the hearers would makethe prayer their own (Deichgrlber, Gotteslrymnus, 2b2l). The copula is usuallyomitted in doxologies, and the question whether an indicative or an optativeshould be supplied has been discussed (see Deichgrdber, Gottahymrc, 30-32). Where a verb is given, it is usually indicative (iorw: Pr Man 15; I Pet4:ll; Did,.8:2;9:4; l0:5; I Clmr. 58:21, but sometimes optative (Clement ofAlexandria, Qui"s d.ia. sala. 42.20) or imperative (l Cl,em. 32:4). Evidently theusers of doxologies could understand them either as statements or as Prayers,but the former is really more appropriate to their content, and is sometimesrequired by the content of a particular doxology (Deichgrliber, Gotteshytnnus,32). InJude 24-25 the reference to the past necessitates an indicative meaning.

120 Juoe 24-25

The basic fiorm of the doxology is capable of expansion in various ways,andJude's doxology is one of the more elaborate examples. (l) is very often,as in the basic form, a pronoun only, but can be expanded (e.9. Phil 4:20;I Tim l:17; Rev 5:13; 2 Cbm. 20:5).Jude's doxology belongs to a form, ofwhich three other examples are known (Rom 16:25; Eph 3:20; Mart. PoL20:2), which begins: tQ hvvalt6l.cp ("to him who is able . ."). This mustreflect a standard liturgical form, though what follows is different in eachexample (Mart. Pol. 20:2 resemblesJude 24 in thought, but not in wording).The expansion has the effect of making this part of the doxology effectively,though not in form, a prayer. Jude's p6v6: fleQ ("to the only God") is alsoparalleled in other doxologies in Rom 16:25; I Tim l:17; 2 CIm. 20:5; cf.I Tim 6:15-16; I Clcn. 43:6. (2) Though many doxologies have only 6dfc"many follow the example of I Chr 29:ll in listing several attributes (seeComnent for parallels to those in Jude). Lists of two, three, fiour, five, andseven are found (Deichgriiber, Gotteslrymnu.s, 28). The phrase &i'IrpoD XporoD("throughJesus Christ") is often found in doxologies (Rom 16:27; Dd.9:4;I Clzn. 58:2; 6l:3; 64; 65:2; Mart. Pol. l4:3; 20:2; cf. 2 Cor l:20; I Pet4:ll), and usually constitutes their only specifically Christian feature. It wasadded to give a Christian character to the inheritedJewish forms (Deichgrliber,Gotteshynruts. 3940). Since in almost all instances (but see 2 Clnn. 20:5) itis the ascription of glory that is "through Jesus Christ," this is probably thesense to be given to the phrase in Jude (see Commmr). (3) The simple eisro0s ci<irras ("for ever") is frequently expanded into fuller formulae for eter-nity (Deichgriiber, Gotteshymrun, 27-28; E. von Dobschtitz, "Zwei- unddreigliedrige Formeln," JBL 50 tl93ll 138). Twofiold forms referring to pastand future (Tg. Nnf. Exod 15:181' I Cbm. 65:2; Mart. PoL 2l) or to presentand luture (2 Pet 3:18; / Cbn.64; Mart. PoL l4:3; Acts Pet.39) are fiound,but Jude's threefold reference to past, present and future is unparalleled inJewish and early Christian doxologies.

Several of these features ofJude's doxology Deichgriiber regards as marksof a late date, but his reasons are not compelling. (a) A tendency for liturgicalformulae to become fuller in later forms (Gotteshymnts, 28-29) cannot beinvoked as a firm principle for relative dating, since simple forms certainlysurvived alongside more elaborate ones. (b) Longer lists of attributes arenot necessarily later than shorter ones, since I Chr 29:l l, the basic OT modelfor doxologies, has a list of five attributes. (c) The anarthrous form of theattributes (also in I Tim l:17;6:16; I Clnn.64;65:2; Mart. Pol. 14:3;20:2;2l) cannot be a sure sign of late date, since Deichgrlber himself (Gotteshymnus,28 n. 3) has to see Luke 2:14, which he regards as having a Palestinian Hebreworigin, as an exception. (d) The phrase 6rd 'l4ooD XporoD ("through JesusChrist"), Deichgriber claims, occurs only in late examples (Gotteshymms, 40).But, although the authenticity of Rom l6:27 is disputed, 2 Cor l:20 is probablyevidence of the use of this phrase in doxologies in Paul's day (and cf. RomI :8; 5: I l; 7:25; Col 3: I 7). (e) The fuller formulae for eternity are not necessar-ily later, since they haveJewish precedents (Pss 4l:14; 106:48; Tg. Neof. Exodl5:18).Jude's threefold division of time, though not found in other doxolo-gies, is itself traditional (2 Apoc. Bar. 2l:9; 23:3; Heb l3:8; Rev l:4; 4:8),

Fom/Sιπ じa″/Sa′′

'電

121

and his use of it can be attributed to his preference for threefold forms ofexpression.

Deichgriiber rightly holds that the doxology must be clearly distinguishedfrom the benediction ("Blessed be,/is God . ."). Doxologies are rare inthe literature of ancientJudaism, but common in early Christianity, whereasbenedictions, which are relatively rare in early Christian literature (Deichgrii-ber, Gotteshymnu, 4043), were common inJudaism. The reason for this differ-ence is unknown, but there is no doubt that the early Christian doxologydid derive fromJudaism. Deichgriiber holds that in the literature of Palestinian

Judaism the fixed form of the doxology as it appears in early Christian litera-lure is not found, but only some steps toward it (l Chr 29:ll; Pss.22:28;62:ll-l2a; Dan 2:20). These lack the indication of time, and do not, likethe Christian doxologies, occur consistently at the md. of a prayer or sermon.The fixed form of the doxology, as found in the NT, occurs first in theliterature of HellenisticJudaism (4 Macc 18:24; Pr Man 15; and I Esd 4:40,a doxology to "truth"; cf. I Esd 4:59; 5:58). Deichgriber therefore arguesthat the NT doxologies derive from the worship of the Hellenistic Jewishsynagogues of the Diaspora. (Exceptions to this are the untypical forms foundin Luke 2:14; 19:38; Rev 7:10; l9:1, where the doxology is not a closingformula, but an independent "Heilsruf" or "Siegesruf.")

The evidence forJewish doxologies, however, does not really support thissharp distinction between Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism. The eternity-formula is found in a Palestinian text, Pss. SoL lT:3, which Deichgr?iber admitscomes close to the Christian doxologies in form (Gotteshymruts, 37), in theTargums to Exod 15:18, which are more significant for the origins of thedoxology than Deichgrliber allows (Gotteshymmtg 37 n.5; McNamara, Targum,

204-9, relates them to the doxologies in Revelation), and in Jewish bene-dictions (l Chr 29:10; Pss 4l:14; 72:19;89:52; 106:48; Dan 2:20) whichwill easily have influenced the form of the doxology. It is by no means certainthat the Pr Man is of Hellenistic rather than Palestinian Jewish origin (as

Deichgriiber asserts: Gotteshymnts, 38 n. l). Moreover, while Deichgriiber ad-mits that the doxologies in the Apocalypse are evidence of PalestinianJewishChristian usage (Gotteshymmts, SS-39), he mentions only 7:10 and 19:1, whichare untypical in fiorm, and omits to mention l:5-6 and 5:13, which havethe regular early Christian form. Thus we certainly cannot exclude a Palestin-ian Jewish origin for the doxology, and, in view of the other indications ofthe Palestinian background of Jude's letter, we can regard his doxology as

his own adaptation of a form in liturgical use in PalestinianJewish Christian-ity.

Doxologies were used to conclude prayers (Pr Man tS; Eph 3:20-21) andsennons (2 Clm.20:5; cf. I Esd 4:40). Probably as an extension of the latteruse, in early Christianity they also conclude letters (Rom 16:25-27; 2 Pet3:18; / Cbn. 65:2; Mart. Pol. 2l; Diogn. l2:9) or the main part of a letterbefore the concluding greetings (Phil 4:2O 2 Tim 4:18; Heb 13:21; I Pet5:ll; I Cbn.64; Mart. Pol.20:2). The peculiarity ofJude's letter-ending isthe lack of any personal greetings or specifically epistolary conclusion. Heends as he might have ended a spoken homily, with a liturgical doxology.

122 Junn 24-25

Comment

24. QulraEat tp&s dnraiorous, "to keep you from stumbling," is probablyan echo of a common metaphor in the Psalms, where the psalmist describesthe disasters from which God preserves him in terms of his feet stumblingor slipping (P,ss 38:16; 56:13; 66:9; 73:2; 9l:12; 94; ll6:8; l2l:3). Perhapsin the background lurk the wicked who try to trip up the righteous or laytraps for them to fall into (Pss 140:4-5; 14l:9; 142:3). God's ability to "keep"them from stumbling is prominent in Pss 12l:3-8; 140:4; 14l:9. New Testa-ment references to God's guarding or keeping Christians are 2 Thess 3:3(Qu\tsoeu, "to keep"; perhaps there is here a liturgical background, as inJude);John l7:l l, 15; Rev 3:10 (rqpeD); I Pet l:5 (Qpoupeiv); and see Commmton v l. dnra,wrc6 is a NT hapax lzgommon (but cf. the metaphorical use ofnraiew in Rom I l: I l; Jas 2: l0; 3:2; 2 Pet l: l0), but is used in a rather similarmetaphorical way in 3 Macc 6:39 (dnraiorous s0rors ippitoaro, "saved themfrom disaster"). The general sense is that God will protect Jude's readersfrom the dangers of falling into the sinful ways of the false teachers andthereby failing to attain to final salvation.

orfToot xsrev<ittrrcv rm 6otm ainot d,papous, "to present you without blemishin the presence of his glory." Comparison with the following passages indicatesthat there is probably a common background in liturgical tradition: I Thess3: I 3: "so that he may establish your hearrs unblamable (dadprrws) in holinessbefore (Epnpilev) our God and Farher"; Col l:22: "in order to presenr (nap*orryoot) you holy and blameless (tip<j:lrous) and irreproachable before (srevcLzrroz) him"; Eph l:4: "that we should be holy and blameless (ripcbpoug) before(rcarevc'nrcv) him"; Eph 5:27: "that he might present (napo,orfio0) the churchto himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that shemight be holy and without blemish (&pic,pcq,)" (nsv); Pol. PhiL 5:2: "likewisemust the deacons be blameless (d,pepnroi before QcarevLwnv) his righteous-ness" (Loeb trans.); (cf. also I Cor l:8; I Thess 5:23). Of these,Jude 24; IThess 3:13; Eph 5:27;and Col l:22 are escharological in reference, and allof them use the sacrificial metaphor; Christians are to be presented beforeGod as sacrificial victims without blemish. (For rilrc^rgos of sacrificial animals,see, e.9., Exod 29:38; Lev l:3;3:l; Heb 9:14; I Pet l:19. For sacrifices pre-sented "before the Lord," cf. Lev l:3;3:1, 12.) The word rcarevoxr@v ("inthe presence of," "before") is found in early Christian literature only in theabove four passages: Jude 24; Col I :22; Eph I :4; Pol. Phil. 5:2 (and elsewhereonly in LXX).

rrn 6ofm ainot, "his glory" is a reverential periphrasis for "God himself"(cf. Tob 12:12, 15; I Enoch 27:2;63:5; 102:3; 104:l; T. Abr. 4 [Rec. B]):G_od's glory is the radiance of his very being. For this eschatological hopeof coming into God's presence, cf. 4 Ezra 7:98; Matt 5:8; Rev 7:15; 22:34.

Gv a7a\lvaoet, "with rejoicing." The word riTa)U\iaors is found only inJewishand Christian Greek; the phrase iv d,Taltlvosec occurs in I Enoch 5:9; Lukel:44; Acts 2:46; Mart. Pol. l8:3. "Rejoicing" is a traditional escharologicalmotif: the jubilation of God's people in the arrainmenr of his purpose (Isal2:6; 25:9; 60:5; 6l:10; Tob l3:13; Bar 4:37;5:5;4 Ezra 7:98; 7i tunl l&:t+;I Enoch 5:9; 103:4; Apoc. Abr.29; I Pet4:13; Rev lg:7). Here, in theconrexr

Commsnt 123

of the cultic picture, the eschatological joy is represented as a cultic festival(Schelkle).

25. 1$vcat Oerp, "to the only God." That the God of lsrael was the onlytrue God was the distinctive Jewish religious confession, and priyos ("only")was therefore frequently applied to God inJewish confessional (2 Macc 7:37;4 Macc 5:24) and liturgical (LXX 4 Kgdms 19:15, 19; Neh 9:6; Pss 82:19;85:10; Dan 3:45; I Esd 8:25; 2 Macc l:24-25; cf. 4QDibHam 5:8-9; Apoc.Abr. l7l contexts (see G. Delling, "MONO> OEO>," Studiat. zum Natm Testammtund hellenistischmJudentum: Gesammelte Aufsiitze 195U1968 [Gdttingen: Vanden-hoeck & Ruprecht, 19701 396-99). Primitive Christianity continued this usage$ohn 5:44; 17:3; Rev l5:4; cf. E. Stauffer, Nan Testnmail Tluol.ogy, tr.J. Marsh[London: SCM Press, 1955124244; Delling, Studim, 399-400), and it is notsurprising to find pwos flebs ("the only God") in several doxologies, probablyfollowihg Jewish models (Rom 16:27; I Tim l:17; 2 Clan. 20:5; cf. I Esd8:25; I Tim 6:15-16; I Clm. 43:6). (fude's p6vc4 ileQ oernp ri;rciu, "to theonly God our Savior," comprises two distinct phrases and should not beconnected with the formula pwos oc,nip, "only savior": for this formula inGreek religion and in Philo, see Delling, Studitn, 392,397 .) It is quite unneces-sary to see in this phrase opposition to gnostic speculations about the Demi-urge (Moffatt, Wand, Kelly).

oerf,ptri;rci.ru, "our Savior." Again this is a traditionalJewish term for God,translating llyUr ''n)N, "the God of our salvation" (oonfip ripciu occurs inLXX Pss il:6; 78:9; 94:l; Pss. SoL S:33; l7:3; cf. TDNT 7, pp. l0l2-15).Whereas Christ is quite frequently called oorrip ("Savior") in early Christianliterature, God is rarely so called (only Luke l:47; I Tim l:l;2:3;4:10; Titusl:3; 2:10; 3:4; I Clm. 59:3). Here at least the terrn must be a survival of

Jewish usage. There is no basis at all for regarding it as peculiarly Hellenistic(Deichgr?iber, Gottahymnras, 100).

6ni'l4ooD Xrr';orcD rcO wsian filuiu, "through Jesus Christ our Lord." It isdisputed whether this phrase should be taken withoorrt&ipisv ("olur Savior")(Spitta, Chaine, Grundmann, Green) or with the attributes which follow(Mayor, Bigg, Cantinat, Kelly), i.e., whether Christ mediates salvation to usor mediates the glory and authority of God to him. In favor of the latter, isthe use of the phrase in doxologies elsewhere (Rom 16:27; Did 9:4; I Clcm.58:2;61:3;64;65:2; Mart. PoL l4:3; cf.2 Cor l:20; I Pet 4:ll), but thismay not be an entirely conclusive argument, since there is also one, admittedlylate, doxology (2 Clm. 20:5) where "through whom" (i.e., Christ; & o0) be-longs in the expansion of the first part of the doxology and refers to God'ssaving work through Christ, while in the doxology in Mart. Pol. 20:2, whichclosely resemblesJude24-25, the phrase "through his only childJesus Christ"(&i roD pwvyevaf zrcrdds ainol \7oo0 Xrl.;orol) has the same ambiguity as thephrase in Jude. Also in favor of taking the phrase with what follows, is thegrammatical awkwardness of attaching it to the noun oc'nfipt ("Savior"). Onthe other hand, it is argued that Christ cannot be regarded as the mediatorof glory to God "before all time" (Chaine, Green), but I Clmr. 65:2 providesa doxology in which this has to be the case. It can be explained either bythe preexistence of Christ (Cantinat; see Commm, on v 5) or by the lack ofprecision in this kind of liturgical language (Kelly). Perhaps it is not necessary

124 Juor 24-25

to choose between the two altemative ways of interpreting the phrase: thephrase may be deliberately ambiguous, combining the two thoughts (an abbre-viated form of &i'lr1ooDXgorcf, &'o0, "throughJesus Christ, through whom,"which is used in the doxology in I Cbn. 58:2; cf. 65:2). If we must choose,the dominant usage in doxologies makes the second alternative the moreprobable.

6dfc, "glory," is the attribute found in almost all doxologies (l Tim 6:16;I Pet 5:ll are exceptions): it is the essential glory of God's being. Even ifthe doxology is to be understood as a prayer (which is unlikely) rather thana statement, there can be no question of the worshiper giving God glorywhich he does not in any case possess.

pewl\@oiw, "majesty," occurs in I Chr 29:l I ([XX), the basic OT sourcefior the lists of attributes in doxologies, and in doxologies in I Clnn. 20:L2;6l:3; 64; 65:2; Mart. Pol. 20:2;21 (and cf. LXX Deut 32:3; Sir 39:15). Itdescribes God's "awful transcendence" (Kelly), is used only of God in earlyChristian literature, and is so characteristic a divine quality as to be sometimes,like "glory," practically a periphrasis for God himself, I Enoch 5:4; T. l-evi3:9; Heb l:3; 8:l; I Clcn. 27:4; 36:2; 58:1.

rcfitn, "power," is common in doxologies: I Tim 6:16; I Pet 4:l l; 5:l l;Rev l:6; 5:13; I Clcn. M;65:2; Mart. PoI. 20:2 (and cf. Pss. Sol l7:3). It isfrequently used of God's power (LXX Job 12:16; Ps 6l:13; Isa 40:26; Jdt9:14; 2 Macc 3:34; ll:4; 3 Macc l:27; Eph l:19; etc.).

ilowio,, "authority," is otherwise found in a doxology only in the doxologyto "truth" in I Esd 4:40, but is used of God's power in IXX Dan 4:17; Sirl0:4; Josephvs, Ant. 5.109; often in Philo; Luke l2:5; Acts l:7; Rom 9:21;Rev 16:9; Herm. Mard.4:l:ll. Its meaning is close to that of r<ptiros, buttends, in biblical usage, to denote the sovereign authority of God as Ruler(ct. TDNT 2,562-741.

F*planation

The first part ofJude's magnificent doxology is in effect a prayer, thougha confident prayer, that God will preserve the recipients of the letter fromthe spiritual disaster with which the false teaching threatens them and bringthem to the eschatological destiny he intends for them. Having in the previoussection stressed his readers' responsibilities, Jude now assures them of thedivine support and protection without which all their efforts will be fruitless.

Drawing on traditional liturgical material, he pictures the last day as theeschatological festival of worship, in which the achievement of God's purposesfor his people will take the form of his presentation of them as perfect sacrificesin his heavenly sanctuary, offered up to the glory of God amid the jubilationof the worshipers. AllJude's concerns in the letter, to combat the false teachingfor the sake of the health of the church and the Christian obedience of itsmembers, are finally aimed at this goal: that they should in the end be foundfit to be a sacrificial offering to God.

This picture appropriately leads to the doxology proper, in which thechurch acknowledges the greatness of God as he is for all eternity. Whenthe letter was read aloud, the hearers would join in the concluding "Amen."

Eb眈0鱒り

′。Commθ“rar8“

nese are referred to throughout the commentary by authors'names only.

鵬躍指響雲酬成ダS:l」ぎヴ

'gZ脇筋管麗協′嚇濡E7r%躙濃l}乱&″ aだ乱μ CQ Eanbutth■ &∬・詰■1'k:器硼朧・盤隠Paaル t Comm"raり 0"`ル Bめれ ed.M.Bla(

Ndson,1962.mvin,Jo commttrats"ιル Ch′あた ηりお′鷹 Tr.J・ OWen.Edinburgh:

勝f難糊激7)翻棚焼胸縦幽撤聾|Clement of…・′dttm施あ餡 "Ⅲ206-9.Lcipzig:Jo C・ Hinrichs,1909。 CramLondon:SCM Press,1960.Green,M.η レ〔

い`″

げJ“ほ TNTC.Lcicester:Inter‐ Varsiあ 脚

“″ ″ Z滅″Bヴあ &`霞.ⅦKN

1974.HaucL F.助 lα′lo′お`ル"B呼.NTD 10.3rd ed.G6ttingen:Vandenhoeck&

Ruprecht,1987.JalneS,M・ R.動 PS御材 ゥ おル G催″′or2′″ a燿 ル C― al

げJ戯.CGTSC.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1912.Kemy.Jo NhpreCht9 1937.J…,鳳 R助 動 り 物 ′

憔 鸞 灘 麟 |

げJ戯.CGTSC.Cambridge:Cambridge University PrelOm― ″αり

“′ル ■着

`燃OJR″ a認陣 ‐BMrc.London:

R.助 BⅢルRrri.Oldl饉・MeyerK 12.7th ed.Gё ttingen

of Juda CGTSC. Cambridge: Cambridge UniC,ommanlan on llu Ebislhs of Pcta and tudr. BNT(R.助 B疵ル Rrri.Oldl饉・MeyerK 12.7th ed.Gё ttingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,

19P理 製 型 豊 ■・ `:The Ltter ofJude・ "ル レ劉 島∫“

、ra材 22眈 ルに R観ねrio■

by R.H.… .諄 f・躙 .概 燎 長

r JJudご ,H励島

“

ra材 2肱 μ し あちG.KЮdel,Fo W.Danker,Eo S.Florenza.PC.Philadelphia:

飾∞山醐Shing H¨……ⅢLル 辮|

EpぉルOrsa&続 London:Macmillan,1907.Michl,J.a2nd edo Regensburg:Verlag Friedrich Pustet,1968.Mol2nd ed. Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1968. Mofratt, J. ne Gavral Epistlts:Iames, Pcla,andlufus. MNTC. London: Hodder&Stouchton. 1928. Pseudo-Oacum€rF」aWSp Rに α岨■磁 ・ London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1928. Pseudo-OeCUrtr€rF

聯聯翻 鰍鶴耕鮮 紹妥1静

論:濫ど贅「f・″ 脇〃絲∬・湖袖謬糧詐|

搬棚腸馳耕麟t麟絲鶴絆』鶴懲鳥憲饉h腑搬胤11輔鷺轟冨篇静免う場篤梅盤|

辮サl翼誌欄1曽れ■.‰協昭部。観鶴鰐槻協|

126 BrsI,rocRAprrv

und dn Brief dcs tudas. Halle a. S.: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1885.Wand, J. W. C. The Gmral Epistlzs of St. Petn and St. Jrrdt. WC. london: Methuen,

I 1934. Windisch, H. Die Katholischttt Brbfe. HNT 15. 3rd ed., ed. H. Preisker. T0bingen:

f J.c.B. Mohr, 1951.

B. Other Worhs

I Berger, K. "Hartherzigkeit und Gottes Gesetz, die Vorgeschichte des anti-jiidischen, Vorwurfs in Mc 106." ZNW 6l (1970) 147. Bauer, W., Arndt, \t. F., and Gingrich,lf. W. A Gruh-English Laicon of tlw Neu Testament and Otlw Earb Christian Literature.

| 2nd ed., ed. F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker. Chicago,/London: University of ChicagoI Press, 1979. Blass, F., Debrunner, A., Funk, R. W. I Greeh Granmar of tlw Nat Testamtnl

land Otlw Earb Christian Librahne. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1961.'Gharles, R. H. ed. Tlu Apocrypln and Pseudcpigrapha of tlv Ol.d, Tatammt 2 vols. Oxfiord:. Clarendon Press, 1913. Charles, R" H. Tid Assumption of Mosa. London: A. & C.{ Black, 1897. Ghase, F. H. 'Jude, Epistle of;' DB(HI 2, 799-806. du Plessis, P. J.l"The authorship of ihe Epistle of Jude." Biblical Essc)s.' Proceedings of "Die Ou-iTestamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika," and Proceedings of the Second Meet-Iing of "Die Nuwe-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap van Suid-Afrika." Potchefstroom,iS. Africa: Potchefstroom Herald (Edms.) Beperk, 1966. l9l-99. Ellis, E. E. "Prophecyfand Hermeneutic inJude." Proplnq and Hhmeutic in Earty Christianily: Nat TaianetttiEssay. WUNT 18. Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1978. 221-36. Eybers, I. H. "Aspectspf the Background of the letter ofJude." Neot I (1975) l13-23. Ginzberg, L Tlv: ltgmds of tlu Jats. Tr. P. Radin. Vols. 3 and 6. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Societyof America,1911,1928. vols. Edinburgh:T.8c T.Clark,1898卜 190こT. & T. Clark, 1898-l90.f.TEffike, E., Schneemelcher, I{.FndI9iKon, R. McL

I Nat Tatammt Apocrrpln. 2 vols. l,ondon: Lutterworth Press, 1963, 1965. Kittel, G.

t;T857$6Tlililq I.T.-f6-E;o:W-oTmEaramaic Fragments of Qumrdn Cave 4. Oxford:'f Clarendon Press, 1976. Moule, c. F. D. An ldiom Book of New Tatamant Greek. 2ndf ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959. Moulton, I. H. A Gramtnar of NattlTestammt Greeh. Vol. L Prolegomtna. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908. Moulton,f J. H. and Milligan,G. TIrz Vocabuhry of llw Creek Tawmmt illustratedfrom tLc pabiI nm) ntht nan-lir-nn ca.'-.." | ^-'l^-. IJ^J,|-- Q- Cr^'.aLi^- | OgO D--^l- f rr -if .

I ffuobgir"t Olrt;o:n*i'o1 tlv Nllu Testamail. Tr. G. W. Bromiley. tO rotr. Grand Rapids,Michigan: Eerdmans, l9e-76.J$itrb, M. A. TLe Ethiopic Booh of Ercch: A wu editint

. in tlu-tight of tlw Aratnic oead ffijffiTol. 2. Oiford: Cla'rendon Press, 1978.f l^ampe, G. W. H. ed. A Patristir Greek bxicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 196l-68.ilaperrousaz, E. M. It Teslament de MoRe (gtnhalnnmt appell "Assomption dz Moise"):

Traduction avec introduction et notes. : Sem l9 (1970) l-l40.tcoltg&ilnitre-dS.s ^f

ude. " D B-$uA -4-1 2 88-9 1 . McNarnara, M. T lv N ew Te s tamcn t dnTlff P alz s tiiian Tar sumrJ_"4*'1.29[Sr.$-l&8.ggl. McNarnara,M. Tlv Neu TestanettdftffffPil;ikianTargumI k-Iltc Pattatarch. AnBib 27. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966. (Midrash) Freed-f man, H. and Simon, M. ed. Midrash Rabbah. l0 vols. London: Soncino Press, 1939.' U'illnrerl.p,t3Lf,rrtelogru Cqrrsru ; rrblatrrs.Series Graeca. 162 vols. Paris:J. P. Migne,

αηごαレ“ο総‐“tFaり

"““6“・Londo■ Hodder&SЮ u鰤旨hiF鷺濃響躍署鴨継C"OS′

'ι

Pa“″ G■ost″ Ex¢rSお OJ′ル J物

“

lizル`tFs.Philad{

αηごαレm摯麟り"“.bndo■ Hoddσ 8c Stough鵠ポ鷺」鵠曙渦簿

黎 滅露r柵誕ルλ“liZル`tFs.PhhdeFeumete Ao edo S“

"″れ“

t′ α“

Dttriomttzl″ ル Ja Bjら″ Paris:

…aZenes,H。 バ五百屁[m浜 f‐A:こJ瓦あ漏 :~l石 ]孫i:b鳥葛万あVLπ″Paris:

Letouzey&An6,1928-。 Reicke,Bo Diaたοηれ Fas卜山 協ご&Jos i"陶め,輌 πj′ ″und klns in Verbhdung mit dn

30′レ 助 油 127

Friedrich Pustet, 1963.225-32.erlag

αηご`λ

θ fぃ誠豫″意

識 財 灘あ″mによy己:2

Herder, 1965.Strack,H.L and Btterbeck,P.κ οπ囮 ねrz“π N免脇η ras`α_′ αtt η″協

“′

“η′ハイJ醸鶴ιλ.4

vols.Munich:Bcck,1922-28.lTalmud)Epstein,1.ed.Tル BαttJoη

'α

η rattza 35volso London:Soncino Press,1935-52.VerEnes,Go τたθ Dθad S″ S“騰 れ Eばおた。3rd ed. Harmondsworth, Middx.: Penguin Books, 1968. W

ご

――

‐

中織 酬 需i漑脇 例 翻 鶴 澱 島赫C.Bertelsmann,1913.Whte,Jo L。 物 Fom aηご&“ε

“

οη o/ιル Bοの OJ′ル G″1レ′れ2nd ed.Missoula,ヽrr:Scholars Press, 1972.Wisse,F。 “The Epistle ofJude in theHistory of Heresiology.''Ess¢

"ο

η′ル Nag Hαππαa raxお jη Hoηο″ arИ Jaaηd″ Bo力′むed.M.Krause.NHS 3.Leiden:E.J.BHll,1972.133¨ 43.Zahn,T.れじra′πιjο

"Jo′ル

17/6. Gu

New TatamanL vol. 2. Tr. M. W.Jacobus and others. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1g09.

鋤θ Saco"Jル′ιθr o/ルレ

Introduction

Like the Introduction toJude, this Introduction presupposes the exegeticaldiscussion in the commentary.

Form and Structure

second Peter belongs to two literary genres, the letter and the testament.It not only calls itself a letter (3:l), but itls a real letter, whose letter-opening(l:l-2) conforms to the style of theJewish and early christian lett-er. Anintroductory statement of theme (l:3-l l) and an explanation of the occasionfor the letter (l:12-15) follow. As in many NT letters, there is a paraeneticsection toward the end (3:ll-l8a), though, likeJude, 2 peter cloies with adoxology alone (3:l8b), without any specifically epistolary conclusion or per-s91{ gree-tings. However, it was the leiter-opening which was the really esien-tial formal constituent of the ancient letter.

second Peter is also a genuine letter in that it was written and sent tospecific- arldressees: a church or group of churches which had been (among)the recipients of I Peter (3:l) and to-which one or more letters of paul hidbeen addressed (3:15). Thus despite the generality of the address (l:l), itis not a "catholic letter" to all christians,but a work written for a specific,localized audience. This is also clear from the apologetic content of i peter,*l,t:lr is directed ag. ainst specific objections to christiln teaching and a groupof false teachers with specific characteristics.

_ However, it is equally clear that 2 Peter belongs to the genre of ancientJewish literature known to modern scholars as the "farewell sfeech" or "testa-ment." In the intertestamental period there was a considirable vogue foraccounts of the last words of or heroes, whether as independeni works(e.S. -n Mos., T.l2 Patr., T. Job, I Enoch gl-104) or as parts bf historical orpl.qdg-liltorical works (e.g. Tob l4:3-l l;4 Ezra 14:28-30; 2 Apoc. Bar. b7-86; Jub. 2l-22;35; 36:l-18; Bib. Ant. lg:l-5; 24:l-5; 28:34, b-t};31; Adamand Eue 25-29;J9s9phus, lnt 4.309-lg). Such tesraments had rwo main typesof content: (l) Ethical admonitions: before his death a patriarch givel tohis children or a national leader to his people a definitivb summar| of hisethical and religious instruction which they are to follow in the future, oftenwith eschatological sanctions attached. (2) itevelations of the future: in accor-dance with the ancient belief that the last hours of a great man were a timewhen he was endowed with prophetic knowledge of thi future, the hero pre-dicts the future of his desCendants or the destiny of his people, often inthe form of apocalyptic revelations of the last days, oiten as a basii for eschato-l"Sic3l paraenesis. On these characteristics ofJewish tesramenrs, see especially!!"yS.., Tlwologl, 34447; Kolenkow,.,/S,/ 6 (1975) 57-7t;J. Munck, "Discourid'adieu dans le Nouveau Tesrament ei dans la litt6ratuie biblique," in Ausources dt la Tradition chrctimnz (M. Goguel Festschrift; Neuchltel Dehchaux& Niestl6, 1950) 155-70.

132 Ivrnooucrrou

The genre of the farewell discourse was rather naturally applied in theearly church to the apostles (Acts 20:17-34; 2 Timothy; Acts Pet. 3{39:' Acts

John l0€;7; Acts Thom. 159-60), and 2 Peter has been widely recognized tobe intended as a "testament of Peter" (Munck, "Discours," 162; Spicq, 194;Reicke, 146; Grundmann, 5&-56; Knoch, "Vermdchtnis," 14S54; Neyrey,Polmic,99-105).

The following passages identify 2 Peter as belonging to this genre: (l)The passage l:3-ll is in form a miniature homily, which follows a patternused in the farewell speeches of Ezra (in 4 Ezra 14:28-36) and John (inActsJohn 106-7) (see Fonn/Stnuture/Setting section on l:3-ll). In the lightof the references back to this passage in l:12, 15, it is clearly intended as adefinitive summary of Peter's ethical and religious teaching, set down forthe instruction of readers after his death. (2) l:12-15 is full of languagetypical of farewell speeches (see Com,mcnl on those w) and explicitly describesthe occasion for the writing of 2 Peter as Peter's knowledge of his approachingdeath and his wish that his teaching be remembered after his death. Thesetwo features are standard and almost universal features of the genre. (3) Intwo passages (2: l-3a; 3: l-4; cf. 3: l7a) Peter predicts the rise of false teachersin the churches in the last days following his death (3:4: the death of the"fathers," of whom Peter was one). These four passages, but especially l:12-15, would leave no contemporary reader in doubt that 2 Peter belonged tothe genre of "testament." Perhaps we should also add, as ftrrther testamentaryfeatures, the Transfiguration as a revelation of the future to Peter (see Form/Structwe/Settdrag" section on l:lLl8), the apocalyptic prophecy of 3:7, 10,and the eschatological paraenesis of 3:l l-l5a (see Font/Sttttcture/Setting sec-tion on 3:l l-16).

The rest of 2 Peter is structured around the sections which clearly belongto the testament genre in the following manner. l:&-l I provides, as the coreof Peter's testament, a summary of Peter's definitive teaching of which it isthe purpose of his testament to "remind" the readers (l:12-15) and whichemphasizes ethics and eschatology and the link between the two. The twoseclions of prophecy (2:l-3a; 3:l-4) are Peter's predictions of false teacherswho will undermine Christian ethics and deny the eschatological expectation.The rest of the letter defends Peter's teaching on ethics and eschatologyagainst the objections raised by these false teachers. There are four passageswhich reply to a series of objections to the eschatological expectation (l:16-l9; l:20-21; 2:3b-l0a; 3:F-10): in one case the false teachers' objection isspecifically stated in quotation in Peter's prophecy (3:4; cf. 3:9), in the otherthree cases it is implicitly contained in the author's denial of it (l:16a,20b;2:3b). In addition to these pieces of apologetic argument, there is a longdenunciation of the false teachers'libertine behavior (2:l0b'-22) and, by wayofcontrast, a passage ofeschatological paraenesis which exhorts the readersto holy living on the basis of the eschatological expectation (3:ll-16). Thusthe two traditional characteristics of the testament-the definitive summaryof Peter's ethical and religious message (l:3-ll) and the revelations of thefuture (2:l-3a; 3:14)-provide a framework around which is built an apolo-getic defense ofPeter's teaching against the false teachers.- Two further aspects of the use of the testament genre in 2 Peter remain

INrnooucrrou 133

to be considered: its combination with the letter genre, and its pseudepigra-phal character. One Jewish example of a restament in the form of a letteris 2 Apoc. Bar. 7846. Baruch, having already made his farewell ro rhe peoplein Judea, responds to their request that he also write to the people in exile,and chaps 78-80 are his farewell lerrer ro the nine and a half rribes, largelyconsisting of eschatological paraenesis. This letter within rhe framework ofa fictional history is not entirely comparable with 2 Peter, but it highlightsthe motive for putting a testament into letter form: the testator's desire tocommunicate over a distance. In most testaments the farewell speech is ahomily delivered orally to immediate hearers. The speaker himself is notsupposed to have written it down and in fact most testaments are not inthe really strict sense pseudepigrapha, represented as having been writtenby the hero who is making his farewell. They are supposed aicounts of oralspeeches, reported in writing by an anonymous wrirer within a (frequentlyminimal) narrative framework. They are fictional, rather than strictly pseud-epigraphal. But 2 Apoc. Bar. 78-86 reproduces a resramenr supposedly wrirtenby Baruch himself, and the reason for this exceprion is Biruch's desire togive his last instructions to people who lived far away. (It happens to beset within a narrative framework which in this case is itself pseudepigraphal,told in the first person by Baruch.)

The desire to communicate at a distance is of course the reason for almostall genuine letters, and the desire to communicate religious instruction a1 adistance was the reason for the aposrolic letters of early christianity. Thecomposition of Peter's testament in the form of a letter was really an obviouscombination of genres if the testament were addressed not to the churchof Rome, where Peter's life ended, but churches elsewhere. But the combina-tion of genres in this case created a genre with a unique communicativeca-pacity: a testamentary letter could communicate at a diitance in space (likeall letters) and also at a distance in time, for in a writren resrament it is possibleexplicitly to address not only rhose who read it immediately but alio thosewho will read it after the tesr.aror's death (as l:12-15 makes very clear). Thisunique capacity of the testamentary letter would make it uniquely serviceableto a pseudepigrapher. If someone wished to wrire an apostolic pseudepigra-phon to communicate the teaching of the aposrles to Christiani living afltertheir death, he faced a serious problem of literary genre. In what genre couldan apostle be represented as addressing a situation which would exist onlyafter his death? In one sense the letter was the obvious genre to use, sinceit was the principal genre in which the apostles had writlen, but lerrers arenaturally addressed to contemporaries. A pseudo-apostolic letter could beaddressed to fictional readers inthe apostle'i lifetime, but then the immediacyof direct address to the real readers is lost. To this dilemma the resramenraryletter is the ideal solution. It is almost the only plausible way in which anapostle could be represented as directly addressing readers after his death,in- a specific situation which the testament convention of deathbed prophecyallows him to foresee. If 2 Peter is pseudepigraphal, its author has-inv-entedthe ideal fiorm for his purpose. Bur we should nor neglecr the possibilitythat if Peter himself had really wished to address Christians living after hiideath, it would also have been the ideal form for his purpose. The question

134 In'rnooucrroN

arises whether the debate over the pseudepigraphal character of2 Peter canbe settled on grounds of literary genre alone.

In Jewish usage the testament was a fictional literary genre (not usuallypseudepigraphal in the strict sense: see above). The farewell discourses inthe intertestamental literature were sometimes expansions and elaborationsof last words recorded in the OT (e.g. T. Mos.), but in most cases they wereentirely free invention. It is highly probable that they were normally acceptedas such. It is very implausible to suppose that most Jewish readers were sonaive as to read such speeches as accurate historical reports, or that theirauthors were so naive as to expect them to be so read. The writers of haggadicmidrash were nowhere so free in their expansions of the OT text as in attribut-ing speeches to OT figures. No doubt such speeches were expected to haveverisimilitude-to be the kind of thing that might well have been said-but.anyone who could compare them with the OT text itself must have knownthat they were an exercise in historical imagination. Farewell speeches weresimply a specially popular form of this practice.

Second Peter bears so many marks of the testament genre (especially theconventional testamentary language in l:12-15) that readers familiar withthe genre must have expected it to be fictional, like other examples theyknew. If they knew that it came from the Petrine circle in Rome (see sectionon Authorship and Pszudonymity), then they might trust its author to have madea good job of reporting the essence of Peter's teaching, but they would notexpect Peter to have written it. At any rate the presumption would be thathe had not.

This presumption might perhaps have to be overmled if there were goodevidence for genuine Petrine authorship, since it always remains a possibilitythat someone wishing to write his own testament could have adopted thefictional genre in order to do so. (TheJewish apocalypse was a pseudepigra-phal genre, butJohn, the author of the NT Apocalypse, wrote an apocalypsein his own name.) However, in the case of 2 Peter, the presumption thatPetrine authorship is fictional is decisively reinforced for us (and would havebeen for the original readers too) by two considerations. One is the evidencefor date (see section on Date\, but the other is an additional literary characteris-tic of the work, which demonstrates that the Petrine authorship was intendedto be an entirely transparent fiction.

Major sections of the apologetic parts of 2 Peter (2:3b-22;3:5-10, l6b)are not really written within the testamentary genre, even though they areclosely attached to passages which are (2:l-3a; 3:14, l5b-16a, l7). Theyspeak of the false teachers and their followers in the present tense, as theauthor's contemporaries, not in the future tense, as in Peter's prophecieswhich predict their rise after Peter's death. In other words, the conventionof prediction, necessary in a testament, is not maintained, but alternates withpassages in which it is abandoned. The explanation that this is carelessnesson the author's part is scarcely credible; 2 Peter is not carelessly composed.Nor is it easy to believe that the present tenses are intended to depict thefuture with vividness, ns though present. The obvious explanation is thatthe author feels free to break the conventions of the genre he is using forthe sake of a particular literary effect. Deliberate juxtaposition of Peter's

INrnooucrroN 135

prophecies of the false teachers with present-tense accounts of them conveysto 2 Peter's readers the message: these apostolic prophecies are now beingfulfilled. It also enables the writer to engage in apologetic argument withthe false teachers (as in 3:5). But such deliberate breaches of the fiction ofPetrine authorship are possible only if the fiction was a transparent one.

For further consideration of the author's purpose in writing in the formof a testament, see section on Authorship and Psadonymity below.

OurlrNn, oF THE Srnucrunr or 2 Psrsn

l:l-2 Address and Salutationl:3-l I Theme: A Summary of Peter's Messagel:12-15 Occasion: Peter's Testamentl:lLl8 Reply to Objection l: (a) Apostolic Eyewitnessl:19 Reply to Objection l: (b) The Value of OT Prophecyl:20-21 Reply to Objection 2: The Inspiration of OT Prophecy2: l-3a Peter's Prediction of False Teachers2:3b-l0a Reply to Objection 3: The Certainty ofJudgment2:l0b-22 Denunciation of the False Teachers3:l-4 Peter's Prediction of Scoffers

(including Objection 4: v 4)3:5-7 Reply to Objection 4: (a) The Sovereignty of God's Word3:8-10 Reply to Objection 4: (b) The Forbearance of the Lord3:l l-16 Exhortation3:17-18 Conclusion

Itnguoge

Second Peter has an even higher proportion of NT Inpax lzgomcrn than Jude,in fact the highest proportion of any NT book (for the proportions, see Chaine,l5). There are fifty-seven words not found elsewhere in the NT. Of these thirty-two are not found in the IXX either (dttor&trqotus,2:,14; &pqfrh,3;16; &rcprfrq,t:14; qfiiqcrog 2:14; 3:16; oixitl(b,l:19; 0)teppq 2:8;9pa6inits,8:9;imtfalev,l:19; dlrourirros, 3:16; iTcaro',tceiv,2:8; it<&orore, l:15; Crrdtor, 2:3; 3:5; tpnot'rpovh,8:3; itepaw 2:22; dratrc)tpa, l:4; 3:13; driltuors, l:20; is,brutcr,, l:l; Knnotn0u,3:10, 12; ru)\rorrh, 2:22; pv<,tndlety, l:9; d)ti?<^n,2:18; rqpqipoyic, 2:16; rapewalew,2:l; rapew#peu, l:5; r)\amrh,2:3; /rl,tqtrll, 3:10; orrlrl'lttcf,, S:17; rqpraryav,2:4;rcilpoirt,2:6; rotrg?nis,2:lO; S'ngbps, l:19; 9etso6rdrirorcd\oS, 2:l; also oeiAis if thisreading is preferred in 2:4), while twenty-five occur in the LXX (where IXX refer-ences are given they are the only IXX occurrences: &fleopos, 2:17; 3:17;3 Macc5:16; 6:26; ii)tc^prs, 2:12; Jer 27:46; furobetrcw, l:,4i 2:18, 20; Sir 22:22; dpleiv,2:3; LXX 6 times; 0op0ory,2:22; Jer 45:6; d\etfrs, 2:16; Job 2l:4; 23:2; dwp$at2:13; dfoco)\ouOei4 l:16; 2:2, 15; LXX 6 times; dndrrrls, l:16; rarord\0fep, 3:6; Iri0?,l:9; pewllorlrpenriq, l:17; pdlloros, l:4; ttiottto" 2t2O; ttr.oopcr,, 2:10; Wis 14:26; IMacc4:43; pvhpq, l;15;rr6rros,2:13;6rlxtra,2:17;rappottio,,2:16;oewa,2:4,unlessthe reading oe@os is preferred; or'pefllottu, S:16; rclwb, l:14; 2:l; IXX 6 times;ripce.oilo.r, 3;12; rofu&, l:17;2 Macc I l:27; l5:12; 0s, 2:22).

Of the thirty-two biblical hapax lzgotttcna, fifteen are found in other HellenisticJewish writers of the period (Sir. Or., Ep. Aftt., Philo,Josephus) (dpo&h, dpcupqros,f,lrippg', ApoIinF,, &anyalew, tlraruceiv, Ewrallot, ttrd.1-1lel,,p, dzi)tuors, ioon,ttrof'

136 INrnooucrror.t

ra6nbyeu4 rtraonh, teQputo, roIF;rrh, 0@0opc6), and two more in otherJewishversions of the OT (ru)\rogrh: Prov 2:18 0; dtrit<.rs: Isa l0:7 Aquila). This may beginto suggest that 2 Peter belongs to the sphere of Hellenistic Jewish Greek (like

James, I Peter, Hebrews and the Pastorals, according to A. Wifstrand, "StylisticProblems in the Epistles of James and Peter," Sf I [948] 170-82). Since therelevant context in early Christian literature in which 2 Peter should be placed isnot the NT alone, but also the Apostolic Fathers, it should also be noted thatseventeen of 2 Peter's NT hapos lzgomtna occur in the Apostolic Fathers, thoughonly fiour of these are biblical hapax l4omaw (p\drpc, Herm. Sdm. 6:2:5; 6wv&frq,Herm. Sdn. 9:14:4; fut<grau<elv, Barn. l:4; dr0\uots, 6 times in Herm. Sin 5-9).One more of the biblical hapax legomma occurs in the Greek text of the Apoc. Pel.(sfiruntr, Apoc. PcL A 2l).

Despite the large number of rare words in Jude, it is relevant to notice that 2Peter has, in taking ovei material from Jude, taken over few rare words. Of thirty-eight words in 2 Peter which occur only once or twice elsewhere in the NT, onlyfour occur in Jude and these are the only fiour words which are found exclusivelyin Jude and 2 Peter in the NT (doefuIv, igraixrr6, oweuolxeloflu, inipayx6,, and,of these fuefolv is probably not borrowed from Jude). This suggests that, despiteits dependence on other sources as well asJude, few of2 Peter's rare words arelikely to derive from sources. They belong to the author's own vocabulary.

Of course, some of the lwpoc hgomnw are relatively common words (e.9. Apofftls,d,gyelv, QryDinm, ldtfltt, lr-lwrcry,, yiasW" ttvipq, ilplXlrtl, rorytottio" 0S), but someare very rare, including most of the thirteen not yet noted as occurring anywhereoutside 2 Peter. There are three words not known elsewhere in extant Greek litera-aure:. dt<ar&rqstog which is the best reading in 2:14 but must probably be explainedas an etror for dtcararanorog, which most MSS have but which is itself rare;dwaqpwit, S:3, perhaps the author's own formation from tprorileu (cf. dwraisqs,3:3; Jude 18; Isa 3:4; dwrail,tbs, Heb ll:36; Ezek 22:4;2 Macc 7t7; Sir 27:28;Wis 12:25; Pss. SoL 2:ll;Erloro.tpa, Ps 37:8; Isa 66:4); nqryhpdla,2:16, which isprobably used instead of napspiwrl or naryfifutlots (Zech l2:4, very rare) forthe sake of the assonance with rapopia. As Mayor suggests (lxii), several of 2Peter's rare forms may be used in preference to commoner forms for the sake ofeuphony and rhythm, to which our author is sensitive. This may help to accountfor the rare ru)\rolrds and ilig,p (2:22), as well as perhaps tor rcna@ (2:41instead of the only slightly more common ,carqragro,pafu. Other rare words aredsrfiprcos (2:14; 3:16; but this belongs to the or4pifeu word-group, a favorite ofour author's, as does the biblical hapax otr1pt1pbs,3:17); Kmnafn&oc (3:10, 12; else-where used only of fever by medical writers); 1r<,ndleut (l:9 is the first knownoccurrence); Pufqflu' (3:10); geuDo&afutccfos (2:l is the first known occurence; thenJustin, DiaL 82:-1, probably dependent on 2 Pet 2:l; cf. r/edo&0corcal\ia,Pol. PhiL7:2; but it is an obvious fiormation by analogy with other ry'eudo compounds inearly Christian use, such as {eufrnrr4lftr6).

The list of lnpu hgonau includes enough extremely rare words to show thatthe author is widely read, and fond of rather literary and poetic, even obscurewords. They do not on the whole seem to be used arbitrarily where commonwords would sumce as well, but contribute to the author's literary and rhetoricaleffects. Thus tapro.poDp, with its mythological background, is highly appropriatein 2:4; xmnfuilor, and the onomatopoeic dal4eirr contribute to the poetic qualityof the apocalyptic imagery in 3:10; the use of iryqtpwft with dprclcrc in 3:3creates, not a genuine Hebraism, but an effective Septuagintalism; or?p7pds anddotilpxra form with mqSi(ew a word-group which the author uses almost techni-cally; pwnd,(ew is used ( l :9) to form, with n pilts, one of the author's characteristic

Ivrnooucrrox 137

pairs of near-synonyms, which he uses for rhetorical effecq l:19, with the threerelatively rare terrns abxlnps,prx@pos,imryatew, is deliberately poetic and effec-tively so; lwvbqros and orpe0\o0p (3:16) seem exactly the right words. There are,however, some instances where nothing but preference for a less common or moreliterary word seems to be operating: dp<brrrtros (3:14) instead of &lro4ros; or'ou&iprapw(ri6.v (l:5) instead of the common eio(i6w. But what writer with literarypretensions is not occasionally guilty of this? It cannot really be said that theauthor rnisuses words (the list of "solecisms," given by Chase, DB(HI 3, pp. 807-8,presupposes too much confidence in our knowledge of usage; cf. Mayor, lx-lxi).

The incidence of rare words is part of a general impression 2 Peter gives ofaiming at ambitious literary effect (cf. Chase, DB(H) 3, p. 808). Moulton speaksof "an artificial dialect of high-sounding words learnt from rhetoricians and books";"the general style is far removed from the language of daily life" (Grammar 2,pp. 28, 6). The author is certainly fond of rather grandiose language (cf. l:3-4,16-17), and has a highly characteristic stylistic habit of using pairs of synonymsor near-synonyms, sometimes as hendiadys, often apparently as a rhetorical deviceto increase the effect (l:3,4,8,9, 10, 16, l7;2:10, ll, 13; 3:7, ll, 14, 16). Healso has a habit of repeating words. This is quite different in function from Jude'scatchword technique. Sometimes the repeated words are the author's semitechnicalreligious terminology (dorfiprxrog, einikw. rnpeu, Q0o& npoofucfut, iri"lu'nls,tiz<,r)\eia) and occasionally there is a deliberate echo or word-play 1glo0os d,6ucias,2:13, 15; orotfii1v, l:5 and orovftsare, l:10), but often there seems to be no literaryintention in the repetition. It is simply that a rather unusual word has taken theauthor's fancy and he likes to use it more often than one would normally expect(drgiryew, l:4; 2:18, 20: dEo;llol\Nileiy, l:16; 2:2, 15; &)\erilery, 2:14, 18; twra\@,2:3; 3:5; &'tpetsila\ l:34; €tnxorytiu, l:5, I l; drdfleu,2:1, 5; onat&leut, l:10, l5;3:14;raxtit$ l:14; 2:l; less remarkable examples in Bigg, 225-26; Chase, DB(H)3, p. 808). This scarcely implies that his vocabulary is "poor and inadequate"(Chase). But it suggests a stylist rather easily captivated by the striking word andin danger of overworking it. The habit is found to a small extent in most writers;in 2 Peter it seems indulged to excess.

Second Peter's Greek style is not to the taste of many modern readers: "attimes pretentiously elaborate" (Kelly, 228); "a striving after the pompous phrase"ffurner, in Moulton, Grammar 4, p. 142\; "a somewhat artificial piece of rhetoric"(Chase, DB(H) 3, p. 809). Abbott went so far as to dub it "Baboo Greek," comparingit with a ludicrous example of Indian English (Exp 2/E [882] 204-19; and cf.his Contrast), but this was certainly a misconception of the writer's literary compe-tence. As Reicke points out (14617),2 Peter must be related to the "Asiatic"style of Greek rhetoric which was coming into fashion in 2 Peter's time, and which,with its love of high-sounding expressions, florid and verbose language, and elabo-rate literary effects, was an artificial style which Reicke aptly compares with Europeanbaroque. If 2 Peter's language can seem bombastic and pompous to us, it mustbejudged by the taste ofits age and circle, and we should not too quickly decidethat the writer overreached himself in his literary ambition. In any case, thereare undoubtedly successful passages, such as l:19 and 2:12-16 (for the literarydevices used there see the Form/Strutture/Setting section on 2:l0Fl6), and if thelong and complicated sentences are sometimes tortuously obscure (l:$-4; 3:54),2:4-10 is in its own way effective.

According to Moulton the language "is employed with the uneasy touch ofone who has acquired the language in later l7fe" (Gran:mar 2, p. 28). It is difficulttojudge how far this impression results from the author's adoption of an artificialliterary style, but the poverty of connecting particles (Chase, DB(HI 3, p. 808),

138 INrnopuc"rron

the meager use of prepositions, the tendency to ambiguity and obscurity (Turner,in Moulton, Grammar 4, p. l4l), and what Mayor calls "an illiterate use of theanarthrous noun" (xxxiv), may point in this direction. On the other hand, it isnot clear whether there are any genuine Semitisms, i.e. usages which betray anative Semitic speaker, or only Septuagintalisms which belong to the writer's delib-erate style (cf. genitive of quality in place of adjective;irtflvpig1ttoo1to0,2:l0:tnipsyralurl;rortrqos,2:18; the use of ztioc . . . or, l:20, for oifupia; urioa oaprci,s ro6ino0a42:10; dn' iolgd;rott rdw ilpegiv, 8:8; rco;rapas riwa, 2:14; omissions of the articlewith a definite noun before a genitive could reflect the Hebrew construct state(Chaine, 18) but the author's use of the article is too erratic for this to be certain;evEqrw"lyouil€pndixrat,3:3, is a clear case of an expression which is only an imitationSeptuagintalism, see Comnent; tv rfi NopS . . . Ofluyrbovra4 2;12, is usually cited,but is not really even a Septuagintalism, see Commmt; among Semitic literary devices,note also the synonymous parallelism in 2:3b; the Tobspruch in 2:21; the chiasticstructure in l:lG2:3; 3:4-10). A native Semitic speaker cannot be ruled out, butanother possibility which should be considered, and to which the frequent improperuse of the anarthrous noun might point, is a native Latin speaker (suggested, butnot fiollowed up, by Salmon, Introduction,63Tn.; Reicke, 1471. This would suit theprobable Roman origin of 2 Peter (see Authorship and Psadonynill).

Literary Relationships

This section includes a variety of different kinds of literary relationships.In many cases there are implications for the date and character of 2 Perer,and these will be pointed out.

l. OId Testamnrt

Second Peter is not as saturated in OT allusions as Jude is, but neitherare they quite as sparse as is sometimes claimed. The fiollowing are cerrainor very probable allusions: l:17-18 (Ps 2:G7); l:19 (Num 24:17);2:2 (Isa52:5); 2:5 (Gen 6:17); 2:6 (Gen 19:29); 2:15-16 (Num 22:21-35); 2:22 (Prov26:ll);3:5 (Gen l:l);3:8 (Ps 90 [LXX 89]:4);3:9 (Hab 2:3);3:10, 12 (Isa34:4);3:12 (Isa 60:22); 3:12-14 (Hab 2:3); 3:13 (Isa 65:17). Admittedly manyof these allusions seem to be drawn by the author from sources he used:this is most probably the case in l:17-18; 2:22; and the whole passage 3:8-13. Allusions which are possible, bur not certain, are: l:ll (Dan 7:27); L:L7(Ps 8:5 IXX 6]; Dan 7:14); l:19 (Cant 2:17).

UnlikeJude, 2 Peter's allusions are habitually to the IXX. The followingcorrespond to the language of the IXX: l:ll (Dan 7:27 0,IXX); l:17 (Ps8:6); l:19 (Num 24:17); 2:2 (Isa 52:5);2:5 (Gen 6:17); 2:6 (Gen l9:29); 3:12(Isa 34:4); 3:13 (Isa 65:17). In the following cases the allusion is certainlynot to the IXX version: l:lg (Cant 2:17\;2:22 (Prov 26:l l); 3:9, 12-14 (Hab2:3); 3:12 (Isa 60:22), but in all excepr the first of these cases the authorhas probably taken the allusion from an intermediate source.

As evidence for the author's familiarity with the LXX, we should add theuse of typically IXX phrases (e.g. roryiseoilot dtriou,2:10; dzr' ioyarott rdtiytip<n,3:3; ro1 iorv; 3:4)._ We may add that the author shows familiarity with extrabiblical Jewishhaggadic traditions (2:L5, 7-8, 15-16).

IvrnonucrroN 139

2. Jrukh PseudepigraphaIn the Introduction to Jude, we noted his allusions to Jewish apocryphal

works as a prominent feature of his letter. These allusions are almost entirelyabsent from 2 Peter. Working on the assumption that 2 Peter is dependentonJude (see section 4), we find thatJude's verbal echoes of I Enoch inJude6 have disappeared in the rewriting in 2 Pet 2:4, though the allusion to thestory of the Watchers (itself much more widespread than / Enoch) remains(and if we read oeipds rather than oe@cis, we have to assume that the authorhad independent access to traditions which are found in I Enoch). Hardlyanything of Jude's debt to I Enoch in Jude l2-t3 remains in 2 Pet 2:17,whileJude's explicit quotation from I Enoch inJude l4-15 is wholly absentfrom 2 Peter. We cannot be quite sure how deliberate these omissions are.In 2 Pet 2:4, 17 the author has probably not recognized Jude's allusions toI Enoch and they have been accidentally lost in his rewriting' It is possiblethat he simply found no use forJude l4-15 (see Fonn/Structure/Setting sectionon 3:14).-But in 2 Pet 2:ll,Jude t has apparently been misunderstoodand its point generalized so aC to eliminate the reference to the story ofMichael and the devil in the 21 Mog ln this case, at least, we can be surethat the author of 2 Peter has deliberately avoided taking overJude's referenceto apocryphal material. (The claim that 2 Pet 2:3 is dependent on T. Mos.

7:6,-and 2 Pet 2:13 on T. Mos. 7;4,8, is discussed and rightly rejected byE.-M. Laperrousaz, b Testament dc Moise: Sem l9 [1970] 63$6.)

Thess phenomena have commonly been explained as evidence that theauthor of 2 Peter disapproved, of Jude's use of apocryphal works, and this issaid to reflect 2 Peter's second-century date: "II Peter is already reluctantto use this literature, whereasJude has a naive attitude toward it" (Kiimmel,Introdurtion, 43 I ; so also Schelkl e, 17 7, 220-21; Kelly, 227 ; Grundmann, 104;Kdsemann, "Apologia," 173r. Second Peter is thought to reflect a later andstricter view of the canon of Scripture, which makes allusion to non-authorita-tive works such as I Enoch and the T. Mo* unsuitable. Flowever, this explana-tion ignores the facts about early Christian use of apocryphal works. Althoughthe L Mos. seems never to have been well-known in Christian circles, inthe case of I Enoch the evidence shows that, whereas there are very fewallusions to it in first-century Christian literature, in the second century itbecame one of the most popular books in the Christian church. Second-cen'tury writers freely allude to it (Bam. 4:3; 16:S-6; Papias, ap. Andr. Caes.,In Apoc.34.l2: Athenagoras, Apol.24-26;Justin, 2 Apol. 5; Dial. 79.1; Tatian,Oratio,8-9,20; Ap.John 29:1il30:2; Irenaeus, Ada. Haet l.l0.l; 1.15.6; 4.16-2;4.36.4; hoof L8; Clem. Alex., Edog. hoph. 2.1;53.4; Strozr. 5.1.10.2; 1.17.81.4;Tertullian, De ldol. 3, 9, l5; De Cult. Fm. 1.2;2.1O; De Orat. 22.5; Adu. Marc.5:18; De Virgin. Vel.7-8; cf.H.J. Lawtor, "Early Citations from the Book ofEnoch," JP 25 (1897) 164-225i A.-M. Denis, Introdttttions aw Pszudtpigraphcsgrecs d'Ancien Testammt ISVTP l; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970] 20-24). No doubtsabout the authority of I Enoch are recorded before Tertullian (De Cult. Fnn.1.3) and Origen G. eb. 5:54; Comm. in Joh. 6.25), and such doubts seemonly to have become common in the fourth century. If the author of 2 Peterdisapproved of I Enoch he is most unlikely to have lived in the second-century.

What the evidence seems to indicate is that until the early second century

140 lxrnooucrron

I Enoch was not widely known in Christian circles. It circulated only in thosePalestinian Christian circles whichJude represeRts, where it was read in Ara-maic, and may not yet have been translated into Greek. It may be that theproduction of the Greek version accounts for its growing popularity in thesecond century.

_ The probability is that the author of 2 Peter omirted Jude's quotationfrom I Enoch and his allusion to rhe T. Mos., not becausC he disipprovedof these works, but because he was unfamiliar with them or at least isiumedhis readers would be unfamiliar with them. without knowledge of these works,the material in Jude 9 and 14-15 would only have been puzzling (whereasthe main outline of the story of the Watchers, to which 2 pet Z:+ alludes,was well-known to.fews and Christians who had never read I Enoch). lnrelation to I Enoch,- this conclusion points to an earlier rather than a iaterdate for 2 Peter, before the second-century Christian vogue for I Enoch.

The conclusion that the author of 2 Peter did not disapprove of Jewishapocryphal works on principle is confirmed by the probabiliiy that he liimselfemployed one as his source in 3:4-13. In the commentary on those w wehave- argued.that 2 Peter is there dependent on a Jewish'apocalypse, fromwhich quotations are probably to be found in I Cbn. 23:34; 2 Clh. lL:24;l6:3;-and perhaps also I Cl.em. 23:5;27:4. This apocalypse was evidentlypop-ulq i_1 the Roman church of that period, and may w-ell have been theBooh of Eldad and Modad which Hermas quores (vis. 2:r:4).It would be usefulif this work could be dated. we know that it was concerned with the problemof eschatolo^gical-delay- since this problem became acute inJewish apocalypticespecially after the fall ofJerusalem in e.n. 70, and since ihe argument-of 2

fet 3.9 is. paralleled especially in Jewish discussion in rhe post-zo period(see Bauckham, TynB 3l [1980] 3-36), it is possible that Erdnd and'Modadwas one of theJewish apocalypses produced in the aftermath of the catastropheof e.o. 70.

3. Othn Jewish Writings

- Abbott (Exp 2/3 tl882l 49-63; Contrast, 3941) argued that 2 perer wasdependent onJosephus. Farrar (Exp 2/3 tl882l 401-2-3; Exp l/8 tl888l 58-69) thoughl $b-bot1 had proved a literary relationship, but suggested thatJosephus might be dependent on 2 Peter. However, Abbott's case wis convinc-lngly refuted by Salmon (Introductdon, 638-53; cf. also Mayor, cxxvii-cxxix;James, x*v; Fillion, DB(n 5, cols. 409-10). Some of the resemblances (inJo_sephus' account of Moses' last words) belong to the literary conventions9f thg "lestament" genre (see commentary on lal2-15), others to the literaryGreg\ of the period and the ideas of Hellenistic Judaism._- Abbott.(ny| l/3 tl882l 54-56) also argued for 2 Peter's dependence onPhilo (and

^c!._ \!ay9r, cxxix-cxxx), but again a common backgiound in theliterature of HellenisticJudaism is sufficient to explain the reseinblances (seeespecially comment on l:2G-21). Flowever, these resemblances do highlight2 Peter's closeness to Hellenistic Jewish literature, as some general iese-m-blances to the Sib. Or. also indicate (see Conmmt on 2:5; Z:UZ,l0). Thatthe author had read some of Philo's works is not at all improbable, eventhough it cannot be proved.

INrnooucrrorl

4. JudeThat some kind of close relationship exists between 2 Peter and Jude is

obvious to all readers.The resemblances are largely betweenJude 4-13, lG18 and 2 Pet 2:l-18; 3:l-3. (These passages are given in parallel at theappropriate points in the Form/Stnrcture/Setting sections of the commentaryon 2 Peter.) Although various more tenuous points of contact in the earlierand later parts of the letters have often been pointed out (cf. e.g. the listin Fornberg, Early Church, 34), none of them is very likely to be more thanaccidental, except perhapsJude 5 and 2 Pet l:12. Precise verbal correspon-dence between the two works is relatively sparse (much more so than inthe "Q' pericopes of Matthew and Luke, e.g.), but it is sufficient and suffi-ciently striking to require an explanation at the level of litnary relarionship(only Reicke, 190, seems to think an oral common source could accountfor them).

Four explanations have been offered (and logically these are almost theonly four possible): (l) Jude is dependent on 2 Peter (so Luther and manyolder commentators; Spitta, 381-470, has the fullest argument; Zahn, Introduc-tion, 250-51, 26547 , 285; Bigg, 21t24; Falconer, Exp 6/6 t 19021 2 18-24).(2) 2 Peter is dependent onJude (so most modern commentators; full argu-ments for this position may be found in Mayor, i-xxv; Chaine, lU24; Sidebot-tom, 65-69; Grundmann, 7S€3). (3) Both are dependent on a commonsource. Robson (Strilies) held that 2 Peter is a composite work pur rogetherfrom various sources, including genuine Petrine fragments and a "propheticdiscourse," of which Jude also made use. Reicke (148, 189-90) thought ofa common "sermonic pattern," perhaps oral, behind the two works, and Green(50-55) of an anti-heretical tract (cf. also Spicq, 197 n.l). (4) Common author-ship is the hypothesis of Robinson (Redating, 192-95; his position was antici-pated by Leaney in R. Davidson and A. R. C. Leaney, Bibkcal Criticisrn [PGMT3; Harmondsworth, Middx.: Penguin Books, 19701 319), who suggests thatJude wrote both works. Guthrie, Introdtrtion, 919-27, is a good summary ofthe arguments for (l), (2) and (3).

Common authorship is implausible because of the considerable differencesof style (see section on Langnge in both Introductions) and background (thePalestinian Jewish character of Jude, the Hellenistic character of 2 Peter),and also because it is difficult to believe that a writer would have used hisown work in the way in which the author of 2 Peter uses Jude (see, e.g.,the Commmt on 2 Pet 2:l l, 13, l7).

A common source is a somewhat more attractive possibility. Since Jude'smidrash (w 5-19) is explicitly based on traditional material with which hisreaders were already familiar (v 5), it would have some plausibility if theparallels were limited toJude's midrash section. But the undeniable relation-ship between Jude 4 and 2 Pet 2:l-3 makes this view less likely. There issome force in the usual objection to this view, that the common source wouldhave had to have covered so much of the content ofJude and Jude's owncontribution would have been so small, that it is hard to see why he bothered.However, this argument loses a good deal of its force in the light of theview argued in the commentary on Jude, that the rnost important part ofJude, which fulfills the author's main purpose in writing, is the appeal (w

141

142 Ivrnooucrrox

20-23). These w are precisely those (together with the opening w l-3 andthe closing doxology) whichJude would have added to the hypothetical source.This is an intelligible procedure and the possibility of a common sourcecannot be entirely ruled out.

However, since it is a more complicated hypothesis than that of directdependence, we must have good reason for preferring it to the latter. Itsadvocates seem to offer no such reason. It is a fallacy to suppose that itexplains more clearly the difinmces between Jude and 2 Peter in the similarpassages. Second Peter's style is so consistent that its author must in anycase have rewritten his source fairly freely; it is as easy to suppose that herewroteJude as that he rewrote the hypothetical common source. The com-mon source andJude would not have been sufficiently different for the theoryof a common source to have any advantage over that of 2 Peter's dependenceonJude. It could perhaps have advantages over the theory ofJude's depen-dence on 2 Peter, since it might be easier to imagine Jude borrowing fromthe common source than borrowing from 2 Peter. But it is likely to proveattractive only if there are strong reasons for dating 2 Peter before Jude.

The most important literary reason for preferring 2 Peter's dependenceon Jude to the opposite hypothesis is that this commentary shows Jude 4-18 to be a piece of writing whose detailed structure and wording has beencomposed with exquisite care, whereas the corresponding parts of 2 Peter,while by no means carelessly composed, are by comparison more looselystructured. Jude's careful midrashic structure is entirely absent from 2 Peter,along with most of his many allusions to the OT and to I Enoch, and thetechnique of catchword connections. By comparison, 2 Pet 2:3b-l0a has adeliberate, though simple, literary structure, but 2:l0b-18 is fairly formless.There are only a few biblical allusions (2:2, 5-6) different from those inJude. It is reasonably easy to see how, e.g.,Jude G-8 could have been rewrittenin a new literary form, with a slightly different purpose, in 2 Pet 2:3b-10a,and how an author who failed to perceive or was not interested in the midrashicstructure and allusions ofJude 8c-16 could have revised the material in writinga straightforward passage of denunciation in 2 Pet 2:l0b-18. It is much moredifficult to imagine Jude constructing his elaborate midrash wirh 2 Pet 2befiore him. It is easy to see how the author of 2 Peter could have seen

Jude 8c-16 as useful material for composing a denunciation of the false teach-ers' sins, but it is difficult to see why it should have occurred to Jude tofind in 2 Pet 2:10b-18 a quarry for material to use in constructing a midrashdesigned to show that the false teachers and their doom have been predictedin Scripture. There are cases where a more complex literary work is basedon a simpler one, and a priori that might even seem a more likely procedure,but consideration of this particular case seems to indicate that it must beone in which the more complex work is prior. But one mustjudge for oneselfin reading the commentary.

Only recently have the insights of redaction criticism been brought tothe study of the relationship betweenJude and 2 Peter (Fornberg, Early Church,chap 3; Neyrey, Poltmic, chap 3; cf. also Danker, 89-90; Cavallin, NovT 2ltl979l 263-70). The attempts to study the details of the parallel passagesin order to determine priority have always, at least in a rudimentary way,

Ivrnoouc'rroN 143

involved considerations of redaction, but usually without sufficient awarenessof the possibility that an author may be adapting earlier material for a newpurpose. The common assumptions that both letters were written to combatsimilar or even identical heretics and reflect a similar background have particu-larly hindered an accurate understanding of the differences between the twoletters in the parallel passages. Both Neyrey and Fornberg are led by redaction-critical investigation to recognize that the two letters derive from differentsituations, oppose different adversaries, and therefore make appropriatechanges to the material they have in common. Both Neyrey and Fornbergassume the priority of Jude as a working hypothesis, and their redactioncriticism therefore consists in explaining 2 Peter's redactional treatment ofJude. The same procedure is followed in this commentary.

Fornberg thinks that by this method he has "refuted" the theory of thepriority of 2 Peter (Early Church, 58), but this is probably too strong a conclu-sion. He has shown that 2 Peter's redaction ofJude is intelligible, but notthatJude's redaction of 2 Peter is unintelligible or less intelligible. Redactioncriticism could dmtonstrate the priority of Jude only by considering at eachpoint the rehtiae plausibility of a redaction ofJude by 2 Peter and of a redactionof 2 Peter by Jude, and then calculating the overall relative plausibility ofthe two possibilities. But this would be a very complex task, because thereis a great deal of room for differing interpretations of redactional changes.Neyrey, Fornberg and I disagree over the interpretation of many of 2 Peter'sredactional alterations ofJude. One may produce-as I hope this commentarydoes produce-a convincing interpretation of 2 Peter's use ofJude, but onecannot be quite sure that an equally convincing interpretation ofJude's useof 2 Peter is irnpossible. No one since Spitta and Bigg has attempted it,but the analogy with Synoptic criticism perhaps suggests that their view maybe ripe for revival.

Despite these qualifications, on present evidence the case fior 2 Peter'sdependence on Jude is a good one, and to realize its strength the readershould study the relevant sections of the commentary on 2 Peter. Moieover,the case for dating 2 Peter later thanJude does not depend on their literaryrelationship, but is strong on other grounds alone (see section on Date inboth Introductions).

Finally, it should be carefully observed that the literary relationship between2 Peter and Jude does not justify the common habit of classing these twoworks together as similar works, deriving from the same background andcontext, displaying the same theological outlook. The reuse of some of thematerial in one work by the writer of another no more proves that in thiscase than it does in the case of, e.g., Kings and Chronicles, or Mark andLuke. One clear result of the exegesis in this commentary is to show thatJude and 2 Peter are very different works, from very different historical con-texts.

5. I PetnThe difference in vocabulary and style between I and 2 Peter has been

observed at least sinceJerome (Ep. l20.ll), whose solution to the problemthis raises-that Peter used two different "interpreters"-fuas also been the

144 lvraoouc'rror.l

usual resort of those who maintain Peter's authorship, in some sense, ofboth letters.

Mayor's attempt-to demonstrate statistically the difference in vocabularyby computing the ratio of words the two letters have in common to thosethey do not (Mayor, lxx-lxxiv)-must bejudged to be unsuccessful. Holzmeis-ter (BdD 30 [949] 339-55) showed rhat, of the words used in 2 Peter, 38.6percent are common to I and 2 Peter, 61.4 percent peculiar to 2 Peter,while of the words used in I Peter, 28.4 percent are common to I and 2Peter, 7l-6 percent peculiar to I Peter. These percentages do not comparebadly with those for I and 2 Corinthians: of the words used in I Corinthians,40.4 percent are common to I and 2 Corinthians, 59.6 percent are peculiarto I Corinthians; of the words used in 2 Corinthians,49.3 percent are commonto I and 2 Corinthians, 50.7 percenr are peculiar to 2 Corinthians. To explainthe somewhat lower percentage of words common to I and 2 Peter, Holzmeis-ter appealed to the fact that both letters depend on sources, different ineach case (Romans, Ephesians, Hebrews and James have influenced I Peter,according to Holzmeister, while 2 Peter usedJude). It may also be relevant(though not noted by Holzmeister) that the two Corinthian letters are consid-erably longer, and that I and 2 Peter both have a large number of NT ftaparlngornena (sixty in I Peter, fifry-seven in 2 Peter), which indicates that iheauthor(s) commanded a large vocabulary.

However, these statistics fail to reveal the real differences between thetwo letters. The words common to the two letters are mostly very commonwords. Of the 154 words used in both I and 2 Peter, only twenty-six occurless than twenty times in the NT, and only ten occur less than ten times.In 2 Peter, there are thirty-eight words which occur only once or twice else-where in the NT; of these only two (d.n&eol4,, dreri) occur in I Peter (whereasten occur in Acts, eight in the Pastorals, seven in the rest of the Paulinecorpus). Only one word (d,nofleors) is used exclusively in I and 2 Peter amongtlle \T wri ings. As these figures parrly indicate, there are hardly any wordiwhich could be regarded as charutnistic of the two Petrine letters. One mightsuggest awsrpgi6 (six times in I Peter, twice in 2 Peter, five times elsewherein NT), dord\os (once in I Peter, once in 2 Peter, twice elsewhere in NT),d,perfi (once in I Peter, three times in 2 Peter, once elsewhere in NT; butin very different senses in I and 2 Peter), @rlo0el@da (once in I Peter, twicein 2 Peter, three times elsewhere in NT), but these do not make a very impres-sive case. (Other alleged resemblances in vocabulary, given in Zahn, Introdw-tion,289 n.9; Bigg,225; Green, Reconsidered, 12-13, are even more flimsy.)None of the really characteristic terminology of either epistle reappears inthe other. For example, 2 Peter's characteristic idea of thC dripc^lots (knowl-edge received in conversion) of Christ (1:2, 3, 8; 2:20); the use of eintpewand er,roepriq (l:3, 6; 2:9; 3:tl); onw0dtleu and ozror.rdri (l:5, 10, l5; 3:14); the6Dos terminology (2:2, 15, 2l); the idea of Christian "srability" (orqp(eut,on7p11t6, dsrfipxros: l:12; 2:14; 3:L4, 17; orrlpilew is used in I Pet 5:10,but with a different nuance); the title oerip for Christ, and its combinationwith ruptos (l:1, ll;2:20;3:2, l8); the title rcbrl';csfip6nfor Christ (l:8, ll,14, 16;3:18); and the use of Oeios (l:3,4) are all absenr from I Perer. Noneof these examples derives from 2 Peter's sources or probable sources, and

IvrnonucrroN 145

all are relatively independent of the special subject matrer of 2 peter. Oneygqld expect some of them to reappear in orher writings by the same author.of instances where the two letters use different terminoiogy for the samei*a (Mayor,-lxxiv-lxxvi), the mosr striking is rhat whereas thd second comingof Christ is his zrcpouoiain2 Peter (l:16;3:4; cf.3:12), in I peter it is hiiarcrg,\altts (l:7, l3; 4:13; cf. Oavepolv in b:4).

Ofcourse, both letters are relatively short, are evidently directed to differentissues and situations, and deal on the whole with different subjects. Evenallowing fo-r these considerations, however, the facts that. common t6rminologyis negligible and that common ideas are almost entirely confined to ideisfiound_throughout early christianity, weigh heavily against common author-ship. By contrast, the Pauline letters (even those-judged by many scholarsto be inauthentic) share characteristic terminology a"d characieristicrecurringthemes. It should also be remembered that if both Petrine lerrers are authentic]they carrnot be placed very far apart in time. It can safely be said that if Iand 2 Peter had been anonymous- documents, no one would have thoughtof attributing them to a single aurhor.

Differences of terminology and ideas are more striking than differences

9{STp"Ttical usage_1nd style of writing. A. Q, Morton'siompurer analysis(citedty Green, 17n.8) showed I and 2 peter tobe linguistically indistinguish-able.- Mayor,.-after his detailed comparison of the grimmar and style 5r tn.two letters (lxxxix-civ), concluded-that "there is not that chasm betweenthem which some would try to make our" (civ). In their use of rhe arricle,e.9., they are similar (lxxxix-xc). The same habit of repeating words is saidto be common to both letters (Bigg, 22827; Mayor, civ), 6ut in fact thephenomenon is much less remarkable in I peter than in 2 peter. 2 peter'svery {rikrlg-slllistic habit-of using pairs of synonyms or near-synonyms (l:3,4,8,9, 10, 16, 17;2:!0,_ll, l3; g:7, tl, 14, lO), while it can'be paralleledin I Peter (l:19,23;2:18, 25; 3:4;4:7) as in mosr wrirers, is a much lessprominent trait in I Peter than in 2 Peter, whereas triplets, not used in 2Peter, occur in I Peter (l:4,7;3:22; cf. b:10). Most commenrarors concurin the view that I Peter's style is simpler and more successful, while 2 petersho-ws a-greater liking for grandiose expressions, ambitious literary effectsand bookish words.

Jerome was the first of many who have tried to maintain rhe commonauthorship of I and 2 Peter by attributing the differences ro perer's use ofsecretarial assistance, either two different setretaries for the rwo lerrers (Dillen-g9ger, MFOB 2 tl907l 193; Falconer, Exp 6/0 tl902l tt7-27; Green, lG17; tentatively, Guthrie, Introduction,840) or a secretary for one and not forthe other (spitta and Bowman, 159-60, attribute l peter largely ro Silvanus,2 Peter to Peter himself; Robinson, Redating, 166-69, lg2:gb, inclines toattribute I Peter to Peter himsell 2 Peter tojude; selwyn, christian prophers,157-63, attributes 2 Peter to Luke). However,-since the most important differ-ences are not those of grammar and style, but those of thought, themes,and theological terminology, an adequate iecr.tury hypothesis muit (as Robin-son recognizes)-po-stulate not an amanuensis, but an agent, i.e. a writer whohad a completely free hand not only with the .*pr.tri-o.r but also with thecontent of the letter. In other words, one or both of the letters was really

146 INrnopucrroN

composed (in the full sense of the word) by someone other than Peter, butPeter approved it and allowed it to be sent out under his name. If we imaginea circle of Christian leaders in Rome, who regarded Peter as their most seniorand authoritative member, this hypothesis is not at all implausible. It doesmean, however, that only an external link between I and 2 Peter is preserved.If Peter is the "author" of one or both letters only in the sense that heapproved a letter written by someone else, then the relationship betweenthe two letters becomes hardly at all relevant to the "authenticity" of 2 Peter,which must be considered on its own merits.

It should be borne in mind that the possible derivation of both lettersfrom a Petrine "circle" of Christian leaders in Rome is plausible only if the"circle" is nol considered a "school." Those scholars who postulate Paulineor Johannine "schools" do so to explain the theological and literary resem-blances between several writings which they think cannot be ascribed to oneauthor. But in the case of I and 2 Peter, there are no such resemblances tobe explained. Their authors cannot both be discipl,es of Peter who share acommon debt to Peter's teaching. If both letters derive from a Petrine "circle,"the circle cannot be a "school" with a common theology, but simply a circleof colleagues who worked together in the leadership of the Roman church.Some of them, at least, must have been independent minds, whose religiousthought owed little, if anything, to Peter (Silvanus and Mark, if I Pet 5:12-13, indicates that they belonged to such a Petrine "circle" [as Elliott, "Peter,"thinks] would, of course, hardly have been Peter's disciples).

The lack of resemblance between the two letters is such that, not only iscommon authorship very improbable and derivation from a common "school"of Christian teaching equally improbable, but also the author of 2 Peter cannot,in his writing of 2 Peter, have been influenced by his reading of I Peter. Inspite of Boobyer's attempt to demonstrate such influence ("Indebtedness";followed by Kelly, 353; Fornberg, Early Church, 12-13), there is really noplausible instance of it (see the commentary on l:l-2 fFonn/Structure/Settingl;l:3-11 lFonn/Structure/Settingl; l:3;2:5;3:9). The only real point of contactis between I Pet 3:20 and 2 Pet 2:5;3:9, but since these vv of 2 Peter cannotderive solely from I Pet 3:20 but must also be independently influenced byJewish traditions, it is simpler to explain the resemblance by common useof fairly well-known themes without regarding I Pet 3:20 as a source for 2Peter. The address and salutation of 2 Peter (l:l-2) is decisive evidenceagainst the view that the author of 2 Peter deliberately modeled his workon I Peter to give it a Petrine appearance, for the resemblance in the salutation(a standard formula) is outweighed by the divergence in Peter's self-designa-tion.

Yet it is probable that 3:l shows that the author of 2 Peter knew of IPeter (for his reasons for referring to it in 3:1, see Comrnent'5. His relationshipto I Peter, knowing it yet uninfluenced by it, is parallel to his relationshipto the Pauline letters (see section 6), but it is worth noticing that it is unlikethe practice of most second-century writers of apostolic pseudepigrapha. Incases where writings attributed to their pseudonyms were extant, these writersusually echo such writings iri their own pseudonymous productions. Thepseudo-Pauline Laodirearu is nothing but a patchwork of Pauline phrases;

Ivrnooucrrox 147

"3 Corinthiarc" is full of Pauline terminology and ideas; though less pervasive,there are clear echoes of Paul in the Prayer of the Apostle Paul (CG l, l), inthe Apoc. Paul, in the speeches of Paul ii' th6

'ects of Paul, and even in the

apocryphal correspondence between Paul and Seneca. The ActsJohn attributesappropriate Johannine terminology to its hero. In the case of the Petrinepseudepigrapha (see section 8), the Apoc. Pet. and the speeches of Peter inthe Acts of Petn certainly echo 2 Peter, and the Acts Pet. probably echoes IPeter too. The Ep. Pet. PhiI. (CG 8, 2) probably echoes 2 Peter and thePetrine speeches in Acts. The Gnostic Apoc Pet. (CG 7, 3) contains no clearechoes of other Petrine writings (but cf. 79:31 with 2Pet2:L7), but consistsmostly of Christ's words to Peter. The Gos. Pet. and the Kn. Pet. do not, inthe texts we have, allude to I or 2 Peter, but we have only fragments andwe do not know whether their authors knew other Petrine writings.

It would be hazardous to base too much on this contrast between 2 Peter'snonuse of I Peter and the practice ofsecond-century pseudepigraphers, butit may at least point us in a plausible direction. The author's relationshipto Peter may be neither that of a disciple who has absorbed and reflects hismaster's teaching, nor that of a second-century pseudepigrapher who hascarefully studied his pseudonym's writings to make his fiction plausible, butthat of an erstwhile colleague of Peter's, who writes Peter's testament afterhis death, writing in his own way but able to be confident that he is beingfaithful to Peter's essential message. He would not have to study I Peter tobe confident of this, and if I Peter itself was written not by Peter but byanother colleague in the Petrine circle, whether before or after Peter's death,he would know this and feel even less need to base his own work on it.

6. Paulinp l*ttnsThe author of 2 Peter knew a collection of Pauline letters, though we

cannot tell how large a collection, and regarded them as "scriptures," i.e.ir,rspired, authoritative writings, suitable for reading in Christian worshipalongside the OT (3:15-16). Yet there is little sign of Pauline influence in2 Peter. Barnett noted that our author's use of the Pauline letters "is character-ized by extreme reserve" (Paul,222l, and the possible allusions he lists aremostly very tenuous (PauI, 223-28). Lindemann concludes that 2 Peter isentirely uninfluenced by Pauline theology and contains no allusion to thePauline letters (Paulus, 263). In fact, only two allusions to Romans (2:19:Rom 8:21; cf. 6:16; 7:5; and 2 Pet 3:15: Rom l2:3; 15:15) and one to IThessalonians (3:10: I Thess 5:2) seem even possible, and they are far fromcertain.

This knowledge o[, but nonuse of, Paul is surprising. We cannot reallysuppose that our author himself found Paul too "hard to understand" (3:16).As Lindemann points out (Paulus,262), he can hardly be thought to be puttinghimself in the same position as his opponents, who cannot understand Paulbecause they are "uninstructed and unstable" (3:16). Nor is it likely that heconsidered Paul too close to heresy and refers to Paul only because his oppo-nents made much of him; 3:15-16 assumes Paul's orthodoxy as somethingto be taken for granted, and treats Paul as a wholly trustworthy, indeed in-spired, authority. There is no trace of embarrassment or reserve in the refer-

148 INrnooucrroN

ence to Paul. Lindemann's suggestion that the author simply did not seePaul's letters as relevant to his situation is not, as he admits, very satisfactory(Pauhr,26243), at least as a complete explanation. We might not then finddeliberate allusions to Paul, but we might still expect his work to show thathe had absorbed some Pauline influence. Besides, the author himself assertsthat Paul dealt explicitly with some of his own subject matter (3:15-16). Anadditional possibility is that the author's theological thinking and terminologywere formed before he had much contact with Pauline theology, and that acollection of Paul's letters was only just coming into use at the time whenhe wrote. It is quite possible that Pauline letters were already an establishedauthority in the churches of Asia Minor, to which he wrote (hence 3:11-16), but, apart from Romans, had only recently become known in the churchof Rome, from which he wrote (see section on Aulhorship and Pseudnnymiryl.

Such a situation would suit a date in the late frrst century, which is alsoa plausible date at which Paul's writings might be called lpo@i ("scriptures";see Comment on 3: 16). In general, the later we date 2 Peter, the more surprisingthe lack of Pauline influence becomes. This argument cannot be pressedvery far, because there are second-century writers (such as Justin) who showlittle or no trace of Pauline influence, but on the whole 2 Peter's relationto the Pauline letters, often cited in favor of a second-century date, maypoint more in the direction of an earlier, though not too early, date.

7. Gospd TraditionsSecond Peter contains four certain allusions to gospel traditions: l:14 (a

radition which also appears inJohn 2l:18); l:16-18 (a tradition independentof the Synoptic accounts of the Transfiguration, but closer to Matthew thanto Mark or Luke); 2:20 (Matt 12:45 par. Luke I l:26); 3:10 (probably a phrasefrom paraenetic tradition, based on the parable in Matt 24:43 par. Luke l2:39,cf. I Thess 5:2). Other possible echoes of or allusions to gospel traditionsare: l:16 (Mark 9:l par. Matt 16:28, but if so, an independent form of thissaying); 2:9 (the Lord's Prayer in the Matthean or a similar version: Matt6:13); 2:21 (Mark 9:42; 14:21 par. I CIen. 46:81;3:4 (Mark 9:l par.; Mark13:30 par.). It is clear that in some cases the author is dependent on gospelmaterials, oral orwritten, independent of the Gospels we know. It is impossibleto tell whether he is dependent on any of our Gospels, though of theseMatthew is the most likely. Access to extracanonical gospel traditions pointsto an earlier rather than a later date, but was still possible well into thesecond century. It should also be noted (as shown in the Form/Struchnc/Settingsection on l:16-18) that the character of 2 Peter's Transfiguration traditionis primitive and quite unlike the strongly Hellenized second-century accounts.

8. Olher Petrhu PsardepigraphaIf 2 Peter is pseudepigraphical, it is one of a large group of pseudo-Petrine

writings. Those which date from the late 6rst century and the second centuryare: I Peter (if it is pseudepigraphal); the Apoc. Pet., the Gos. Pet., the Kn.Pel. (Preaching of Peter), and the Acts Pet., and perhaps (these may date fromthe third century) the gnostic Apoc. Pet. (CG 7, 3), the Ep. Pet. Ptdr. (CG 8,2), the Acl Pet. (BC, 8502, 4). (Of these, the Acl+ Pet., .he Ep. Pet. PlrdL, the

Iurnopucrrox 149

Act Pet. and perhaps the Ker. Pet. are not pseudepigraphal in the strict sense,i.e. they do not purport to be written by Peter.) In view of Peter's statureas an apostolic figure, the proliferation of Petrine pseudepigrapha is naturalenough. Their diversity of character shows that a wide variety of Christiangroups, gnostic as well as "orthodox," believed they could claim Petrine au-thority for their views.

Some of the later Petrine pseudepigrapha are demonstrably dependenton, and some can plausibly be thought to be influenced by, the earlier Petrinewritings. This is what one might expect, but the relationships seem to berelationships of literary influence, and provide no convincing evidence of aPetrine "school" or "tradition." This conclusion is confirmed by Smith (PetituControunsies), who has recently studied the relationships between these Petrinewritings to trace controversies around the figure of Peter in the early church.Evidence of dependence on 2 Peter can certainly be fiound in the Acts Pet.(Act. Vnc. 12; cf. 2 Pet 2:16; l:l; 2:2; Act Vnc. 20: cf. 2 Pet l:lG-18; andperhaps Act. Vnc. 2: cf. 2 Pet l:9; Act Vnc. 6: cf. 2 Pet 2:9, 15; Act. Vna 7:cf.2 Pet l:16, 18;2:15), and perhaps also in Ep. Pet. Phil. (132:l&-14: cf.2Pet 3:15; 132:17-18: cf. 2 Pet l:ll) and the gnostic Apoc. Pet. (79:31: cf. 2Pet 2:17). Smith has suggested that 2 Peterand the gnostic Apoc. Pet. mightreflect the same controversy, but they are alike only in being strongly polemicaland attributed to Peter; their theological themes are quite different.

Only the Apoc. Pet. shows extensive similarities with 2 Peter. In a forthcom-ing article we have shown that these result from literary dependence on 2Peter. Clearly the writer of the Apoc. Pet. had studied 2 Peter carefully. Aswell as specific cases ofverbal dependence, he has adopted 2 Peter's "way"terminology (2 Pet 2:2, 15, 2l: Apoc. Pet. E 7; A 22, 28, 34; B), which isalso found in the lcts Pet. (Act. Vna 6,7,l2), and the idea of the eschatologicalconflagration (though his ideas about this do not all derive from 2 Peter).These last points might perhaps suggest, in addition to literary dependence,some kind of theological "tradition," possibly that the writer of the Apoc.Pet. was a disciple of the author of 2 Peter, but are not really sufficient evidencefor this by themselves.

The other Petrine pseudepigrapha therefore offer little help in determiningthe character and origin of 2 Peter, except to indicate that it was alreadyaccorded authority as a source of Petrine tradition when the Apoc. Pet. (proba-bly c. I 10-40) and the Acts Pet. (c. 180) were written.

g. I Ctrrvnt, 2 Cbmtnt, HennasWhen compared with the other NT documents, 2 Peter is a highly distinctive

work. Some of its ideas and much of its religious terminology are hard toparallel from other NT writers. Its material links withJude, and largely formallinks with I Peter and Paul, do not indicate any real affinities of thoughtand language. Second Peter seems to represent a Christian milieu and astyle of Christian discourse not othenvise represented in the NT.

However, there is a group of early Christian writings with which 2 Petershows much closer affinities than with any NT books: I CImt., 2 Clmt. andthe Sheplwd of Hermas. The careful reader of this commentary will find thatmany parallels, in ideas and vocabulary, are pointed out throughout the com-

150 Ivrnooucrror.r

mentary, and the impression will grow that these three works are 2 Peter'sclosest relatives in the early church. (In addition to the parallels noted through-out the commentary, it is worth noting here that of 2 Peter's fifty-seven NThapuc legomata, sixteen are found in I CIem., 2 Cbn. and Hermas, and fifteenof these not elsewhere in the Apostolic Fathers, while of the thirty-eightwords in 2 Peter which occur only once or twice elsewhere in the NT, seventeenoccur in I Cbn., 2 Cbn. and Hermas, ten of these not elsewhere in theApostolic Fathers. But the considerable length of I Clcm. and Hermas shouldbe remembered when assessing these figures.)

The relationships of 2 Peter with these three works are not of the kindwhich literary dependence could explain, nor is common authorship conceiva-ble. The four writers, despite the links between them, remain highly individualwriters, each with his distinctive traits of thought and language. The kindof similarities which this commentary demonstrates are those which derivefrom the use of shared Christian traditions and from belonging to a sharedChristian language milieu. It cannot be accidental that I Clcn. and Hermasare indubitably Roman works; that 2 CIem., whose place of origin is disputed(Rome and Corinth are the most likely possibilities), is widely admitted tobe closely connected with / CIsm. in some way; and that 2 Peter can veryplausibly be located in Rome (see section on Authorship and Pszudonymityl.The similarities between the four works most probably indicate their commonindebtedness to a tradition of Roman Christianity. (fhis hypothesis oughtto be tested by investigation of parallels between the three works I Clen., 2Clsn. and Hermas, to supplement this commentary's investigation of the paral-lels between 2 Peter and those three works.)

Such common indebtedness to a tradition of Roman Christianity need notnecessarily imply close proximity in date, but since there is no evidence ofliterary dependence, we may expect the chronological span within which thefour works were written to be relatively short-perhaps no more than twentyyears. Unfiortunately, although there is still wide agreement that I Cbm. shouldbe dated c. A.D. 96, there is no scholarly agreemenr on rhe dates of 2 Clcfl.and Hermas. In spite of recent arguments for an earlier date for I ClEm.(Robinson, Rednting,328-34, with references to other literature) there seemsno sufficient reason to challenge the view that / Cltm. belongs to the 90s.In the case of Hermas, a trend of scholarly opinion toward a date c. 80-100 can perhaps be discerned (Edmundson, Church of Rome,208-21;J. Dan-i€lou, Tlw Theology of Jeukh Christianity, tr.J. A. Baker [London: Darton, Long-mann & Todd, 19641 39; Robinson, Redating, 320-22, with references toother literature; cf. R. J. Bauckham, "The Great Tribulation in the Slephfidof Hermas," r/fs 25 U974128-29). Second Clemtnt is still commonly datedwell into the second century, but the latest full study by Donfried puts it atthe end of the first century, partly because he sees it as written soon afterI CIem., but also fior more general reasons (Second Clnnent, l, 79-81, 124,l9l). A further reason for grouping all three works within a relatively shortperiod toward the end of the first century is the evidence in all three thatthey were written at a time when either the generation of the apostles orthe generation of the first converts in their place of origin had almost orjust passed away (I Clmt. 23:3;44:l-3; 2 Clzm. ll:2; Hermas, lzis. 3:5:l;

INrnooucrroN l5l

Sdm. 9:15:4). A similar criterion can be used to date 2 Peter in the sameperiod (section on Datn).

Charucter of the ktter

In a famous essay which contains a full-scale theological attack on 2 Peter,Klsemann calls it "from beginning to end a document expressing an earlyCatholic viewpoint," and "the clearest possible testimony to the onset ofearly Catholicism" ("Apologia," 169, 195). Although for Kisemann "earlyCatholicism" is not so much a historical category as a theological accusation,his verdict on 2 Peter's "early Catholic" character is endorsed by many schol-ars, not all of whom follow his excessive denigration of the letter: "the clearestexample in the Canon of 'early Catholicism"' (R.H. Fuller, A Critical Introd'uc-tion to the Nsu Testammt [2nd ed.; London: Duckworth, l97l] 166), "a primeexample of early Catholicism" (1. D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diansity in the NatTestamail [London: SCM Press, 1977] 351), "the classic document of so-calledearly Catholicism" (Schrage, I l8; cf. also Schelkle, "Spdtapostolische Briefe";but Fornberg, Early Chu,rch, 3-6, regards early Catholicism as "an artificialcategory which cannot do justice to a document such as 2 Peter"). As inthe case of Jude, the usefulness of this categorization of 2 Peter must beinvestigated.

We may begin by applying the three alleged features of early Catholicismwhich we used in the discussion of Jude: (1) The fading of the Parousiahope. It is a serious misunderstanding of 2 Peter to suppose that its authorabandons the imminent eschatological expectation of primitive Christianity.On the contrary, he assumes it as naturally as other writers do: both hisopponents and his readers will experience the Parousia (l:19;2:12;3:14),and the eschatological judgment is coming swiftly on his opponents (2:l).Of course, in his day the delay of the Parousia has become a problem, whichfor his opponents justifies thorough-going eschatological skepticism (3:4, 9)and therefore he must give some explanation of the delay. But the effect ofthe arguments he uses is not to postpone the Parousia to the distant future;they are traditionalJewish apocalyptic arguments which belong in the contextofJewish apocalyptic's characteristic tension between the sense of eschatologi-cal imminence and a wrestling with the problem of delay (besides the commen-tary on chap 3, see Bauckham, TynB 3l [980] 3-36). If the Parousia hopehas become to some extent problematic in our author's time, he does notat all allow it to fade, but vigorously reasserts it.

Kisemann has other criticisms of 2 Peter's eschatology; that it "lacks anyChristological orientation" ("Apologia," 178), that (with reference to l:4)it is a "relapse into Hellenistic dualism" ("Apologia," 180), and that it isanthropocentric, concerned only with moral retribution ("Apologia," 179-80). It is not clear why these failings are regarded as "early Catholic," andone suspects that "early Catholic" and "non-Pauline" are being equated.This may make "early Catholic" a useful term for Kisemann's theological-critical purposes, but it makes it a useless terrn for historical investigation.However, to deal briefly with the charges, they are not entirely fair to 2Peter. The first charge neglects (or misunderstands: see "Apologia," 186-

152 Ivrnooucrrou

87) the appeal to the Transfrguration (l:16-18), which the author sees as abasis for the Parousia hope because it was God's installation ofJesus as theone who will exercise God's universal rule. l:4 (see Commenl for detaileddiscussion of Kdsemann's charge) is not the whole of 2 Peter's eschatology,and the paradox of its Hellenistic language juxtaposed with the apocalypticperspective of chap 3 must be faced (see below), not eliminated. SecondPeter's eschatology ds concerned with retribution and has a primarily ethicalinterest, but this is a concern with God's righteousness and is by no meanspurely man-centered. Its emphasis is continuous with that ofJewish apocalyp-tic eschatology, which justifies the use of aJewish apocalyptic source in chap3. In summary,2 Peter's eschatology is apocalyptic for the most part, but,is expressed in strongly Hellenistic terminology in l:4. It is not clear thatthe label "early Catholic" helps us at all to understand this combination.

(2) Increasing institutionalization is the second mark of early Catholicism.Second Peter makes no reference at all to ecclesiastical office-holders, unlesshis reference to his opponents as ry'eu6o&&iorcala ("false teachers," 2: l) counts.On the most probable interpretation of l:20-21, those w have nothing todo with the exegesis of Scripture, and therefore do not insist on an authorita-tive interpretation of Scripture by officeholders who alone possess the Spirit(against Kisemann, "Apologia," 189-91). 3:16 does allude to rhe misinterpre-tation of Scripture by the opponents, but noticeably fails to meet the problemby restricting interpretation to authorized persons. On the contrary, 3:15seems to be an appeal to the readers' own ability to see that the writer'sview accords with their reading of Paul. The fact that 2 Peter does not referto officeholders in the churches does not of course imply that there werenone, but it does show that in the author's conception of the struggle againstthe false teachers, the role of the officeholders does not occupy the centerof the stage. (This is recognized by Knoch, "Vermlichtnis," 158-59, whothinks that the preservation of apostolic tradition against heretics had notyet become explicitly the task of the officeholders, as it has in the Pastorals.)

(3) The crystallization of the faith into set forms. Second Peter's characteris-tic terms for Christianity are (a) the "way" phrases: "the way of truth" (2:l),"the straight way" (2:15), and "the way of righteousness" (2:21), which (useddeliberately against the opponents' libertinism) characterize Christianity notas a body of belief but as an ethical way of life; (b) "the holy commandment"(2:21) and "the commandment of the Lord and Savior" (3:2), which have asimilar significance; (c) "the knowledge (iniywrl's) ofJesus Chrisr" (l:2, 8),which is not "orthodox doctrinal tradition" (Kiisemann, "Apologia," 193),but the essential knowledge, theoretical and personal, gained in Christianconversion; (d) "the truth that you have" (l:12), which,likeJude's "the faith"(Jude 3), is simply the gospel. It is absurd to see in this last phrase theimplication that "revelation is now a piece of property which is at the commu-nity's disposal" (Kiisemann, "Apologia," 174). There is no evidence herefor insistence on formalized creedal orthodoxy. Certainly, 2 Peter is writtenin defense of traditional Christian eschatology and ethics; the author believesthat the expectation of the Parousia and its ethical implications were essentialto the apostolic message and he defends them. But he uses no creedal formu-lae, and his opponents are skeptics and libertines (see section on Ttu Oppo-

lnrnooucnroN 153

tttntsl, not Gnostics who appealed to personal inspiration (Kiisemann, "Apolo-gia," 175) and against whom orthodoxy has to be formulated and tied toinstitutional authority.

Second Peter's response to heresy is not the "early Catholic" responseof insistence on institutional authority and creedal orthodoxy. Nor does theauthor respond to the delay of the Parousia in the way that "early Catholicism"is supposed to have responded, by highlighting Christology or ecclesiologyin compensation for the inevitable loss of the imminent expectation. On thecontrary, he reasserts the primitive eschatological perspective. It is plain thatthe label "early Catholic" is no help in understanding 2 Peter.

Only in one respect is Kiisemann's critique really relevant to determiningthe character of 2 Peter. He emphasizes the importance of the conceptionof the apostles and the normative character of apostolic tradition for theauthor, and connects this with his use of pseudepigraphy ("Apologia," 177).If we accept that 2 Peter is a pseudepigraphal "testament of Peter," it becomesclear that the author is conscious of living in a period when the generationof the apostles has passed, and the "scoffers" whom the apostles had predictedwould arise after their death, in the critical "last days," are already on thescene (3:4). These "scoffers" consider the apostles' teaching, on eschatologyand ethics, discredited. But for the author it is the norm of Christian belief.It is not, of course, to be woodenly or unintelligently repeated. In l:3-llhe puts Peter's message very much into his own terms, for his own situation,and to maintain the credibility of the Parousia hope of the apostles he useswhatever arguments, new or old, make sense to him. Yet it is Peter's messagFand fior him this is simply the apostolic message-which he interprets anddefends. To deliver the apostolic message in a postapostoldc situation: this isthe key to the author's conception of his task.

This task combines with the particular resources he brings to it to determinethe peculiar character of the letter. On the one hand, his own background(or at least that of the Christian traditions he has made his own) appears tobe in HellenisticJudaism (see Langnge and sections l, 3 of Literary Relation-ships), and he is familiar with the literature in which Hellenistic Jews hadendeavored to express biblical faith in terms appropriate to their culturalenvironment. At least partly from this background in Hellenistic Judaism,as well as from his own interaction with the pagan cultural context of hischurch, derives his free use of Hellenistic religious and ethical terminology(especially l:3-8). From Hellenistic Judaism comes also his understandingof scriptural inspiration (l:20-21). Second Peter's Christianity has acquiredat least a glossy veneer of adaptation to a Hellenistic cultural context, butit is important to realize that this was in the first place an adaptation to aHellenistic Jruish religious culture which had already adapted to its pagancontext. As the commentary on l:3-8 points out, our author uses his Hellenis-tic terminology with some care and skill, so that a Christian content controlsir.

On the other hand, however, his letter reflects his use ofJewish apocalypticand Jewish Christian apocalyptic sources: his tradition of the Transfiguration(l:16-18), Jude (2:l-18; 3:l-3), and theJewish apocalypse which underlies3:4-13. Even if, because of his cultural distance fromJude's apocalyptic mid-

154 In-rnooucrrow

rash, he has not really understood it in detail, yet its broad intention comesthrough in the insistence on imminent eschatological judgment and the useof the typological material in 2:4-9. TheJewish apocalyptic ideas seem faith-fully reproduced in 3:5-13. The apocalyptic interpretation of the Transfigura-tion is integral to his argument.

This surprising combination of Hellenism and apocalyptic is precisely theway in which the author tries to interpret and defend the apostolic messagein a postapostolic generation. What appears to come most naturally to him,when he is not following a source, is a Hellenistically influenced way of intnpret-dzg the apostolic message which makes contact with the ideals and aspirationsof the church's pagan environment (l:3-8). But he faces opponents whoseHellenism involves a critical attitude to the apostolic message and leads, inhis view, to its abandonment. They advocate mere pagan skepticism abouteschatology and mere compromise with pagan permissive morality. In re-sponse he must dzfad the eschatological content and the eschatologicallymotivated ethical content of the apostolic teaching. To aid him in this, heresorts with a sure instinct to sources close to the apocalyptic outlook ofthe primitive church. He sees that this must be reasserted if a HellenizedChristianity is not to become a merely paganized Christianity. Commentatorshave often tended to play down either the Hellenism or the apocalyptic in2 Peter. In reality thejuxtaposition of the two gives 2 Peter its special character.A similar mixture to a greater or lesser extent characterizes I Clmt., 2 Cbn.,and Hermas, which belong to the same milieu as 2 Peter (section g of LitnaryRelatioruhips). This group of Roman Christian leaders faced the church's per-ennial task of retaining the gospel's essential content while giving it meaning-ful expression in new cultural contexts. Second Peter's contribution to thattask deserves more appreciation than it has received from modern scholars.

Tlu Opponents

LikeJude, 2 Peter is a polemical document. Its purpose is to counter theinfluence of a group of teachers in the churches to which it is addressed,and to this end it employs not only denunciation but also apologetic argumentin defense of the eschatological teaching of the apostles against their objec-tions. From the objections which the author counters we can discern themain thrust of the opponents' teaching, at least as he understood it.

From 2:l-3a, 14, l8 it is clear that the opponents were teachers with disci-ples. The central theme of their teaching was eschatological skepticism. TheParousia ofJesus Christ had been expected during the lifetime of the apostles,but the first Christian generation had now passed away, and in the view ofthe false teachers this proved the primitive Christian eschatological expecta-tion to have been wholly mistaken (8:4,9a1. There would be no eschatologicaljudgment (2:3b), no divine intervention to eliminate evil and establish a worldof righteousness. No doubt this teaching fed on disillusionment felt by someChristians when the last prominent members of the generation of the apostles,in whose final years eschatological expectation had run high, passed awayand the prophecy of the Parousia remained unfulfilled. But it seems also,in the mind of the false teachers, to have belonged to a common-sense rational-

Ivrnopucrrox 155

istic view of the world, according to which the world continues on its coursewithout dramatic divine inrerventions (3:4). Judgments are prophesied butnever happen (2:3b).

To- su-pport this skepticism rhey held that the apostles, who undeniablypreached the Parousia as central to the christian message, had invented thiidea themselves (l:l6a), perhaps as an instrument of moral control. As forthe passages of or prophecy tladitionally interpreted with reference ro theParousia, these were not divinely irispired but simply the prophets'own mis-taken attempts to interpret their dreams and visions (l:20-2li). The eschato-logical expectation was not based on divine promise, but on human invention.. The opp_onents'eschatological skepticism was advanced not simply in theinterests of intellectual honesry, but in the interests of moral freedbm. Theyclaimed to be emancipating people from the fear of divine judgment (2:lgai.Petty mo_ral restraints could be safely ignored. They were not iripressed whenstricter Christians walned them ofjudgment to come, nor when they warned,lr.f 9f the danger of falling into the power of the forces of evil and sharingtheir fate, eschatological destruction. On the contrary, they laughed at th;supposed power of the devil and his angels (2:l0b). "Freedomt' was theircatchword, and evidently they felt free to indulge in sexual immorality, drunk-enness and sensual excesses generally (2:2, lOa, 13-14, l8). No doubt theeasy compromise-with pagan moral standards which their teaching allowedwas one source of their popularity (2:18).

. Since they apparently still regarded themselves as Christians, they mayhave sought some support for their views in authoritative Christian writingj,and, since Paul was a major authority in their churches (3:lb), they mlyfav_e.apqe1lgd qo Pauline teaching about christian freedom and justificationby faith (cf. 2:19; 3:16). But 3:15-16 may mean that they misinterlreted pauland other authoritative writings in an unfavorable sense, i.e. theyinterpretedpassages about the imminence of the Parousia as unfulfilled and thereforefals-e_prophegy. At any rate, it would go beyond the evidence to speak of areal Pauline influence on them, let alone to regard them as radical Paulinists.In spite of the reference to Paul in 3: 15-16, the evidence for a pauline back-Blo_un-d- to the false teaching in 2 Peter is less convincing than in the caseofJude's opponents.

This sketch of the opponents has attempted to stay close to the evidencewhich 2 Peter offers and to do justice to the centrality of the eschatologicalquestion in the debate. It should also be observed, from the author's redac-tionof Jude, that he_ omits material in Jude relating to Jude's opponents' claims!o pgsleT the spirit and to be the recipients of prophetic ievelations (Jude8: cf. 2 Pet 2:10; Jude l9), and also;ude's reference to rheir anrinoirianperversion 9f gracq (Jude 4: cf. 2 Pet 2:l-3). As far as we can tell, the oppo-nents in 2 Peter claimed to be teachers but not prophets (2 pet 2:l)-indse! no store by charismatic experiences (cf. also

-Cornmmt on 2:16). Their

ethical libertinism had more to do with their eschatological skepticism thanwith an antinomian understanding of grace. The angeli they mocked were!h9 pow-ers of evil, not angelic guirdians of the Law (2 pet 2jl0-l l: cf. Jude8-9). Thus redaction-critical study reveals the false teachers in 2 pet6r tobe very different from the opponents inJude. The only certain point of sub-

156 IvrnooucrroN

stantial resemblance between the two is their ethical libertinism, which iswhat accounts for 2 Peter's use ofJude.

The most plausible background to the attitudes of the false teachers in 2Peter is their pagan environment (so Fornberg, Early Chwch,65, 104-5, I 19-20, 126, 132; note especially 120: "the adversaries consisted of theologicallyunaware Christians who compromised with ideas current in the world aroundthem"). Neyrey (Pol,emic, chap 4; JBL 99 tl980l 407-31, has shown the extentto which the eschatological debate in 2 Peter resembles pagan Hellenisticcontroversy over the views of the Epicureans on providence and eschatology,and these parallels have been pointed out at relevant points in the commen-tary. It is also important to remember the extent to which eschatology ofthe Jewish apocalyptic kind was alien to Hellenistic thinking, even includingmuch HellenisticJewish thinking. The opponents'charges in l:l6a and l:20-2la also seem to belong to Hellenistic debate (involving HellenisticJudaism)about prophecy and oracles (see Cornmml on those w). The opponents'ethicalpractice, in which sexual immorality seems prominent, is plausibly seen asaccommodation to the permissiveness of pagan society, a perennial temptationin the early church, especially when Christian morality impeded participationin the social life of the cities. The false teachers may therefore be seen as

aiming to disencumber Christianity of its eschatology and its ethical rigorism,which seemed to them an embarrassment in their cultural environment, espe-cially after the evident failure of the Parousia expectation. From a generalfamiliarity with Hellenistic religious debate they were able to deploy currentskeptical arguments about eschatology and divine revelation. Perhaps theysaw themselves as rather daring young radicals trying to clear alot of tradi-tional nonsense out of the church. Whether they also had any positive religiousteaching our evidence does not allow us to say. The analogy with radicalsin other generations suggests that a largely negative message could havesounded impressive enough (cf. 2:l8a).

The opponents in 2 Peter are not Gnostics. Although the identificationof them as Gnostics has been the common opinion since Werdermann (Inleh-rnl,ithas recently been rejected by Fornberg(Early Church, passim) and Neyrey(CBQ 42 tl980l 506), both of whom have studied the opponents in 2 Petercarefully, without confusing its opponents withJude's. The present commen-tary confirms their conclusion. As in the case ofJude, there is no evidencethat the false teachers in 2 Peter held the cosmological dualism which isthe essential mark of true Gnosticism. There is no evidence that their ethicallibertinism was based on such dualism, or that their eschatological skepticismresulted from a gnostic concentration on realized, at the expense of future,eschatology. If they resembled some second-century Gnostics in denying thedivine inspiration of OT prophecy (l:20-2la), they did so by attributing itto a merely human origin, not to the demiurge, as second-century Gnosticsdid. There is no hint in 2 Peter of controversy about bodily resurrection,which was usually a main focus of anti-gnostic discussion of eschatology,because of the link between this issue and gnostic dualism (cf., e.9., I Cor15; 2 Tim 2:18; / Cbn. 24; 2 Clen. 9; Pol. Phil. 7:l; "3 Cor."-though notall these need be anti-gnostic). Conversely, there is no evidence that the

Ivrnopucrrou lb7

{elay of the Parousia,. so important in 2 peter, featured in second-centuryGn_ostic argument agains t traditional eschatolo gy.

support for identi$i.ls lhe opponents as Gn-ostics has been sought in thereference to "myths" (l:16), bui this is the opponenrs'charge a[ainst theapostles, not the author's charge against the offonents. whei he-does turnthe charge against the gpponents (2:3a), it is notable that the word "myrhs"does not recur: evidently the-opponents had false (skeptical) arguments, butnothing so -positive as "myths.'i The use of the ;'knbwl.dg.'- theme in 2Peter has also been legarded as aimed against heretical gnisrs, but carefulstudy shows that in fact "knowledge" in 2 peter (iri7zc,.#rs and zy<irors) isfree of polemical orertones and cainot have been a caichword of the

"pir"-nents (see especially Commntt on l:2; 2:12).. o4y insofar as eschatological disillusionment may have contributed to

the rise of the Gnostic movement can the oppot.tri, in 2 peter be seeneven as forerunners of Gnosticism.

Date

No book in the NT-has been assigned such a wide range of dates as 2Peter. Even within the last twenty yea-rs, commentaries and reference bookshave placed 2 Peter in.almosr eirery decade from 60 to 160 e.o. (only thedecade 7G-80 seems to be unrepresented). Thir suggests that the usual irgu-ments about its date are unusually inconclusive. Foriinately, our irruestigitionsuggests- a wider rangg. of chronological indications, and a relativel| newperspective on the problem of date. -

The evidence for date from the study of literary relationships can be summa-rized thus:(l) Documents known to 2 pererc.50L60(c.55-59

c。 96

Pauline lettersRomans)

I CJR御′

c.50‐60Pc。 60-65 or 65中 ude・75 1 PeterPc.70L80

0 Documems rougtty占 総ユ::瑠儡ピ説患2P己

c.80L100 Hermas, Thsλ のレル7ご

c.80¨ 100 2 Ct鍬"ι

(3) Documents dependent on 2 peterc. I lLl40 Apocalypse of paerc. 180 Acts of peter

- In addition (from the invesiigations in Litnary Relationships) we should norethat the author's relation to a-nd attitude to a collection'of pauline letterscould po^int to, and is certainly consistenr with, a late first-century date (section6; and commntt on 3:16), while the use of Gospel traditions i! inconclusivewith regard to date_, brtt againis consistent with a iate first-century date (section7). The nonuse of I Enich also-seems to point to a first-centuly rather thana second-century date (section 2).

158 lxrnooucrror.l

This evidence, though it is inevitably dependent on other dates whichare very much in dispute (e.g. those of I Peter and Jude), seems to pointto a date for 2 Peter in the period 75-100, though on this evidence an earlysecond-century date cannot be entirely excluded. Other features of 2 Petersupport a late first-century date. The christology of the letter (Commmt onl:l;3:18) is consistent with such a date. The language of l:4, sometimesheld to require a late date, merely shows the influence of HellenisticJudaism(see Commmt), possible at any stage of the development of Christianity outsidePalestine. The "early Catholic" response to heresy, which stresses the roleof institutional officeholders and might point to a relatively late date, is absentfrom 2 Peter (see Charactn of the Lettn). The imminent eschatological expecta-tion remains important (see Charactn of tht Leher). The opponents are notsecondcentury Gnostics (see The Opponmtsl.

This converging evidence is impressive, but 2 Peter contains one furtherstrong clue to its date, whose probable significance has not often been seen:3:4. Significantly, even defenders of Petrine authorship do not treat this verseas a real prediction, but as an objection which was being raised at the timeof the writing of 2 Peter (Spitta, Green; Dillenseger, MFOB 2 [1907] 207-9). The fathers who are dead are not the fathers of the scoffers, but thefirst Christian generation, the generation of the apostles. Of course, it isnot possible ttdate the death of a generation, but what is reqlriredis-anestimate of the date at which the scoffers could plausibly have claimed thatthe first Christian generation had died, so that the promise of the Parousiawithin their lifetime was invalidated. The generation of the apostles wouldconsist of people born no later than c. A.D. 10. Assuming that in the firstcentury it was rare to live beyond seventy years, we may suppose that-c.n.o. 80 was the time at which contemporaries with their hopes set on theParousia in the lifetime of the apostolic generation would begin to feel acutelythat this generation had virtually died out. The scoffers' objection in 3:4becomes plausible in the decade 80-90.

In the -Commmt

on 3:4 we have argued that this objection belongs in thecontext of the immediate crisis provoked by the passing of the first generation(so also Fornberg, Early Church, 65). tt appealed to the disillusionment feltimmediately aftei a period of high eschatological expectation (cf. especiallyAsc. Isa.4:13), and represents a crisis which was sunnounted and forgottenbefore long. The dealh of the first generation was no longer an issue inthe second century.

Thus 3:4 alone'enables us to date 2 Peter with considerable probabilityc. A.D. 80-90. The fact that a wide range of other evidence also points towarda date in the late first century gives this conclusion very high probability(other scholars who date 2 Peter c. 80 or c. 90 are Chaine, Spicq, Reicke).Contrary to established scholarly tradition, 2 Peter is probably not the latestbook in the NT.

Authorship and Pseudonymity

The language alone (see Language) makes it improbable that Peter couldhave written 2 Peter, while the author's preference for Hellenistic terminology

Ivrnooucrrow 159

(see characler of tlu bttn; cf. section 3, of Litnary Relntionships) can only implau-sibly be attributed ro Perer. It is likely enough that the author oi 2 PeterwasJewish, but a strongly HellenizedJew. No doubt it is true that the distinc-tion between Palestinian and HellenisticJudaism has often been exaggeratedand misused, but we should not now reatt against it to the extent ofmissingthe obvious difference between the Palestinian Jewish character ofJude andthe Hellenized character of 2 Perer. The relaiionship of I and 2 peter isambiguous in_its relevaqce to the question of Petrine authorship, but certainlyPeter cannot be the real author of both letters (section 5 of Litnary Relntion-shipsl.

This evidence, however, would be consistent with a secretary hypothesisin which the secretary is not Peter's amanuensis but his agent. The'ividencewhich really rules out composition during Pew's ffitime is tliat of literary genre(Form and struune) and that of date (Date). Either of these might be fatalfor.any degree of Petrine authorship. Together they must be iegarded asentirely corclusive against Petrine authorship. (Peter's death can-be datedwith a high probability in e.o. 64 or 65. Seb Robinson, Redating, l4g, foran argument that 65 is more likely.)

second Peter is fictionally represented as written shortly before peter'sdeath (l:14) and theref,ore in Rome (fior the early tradition of perer's dearhin Roqe, see Apoc. Pat R; Ign. Roz. 4:3; and probably Asc. Isa. 4:l; I Cbm.5:4). This would not need to imply that ir was really'written in Rome if 2Peter were not a real letter, but since it is written to ipecific churches (3:15)it is a likely deduction that it was sent to them frorn the church of Rome.This is confirmed by 3:1, which indicates that the churches addressed arethose which I Peter addressed from Rome (l Pet 5:13). A Roman origin isalso rendered extremely probable by 2 Peter's close links with r ctenl andHermas, if not also -2 c/em. (section 9 of Litnary Relatioruhips). we knowthat the leaders of the Roman church in that perioa maintained a strongpastoral interest in churches elsewhere. Not only is I Peter addressed to ilarge group of churches, both of Pauline foundation and orhers, in Asia Minor(l Pet l:l), but also I Clmt. was sent, on behalf of the Roman church, tothe church at corinth, to sort out its difficulties, while Hermas'visions wereto be sent "to the cities abroad" (Zir. 2:4:3). In fact, Clement is said tohave been entrusted with the task of sending out the Roman church's foreigncorrespondence (Herm . vis. 2:4:3), which implies that letters to other churchiswere written quite regularly. Ignatius not lbng afterward congratulated theRoman church on having "taught others" (Rot. 3:l).

Thus 2 Peter can plausibly be set within this context of the Roman church'spastoral concern fior churches elsewhere during the late first century. LikeI cbrn., it is not really the letter of an individual so much as of a church,written by an unknown christian leader on behalf of the church of Rome.There is no need to postulate any personal link between its author and thechurches to which he writes. These churches, either all or some of the churchesin the area to which I Peter was addressed (l Pet l:l), certainly includedPauline churches (2 Pet 3:15), and 2 Peter therefore refers to paui's letter(s)to them (3:15) as naturally as I clen. refers to I corinthians when writingto the church of Corinth (I CIzn. 47:l),

160 IlrrnonuctroN

Given a desire to write an apostolic "testament," the choice of Peter wasthe natural pseudonym in a letter from the church at Rome. Peter and Paulwere the two apostles associated with Rome (I Clm. 5; Ig-n. Rom. 4:31, andalthough we do not know how long either spent in Rome, the strength oflater tiadition can probably be trusted to the extent of indicating that, ofthe two, it was Petbr who exercised more of a real leadership role in thechurch in Rome, for however brief a period. Thus, in order to explain ourauthor's choice of pseudonym, it may not be necessary to look further thanPeter's status as the most prestigious of the leaders of the Roman church.Whether a desire to use the Tra;sfiguration tradition (l:IilI8) contributedto the choice of pseudonym, or whether the prior choice of pseudonym sug-gested it, we cannot tell.- Apart from the Transfiguration tradition and other Gospel traditions, thereis litlle material in 2 PetCr which could plausibly be regarded as specificallyPetrine tradition deriving from the historical Peter' Insofar as the summfrYof Peter's message in l:3-ll is a summary of common primitive Christianteaching, it is attiibutable to Peter as much as to any apostle, but insofar as

there iJanything distinctive about it, notably the Hellenistic terminology, -itmust be regarded as our author's interpretation of the apostolic message interms of (post-Petrine) Roman theology. The prophecy of the false teachers(2:l-3a) cbuld owe something to memories of Peter's preaching, but coul4as well derive from generally ipostolic, but not specifically Petrine, material.Our author's purpoie is to dCfend the ethical and eschatological teachingof the apostles, whom he regards as united in preaching the same message(see l:12, 16; 3:15, with Contnwnt). To write Peter's testament he really onlyneeded to be sure he was representing correctly the message Peter sharedwith all the apostles. He did not need to include peculiarly Petrine material,though in onl case (l:16-18) he found it useful to do so. He may actuallyhave made more use of the work of another apostle, Jude, than of specificallyPetrine traditions.

However, there are some possible hints that the author may have hadsome personal connection with Peter. The use of the name Sdzzon Petermay indicate an author who remembered what Peter was called by colleagueswho had known him in Palestine (Commml on l:l). His disregard for I Peter,which is mentioned because the readers knew it (3:l) but on which, by contrastwith later pseudepigraphal practice, the author conspicuously fails to model2 Peter, may indic-te-a confidence, derived from personil knowledge, ofhis ability to speak on behalf of the dead Peter without recourse to otherPetrine *ritings (section 5 of Litnary Relationships). In view of the lack ofspecifically Petline material, he can hardly have been a disciple of Peter whoh-ad learned his theology from Peter (and this is even less possible if I Peter,from which 2 Peter differs so completely, be thought to embody Peter's teach'ing to any degree). But he may have been a colleague of Peter's in the leader-ship of the Rbman church in the 60s. This may be saying little more thanthat, when he wrote 2 Peter in the 80s, he was one of the more senior membersof the circle of Roman church leaders. (If one had to guess a name or personas a candidate for the authorship of 2 Peter, a possibility might be Linus [2Tim 4:211, whom the early Roman bishop lists, deriving from Hegesippus

Iurnooucrror.l 16l

[Irenaeus, Ada. Han. 3.3.3; Eusebius, Hirt. EccL 3.13,2l; 5.6.1], list as bishopof Rome after Peter, or Anencletus [Cletus] whom the same lists considerLinus' successor and Clement's predecessor.)

The idea of a "Petrine circle" of Christian leaders in Rome was mentionedin section 5 of Litnary Relationships. Elliott ("Peter") has recently argued thatI Peter derives, after Peter's death, from a Petrine group of those who hadbeen close associates of Peter in Rome. This group would include Silvanusand Mark (l Pet 5:12-13) and therefore Palestinian traditions would be influ-ential in its ideas and teaching. Elliort envisages it as a fairly close-knit group,which shared Peter's theology and inreresrs, and which therefore had a definiletheological identity. One may doubt whether a group which included suchmature and widely experienced men as Silvanus and Mark could have beenquite as theologically homogeneous as Elliott seems to suggest. But if sucha group does account for I Peter, it could hardly have included the aurhorof 2 Peter, who in no sense belongs to the same theological "school" asthe author of I Peter (section 5 of Litnary Rehtionships), ihough he couldhave belonged to the same "circle," in the loose sense of a grouf of workingassociates, including a good deal of theological diversity. If Elliott's Petrinegroup really existed and produced I Peter before or soon after Peter's death,we must envisage its character changing as it evolved into the late first centurygroup of Roman Christian leaders which included Clement and Hermas andthe author of 2 Peter. Perhaps in the 60s the author of 2 Peter was on thefringe of the Petrine group: he was used to calling Peter by his Palestinianname and perhaps first came to know Jude's letter from these Palestiniancolleagues, but he did not learn his theology from them. The sense in whichI and 2 Peter both derive from a "Petrine circle" can only be that bothwere sent out by the leaders of the Roman church who regarded Peter astheir most authoritative member, present or past.

What was implied in the author of 2 Peter's adoption of pseudonymityand of the "testament" genre? Possibly an intention of writing not as anindividual but as representing the Roman church and therefore under thename of its greatest leader. More certainly, the intention of defending theapostolic message in a postapostolic age (see Clnractq of tlv bun). In therelatively new and largely unexpected situation of the Christian church afterthe death ofthe apostles, he assures his readers that they are not disadvantagedas Christian believers who do not have personal access to the apostolic eye*it-nesses (l:l), he provides them with a "reminder" of the apostolic message(l:12-15; 3:l-2), and he interprets and defends rhe apostolic message inthe light of his contemporary situation and in the face of contemporarythal-lenges to the message (cf. especially Zmijewski, BZ 23 [1979]

-16l-71, on

the meaning of pseudepigraphy in 2 Peter). By contrasr with the false teachers,who were claiming to correct the apostles'message, our author sets no storeby his own authority or any message of his own. His aurhority lies in thefaithfulness with which he transmits, and interprets for a new situation, thenormative teaching of the apostles. "Peter's testament" is the ideal literaryvehicle for these intentions.

The pseudepigraphal device is therefiore not a fraudulent means of claimingapostolic authority, but embodies a claim to be a faithful mediator of rhe

162 InrnooucrroN

apostolic message. Recognizing the canonicity of 2 Peter means recognizingthe validity of that claim, and it is not clear that this is so alien to the earlychurch's criteria of canonicity as is sometimes alleged. The case of the unfortu-nate author of the Acts PauI ffertullian, De Bapt. l7; Green, Reconsidcred,

33-34) is often referred to in this connection, together with Serapion's investi-gation and rejection of the Gos. Pet. (Eusebius, Hist. EccI. 6.12.1-6; Green,Reconsidned,3S-36), but, apart from the fact that the Acts Paul is not pseudepi-graphal, but fictional, both cases involved unorthodox teaching, i.e. the attri-Sution of nonapostolic teaching to the apostles (cf. Fornberg, Early Church,

18-19). Somewhat more relevant to the case of 2 Peter is Origen's commenton Hebrews (ap. Eusebius, Hisr. Eccl. 6.25.13-14), which he regarded as effec-tively Paul's betause "the thoughts are the apostle's," though the compositionmust be attributed to a disciple (cf. also Tertullian, Ada. Marc. 4.5.4).

Of course, the authority of 2 Peter was disputed in the early church, inconnection with its authorship (cf. Eusebius, Hdst Eccl. 8.3.4;6.25.8;Jerome,Ep. l20.ll), and it was no doubt as a product of Peter's own mind that itwas generally accepted as canonical in the end. But we must reckon with aGentile church which no longer understood the conventions of aJewish liter-ary genre, and which had had to sort out the genuinely apostolic from anabundance of late and often heretical pseudepigrapha. What the church actu-ally recognized in 2 Peter was its apostblic content. That the NT canon shouldinclude a work which explicitly documents the preservation of the apostolicmessage through the transition from the apostolic age to the postapostolicage may be sein, from a modern perspective at least, to be appropriate.There is no reason why 2 Peter should not hold an honorable place in thecanon of Scripture.

Attestation

The weakness of the second-century attestation of 2 Peter has been a majorfactor in the prevailing scholarly view that it must be a second-century, evena late second-century work.

Two questions need to be distinguished: evidence for the existence of 2Peter and evidence for its canonicity. There is better evidence than is some-times admitted for the fact that 2 Peter existed in the second century- Along list of possible allusions can be gathered from Hermas, I Clmt., 2 Cbnt,Banr., Aristides, Theophilus, the bttn of tlw churches of Lyons and Vienru, Ire'naeus, Melito, the Ap. John and others (details in Bigg, 204-10; Chase, DB(H)3, 799-802; Chaine, [-3; Dillenseget MFOB 2 t1907] 179-84; A. K. Helm-bold, Ttw Nag Hamnadi Gnostir Texk and the Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker BookHouse, 196il 9l), but many of these are improbable, some are possible,none can be regarded as the kind of clear evidence that is required. However,the Apo. Pet. (c.l1040) is very good evidence that at least one early seco,nd-century writer knew and used 2 Peter, and is sufficient to rule out a latedate for 2 Peter. However we may account for the neglect of 2 Peter in thesecond century, the reason cannot be that it was not written until the secondhalf of the century.T}ire Acts Pet. (c.180) is a later, but certain, witness of 2Peter's existence (section 8 of Litnary Relationships). Justin, DiaL 82.l is a

INTRODUCT10N 163

∠J」rass a"J Sahttιづo"(rJ-2)

Bibliography

Fitzmyer, f. A. "The Name Simon." Erays on tlv Stmitic Buhgrourul of llu Ncw Tcstammt.London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1971. 1:117p 54 (1961) 9l-97.)Pidrelli, R. E "The meaning of 'Epignosis J " EaQ47 (1975) 85-93.

Trctubtion

I Frotn Shneon' PeW, sentant and apostb of Jens Christ.To those uho lnae received a faith which throtqh tlu jtstice of our Godb and

Saaim taus Cili$, ir of eqnl privibge with ours.2 May grace and perce be giaat yu abundnntly, in tlu hnowbdge of God and of

Jens ow Lordc

Notes

. Many MSS have Dlrtur, "Simon," N A K P cl have llllpe,Lv, "Simeon." Probably the latteris original and has bccn corrected to the more usual Drn rr.

bThe reading wfiortfor &00 in N is clearly an assimilation to the more usual phrase (cf.l:ll;2:20;3:2, l8).

crd kd Kai l?ooo fu omitted by P { al and this shorter reading is preferred by Spitta, Bigg,Ghaine, and Zahn (Iatro&ntia 220). But it can be explained as a correction to harmonize with(a) the references to a single divine person in w I and 3a, (b) the writer's normal use of dri?x,nswith Christ atone as the object (l:5, 8; 2:20). The same considerations account for the readingin pr which also makes the text refer to only one divine person, by omitting rai. Some MSSadd Xproro0 after l?ooth probably an adaptation to the more common erpression.

Form / S trac ture / Se tting

The opening of 2 Peter conforms to the letter style described in the com'mentary onJude l-2.

(al Tlv partb"s'fonnuh (v l) includes the common theological characteriza-tion of the recipients. The phrase roZs iomqtw i$v \axolow niorur ("thosewho have receivid a faith of equal privilege with ours") has, besides its specificmeaning (see Connent section), a formal function, in that an expression estab-lishing a connection between the writer and his readers often occurs earlyin a lltter (2 Apoc. Bar 78:4; Rom l:6; I Cor l:2; Titus l:4; I John l:3;Jude 3; Rev l:9; cf. Acts John 106, a sermon).-

Like Jude, 2 Peter does not include a destination in its parties' formula.If 2 Pet 3:l refers to I Peter, the recipients must be the churches named inI Pet l:1, unless I Peter was already so widely known that the author of 2Peter can think of it as addressed to all Christians. Second Peter 3:15-16(see Commntt on those w), however, provides clear evidence that 2 Peterdoes address a specific church or group of churches, which must thereforebe either all the churches in the area described in I Pet l:l or a smaller

166 2 PETER l:1-2

group of churches or single church within that area. This view-that 2 Peterwas not written as a "catholic letter" to all Christians-is supported by thesituation of danger from a specific kind of false teaching. For possible reasonsfor the omission of the destination from the parties' formula, see the commen-tary onJude.

(b) The salutation (v 2) uses the commonest combination of blessings tobe found in early Christian letter'salutations: 1tiptg Kai eigitwt ("grace andpeace": all Pauline letters except I and 2 Timothy; also I Pet l:2; Rev l:4;I CIen. inscr.). The use of rlqftinev ("to increase") is also common inJewishand early Christian letter salutations (references in commentary on Jude l-2). The whole phrase is therefore entirely natural, and the close resemblanceto,Jude 2 and I Pet l:2 will only appear striking ro those whose knowledgeof salutations is limited to canonical examples. No case for 2 Peter's depen-dence on I Peter can be based on this phrase (against Boobyer, "Indebted-ness," 39; Fornberg, Earb Cfurch, 12-13); on the contrary, if the writer of2 Peter were deliberately fiollowing the earlier letter he would surely havemodelled his parties' formula as well as his salutation on I Peter, insteadof diverging so greatly from the apostle's self-designation in I Pet I : I ("Peter,apostle of Jesus Christ"). The fact that Xtiprs tcoi eipiyn nlvTfluvfleiq ("Maygrace and peace be given you abundantly") occurs in I Peter, 2 Peter and ICbm. may perhaps point to an established convention in the church of Rome.

Most early Christian letters indicate rhe source of the blessings by a binita-rian formula such as "from God our Father and the LordJesus ehrist" (refer-ences in commentary on Jude l-2). Instead of using a binitarian fiormula inthat way, the author of 2 Peter has adapted it to his particular interest inthe &i"fvonls ("knowledge") of God andJesus (see Coinml section).

Comnmt

l. Eupecbu lldrpog, "simeon Peter." The form Zupedn ("Simeon") is theGreek transliteration of the Hebrew name lllDd. Jews of this period whobore this name nonnally used the Greek name Eitrro.ru ("Simon") as its Greekequivalent. Thus, for example, Simon Maccabeus is normally Zi1u,nt, but isonce called Zupeuv (by his father: I Macc 2:65).In the NT nine people,apart from Peter, are called Dipc,sv, and two people, apart from Peter, th-e pitri-arch Simeon (Rev 7:7) and, an ancestor of jesus (Luke 3:30), are calledZupedv (Luke 2:25, 34; Acts t3:l). It seems ro have been the commonestJewish name in the period 100 e.c.-e.o. 200, no doubt partly because ir was apatriarchal (and so patriotic) name which was readily asiimilated to a commonGreek name. The apostle Peter is normally called Eipasv in the NT (and al-ways-ln later christian literature); evidently this was rhe name by which Greek-speaking Christians knew him, along wittr the nickname llerpog ("Peter"; theAramaic form "Cephas," Kq@s, is found only in Galatians and t Corin-thians). He is called Dvpedn only here and in Acts 15:14, byJames in the Pales-tinian setting of the council of Jerusalem. The combination of the Hebrewform Xupeciu with the Greek form of his nickname, lldrpos, is surprising.

The use of l;vpeoiiv here has been regarded either as a mark of authenticity(Bigg, Green; cf. Mayor,James) or as a deliberate archaizing touch by a pseud-

Commmt 167

epigraphal writer who tried in this way to make his work look authentic (Bar-nett, Kelly, Schrage; Fornberg, Early Church, l0). It is unlikely that Peterhimself wrote the letter (see Introduction on Authorshipl, but against the sec-ond alternative it must be said that (a) no other pseudepigraphal Petrinewriter uses Xupe<iru; (b) if the writer aimed at authenticity and if he and hisreaders knew I Peter (see 3:l), one would have expected him to copy thewording of I Pet l:l; (c) in any case, it is unlikely that he expected his readersto think that Peter himself had written the letter (see Introduction, Authorship).

J. A. T. Robinson, who thinks Jude wrote 2 Peter, sees 2ugecbu as a mark ofJude's authorship, since it is used by Jude's brother James in Acts 15:14(Redating,l94). The theory thatJude wrote 2 Peter is untenable, but Robinsonmay be pointing in the right general direction. The form Zvpeuv may reflectthe fact that the writer was an associate of Peter's who belonged to Peter'scircle in Rome. Because that circle included Jewish Christian leaders (suchas Mark and Silvanus) who had known Peter in Palestine the name Dvpeuvwhich was current in Palestinian Christian circles continued to be used inthe Roman Petrine circle.

&D)\os rcd, dnooro\os 'Irtoo0 Xpnrol, "servant and apostle ofJesus Christ."Again it is clear that the writer is following neither I Pet l:l ("apostle ofJesus Christ") norJude I ("servant of Jesus Christ"); the suggestion thathe combines the two is ludicrous. He needed no model to produce this naturalpair of designations, "the one drawing attention to his ministerial role andthe other underlining his authoritative commission" (Kelly; cf. Rom l:l; Titusl:l). For the term "servant," see commentary onJude l.

rofrsiobnttw igvlsxofutv riorw, "to those who have received a faith whichis of equal privilege with ours." The faith of the recipients is here comparedwith "ours." This has been understood either as a comparison betweenJewishChristians, of whom Peter is one, and the Gentile Christian readers (cf. Peter'swords in Acts I l:17; l5:9, I l) (so Plumptre, Mayor, Boobyer, Leaney; Hansein TDNT 4,21, or as a comparison between the apostles, of whom Peter isone, and the readers, who are not apostles (so Spitta, Lumby,James, Moffatt,Reicke, Spicq; Zahn, Intro&ntion, 20G7 Stiihlin in TDNT 3, 349). The latteris more probable because there is no other trace of the Jewish-Gentile issuein this letter, and because in that case the first person plural is being usedin the same sense as later in the chapter (w lGlS). There is a further dimen-sion to the comparison: in l:12-15 Peter is represented as writing for readersin the period after his death. The comparison is therefore between the apostlesand those who live in a postapostolic generation (so Schelkle, Sidebottom,Kelly, Schrage). The faith of these later believers is not inferior to that ofthe apostles (cf. John 20:29 for a similar thought from the same period; Ep.Apost. 6; and perhaps cf. I Pet l:8). This interpretation has the advantageof establishing at the outset the major concern of the letter: to communicatethe apostles' teaching to a postapostolic generation.

iomqtw can mean either "of equal value" (so urv: "a faith as precious asours"; ev, nv) or "of equal privilege" (so Rsv: "a faith of equal standingwith ours"; Nnn). In the latter sense the word was used for equal status orrank in civil life (TDNT 3, 349). This sense is preferable here because itallows a good meaning for b&ucotmbvll ("through thejustice. . ."; see below).

168 2 PerEn l:l-2

But in that case rimp can hardly have the objective sense offdes quat oeditu(see Jude 3 and commentary) (Schelkle, Kelly, Schrage, Grundmann). It isthe Christian believer's subjective faith-based, it is true, on the objectivegospel-which puts him in the same privileged position as the apostles (cf.

John 20:29). This faith, as the verb \a.fxoteu ("to receive by lot or by divinewill") indicates, is the free gift of God (see Hanse in TDNT 4,21.

dv \ucatmtvg "through the justice." Some take "righteousness" here torefer to the redemptive work of Christ to which Christians owe their faith(Spicq, Stdger), but elsewhere in 2 Peter "righteousness" is an ethical quality(l:13;2:5, 7,8,21i 3:13) and most commentators therefore rightly connectit with ioilrtltov, taking it to refer to the fairness and lack of favoritism whichgives equal privilege to all Christians.

roit fleoD ittrtu ttoi ocu rlrrls'ltpott XpnroD, "of our God and Savior JesusChrist." Does this phrase refer to two persons ("our God and the SaviorJesus Christ") or one ("our God and SaviorJesus Christ")? The absence ofthe article before oc'nfiry ("Savior") favors the latter, but is not decisive(cf. the similar problems in Titus 2:13; Jude 4). Some scholars thereforethink the phrase intends to distinguish God and Jesus (Plumptre, Mayor,Windisch; Klisemann, "Apologia," 183 n.2), but a large majority think that0eoD ("God") is here used ofJesus. The following arguments favor this view:(l) Elsewhere in the letter the writer uses the similarly consructed phraserot rcupiov npd;lv ,(oi oonnrn5'lpoitXpnrci.l ("our Lord and SaviorJesus Christ":l:ll;3:18; cf.2:20;3:2), where there is no doubt that the whole phraserefers to Jesus Christ. When, however, this writer wishes to distinguish thetwo persons, in l:2, the construction is different: ro0 ileot wi'h1ool rd wptwipav ("of God and Jesus our Lord"). (2) The doxology addressed to Christin 3:18 is consistent with a Christology in which 0ed9 ("God") can be usedof Christ. (3) Perhaps also the usage should be seen as part of the writer'suse of Hellenistic religious language (Fornberg, Early Church. 143).

The arguments against this view are not convincing: (l) The two personscre distinguished in l:2. But the use of a binitarian f,ormirla in the salutationof a Christian letter was traditional, whereas in v I the writer is probablycomposing more freely. (2) K?isemann ("Apologia," 183 n.2) argues that sincethe stereotyped Christological formula (used in l:ll;2:20;3:2, l8) is "ourLord and SaviorJesus Christ," the use of ileo| ("God") here must be intendedto distinguish the persons. But there is no reason why variations on the stereo-typed fiormula should not be used. (3) 0ed9 ("God") is rarely used ofJesusin the NT. There are a small number of certain instances (fohn l:l; 20:28;Heb l:8-9; cf.John l:18 u.I.) and a number of texts where Oeds may, withvarying degrees of probability, be used of Jesus (Titus 2:13; I John 5:20;Rom 9:5; 2 Thess l:12) (on these texts see V. Taylor, "Does the New Testa-ment Call Jesus 'God'?" in Neu Testarnntt Essals [London: Epworth, 1970]83-89; R. E. Brown, "Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?" in JesusGod and Man fLondon: Geoffrey Chapman, 19681 l-38; A. W. Wainwright,Tlw Trinity in tlw Ncu Tatament [London: S.P.C.K., 19621 53-74). Althoughnot all of these instances are certain, the cumulative effect of their evidencemust indicate that in the later decades of the first century 0ed9 ("God") was

Comment 169

occasionally being used of Jesus. Early extracanonical Christian literatureshows that by the beginning of the second century the title was not uncommon(1 Clen.2:l?;Ign. E'pi. inscr.; l:l;7:2; l8:2; l9:3; Trall. T:l; Rom.3;3; Smym.l0:l; PoL 8:3; Pol. PhiI. l2:2; Ep. Apost.3 (Ethiopic); Apoc. Pet. E 16; cf. 2Cbn. l:ll. (ForJesus Christ as "our God," as in 2 Pet l:1, see lgn. Eph.inscr.; l8:2; Rorn. 3:3; PoI. 8:3.) Thus there is no improbability in 2 Peter'suse of0eds ("God") forJesus, nor does the usage require a second-centurydate for the letter.

It is hardly possible to tell whether the author intends precisely to attributefull divinity toJesus or whether the term is used in a looser sense in conformitywith pagan usage. It will certainly, however, reflect the Christian religiousattitude toJesus, expressed in the doxology (3:18), which was a responseto the divine functions attributed to Jesus throughout early Christianity.

The other title here given toJesus, oonfip ("Savior"), is found only sixteentimes as a Christological title in the NT (Luke 2:ll;John 4:42; Acts 5:31;13:23; Eph 5:23; Phil 3:20; 4:14; four times in the Pastorals: 2 Tim 1:10;Titus l:4;2:13;3:6; five times in 2 Peter: l:1, ll; 2:2O;3:2, l8). In laterwritings it becomes rather more frequent (2 Clem. 20:5; Ign. Eph. l:l; Magr.inscr.; Phld. 9:2; Snyrn. 7:l; Pol. Pftil. inscr.; Mart.Pol. l9:2; Gos. Pet. 4:13;Pap. Oxy.840,lines 12, 21, 30; Diogn. 9:6; EP.Apost. 3,5,6, 8, l2; Qpadratus,ApoL, ap. Eusebius, Hist. Ecc|.4.3.2) and from the mid-second century onwardvery common. The term was used of God in Judaism and occasionally inearly Christianity (see Commmt onJude 25), and probably its application toJesus derived originally from this Jewish usage; early Christians saw Jesusas the one who exercised the divine function of salvation. Its increasing popu-larity in Christian usage, however, will have been due to its great familiarityas a pagan religious term: applied to the Hellenistic savior-gods and divinerulers, especially in the cult of the Caesars (TDNT 7, 1004-12). Our author'spredilection for the title may be another sign of his willingness to use thereligious vocabulary of his Hellenistic environment to communicate the gospelmeaningfully to Gentile converts.

2. at hrfvdnet rot 1eo| xai'lrlool rot wptou r11r6;rv, "in the knowledge of Godand of Jesus our Lord." The question of a difference of meaning between'tvtuts and dil'tvc,;rits has been much discussed (see Picirelli, EtQ47 tl975l85-93, who reviews the debate; also Mayor, l7l-74). It seems clear thatthere is no hard-and-fast distinction, and like the corresponding verbsludntcew and inqwdnxew they can be used interchangeably. But sometimes,at least, the prefix dm- has an "inceptive force" (Picirelli, EvQ 47 tl975l9l), i.e. it denotes coming to know. This accounts for what appears to be atechnical usage of irilvc,ns (and to a lesser extent of inrfudnxeiu) in earlyChristianity as referring to the knowledge gained in conversion (Bultmannin TDNT l, 7OZ). This usage of iilyv<,nts is found in Heb 10:26; I Tim2:4;2 Tim 2:25;3:7; Titus l:l (in all these cases, "knowledge of the truth");I Clcn. 59:2 ("knowledge of the glory of his name"l; Mart. Pol. l4:l (knowl-edge of Godh Diogz. l0:l ("knowledge of the Father") (and cf. inqwuoxevin Herm. Sdm. 9:16:7; Kn. Pet., fragm.2; and lvonxerv in Gal 4:9; 2 Cbm.3:l). Such terminology has its background in Hellenistic Jewish apologetic

170 2 PETER l:1-2

in which Judaism as knowledge of God was contrasted with pagan ignoranceof the true God (Dupont, Gnosis, 4749).

It seems clear that 2 Peter's use of ini1voril5 (a favorite term: l:2, 3, 8;2:20) conforms to this usage: it is "the decisive knowledge of God which isimplied in conversion to the Christian religion" (Bultmann in TDNI 1,707).In contrast to Tvtisotg, which is used in 2 Peter for knowledge which can beacquired and developed in the course of the Christian life (l:5, 6; 3:18),ini7vc';rls always refers to that fundamental saving knowledge on which thewhole of Christian life is based. Similarly irt1v<)soxew (2:21 Drs) refers tothe conversion experience of coming to knowledge (whereas Tvdnrcew hasan ordinary sense in l:20; 3:3).

In this verse the Jewish terminology, "knowledge of God," has been ex-panded to refer to the more specific knowledge involved in Christian conver-sion by the addition "and of Jesus our Lord" (for the dodble object, cf,John l7:3). Elsewhere 2 Peter refers more briefly to knowledge of Christ (l:2,3, 8; 2:20; cf. 3:18). The general idea of "knowing" Christ is nor very commonin early Christianity (John l0:14; l4:7; 17:3:2 Cor 5:16; Eph 4:13; Phil 3:8,l0; I John 2:341, and 2 Peter's description of the fundamental Christianknowledge as of Christ is a special feature of the letter's terminology. Theclosest parallels are Herm. Sirn. 9:16:7 (iniyvunat rb 6volnroit wol ro0 fierl.),"came to know the name of the Son of God"), and Ep. Apost. 6, which isworth quoting in full because it offers a general parallel to several featuresof 2 Pet l:l-15: "And these things our Lord and Savior revealed and showedto us [the apostles], and likewise we to you, that you, reflecting upon eternallife, may be associates in the grace of the Lord and in our service and inour glory. Be firm, without wavering, in the knowledge and investigation ofour Lord Jesus Christ, and he will prove gracious and will save alrvays andin all never ending eternity" (NT Apoc. l, 194).

The knowledge in question is no doubt both a theoretical acknowledgmentand a personal knowledge of God andJesus Christ, and 2 Peter's alternativedescription of Christian conversion as coming to know the way of righteous-ness (2:21) reminds us that it is also a knowledge with strong practical andethical implications, as will also become clear in l:3-8. The reason for ourauthor's emphasis on the fundamental Christian conversion-knowledge andits ethical implications is the danger of apostasy through ethical libertinism(2:20-21) which his readers faced.

In this verse the usual binitarian fiorm of Christian letter salutations hasbeen modified by the introduction of inilvonr5 (found nowhere else in earlyChristian letter salutations). It is only as Christians, who have come to andnot renounced the knowledge of God andJesus, that the readers will experi-ence the blessing of God's grace and peace (so Dupont, Gnosis, 321.

Some commentators (Plumptre, Schelkle, Reicke, Green, Kelly) think thatinilv<'nls in 2 Peter has a polemical reference to the false teachers' claimto "fvd:r;ts. However, its use seems to be sufficiently explained, as above, with-out reference to specifically "gnostic" adversaries. Second Peter never refersdirectly to any such claim, and, unlike the Pastorals where Twinls is usedonly in a bad sense (l Tim 6:20), 2 Peter freely uses both ?zciors (l:5, 6;3:18) and tnilvonc in good, but different, senses.

Explnnation 171

Explanation

A former colleague of the apostle Peter, probably a member of a circleof Peter's associates and disciples in Rome, writes in Peter's name to thechurches which had received I Peter. His concern to maintain the apostles'teaching in the period after the death of most of the apostles already becomesapparent in his description of the recipients. As Christian believers of thesecond generation they are no less privileged than the apostles themselveswho had seen the Lord, because they still have access to the apostles' teaching,which remains valid as the basis of their Christian faith and life.

The distinctive feature of the salutation is the reference to the "knowledgeof God and of Jesus our Lord," which refers to the fundamental Christianknowledge gained in conversion and which again introduces at once a majorpurpose of the letter: to warn against apostasy in which this knowledge iseffectively renounced by moral libertinism. The writer invokes God's blessingon those who have come to know God and Christ in their conversion tothe Christian faith.

Theme: A Summary of Petr's Message

(IJ_rr)

Bibliography

Boobyer, G. H. "Indebtedness," 4044- Danker, F. W. "2 Peter l: A Solemn Decree."CBQ 40 (1978) 64-82. Deissmann, G. A. Bihb Studizs, 95-97, 360-68. Dupont, J.Gnosir, 32-33, 380-98. Easton, B. S. "New Tesramenr Ethical Lisrs." JBL 5l (1932)l-12. Fischel' H. A. "The Uses of Sorites (Clinax, Gradatio) in the Tannaitic Period."HUQI 44 (1973) I 19-51. Gross,J. In divinisation da chrtticn d'apts lts pdra grec. Paris:Gabalda, 1938. 109-l l. Normann, F. Teilhabe4n Schliisselwurt dtt Ydtntluoligb. MBTh42. MUnster: Aschendorff, 1978. 6()s5. Spicq, C. Agapc in tlw Nao Testamail. Tr.M. A. McNamara and M. W. Richter. Vol. 2. London/St Louis: Herder, 1965. 37,L77. Viigtle, A. Dic h4md- und Lastqkatalogc im Nant Testarrrcnt. NTAbh 16. 4/5. Miin-ster: Aschendorff, 1936. 48, 90-91, 188-91. Iilibbing, S. Dic Ttqmd- und Lastnhatalogeim Nautt Tcslnmat utd ihre Traditiansgachichh unw bcsonderq Biliirhsiehtigung dn rQmrcn-Tarra. BZNW 25. Berlin: Alfred Tiipelmann, 1959. 8G{l, 84-85, 104.

Translation

- t l/is djvirw pown has bestowed on u nerlthing necessary for a god$ life, throtqh

tlw knowbdge of him who calbd us by hts own- glory ani mighl," a bl meau-ofuhich lv ltas batowed on us b tlu very great and preciotts c promises, so that throughtthcm you may escape tlu cornQtion thal is in tlv umld because of sinful dnire andbecome sharns of divine nature.

- o F,o, this vay reason mahe euery efort, by your faith to pro&tce virhu, by virttnhnowbdge,,6 by hnowledge self-control, by self-control stzadfastrcss, @ steadfashussgodliwss, 7 by gotllirwss brothnly afeaion, and by brothnly afection hue.7 Foi iflou-posless tluse qnlitics in inneasing mn(Nure, tlq heep you from being idle orunftuitful in the hnowledge of our Lord tens Christ. e Anyorc who doa not tnuetlen is slyrrstghted, bhnd, and has forgottm that he was cleansed, from his pasts!u. ro Tlvrefore, my brotltas, mahe all llv morc efiort d ta confirm your call-andcbction.

If you da tlwse things, you will nner come to gnbf. t For in this way ailry intotlu etcrnal kingdan of our Lord and Saaior testu Christ will be richly proaided forlou.

Notes

''i{lig 64n run drytl (N A C P al) is clearly preferable to &i Sitrn rni d,rtin @12 B K L a0.b Most MSS have rilrD, but A has $liv. Confusion between the two pronouns is easy, and it

is impossible to be certain which is original: rlgly could be influenced by the preceding rhals ortsiv by the following tffie.

_-cThe order of the adjectives varies in the MSS. Mayor and Chaine prefer rigrc ral yfuota("1 ! B K L aJ) on the grounds that normal Greek style would place the superlative second(cf.-also lffetzger, Talwl Commmlary,699-700), but this supplies a motive for scribal correcrion,and.so the harder reading peyorc,xaidpn (A C P I all may be original.

dThe words &ir@t rafuaa dgp.z (N A Vg at) are an cxplanatorygloss.

F orm / S trtrc ture / S e t ting

Form / S truc tur e / S e t tin g

The particle ci6 ("seeing that"), with which this section begins, has beenleft untranslated in the English translation given above. It is difficult to decidewhether it indicates a connection with the preceding verse, so that w 3-4are an elaboration of the salutation, or whether it introduces a new paragraph.In the latter case it is necessary to take w 3-4 as a protasis, to which thecorresponding apodosis is found in w S-7 (so Knopf, Reicke). However,the phrase ts) o;inb rotro &. ("for this very reason," v 5) is so awkward anintroduction for an apodosis, that we should then have to suppose an anaco-louthon, with the writer starting a fresh sentence in v 5. This grammaticalawkwardness has led the majority of commentators to prefer a connectionwith v 2 (so Spitta, Bigg, Windisch, Schelkle, Spicq, Kelly; Zahn, Introdurtion,220; Fornberg, Early Church, 86). Such an explanation of the salutation israre, but examples are cited from the pseudo-Platonic letters (Spitta, 29)and from the letters of lgnatius (Eph. l:l; Rom. l:l; Pftld. inscr.; Smyrn. l:L;see Spitta, 27-29). These examples show, not so much thar the salutationis expanded before the body of the letter begins, as that the opening ofthe body of the letter is linked syntactically to the salutation. The reader isled from the salutation into the letter itself without a break. In the case of2 Peter, although cl6 ("seeing that") seems intended in this way to create aloose connection between v 2 and v 3, it is also clear from v 5a that w 3-4are closely connected with what follows. The connection with v 2 is largelystylistic, whereas the connecrion with w S-7 is fundamental to the flow ofargument. We are therefore justified in indicating in the English translationthe main break between w 2 and 3, and in treating w 3-l I as the firstmain section of the letter.

These verses appear to follow a scheme which K. Baltzer (The CoamantFormul,ary, tr. D. E. Green [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, l97l]) and Donfried (Sac-ond Clmrm44148) have shown to be a standard homiletic pattern inJewishand early Christian literature. (Whether Baltzer is correct in deriving thispattern from the OT covenant fiormulary is unimportant here.) The patternconsists of three sections:

(a) a historical (or theological) section, recalling the acts of God in salvation-history: w 3-4. (b) ethical exhortations, based on (a) and with (c) in view:w S-10. (c) an eschatological section, in which salvation is promised orjudg-ment threatened: v I l.

Two of the best examples of this pattern are to be fiound in 4 Ezra 14:28-36 ([a]: w 29-33; [b]: v 34; [c]: v 35) and Acts John l0Gl07 (see Baltzer,Coaanant Formul,ary, 173-75r. Both of these are farewell speeches, Ezra's beforehis translation andJohn's before his death. Clearly they are intended to encap-sulate the essence of each teacher's message as he intended it to be remem-bered after his death. The author of 2 Peter evidently wishes ro present inthese verses a similar "farewell sermon" of Peter, a summary of Peter's defini-tive teaching as he wished it to be remembered after his death (cf. l:12-l5). (Donfried,, Second Cbnen4 46, attempts to apply the homiletic patternto the whole of 2 Peter, but to do so he has to regard l:20-3:2 as interpolated.It is better to see l:3-l I alone as a miniature homily.) The rest of the letter

173

174 2 Pmsn l:3-ll

will then be devoted to the defense of this teaching against the objectionsraised by the false teachers.

Boobyer ("Indebtedness," 40-41) argues that these verses are "a reviewand amplification" of I Pet l:3-9, but the relationship between the two pas-sages is extremely vague, and only if there were more definite evidence else-where for I Peter's influence on 2 Peter would it be plausible here. Theauthor intends to summarize Peter's teaching, but does not seem to havereferred to I Peter in order to do so. If he was an associate of Peter's hewould not have had to depend on I Peter for his knowledge of Peter's teaching.

Danker (CBQ40 tl978l 6442) tries to show that 2 Pet l, especially wl-ll, is modeled on the form and style of Hellenistic imperial and civic de-crees, in which communities recorded the generosity of their benefactors.But few of the parallels he adduces to particular phrases in 2 Pet I are veryclose or remarkable, and he has to postulate a very considerable modificationof the decretal form. The theory is not convincing. The most that might besaid is that the highly rhetorical style of w 3-l I echoes some of the kindof language used in official decrees (cf. also Deissmann, Biblz Studizs, 360-68). It does not follow that the passage is intended to resemble a decree.

The Catalogue d Virtues (w 5-71

The NT letters contain numerous lists of virtues (on which see Easton, .,/8L5l (1932) l-12; Vtigtle, Ttgmd- und la.rttrkataloge; Wibbing, Tugcnd- und, I-astcrkan-lnge),but 2 Pet l:5-7 differs from the others in two important respects:

(l) In terminology. Wibbing(Tugaul-und Lastnhataloge)has shown that, whereasthe other NT ethical lists (except Phil 4:8) are quite similar in content to the listin IQS 4, the ethical terms in 2 Pet l:5-7 correspond much more closely to theethical terminology of Stoicism and the Hellenistic popular philosophy. Three termsespecially in 2 Peter's list are markedly Hellenistic in character and occur onlyonce each in other NT lists: riper4 ("virtue"; Phil 4:8'1, d1xpareoc ("selGcontrol";Gal 5:23), and etoiku ("godliness"; I Tim 6:ll). These do, however, appearfrequently in non-Christian lists of virtues (Viigtle, Tugad- und l-astcrhataloge, 91,124; Wibbing, Tugend- und Lastnhataloge, lO4- Dupont, Gnosis, 383; A. Deissmann,Lightfrom tlw Ancitnt East, tr. L. R. M. Strachan, 2nd ed. [London: Hodder & Stough-ton, 19271, 317-18). llimrs occurs in non-Christian lists with the meaning "loyalty"(Viigtle, Tqgd- und Lastrkanloge, 9ll, but in 2 Peter means "faith" as in otherChristian lists. 1ry6o.s ("knowledge") is the only one of 2 Peter's terms whichcorresponds to a terrn in the list in IQS 4, and it occurs in Pauline lists (2 Cor6:6; 8:7), but also frequently in non-Christian Hellenistic lists, which may thereforebe the basis fior its use here (so Dupont; Gnosfu, 392-93).

The Hellenistic ethical terms which occur in 2 Pet l:$-7 but are rare elsewherein the NT are more frequent in the extracanonical early Christian literature (seeCommmt section for references). Whereas 2 Peter's list is the odd man out amongNT ethical catalogues, it is no longer so unusual when compared with the lists inI Cht. l:2; 62:2; 64:l; 2 Cbm. 4:3; Herm. Vis. 3:8:7; Matd. 6:l:l;8:9; l2:3:l;Sira 9:15:2; Barn. 2:2-8; Act. Vtc. 2; Acts John 29. As it happens, the list whichmost overlaps with that in 2 Peter is the one in the lcls Pet. (Act. Vcrc. 2: theGreek original of this l,atin text can be reconstructed from the Vita Abncii 13: T.Nissen ed., S. Abncii ViIa [Leipzig: Teubner, l9l2] l2). In this list of fourteenvirtues, five of the eight virtues in 2 Peter Qriors, olanq, .radfrts, 0r)\cdel0id

Tlw Catalogue of Virhns 175

fircpdrew) are found, probably coincidentally, since although the author of theAcls Pet. knew 2 Peter, he based his list on Gal 5:22-23.

Thus, in its ethical terminology, 2 Peter's catalogue of virtues owes more toHellenistic moral philosophy than do the catalogues in the Pauline literature, andin this respect it is closer to I CIzm. and Hermas, with their strongly Hellenizedethical terminology, than it is to orher NT writings. This is not io say thar inimportant respects (see (3) below) it is not a deliberately Christian list.

(2) In form. Unlike the other NT ethical lists (excepr Rom 5:3-5, see below),2 Pet l:5-7 uses the literary device known as sorites (also called climac or gradatio).The sorites is "a set of statements which proceed, step by step, through the forceof logic or reliance upon a succession of indisputable faits, to a ilimactic conclusion,e€ch_statement picking up the last key word (or key phrase) of the preceding one"(Fischel, HUCA 44 tl973l ll9). It takes the form A. . . B, B. . . C, C.-. . D,and so on. It was widely used and recognized in the early Christian period. Examplesfrom early Christian literature (apari from the ethical lists discussed below)-areRom 10:14-15; 8:29-30; and the apocryphal saying ofJesus in Gos. Thom. 2 andGos. Heb. (ap. Clem. Alex. Srrorn. 5.14.96).

One of the distinct types of sorites which Fischel isolates is the "ethical andethico-metaphysical"sorites (HUCA44ll973l I32-143).StoicandotherHellenisricethical writers used chains of virtues in sorites form to provide a memorable sum-mary of their view of the good life (Seneca, Ep. Moral. 85.2, quoted by Fischel,HUCA 44 [973] 134; cf. Maximus of Tyre 16.3b, quoted in BAG s. tmopovill,and sometimes also chains of vices to illustrate the evil life (cicero, ho Roscio

lnniry_2-7.7.5;.Epicharmus, fragm. 148, quoted in BDF S 493 (3)). An examplefrom HellenisticJudaism is Wis 6:17-20:

The beginning of wisdom is the most sincere desire for instruction,and concern for instruction is love of her,and love of her is the keeping of her laws,and giving hecd to her laws is assurance of immortality,and immortality brings one near to God;so the desire for wisdom leads to a kingdom (nsv).

This is not so much a chain of virtues, as a sketch of how the desire for wisdomleads to eternal life. A rabbinic example (m. Sola 9:15, ascribed to R. phineas b.Jair, c. e.o.90) is a real chain of virtues, comparable with 2 pet l:5-2, but corre-sponds to Wis 6:17-20 in having an escharological climax:

Zeal leads to cleanliness,and cleanliness leads to purity,and purity leads to self-restraint,and self-restraint leads to sanctity,and sanctity leads to humility,and humility leads to the fear of sin,and the fear ofsin leads to piety,and piety leads to the Holy Spirit,and the Holy Spirit leads to the resurrecrion of the dead.

(translation a{apted from D. R. cartlidge and D. L. Dungan, Docutnmtsfor the studyof tfu Cospls [,ondon: Collins, 1980] 180; parallel passages in rabbinic literaturiare listed in Fischel, HUCA 44 [973] 132 n. 38). In this category belongs alsoRom 5:3-5, which (especially in view of v 2) has an implied eschatological ilimax.

t76 2 PETER l:3-11

A brief example of a sorites with the contrasting theme, how evil desires lead todeath, isJas l:15.

The best early Christian examples of ethical sorites comparable with 2 Pet l:5-7 are in Hermas. ln tlland. 5:2:4 there is a chain of vices: "from foolishness isengendered ('rivers,i bitterness, and from bitterness wrath, and from wrath anger,and from anger spite; then spite being composed of all these evil elements becometh(liveraQ a great sin and incurable" (r. Lightfoot). The chain of virtues in l/il.3:8:7 is part of an allegory in which the virtues appear as women: "they followeach other, in the order in which they were born. From Faith is born Continence(i7rcparcn\, from Continence Simplicity, from Simplicity Guilelessness, from Guile-lessness Reverence, from Reverence Knowledge (ifiwri1nl\, from Knowledge Love."The passage continues with an eschatological conclusion: "Whosoever thereforeshall serve these women, and shall have strength to master their works, shall havehis dwelling in the tower with the saints of God" (3:8:8, tr. Lightfoot).

In view of these examples, it is clear that 2 Peter follows an establishedJewishand Christian rhetorical convention, adapted from Hellenistic moral philosophy,in which a sorites encapsulates the writer's ideal of the good life and the eschatologi-cal goal to which this way of life will lead. Like Hermas, the author of 2 Petermakes the Christian virtue of love the climax of the sorites itself, but seems awareof the traditional eschatological climax, since, again like Hermas, he adds this afterthe sorites (l:ll).

One further feature of the form and terminology of 2 Pet l:F-7 should benoticed:

(3) There is some evidence that a catalogue of virtues beginning with niorts("faith") and ending with dyaq ("love") was an established Christian form (Dupont,Gnosrs, 393-98). As well as 2 Pet l:&-7 and Herm. Vis. 3:8;7 (quoted above), theform is found in 2 Cor 8:7. (Herm. Sim. 9:15:2 is really only an apparent example,but the order in which the virtues are listed may be influenced by this form.)See also the sorites in Clem. Alex. Slrom. 7.10.55, where the eschatological climaxis added: "For it is said, 'to him who has shall be given': to faith knowledge(7r,<irors), to knowledge love, to love the [heavenlyl inheritance." With such listsshould be connected the thought of lgn. Eph. l4:l: "perfect in your faith andlove toward Jesus Christ, for these are the beginning and end of life-faith is thebeginning and love is the end" (tr. Lightfoot). The chain of virtues beginningwith faith and ending with love is a specifically Christian form which gives theway of life encapsulated a specifically Christian character, founded on faith andculminating in love. The rest of the chain between these two fixed points wasvariable, and evidently each writer using the form would make his own choice ofethical terms.

The close resemblance between 2 Pet l:5-7 and Herm. Vis. 3:8:7 should beparticularly noted: in both cases (a) the sorites form is used; (b) the list beginswith nioas ("faith") and ends with dtanl ("love"); (c) each virtue produces thenext; (d) an eschatological climax is added after the sorites. It is likely that theyare two variations on a form in use in the catechesis of the Roman church. Hermashas seven virtues, the obvious choice of number. Second Peter has eight. Perhapsthe author thinks of faith as the foundation, to which seven virtues are added. Itis less likely that he has in mind the mystical significance of the number eight(Mayor, 192; see Commmt on 2:5), which would not be appropriate here.

Comment

3. i{u, "on us." All the pronouns in v 3 are problematic. Are "we" theapostles (as in v l) or Christians generally, including the readers (as in v 2:

Contnmt t77

"our Lord")? Some (Spitta, Bigg, ChaineiT-ahn, Introdtrtion,220) think thatthe connection with w l-2 and the change to "you" in v 4 require us tothink of the apostles. But (l) if the connection with v 2 is to be pressed,v 3 must speak of the knowledge which the readcrs have received. (2) If v3a means that "everything necessary for a godly life" has been granted tothe apostlcs, it is hard to see why this statement should be made. It couldonly be relevant if the apostles passed these things on to the readers, but itis not stated that they did. (3) The shift from "we apostles" (v l) to "weChristians" (v 3) is easily and naturally made, and frequently occurs in thePauline letters. Here the transition is even more natural because of the useof "our Lord" in v 2. (4) The transition from the first to the second personin v 4 is understandable as a transition to the exhortation in v 5 (see below,on v 4). A similar movement between "you" and "we" is found in 3:ll-14.

ri6 fleias hwapec'ts ainol, "his divine power." If the longer reading in v2b is accepted, it is impossible to be sure whether ainol ("his") refers toGod or to Jesus, but the latter, as the nearest antecedent, is more probable(so Grundmann; Fornberg, Early Church, 1441.

The phrase ileta fii:raaptg ("divine power") was a standard term in Greekliterature (see references in BAG and Mayor; the decree of Stratonicea, inDeissmann, Bibb Studies,360-61), taken up in HellenisticJewish writers (Ep.Arist. 157; Sib. Oi 5:249; Philo, Det. 83; Abr. 26; Spec. lzg. 2.2; Conf. ll5;

Josephus, lnr. 19.69) and later Christian writers (|ustin I ApoI. 32; Clem.Alex. Srron. 1.98.4; 7.37.4). This is its only occurrence in Christian literaturebefore Justin, and is an example of 2 Peter's use of Hellenistic religiousvocabulary. Of course, as Dillenseger (MFOB 2 [907] 190) points out, theequivalent phrase i ilbvaws ro,) 0eo0 ("the power of God") is frequent in theNT, and the idea that the power of God is active throughJesus is also frequent(Matt 24:30; Mark 5:30; Luke 4:14;5:17;6:19; Rom l:4; I Cor 5:4;2 Corl2:9; Heb l:3; cf. I Cor l:24). There is nothing unusual about the idea ex-pressed in this verse. But it is still significant that 2 Peter expresses it inthis Hellenistic religious phraseology.

The adjective 0eios ("divine"; also in l:4) is found elsewhere in the NTonly in Paul's Areopagus speech (Acts l7:29: rbileiw, "the divine"; also Acts17.,27 D). It occurs only nine times in the LXX (Exod 3 I :3; 35:3 l; Job 27:3;33:4; Prov 2:17; Sir 6:35;2 Macc 3:29;4:17;9:ll), but is very frequent inthe more Hellenized Jewish writers: 4 Maccabees (25 times), Philo (see C.R. Holladay, Thdos Ann in Helbnistic Judaism [SBLDS 40; Missoula, MT: Schol-ars Press, 1977117743) andJosephus (Holladay, Theios Ann, 5746). It en-tered Christian usage very slowly (I Cbn. 40:l; 2 Cbn. 20:4; Herm. tr/is.

3:8:7; 4:l:6; Mand. ll:2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 2l; lgn. Magn. 8:2; Papias, fragm.4), probably because its very broad usage gave it a polytheistic or pantheisticflavor. It is interesting to note that most of the few early Christian occurrencesare found in the three (probably closely contemporary) Roman documents2 Peter, I CIen., and Hermas, and the closely related 2 Cbm.

0eios ("divine") was a very flexible word, but here it must indicate, notthat Christ .possesses a divine or godlike power of his own, as though hewere a second god, but that he shares in God's own power (Fornberg, Earl1Church, 144). It is the same power which will be manifested at the Parousiaof Christ (l:16).

178 2 PsrEn l:3-ll

rd, mtrd . . . rd, rpos fcuiy xsi einE$ewt, "everything necessary for a godlylife." For the expression ronpds, "what is necessary for. . . ," cf.Judg 17:10LXX (B: rd, rdos (o,ti1v oov); Josephus, Ant. l:6 Qrat&viliwes . . . rd, np;os eini0e-rcz); Luke 19:42; Acts 28:10. The author of 2 Peter is fond of pairs of wordsIike foriv xai eboipetav (literally "life and godliness") and they are usuallyclosely related in meaning. Although many commentators take faniu ("life")to mean "eternal life," we should probably understand the whole expressionas a hendiadys: "a life of godliness," "a godly life" (so Reicke; cf. Fornberg,Early Church, 9O).

eiotperc ("godliness"), also found in l:6, 7; 3: I I (cf. e0oe0ris, 2:9), is anorhercharacteristically Hellenistic term. It is found only nine times in the LXX,but is frequent in 4 Maccabees (47 times), Philo andJosephus. In early Chris-tian literature, outside 2 Peter, it is found only in Acts (3:12), the Pastorals(l Tim 2:2;3:16;4:74;6:3,5-6, ll; Titus l:l;3:5), l Clen. (ll:l; l5:l;32:4) and 2 Cbrn. (19:l) (cf. also eboelis: Acts l0:2,7; 1Clnn.2:3;50:3;2Clem. l9:4;20:4). It denotes piety toward the gods, but also, especially inJewish and Christian usage, the respect for God's will and the moral way ofliG which are inseparable from the proper religious attitude to God.

6e6o:o41pivrts, "has bestowed." The verb 6<':pelo0at, (used eight times in LXX;in early Christian literature only here and in l:4; Mark 15:45; Diogn. ll:5)especially denotes royal (Esth 8:l; I Esdr l:7; 8:55), official (Mark 15:45)or divine (Gen 30:20; Diogn. ll:5) bounty.

&d rm inryvdna* ro0 Ko,\ioayrry ipas, "through the knowledge of himwho called us." As in v 2, dniyv<'nr5 ("knowledge") is the fundamental Chris-tian knowledge gained in conversion (Dupont, Gnosis, 3l-32). This wasChrist's_ first gift, by means of which he also gave everything necessary fora God-fearing life.

Since 2 Peter usually speaks of the knowledge of Christ (l:8; 2:20; cf. l:2),most commentators understand "him who called" as Christ rather than God.In the rhetorical style of this passage there is no difficulty in referring curoO("his") and roD KalGo@)ros ("him who called") to the same person. In theNT it is usually God, rather than Christ, who is the subject of the Christian'scalling. The only real exceptions are passages which refer to Jesus' callingof disciples during his ministry (Mark l:20 etc.; but cf. 2:17 par.). Thosewho think ritrrdg ("us") are not Christians in general, but the apostles, arguethat 2 Peter here refers to the call of Peter and the orher aposr,les by Jesusduring his ministry (Spitta, Bigg,James, Chaine, Barnett, Kelly; Zahn, Introd,ur-tion, 2201. But the idea that Christ called Christians is characteristic of 2Clem. (l:8; 2:4, 7;5:l; 9:5: this usage seems dependent on rhe saying ofJesus in Mark 2:17 par., quoted in 2:4), and is also found in Hermas (Sim.9:14:5), writings which are close to 2 Peter. 2 Clzn.5:l has 2 Peter's precisephrase: roD tca\ioarros ?ipds ("him who called us"). Further confirmation that2 Peter refers to the calling of Christians in general, nor apostles in particular,is found in l:10, which surely takes up the idea of calling from v 3.

ifiiq &itn tu) d,per(1, "by his own glory and might." The dative can hardlygive the sense "called to" (which would require eis and the accusative, asin I Pet 5:10), but should be taken as insrrumental. The pair 6ofp w)d,perrtshould be understood, like other pairs of words in 2 Perer, as closely relatedin meaning. It is therefore unlikely that d,perfi here means "moral virtue"

Comnmt 179

(Bigg, Green; Zahn, Introduction, 220).In fact, 66la wi dryri was already astock combination in Hellenistic writers, especially Plutarch (examples, inWettstein). In this context, d,peri is virtually synonymous with 6ofc, and de-notes the manifestation of divine power (Deissmann, Bibb Sludics, 971, TDNTl, 461). The phrase is a rhetorical variation on ileia }iyapts ("divine power")and presumably refers to the incarnate life, ministry and resurrection of Christas a manifestation of divine power by means of which he called men andwomen to be Christians.

There is no need to see here the influence of I Pet 2:9 (where the pluraltds d,peras refers to the "miraculous deeds" of God, or perhaps to his"praises," as in Isa 42:12 tXX) or I Pet 5:10 (where God has called Chris-tians lo h_is glory).

4. &> dn, rd pilnra tai riprc i@ iranil,,lnra &&Jsptyot, "by means ofwhich he has bestowed on us the very great and precious promises." By hissaving activity Christ gave not only what is requisite for godly life in thepresent, but also promises for the future. dnalti}q,n ("promise"; in earlyChristian literature only here and in 3:13) is synonymous with ha"ne\ia(3:4, 9), the usual NT word for "promise." It could mean "the thing promised"(as in Philo, MuL 128), i.e. Christ has granted us the gifts which had previouslybeen promised (in OT times?), and some of those who wish to interpretthe rest of the verse as referring to Christian conversion and baptism interpretiraltihpara in this way (Reicke, Spicq). But it is more natural, and in linewith the letter's general emphasis on the promises for the future (3:4, 9,13; cf. l:ll, 6, l9), to think of promises which Christ gave.

The adjectives no doubt apply to the promises because of the great thingsthat they promise. For similar language, cf. 2 Clcn. 5:5: "the promise ofChrist is great and marvelous (pe7titr? ro,i ilaupaoni), even the rest of thekingdom that shall be and of life eternal" (cf.2 Pet. l:ll); and (of God,'s

promises) I Clm.26:l: "the greatness (pe7a\eiw) of his promise"; 34:7: "thatwe may be made partakers of his great and glorious promises" (eis rd perdxornipas fvioilat rdsv pe7altr,uv rcd ivlolt :v inal7eluisv ainotr). The idea of Cirirt'spromises, very rare in early Christian literature, which usually speaks of God'spromises, is another link between 2 Peter and 2 Cbn. (cf. also Apoc. Pet. R,but this is probably dependent on 2 Peter).

&drobrc'sv, "through them," most naturally means "through inheriting thepromises," "by receiving the fulfillment of the promises," so that what followsdescribes the content of the promises. To explain that the promises for thefuture kindle faith by which the Christian participates in the divine naturiin the present (Mayor, Chaine) is to strain the words excessively.

Tivrp1e fleias ,(uvot)ci Qinet,if,, "you may become sharers of divine nature."The change from the first person to the second person plural occurs eitherin the previous clause (if we read bpit there: see the Note) or in this. Ineither case it is probably because the writer is already thinking of his intentionto exhort his readers to moral effort (v 5) so that they may be sure of inheritingthe promises. If the change comes only in this clause, it is also possiblethat Peter, represented as addressing those who will read his letter after hisdeath (l:15), is considered to have already, at death, attained to a share indivine nature.

In these and the following words our author uses ideas and language which

180 2 Pnrsn l:3-l I

had a long history in Greek philosophical and religious thought. In the contextof a basic dualism which contrasted the divine world and the material world,permanence and immortality were regarded as characteristic of the divineworld, while transience and mortality characterized this material world. Buta strong tradition of Greek thought held that the superior, spiritual part ofman really belongs to the divine world and can recover its true, godlikenature and participate in the immortality of the gods. In the mystery religionsit was through the ritual, through union with the god, and, in some cases,through a life of ascetic purification of the soul, that the initiate attained anew, immortal life and expected to live with the gods after death. In thePlatonic tradition the soul regained its divine state through the philosophicalcontemplation of the realities of the divine world, through detachment fromthe body and through intellectual and moral purification. In the Hermeticliterature gnosis was the means of divinization. In general the soul's attainmentof godlike immortality, and its liberation from the material world in whichit is involved through its confinement in the body, were necessarily closelyconnected.

The author of 2 Peter was doubtless aware of the currency of these ideasin the Hellenistic religious world, but he was probably more immediatelydependent on the literature of HellenisticJudaism, which had already adaptedthe terminology of Greek religion and philosophy in order to express itsown religious tradition in terms appropriate to its Hellenistic environment.In 4 Maccabees and the Wisdom of Solomon, human destiny is presentedas the soul's attainment of immortality and incorruptibility after death, inthe likeness of God's immortality. See, for example, 4 Macc l8:3: the martyrs"were deemed worthy of a divine share" (0eios ,repr6os tcorqEtofinow);Wis 2:23: "God created man fior incorruption (ri@0cpoiq) and made himin the image of his own eternity (ris i&as dihmrfrosl (u.L his own nature,i&inrfros);' Pseudo-Phocylides (1034) boldly combines the Jewish doctrineof physical resurrection with the Greek language of divinization: "For in factwe hope that the remains of the departed will soon come to light again outof the earth. And afterwards they become gods (ileci relGflowat)" (tr. P. W.van der Horst, Tlw Smtmces of Pseuda-Phoqlifus [SVTP 4; [,eiden: E. J. Brill,19781 185; and see discussion in van der Horst, 185-88; H. C. C. Cavallin,Life Afttr Death Part I [Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup,19741 l5l-55). Above all,Philo makes copious use of the Platonic language. In the experience of mysticalecstasy and definitively after death the soul of the virtuous man is "divinized"(see especially Qraest. Exod. 2.29), by which Philo means, not thar it becomesGod in the monotheistic sense of the one God, but that, escaping the materialworld, it becomes incorporeal and immortal, one of the divine powers ofthe heavenly world (see Gross, ln divinisation, SEg4; C. R. Holladay, TheiosAnn in Helbnistic Judaisrn [SBLDS 40; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977]155-70). None of these Jewish examples envisages any kind of pantheisticabsorption into God. They do not intend to blur the distinction betweenGod and his creatures, but they do hold rhat the human soul, creared inGod's image, is capable of resembling God in his immortality and incorrup-tion. This is "divinization" only in the loose sense ofjoining the world of"divine" beings who are incorporeal and immortal but not uncreated. To

Commenl

become, in this sense, "divine" is, of course, for these Jewish writers thegift of God's grace, not attainable on human initiative alone.

It is not difficult to find parallels, pagan and Jewish, to the phrase 0eio9mnx'vu @uoe<^.rs ("sharers of divine nature"). Manetho, quoted byJosephus,speaks of a sage who, because of his wisdom and knowledge of the future,was thought to share in divine nature (9eias Erl,rcotwrl pereoxnrcivat |i:oeux:c. Apion. 1.232). Plutarch speaks of the most virtuous of the daimons sharingfully in divinity (flewrrfros periolqov: De defectu orac. l0: Mor. 4l5C). Philo saysthat the stars and planets share in divine, blessed and happy nature (0eias

rc) potr;c.ptas rcd ev&ailnvog gtoeus pereoxnrc6rusv: Decal. 104). (For the phrasefieiaQins, see alsoJosephus, lnL 8:107; Phllo, Abr. 144; Conf. 154; Heracleon,ap. Origen, Comm. ad Joh. 13.25.) Such expressions most commonly useperi16u ("to share in"), but tcowuveiv is used synonymously in parallel expres-sions: @iroec^n tcuvuvotwesdv|p<'snluns (inscription from Commagene, first cen-tury B.c., quoted by Deissmann, Bible studies,386 n. 2); ).ottrcns KeKoLvQvqKdoL

Qineox (Philo, Som. 1.176).Second Peter's use of this language raises two questions: (l) In what smse

do Christians become "divine"? In view of the background sketched above,it is not very likely that participation in God's own essence is intended. Notparticipationin God, but in the nature of heavenly, immortal beings, is meant.Such beings, in the concepts of Hellenistic Judaism, are lihe God, in that,by his grace, they reflect his glorious, immortal being, but they are "divine"only in the loose sense, inherited from Hellenistic religion, of being godliheand belonging to the eternal world of "the gods." To share in divine natureis to become immortal and incorruptible.

In that case this famous text in fact provides less support for a developeddoctrine of "deifrcati6n"-s5 human participation in the very life and beingof God-than does the Pauline concept of the Christian's participation inthe Holy Spirit. The latter is closely connected with immortality, in that forPaul the resurrection life will be glorious, immortal and incorruptible becausethe divine Spirit is the principle of life in the risen Christ and in risen Christians(Rom 8:ll; I Cor 15:42-53). This thought could, be behind 2 Pet l:4, but itis not required by the Hellenistic language there used. Ignatius is closer toPaul than to 2 Peter when he says that Christians "partake of God" (0eoD

periTgryre: Eph. 4:2; cf. also Heb 3:14).(2, Whnt do Christians become partakers of divine nature? A number of

scholars, connecting the phrase with concepts such as regeneration, adoption,and the gift of the Spirit, and sometimes with sacramental theology, thinkthat participation in divine nature begins with Christian conversion and bap-tism (Chaine, Spicq, Reicke, Green; Dillenseger, MFOB 2 [1907] 192-93).Others regard it as an eschatological prospect, to be attained at death or atthe consummation (Moffatt, Schelkle, Kelly; Gross, La divinisation, lO9-10;Normann, Teilhabe,65; Fornberg, Early Church, 85-89).

In Greek thought divinization was often thought possible to some degreewithin this life. In book 13 of the Cor. Henn., man becomes divine throughan experience of regeneration (and cf. the Hermetic Pr. Thanfu. tCG 6,7164:17-19: "We rejoiie because while we were in the body, thou hast madeus divine through thy knowledge"). Philo thought that divinization was antici-

181

182 2 Pnren l:3-llpated in the experience of mystical ecstasy. But always it was at death thatthe soul definitively attained a godlike, immortal nature. This was necessarilyso because of the connection between divinization and escape from the mate-rial world of corruption and mortality to which the body belongs.

Exegesis of the earlier part of v 4 has already led us to expect referenceto a future prospect, not a present experience. This will be confirmed byour exegesis of the final part of the verse, which follows the usual Hellenisticview in connecting divinization with escape from the perishable world.

The Hellenistic language suggests divinization at death, not at a generalresurrection at the end of history, of which Hellenistic thought, includingmost HellenisticJewish thought, knew nothing. At this point the writer simplyadopts the Hellenistic language without suggesting any modification of itsmeaning. It is probable that even the false teachers, who rejected futurejudgment and future cosmic eschatology, would have been h"ppy enoughwith the description of human destiny given in this verse. At this point thewriter is content, in opposition to them, to insist on the moral qualificationsfor attaining this destiny (l:5-9), but that he did not accept the individualisticHellenistic eschatology without qualification is shown by the fact that he setsalongside it the more traditional Christian eschatological language of Christ'skingdom (l:ll) and by his vigorous defense of future cosmic eschatologyin chap 3. He may well have thought that Christians attained a provisionalexperience of immortality at death, but the hope of human immortality reallybelongs in the broader context of the hope for a new world in which righteous-ness dwells (3:13). Pseudo-Phocylides, 97-115, shows rhat it was possibleto combine the Hellenistic language of immortality with the traditionalJewishlanguage of bodily resurrection, awkward though the combination may seemto us.

arogry6wes rfis iv rop rcoopr+ iv infiupiq Q0opd.s, "having escaped the corrup-tion that is in the world because of sinful desire." The aorist participle indicatesthat the escape from corruption precedes the participation in divine nature.

Some commentators interpret Nopas as moral corruption (Lumby, Chaine,Reicke; Neyrey, Pobnic, 5l), which is a possible meaning of the word (cfWis 14:12). But the context demands the idea of physical corruprion: decay,transitoriness, mortality (Sidebottom, Kelly, Schrage; Fornberg, Early Church,88-89; Harder in TDNT 9, 104; Kiister in TDNT 9, 275). Throughout Hellenis-tic religious literature is found the contrasr berween rhe incorruptibility(dfi0apia) of divine nature and the corrupribiliry (Q0opa) of everything inthis material world, including man's body (see TDNT I, 103-04, 254-55;Plutarch, Mon 3588; Wis 2:23; 9:15;Josephus, B/ 2.154;3.372; Ant. L0.278;Philo, Spec. bg. 4.48; Mos. 2.194; Conf. 154). The same conrrasr is found inPaul (l Cor 9:25), who sees the whole of this world in bondage rc gAopa("corruption," Rom 8:21) and Christians too awaiting the eschatological giftof aQ1apoia ("incorruptibility," I Cor 15:42, 52-54: Gal 6:8). (Cf. also I Petl:4, 18, 23;2 Clem. 6:6; Diogn.6:8.) In 2 Pet l:4 00o@s can hardly be anythingelse than the mortality which the Christian believer will escape when, at deathor at the Parousia, he attains to an immortal form of life. It is in line withPauline thought that this escape is an eschatological expectation, not a presentexperience, for in this life the Christian still participates in decay and mortality.

Commmt 183

However, the Hellenistic dualism is here significantly modified by thephrase at h$upiq ("because of sinful desire"). Decay and mortality are notdue simply to the materiality of this world, as in Greek thought, but to sin(cf. Wis l:16;2:24; Rom 5:12; Herm. Mand. 12:l). Two fairly close parallelpassages are Eph 4:22; "the old man which is decaying because of deceitfullusts" (rbv ra\atbv ar|pamov rbv Q0etpopevov tcnrd, rds irfiupias rfis furarns);and I John 2: l7: "the world and its sinful desire pass away" (6 rcoopcq raparcratrcai r7 &tfiupia ainot).It is true that h$upia is by no means our of place in aHellenistic account of the material world: it is the bodily desires for corruptiblethings which drag man down and entangle him in transitory material existence(cf. Kiisemann, "Apologia," 180). But in such an account materiality itselfis still the basic evil. The aurhor of 2 Peter rejects this account and finds inintflvpia ("sinful desire") itself the root cause of evil, through which @0opti("corruptibility") has entered the world. Qilopa has rhen to be understoodas divine judgment on sin, as it is in 2:12.

Although fletrfew ("to flee") is often used in a moral sense, of avoidingsin, and although Platonist writers sometimes speak of the soul's duty toescape from its corporeal entanglements even during this life (Plato, Theaet.176, quoted by Kelly; Philo, Mig. 9: "Depart out of the earthly matter thatencompasses you: escape fixQtryc'tvl, man, from the foul prison-house, yourbody . . . and from thejailers, its pleasures and lusts linfivpiasl"), we shouldprobably take &rogryilzreg ("having escaped") to refer, not to renunciationof sin at baptism (Plumptre, Spicq, Kelly) or throughout Christian life, butto the escape from mortality that comes only at death or at the Parousia.

It is true that 2:20 speaks of an escape from the pollutions of the world(d.noflvydwes rd, ptiopara ro| rcootrtov) through conversion and baptism, butthe difference in the wording of the two passages is significant. In becominga Christian a person renounces sin and escapes the world's immoral influence,but he does not yet escape the mortality which is the result of sin.

Second Peter has come in for a good deal of criticism for its use of Hellenis-tic religious language, and this verse in particular has been a target of attack. .

Kisemann writes: "It would be hard to find in the whole New Testament asentence which, in its expression, its individual motifs and its whole [rend,more clearly marks the relapse into Hellenistic dualism" ("Apologia" 180).Later in the same essay, again mainly with reference to l:4, he condemnsthe "anthropocentric character" of 2 Peter's eschatology, which is orientatednot to the sovereignty of God but to the human desire to escape corruptionand attain apotheosis ("Apologia" 184; cf. also Schrage). Kisemann's criricismof the letter depends on the exegesis of many passages, but with referenceto l:4 the following points may be made in response:

(l) The Greek aspiration for immortality was not simply denied but takenup and critically fulfilled by the gospel of the resurrecrion.

(2) The task of translating the gospel into terms appropriate to a newcultural milieu was (and has always continued to be) essential to the church'smissionary role. "The interpretation of experiencing salvation inJesus is notbound up with the language of Canaan, as salvarion is meant for all, includingGreeks. They may relate their experience of salvation-in;Jesus in tluir idiorn"(E. Schillebeeckx, Christ: Tlw Christian Expnimce in tlu Mofum World, tr.J.Bow-

184 2 Psrsn l:3-l I

den [London: SCM Press, 1980] 304, on this passage). Our author, like otherNT writers, was able to use the bridges into Hellenistic thought which Hellen-isticJewish apologetic had already built.

(3) Of course, the use of Hellenistic terminology involved risks. The authorof 2 Peter seeks to minimize these risks byjuxtaposing the Hellenistic eschatol-ogy of l:4 with the traditional Christian eschatological language of l:l l. More-over, the danger of an anthropocentric eschatology, which would certainlybe real if l:4 stood alone, disappears when the eschatology of the rest ofthe letter is understood: its dominant theme is the authentic primitive Chris-tian hope for the triumph of God's righteousness.

(4) Full account should be taken of the fact that l:4 is probably uncon-troversial-the false teachers would not have objected to it-whereas everyother statement on eschatology in the letter is polemical. It is in the polemicalPassages that we should expect to find the author's critical assertion of specifi-cally Christian eschatology against Hellenizing tendencies.

(5) Even in l:4 the Hellenistic dualism is in fact modified by the attributionof corruptibility to sin.

5. ,@i oinb rottro 6d, "for this very reason," probably refers to the wholeof w 34 as the salvation-historical basis for the exhortation. Moral effortis required because Christ has given us (a) everything necessary for godlylife (v 3), and (b) the promises of immortality (v 4). We cannot expect toescape the mortality which is due to sin (v 4) unless we ourselves avoid sinand make moral progress, the spiritual resources for which are available toevery Christian through the knowledge of Christ he received when he becamea Christian (v 3).

otrov&ilv tas@) tapeoevilrcanes, "make every effort." The verb is a NThapar (and very rare elsewhere), but the meaning of the phrase is no differentfrom that of eioftryu rdsst) otouEilv, a favorite expression in the Koine (refer-ences in BAG s.u. onov}i; Chaine; Spicq, Lacicographie, 668 n. 2, 819 n. l).The expression is too ordinary an idiom for orcuEh here to carry rhe specialmoral connotation that orou6aios had acquired in Hellenistic usage (as Harderin TDNT 7, 567, thinks), but it is an appropriate introduction to a list ofvirtues and may have been part of the traditional form which the writer uses.

irtyopryyiparcatrfliloredtgitvrfiv d,perip, "by your faith to produce virtue."This verb (also in v I l) means "to furnish, to provide at one'i own expense,"but is difficult to translate here. The meaning of the clause must be: "bymeans of your faith supply virtue," i.e. each virtue is the means of producingthe next. But it is difficult to capture this nuance in an English translationwhich can also reproduce the form of the sorites without awkwardness. Theusual English rendering, "add to your faith virtue" (ev) is not what the Greeksays.

It is also not easy to see how each virtue is supposed to develop out ofthe preceding one. To some extent the concept is conventional (see Form/Slructure/Setling section). In Rom 5:3-5, an example of a sorites using thesame principle, there is a much more intelligible train of thought. In therabbinic example in m. Sola 9:15, the way in which each virtue leads to thenext is rather more obscure. In Herm. Vis. 3:8:7, an allegory in which eachof the virtues is the daughter of another, it is as difficult as it is in 2 Pet

Commmt t85

l:5-7 to see how each "gives birth" to the next. We must conclude that weare dealing with a conventional form, based on the notion that the virtuesare interconnected so that in the virtuous life one develops out of another.In examples like those in Hermas and 2 Peter this concept is expressed conven-tionally, rather than with psychological realism, in that the order in whichthe virtues are listed is largely random. Although some scholars (e.g. Vtigtle,Tugmd- und Lasterkataloge, 48) have attempted to explain the order in 2 Peter,their attempts are scarcely convincing. Only two virtues have a clearly intelligi-ble place in the list: riozs ("faith") in first place, and dlaq ("love") in lastplace. These were the two fixed items in the traditional form which 2 Peterfollows, whereas the rest of the list was variable (see Forml$trurture/Setlingsection). Of the author's selection of virtues, other than rimrs and dlanwe can only say that he has chosen virtues familiar from the Stoic and popularphilosophical ethics of the Hellenistic world, some of them very general inmeaning, to give a general impression of the kind of virtuous life which theChristian faith should fioster.

zriorts ("faith") occurs in Christian ethical lists (meaning either "faith" or"faithfulness") in Gal 5:22; I Tim 4:12;6:ll;2 Tim 2:22; Titus 2:2; Rev2:19; Herm. Mand,. l2:3:l; Act. Vnc.2; and occupies frrst place in the listsin I Cor 8:7;2 Tim 3:10; I CInn. l:2;62:2;64:l; Herm. Vis.3:8:7; Mand.6:l:l; 8:9; Sim. 9:15:2; Bam. 2:2; Acts John 29; AcLs PauI and Thecla 17. Asthe beginning point of such Christian lists, it is not the nioas ("loyalty")which appears in some pagan Hellenistic lists of virtues (see Vtigtle, Tugmd-und Lastnhalaloge,9l,lS9), but the specifically Christian "faith" in the gospelwhich is the basis of all Christian life. By representing faith as the root ofall the virtues, the writer of 2 Peter is illustrating what he said in v 3: thatChrist "has bestowed on us everything necessary for a godly life, throughthe knowledge of" himself. That knowledge of Christ is received by faith.It should also be noticed that, although the list of virtues includes termshighly characteristic of Hellenistic ethics, the whole list is given a specificallyChristian character by the position of faith at the head of the list.

&prfi ("virtue") appears in Christian lists of virtues only in Phil 4:8 (astrongly Hellenistic catalogue) and Herm. Mand. l2:3: I , but is found in pagancatalogues of virtues (Viigtle, Tugmd,- und Lastnhataloge, 9ll.It was a standardterm of Greek moral philosophy, in the general sense of "virtue," and assuch was taken up in Hellenistic Jewish usage (especially in 4 Maccabeesand Philo). Doubtless because of its typically Greek connotations-virtue asthe achievement of human excellence, rather than as obedience to God-itis rarely used in the LXX or in the NT (only here and Phil4:8 in the moralsense), and only slightly more common in the Apostolic Fathers (2 ClnLl0:l; Herm. Mand l:2; 6:2:3; l2:3:l; Sim. 6:l:4; 6:2:3; 8:10:3). In 2 Clcn.and Hermas-writings close to 2 Peter-the word is given a Christian sense,especially by means of its frequent association with &tcaobn ("righteousness")in Hermas (cf. also Wis 8:7; and, on dpernin 2 Cbm., Donfried, Second Cbrnmt,148-49), and we may assume the same for 2 Peter. Some commentators thinkthat the word must have a more specific sense than "virtue," bul the onlysuch meaning available is "valor" (2 Macc 10:28), which is not suitable here.lt is better to allow the word its common, very general meaning of "moral

186 2 PETER l:3-11

excellence." Catalogues such as this often contain very general terms along-side more specific ones.

6. Tvfneq "knowledge," may seem out of place in a list of ethical qualities,but it was common in Hellenistic catalogues of the virtues (Duponi, Gnosis,384-92), meaning either philosophical knowledge or "knowledge of God"(Corp. Henn 13.7-9). In Christian lists, it occurs in 2 Cor 6:6; 8:7; I CIem.l:2; Barn. 2:3; Act. Vnc. 2; Acts John 29. It is interesting to notice that inthe non-Christian lists it was usually first or last in the list. In most Christianlists it has been displaced from theie positions by "faith" and "love." .fuinc("knowledge") is not here that fundamental knowledge of God in Christ whichmakes a person a Christian; for 2 Peter that is dri7vc,ri6. .lvd;lots here is thewisdom and discernment which the Christian needs for a virtuous life andwhich is progressively acquired. It is pracrical rather than purely specularivewisdom (cf. Phil l:9).

i1rcparetut, "self-control," appears in Christian ethical lists in Gal 5:23; ICbn. 62:2; 64:l; 2 Clzn. 4:3; Herm. Vis. 3:8:7; Mand 6:l:l; Sim. 9:15:2;Barn.2:2: Act. Vnc.2. Again, it is a characteristically Hellenistic virtue, corre-sponding to the Stoic ideal of the free man who is his own master and tothe kind of Hellenistic dualism which sought to minimize the soul's entangle-ments with material things and therefore valued self-restraint and asceticcontrol of the bodily passions (see TDNT 2, 34041; Spicq, laeicographic,6l-63). As such, d1xparen was highly esteemed by Philo, and occurs in olherH_ellenistic Jewish writers, implying restraint from the excessive indulgenceof p_hysical desires (Sir 18:30; Wis 8:21;4 Macc 5:34; Ep. Ari.st. 278;Iosephus,Bt 2:120).It was often, but not exclusively, associated with sexual restraint.Quite rare in the NT (Gal 5:23; Acts 24:25; cf. i7rcparcteoflan, "to controloneself": I Cor 7:9; 9:25; i7xp,o/?s, "self-controlled": Titus l:8), it becomesespecially popular in the group of writings to which 2 Peter seems closelyrelated (l Clzn. 35:2; 38:2; 62:2;64:l; 2 CIen. l5:l; Herm. Vis. 2:3:2;3:8:4,7; Mand.6:l:l; 8:l; Sdm. 9:15:2; cf. etrcparetreoilst: I Clm. g0:8; Herm. Mand.l:2;8:l-9, ll-12; Sdra 5:l-5; iyrcprfis: 2 Clen.4:3; Herm. Vk. lz2:4; cf.also Bam. 2:2; Pol. Phil. 4:2;5:2). It was a Hellenistic ideal which Christianwriters recognized as a necessary component of Christian ethics. The Chris.tian, too, needed to be self-disciplined and not indulge his physical desiresto excess. [t is perhaps worth noticing that in Gal 5:23 it occurs in the contextof warning against the misuse of christian freedom in libertinism (Gal5:13),which is also the problem in 2 Peter (2:19) and 2 Cbn. (Donfried, SecondCbmmt, 116\.

tnopovilv, "steadfastness," occurs in Christian catalogues of virtues in Rom5:34; I Tim 6:ll;2 Tim 3:10; Titus 2:2; Rev 2:19; / Clem. 62:2;64:l; Herm.Mand,. 8:9; Bam. 2:2. The word refers to courageous and steadfast endurancein the face of suffering or evil, and as such was a recognized virtue in Hellenisticculture. But it was also an important ethical quality inJewish and early Chris-tian teaching, not simply as a borrowing from Hellenism but as an integralpart of biblical religion. In Jewish and early Christian usage the enduranceis associated not with personal bravery or Stoic detachment, but with thebeliever's trust in God and hope for the fulfillment of God's promises.

einepeiw, "godliness": see the Commmt on v 3. It occurs in pagan ethical

Commmt 187

lists (Vdgtle, Ttqmd- und Lastnkataloge, 9l), and elsewhere in Christian listsonly in I Tim 6:ll; I Clm. lz2. This rarity in Christian lists, like that ofdperi, may be due not only to its Hellenistic quality, but also to its verygeneral meaning.

7. @Ia6€Idi@r, "brotherly affection," occurs in Christian ethical lists else-where only in I Pet 3:8 (0t\46€I@0; Act. Vnc. 2; ActsJohn 29 (cf. also ri6e)\0or?s:"brotherhood," Herm. Mand.8:l0).In non-Christian usage this word denotedfamily affection between physical brothers and sisters, but the early Churchused it for fellow-believers, brothers and sisters in the faith (Rom 12:10; IThess 4:9; Heb l3:l; I Pet l:22). It is therefore a specifrcally Christian featureof the list in 2 Peter.

d,yarrp, "love," occurs in Christian catalogues of virtues in 2 Cor 6:6;Gal 5:22; Eph 4:2; I Tim 4:12; 6:ll; 2 Tim 2:22;3:L0; Titus 2:2; Rev 2:19;1 Clem.62:2; Herm. Sdrn. 9:15:2; Act. Verc.2.It occurs (as here) at the endof a list which began with eriorrs ("faith") in I Cor 8:7; Herm. Vis. 3:8:7(and cf. I Cor 13:13; Col 3:14; lgn. Eph. 14:l). The significance of its placeat the end of the list is elucidated by the catalogue of vices in Herm. Mand.5:2:4. Here (as with the virtues in 2 Peter) each vice produces the next, butof the final vice it is said: "malice 1,s1vts\ being composed of so many evilelements (ircroooinc':v rmccitt owwrapetni becomes a great sin and incurable."The final member of the series comprises all the others. Similarly, in 2 Peter,love, as the crowning virtue, encompasses all the others. The thought is similarto that of Col 3:14, which probably means that love coordinates and unitesall the other virtues (cf. Dupont, Gnosis, 395-96).

Easton (JBL 5l t 19321 l2) points out a danger in the early Christian methodof teaching by means of ethical catalogues: 'Jesus' ethical achievement washis centering the moral life around the supreme virtue of love, from whichall other virtues derive their meaning. Hence in teaching by means of listsof virtues there was a constant peril of sacrificing this principle of unity andso splitting up the moral vision into fragments. In a list everything has equalweight, so that 'love' and (for instance) 'self-control' are coordinated. Sothe neophyte, bewildered as term after term was reeled off by his teacher,

, could very well satis$ his conscience by selecting and concentrating on virtueswhich especially appealed to him." This danger is avoided in 2 Peter's sorites,because the last, climactic term of a sorites is not of equal weight with theothers. This most Hellenistic of the NT ethical lists in fact preserves veryfaithfully the place of love inJesus'ethical teaching, as the virtue which encom-passes, coordinates and perfects the others. The other principal danger inthe ethical lists which Easton notes-that terms of Stoic origin should continueto convey merely a Stoic meaning-is also avoided in this list, where thevirtues borrowed from Stoicism are not only rooted in Christian faith butalso encompassed by Christian love. The borrowings testify to the fact thatChristian ethics cannot be totally discontinuous with the moral ideals of non-Christian society, but the new context in which they are set ensures thatthey are subordinated to and to be interpreted by reference to the centralChristian ethical principle of love.

Boobyer ("Indebtedness," 40-41) and Klinger (SIZTQ l7 [1973] 16247)argue that in stressing that the virtues must be added to faith, these verses

188 2 PETER l:3-11

are aimed against the exaggerated Paulinism of the false teachers (cf. 3:16),who made Paul's doctrine ofjustification by faith an excuse for ethical libertin-ism. The false teachers may have used Paul in this way (but see Commenton 2:19 and 3:16); more certainly, they based their libertinism on a denialof futurejudgment. Second Peter therefore stresses here the need for virtuousliving if the Christian's eschatological goal is to be attained. The passage isnot, however, explicitly polemical; it is intended as a positive account ofthe Christian way of life which will be defended against objections later inthe letter.

When Klinger further argues that 2 Peter counters the lawlessness of thefalse teachers by reintroducing the [,aw under the new form of Stoic morality,we must be more cautious. The teaching of 2 Peter here is essentially verysimilar to Paul's own way of counterbalancing the danger of a libertinisticmisinterpretation of his teaching (Gal 5:13-26), though it must be admittedthat the Christological and pneumatological grounding of Paul's argument,are missing in 2 Peter. But, as in Paul, neither the Law nor Stoic ethics areintroduced except as issuing from Christian faith and summed up in Christianlove.

8. or)rc d.yyoiss oi6i &<aptrovg t<n/riort1or, "they keep you from being idle orunfruitful." This phrase (literally, "they make you neither idle nor unfruitful")employs the figure of speech litotes: affirming an idea by denying its opposite.It cannot be literally reproduced in English.

amoin ("idle") and dxaprous ("unfruitful") are one of 2 Peter's pairs ofnearly synonymous words. The same pair is found, in a quite different context,in the letter of the churches of Lyons and Vienne (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl.5:l:45):possibly a reminiscence of 2 Peter, or evidence that the combination wascommonly used. A similar pair is used in I Clm.34:4, with the same meaningas in 2 Pet l:8: "to be neither idle nor indolent fior every good work" (priayyois pn6e napewiwvs eipo.r. iil ndv €mw awfr6p). Both werds were used inearly Christianity in the context of the need for Christian faith to have ethicaleffects in the Christian's life. ripfos, which means "idle" or "inactive," de-scribes faith without works in Jas 2:20. ducapna ("unfruitful") depends onthe common metaphor of fruit for good works or ethical qualities (Prov 19:22LXX; Matt 3:8, l0; 2l:43; Mark 4:20; Luke l3:6-9; John l5:2-8; Gal 5:22;Eph 5:9; Col l:10; Heb 2:ll;Jas 3:18; Herm. Sim.4;9:19:2), and is usedin Titus 3:14 in a way similar to here (cf. also Herm. Sim. 4:4).It is notvery likely that 2 Peter here depends on Jude 12 (8iy6W @worapwa dtapna,"autumnal trees bearing no fruit"). See also Odes Sol. ll:23: "For there isabundant room in your paradise; and there is nothing in it that is idle [theGreek version has dpTeil, but everything is filled with fruit."

eis rfiv ro0 tcvptou itt6;tu'lnooD Xporol irilvonw, "in the knowledge of ourLord Jesus Christ." Most commentators take this phrase to refer to the goalor product of the virtues: virtuous conduct leads to fuller knowledge of Christ(Plumptre, Mayor, Wand, Chaine, Windisch, Schelkle, Reicke, Spicq, Green,Schrage, Grundmann; also Spicq, Agape, 37U77). But a few commentatorstake the knowledge of Christ to be the root from which moral progress pro-ceeds (Spitta, Bigg, Kelly; also Dupont, Gnosis,32-33). The latter is possibleif eis has the vague sense "with reference to," "in respect to," which is possible

Conmmt 189

in the Koine, and is required by 2 Peter's use of dni?zc.rors for the knowledgegained in Christian conversion (see Comrwtt on v 2) as well as by the generalsense of this passage. Through the knowledge of Christ he has given Christianseverything necessary for godly life (v 3); if they exercise the virtues, thisknowledge will be fruitful.

9. ru@It s dmur ptronrafo,tt, "is shortsighted, blind." The verb px,lzrd,(ew,which means "to be short-sighted," is very rare, and is here a t{I lapax.Its use in combination with n @Ios ("blind") is odd, since it ought to referto a less severe condition than blindness. Some commentators (Spitta, Spicq,Green, Kelly) refer to the word's etymological meaning, "to close the eyes,"and think that it adds to n@Ids the idea of witlful blindness, deliberate closingof the eyes (cf. Isa 6:10 [XX: "they have closed their eyes"). The difficultywith this view is that the etymological sense describes the fact that the short-sighted person screws up his eyes in his attempt to see better, not in orderto avoid seeing (Mayor). We should probably conclude that the writer usesthe two words as virtually synonymous, as so often he does with pairs ofwords, supposing that the addition of prr',inralc'tt ("short-sighted") would in-crease the rhetorical effect. Fornberg's suggestion (Early Church, 53) thatltrx'xralon is intended to suggest pi;pnE, the lower grade of initiate in theEleusinian mysteries, is far-fetched.

The metaphor of blindness, for inability or refusal to see the truth, iscommon in early Christian literature (Matt l5:14; 23:16, 24; Luke 6:39;John9:40-41; 12:40; Rom 2:lg; 2 Cor 4:14; Gol Thon. 28; cf. T. Sim. 2:7; T.Dan 2:4; f.Jud. l8:3, 6; l9:4). Particularly relevant are those texts whichapply the metaphor to the moral declension of Christians: I John 2:l l; Rev3:17; and I Clcn.3:4: "each man has fiorsaken the fear of the Lord and hasbecome dim-sighted (da$}'l.tt wfioot) in his faith and does not walk accordingto the laws of his commandments." Especially in view of the latter part ofv 9, there may be a reference to conversion and baptism as illumination,giving sight to the blind (Heb 6:4; 10:32; 2 Clm. l:6). The "knowledge ofJesus Christ," received at. conversion, came as illumination to those who wereblind in their pagan ignorance (2 Cor 4:4), but Christians who do not carrythrough the moral implications of this knowledge have effectively becomeblind to it again.

ld10r1v llo$n ru) tcolapopfi ritt fia\ql ainot) &ilapruiy, "and has forgottenthat he was cleansed from his past sins." The metaphor of "cleansing"Qcofrapopb, rcofraqilewl from sin is of OT origin (LXX lev 16:30; Job7:21; Ps 50:4; Sir 23:10;38:10) and was quite widely used in early Christianity(Titus 2:14; Heb l:3;9:14; I John l:7,9; I Cbm.60:2; Herm. Vis.2:3:l;3:2:2;3:8:ll;4:3:4; Sdm. 5:6:2,3). Here, as almost all commentators agree,the reference is to purification at baptism (Acts 22:16; I Cor 6:l l; Eph 5:26;Titus 3:5; Barn. ll:l l). For the phrase rcitt nal\ot ainal d,Wpruiu ("from hispast sins"), cf. Rom 3:25; Eph 2:2; I Pet l:14; 4:3; and, with reference tobaptism, Herm. Mand. 4:3:l (&Qeow alnpruilt rig;n rdw tporig,w, "remissionof ourformersins");Justin, I ApoI.6l (ri@eoecbs red,papruinindpSrWnpapro-p€l, "the remission of sins formerly committed"). The forgiveness receivedin baptism is a decisive break with the old sinful life and should therefiorebe the beginning of a virtuous life. The Christian who does not pursue virtue

190 2 PETER l:3-11

must have forgotten his baptism, and is in danger of relapsing into his pre-Christian condition (2:22). For this implication of baptism, cf. Rom 6:l-14;I Cor 6:9-ll; Herm. Mand,.4:3:2 ("he who has received remission of sinsin baptism ought no longer to sin, but to dwell in purity"); 2 Cbn.6:9 ("withwhat confidence shall we, if we do not keep our baptism pure and undefiled,enter the kingdom of God?").

10. 6td pcN\dy, d6€I@, ottov6:aoare, "Therefore, my brothers, make allthe more effort." d0€I@ti ("brothers") is a common form of address in earlyChristian letters. orouffileu ("to be zealous, to make an effort") is a naturalword for moral effiort (Eph 4:3; Heb 4:ll; 2 Cl.nn. lO:2; l8:2; Ign. Eph. 10:31and is something of a favorite word in 2 Peter (also l:15; 3:14). Here itechoes orovSilv ("effort") in v 5. The phrase &d ptilJ\oy ioroifiooa, "therefioremade all the more effort," occurs, in a different context, in Barn. 2l:9.

kfuiat it4;:v riv rc)\qoru td. irc\qip rotsioilo,t, "to confirm your call andelection." 0r,funs (along with FeFarcSv and klaic'nts) had acquired a legalsense, meaning "ratified," "guaranteed" (see Deissmann, Bibln Sutdies, lO4-7; TDNT l, 602; Spicq, Laicographie, 182-83). Its use here is not a preciselegal metaphor, for it was the seller, not the buyer, who "guaranteed" asale, but the word probably retains a vaguely legal sense. Christ has calledthe Christian into his kingdom (v 3), promising him immortality (v 4), butan appropriate moral response is required if his final salvation is to be guaran-teed. It is interesting to compare the sorites in Wis 6:17-20 (see Form/Stntc-ture/Setting): "giving heed to [Wisdom's] laws is assurance [Pefuio;rilsl of im-mortality" (6:18).

riv ri}rf,put ttoi drc}wyi1 ("call and election"), which echoes rd ts,lGooa'ras("him who called") in v 3, is another example of our author's predilectionfor nearly synonymous pairs of words. The calling is based on the choice,but there is probably no great distinction between the two terms intendedhere. Cf. Rev 17:14: rc\rpci rci itc)tercrd, xni nmci ("called and chosen andfaithful"); Apoc. Pet. R: rois r)\rpois ttcru,(s)dr)\ircros pou ("my [Christ's] calledand chosen": but this passage is probably dependent on 2 Peter); and forthe close association of the two concepts, cf. I Cor l:2&27; I Pet 2:9.

This passage does not mean that moral progress provides the Christianwith a subjective assurance of his election (the sense it was given by Lutherand Calvin, and especially in seventeenth-century Calvinism), but that theethical fruits of Christian faith are objectively necessary for the attainmentof final salvation. Although we should not obscure the variety of NT teachingabout salvation, this passage is not so obviously in conflict with Paul's doctrineof justification by faith as is olten supposed. (l) The author of 2 Peter isconcerned with the ethical fruits of fairi (l:5) and with moral effiort whichis only possible throtryh grace (l:3: "his divine power has bestowed on useverything necessary for a godly life"). (2) Paul can also'regard the ethicalfruits of faith as necessary for salvation, even in Galatians (5:21), when counter-ing the dangers of libertinism. (3) If our author seems to emphasizt man'srole in his salvation, the context should be remembered (cf. Fornberg, EarlyChurch,27). His readers were in danger of moral apostasy, under the influenceof teachers who evidently held that immorality incurred no danger ofjudg-ment.

Commmt l9l

Apparently in the face of a similar danger, the closely related work 2 Clem.also emphasizes righteous living as necessary to final salvation (cf. 5:5-6;ll:6-7). Cf. also Bam. 4:13: "lest if we relax as those who are called (cbs

rclsrrcl-) we should fall asleep over our sins and the prince of evil receivepower against us and thrust us out from the kingdom of the Lord."

rafna, "these things," either refers back (like ratrain w 8, 9) to the virtuesin w $-7 (Mayor, Chaine, Kelly), or to the effort to confirm the call andelection (v 9). But these amqunt to the same thing, and a vague referenceto the whole drift of w 5-9 could be intended.

rroioqre, "come to grief," is literally "stumble." Many commentators thinkthat because this metaphor means "sin" inJas 2:10;3:2 it must do so here(Chaine, Spicq, Schelkle, Schrage; Fornberg, Early Church,95; Moffatt andSidebottom restrict it to serious sin), but this makes the sentence virtuallytautologous: "if you lead a virtuous life (or: if you confirm your calling byleading a virtuous life), you will never sin." The metaphor must rather begiven the same sense as inJude 24 (&rro,wros: see Commmt p.122)z it refersto the disaster of not reaching final salvation (so Bigg, James, Kelly, Grund-mann, Senior). Perhaps the metaphor is closely connected with the followingverse, and pictures the Christian walking the road which will lead him intothe eternal kingdom; if he does not stumble on the road he will reach hisdestination (Bigg, Grundmann). There may even be the further thought thatthe blind man (v 9l will stumble (cf. I John 2:10-ll) (Mayor). But thesesuggestions may see too much significance in a pale metaphor.

I l. rlouoic.rs hrqpprntpiperot, "will be richly provided." The verb is thesame as that used in v 5, but this author's habit of repeating words doesnot usually have the significance ofJude's catchword technique.It is possible,but not necessary, to see the principle of the eschatological lac takonis behindthe repetition: if you provide the virtues, God will provide your entranceinto the kingdom (cf. Bigg, Mayor). In combination with r)touoian ("richly";cf. Rom 10:12; Eph l:7; I Tim 6:17; Titus 3:6; Barn. l:3) the verb hereindicates the lavish provision made by the divine generosity. In spite of theemphasis on human participation in the attainment of salvation, the sectionends as it began (v 3) with an attribution of salvation to God's grace.

ri eioo6os, "entry": the article is used because this is the Christian's expecta-tion. The idea of mtering the kingdom derives from the Gospels (Matt 5:20;7:21; l8:3; 19:23; Mark 10:23-25; Luke 18:17,24-25;John 3:5; cf. Gos. Thom.

22, 99) and, outside of the sayings ofJesus, is rare in early Christian literature(Acts 14:22;2 Clm.6:9; ll:7; Herm. Sim. 9:12:3-8;9:16:2-4; Apoc. Pet. R,l.It normally refers to the future eschatological hope.

eis riu aiuvtov paot\eiat rot wptov ri1,rciz, "into the eternal kingdom of ourLord." Reference to Christ's, rather than God's, kingdom, is not very commonin early Christian literature (Matt l3:41; 16:28; Luke l:33; 22:29-30;23:421John 18:36-37; I Cor 15:24-25; Col l:13;2 Tim 4:1, 18; Heb l:8; I Clem.

5O:3; 2 Cbm. l2:2; Bam. 7:ll; Apoc. Pet. R; Ep. Apost. 39 Ethiopic; cf. Eph5:5; Rev ll:15). Here it is consistent with the Christological focus of thewhole section l:3-l l. Of course, the kingdom of Christ is not here distingaishedfrom God's kingdom; hence it is eternal, not the temporary reign of I Cor15:24-25.

192 2 PsrEn l:3-llSurprisingly the phrase oi.dtzr,s fuoi.air. ("eternal kingdom") hardly occurs

at all in early Christian literature, whether with reference to Chist's kingdomor to God's kingdom. Befiore Justin, it is found only here and in Apoc. PctR (eis rip oic'wiat pu pootllaiocl, "into my [Christ's] eternal kingdom"), whichis dependent on 2 Peter (also Mart. PoL 20:2 u.L; and Aristides, ApoL 16,where the phrase is found in the Greek but not in the Syriac version, andis probably not original). Later it occurs occasionally (fustin, DiaL 32.l,refevring to Dan 7; DiaL 117.3; Melito, Peri Pascln 68; ind cf. also Philo, Son.2. 285). lts occurrence here may be dependent on Dan 7:27 (cf.4:3), whichone might have expected to have had more influence on early Christian phra-seology, or perhaps dependent on pagan terminology (ct. a/li,tt,a,s d.pxn inthe inscription from Stratonicea: Deissmann, Biblz Studics, 363). The idca ofChrist's eternal kingdom is found in Luke l:33 (cf. Rev ll:15).

In view of the eschatology of chap 3, the eternal kingdom here is notsimply "heaven," but looks forward to the cosmic reign of God in righteous-ness in the new heaven and new earth (3:13). This primitive Christian hopeis not "spiritualized" here by the Hellenistic language of immortality in v 4(cf. R. Schnackenburg, God's Rule and Kingdon, tr. j. ttturray, 2nd ed. [London:Burns & Oates, 19681 325); rather it provides the proper setting for it.

rdt wgiov ittfu tcd oonflpg, "our Lord and Savior." The author of 2 Peteris fond of this combination of Christological titles (also in 3:18; cf. 2:20;3:2). Elsewhere in early Christian literature it seems to occur only in theEp. Apo*. (3, 6, 8 Ethiopic; but where the Coptic is extant, in chap 8, it hasonly "our Savior"), though lgn. Phld" 9:2 has "the Savior our Lord JesusChrist" (ru1 oc'nfiry wptw rilt;;z'1ryo8 Xpwroi). For "Savior," see Commmtonvl.

Explanation

In this passage the author provides a kind of miniature "farewell sermon"of Peter's, summarizing Peter's definitive teaching as he would wish it to beremembered after his death. Although the substance of the passage is nodoubt faithful to the historical Peter's message, its form and terminologymust be attributed to the author, whose distinctive way of expressing theChristian faith is very evident in these verses. Following the path alieadypioneered by HellenisticJudaism, he employs Hellenistic religious ideas andlanguage to interpret the gospel in rerms appropriate to his Hellenistic envi-ronment. At the same time he gives rhese borrowings a definitely Christiancontext which determines their meaning.

_ The first section (w 3-4) establishes ihe basis for Christian living, in whatGod in Christ has done for us. By the divine power evident in Christ's life,death and resurrection he has called men and-women to be Christians, andwhen they come to knowledge of Christ in Christian conversion they alsoreceive through that knowledge the grace of Christ which will enable'themto live a life of obedience to God. The basis for Christian living also includesthe promises which Christ gave, which set before the Christian the eschatologi-cal goal of escaping mortality and attaining immortality. This goal is thetypical aspiration of Hellenistic religion and is expressed in strongly Hellenis-

Explanalion 193

tic language in v 4b. However, the author modifies the Hellenistic conceptby indicating that the corruptibility and mortality of life in this world aredue not simply to materiality but to sin. Thus the promise of escape frommortality imposes a strong ethical condition (vv 5-10).

Although v 4b has been a classic prooftext for the Greek patristic andEastern Orthodox doctrine of deification, in its own historical context it doesnot refer to a participation in the life or essence of God himself, but to thegift of "godlike" immortality.

The second section of the "farewell sermon" (w 5-10) exhorts Christiansto a life of moral progress, in the grace of Christ and in hope of their escharo-logical goal. The list of virtues (vv 5-7), although it includes some distinctivelyChristian items ("brotherly affection," "love"), is notable for the predomi-nance of ethical terms drawn from Hellenistic moral philosophy (l'virtue,""self-control," "godliness"). But the whole list is given Christian definitionby its first and last items-the only terms whose position in the list is signifi-cant. Christian faith is the root from which all these virtues must grow, andChristian love is the crowning virtue to which all the others must contribute.In a list of this kind, the last item has a unique significance. It is not justthe most important virtue, but also the virtue which encompasses all theothers. Love is the overriding ethical principle from which the orher virtuesgain their meaning and validity. Thus the author of 2 Peter sees that someof the ethical ideals of pagan society should also be Christian ideals, butonly if they are subordinated to and reinrerprered by the Christian ideal oflove.

The knowledge of Christ received in Christian conversion should havethese ethical consequences, and such fruits of faith are actually necessary ifChrist's choice and-call of Christians is to be made good and'his promisesto them fulfilled by their attaining final salvation. The Christian whose lifedoes not exhibit these qualities is in fact living as though he or she hadnot been converted and baptized a Christian. Since that person does notsee that the knowledge of Christ received in conversion must lead to virtuousliving, he or she seems to be still in pagan ignorance and appears to havefiorgotten that clean break with his or her pagan past which the forgivenessof sins in baptism entails.

The third and final section (v I l) holds out the prospect of entry intoChrist's kingdom for those whose faith is effective in virtuous living. Despitethe emphasis on moral effort in the second section, this concluding statementmakes it clear that final salvation is not man's achievement but the gift ofGod's lavish generosity.

Already in this passage the threat of the false teachers lurks in the back-ground. The emphasis on the fact that Christian faith must have ethical resultsand that Christ's promises have ethical conditions no doubt has the falseteachers' indifference to morality in view. But this passage is nor explicitlyapologetic or polemical. The author intends here to present a brief positivestatement of the apostolic message of which he wishes to remind his readers(l:12). He will then devote the rest of his letter to defending rhis messageagainst the objections raised by the false teachers.

Occasion: Peter's Testammt (I:12-15)

Bibliography

Boobyer, G. H. "Indebtedness," 44-51. Viigtle, A. "Die Schriftwerdung der apostolis-chen Paradosis nach 2. Petr I , l2-15." Neuzs Testament und Ceschichte: Hlstorisches Gescluhmund Deutung im Neum Testament, ed. H. Baltensweiler and B. Reicke. (O. CullmannFestschrift) Ziirich: Theologischer Verlag/Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr. 1972.

Translation

12 Thnefore I am going to be " always reminding you of these things, evm thoughyou hnow then and are established, in the truth that you haue. rs I considn it rnyduty, as long as I am in this body, ,o arouse you with a remindtr, ra since I knowthat I must soon be diuested of my body, as our Lord tesu Christ also informed me.r5 But I will ako do my best to see lhat aftn my dzath you will be abb to recallthese things at all tines.

Notes

rThe textual variations at this point have no doubt arisen because of the difficulty of thebest reading ge)U\rior,r, "I am going to" (see Commtnl section).

Form / S tructure / S e tting

This section states the occasion for the letter, namely Peter's intentionof leaving a testament. Its position in the letter at this point is no doubtdetermined by its function as a transition from the positive summary of Peter'steaching in l:3-ll, to the apologetic defense of this teaching against objec-tions in the rest of the letter. By introducing the idea that the letter, as atestament, is intended for the period after Peter's death, the author is ableto begin dealing with objections which are being raised in his own time.

Two conventions of the testament genr€ appear in this section: (l) thehero knows that his death is approaching (v 14; for references see Commmtsection); (2) he wishes his teaching to be remembered after his death (v 12;for references see Commmt section). Parallel ideas and phrases are especiallyto be found in two other examples of the genre: Baruch's testament in theform of a letter (2 Apoc. Bar.78-86; see especially 78:5;84:1,7-9;86:l-2)and Josephus' account of Moses' last words (Ant. 4.309-19; see especially315-16, 318). These parallels doubtless derive from the conventions of thegenre, not from literary dependence. It is this section in particular whichwould enable contemporary readers of 2 Peter to recognize its literary genre,including its pseudepigraphal character.

Commml 195

Comment

12. &6, "therefiore," presumably means: because salvation (v ll) dependson following the teaching of w 3-ll 1:7^ir r, "these things").

,relJ,4oo aEi t,fis tnowpnprcecl, "I am going to be always reminding you."The luture pe)U\r1oc.r is difficult. There are two possible translations: 1a1 "Ishall be ready to . . ." (Rv), i.e. "the writer will be ready in the future, asoften as necessity arises, to recall to the minds of the readers truths withwhich they are familiar" (Zahn, Inlroduclion,2ll n.3); (b) "I shall . . . ,"i.e. a periphrasis for a simple future (Bigg, Wand). In classical Greek, andrarelyintheKoine(Acts ll:28;24:15;27:10),/e)U\eiywiththefurureinfinitivemeans "will certainly"; in the Koine, pd)\)\eru with the present infinitive canserve simply as a periphrasis for the future. But there seems to be only oneother example (Matt 24:6) of the future tense of pi)\)\eu, followed by thepresent infinitive, serving this purpose. The difficulty of the text leads Mayorto adopt Field's emendation pe),4o<,r, "I will take care to . . ."; but the usualconstruction would be pe)\rioei 1rd, "I will take care to . . . ," and althoughthere are rare examples of pelriocr (Mayor, cxciii), their rarity is sufficientlocast doubt on the emendation. The translation found in some English ver-sions, "I intend to . . ." (nsv) is not really possible fior the future pe)Utrlo<,r.

Translation (a) has the effect of excluding a reference to rhe present letter,and also requires that rirei ("always") be limited to rhe short time (v 14) beforethe apostle's death. Since the purpose of this paragraph seems to be to explainthe present letter, it is better to adopt translation (b). The writer has adoptedan unusual, but possible, periphrasis for imoptilou ("I shall remind").

If the writer intends to refer to the present letter, it is at first sight oddthat he uses a future tense, and a similar problem arises with orov&oot ("1will do my best") in v 15. Usually in Greek letters a writer used the aoristtense to refer to his writing of the letter and the occasion which provokedit (e.g. Jude 3); this was the tense appropriate from the standpoint of thereaders of the letter. He could use the present tense to refer to his intentionsas he writes the letter (e.g. Jude 5). He could use the future tense to referto_what he is going to do in the following section of the letter (e.g. Barn.l:8). But this use of the future tense cannot be our writer's use in w 12and 15. He cannot mean that in the rest of the letter he intends to remindhis readers of what he has said in w 3-ll, because this is not what he doesin the rest of the letter. If he refers to the present letter at all, it must bewith primary reference to l:3-ll, and only secondary reference to the restof the letter.

In fact, the use of the future tense with reference to the whole of thepresent letter, though unusual, is quite intelligible here. The aposrle is repre-sented as thinking not of the activity of writing rhe leuer, but of the functionwhich the letter will perform when he has written it. He intends the letterto be a permanrnl reminder of his teaching, not only to be read on one specificoccasion, but to be available at all times (l: l5). Thus even from the standpointof his readers the letter's function of reminding continues into the futureSo neither the epistolary aorist, which would imply thar from the readerf

196 2 PETER l:12-15

standpoint the action of reminding is complete, nor the present tense, whichwould not convey the apostle's intention of writing for the future, wouldhave been appropriate.

As the next, three verses imply, tiei ("always") means both up to and afterthe apostle's death. By means of his letter, Peter will be able to remind thereaders of his essential message not only in the brief time before his death,but also after his death. In other words, the future tense here, with tkl ("al-ways"), expresses the intention appropriate, not to an ordinary letter, butto a testament (so, essentially, Vdgtle, "Schriftwerdung," 298-300). Especiallyas a wittm form of the farewell discourse, the testament is intended as aperrnanent reminder of the apostle's definitive teaching.

This does not mean, however, that the real writer of 2 Peter, writing inPeter's name after Peter's death, was himself looking very far into the future.He himself was writing, not fior the future, but for the present circumstancesof his readers, which were future from the fictitious standpoint in Peter'slifetime. He wrote to combat the concrete threat of false teaching which threat-ened his readers at the time when he wrote the letter. Thus rki ("always")is intended primarily to cover the time up to the real time of writing, andthe writer wrote Peter's "testament" not to preserve Peter's teaching fiorthe future in general, but to apply it specifically to specific readers at a specifictime. Probably, although his theological account of the delay of the Parousia(3:8-9) could accommodate an indefinite delay, he did not expect the Parousiato be long delayed (cf. l:19; 3:3, 12, l4), and certainly did not write forgenerations of future Christians.

The fact that the writer represents Peter as writing a testament by meansof which he will be able to remind "you" (0pas) of his teaching even afterhis death is an important indication that the writer is not, like some writersof pseudepigraphal apostolic letters (..9. "3 Cointhinns"), imagining fictitiousread.qs of the letter as part of the whole pseudepigraphal device. He hasdeliberately used a form of pseudepigraphon, the testament, by which hecan represent Peter as addressing readers aftn his dzalh. This means that"you" are specific Christian communities about which the historical Peterknew and which he could be represented as having in mind as the recipientsof this testament. (3:l indicates that they are the communities to which IPeter was addressed.) To press "you" to mean that the actual members ofthe Christian communities addressed must have been alive befiore Peter'sdeath, or that most of them had, is probably to take the argument too far(this is not implied when Polycarp, Phil. 3:2, tells the Philippians that Paul"came among you" and "wrote a letter to you").

The ideas of reminding and remembering, stressed both in these versesand in 3:l-2 (l:12: imoppvipttsu; l:13: tnopvftoet; l:15: prittrL nuelwilol3:l:tnoptipeq 3:2: pryo|fipat) are very important for the writer's conception ofhis purpose in writing (Kiisemann, "Apologia," 177). They are naturally ap-propriate and recurrent themes of farewell discourses (Jub. 22:16; 2 Apoc.Bar.84:74; Bib. Ant. l9:5;24:3;Josephus, Ant. 4.318;John 14:16; Acts 20:31;2 Tim 2:8, 14; Acl. Vna 36), a major concern of which is often that thespeaker's teaching be remembered and observed after his death (cf. also T.

Cornnmt 197

/Vlos. l0:ll; T. Sdrn. 7:3; T. Dan 6:9\. By adopting the literary genre of thetestament, the writer of 2 Peter shows that he has no intention of presentingnew teaching of his own, but reproduces only what the apostle Peter hadtaught and handed on (Zmijewski, BZ 23 [979] 166, 169). He writes inPeter's name and claims Peter's authority because (and to the extent that)he transmits Peter's message. Of course, this transmission is at the sametime an interpretation and application of Peter's message appropriate to hisreaders'situation at the time when he wrote. In l:3-ll he has exercisedthe freedom of interpreting Peter's message in Hellenistic religious vocabularywhich the apostle would doubtless not have used, and in the rest of theletter (as Neyrey, Polemic, 106, 109-10, stresses) his "reminding" will takethe fiorm of an apologetic drfense of the apostolic message against the falseteachers of his own time. In these ways he maintains the tradition of Peter'steaching in a living, not an antiquarian, form, but it is on its claim to be anauthentic "reminder" of the apostolic message that 2 Peter's status as an"apostolic" writing, belonging within the NT canon, must be based.

rcptroinot, "of these things," refers back to w 3-ll, the summary ofPeter's message committed to writing for the benefit of readers after hisdeath.

tcahep ei6drcs, "even though you know them:" see commentary on Jude5, which may lie behind 2 Peter at this point. The content of Peter's messageis no more than the basic Christian instruction which all Christians havereceived. Since Peter had probably not evangelized the communities addressed(see Conmmt on 3:2), the writer clearly regards Peter's message, which hetransmits, as the common apostolic message. In w 16-18 he will fufmd thismessage by appeal to specially Petrine testimony, but the message itself isthat which all the apostles, including Paul (3:15), preached- There is no needto see this as an "early Catholic" trait which idealizes the apostolic age (soKnoch, "Vermiichtnis," 154-5); despite the tensions between them, the apos-tles did see themselves as proclaiming the same gospel (Gal 2:7).

dorqpytivow iu rfi rapoitoTl dlvfeiq, "are established in the truth that youhave." orrlptlew ("to establish"), dorripwros ("unstable": 2:14; 3:16) andorqprypi6 ("stability":3:17) are a favorite word-group in 2 Peter. The verbis quite common in a metaphorical sense in early Christian literature (exampleswhich bear some comparison with the use in 2 Peter: Luke 22:32; Acts l8:3;Rom 16:25; I Thess 3:2; I Pet 5:10; 2 Cbn. 2:6). Here it means that thereaders are well-grounded in the Christian faith, instructed in it, firmly com-mitted to it, and therefore not likely to be easily misled by false teaching.Of course, the communities included those who were coming under the influ-ence of the false teachers and who could therefore be described as "unstable"(2:14), while the whole letter shows the writer's concern that his readersshould not "lose their stability." So there is probably an element of hopeful-ness in the description of them in this verse.

A particularly illuminating parallel to our author's concern for "stability"in the truth is found in the introduction to the Ep. Aposl., a writing whichis also concerned, at a somewhat later date, with the preservation of theauthentic apostolic gospel in the face of heresy. The letter is said to have

198 2 PETER l:12-15

beeh written "that you may be established and not waver, not be shakenand not turn away from the word of the Gospel that you have heard" (Ep.Apost. l: NT Apoc. I, l9l-92).

rfi rapoin1 alqOeiq, "the truth that you have," is not the truth which thereaders have conlruted with further truth which they do not vet have. Thephrase simply makes the point that they do already'have this'truth and donot need to be given it for the first time. The phrase is 2 Peter's equivalenttoJude's "the faith which was once and for all delivered to the saints" $ude3: see Commml), and like that phrase means simply the Christian message,as taught to the readers at their conversion. d\rfreia ("truth") was a widespreadand-frequent designation for the gospel from an early period (Gal 2:5, 14;5:7; Eph l:13; Col l:5; 2 Thess 2:12-13;2 Tim 2:15; Jas l:18; 2 John 4etc.): there is no need to read into it "early Catholic" overtones of a rigiddogmatic corpus of belief. Here, of course, the writer has in mind especiallythose aspects of the Christian message (moral and eschatological) which hehas stressed in his summary in w 3-l l, and will defend against the falseteachers in the rest of the letter.

13. ev roir<atrQorcryvaparr, "in this body." orcnvupa (lit. "tent") was a cur-rent Greek term for the body, interchangeable with oxivos ("tent": Wis 9:15;I Cor 5:1, 4). Of the two, orcqvupaappears to have been rather more popularin the early centuries e.o. As a metaphor it conveys the image of the bodyas a temporary dwelling-place fior rhe soul, fiolded up and abandoned whenthe soul leaves it at death. It therefore tends to be used especially in contextswhich distinguish the soul from its dwelling-place the body (Paral Jn. 6:il7: ow1vupa as the dwelling-place of the heart, xsp6ia; Tatian, Oratio l5:orcqvospa as the habitation of the spirir; Sanlences of Sadus 320: rd orcr1vupa.rrtsfivXrts oou, "the dwelling-place of your soul"), stress the immortal soul'stemporary dwelling in the morral body (Diogn 6:8), or refer to death (Apoc.Paul 15: at death the soul leaves its orcr1vc,spa). Frequently it refers to corpses,the tents left behind by their departed inhabitants (non-Christian referencesin TDNI 7, 383; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 2.25.6;3.31.1-2, of the burial of thebodies of Peter and Paul; Palua historica, quoted in the Excursus on Jude9, of Moses' corpse). It is therefore an appropriate term in the context ofthese verses, where Peter contemplates his death. No doubt it carries someconnotations of the Hellenistic anthropological dualism of soul and body,and is another example of the wrirer's Hellenistic terminology. But it shouldnot be overlooked that Paul also adopred rhe current HellCnistic metaphorwhen he contemplated his death in 2 Cor 5:14. The term was too commonfor there to be any likelihood that 2 Peter is here dependent on Paul (whouses or?vog, not oxt1vupa); still less is there any reference to Peter's offerto build "three tabernacles" (orcqvas: Mark 9:5 par.) in the Transfigurationnarrative (Plumptre, Green).

With the whole verse, cf. 2 Apoc. Bar. 84:l (from Baruch's "testamentary"letter): "Behold! I have therefore made known unto you these things ariilstI liue; for I said that ye should learn the things that are excellent;-for theMighty One hath commanded to instruct you; and I will set before you someof the commandments of his judgment before I d,ie" (tr. Charles; and cf.78:5;Bib. Ant. lg:5;Josephus, Ant4. 316, 318).

Commml 199

14. raxvh, "soon." raywog means "quick, swift" (Isa 59:7; Wis l3:2; Sirl8:26; Herm. Sdm. 9:26:6) and hence (like English "quick" in certain contexts)can sometimes mean "coming soon, imminent" (Herm. Sim. 8:9:4; 9:26:6).It has sometimes been argued (notably by Zahn, Introduction, 212-14; followedby Plumptre, Green; cf. Boobyer, "lndebtedness," 46) that here it must mean"sudden," in the sense of "unexpected," i.e. Peter anticipates a violeni deathwhich might come upon him at any moment. But (l) this is not a well-attestedmeaning (and Zahn's NT examples of roxda.rs and raxb meaning "sudden"are misinterpretations); (2) it need not (in spite of Zahn) be the meaningof raxwbs in 2 Pet 2: l; (3) it is not the most natural meaning in this context.It is doubtful if it would have been suggested if the passage were not beingread in the light ofJohn 2l:18.

fi d.n(freo6,lit. "the divesting": the metaphor is that of taking off clothes(ct. dtrsr0evo,r: 2 Macc 8:35; Acts 7:58), and with orcnvapc ("tent") a mixedmetaphor results, no doubt because both were such standard, and thereforepale, metaphors. For dnifreo5, of death, cf. Clem. Alex. Slrom. l.l9 (oaprcbdnofleors); Methodius, ftes. 1.29 (PG 4lll40A); and for the metaphor, cf.Asc. Isa.9:8; 2 Cor 5:34 (where the two metaphors are mixed, as here).

,enes rcd 6 rcbpws i1fiv'klootn Xporbg d6rt).c^rdv poc, "as our Lord JesusChrist also informed me." All the commentators treat this clause as explaininghow Peter knows that his death is imminent, but as Viigtle ("Schriftwerdung,"301) points out, this interpretation overlooks the rai ("also"). rccdds rci isquite common in the NT (e.9. Luke ll:l; Acts l5:8; Rom l:13; l5:7), butin every case the rcci, though slightly pleonastic, can be translated "also." Itreinforces the comparative sense of tcot&. In other words, Kqnd;8 rci intro-duces an additional fact which is compared with what precedes. The generalsense of the passage must be: "I know that I am going to die soon-andthis corresponds to Christ's prophecy." This would be a very odd way ofsaying: "I know that I am going to die soon because Christ has told me."The passage must mean that, even apart. from Christ's revelation to him,Peter knows he must die soon.

It was a common hagiographical motif that the righteous hero receivedsome kind of intimation of his approaching death before the event, and forobvious reasons this was one of the normal conventions of the testamentgenre. Sometimes there is no indication of how the hero knows he is goingto die (Jub.36:l; T. Napht. l:34; Adam and Eve 45:2;49:l; Acts 10:25;2Tim 4:6; Acts John 107), sometimes it is revealed to him by God (Deut 3l:2;14, 16; T. Ini l:2;4 Ezra 14:13-15; 2 Apoc. Bar. 43:2;76:2; Bib. Ant. 19:6;2l:l; 2 Enoch 36:l-2; 55:l-2), sometimes a dream (Jub. 35:6; T. Abr. 7; Mart.Pol. 5:2\ or a vision (Acts Paul l0 IPH 7]) is the means of revelation. Probablythis conventional motif accounts for the statement that Peter knows (ei&^f)he is soon to die. But why should the writer then add that this had alsobeen revealed to him by Christ? The only plausible reason is that there wasa well-known dominical prophecy of Peter's death which the readers of 2Peter would know, and so it is natural for the writer to add a reference tothis prophecy. Thus, whereas the clause ei&ix 6rr ra\4vil ioru i dnfreog rotowquqros;rou ("I know that I must soon be divested of my body") is aconventional motif of the testament, genre, the following clause xa9ix rcsi 6

200 2 Pernn l:12-15

rcupros r1p6:v'h1oo1s Xpords i&iftt<,niv pot ("as our Lord Jesus Christ also in-formed me") is a piece of specifically Petrine tradition. We may comparethe fact that in his farewell speech at Miletus Paul knows of his impendingdeath (Acts 20:25), but then also Agabus prophesies it (Acts 2l:ll). Theexistence of a well-known prophecy of Peter's death would be sufficient reasonfior the writer of 2 Peter to refer to it. Viigtle's suggestion ("Schriftwerdung,"303) that the reference is intended to give additional authority to Peter'stestament is unnecessary.

What was the prophecy to which 2 Peter refers? The extant literature offersthe following five references to prophecies of Peter's death by Jesus:

(l) John l3:36. This looks like aJohannine reflection on Peter's words in Matt26:35; Mark l4:31; Luke 23:33, in the light of Peter's martyrdom (R. E. Brown,The Gospel according to John [AB; London: Geoffrey Chapman, l97l] 615-16). Wecannot be sure that the saying existed in the tradition beforeJohn's Gospel. More-over, it contains no indication of the time of Peter's martyrdom, other than thatit will be subsequent toJesus' own death.

(2) John 2l:18 is the saying to which commentators have most often thought2 Peter refers (Plumpre, Bigg, Lumby, Green; Zahn, Intrc&ntion, 213-14; Chase,DB(H) 3, p. 809; Viigtle, "Schriftwerdung," 302). There are two main objectionsto this view: (a)John 2l:18 does not indicate the time of Peter's death; (b) 2 Peteris unlikely to be dependent on the Fourth Gospel, both because 2 Peter may beearlier in date than the Fourth Gospel arld because it is so far removed from theFourth Gospel in theological character. But (a) John 2 I : 18 does indicate that Peter'smartyrdom will occur when he is old (fqAiio?s), and this may be sufficient indicationof time to satisfy the requirements of 2 Pet l:14. If our exegesis, according towhich Peter knows that his death is imminent independently of Christ's prophecy,is correct, then the prophecy itself need not contain too precise an indication oftime. (b) John 2 I : l8 is too obscure and ambiguous as a reference to Peter's martyr-dom for it to be a post eaentum prophecy (cf Brown, I107-8, I I l8), and thereforeit cannot be the creation of the author of John 21. The saying must have beenalready a traditional saying ofJesus to which lhe author $ves i pist nauurn interpre-tation in 2l:19 (which probably interprets the prophecy as indicating death bycrucifixion). Although some scholars have doubted whether the original sayingintended a reference to Peter's death at all, it is difficult to find another meaningwhich would give the saying any real point or account for its preservation in theradition. We may therefore assume thatJohn 2l:18 is a saying ofJesus whichwas widely known in the early Church, as a prophecy of Peter's martyrdom, evenbefore Peter's death.

(31 Apoc. Pel. R (on this passage, see E. Peterson, "Das Martyrium des hl. Petrusnach der Petrus-Apocalypse," in Miscelhrwa Giuko Belaedni [CACat 23; Vatican City:Societi "Amici delle Catacombe," 19541 l8l-85). The risen Christ says to Peter:"Go into the city of the West and drink the cup which I have promised you, atthe hands of the son of him who is in Hades." This is clearly a post a,cnlum prophecyof Peter's martyrdom under Nero in Rome. Since it follows a passage which seemsdependent on 2 Pet l:1-ll, and precedes a passage which is dependent on theaccounts of the Transfiguration, including 2 Pet l:16-18, it is probable that theprophecy is inspired by 2 Pet l:14. This need not imply that the author of theApoc. Pel. knew of no traditional saying ofJesus to which 2 Pet l:14 could refer,for his phrase "the cup which I have promised you" (rb rcripnv 6 itryrct\qwpoor) seems to presuppose an earlier prophecy. Thus it is possible that the Apoc.Pal. is evidence that there was a traditional saying of Jesus prophesying Peter'sdeath, but it provides no reliable evidence of the form of that saying.

Comment 201

(4) The famous "Quo Vadis?" story in the lcts Pet. (Acl. Vna 851 relates howPeter, leaving Rome to escape arrest, met Jesus entering the city. In response toPeter's query, "[.ord, whither goest thou here?" (rcbpe, rcfi ci.r6e;), the t ord tellshim, "I am coming to Rome to be crucified," and "I am being crucified again,"and so Peter returns to Rome to be crucified (NT Apoc. 2, 317-18). A few scholars(Spitta; cf. Edmundson, Church of Romc, l5l-53) have thought this story has abasis in hct, to which 2 Pet l:14 refers. It is, however, unattested before the lclsPet. (c. 180), and is almost certainly inspired by John 13:36. It should also beremembered that the author of the lcb Pel. knew 2 Peter.

(5) The Epistle of Clement to James (prefaced ao the Cbnattinc Homilies) chap.2: Peter says: "Since, as I have been taught (cir d&&ix0Av) by my t ord and TeacherJesus Christ, who sent me, the days of my death have drawn near (ci roD 0hnrwput i111it<omt ipepa|, . . ." These words introduce a speech which is virtually atestament of Peter. In such a late document they could be dependent on 2 Petl:14, or on (2) or (4) above, or they could be an independent example of theapplication to Peter of the conventional testament motif.

In conclusion, the saying ofJesus inJohn 2l:18 seems to be the only likelybasis for 2 Pet l:14. This conclusion is further supported by the observation thatour exegesis favors reference to a saying ofJesus from the Gospel traditions ratherthan to a revelation by the exalted Lord shortly before Peter's death, since (a)

Jesus' prophecy is distinguished from the testament motif of Peter's intimation ofhis approaching death, and (b) the prophecy must have been well-known to 2Peter's readers.

Boobyer's suggestion ("Indebtedness," 44-51) that 2 Pet l:14 is dependenton I Pet 5:1, read as evidence that the aged Peter expected martyrdom, togetherwith Matt 16:21-27 or Mark 8:31-38, seems to be a relatively far-fetched explana-tion, which should hardly be preferred when a much simpler explanation is available.

15. onwfuoot 6e t(ai, "but I will also do my best to see," i.e. not only will Iremind you during my lifetime (v l3), but I will also see to it that my teachingis available to you after my death. The verb ofiov&d;feu is elsewhere used ofdiligence or eagerness to write a letter (Barn. l:5; 4:9; 2l:9; cf. Jude 3) andmay be an instance of epistolary style. Especially striking is the fact that anequivalent expression is found in 2 Apoc.'Bar. 78:.5 (Baruch's "testamentary"letter): "I have been the more careful to leave you the words of this epistlebefiore I die" (tr. Charles). The future tense onou&iloc^r is more difficult thanthe future tense in v 12, for whereas the apostle's action of reminding cango on after his death through his testament, it is more difficult to see howhis diligence can do so. If orou&iro<,r does refer to his diligence in writing 2Peter, it is possible that the writer has used the future loosely because, asin v 12, he is thinking primarily of the work's future function "at all times."Alternatively, ofioufrfr@ may refer to the apostle's efforts to ensure that histestament is preserved after his death. The real writer may be hinting thathis own efforts in writing 2 Peter are faithful to Peter's own concern thathis teaching be preserved after his death.

In spite of the difficulty of the future tense orou&ioo most commentatorsunderstand the verse as a reference to 2 Peter itself (Knopf, Chaine, Windisch,Schelkle, Kelly, Grundmann), but some insist that it must refer to anotherwork which the apostle intends to provide in the future, either an otherwiseunknown doctrinal writing by Peter (Zahn, Introdrrction, 200-201, 272), orfuture letters which Peter will write whenever the occasion presents itself(McNamara, Scr 12 (1960) 16-19, who takes €ri,orore, "at all times" with

202 2 Psrun l:12-15

onov&oo, and thinks 2 Pet 3 is one of these other letters), or Mark's Gospel(Plumptre, Bigg, Mayor cxlii-cxliv, Barnett, Green). This last idea dependson the tradition, found as early as Papias, that Mark was Peter's "interpreter"and wrote his Gospel on the basis of Peter's preaching. It is even possible(see below) that lrenaeus already interpreted 2 Pet l:15 in this way. It should,however, be noted: (a) that none of the early representatives of this traditionsees Peter as having himself initiated the writing of the Gospel, and onlyClement of Alexandria (Hypotyp., ap. Eusebius, Hisr. Eccl. 2.L5.1-2) reportsthat he authorized it; (b) that none of the clear allusions to Gospel traditionsin 2 Petercorrespond to Markan traditions (see Introduction, sectionof LitnaryRelatiorchips); (c) that rctnoy ("rhese things") in this verse musr still referto the summary of Peter's teaching in w 3-l l, and the Gospel of Mark cannoteasily be seen as embodying Perer's teaching described in that way.

A reference to 2 Peter itself in this verse has the advantage of giving thesection w 12-15 a coherence which it would otherwise lack: the whole sectionexplains Peter's intention that 2 Peter should be his testament.

perd, rip d,pfiv Effui, "after my death." The use of the term €fo6o9 fordeath probably derives from the meaning "end" (i.e. the end of life: dfo6osro0 ftwl rather than from the meaning "deparrure" (see TDNT 7, I05, I07),though it was possible for some writers to give it the sense of "departure"(Wis 7:6; Apoc. Paul 14; Clem. Alex. Exc. Theod. 4l: 17 itc ri6 oapxbs dgo6os,"the departure from the flesh"). Thus it need not here imply the soul's depar-ture from the body. The term was used both absolutely, as here (Epictetus4.4.38; Wis 3:2; T. Napht. l:l u.1,. Luke 9:31; Justin, Dial. 105.5; letter ofthe churches of Lyons and Vienne, ap. Eusebius, t/ist. EccL 5.1.36,55; 5.2.3;frenaeus, Adu. Han. 3.1.1; Apoc. Paul l4), and qualified in some way (roD

f4u: Josephus, Ant. 4.189; rot ftov: Justin, Dial. L05.3; implied in Wis 7:6;ntebwros.: Sir 38:23). There seems no basis for the assertion that the unquali-fied use of the term was much rarer than the qualified (Green; cf. Bigg,206). In neither form was it very common, but seems to have been becomingmore common in the second century e.p. To derive all the Christian instancesfrom the influence of its two NT occurrences is implausible.

There is sufficient evidence of the currency of the term to make it mostunlikely that this verse alludes to its use in Luke 9:31 (Transfiguration narra-tive). Those who see in such an allusion evidence of Peter's authorship (Green;cf. Plumptrq Bigg, 231-32) fail to realize that it would in facr indicate acquain-tance with the Lukan redaction of the Transfiguration account.

There is a somewhat more plausible case for an allusion to 2 Pet l:15 infrenaeus, Adu. Han. 3.1.1: "afrer their deaths (perd, rip roincant i@z) (i.e.of Peter and Paul) Mark, the disciple and interprerer of Peter, handed onto us in writing what Peter had preached." It is possible, though far fromProven, that here Irenaeus interprets 2 Pet l:15-as a reference to Mark'sGospel (Mayor).

F*planation

This section explains the character of 2 Peter as Peter's "testament," p..-serving Peter's teaching for Christians who will read it after Peter's death.

Explanati,on 203

The author therefore represents Peter as writing shortly before his deathand knowing that his death is approaching. Peter knows this both becausehe has some kind of intimation of it (a standard feature of "testaments")and becauseJesus had predicted his martyrdom (probably an allusion to thesaying preserved inJohn 2l:18). In view of his imminent dearh, the apostleis making a written record of his reaching-the reference is primarily ro the"farewell sermon" in l:3-l l-so that, although the readers are already famil-iar with the apostolic message which they received when they became Chris-tians, Peter's "testament" may serve to remind them of it both up to andat all times after his death.

Owing to the author's use of the standard conventions of the ancient "testa-ment" genre, contemporary readers would have recognized from this sectionthat 2 Peter belongs to that genre and have undersrood the pseudepigraphalnature of the work. Behind the fictional device which made it possible forPeter to be represented as addressing them many years after his death, theywould have understood the real author's intention of providing a "reminder"and defense of the apostle's message for his own time. By writing in Peter'sname the author disclaims any desire to present a new teaching of his own.The literary device of the "testament" is a valid vehicle for his message insofaras he wishes only to preserve the apostolic message, while interpreting anddefending it in terms appropriate to his readers' situation.

Reply to Objection 1: (a) ApostolicEyeutitness (1:16-18)

Bibliography

Baltensweilet,H. Dr VnhkirungJesu: Historisclus Ereignk und synoplisclw Berichlc. ATANT33. Ziirich: Zwingli Verlag, 1959. 2G28. Blinzler, l. Die nmtatammllichen. Berichle iibetdie lte*liirung.,/asu. NTAbh l7l4. Miinster: Aschendorff, 1937. 17-18, 30-31, 7l:76,87, t53. Boobyer, G. H. S, Mark and tlv Trarcfguration Story. Edinburgh: T. & T.Clark, 1942. 43-4,6. Bretscher, P. G. "Exodus 422-2! and the Voice from Heaven."J BL 87 ( 1 968) 30 1-l l. Klein, G. Die zwiilt Apostel, l02-S. Neyrey, J. H. "The ApologeticUse of the Transfiguration in 2 Peter l:lG2l." CBQ42 (1980) 504-19. Nineham,D. E. "Eye-Witness Testimony and the Gospel Tradition III."JffS ll (1960) 25.1-64. Sabbe, M. "La r6daction du r6cit de la Transfiguration." la Vcnu du Mcssb: Ma-siankne ct Eschatohgb, by E. Massaux et al. RechBib 6. Bruges: Descl6e de Brouwer,1962. Schmithals' W. "Der Markusschluss, die Verklirungsgeschichte und die Aussen-

{yg de1Zw6!f;' ZTK 69 (1972) 379411. Stein, R. H. "Is the Transfiguration (Mark9:2-8) a Misplaced Resurrection-Accounr?" JBL 95 (1976) 79-95.

Translation

ro For we did not follow clner\ concocted nytlu whm we nade hnown to youthe coming of our LordJesu Christ in pown, but we wne qalittussa of his najat1r? For t lw rcceiued honor and glnry fron God tlu Fatltn, and a aoice conaqed tohin by the Majestic Glory proclaimed, "This ds my So4 my Beloved, on whom Ihaue set my faaor."b $ We ourselves luard this aoice frorn heavm wlun we wnewith him on llw holy mountain.

Notes

'There is an anacolouthon in the Greek of w l7-t8. The participial phrases in v l7 requirea main clause ofwhichJesus is the subject, but v 18 begins a fresh sentince.

b The readings of most MSS in this sentence (the words of the heavenly voice) are bestseen as assimilations to the Synoptic Gospels (see Blinzler, Baichu, l7), and so rhe text of pttB, which show no such assimilation, is heie translated.

Form / S truc ture / Se t ting

Neyrey (Pobmic, 18-19, 22,24\ has identified v 16 as cast in the form on. . . dIId ("not. . bur") which the author uses three times (l:16,21; 3:9)to state and refute the false teachers' arguments. This identification of anapologetic form must be followed with caution, because the ou . , . dIIdstructure is a very common and natural one, which this author in fact useson some occasions in a purely rhetorical way, not in order to reject an objection(2:4-5; 3:9b). This means that the plausibility of an apologeric form mustbe established in each case. In l:16 it provides the most obvious reading of

Form/Structure/Setting 205

the passage, and so we may regard v l6a as the first objection which thefalse teachers bring against the expectation of the Parousia, while vv l6b-18 are the author's first response to this objection.

Neyrey finds interesting parallels to the or). . . ritr).d ("not . . but") formin Philo and Diodorus of Sicily (CBQ42 [980] 507-9), all in passages defend-ing the veracity of scriptures or oracles against the accusation that they arefabricated myths. Again, the form is too obvious and natural to allow us tobase much on these parallels, but it seems clear that in this passage ourauthor and his opponents carry on an argument whose basic pattern wasfamiliar in the ancient world, especially in Hellenistic Judaism. Like manyan apologist for divine revelation, the author of 2 Peter must answer thestock charge that the alleged revelation is only a human invention.

Some examples of the testament genre recount an apocalyptic revelationgiven to the hero, often during a trip to heaven, when revelations of thefuture are granted which provide the basis for the predictions made in thetestament (l Enoch 93; 2 AFoc. Bar. 8l:4; T. Levi 2-5, 8; Adarn and Eve 25-29; 2 Enoch 39:2; Bib. Ant. 28:4; cf. Kolenkow,./S/ 6 tl975l 57-71)' It seemsquite likely that the Transfiguration, which the writer of 2 Peter understandsas eschatological revelation, is intended to supply this conventional featureof the testament.

Relationship to ttu Synaptic Gospek

The account of the Transfiguration in 2 Peter shows notable differences fromthe three accounts in the synoptic Gospels, and the question therefore arises ofits relationship to these accounts. A number of scholars have concluded that it isindependent of the synoptic Gospels, and embodies either personal reminiscencesof Peter or independent oral tradition (see especially Spitta, 493-99; Zahn, Introdac-tion, 217-18; Blinzler, Bqichte, 7l-72; A. J. Maclean, in DAC 2, 6l l-12).The points ofdivergence, and their significance, are:

(l) Nothing should be concluded from 2 Peter's omission of features of thesynoptic accounts (details ofthe ransfiguration ofJesus'appearance, the presenceof Moses and Elljah, Peter's suggestion), since these are easily explained by ourauthor's redactional purpose. He refers to the Transfiguration because he seesin it God's appointment of Jesus as eschatological king and judge, and featuresnot strictly relevant to this point need not be mentioned. In particular, he is notinterested in features of the synoptic accounts which suggest the theophany onSinai and depictJesus as the eschatological prophet like Moses.

Again, it is not significant that 2 Peter does not explicitly limit the experienceto the three apostles Peter, James and John. The author had no special interestin pointing this out-though of course he takes it for granted that Peter himselfwas one of the witnesses-and we cannot tell whether or not his tradition specifieda limited group of apostles.

(2) It would also be hazardous to find indications of independent tradition inthe distinctive terminology of 2 Peter's account Qi6 itceivov pe'ra\earnros, "his maj'esty"; rrrri?u ,con 668oat, "honor and glory"; $t'wi6 ive\$eior6 ainQ rudn\e inb tr6pefq,|\o4ercts &itm, "a voice conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory"), since thisterminology is characteristic of the author's style and may only show that he hasput the tradition into his own words.

(3) A substantial difference is that whereas in all three synoptic accounts the

206 2 Pn'rnn l:16-18

voice is said to come from the cloud, in 2 Peter it is "conveyed from heaven" (dfoitpvoDivel9eloan),v l8). Too much importance cannot be attached to this difference.Since the cloud in the synoptic accounts is a form of divine presence, both expres-sions are ways of saying that the voice came from God. Since the writer of 2Peter has had no occasion to mention the cloud, he may have preferred an expres-sion which was self-explanatory to one which would require him to fill in moredetaif (Blinzler, Berichte, 75). Alternatively, the phrase may be further evidence ofassimilation to the account ofJesus' baptism (cf. Matt 3:17; Mark l:l l; Luke 3:22),which some see in the phrase eis 6y e?cb eit66wpa ("on whom I have set my favor").On the other hand, (a) the idea of a voice from heaven is an apocalyptic common-place (Dan 4:31; I Enoch l3:8;65:4; 2 Apoc. Bar. l3:l; 22:l; Rev l0:4; ll:12;14:13), which in view of the apocalyptic character of the Transfiguration story(see Sabbe, "La r6daction"; H. C. Kee, "The Transfiguration in Mark: Epiphanyor Apocalyptic Vision?" in J. Reumann ed., Undnslanding llw Sacted Texl[M. S. Enslin Festschrift; Valley Forge, PA:Judson Press, lg72] 137-52) would beentirely at home in a traditional version of the Transfiguration, but would be ratherless likely to be added by the aurhor of 2 Peter, who tends to use apocalypticlanguage only when he is following a source (as in chap 3). A similar point couldbe made about his other phrase in relation to the voice: urd r49 pelalwrpero}s6,ifm ("by the Majestic Glory," v l7). The use of rhe word pe1rla\orpetri$, "m4jestic,"is in keeping with our author's predilection for such terms (l:4: tipn ta) yi7wra,"precious and very great"; l:17: peTa).er6rr1rcr,, "mqiesty"), but such a periphrasisfor God belongs to an apocalyptic conrext (cf. I Enoch 14:20; Asc- /sa. 9:37; I l:32;T. Izvi 3:4; cf. 18:6) rather than to 2 Peter's usual Hellenistic terminology. Moreover,(b) there are some indications elsewhere of a tradition of the Transfiguration storywhich spoke of the voice as coming from heaven. Cbm. Hom. 3:53, whose versionof the words of the voice may depend on a tradition related to 2 Peter's (seebelow), says: el oitptttitt (v.1. onpav@l pd,pnn Untfi i,<oilo|rl ("a witnessing voicewas heard from heaven"), while John 12:28, which some scholars think reflectsthe Transfiguration traditions, also speaks of a voice from heaven (fi*fi irc rdwonlloD). (Apoc. Pet. E l7 has "a voice from heaven," but this is dependent on 2Peter.) There is therefiore some probabilily that in speaking of the voice as comingfrom heaven, 2 Peter reflects a tradition independent of the synoptic Gospels,but by itself this evidence is insufficient to prove the point.

(4) The most important evidence for independent tradition consists in 2 Peter'sversion of the words of the voice. The texts for comparison are as follows:

TransfgurationMatt l7:5:Mark 9:7:Luke 9:35:2 Pet l:17:Cbm. Hom.3:53:Apoc. Pet. E 17:

BaptismMatt 3:17:Mark l:l I : Luke 3:22:Cos. Eb. (ap.Epiphanius, Hacr.

30.13.7-8)

dtr& iony 6 udrh par 6 dlarrrrdscinq ioru 6 uiris pou 6 d.tomrrbotnds iorv 6 uios pou 6 drcIe)\e7g€lros

6 uios gou 6 dtamfris you cini.5 emutowos eorav pou o taos o alunfro$This is my Son whom I love

oinq iorut 6 uirh pou 6 dlarqrbon ei 6 u[rh pou 6 dtmrrris

I oit pou ei 6 uirh b d^fanrfrosI o]ros Emu 6 uios pov b dlq.nrfria

TransfgurationMatt l7:5:Mark 9:7:Luke 9:35:2 Pet l:17:Cbm. Hom.3:35:Apoc. Pet. E l7z

BaplisnMau 3:17:Mark l:ll : Luke 3:22:Gos. Eb.

Form/Shrcture/Setti,ng 207

iv Q etsixwq, dxoirre ainoo.d.rcirere ainoD.oinoD dxoirete.

eis 6v dyd etlorcqod.eis 6v ei66rcnoa roinou dtatere.and in whom I have pleasure and my command-ments...(?)

dv 6 €tfdrttoa.A, od elt6d,apa.

I ev oa d)th(noa.I cd 0, ntth<noa.

Cf. also Ps 2:7 IXX: uids mr e{ oi.Isa 42: I LXX: 6 dd\ernh llrlv, rpooe64Eo;ro dnb I lnxi put.

Matt l2:18 (Isa 42:l): 6 dtatnrb pt b (v.L els &) etrdd,rrpev ttutd W.Deut l8:15 IJ(X: arroO dxrineo0e.(The Apoc. Pe!. has been included for completeness, but it is dependent on Mat-thew and 2 Peter and has no independent value.)

The following observations may be made:(a) The omission of tircouere curot ("hear him") in 2 Peter is easily explicable.

The words derive from Deut 18:15 and portrayJesus as the eschatological prophetlike Moses, but this theme is irrelevant to 2 Peter's purpose, which is to portraythe Transfiguration as Jesus' appointment as eschatological king and judge. Thewriter has therefore probably deliberately omitted dakre ctna{t ("hear him") alongwith other irrelevant features of the Transfiguration narrative.

(b) One of the writer's main interests is in the echo of Ps 2:7 in the heavenlyvoice (see Cwment section), and it is possible that the variation in word order,which has the effect of bringing 6 u[fu pou ("my Son") to the fore, is intended toemphasize this. It is also possible that the writer has introduced d?6 ("I") to stressthat it was God who appointed Jesus as eschatological judge. But it is noteworthythat the writer has made no attempt to extend the reference to Ps 2:7 (cf. Luke3:22 D; Justin, DaL 88.8; 103.6), and therefore it seems likely that on the wholehe has reproduced the words of the voice as he found them in tradition.

(c) Second Peter is alone in having 6 &tarottd6 pou ("my Beloved"). The effectof this repetition of the pronoun is that, whereas in the other versions 6 hmqrb("beloved") qualifies uids ("Son") (see especially G. D. Kilpatrick, "The Order ofsome Noun and Adjective Phrases in the New Testament," NoaT 5 [962] l l l-l4), in 2 Peter b dlanrrria;ro ("my Beloved") should constitute a second title(though cf. (ii) below).

To evaluate this point of divergence from the other versions, it is necessaryto consider the fiour different explanations of atanfrb ("beloved") in the voicesat the Baptism and the Transfiguration, which have been proposed:

(i) dlarqrbs ("beloved") is said to derive from the Targum to Ps 2:7: "Beloved(ltln) as a son to his father you are to me." This derivation (supported byR. H. Gundry, Tlu Use of tlw Old Testamnt in St Matthatt\ Gospel [NovTSup l8;Leiden: E. J. Brill, 19671 30, 37) has the advantage of finding the whole phrase 6u{(h pou 6 apnrrtis ("my beloved Son") in a version of Ps 2:7. But in fact theTargum is a clear attempt to play down the divine sonship of the Messiah, reducing

208 2 Pnrsn l:16-18

it to a comparison. It may therefore be a Jewish reaction to Christian doctrine(so Lohse in TDNT 8, 362), and in any case is unlikely to be the source of aformula which stresses Jesus' divine sonship.

(ii) Bretscher UBL 87 tl968l 301-l l) argu6 that the original form of the wordsof the voice was based on a literal rendering of Exod 4:22: 6 utds pou 6 rgtr&rw<bpotr'lopcri)t (dmu) ("my son, my firstborn, Israel (is)"), in which r4nbtucos ("first-born") was paraphrased as dtamrrbg ("beloved") and oinds ("this") substitutedfior 'Iopcri)\ ("Israel"). The result of this theory is that 2 Pet l:17 provides themost original fiorm of the words of the voice, both in retaining the second ,rou("my") and in the word order 6 u[ds por, 6 dlanfrb gou o0rh Emv (cf. Bretscher,306: "I can conceive ofno way to account for this version ofthe heavenly declaration,except by reference to Exod 4:22"1. There are, however, difficulties in this view.It is doubtful whether Bretscher has provided sufficiently strong reasons why 1131("firstborn") should have been translated &tarqr6s ("beloved"), and although thereis evidence in the Gospels for the connection between Jesus' sonship and Israel'ssonship, it does not seem very likely that the words at the Baptism and the Transfigu-ration originally expressed no more than this.

(iii) dfarqnh ("beloved") is equivalent to pwsfats ("only"). In this sense itwas a well-known Greek idiom and was used in the LXX to translate T'Il' (Amos8:10; Jer 6:2; Judg ll:84; Zech 12:10). In particular, the source of 6 u{ds pou 6&tartfrfis ("my beloved Son") has been found in Gen 22:2, 12, 16" where theHebrew lT'n: ;111, "your son, your only one," is rendered in the IXX as rdurlw ow tb awnWfu, "your beloved son" (C. H. Turner, "O TIOE MOT O AnAnH.TO>,",/IS 27 [926] I 13-29; Vermes, Suipturc and Tradition,233). This view wouldbe more convincing if there were more evidence for an Isaac typology in the NT,but it is possible that tnarrnbs ("beloved") is used in this sense to define Jesus'sonship as unique, but without presupposing an Isaac typology (M. D. Hooker,Janu and tlv Scntant [tondon: S.P.C.K., 1959] 7l). If this view is correcr, 2 Perer'sversion 6 d6s rou, 6 dlamfr6s rrou ("my Son, my Beloved") can be seen as a moreliteral equivalent to a Hebrew phrase modeled on Gen 22:2, while the synopticversion is a rather more idiomatic rendering following the IXX.

(ivl dtaarrtd,6 ("beloved") is a ranslation of ''l'nl, "my chosen," in Isa 42:l(IXX: 6 dr)\errds par). This view is held both by those who think that the wordsof the voice at the Baptism are entirely based on Isa 42:1, with uirisrraras a substitutefor rais gou Qeremias in TDNT 5.701-2; O. Cullmann, Baptism in tlv New Testammt,tr.J. K. S. Reid [SBT l; London: SCM Press, 1950] l7; R. H. Fuller, Tlv Futtdatiotutol Nar Talammt Chtistology [London: Collins, 1969] 170), and by some of thosewho hold that they are a conflation of Ps 2:7 and Isa 42:l (D. Hill, Tlu Gospel ofMaltlmt [NCB; l,ondon: Oliphants, 1972] 98). The disadvantage of this view isthat it depends rather heavily on Matt 12:18 fior evidence that 6 <irycnrrds is alikely translation of *ltnf, whereas the version of Isa 42:l in Matt 12:18 maywell have been deliberately adapted to conform to the baptismal voice (Gundry,Tlu Uu of tlv OA Ta,tuman4 I l2). The text does, however, provide evidence thatit was possible for an early Christian wrirer to see in 6 awqrb an allusion toIsa 42:1. Such an allusion has the advantage of explaining the variations in theversions of the voice at this poinc 6 dxtre)\e7pero5, "the chosen one" (Luke g:35,where, it should be noted, an allusion to Isa 42: I is not suggested by the followingph-rase as it is in the Baptism accounts) and 6 dr)\errdg, "the chosen one" (fohnl:34 o.L; seeJeremias in TDNI 5,702) are more literal renderings of 11tI1 ("mychosen") in Isa 42:l (cf. tXX:6ir)terrdsprou), while 64anrt6s gar (2 Pet l:17)in retaining the pronoun is closer to Il'nl than is the synoptic 6&"fanFb,andagrees with the rendering of Isa 42:l in Matt 12:18 (6 aWtnfds gou). In rhar case

Fomt/Stnttture/Settittg 209

the various versions of the voice are not all derived from Mark's two versionsand adapted fior redactional reasons only, but represent variant translations ofthe Semitic original, current in different churches. The underlying !1rI1 is moreobvious in 2 Pet l:17 than in the synoptic versions (other than Luke 9:3b), inthat 6 ritcrqnh pan is clearly a distinct title alongside 6 ufos Fou, '.rny Son," andthe pronoun is retained.

It will be seen that if any of views (ii)-(iv) is accepted, 2 peter's phrase 6agrqrhpou-has agood claim to be closer to the Semitic basis than the synoptic versions,1nd m,u1t be regarded as at least as original as they are. It seems tikily that, whateverthe original source of dTcnrpog in the voices at the Baptism and the fransfiguration,two interpretations of it were current in the early church. In one interpritation itwas taken closely with 6 u[rh rrou as "my beloved Son," or "my only Son": this isclear at least from Luke 20:12 (cf. Mark 12:6; Herm. Siar" 5:2:6; pirhaps cf. alsocol l: 13; lJ_ohn_4:9). In the other inrerprerarion, ir was a distinct tid;, "mi Beroved"(Matt 12:18; 2 Pet l:17; some take 6 dyamTtts in Matt 3:l?i l?:5 inthis sense). with this should probably be connected the evidence for 6 ito,narcvrr',"the Beloved," as a Christological title in the early church (Eph l:6; nai. l:6;4:3, 8; Ign. Smyrn inscr.; lcls Pad A Thecla l; cf. Ofus Sot 3:-8; and b dtarw6sused_throughggt ls9-r /sa., cf. J. A. Robinson, sr Pazlt Epistte to ttw Eplwsians, 2nded. [London: Macmillan, 1904] 229-33). If 2 Peter's phraie b dtatry6s pw belongsto this second interpretation, that is itself sufficient evidence to regard it as base-don a tradition independent of the synoptic accounts of the Transfilguration.

(d) Only Matt l7:5;2 Pet l:17; Apoi. pet. E lZ; and Clzn HonlS:53 have theclause "with whom I am well pleased'i in the words of the voice at the Transfigura-tion. It has often been held that Matthew has here assimilated the voice aI theTransfiguratio-n to the voiceatthe Baprism. Similarly Matt 3:17 has (if this readingis accepted) rind'edorv ("this is") in-the voice at the Baptism, instead of Marktard Luke's ouei.("you are"), thus assimilating the voice it the Baptism to that atthe Transfiguration, and Matthew's introductions to both voices (3:l?; l?:5) aresimilar. Thus it could be argued that 2 Perer must at rhis point be dependent onthe Matthean redaction of the Transfiguration narrative. Against this, however, itshould be noticed: (i) The words "with whom I am well pleasid" are widely thoughtto derive from Isa 42:1. If 6dlanpb (par) ("(my) beloved") was regarded as-anallusion to Isa 42:l (see above), an extension of the allusion to include ihe fiollowingphrase in Isa 42:l could easily have occurred independently in different traditioniand writers. It should also be noticed that Luke 9:35 alludes io Isa 42:l in a differentwa1, b1 usin-g d drc)tele7p6ro9 ("the chosen one"). Thus a relationship of the voiceat.theTransfigurarion to Isa 42: I is not confined to the Matthean redaction (Gundry,The Use of thc Old Testantcnt,37). (ii) Matt l7:5 (like Matt 3:l?; Mark l:ll; Lulie3:22) uses the normal construcrion, elu with the dative of personal object, aftere06oraay ("t-o b9 well pleased"), but 2 Pet l:17 agrees with Ctm. nom. g:53 inusing eis with the accusative. This very rare construltion seems to be known (witha personal object) only in these rwo texts and in one reading in Matt 12:18, thoughit is used once elsewhere with an impersonal object e. jos. l?:3; see T:DN7^1,739). It is not therefore likely that its uie in 2 pet l-:l? is a iariation due to nothingmore than a slip of memory. Whether 6r, or eis 6y should be read in Matt 12:16is difficult to decide, but probably we should prefer the latter, since the simpleaccusative after eDdolcelv ("1o be well pleased") il more common, though not usualwith a personal object, and it is unliklly that eis 6y results from textuaftssimilationto 2 Pet l:17. In that case it is possible that the whole phrase 6 aWnryb pan eisfu_ebtiivwat i.tlnryi pw ("my Beloved with whom my soul-is well pleased") in Matt12:18 depends on a tradirion of the words of the'voice differerit from that used

2r0 2 PETER l:16-18

in Matt 3:17; l7:5, but related to the tradition in 2 Peter. The agreement between2 Pet l:17 and Cbm. IIom.3:5t is at this point striking, and combined with thefact that both have the voice dl ottptcD ("from heaven"), must point to commontradition. The intention of the constmction eis 6u may be to give the sense ofGod's good pleasure lighting uponJesus in election. Perhaps with the same intentionthe Gos. ED. uses the construction d0' 6v which is also unusual.

We may conclude that the evidence is strongly in favor of the view that in hisaccount of the Transfiguration the author of 2 Peter was not dependent on thesynoptic Gospels but on independent tradition, which could perhaps be his ownknowledge of Peter's preaching, or else the oral traditions current in the Romanchurch.

A more speculative possibility is that the saying Matt 16:28 (par. Mar 9:l par.Luke 9:27) may also have been connected with the Transfiguration in the non-synoptic tradition known to 2 Peter, if it is to this saying that the phrase riP toDwfiov itttilv'bpol Xocorol iinapv ta) fiqqwiqr) ("the coming of our Lord JesusChrist in power," l:16) alludes. This possibility should be considered in connectionwith the possibility that the remarks of the scoffers (3:4) have in view that saying'sapparent prediction of the Parousia within the first Christian generation.

A Resunection Appearance?The realization that 2 Pet I : 16-18 is not dependent on the synoptic Transfigura'

tion narratives has led some scholars to consider the possibility that its setting isnot, like the Transfiguration in the Synoptics, within the earthly ministry ofJesusbut after the Resurrection. Some have argued that it refers to an event quite distinctfrom the Transfiguration recorded in the synoptic Gospels, namely an aPPearanc€of the risen Christ to Peter (K. G. Goetz, Petnr ak Gdindn und Obohaupt dn Kirclu[UNT l3; Lripzig:J. C. Hinrichs, 1927] 89-90; O. Cullmann, Petn: Dkcipl*Apostl*'Martyr, tr. F. V. Filson [London: SCM Press, 1953] 6l; Baltensweiler, Vnhhrung,2G28), while others regard it as evidence that the Transfiguration itself was origi-nally a resurrection appearance story, which the synoptic Gospels have movedback into the earrhly life ofjesus (R. Bultmann, Tlw Hktory of tlu Synoptic Tradilion,tr. J. Marsh, 2nd ed. lOxford: Basil Blackwell, 19681 259 n. 2; Schmithals, ZTK69 [972] 39S-97; cf. J. M. Robinson, "On the Gattung of Mark (and John)," inJesus and nan's hope, vol. t llittsburgh: Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, 19701

I l7).It is not really probable that 2 Pet l:16-18 refers to a diFerent event from

the Transfiguration in the Synoptics. Once it is realized that 2 Peter's omissionof features of the synoptic accounts does not necessarily indicate that they werenot in the radition behind 2 Peter (see above), then the differences between 2Peter and the Synoptics are not sufficient to require two events. The heavenlyvoice, the mountain, and the visible majesty are enough to identify the event as

the same as the Transfiguration in the Synoptics. The brevity and allusiveness ofthe account in 2 Peter presuppose a story well-known to the readers; it is easierto identify this story as the Transfiguration known to us from the Gospels, thanto postulate a story otherwise unknown to us. Moreover, 2 Pet l:16-18 cannotrefer to the appearance of the risen Christ to Peter (Luke 24:34; I Cor l5:5),because although it does not indicate how many apostles were present, it is clearthat Peter was not alone. The first person plural in these verses is not an epistolaryplural, but a deliberate change from the singular of w 12-15 (Stein,./8l 95 [1976]93).

The general theory that the Transfiguration is a misplaced resurrection apPe?r'ance nairative has been refuted by Boobyer (Sl Mark, ll-16) and especially by

F orm / S tntt tur e / S e t ting 2llStein QIEL 95 [976] 79-95; cf. also J. E. Alsup, Th.e Post-Resunection AppearanceSlorits of the Gospel Tradilion [CThM 5; Stuttgart: Calwer,/London: S.P.C.K., 1975]l4l44l. If that theory is not credible, then the possibility that 2 Pet l:lG-18refers to a resurrection appearance is accordingly diminished. It is true that manyof the features of the synoptic Transfiguration narratives which do not suit a resur-rection appearance (Stein, JBL 95 [976] 90-94) are missing from the account in2 Peter, partly because it is only a fragmentary reference whose larger context isnot given. No doubt if we did not know the Transfiguration narratives of the Gospelswe should assume that 2 Peter referred to a resurrection appearance. But sincewe do know the synoptic Transfiguration as an event located in Jesus' earthlyministry even according to the pre-Markan tradition, the burden of proof mustbe with those who think that the account in 2 Peter belongs after Easter. Thereare certainly no features of it which require a post-Easter setting. The ag{ t<ai ti6la("honor and glory," v l7), which Bultmann (History,259 n. 2, following Hofmann)holds must refer to the resurrection or exaltation ofJesus, are entirely appropriateto the Transfiguration as portrayed in the Synoptics (Blinzler, Bnichte, 30-31;Boobyer, St Marh, 4445; Stein,.,/8l 95 [1976] 88; and see Commsnt section). Appealto the fact that being a witness of the resurrection was the basic qualification forapostleship (Robinson, "On the Gattung," ll7) reflects a misunderstanding of 2Peter, which is not attempting to establish Peter's apostolic authority by referenceto this event (see Commmt section).

It has often been thought surprising that to find a basis in the history ofJesusfor the expectation of the Parousia, the author of 2 Peter goes to the Transfigurationrather than to the resurrection. In fact, however, the Gospel traditions as we knowthem appear to connect the Parousia with the Transfiguration (Mark 9: I par.; andcf. Boobyer's argument, St Marh,48-87, to the effect that Mark saw the Transfigura-tion as an anticipation of the Parousia much as 2 Peter does), but fail to connectit explicitly with the resurrection (though cf. Acts l:l l). If, as we suggested above,the connection of the Transfiguration with the saying in Mark 9:l par. was alsomade in the tradition the writer of 2 Peter knew, then this, together with theinterpretation of Ps 2 which we shall argue lies behind 2 Pet l:17-18 (see Commmtsection), may sufficiently explain why the writer chose to refer to the Transfigura-tion.

Finally, the Apoc. Pe!. cannot be used as evidence for reference to a resurrectionappearance in 2 Pet l:lGl8. The Apoc. Pel. does place-the Transfiguration-storyin a post-resurrection setting, or (perhaps more accurately) it uses the Transfigura-tion traditions to compose an account of a revelation of paradise to the disciplesby the risen Lord and an Ascension story. But since this account is based notonly on 2 Peter but also on the Gospel of Matthew, it cannot be argued that theauthor of the Apoc. Pet. understood 2 Pet l:lLl8 as a resurrection appearance.On the contrary, he apparently identified it as the same event as the Transfigurationin Matthew, but then felt at liberty to reuse material from both these sources inthe postresurrection setting which was normal for second-century apocryphal works,just as in chap I of his Apoc. he had transferred material from Matt 24 into apostresurrection setting.

Tlu charactn of tlw Trarufiguration in 2 Petn compared with othr versionsSabbe ("1,a r€daction") and H. C. Kee ("The Transfiguration in Mark: Epiphany

or Apocafyptic Vision?" in J. Reumann ed., Understanding llw Saoed Tdx, [M. S.Enslin Festschrift; Valley Forge, PA:Judson Press, 19721 137-52) have shown thatthe Transfiguration in the synoptic Gospels is not to be understood, in Hellenisticstyle, as an epiphany in which Jesus' divine essence is disclosed. Rather it is in

2t2 2 PETER l:16-18

form and content an apocalyptic revelation in which God installsJesus as his eschato-logical vicegerent. "The transfiguration scene is not a theophany ,4 nor an epiphanyof Jesus, but a proleptic vision of the exaltation of Jesus as kingly Son of Mangranted to the disciples as eschatological witnesses" (Kee, 149). This understandingof the Transfiguration is preserved in 2 Peter (see Commcnt section). In fact it isclearer in 2 Peter than in the synoptic accounts that the Transfiguration itself isnot a disclosure ofJesus' hidden divine being, but a bestowal of glory on him byGod (v l7), while it is significant that both in the Synoptics and in 2 Peter theclimax of the narrative is the heavenly voice, though exegetes of 2 Peter havefrequently neglected this.

Thus, although the author of 2 Peter is prone to borrowing Hellenistic religiousvocabulary, when he wishes to combat the false teachers' denial of future eschatologyhe uses material from the apocalyptic eschatological traditions of primitive Chris-tianity. This is as true of his Transfiguration account as it is of the material inchaps 2 and 3. The significance of 2 Peter's understanding of the Transfigurationfor the date and character of the work will be better appreciated if it is comparedwith second-century versions of the Transfiguration.

The Apoc. Pet. (E l5-17) is still basically within the apocalyptic eschatologicaltradition, but the Transfiguration material is largely diverted to a new function:the revelation of the glory of the redeemed in paradise. Thus it appears that thetext does not refer to the glorification ofJesus himself, but transfers the Transfigura-tion language to Moses and Elijah, as representatives of the inhabitants of paradise.Even the phrase "honor and glory," from 2 Pet l:17, is applied, not to Jesus,but to the destiny of Christians (E l6).

Like the Apoc. of Pet., the account of the Transfiguration in the lcls Pet. (Act.Vcrc. 2O) is dependent on Matthew and 2 Peter, but it makes very different useof the material. The Transfiguration is understood as Christ's revelation of hismajesty to the disciples. The emphasis is on the unbearable glory of Christ's truedivine being revealed to Peter. Peter falls to the ground (cf. Matt 17:6) not inresponse to the heavenly voice, but overpowered by Christ's radiant apPearanceand by Christ's own voice. There is no referenqe to the cloud or to the heavenlyvoice or to God the Father at all.

Acts Thom. 143 refers to the Transfiguration in a rather similar way, thoughvery briefly: "his appearance we saw transfigured with our eyes, but his heavenlyfiorm we could not see upon the mount" (NT Apoc. 2, 518). Presumably this meansthat they could not bear the sight of his divine glory.

More gnostic accounts appear in Gos. Phil. 26 and Acts John 90, both in contextswhich describe the diversity of different forms whichJesus assumed on earth. "Someindeed saw him, while they thought they were seeing themselves, but when heappeared to his disciples in glory on the mount he was not small. He becamegreat, but he made the disciples great, that they might be able to see him in hisgreatness" (Gos. Phil. 26, or 106:3-10, tr. R. McL. Wilson, Tlw Gospel of Philip[London: Mowbray, 1962] 9l).

The Gospel fragment from the Strasbourg Coptic papyrus, if it is rightly under-stood as alluding to the Transfiguration, conforms to the general trend of second'century interpretation. Christ promises to reveal his glory to the apostles, togetherwith their power as apostles. "Our eyes penetrated all places, we beheld the gloryof his godhead and all the glory of [his] dominion. He clothed [us with] the power[ofour] apostle[ship]" (NT Apoc. l, 230).

Comparison with these plainly Hellenistic versions of theTransfiguration demon-strates how far removed the account in 2 Peter is from them and how mistakenis the view (of, e.g., Kdsemann, "Apologia," 186) that for 2 Peter the Transfigurationis an epiphany ofJesus' hidden divinity.

Cornmmt 213

Comment

16. oeo@ophtug ptfors dforclavflqowteg, "following cleverly concoctedmyths." Neyrey's identification of the oD . . . tilUttt ("not . . . but") form inwhich the author of 2 Peter refutes objections (see Form/Strttcture/Seltizqg sec-qion) implies that this phrase conrains

-he opponenrs' charge that the ap6stles

fiollowed Tylhs (so also Kelly, Green). Thil-is a much more straightforwardreading of the verse than the alternative view that the phrase cdntains theauthor's charge that his opponenrs followed myths (Schelkle, Grundmann,Schrage):- that requires too involved a train of thought. Thus there is noquestion here of gnostic myths or of comparing the usage of the Pastorals,where the opponents"'myths" are rejecre-a (t fim ll.4;4:7; Titus l:14; cf.lgn.^Magn. 8:l). There is no need to ask what kind of myths the text refersto, for it refers to no myths except the apostolic preaching, which the falseteachers slandered by calling it "myths."

-

. Wh1, did they mean by this charge? The connorations of the term ,rD0os

fl th9 hrs!-century A.D. were almosr as various as those of the modern English"*y!h." The old Greek myths, the stories about the gods, could be see-n asstories which were not lite_rally true but expressed religious, moral or philo-sophical truth-in pictorial form. They could be subjected to allegorical jnter-pretation, as by the stoics. The Hellenistic age was in many respects onewhich showed a "growing preference for pD0os [myth] over iriryod [rationalargument] as a -means of expressing truth. This preference is characteristicof gnosticism: the saving gnbsis is 6ften casr in rhe form of a myrh" (C. K.Plll"^,!,-"![It!.1nd the New Testament: The Greek Word ptfos,,, ExpTim68 [ 1956-57] 345). on the orher hand, rhere was a strong tradition of critiiismand-repudiation of myths, as morally unedifying, or aichildish, nonsensicalor fabulous. Here ,rD0os can come, like "myth-" in much modern Englishusage' to mean a story which is nol tttu, a fable or fairy story (again in thed_erogatory senses). strabo and Diodorus of sicily oppose niytilto historylS.picq, Luicographb, 580); Plutarch contrasts a myth and a true atcount @WA\irycat: Cam. 22.3; further examples in Spicq, Lacicographie, bsGsl; H. ti. Betzed., Plutarch's Ethical writings and Early Christian Litnatwe tscHNT 4; Leiden:E. J. Brill, 19781 456); and pD0os is associated with r\dsW ("invention")and related terms in opposition to ri)\ri0erc ("trurh") (TDNT 4, jZO, Z84-8band n. 139). we should also note the special conrempr of the Epicureanschool for myths of all kinds, including myihs of providence and posr-morrempunishments for the wicked (TDNT d, Zig and n. 102; Neyrey,'pol.nrir, l}b,194-95; and cf.Justin, 2 Apol.9\.

^ Surprisingly, it is characteristic of Philo to distinguish the biblical historyflom myqh, as 1ruth from fiction (Spicq, Lexicographie, 581; TDNT 4,7gd;Neyrey,- CBQ42 tl980l 507). His c6ncern is not-only to reject the paganmyths.,.but-to repudiate- the suggestion, no doubt made by HellenizedJEwsas well as by pagals, thar the-biblical stories were mythitd. Neyrey riotesseveral occasions where Philo uses the same o0 . . . d)\l,ti (.,not . .'. but")form as we find in 2 Peter, to oppose the suggestion that a narrative or aprophec-y in scripture is a "myrh" (cBe42 tlog0l 507-g). The form itselfis too obvious for the parallel to be remarkable, but it is interesting to find

214 2 PETER l:16-18

Philo opposing the same kind of charge as the writer of 2 Peter faces, sincethe two writers to some extent share a similar relationship to a Hellenisticenvironment.

It has become clear that the charge of "myths" can be leveled not onlyat stories, but also at accounts of the next world (as with the Epicureans)and at prophecies (as with Philo's defense of prophecies in Genesis: Mut152; Sorn. 1.L72). The very general sense in which the charge could be leveledat Christianity is evident from 2 Clsltt. l3:3: "the Gentiles, when they hearfrom our mouth the oracles (Iofra) of God [the Scriptures], marvel at themfor their beauty and greatness; then, when they discover that our works arenot worthy of the words which we speak, they turn to blasphemy, sayingthat it is a myth and a delusion (pu0dz rwa xni n\ottr1v)." There is thereforeno difficulty in supposing that it was the Christian eschatological teachingabout the Parousia which the false teachers rejected as "myths."

oeoa@opans, "cleverly concocted," corresponds to the common descrip-tion of myths as urlaoroi ("invented, fabricated," cf 2:3: n)tcoroZs )\d7ols, "fabri-cated arguments"; see TDNI 7 , 785 n. 139; and for many examples of Philo'sassociation of p00os with zr)\dooeiv and il. rlo1tc, see Neyrey, CBQ 42 [980]507), but is more expressive in incorporating the idea of "cleverness" in abad sense (for this bad sense of oogtleoilat, cf. Barn. 9:4; Pap. Oxy. 840,line l). The eschatological teaching of the apostles is held to be, not prophecyinspired by God, but the fabrication of merely human cleverness, doubtlesswith some unworthy motive. The Epicureans held that the Greek stories ofpunishment in the afterlife were invented as instruments of moral control,to keep men in fear, and the false teachers combated in 2 Peter may havesaid something similar about the Christian belief in future judgment.

The phrase pu0ozsdfcro)totfripattes ("following myths") is used byJosephusin contrasting Moses, who did not invent fictional stories, with other legisla-tors, who followed fables (Ant. 1.22, cf. lF-16). The verb, only used in 2Peter in the NT, recurs in 2:2, 15, where it is turned against the false teachers.

dyvupioalrcv tlf,v, "we made known to you." The verb is frequently usedin the NT for imparting revelation. Here it is used of the apostles' preachingof the gospel, which included the expectation of the Parousia. The first personplural now refers to the apostles in general (as in v l). In view of 3:l ("yourapostles"), it is unlikely that Peter himself was one of the missionaries whofounded the churches addressed. Rather, the writer is thinking of the apostlesin general, some of whom founded the churches to which he is writing, andofwhom Peterwas aprominent representative. This interpretation may appearawkward since in the rest of this verse and in w 17-18 "we" becomes theapostles who witnessed the Transfiguration, i.e. Peter,James andJohn, noneof whom is likely to have founded the churches to which 2 Peter is addressed,but really this variation is quite natural. Though to some extent all the apostleswere eyewitnesses, they were not all eyewitnesses of every important eventin the ministry of Jesus, and so their common message was in part basedon the eyewitness testimony of only some of their number. The writer's realconcern is to claim that the common apostolic teaching about the Parousiawas based on eyewitness testimony, and this concern overrides the grammati-cal technicality that "we" is used of two mutually exclusive groups of apostles

Commmt 215

(those who preached to the gospel to the churches addressed in the letrer,and those who witnessed the Transfiguration). Once again we should noticethat the writer presupposes that all the apostles preached the same message.

rip ro0 wptov rytti:v'Ir1oot Xpwrol dinqut rcai tapowtat, "the coming ofour Lord Jesus Christ in power." As usually with 2 Peter's pairs of words,fibvapw ta) rapwlw (lit. "power and coming") should be taken closely to-gether, even as a hendiadys: "coming in power" (so Reicke; Fornberg, EadyChurch, 79). napwic, "coming," is the usual term for Christ's eschatologicalcoming in glory, in a variety of early Christian traditions (Matt 24:3, 27,37, 39: I Cor 15:23; I Thess 3:13; 4:15; Jas 5:7-8; I John 2:28), thoughnot, it should be noted, in I Peter, which always uses cinoraitruy'ls ("revelation":I Pet l:7, 13; 4:13). It is in this usual sense that 2 Peter uses zcponoic in3:4, 12.It is true that Ignatius (Phld. 9:2) and the Kq. Pet. (ap. Clem. Alex.Slrorn. 6. I 5. I 28) use it of Christ's first coming, in incarnation and resurrection,but otherwise this usage is not attested untilJustin (who uses rapowia seven-teen times of Christ's first coming, nineteen times of his future coming).These facts of usage suggest thatrapowic here refers to Christ's future comingin glory, and this is confirmed by the whole argument of the letter, whichimplies that it is the eschatological teaching of the apostles which needs tobe defended against the charge of falsity and invention. Although a few schol-ars argue for a reference to the first coming (Spicq; Marfn, EE 50 [975]225-26), the vast majority see a reference to the Parousia in the usual sense(Kelly, 317-18, and Fornberg, Early Church,79-80, refute Spicq's arguments).

fiivapts ("power") is, like 6rifa ("glory"), associated with the Parousia (Matt24:30; Mark 9:l; 13:26; Luke 2l:27; cf. 2 Clmt. L7:5: rcparos, "power"). Al-though in l:3 our author has spoken of Christ's divine power at work inhis incarnate life and resurrection, the close association of 6bva1w here withtapowiat ("coming") requires us to restrict its reference to the future Parousia(against Zahn, Introdu.ction, 215). It is possible that the whole phrase is areminiscence of Matt 16:28 par Mark 9:l (see Form/Structure/Selting sectionabove). The phrase is used byJosephus (Ant. 9:55;18.284), but in the Hellenis-tic sense of an epiphany of divine power, not with eschatological significance.However much our author's account of the Transfiguration might resemblesuch Hellenistic conceptions of divine epiphany, his understanding of it iscompletely unhellenistic in that he sees it as a prophetic anticipation of theeschatological future.

itrtnroL "eyewitnesses." The word is a NT hopar. It means "observer,spectator" (Aeschylus, Pron. 29&99), and then also "overseer" (fosephus,C. Apion.2.187, of priests). In the latter sense it is used of God (LXX Esth5:l; 2 Macc 3:39; 7:35;3 Macc 2:21; Ep. Aritt. 16; I Cbn. 59:3; cf. 2 Macc9:5). The term was also used technically for the higher grade of initiates inthe Eleusinian mysteries (TDNI 5, 374; Fornberg, Early Church, 123), evidentlyas those who had seen the vision of the divine mysteries. Most commentatorsthink that this technical usage is echoed in 2 Peter. In view of the writer'spropensity for using Hellenistic religious vocabulary, this is quite possible,and it would be quite appropriate: the apostles at the Transfiguration wit-nessed the revelation of Christ's divine majesty. But it should be noted thatthe term did have a quite ordinary use, and that the corresponding verb

216 2 PETER l:16-18

drorreixw, "to observe," is used in this ordinary sense in I Pet 2:12; 3:2.We cannot be sure that 2 Peter follows the mystical sense. It is in any caseimprobable that further overtones of a higher esoteric gnosis, accessible onlyto the select view, are intended (against lCdsemann, "Apologia," 186; Klinger,SWQ l7 F9731 16l; Green).

lt is sometimes said that an emphasis on eyewitness testimony is characteris-tic of the later NT documents (Nineham,,/fs I I [960] 25444; Fornberg,Early Church.ll). What the evidence adduced really proves is that a stresson the apostolic eyewitnesses occurs when there is a need for apologeticdefense of the Christian message in some way by reference to its historicalbasis. This accounts for the early example of this emphasis in I Cor l5:3-8, as well as for the anti-docetic apologetic involved in the adducing of eyewit-ness testimony in the Fourth Gospel (19:35) and lJohn (l:l-3; 4:14), perhapsfor Luke's emphasis on the apostles as eyewitnesses in Acts, as the story ofthe Christian mission, and obviously for later works such as the Gos. PeL

Q:2f27; 14:59-60) which have a clear apologetic concern. Second Peterfits this pattern not simply as a relatively late document, but as a work con-cerned to defend one aspect of Christian teaching against objections. Todo so the author adduces apostolic eyewitness testimony to the Transfigura-tion, which provides a historical basis for the expectation of the Parousia.

Many comments on this passage and its stress on the eyewitnesses arebeside the point because they suppose that its purpose is to base the apostles'authority on their presence at the Transfiguration (so, e.g., Klein, De zwiilfAposlel, 102-3; Kisemann, "Apologia," 185-87). The defense of apostolicauthority is not at all the author's intention. He wishes only to show thatone aspect of the apostles' teaching, namely the expectation of the Parousia,is soundly based on what the apostles witnessed, namely the Transfiguration.This means that it is also beside the point to connect the emphasis on eyewit-ness testimony with the pseudepigraphal nature of the letter. The author isnot trying to bolster his own authority by claiming, falsely, to be an eyewitnessof the Transfiguration. He is simply adducing Peter's testimony as evidencethat the event took place as he narrates it, and puts it in the first personform because of the literary convention he is following. In another sort ofliterary work he could have reporred Peter's testimony in the third person,to the same effect.

Of course, it may seem that if the historicity of the Transfiguration is atstake, this second- or thirdhand report of Peter's testimony does not havethe value it would have if it were really first-hand testimony from Peter'sown pen. This must be granted. But it is unlikely that the writer expectedhis readers to question the historicity of the Transfiguration. They wouldno doubt already know, in oral or written form, a tradition of the Transfigura-tion account and would accept it with the rest of the Gospel traditions asresting on the eyewitness testimony of the apostles. Whar the author of 2Peter does is to point out to them that this tradition forms a basis for theexpectation of the Parousia. His argument is that one reason why the apostleswere so confident in their teaching about the Parousia is that (as the readersknow and accept) they witnessed the Transfiguration. Since the readers acceptthis eyewitness testimony to the Transfiguration as reliable, they can also

Comment 217

lely on the teaching which the apostles based on it: rhe prophecy of theParousia. Thus the emphasis on eyewitness testimony in this passige is neitheran attempt to convince otherwise skeptical readers that the Transfigurationhappened, nor a spurious attempt to give authority to the work. It is anattempt to draw the readers'attention to the fact that this undisputed evidenceis relevant to the matter that is disputed: the Parousia.

rfig ittsivw pelalcinqros, "his majesty." This term, though not used exclu-sively o-f God (LXXJer 40:9; Dan 7:27; I Esdrl:4; 4:40), wis mosr commonlyys,e!-o!divine grandeur and majesty (Josephus, Ant. 1.24;8.lll; C. Apion.2.168; Luke 9:43; Acts lg:27 [of Artemisl., I Clem. 24:5; Ign. Rorz. inscr.[of God and Christ]; Diogn. l0:5; cf. rb pe7a\inv, I Ctem. a9:3), somerimes

i". !1. first century of the divine majesty of the Emperor (Spicq, Lexicographie,544). Here, as the next verse makes clear, it refers to the divine majestywhich Jesus received from God.

17. l\a$dJ,r lap ns.pi,ileo| rarrrr. npiy rcai 6otau, "for he received honor andgjory from God the Father." Probably God is called Father here becausethe sentence g99l on to stress Jesus' sonship in the words of the heavenlyvoice. lqny xoi 6ofcu ("honor and glory") are a narural pair (Ps 8:6 LXX,qu-o1ed Heb 2:7, 9; I Pet l:7; and ofren in doxologies). Some commenrarorsthink the reference is to the glorification of JesuJ' appearance (Bigg, Win-disch), some think it refers ro rhe dignity conferred on jesus by the heavenlyvoice (Grundmann; Chase, DB(H) 3, p. 808; H.-P. Miiller, "Die VerkltirungJ-esu: Eine motivgeschichtliche Srudie," ZNW 5l [1960] 57), and many rhinl.thTt nryl ("honor") refers to rhe absrracr dignity given by the voice, while&ifc _("glory") refers to the visible transfiguiation lMayor, Wand, Chaine,schelkle, Green, Kelly). But 2 Peter's pairs-of words are nor divisible in thisway; so it seems we must choose between the abstract honor and the visibleglorification. The connection with the following words cannot determine thesense: both participles are dependent on a mainverb which, by anacolouthon,is ne^ver expressed. [n favor of a reference to the visible transfiguration isthe fact that irurra. ("eyewitnesses," v 16) requires some mention of whatthe apostles saw. The meaning of the double

-expression may be that God

conferred honor on Jesus by glorifying his appeirance. This-sense of 6o[apermits the inference that at the Transfigurati,on Jesus received from Godthe glory in which he will be seen by all-at the Parousia. E6la is always inthe synoptic Gospels (except ar Luke 2:9; 9:32) used of the parousia (Matt16:27; lg:28; 24:30;25:31; Mark 8:38; l0:37; l3:26; Luke 9:26; 2l:27;24:2G),and it is often so used elsewhere (Phil 3:21; Col 3:4;2 Thess l:g; Titus2:13; I Pet 4:13; 5:l;2 Clen. l7:5).It is not used in the synoptic accounrsof the-Transfiguration excepr at Luke g:32, but it is an enrirely appropriateterm for the transfiguration they describe, and there is no reaion io followBultmann's view that rqn\v rcd 6o!cz ("honor and glory") here can only referto the resurrection or exaltation ofJesus (The Hiiory of the synoptic Tradition,tr. J. Marsh, 2nd ed. [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1968] 259 n. 2)._ It is important to notice that Jesus receives honor and glory fron God.Jesus is here no Hellenistic ilein wip ("divine man"). The Transfigurarionis-n-o epiphany ofJesus' hidden divine nature. Rather, 2 peter's coiceptionof the Transfiguration still belongs ro rhe primarily functional and apocaiyptic

218 2 PETER l:16-18

Christology of primitive ChHstianity.JCSus is invested with the d市 ine glory

because he is appointed to the cask of carrying out God's eschatologicaljudg‐

ment and reign.The phrasc 7ιμ

"κ

αt 86ξαν(“hOnOr and glory")could derive from Ps 8:6LXX (where the two terms occur in reverse order)。 If SO,the interpretatiOn

is difFerent fronl that in Hcb 2:9,where the honor and glory are given to

FI鐵 1鮨 警 苺 熟 懸 単 ]聯 掛 織 鱗

機i:1籠lsl:l::″ボiぶ離れ驚磁E肌甘f:ぶt蹴暮鷲[£[ぷ『】iliぷ刷

't店:ipゝ劇需譜ふ勝駆滞:e鍵∴糀蓄:温i驚1

評τ:;蹴l」勝thtt13誌;'脚糖巫 、絆L温鳥f満°f肥

;ま躍 蜃 二1癬 麟b7.sκ鰤 暉 mぉ珈 S“avd∝ COnvりed

=冊2,槻課T転月:鳳厘liξlm駆覇総計譜:F胤

the idea that(3od hirnself speaks directly.Although this exact fo.ニ ュl ofexpres‐

潔記:腱躍l磯出認Tttr蕊織:ぷ:置1)艦跳樹製瞥:

鷺塩ll龍 鍵隷 :ゝ電:L肝腱ご%鮮む,吉:ぎ端.電e鵠齢l認絆脇ば嚇裁鳥:身tf:ボ

`瞥∬lり殿7単;認雀着《ll路ま2最

with Coππttι),and“ the Mttcsty"(μ εγαλωttνη:Hcb l:3;8:1)。

「

γαλOπpcπお

螂誌I:撒顎職鴫∫1嘉蠣雌:まIl(9:1; 19:2; 60:1;61:1; 64:1),whiCh Shares with 2 Petcr a predilcction for

聯鶯憾撤締鞣鸞巖liturgies and may already havc bccn liturgical at the tilne of 2 Peter and I

群稲瀧甜 LttittL謝漁fl:簾∴犠鯰1罪:嚇:糀l

Conmcnt 219

(the m_ost -clearly deliberate omission) the words "hear hirn" (Deut l8:lb)from the divine declaratio-n. He is presenting Jesus as eschatological divinevicegerent, not as eschatological prbphet.

-It may be noted that although buiauthor reproduces the traditional formof the words of the voice in *trictr they are addressed not to Jesus but tothe_ disciple. (::.IhI ir-.. . _."'), he says that the voice was convJyed by Godlo Jesw (ct)rrir "to him"). If we are correct in supposing that he underitandsthe voice to be the divine decree of ps 2:? (sii ueto-w), ir is relevanr thatthe Lord's words there are addressed to the Messiah (LXX: fifu pe, "to me").This. point also indicates that the writer of 2 peter sees the Transfigurationnot just as the rnelation of Jesus' kingship to the disciples, but als6 as hisactual appointmenq by Go{ to be the -schltological kin}.. 6 uios fou,^"py Son." Although not all scholirs agreE that this phrase in

the words of the voice_atJesus; baptism and transft-guration was briginallyseen as an allusion to Ps 2:7 (see Form/structure/seulng section above), it iiclear that it was interpreted as such from quite an eirly stage (Luke 3:22Pi9^rl.-4D.; Justin,_Dial. 88.8; 103.6; cf. H-eb l:5; 5:5;'Breticher, JBL 87il9681 302). That the writer of 2 Peter saw here an allusion to ps {:?, andin this the principal key to the significance of the Transfiguration, is suggestedby the phrase "the holy mountiin" in v 18 (see below)l

Psalm 2, which was already interpreted in a messianic sense in Judaism(4QFlor l:18-2:l; Pss. soL lT:,23-24; rabbinic references in E. Ltivesiam, sonand Sauiour: Altyd! of Acts |t, t247 lConNT 18; Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup/copenhagen: E. Munksgaard, lg6ll 17-21) describes the enthronementbfGod's anointed king on Mount Zion, in the context of the rebellion of thehostile nations against divine rule. The Messiah is appointed by God anddeclared his son (v 7) with immediate reference to hii subjugaiion of thenations and universal-dominion (w 8-g). This theme of theio-yal Messiah'sconque-st of the rebellious nations was prominent whenever ps 2 was givena messianic reference in Jewish inrerpretation (Ltivestam, lb-23). ThJre isevidence that this was also rhe case in early Christian application oithe psalmtoJesus;Jesus, as God's Son, had been designated thd bne who will exlrciseeschatological judgment and implement God-'s universal dominion at his par-

9]t? il glory. The book of Revelation combines reference toJesus'sonship(Ps 2.7) and to Jesus' judgment of and rule over rhe nations ips 2:g) in thisway (2:2il28; l2:5; l9: l5; cf. other allusions to rhe psalm in I l:lb-I8). Noteespecially-how Rev 2:27-28 implies that as the son of GodJesus has alreadyreceived from the Father the authority to rule the nations-wt icn he was toexercise at the Parousia. L. c. Allen ("The old restament Background of(np'lbpilew in the New Tesramenr," NTS 17 tlgzuzll lOb) also aigues thatthe references in Acts 10:42; 17:31 toJesus; appointmenr (6pifeiy)-by Godto be the eschatological judge are allus--ions to ihe divine "decieei' (pn) ofPs 2:7.

. Probably the most common early christian application of ps 2:z was tothe-Resurrection (Acts l3:33; Rom l:4; cf. Heb l:bi b:b; Z:2g), but a connecrionwith the Transfiguration could easily be made, because the Transfigurationstory was already, in the pre-synoptic tradition, understood as an apdcalypticvision in which Jesus' enrhronemenr as rhe royal Messiah was prit.pti.itty

22O 2 Pnrsn l:lGl8revealed to the disciples. In accordance with this general view of theTransfigu-ration, the tradition on which 2 Peter evidently depends interpreted the heav-enly voice on the mountain of the Transfiguration as the divine decree ofPs 2:7, in which God appointed Jesus the one who was to judge and rulethe nations. At the same time he investedJesus with his kingly glory, a partici-pation in the divine majesty given to the one who is to exercise the divinerule. The Transfiguration is the basis for the Parousia expectation becauseit is God's appointment of Jesus to a r6le which he has not yet exercisedbut will exercise at his coming in glory. This view of the significance of theTransfiguration in 2 Peter also accounts for the great emphasis which theseverses place on the divine voice, to the exclusion of othcr aspects of theTransfiguration.

Although no doubt Ps 2:7 originally meant that the king's enthronementwas his adoption to divine sonship, it is unlikely that the author of 2 Peterunderstood the heavenly voice in that way. Most probably he interpreted itto mean ahat because fesus was already God's Son, he has appointed him tobe his vicegerent.

6 dtarrfrfis pou, "my Beloved." Depending on the OT background to thewords of the voice at this point (see Form/Stntrture/Setting section above),there are two possible interpretations. The phrase may be a literal versionof the Hebrew 'T'Il', "my only one" (cf. Gen. 22:2, 12, 16), in which caseit is closely connected with the preceding phrase and indicates the uniquenessofJesus'divine sonship. Alternatively it may represent r'ltlll, "my chosen,"in Isa 42:1, in which case it should be connected with the following phraseand God's election ofJesus to messianic office. The special love of God theFather for his Son involves a special calling in God's purpose. The samethought is no doubt behind the use of 6 d:fannt6aos and 6 &Tanrog as aChristological title, "the Beloved" (Eph l:6; Barn. 3:6; 4:3, 8; Ign. Stnyrn.inscr.; Acts Paul A Tfucla l; Odes SoL S:8; Asc. Isa. l:4,5, 7,13;3:13; etc.).

eis 6v etcl,r ettixrpa, "on whom I have set my favor." The phrase derivesfrom lsa 42:1, and carries the special sense of God's ehcting good pleasure(see Schrenk in TDNT 2, 73941; and I Enoch 37:4; 39:9). The very rareconstruction eiS 6u (see Form/Stntcture/Sclting section) probably carries thesense of God's favor selecting Jesus by coming to rest on him, while theaorist indicates an act of election. Presumably the election is considered ashaving already occurred, in God's eternity; it is now declared at the momentofJesus' rifficial appointment to the task for which God has elected him.

The author of 2 Peter may have added the emphatic dTcb ("I") to theform of the words which he knew in the tradition. It stresses that Jesus isthe one whom God himself has selected to be his vicegerent. Thus the expecta-tion of the Parousia is not a humanly contrived myth (v 16), but is firmlygrounded in God's declared will as the apostles themselves heard it spoken.

Probably the author of 2 Peter sees no further significance in the allusionto Isa 42:l as such, since the role of the Servant in that passage was notconnected with the Parousia in Christian traditional exegesis. But referenceto eschatological judgment could have been found in the context (Isa 4l:25;42:4).

18. dt o$N)d, "from heaven." A voice from heaven is a standard feature

Explanation 221

of apo_caly_ptic visions (Dan 4:31; I Enoch l3:8; 6b:4; 2 Apoc. Bar. l3:l;22:l;Rev l0:4, 8; I l:12; 14:l_3) and, although the phrase is not used in the synopticaccounts of the Transfiguration, it is entirely appropriate to the piimiiivechristian understanding of the Transfiguration iJ anapocalyptic rivelationand may well have belonged to rhe tradition 2 peter heie folidws gee Form/S lruc ture / Se lli4g section).

_eurQaTie6p€c, "on the holy mountain." As a designation fior the mountain9! ttt. Transfiguration the phrase occurs in Apoc.-pet. E lb and Act. vnc.20, but these passages are dependent on 2 Peier. of course, there was noveneration of a supposed site of the Transfiguration as a holy place untilmuch later, and so 2 Peter's expression cannot;[ude to a well-known locality.some.(Bigg,Jq*..r, Green) think that the phrase is used simply because thetheophany made the place holy. Many see it as a mark of a late date (chaine,schelkle, spicq; Fornberg, Early chtnch, 146). Those who look in 2 peterfor signs. of the Transfigurariofs connection with the sinai theophany finda^symbolic reference to sinai (sabbe, "La r6daction," ?b). Howevei, althoughof course the or implies the holiness of Sinai when God is present the"re

Ql-"d 3:5; l9), Sinai is never called "rhe holy mounrain,'in the bt lalthoughPhilo calls it Oeios, "divine," in Leg. AIl. 8.142:' Mos. l.llb, and kWrn-os,"most sacred," in Mos. 2.79; spec. Itg. 3.125). The phrase "holy mountain"(rfsually, but not always,- "my

-holy mbuntain") always in the o'i designatesZion. The best explanation of the phrase here is as-a deliberate echdof ps2:6 LXX: "I have been appointed king by him on Zion his holy mountain"(iri lto,v W 19 alw oinoo). of couise, there is no intention of locatingthe Transfiguration historically on Mounr Zion; the point is to identi$ thEevent-with-the prophecy in Ps 2 to explain its theological significance.'Theapostles, claims 2 Perer, were there with Jesus when God lppointed himhis king, and they themselves heard the divlne decree.

Explanation

^{his section begins the author's defense of the eschatological teaching

of the apostles against the attacks of the false teachers, which continueithrough much-of the rest of the letter. The first charge to which he repliesis^that when the apostles preached the expectation of the future parousiaofJesus ch-ns1 as judge and king, their message was not based on authenticdivine revelation but was a mere human invdntion, a "myth" in the senseof a tale which is not true. The opponents may have argrred that the apostlesdeliberately invenred rhe notion-of eschatololical judgmenr ar the pirousiaas a means of moral control through fear.

To answer this charge the author first appeals to the apostles', especiallyPeter's,.o-wn- eyewitness testimony to the tiansfiguration ofJesus-an eventwith which his readers-would already be familiar thiough the G-ospel traditions.In line. with the primitive christian apocalyptic unde-rsranding bf the Trans-figuration, our author sees-it as God'slppointment ofJesus as [is eschatologi-cal vicegerent. In particular, he sees ii as the fulfillment of the messian-icprophecy in Ps 2, where, on rhe basis of the divine decree (v z) which wasechoed by the heavenly voice ar the Transfigurarion, the son of God (v z)

222 2 Pnrnn l:16-18

is enthroned as God's anointed king (v 6), on God's "holy mountain" (v6), with the task of subduing the rebellious world to divine rule (w &9).On the mountain of the Transfiguration Jesus was appointed to this taskwhich he will exercise in the future when he comes in glory as the eschatologi-cal judge and ruler. The author is therefore pointing out to his readers thatthe Transfiguration, to which the apostles bore witness, is a basis for theexpectation of the Parousia.

Thus the author tells how, at the Transfiguration, Jesus received fromGod the Father a share in the divine majesty, because he was appointed toa divine task, and how the apostles saw him clothed in this visible glory inwhich he will be seen by all at the Parousia. They also heard, in a voicefrom heaven, the divine declaration that God's Son had been selected byGod to be his Messiah. The emphasis of the account is that God himself haselected Jesus to be his vicegerent, appointed him to the office and investedhim with glory for the task. If the apostles' witness to this is trustworthy,then their message about the Parousia is not a human invention, but is basedon this divine action and declaration.

Reply to Objection 1: (b'1 The Value of OldTestament Prophrq

Bibliography

Boehmer,J. "Tag und Morgenstern? Zull Per i 19." ZNW 22 (1923) 228-33. Neyrey,J. H. "The Apologetic Use of theTransfiguration in 2 Peter l:lG-21." CBQ42 (1980)504-19. Sibinga, J. S. "Une citation du Cantique dans la Secunda Petri." RB 78(1966) 107-18. Spicq, C. l-aicographiz, 953-54.

Translation

te Moreover, we place aery rtnn reliance on tlu prophelic uord, to which you woulddn well lo allmd, as )ou would, to a lamp shining in a murhy place, until tlw daydawns and tlw morning star rises in your luarts,

Form/ S truc ture / Se t ting

This verse contains a second reply to the objection stated in v l6a.

Comment

19. l<ai EXopa, pefotnepov ftv rpoWtxbv \uyov, "moreover, we place veryfirm reliance on the prophetic word." Commentators have usually given pe-

futinepw its proper tomparative force, "more certain, more reliable," buthave then been divided as to its significance. Some think that prophecy issaid to be a more solid argument for the Parousia than the Transfigurationis (Plumptre, Bigg, Green). But this would be a rather surprising argumentin the context, since it appears to relativize the value of the apostolic eyewit-ness testimony which has been so stressed in w lGl8. It is true that therabbis held prophetic Scripture to be more reliable than a ba! qil (Green),but the Transfiguration was more than a voice from heaven. It was the visibleinvestiture ofJesus with his kingly glory, the beginning of the fulfillment ofscriptural prophecy. In view of this, the majority opinion of scholars takesthis verse to be saying that the Transfiguration has confirmed OT prophecy.As an anticipatory fulfillment of prophecy the Transfiguration makes the stillawaited future fulfillment at the Parousia vet more certain. Hence the transla-tion: "we have the prophetic word made more su,re" (nsv). However, this isnot a very natural meaning of the Greek. The expression ileu n ftpanv(Thucydides 1.32; Appian, Bell. Cia. 5.3) normally means "to have a firmhold on something"; the phrase does not use pegaros in the legal sense of"confirmed." In this phrase the comparative Ae\ainepou is used either as atrue comparative (Isocrates, Ad, Dmt. 36) or, as often in the Koine, with superla-tive (elative) meaning ("very firm": Stobaeus, Ecl. 4.25.3L). It is best to adoptthe latter sense here (Reicke; Neyrey, CBQ42 [980] 515). No comparisonneed be intended.

９ＪＪ′日、

224 2 Psrsn l:19

The phrase rbv rp@ryttcbv lvlov ("the prophetic word'l) has been held torefer to (l) OT messianic prophecy (Bigg, Mayor, Moffatt, Wand, Chaine;Kisemann, "Apologia," 187); (2) the whole OT understood as messianicprophecy (Schelkle, Spicq, Kelly, Grundmann); (3) one specific OT prophecy(Fornberg, Early Church,82-83); (4) OT and NT prophecies (Plumptre, Side-bottom); (5) 2 Pet l:20-2:19 (Robson, Studies, 4448); (6) the Transfigurationitself as a prophecy of the Parousia (Neyrey, CBQ42 [980] 514-16).

All other known occurrences of the phrase refer to OT Scripture, except2 Cbm. ll:2, which refers to an apocryphon which the writer presumablyregarded as part of OT Scripture (cf. I Clm. 23:3). Although Fornberg arguesthat it is always used of specific scriptural passsages, this judgment is notaccurate. It seems in fact to be interchangeable with the teim "Scripture"and, like that term, can refer to specific passages (Philo, I*g. All. 3.43; SoD.

68; Acts Paul lO [PH, p. 8];Justin, DiaI. 56.6;77.2;110.3; also the pluralrpgytxu)td.yor inJustin, Dial. 39.4; I Apol. 541, or to several specific passages(Philo, Plant. ll7-19), or to the OT generally, with particular passages norspecified Qustin, Dial. 128.4). Justin, DaI. 129.1, makes it especially clearthat the term is virtually synonymous with "Scripture." This equivalence cameabout because in the currentJewish understanding all inspired Scripture wasprophecy.

Thus the use of the term favors view (2), though of course the author isthinking of the OT prophecies which early Christian exegesis normally appliedto the Parousia. He may have one or more specific passages in mind (e.g.Ps 2:9; Dan 7:13-14; Num 24:17), but since he does not make this clear itis more likely that he is speaking generally. In view of 2 Pet 3:16, wherePaul's writings are called Wa$ai ("Scriptures"), it is perhaps not impossiblethat NT writings are included, but against this we should consider: (l) EvenJustin does not use the term rpofutrds )\otos ("prophetic word") of NT Scrip-ture. (2) Our writer is not likely to be representing Petn as saying that heand his fellow-apostles based their preaching of the Parousia on apostolicwritings. The best sense of the whole passage l:lLlg is that the apostlesbased their eschatological message on (a) their own eyewitness testimony(w 16-18), and (b) OT prophecies (v l9). (3) 2:la, referring to false prophetsin the OT period, presupposes that the preceding verses are about the OTScriptures.

Against Neyrey's view (6) that the Transfiguration itself is the rpofuwbIo'you ("prophetic word"), the normal usage of the term is decisive. Moreover,he is obliged to interpret w 20-l2l also as a defense of the Transfigura-tion as prophecy (CBQ42 t1980] 5lGl9), but this is a most unnatural inter-pretation of a passage which explicitly discusses inspired writings Qrpogyreialpa0ns). Finally, on his view, we should expect v 19 to begin with somemore explicit connection with the preceding passage, such as "thus" or "there-fore," rather than simply rcai ("and")

It is commonly thought that the first person plural Eyo1rcv (lit. "we have")now (in contrast to the preceding verses) includes all Christians. But this isunnecessary. The author is still arguing that when the apostles preachedthe Parousia, they were not following myths. On the contrary, they had reliable

Comrrcnt 225

authorities fior their message: the Transfiguration, which they witnessed, andthe OT, which is inspired by God.

-_r@I6s fiuei[re,"you would do well," is often equivalent to "please" (Acts10:3-3; Phil 4:14; 3 John 6), but probably has a slightly stronger fiorce here,as elsewhere in paraenesis (Acts-15:29;Jas 2:8).

d:S\itXvt<t $siyum, At atnqgp rofiq, "ai ro a lamp shining in a murky place."The comparison of the Word of God to a lamp was comiron (ps l[g (ttg):105;Wis .18:4;2Apoc.Bar. 17:4;59:2;77:16;Bib.Ant.9:8; l5:6; l9:5;Theophi-lus, ld Autol. 2:13\. It was sometimes extended to those who teach Cia'sWord (fohn 5:35; 2 Apoc. Bar. 77:13, 15; cf. Sir 48:l), and so in 4 Ezra12:42Fzra is-compared to "a lamp in a dark place." Since the purpose oflamps is to shine in darkness (cf. alioJob 2g:3; 2 Apoc. Bar. 5g:2), ihij coinci-dence with 2 Peter is unremarkable.

-

aiDa1,l,fr, a rare word, is used by Aristotle (De Color. 3) as the oppositeo.f larrqf ("bright") an{ synonymous with d} oiwrin ("wirhout light;'i. It isalso used in Apoc. Pet. A 21, describing hell.

No doubt the world or, more probably, the human mind, is pictured asdark when_it is ignorant of God's-prophitic message and therefore withouthope^(so- Grundmann). Into this darlness the prophetic scripture casts aray-of light by awakening hope.

€c,5 ofripepa&Ny6fin, "until the day dawns." Sibinga (RB 7g t1966l l0Z-l8) finds evidence that origen knew a Greek version (not LXX) of cant2:17 which read: €ors ofr ewydnn i iphpa ("until the day dawns"). In thatcase it is possible that 2 Perer here alludes to that or'text (which in theHebrew should refer to the evening, not dawn). TheJewish allegorical inter-pretation of the song, which found the history and future hope of God'speople portrayed- in it, may well go back to the first century A.D.

.-lr-"ty case, the day here is a symbol for the eschatological age whichwill dawn at the Parousia. The absence of the article is not-very si-gnificantin- 2 P-eter (se-e Mayo1, xxx-xxxv) and cannor itself disprove a iefeience to"the day of the Lord" (cf. 3:10). But such a referenc-e is unlikely, exceptperhaps

-as a secondary allusion, since it is clear that "day" is mentionedhere as-the time of light, in conrrast to the preceding darkneis. It is thereforeprob^allV a symbol for the eschatological age as a-whole (cf. Rom 13:12;2Pet 3:18: ipipa, ai6vq, "rhe day of eternity"), which is daylight in conrrastto the darkness of the present time (so Boehmer, zNW 22'trgzgl 2z&izg).Prophecy's function o-f illuminating the darkness of ignorance will be super-seded when the full light of eschatological revelation floods the hearti ofGod's people.

rcd $whitpos htaretltTl, "and the morning star rises." Some have arguedthat because this clause follows the mention of daybreak,|c,:o|ore 1lit. "h"ght-bearer") cannot refer to the morning star, which rises before dawn, but riustrefer to the sun (for this sense of 6,.ro&pos, cf. F.J. Diilger, Antike und christm-luzr 5 [Miinster: Aschendortr, lg36] l0-l l). Bui as isubstantive *^rQriposnormally.refers to the morning_star, venus (TDNT g, 312; spicq, bxirographie,954), which a-ccompanied the first glimmerings of dawn and could thireibrebe thought of as introducing daylight inro the world.

226 2 Pernn l:19

As almost all commentators agree, there is here an allusion to Num 24l.17:"a star shall rise out ofJacob" ([XX: &yare]\eid;orpv Cfloxu$), which wasalready interpreted messianically inJudaism (7. Ini l8:3; T. Jud. 24:l; lQVl,I l:6-7;4QTestim.9-13; CD 7:18-20; y. Tacan.68d). It is interesting to noticethat in T. lni 18:34; T. Jud.24:1, the two images of the star and the sunrise(with reference to Mal 4:2) are closely associated. Probably this associationsuggested the interpretation of the star as the moming star, which is found,applied toJesus, in Rev 22:16 (6dornp6\apnposbrpc'jDbs, "the bright morningstar"; cf. 2:28). (Other suggested allusions to Num 24:17 in the NT are Lukel:78; Matt 4:16; but they are not at all certain, cf. Isa 6l:l-2; Mal4:2.) Thusthe writer of 2 Peter no doubt follows Christian exegetical tradition, thoughit is in line with his predilection for Hellenistic religious vocabulary that hechooses a term (0or,06po9) which was used of Greek divinities and kings (Spicq,Ini,eographie, 953).

Thus the rising of the morning star is a symbol for the Parousia of Christwhich inaugurates the eschatological age.

b rcd's rcapliots ttp(a\ "in your hearts." Many have found this phrase surpris-ing in a reference to the Parousia. Therefore some have denied that thes ection Ec'x oit i pe p, &qn ao n tai g,n 4$ re o ar eilq ev r ds rc.a Not s it ttGw (" un tilthe day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts") refers to the Parousiaat all, and have interpreted it instead as referring to an experience of enlighten-ment in this life (Plumptre, Mayor, James, Spicq, Grundmann; Delling inTDNT2,953; Klisemann, "Apologia," 189). Others accept the eschatologicalreference, but find in this phrase evidence that the primitive Christian hopeis being individualized or "spiritualized" (Schelkle, Kelly, Schrage; cf. Green).

Neither of these views is justified. The phrase ev rois rnp&ots itgin ("inyour hearts") no longer appears surprising, once it is realized that only onespecific aspect of the Parousia is being discussed, namely the Parousia asthe full revelation of God to Christian believers (Fornberg, Early Church, 85'1.The only point being made is that prophecy, as a partial revelation pointingforward to the full eschatological revelation, will become superfluous whenthe full revelation arrives. Naturally it will be "in their hearts" that Christianbelievers will receive and perceive this revelation. In a similar argument(l Cor 13:8-12) Paul uses equally subjective and individual terms with refer-ence to the age to come. Neither in Paul's case nor in 2 Peter's does thislanguage exclude or replace the expectation of the Parousia as an objectiveand cosmic event (cf. 2 Pet 3:7-13).

One further point about this reference to the Parousia should be noticed.Like most NT writers, the author of 2 Peter writes as if his readers will surviveuntil the Parousia (cf. also 3:14). Thus his recognition of the delay of theParousia (3:8-9) does not, as has often been thought, imply an indefinitepostponement, and a loss of the "imminent expectation."

Exphnation

To the charge that the apostles preached cleverly invented myths, theauthor replies, secondly, that their eschatological teaching was solidly basedon OT prophecy. He takes the opportunity briefly to indicate the value of

Explanation 227

such prophecy for his Christian readers. The lamp of prophecy lights upthe darkness of this present world's hopeless ignorance with a bright beamof hope. Butjust as a lamp is used during the night but becomes superfluouswhen dawn comes, so prophecy's role is to give partial illumination to thosewhom it enables to hope for the full eschatological revelation of God. WhenChristians experience that full revelation at the Parousia ofJesus Christ, itwill be like the daylight which dispels all the darkness of the night, andJesusChrist himself will be like the morning star whose rising signals the dawn.

Reply to Objection 2: The Inspiration of OTProphecy (l:20-21)

Bibliography

Boys-Smith, E. P. "'Interpretation' or 'Revealment'." ExpTin 8 (1896-97) 331-82.Curran, J. T. "The Teaching of 2 Peter i. 20." fS 4 (1943) 347-08. Durand, A."Le Sens de II" Petri, I,20." RSR 2 (l9ll) 187-89. Louw,J. "Wat wordt in IIPetrus l:20 gesteld." NedThT f 9 (196445) 202-l2.lMolland, E. "La th0se'La proph6-tie n'estjamais venue de la volont6 de I'homme' (2 Pierre I, 2l) et les Pseudo-Cl6riren-tines." Opuculn Patristica. BTN 2. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1970. (:SI g tlg55l67-85.) Neyrey,J. H. "The Apologetic Use of the Transfiguration in 2 peter l:16-?!:' CBQ42 (1980) 504-19. Spence, R. M. "Private lnterpretation;' ErpTim 8 (189il97) 285-86. Thomson, P. "'Interpretation' or 'Revealme nt."' ExpTim 8 (l8gGg?)331.

Translation

n Aboue all, you must und,qstand that no proplwq of Saipture dnives from tlwQrophet\ oun interpretation, 2r because propheq ntatr canv by tlu infuki of man,but mm impelled by tlu HoIy Spirit spoke from God.r

Nores

.The reading dfi&.ofu in p?r B P al is probably preferable to 6,1tn 0eo0 in N A and mostMSS, and &ritieco.d7rrr in C. ilTra is a convCntional epithet for the prophets (cf,3:2) and couldeasily have resulted from misreading.

Form / S truc ture / S e tting

To support his appeal to OT prophecy in v lg, the author musr nowrgspond to a second objection, against the inspiration of OT prophecy. Thisobjection is closely related to thai stated in v l6a, but is set out is a distinctthesis to be rejected in v 20 and perhaps also in v 2la. Neyrey finds theapologetic o0 . . . ri)\trd ("not . . bur") form in v 2l (CBQ42 [1980] 518),as in v 16, but it is necessary to be caurious about this. It is v 20 whichclearly rejects an asserrion bj the opponenrs, and v 2l is rhe ground forthis rejection. The ou . . . ri),)\d form of v 2l is paralleled in some of thesimilar statements about inspiration quoted below in the Commmt section(Philo, Mos. 1.281; Hippolytus, Antichr. 2; Justin, I ApoL 36) and it is notpossible to be sure that all of these are polemical. However, it seems quitelikely that v 2la may be the denial of a statement the false teachers made.

Both verses use the standard terminology of discussions of prophetic inspi-ration in HellenisticJudaism and early Christianity (i&cs, "own";imbtoeitpaiog&7iov @ppevu, "impelled by the Holy Spirit"i dnb 0e@, "from God"). It isnot impossible that 2 Peter is dependent on Philo (as Abbott, Exp 2/3 tl882l

Commmt 229

54-56, argued), but the common theological language of HellenisticJudaismis sufficient to explain the resemblances.

The introductory phrase rotno rpclrov 1wdsorcwres ("above all understand-ing this") recurs in 3:3. ('fhe fact that in 3:3 the participle is ungrammaticalshows how formalized the phrase is, and that in l:20 it need not be takenclosely with rryixwres in v 19.) It is not necessarily a citation formula (as

Robson, Sndips, 33-35, argues), but a way of marking out the statement itintroduces for special attention (cf. similar phrases in Luke 12:39; Gal 3:7;2 Tim 3:l; Heb l3:3).

C,omment

2O. ndoa r poQrveia l po.Qfrs i6ias dzrdt0oe ox ot "f iver ot " no prophecy of Scrip-ture derives from the prophet's own interpretation." If we leave aside somevery improbable suggestions, two main interpretations of this clause are possi-ble: (l) "no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation"(most commentators and translations); (2) "no prophecy of Scripture derivesfrom the prophet's own interpretation" (Calvin, Plumptre, Lumby, Green;NIv). The clause refers either (l) to the interpretation of prophecy in thepresent, or (2) to the origin of prophecy. To decide between these alternativesiequires careful discussi,on both of the terminology and of the context andpolemical intention of the statement.

Tmninologyi6ias. In view of v 21, it is now generally agreed that i0ias here means

"(someone's) own" as opposed to "the Spirit's" (see especially Curran, TS4 [943] 362), not "private" as opposed to "general" (Mayor) or "authorita-tive." The question is whether it means "one's own" or "the prophet's own,"i.e. whether the drd\0ors ("interpretation") is that of the contemporary exegeteor that of the original author of the prophecy (other possibilities are rightlyruled out by Curran, fS 4 [943] 358-59). A reference to the prophet'sown interpretation (supported by Oecumenius, PG 119:592; Theophylact,PG 125:1264; Bede, PL 93:73) is grammatically awkward, since the prophethas not been mentioned, and therefore most modern commentators and trans-lations prefer "one's own."

However, it is relevant to notice that i&os is used in a series of Hellenistic

Jewish and early Christian statements which deny the human ongin of proph-ecy, and seems to have been virtually a technical term in such assertions:

Philo, Quis Hr. 259: "For a prophet utters (dr@0dyed1 nothing that is fris

oun (i&nv otr6du), but everything he utters belongs to another (d).).rhpo), since an-other is prompting him (uz?xouvros iripov);' (Abbott, Elcp 2/3 [882] 54-55, thinks2 Peter is actually dependent on this passage.)

Philo, Mos. 1.281: "I [Balaam] say nothing that is rny own (oitiiv i&ou), but onlywhat is prompted by the divine (0rnxrion rb9eiov)."

Philo, Mos. 1.286: "Nothing which he [Balaam] said was hu own (oD&z i&ou)'but being possessed and inspired he expressed the things of another (&epglveintilr. &tpov)." (For this sense of &eppnuebev in Philo, see A. C. Thistleton, "The"Interpretation" of Tongues: a new Suggestion in the Light of Greek Usage inPhilo andJosephus,"JfrS 30 [979] 15-36.)

2gO 2 Psrsn l:20-21

Philo, Spar. Leg. 4.49: "A prophet declares nothing at all that is iir oarn (o0&u't&ov dro@iveratrbnafttrot), but is a spokesman (dnnvets) of another who suggestS(r)zop<i)U\ouros &irrru) everything he utters."

Philo, Quaesl. Gm. 3.lO:- "The prophet seems to say something, but he doesnot give his own oracle but is the interpreter [i.e. iplnlvein, "spokesman"] of another,who puts things into his mind" (Loeb tr. from the Armenian).

Hippolytus, Anlichr. 2: "For they [the prophets] did not speak from tlvir ownpower (dt i&as 6uu<i/e<rs i@e1|owo) . . . nor did they proclaim what they wished,but first they were endowed with true wisdom through the Word, and then theywere correctly taught about the future through visions."

Pseudo-Justin, Cohortatio 8: The prophets "taught us nothing from tlwir ounimagination Qnftv dnb 116 i6ios ainbv @profiias) . . . [but] they received fromGod the knowledge which they also taught us. . . For neither by nature nor byhuman thought (iwwq.) is it possible for men to know such great and divine things."

Methodius, Convivium 8.10: The Ebionites hold that "the prophets spoke fromtheir own inspiration (e€ i&as xliloeats))'

Cf. alsoJer 23:16 LXX: The false prophets "speak from their oun heart (d.nb

rcap&ias aindv) and not from the mouth of the Lord."Ezek l3:3 IXX: The false prophets "prophesy from their oun lteart (ultblcapDias

ainhv)."Josephus, Anl. 4.121:. Balaam says, "For once he [God] has entered, nothing

within us is any longer our oun (rnrcrepw)."Philo, Spac. kg. 1.65: The prophet "will say nothing that is his oam (d,cis,

o06eu)."

Besides these texts which use i6cos in discussions of the oigin of prophecy,there is also one text which uses it with reference to the interprelation ofprophecy: Cltm. Hon. 2:22: Simon "interprets allegorically the things of thelaw by his own preconception (i6iq npldpltel."

This evidence cannot determine the meaning of i{iias in 2 Pet l:20, exceptto make it qqite certain that the implied opposite of i6ios is ti)Otrhpos ("anoth-er's"), i.e. God's or the Spirit's. If, as many think, the sense of w 20-21 isthat because prophetic Scripture was not of human origin (v 2l) it is not amatter of human interpretation (v 20), then the author could have adoptedi&os from the standard language about the origin of prophecy and appliedit to the interpretation of prophecy. On the other hand, if v 20 refers tothe origin of prophecy and therefore to the prophet\ interpretation, the gram-matical awkwardness of taking i6ias to mean "the prophet's own" is verymuch alleviated by the semitechnical nature of i&os in this context.

drd\uoe<^n- In the interests of referring v 20 to the origin, rather than tothe exegesis, of prophecy, several scholars have tried to find a meaning otherthan "interpretation" fior dzritruors: "revealment" (Spence, ExpTim 8 [896-971 285-86), "setting forth" (Boys-Smith, ExpTim 8 [89il97] 331-32),"prompting" (8. R. Andry, JBL 70 [951] xvii), "inspiration" or "ecstasy"(Louw, NedThT l9 [964-65] 202-12). But these translations have no supportfrom the known usage of eritrr,rors and enrLueul. In the relevant metaphoricalusage of these words (well summarized by Curran, fS 4 [943] 351-52)they refer to the "explanation" or "interpretation" of puzzling or mysteriousstatements, omens, dreams, visions, myths, parables.

This evidence of usage is often thought to support interpretation (l). In

Commail 2gl

fact, although it permits that interpretation, it gives it no strong support,since there seems to be no instance of drttuors or d-rrul,r.rep used of thE intbip.e-tation of scripture (though-cf. clem. Alex. paed.2.l.l4).Interpretatio" (z)rec€rves stronggr support from the usage of the word. In Aquila's versiondzrO\uols and ilrtllrtv are used ofJoseph;s interpretations of the baker's andthe butler's dreams (Gen 40:8;4[8, D), whichire explicitly said to be God-gjven interpretations (Gen 40:8). Probably the Greek version of 4 Ezra 10:43(Latin absolutiol used ezil,uors of the interpretation of the seer's vision, givenhim by the angel. Hermas (who probably belongs to the same milieu"as 2Peter) constantly uses dziluors and-iril,ueizto refeito the interpretation, givenhiT by j!.. ":hjph9rd," of his "parables," which are in most'cases symiolicvisions-(Sim. 5:3:l-2; 5:4:2-l;5:5ll; b:6:8; b:?:l; g:l l:l; g:10:5; g:l l:g; g:13:g;l9:16:7). Hermas' prophe_cies are thus the God-given interpr.t"iiotrr ldnrl.uoersiof his visions. This conforms to a widely acicepted viiw of the nature ohproqh.egl,.lccording to .which the prophet is given a sign (e.g. Amos 7:l;Jer-l:ll, !3), a dream (e.g. Zech i:8;-Dan 7:Z-) or a viiion'(e-g. Dan g:l),and then its interpretation-. _In true prophecy this interpr.t"tioi is not theprophet's own explanation of his vision, but aninspired, God-given interpreta-tion. Thus it is possible thar 2 pet l:20 counrerj a view wtriin held thit theqrophets may h-ave received visions, but that their prophecies, found in theor: a9 only their own int-erpretation of the visi6ns, mere human guess-work. This was one way of denying the divine origin of scriptural proihecy.. This.explanation of.v 20 receiv6s support fronia strikin! p"g"r, pirallel,in. which a prophetess's unfavorable intlrpreration of an dnieri is iejectedwith the complaint, "You gave the sign your own interpretation" (oi'oeanrter€Atocs rit orlpelw: Pseudo-callisthenes, HLstorin Ala. Magni 2.1.5, quotedin BAG-s.u.

-izritruors). This parallel is especialry notewortfry in view bf theprobability that the main motivation of t6e false teaching wirich 2 peter op-poses was rationalistic skepticism derived from the pagan Hellenistic environ-ment.

liverat could, of course, mean simply "is," but the meaning "arises, comesabout, derives (from)" is common. fhe interpretation of thJverb really de-pends on-the sense of the genitive Crul,0oe<,rs. Interpretation (l) sees this asa possessive genitive or genitive- of pertinence (cf. Heb l2:ll), giving themeaning "belongs_ to, comes under the scope o{, is the object of 5ne's"owninterpretarion" (Mayor, spfc-q; curran, rs 4 tlg4gl 353-54). Interpretation(2) takes drd\tioec.rs as a genitive of origin. This would normally, aftei 1beo\at,r,eguire the preposition drc (Rom l:3; Gal4:4; I Tim 6:4), and this is perhapsthe weakest point in the case for interpretation (2), bur the meaning ..arislsflom".with the slTple genitive cannoi be said to-be impossible. dn eitherview, the force of the genitive is somewhat unusual.Conlexl and Pobmical Intention

^.If the terminol.ogy is not entirely decisive, the rerationship of v 20 to v?1,.T4 the possible-polemical thrust of the two verses, must help us todecide between the alternative interpretations of v 20. Most .orrr*entatorsagree that t[e9e two verses must be-in some way aimed against the writer'sopponents. The following explanations of the polemical intention of v 20are offered:

282 2 PerEn l:20-21

(i) The usual view, fiollowing interpretation (l), is that this verse representsthe author's charge against his opponents: they interpret prophecy in anarbitrary fashion, giving it their own interpretation, rather than the interpreta-tion accepted in orthodox circles, which is assumed to be the Spirit's interpre-tation. This view has strong support from 3:16, according to which theopponents twist the Scriptures, but encounters the following difficulties: (a)It is difficult to combine it (as, e.9., Molland, Ofitsarla, 6L:77, does) withthe view that v 2la represents the opponents' position, that OT prophecyis of human origin. If they thought it was of human origin, they are unlikelyto have troubled to interpret it. However, it is not necessary to read v 2laas containing the opponents'view. (b) The section l:lGl9, with which w2G-21 appear to be closely connected, is, as we have seen, defensive ratherthan offensive, concerned with rebutting charges rather than with makingthem. It is likely that w 2G2l continue this defense, and that attack beginsonly in 2:1, where the false teachers are explicitly mentioned for the firsttime. (c) If v 20 is the author's rejection of the opponents' interpretationof Scripture, v 2l must give his basis f,or this rejection. But the basis is ex-tremely weak. The train of thought is usually explained as: Scripture cannotbe subject to merely human interpretation, because it is inspired by the Spiritand so requires an interpretation inspired by the Spirit. This means thatthe author has left his main point-the need for Spirit-inspired interpreta-tion-implicit rather than explicit. But even if this is allowed, the cogencyof the argument requires a further crucial step: that the interpretation followedby the author is inspired by the Spirit, while that proposed by the false teachersis not. Surely this point could not have been left unstated if this were theargument intended.

(ii) Neyrey, also following interpretation (l), takes v 20 to be a rejectionof the opponents' charge against the author: that his interpretation of proph-ecy is idiosyncratic (CBQ42 [980] 516-19). However, the connection withv 2l tells against this view too. The inspiration of Scripture may be a reasonwhy it should not be given an idiosyncratic interpretation, but it cannot be aproof that the author's interpretation ir not an idiosyncratic one.

(iii) Although no commentator seems to have suggested it before, it ispossible, again following interpretation (l), that v 20 rejects the opponents'charge that OT prophecy is thoroughly ambiguous, so that anyone can inter-pret it any way he likes and no one can say which way is correct. Then v2l would imply that, because Scripture is inspired by God, it must have themeaning God intended. This view makes quite good sense of the connectionwith v 21, and is probably the only way in which interpretation (l) can besustained in context. But it requires rather a lot to be read into iliias drdtuoec,rsob lberot

(iv) If interpretation (2) is correct, then v 20 rejects the opponents'chargethat OT prophecy is only the prophet's own human interpretation of hisvisions. Against interpretation (2) it has sometimes been argued that v 2lis then not a reason fior the statement in v 20, but only a repetition of it(Kelly). But this is not the case. The reason why scriptural prophecy is notsimply a product of human interpretation is that its authors did not speakof their own volition but under the inspiration of God. The weight of emphasis

Comment 235

falls on v 2lb as the basis for v 20. on this view it is possible (though notnecessary) to see v 2la also as rejecting a charge made by the opponents:that prophecy is of human origin (see below). Ttre two charges would beconsistent with each other (conirast (i) above).

Thus (i) and (ii) are unlikely, (iii) is possible, but (iv) seems more probable.This, combined with the evidence given in the discussion of i6icsand irdtuoeorabove, tips the balance in favor of interpreration (2).

^ [f interpretation (2) is correct, this verie says nothing about the inbrpretation

of scripture, and therefore nothing abour an authoriiirive teaching office inthe church to which all interpretaiion musr be subject (Kisemann] "Apolo-gg,'l 189-90) or about the charism of teaching (Curran, fS 4 [lg4g] 364-67). Nor is the-re any implication that there were no longer christian prophetsactive in the church (Grundmann): the question of christian propheis simplydoes not arise here.

21. of ld,p fle\iwrt dyilNmov ivex?q rpoQrpeia rord, tiil,)vi tnb nebparosaiou #Npeau d)\til\z2ocz furb 0eo0 dyilpunu, "because prophecy never came bythe impulse. of ml1, but men impelled by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."'The repetition of the verb eerew in the Greek (iiixdn, #popevu) is difficult!9 T9n9-9T in Fnglish; in this translation rhe use of "impulse" (for fle^Lftpan,lit. "will") and "impelled" (for @popeua) is an artempr to provide an equivalentrepetition. It should be noted that &Fw (lit. "to beai") was also-used inw 17-18 of the heavenly voice. The author's concern there to stress thatthe words at the Transfiguration came from God, is comparable with hisconcern here to stress that the words of or prophecy also tame from God.

T-he phrase tnb wei:uaros a"riou (lit. ';borne by the Holy Spirit,')recalls the-pagaq Greek use of words such as 0eoQ6pos,..6earing a'goi', 1oi? 14 re., " b o11e by a go d" ), 0 e@6 pryr q, and 0 e o@ 6To 0 ot, to descri-be p-ro phe tic

inspiration. The same words were used by Philo (and later by Juslini theywere. part of the technical vocabulary of prophetic inspiration in HellenistitJudaism. Even closer to 2 Peter's phrase is the word rieapr@pg (accentedweuparo(ipog, it means "bearing pneuma [spirit]"; accented neupard@6,I 3:ans- "^b9rn_e by pneuma [spirii]n), used to describe prophets in LXX Hosg:7;Zep! 3:4,-though_oddly in those verses it seems to bl used in a derogatorysense. Theophilus of Antioch used it to describe the inspiration of ttre ofprophets (Ad Autol. 2:9, 22;3:12).

The extent to which the whole verse is expressed in the standard terminol-og1 u19d- in discussion of prophetic inspiration in Hellenistic Judaism andeTfv fhri-slr.anity dependenr on HellenistiiJudaism can be seen by comparisonwith the following passages:

. Phifo, SW. ryC. 1.65: "A prophet inspired by God (0ea06rlrrrql will appear andgive divine oracles (fleonrct1 and prophesy."

Justin, I Apol. 33: "Isaiah inspired (ile@pcflperrr,l by the prophetic Spirit . . ,"Justin, 1 ApoI. 36: "But when you hear the utterances of ihe profihets . . .

you must not suppose that they are spoken from the inspired men themselves(&r' ainGtt rcv ilnenewpiya.y) but from the divine word who moves them (drdto' ,evott ros aincfis 0eiov loryou)."

- Justin, ,l Apol. t7 "the things taught through the prophets from God (tnb rN0eo0). . ."

234 2 Pnren l:20-21

Theophilus, Ad Autol. 2:9: "The men of God, who were inspired by a holy Spirit(rweuproQfipot<r rveupdrigpot-fivebpq,ros dTiou) and became prophets, were in-spired (dpruewiliwes) and given wisdom by God himself."

In HellenisticJewish writers (Philo, Mos 1.2831' Quis Hn.266:. Spec. kg.1.65; 4.49; Som. 1.2;Josephus, Ant.4.ll9) such language is often associatedwith a basically pagan understanding of the psychology of prophetic inspira-tion, as irrational ecstasy in which the prophet is a purely passive instrumentof the divine Spirit, unconscious of the words the Spirit utters through him.But the language of 2 Peter does not in itself require such a depreciationof the human role in prophecy. What it says is in conformity with the OTprophets' own testimony to the nature of prophecy: that the true prophet,unlike the false (fer 14:13; 23:16; l8:21-22, 26; Ezek l3:3), does not speakon his own initiative (cf. Amos 3:8; Jer 20:9) or proclaim a message whichis the product of his own mind, but speaks "the word of the Lord" when itcomes to him. The only point which the author of 2 Peter is concerned todeny is that the prophets themselves were the originating source of theirmessage. To counter this view he affirms that the Holy Spirit was the sourceof their prophecy, enabling them to speak as God's own spokesmen (cf. alsoActs 3:21, attributed to Peter).

Since v 20 is certainly aimed polemically against the opponents' chargethat prophecy was only the prophets' own interpretation of their visions, itis quite possible that the negative clause in v 2l is also a specific denial ofthe false teachers'assertion that prophecy is of human origin. Molland (Optts-cula, 6445) provides evidence that the Ebionites, who recognized no prophetsafter Moses, were accused of holding this: Methodius, Conuiuiurn 8.10 (quotedabove, on v 20); Epiphanius, Pan. 30.L8.5: "they say that the prophets areprophets of (their own) intelligence (ovvioecos) and not of truth." Molland(Opuscula, 66-771 also finds evidence in the Jewish-Christian material in thePseudo-Clementines of this radical attitude to the OT prophets, as men whodid not attain to the truth. This does not prove that the opponents in 2Peter were Ebionite or proto-Ebionite Jewish Christians, which is unlikely.Rather it shows that both the author of 2 Peter and the Ebionites carriedon their discussions in the standard terms of debates about true and falseinspiration, of which the quotations from Philo,Justin and Hippolytus, givenabove, are also evidence, and which indeed go back to the OT prophetsthemselves (fer 14:13; 23:16.122; Ezek l3:l-7). Neyrey (Polnnit, 19il99) alsocompares the Epicurean polemic against oracles, and it may be that pa-gan skepticism had more to do with the false teachers' attitude to prophecythan Jewish-Christian heresy did. In any case, it should be carefully notedthat 2 Peter combats the view that OT prophecy was of purely human ori-gin, not the typical second-century gnostic view that it was inspired by theDemiurge.

Finally, confirmation of the view that the opponents in 2 Peter rejectedthe divine inspiration of OT prophecy in the interests of denying the expecta-tion of the Parousia, may be found in the section of the Asc. Isa. which isin the form of an apocalyptic prophecy of the last times (3:214:18). Thispassage dates from the late frrst century (see 4:13) and is therefore contempo-

Explanation 235

rary with 2 Peter. Under the guise of prophecy, the aurhor depicts the condi-tion of the church in his own time, when there will be "many heresies" (oi6oecrotrtrci, 3:22), and when "they will set aside the prophecies of the prophetswhich were before me [Isaiah] and also pay no attention ro these my visions,!n 9r{er to speak (forth from the) torrent of their hearr" (3:31, tr. in NTApoc.2, 648; cf. also "3 Cor. " l:10).

Explanation

The author's appeal to the authority of OT prophecy in support of theexpectation of the Parousia (v 19) must now be defended against a secondgbjection made by the opponents. They rejected the authority of Of prophecyby denying its divine origin. They said that while it may be true that theprophets received signs and dreams and visions, their prophecies were theirown human interpretations of these, not God-given intLrpietarions. The OTprophecies were thereforejust products of the human mind, like the apostolicmessage (v l6a).

In reply, the author denies this view, and reasserts, in the standard termsused- by Hellenistic Jewish writers, the divine origin of OT prophecy. Noqrophlgl in the OT Scriptures originated from human initiative oi imagina-ti-o1. The Holy Spirit of God inspired not only the prophets' dreamJandvisions, but also their interpretarions of them, so thai when they spoke theprophecies recorded in Scripture they were spokesmen for God himself.

Peter's Prediction of False Teachers

(2:1-ia)

Bibliography

Barrett, C. K. "Veu6cr(nroltot (2 Cor ll, l3)." Mdlanga Bibliqws m hommage au R. P.

Bida Rigaux, ed. A. Descamps et A. de Halleux. Gembloux: J. Duculot, 1970. 380-83. Repo, E. Dn "Weg," 102-7.

Translation

I But thne were ako fake prophels arnong tlu people, just as thne will be fabeteach.ns among you, who will insinuate hnesies that lead, to dtstrurtion, who willnen dmy th,e Masln who bought them, and bring swift dtstruction on thmuelaes.2 Many will follow their dissolute praclices, and. because of them the way of truthwill be maligned. 8 In their greed they will exploit you uith fabricated argtments.

Form / S truc t ur e / S e t tin g

The author of 2 Peter dislikes abrupt transitions, and his mention of thefalse prophets of OT times (2:la) is designed to effect a smooth transitionfrom the-discussion of OT prophecy (l:20-21) to the prediction of the falseteachers (2:lb--3a). But the mention of the false prophets also has anotherstructural function, because (as Marin, EE 50 tl975l 226, points out) thesection l:lG2:3 has a chiastic structure:

A. apostles (l:16-18)B. OT prophets (l:19-21)B. OT false prophets (2:la)A. false teachers (2:lb-3)

This structure may be reinforced by an ircfusio formed by oeoofioltevus tfiflusilaxo\ou?ipawes ("following cleverly concocted myths," l:16) andCEarc\orfritoouotu ("will follow," 2:21, rltotrds )toTots ("with fabricated argu-ments," 2:3). The chiastic structure makes possible a correlation and contrastbetween the apostles and the false teachers.

The transition to the second part of this chiastic structure also marks atransition from defense (answering the opponents' charges) to attack (makingcharges against the opponents, which predominates in chap. 2, although w-3b--l0a are it part defensive), which is possible now that the prediction ofthe false teachers at last brings them explicitly into view. For the purposeof this attack the author now begins to make use of the Letter of Jude, onwhich he is dependent for much of the passage 2:l-3:3. This depen{e-nceis never slavish. The author takes what he wants from Jude, whether ideasor words, and uses it in a composition which is very much his own. In thispassage he borrows from Jude 4: d,oilryerroat ("immorality") . . . &orcrtyv("Mas1er") . . . d,pvcfipevu (i'denying"). He may also be dependent on other

Form/Slnrcture/Setting 257

traditional apocalyptic predictions (see commenr section), and in v 2b echoesIsa 52:5 LXX.

The relation of 2:l toJustin, Dial.82.l also calls for comment in this connection.Justin, Dal. 82.1: furep & rprw t<ni gevbtr@ittql iil r6y rcl tptu tevopev<*

&tiott rpo0rtr,;y fpar, w) tap i@ v^v ao)U\d eior rd gerfio&Motca)\or. o0s hv\ttoeoqtrpcilrev 6 ipirere rarpos. 'Just -as there were false prophets in the time of your[the Jews']_holy prophets, so rhere are now many'falie teachers among ui, ofwhom our Lord forewarned us to beware."

Dillense-ge1-( MFo! 2 [ 1907] l?7-7gl regards this passage as crearly dependenton 2 Pet 2:1. Chase (_D8(H) 3, p.801) thinks the resemblanci is merely ioiniidental,but this is lcarcely likely. The comparison of false prophets (,Ietfurpstrrqt) in orIsrael and false teachers (r/eu6o&&iorclor) in the cliurih does not seem to appearin early Christian literature outside these two passages. Moreover, the word,lreuOoaadtr<o,lta is found only in these two passages-in litirature up to the time ofJustin(feu6o&6corc)ric occurs once, in pot. pnil 7:2). Doubtless, is chase points 6ut, itwas an obvious formation by analogy with many other r/eu6o ("false") compounds.But.early christian predictions ofitre last days normally refer to {ta/r,iwrqt("t5.prophets": Matt 24:ll, 14; Mark tl:22; lJohn 4:i; Drltt. t6:t;Apoc. pei. Al; Heg.esippus,

-op. Eusebius, Hjst. EccL 4.22.6),-and this is what Justin himself

191mally does, following the prophecies in Matt j:lb;24:11,24 (DiaL 35.3; 5l:2;82.2). No doubt these are the prophecies he has in mind when he refers to Christ'swarnings in this passage. Moreover, the context of this passage is Justin's assertion(82.1) that the-prophetic gifts of the OT prophets are nbw p.lseni in the Christianchurch. For all these reasons, we shouid have expected him to compare peirdotrpgfpot of or Israel with {m6onrr4,frrau not r}eu6o&&iorcc},or, in the church. ofSouTe, it is possible that desire for merely stylistic variation produced *affifidot<*tr(,l, but if so the coincidence with 2 Pet 2:l is more remarkable than Chase allows.

Chaine (3) points out that the resemblance could result from common use oftraditional catechetical material (which is the suggestion that requires its discussionhere), and in view of the probability that 2 Peteri-Jdependent oniraditional materialin this passage, this is certainly a possible explanation. (Certainly this more probablyexplains_the coincidence of aipeoets, "heresies," in 2 pet 2:l andJusti", out. st.2than Dillenseger's suggestion of dependence on 2 peter byJustiriin rhat passage.)A-garlpt this, how-ever, it must be iaid that the comparisoi of the false'p.opfietiof old and the christian false teachers in 2 pet 2:l ieems to bear every mark ofhaving been created for its context. It is designed to link the preceding and succeed-ing material and create the chiastic structurE (see above), while the rise of 9edo6r&dorco,\q ("false teachers") for the christian heretics is explained by the fact thatlrlu&l-coilnrrot ("false prophets") would not have been appropriate for these teacherswh9 did not claim prophetic inspiration (see Connail 6e'ctidn). It is therefore moreprobable (though n-ot certain) thit the resemblance results fromJustin's dependenceon 2 Peter, a conclusion which would probably have been m6re widely'acceptedif the general opinion of the date of 2 ileter hid not impeded it.

_ By writing in Peter's name a prediction of the false teachers who will troublethe churches after Peter's deaih, the writer is still using the conventions ofthe legtgrqrt g€nre. A restament could include predicti-ons of the last times(Tob 14:4-7; T. Mos. 5-10; Jub. 4b:t4; T. tni i:l; 4:l; l0:l-5; l4:l-lg:14;T. lud. l8:l; 2l:G25:5; T. /ss. 6:l-2; T. Zeb. g:i-10:3; T. Dan. 5:4-13; T.Napht. 4:l-5; 8:l-3; T. Gad 8:2; 2i Ashq 7:2-7; T. Benj. g:l-5), and in NT

238 2 PsrEn 2:l-3a

examples announcements of false teachers to appear in the churches arethe main element in such predictions (Acts 20:29-30; 2 Tim 3:l-5; 4:34;cf. T. Jud. 2l:9).

Comment

| . \Ewn o k w) rltatfur p@fry u iv r cis \o,Q, "But there were also false proph-ets among the people." In addition to the true prophets, the authors of theOT prophecies, mentioned in l:21, Israel also had false prophets. This men-tion of the false prophets is partly a stylistic device (see Form/Structure/Settingsection), but it also marks the beginning of the author's turning from defenseto attack, in which the opponents' charges against the apostles are turnedagainst themselves. The opponents charged the apostles with basing theirmessage of the Parousia on prophecies which were only human inventions(l:20-2la), i.e. on the words of false prophets. In reply, the author nowasserts that it is in fact not the apostles but the false teachers who stand insuccession to the false prophets oflsrael.

The term rlevfrlnpofitrot. ("false prophets") is used of the OT false prophetsin LXX, Josephus and Luke 6:26. It also occurs quite often in propheciesof the false prophets of the last times (T. Jud.2l:9; Matt 24:11,24; Mark13:22; I John 4:l; Rev 16:13; lg:20; 20:10; Did. 16:3; Apoc. Pet. A l; Hegesip-pus, ap. Eusebius, Hist. EccI. 4.22.6; Justin, DiaI. 35.3;51.2: 82.2; cf. Matt7:15), which makes it even more notable that 2 Peter propfusfus not 9€1160Tpohinu ("false prophets") but 0eu6o&&!orcd\a ("false teachers"; see below).

Since, however, the author does compare the false teachers with the falseprophets of OT times, it is relevant to note (with Neyrey, Pobnit, 3940)three prominent characteristics of the OT false prophets which can also beapplied to the opponents in 2 Peter: (l) unlike the true prophets (l:2G-21)they did not speak with divine authority (Deut 18:20; Jer 14:14; 23:21, 32;Ezek 13,2-7); (2) frequently their message was one of peace and security incontrast to the prophecies of future judgment uttered by the true prophets(Jer4:10;6:14; 14:13, 15;23:17;27:9, 16-18; Ezek l3:10; Mic 3:5, ll); (3)they were condemned to punishment by God (Jer 14:15; 23:15; 28:lGl7;cf. Deut l8:20).

drs ,cd ev Uiu Eowrot r/etfo&&i;orclol, "just as there will be false teachersamong you." Early Christian prophecies of the last days more commonlyrefer to false propluts (see above), though the Pastorals refer to teachers ofheresy (2 Tim 4:3: &6osrca)\ous; cf. I Tim 4:l) and Pol. Phil. 7:2 refers to"false teachings" (r/eu6o6r6corca)\ios) in a context which suggests the apostasyof the last days. Of course, it is possible that 2 Peter here uses ry'eu6o&&iorcl.otmerely as a stylistic variation after rltev&orryWar ("false prophets"), but, unlikethe opponents in Jude, the false teachers in 2 Peter do not appear to haveclaimed prophetic inspiration, and so it is probable that the author here delib-erately avoids calling them rlteufunpoQfiyot ("false prophets").

Barrett ("Itatfuirinrd\or," 382-83) points out that the geu6o ("false") prefixcan mean either that they falsely claimed for themselves the office of teacher,to which they had no right, or that the content of their message was false.Although, as Barrett says ("VeuDcnfuroltu," 380), it may not be necessary tochoose between the two, the author of 2 Peter is really more interested in

Comrnmt 239

the latter. He has not, as we have seen, justified the message of the apostlesby alleging their authority to teach, but by appealing to the reliable basison which the truth of their message rests. The chiastic stnrcture of l:16-2:3 (see Fonn/Structure/Setting section) makes the false teachers the counter-part of the apostles, teaching a false message of human invention ratherthan the apostolic message which is based on the divine words.

The future tense is used, of course, because although the author is referringto a reality of his own time, he is writing in the person of Peter, and so, aswas appropriate in a testament (see Form/Strtrcture/Settdrg section), he repre-sents Peter as prophesying the advent of the false teachers after his death.Nor is this sheer fiction; the preaching of the apostles certainly did includeapocalyptic predictions of the apostasy of the last days (cf. Conmml on Judel7-t8). The author of 2 Peter may know a genuine tradition of Peter's teach-ing, which in this chapter he supplements with (equally apostolic) materialfromJude, to show its fulfillment in his own day.

drl;l.es napeoaloww airyoeg dno;l,eias, "who will insinuate heresies thatlead to destruction." The verb rapeoalew (only here in NT; but cf. raryiotrxrcf,"brought in," Gal 2:4) means simply "to bring in" and need not have a badsense, but it is often used with the connotation of something underhandedor surreptitious (used of heretics also by Hegesippus, ap. Eusebius, HistEccl. 4.22.5: Hippolytus, Ref. 5.l7; 7.291: "insinuate" (Moffatt, ;a) has theright nuance. If the tern was suggested to the author by rapeoehinpat ("infil-trated") inJude 4, he has substituted rapewaloww because he did not wantto suggest that his false teachers, likeJude's, had entered the churches fromoutside, but that they brought in teachings from outside. Probably, therefiore,we may conclude that the false teachers in 2 Peter are not, like those inJude, itinerants who have arrived in the churches to which 2 Peter is addressedfrom outside, but members of those churches. They have brought their teach-ings in from outside, in the sense that these teachings are contrary to theapostolic message and so do not belong in the church. Perhaps the authorimplies-as appears to have been the case-that the false teachers were influ-enced by pagan skepticism about prophecy and eschatology.

odryoq ("heresy") was the term used for a school of thought, whetherthe Greek philosophical schools or, in Hellenistic Jewish usage, the Jewishreligious schools (Essenes, Sadducees, Pharisees: Josephus, BJ 2.1181, Ant.l3.l7l, 293; Vit. 12; cf. Acts 5:17; l5:5; 26:5; and in Acts 24:5, 14;28:22,of Christianity in this sense). It could also designate the particular teachingof such a school. In these uses it is a neutral, not a pejorative term. In Gal5:20; I Cor ll:18 it is acquiring the pejorative sense of "faction," but thecharge is divisiveness rather than heretical teaching. Possibly it could havethat sense here, but in the context of reference to.false fuachns it is morenatural to understand it of their teachings, though the overtone of "factions"may remain. aipeors is already used in the sense of heretical teaching in Ignatius(Eph.6.2; Trall. 6:ll, but whereas lgnatius can use the word alone in a badsense, in 2 Pet 2:l the pejorative meaning is not conveyed by the word alone,but by the addition of dno)teias ("that lead to destruction"). The evolutionof the word's meaning may not yet have reached the unequivocally pejorativephase which emerges with Ignatius.- The real difficulty in thiJ v is the use of the plural oipioes,In normal

240 2 Pernn 2zl-8a

usage the singular aipeoc refers to one school of thought or its distinctiveteaching as a single body of docrrine, and this is also the way in which laterChristian writers use it of the Christian heresies (Mart. Pol. epil.Mosg. l;Theophilus, Ad AutoL 2:14; Hegesippus, ap. Eusebius, rllist Eccl. 4.22,51.Itis not normally used to refer to a single doctrine, so that one false teachercould teach a whole collection of oipeoels. Perhaps this difficulty was felt bythe author of Apoc. Pet. A l, which is probably dependent on 2 Pet 2:1, butparaphrases it: "they will teach ways and various doctrines of destruction"('i6otr tc.d tiirfpara nutci\a rf79 &nosldas &&ifouou). It is hard to believe thatthe author of 2 Peter means that there are several different heretical schoolsof thought in the churches to which he is writing; certainly his response isnot adapted to such variety. The explanation of his unusual usage may bethat in this section of "prophecy" he is deliberately echoing the iraditionalapocalyptic warnings, and in this instance may be alluding ro rhe agraphon,"There will be divisions and heresies" (€oorzot oyiopara w) oipeoets: Justin,Dial. 35.3; J. Jeremias, Unhnown Safings of Jaus, tr. R. H. Fuller [London:S. P. C. K., 19571 59-61; perhaps referred ro also in I Cor I l:18; and cf.Justin,Dial. 51.2: Tafipeo1ot oirrloe,s rltatfur@fr,ras dri re 6v6ryrt aino,, "heresiesand false prophets would arise in his name"; Asc. Isa. 3:22: Eoorttot aipeoecro)\trai, "there will be many heresies").

- Their teachings are "heresies of destruction" (aipdoeig riaorlteics) probablyin the-sense that they lead to destruction (Plumptre, Spicq, Chaine, Schelkle,Grundmann), i.e. they bring those who follow them under eschatologicaljudgment. As the rest of chap 2 makes clear, thei do this because they enc6ur-age immorality. Neyrey (Polzmic, 40-4 I ) may be right that rinor)\eics ii ironical;the false teachers actually taught freedom fromtestruction (cf. 2:tg), theybelieved there would be no eschatologicaljudgmenr, but in reality their teach-ing incurs precisely thatjudgment which they denied. droi,\eia ("destruction")is a favorite term in 2 Peter (twice in this v; also 2:3; t:7, 16; cf. drri)tltparin 3:6,9) and refers consistently to eschatologicaljudgment (as also in Matt7:13; John 17:12:. Rom g:22; phit t:28; 2 Thes 2-:3; Heb 10:39; Rev t7:8,ll; Apoc. Pet. A l-2\.

xoi dy dToposarra atrorls &orwqv d,pvotpevu, "who will even deny theMaster who bought them." The very rare use of &orrhz6 ("Master';) forChrist is borrowed from Jude (see Comment on Jude 4), but 2 Peter adds apl t?r9 which is highly appropriate to the title. Jesus is the Masrer of hischristian slaves because he has bought them (at-the cosr of his death, it isimplied-the^only allusion to the crosl in 2 Peter). This image of redemptionas the transferral of slaves to new ownership was fairly Common in earlyChristianity_(! Cor 6:20;7:28; Rev 5:9; 14:3-4, which use riToprigeur, "ro buy';;also Acts 20:28; I Pet l:18; cf. Rom 6:17-18; and on the whole subject, ieeI. H. Marshall, "The Development of the Concept of Redemption in theNew Testament," in R. Banks (ed.), Recorciliation aid Hope, L, L.Morris Fest-schrift [Exeter: Paternosrer; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, lg74] l5M9); it isone form of the rather variously used idea of ransom or redemption. Thus2 Peter does not deny that the false teachers are christians, bu-t sees themas apostate Christians who have disowned their Master.

What form did their denial take? In Jude 4 the thought is of practicaldenial by deeds, but the meaning in Jud- cannor determine the sense here.

Comment 241

Heretical views of the person of Christ (Moffat$ or obedience to other politicalmasters intent on revolution (Reicke) are unlikely explanations. The contentof the rest of 2 Peter gives us a choice berween (l) denial of Christ by denyinghis Parousia (Chaine), and (2) denial of Christ by teaching and practicingimmorality (Bigg, Grundmann). The latter is more probable because it suirithe- image of Christ as 6eozrdrr6 ("Master"): immoral living is flouting hisauthority as Master of his slaves who should obey him. (It is also the sensewhich denial of Christ has in the closely related work 2 Cbm.: chaps. 34.)Moreovet, this explanation gives a better link with the next phrase; it is immor-ality, rather than simply doctrinal error, which brings down eschatologicaljudgment on its practicers.

ifiayowegdawdsraxvip dna\env, "and bring swift destruction upon them-selves." raytrilv (see Comment on l:14) does not mean "sudden," but "comingsoon, imminent." Probably the author has in mind the false teachers' jibethat the Lord is slow in coming to exercise judgment (3:g), and thereforethe sense will be that judgment at the Parousii is imminenr. conrrary tothe usual view of 2 Peter, there is no diminution of the sense of eschatologicalimminence, although an explanarion is offered for the facr of delay (3:8-g).

- Ironically, the false teachers incur judgmenr by teaching that there willbe no futurejudgment and thereby leading themselves and others inro immor-ality.

2. ,<si ro)U\oi dlatr.olto$iloouou aincbv raig doelt:n.eisrs, "many will follow theirdissolute practices." The author is fond of the verb d{crco}.ovleit, "to follow"(l:16; 2:2, 15; nowhere else in NT); here ir means that the false reachers'immoral behavior is the authority which their adherents obey, perhaps incontrast to Christ the Master (6eon6rns, v l) or in contrast to following "theway of truth." doe).yeia tends to mean sensual indulgence, especially iexualimmorality, and the plural (cf. Herm. Vis. 2:2:2) deiignates icts of'sensualexcess. Ifthe author of2 Peter has deliberately not reproducedJude's asser-tion that they "pervert the grace of God into immorllity" (Jude 4), it maybe because he associated the immorality of his opponents not so much withan antinomian interpretation of grace (as inJude), bur rather with their norionof freedom from future judgment. If the hypothesis is correcr that the falseteachers' denial of future eschatology was influenced by pagan skepticism,it may be that their immorality also should be seen as-primarily a-relapseinto pagan ways. When stricter Christians rebuked their behavior with warn-in^gs of divine judgment, they defended themselves by mocking the notionof future judgment.

6t oh d 66ds rfs ri)\4Oeias p\aoSqm|iloeraq "and because of them the wayof truth will be maligned." A characterisric of 2 Peter's terminology is theuse of phrases with 6669 ("way"); equivalent to ri 66os rfs altnleias (nthe wayof,truth") are ebileimt ifrv ("the straighr way," 2: l5) and rilv 6tbv rfis iucanooitvr6"!!9_*"y of righteousness," 2:21). The use of "way" as a metaphor for "wayof life," ethical behavior, is very common in the OT, interestamental literature,and Philo (see TDNT 5, 50-6.t), and becomes particularly specialized in the"two ways" concept, and in the use of "the way" at Q;rmran to designateth9-seg's ryay of life as obedience to the Law (CD l:13; 2:6; lQS 8:15-14;9:17-18; 10:20-21; this usage apparently derived from Isa 40:3).-

This absolute use of "the way" for a whole moral and religious way of

242 2 PETER 2:1-3a

life reappears in the designation of Christianity as "the way" (Acts 9:2; l9:9,23; 24:14,22; Letter of the churches of Vienne and Lyons, ap. Eusebius,Hist. Eccl.5.l.48; and perhaps Act. Verc.7), which can be further specifiedas "the way of the Lord" (Acts 18:25), "rhe way of God" (Acts 18:26), and"this way" (Acts l9:9; on the whole subject of this early Christian usage,see Repo, Weg). lt is clear from the context that 2 Peter uses the phrases"the way of truth," "the way of righteousness," and "the straight way" in asimilar manner, to designate the Christian way of life, Christianity considerednot as a body of doctrine but as a way of life, a religious message whichtakes effect in an ethical life style (cf. Grundmann, 90-91). The Apoc. Pet.,which may here be continuing a traditional usage rather than simply dependingon 2 Peter, uses "the way of righteousness" (E 7 : A 22; A 28) and "theway of God" (A 34, B), as designations of the Christian way of life consideredas the righteous way of life, and, as in 2 Pet 2:22, uses "the commandmentof God" as virtually synonymous (E 8, A 30, E l0). (Cf. also lcls John 22:"thy (Christ's) way"; Act. Verc. 6: "the right way which is in Jesus Christ.")

The specific phrase used here, "the way of truth," is used in LXX Psll8:30; Wis 5:6;Jas 5:19 v. l.; I Clcm.35:5, and in all these cases has thegeneral meaning of the ethical way of life which God commands (cf. alsothe plural in CD 3:15; I QS 4:2; Tob l:3; I Enoch 104:13 Greek). As aterm specifically for the Christian way of life, it occurs in early Christianliterature elsewhere only in the Acts Pet. (Act. Vnc. 12, "the ways of the truthof Christ": aiac anitatis Christi), and perhaps in Aristides, Apol. 16 (but itsoccurrence in the Greek text of Aristides is suspect, since the Syriac lacksthis passage). (Cf. also Herm. Vis. 8:7:Iz riv 6Dhv cinin, rip d,lvfvitu, "theirtrue way," but there the metaphor belongs to a larger metaphorical context;Gos. Trulh 18:19-21: "He gave them a way and the way is the truth whichhe showed them.") In view of its Semitic background, the expression couldbe simply equivalent to "the true way," the way which God commands, butin 2 Peter's usage may well mean "the way which is based on and correspondsto the truth of the gospel" (cf. l:12, where "the truth":the gospel). By con-trast with the false message of the opponents which results in immoral living,the true Christian way is a true message which results in an ethical way oflife.

&' orh . . . f,lrolci?rtptflrperot ("because of whom . . . will be maligned")alludes to Isa 52:5 (IXX: 6r' 0pris &d, rsyrbs rb 6vopa pv ploailqp€nat e! roisEhveout, "because of you my name is continually maligned among the Gen-tiles"). Qgotations of and allusions to this text were used in two differentways in early Christianity: (l) against theJews (Rom 2:24;Justin, Dial 17.?);(2) in exhortations to Christians not to cause offense to pagans by immoralliving (Rom 14:16 ?; I Tim 6:l; Titus 2:5; I Cbn. 47:7; 2 Cbm. l3:2; Ign.Trall. 8:2; Pol. Phil. l0:3). The allusion here depends on the second usage;the adherents of the false teachers, by their scandalously immoral behavior,are giving Christianity a bad name among their non-Christian neighbors (theclosest parallel to this use of Isa 52:5 is Herm. Sdrn. 6:2:3). In such allusionsto Isa 52:5 the words rb6vopa pou ("my name") are frequently replaced bysome other term (cf. I Tim 6:l; Titus 2:5; Ign. Trall. 8:2; Pol. Phil. LO:2),as here by "the way of truth."

Explanation 243

?. ,sd. tv r\eoveliq, r)\coro[s )tofos ltpds dWropetnowot, "in their greed theywill exploit you with fabricated arguments." The meaning is thai the falseteachers make a good financial profit out of their followeis, who are takenin by their teaching and contribute ro their support. See Cornrnent on Judell. t\arrev l67ous, "to forge words," is a classical expression (examples inBigg, Mayor; T. Rarb. 3:5) for deceitful speech, but myths were so regularlydescribed as r)o,oru (see Commmt on l:16) that we are inevitably remindedof the oeooQtopevws prfols ("cleverly concocted myths") of l:16. This correla-tion is confirmed by the chiastic structure of l:16-2:3a (see Form/Stnrcture/Selting section), in which the apostles in l:16 find their counterparr in thefalse teachers of 2:lb-3a. It becomes clear that the aurhor is turning theopponents' charge against the apostles (l:16) back on themselves. It is notthe apostles' message, but the false teachers', that is based on sheer invention.

Explanation

The apostles had predicted false prophets and apostasy in the last days.Drawing on traditions of such apostolic prophecies, the author puts into Pe-ter's mouth a "prediction" about his own contemporaries, the false teachersin the churches to which he writes, to identify these people as among thosewhom the apostles had predicted.

The comparison with the false prophets in Israel in OT times serves tolink this passage with the preceding w (l:20-21), and is also the first oftwo occasions in this section when the author turns his opponents' chargesagainst the apostles back on themselves. In denying the inspiration of OTprophecy (l:20-2la) the opponents had accused the apostles of basing theireschatological teaching on false prophecy. In the author's view, however, itis his opponents, not the apostles, who are the true successors to the falseprophets of OT times.

The fact that he does not call his opponents false proplwls may be oneindication that they did not claim prophetic inspiration. But they certainlyset themselves up as teachers. Ironically, because their teaching that therewill be no eschatological judgment encourages immorality, it will lead themand their followers to suffer eschatological judgment. They disown their Mas-ter, who by his death bought them as his slaves; they flout his moral authority,and they are bringing on themselves imminent destruction at the Parousia,for all that they scoff at its late arrival (3:9).

The immorality their teaching permitted was, no doubt, largely a relapseinto the ways of pagan society, always a strong temptation in the early Christianchurches. But in a society where every opportunity of maligning Christiansand Christianity was taken, Christians whose moral standards were no higherthan their pagan neighbors' were a scandal. Instead of witnessing to theirneighbors, they were bringing discredit on the Christian way of life.

Finally, they succumbed to another common temptation: that of makingfinancial profit out of their disciples. But the author ends this section byagain throwing back at his opponents a charge they made against the apostles:not the apostles' message, but theirs, is a mere human invention (cf. l:l6a).

Rψり'00り“

′あπ夕「7乃θCンιαれりo/

ル4““ι (2Jら―raa)

Bめ」iograpり

rra“sra′ね"

武′“η ttη

tt°"夕“

ηθ“滋θη tt Joag agoお ηα:と 滋rあ′uriοη

筋 ras

hsiぷ雛 ∫f孟品甘Vl.pЮLblybepritt Ю Ю

“ω山 "圏 ,油n

F onn / S tnrc ture / Se t ting 245

cThe reading doeptou, "to the ungodly" (rrr B P syPh'b) is preferable to fueklv, "to actungodly" (N A C K). The latter could easily have been suggested by the common constructionof pe)\trrfur<,y, followed by the infinitive, whereas the former makes better sense in context (Mayor,Ghaine, Kelly, xtv).

d It is impossible to translate this sentence quite literally. It makes no good sense to take

Fldprlr;rt Krn dxnrt, "by sight and sound," with tiixaroe, "righteous."! oi6ev here means "knows how to" and so "is able to.",The plural rctpopin, "trials," is very poorly attested.g For the translation of rcl,cfo1r€rrou9, "to be punished," see Conmmt section.h pnopfi is better taken as a genitive of quality (common in 2 Peter) than as an objective

genitive ("desire for pollution").

Form / S tructure / Se tting

Verse 3b is closely connected by ofs ("on whom") with what Precedes,but this should not deter us from recognizing a transition in the argument.The transition is signalled by the change from the future tense (w l-3a) tothe present tense (v 3b). This could perhaps be simply in the interests ofvivid personification in v 3b, but in view of the fact that the present tensecontinues in w 10-22, it much more probably indicates that the author hasturned from writing prophecy in Peter's name to considering the false teachersas his own opponents in the present. An exactly similar transition occurs inchap 3, where the future tense of the prophecy in v 3 changes to the presenttenie in v 5. It is noteworthy that in both cases the transition occurs whenthe author begins to answer an objection raised by his oPponents; directargument wittr the opponents cannot easily be conducted in the fictionalform of prediction a tuentu. But this does not mean, as most commentatorsthink, that the author simply lapses into the present tense, forgetting for themoment his pretense of writing prophecy. The author of 2 Peter is not socareless a writer as that. He can move between future and present tensesbecause his pseudepigraphal device is not an attemPt at deceit which mustbe maintained, but I liteiary convention which his readers understand. Sucha convention can be transgressed deliberately for literary effect. Byjuxtaposingpassages of prophecy which maintain the convention with passages in thepresent tense which transgress it, the writer is able to indicate that the apostles'prophecies of false teachers are now being fulfilled. (The same device seemsto be used in 2 Tim 3:l-9, in another testamentary letter.)

Verse 3b is probably to be understood as a denial of an assertion madeby the opponents (see Commmr). The rest of this section then provides thebasis for that denial.

Verses 4, 6, lOa are partially dependent onJude 6-8:

2Pet2

4. elrcpb&;dsd,tt(.llouhnnpbrwdt CG:ioarodN\ri oe@als l60our a pr ag)ngrg n agti&,xev e i sxpiow rqpoupdvous, . .

lunt6. dttdtrousrerousptitrlpipcvtas rip Cwrav &exipdlM riaotrrrdrrrcs rd l6rordrctri4rw eis xpiotv pezdl4srigdpas &orrois daDiots 0rdlfitSov terfipqrev

246 2 PsrEn 2:3b-l0a

6. rclaoleislo66pc.rprccl 7. 6sEd6opaxal?6ltoppawllott6ppds rcgg)nas,@lootpofttt olrcfi aindsnri)\ers, rdyxaftxgttev, tn66eqya rreN\dyicx, Qnat rprw roinugfuef)ioure0eu<is,... dtsrorlueinoo9otrcoifurcllooDool-

6nioo oapxbs &Cpas, qhsvto6 el7 p d npd6 d<,ttiot 6iqtttn€xonor',

l0a. ldtrroro ed rols drior,roapxbs ty intfivul4 prcop0ropempdrcus toi xv p 6r qr os,@toiwffimat.

2Pet24. For if God did not spare tiaazgels when they sinned, but castthem into hell and committed themto fetters of nethtr d,arhtuss,there to be htpt until tlv jungmny

b.' 'if

n. reduced the cities ofSodom and Comonah to ashes andcondemned them to extinction, mak-ing them an example of what isgoing to happen to theungodly,. . .

l0a. especially those who inpolluting lust indulge the fahand flout tlu autlrllliry of tu Lord

8. 'Osdors ptnaraldnu4vwvwl6pmoapxa pbprcittornu, xupt6rqta6ldieraiov,. . .

ludc6. Tlw angeb, too, who did not keeptheir own position of authority, butabandoned their proper home, he has14, in eternal chains in the nethndnrhrcss unlil llw judgnml of the greatday.7. Similarly Sotlon and Gomottah andthe neighbouring towns, which prac-ticed immorality in the same way asthe angels and hankered after strangefesh, are exhibited as an example byundergoing the punishment ofeternal fire.8. Yet in the same way also thesepeople, on the strength oftheirdreams, defile the/arfr" reject tlaauthoily o! tlu Lord, . . .

However, as well as the clear dependence onJude, there are strong indica-tions that in w 4-9 2 Peter is independently drawing on a paraenetic traditionsimilar to that which lies behindJude 5-7 (see the Forrn/Structure,/Setling sec-tion in the commentary onJude s.-7). (l) o0rc dQeioaro ("did not spare") (w4-5) is used in Sir 16:18, in a passage which represents a version of thetraditional schema on whichJude is dependent. But the expression is common(LXX I Kgdms l5:3; Ps 77:l0;Jer l3:14; 2l:7;Lam 2:17;Jonah 4:ll; Zechll:6; Acts 20:29; Rom ll:21) and so rhe coincidence may not be significant.(2) Second Peter's examples, unlike Jude's, are in chronological order, asin other versions of the traditional schema. But again this could be coinciden-tal. (3) The general lesson which the examples illustrate is srated in w 9-10a. Jude, who uses the examples as typological prophecy, not illustrationsof a general principle, has no such statement. But it is a standard featureof the traditional schema (Sir 16:6, ll-14; CD 2:lGl7;3 Macc 2:3-4a; andcf. (8) below). (4) Second Peter adds toJude's examples of sinners the exampleof the generation of the Flood (v 5), which is also found in CD 2:20-.21;- m.Sanft. l0:3 (and Josephus, Bjf 5.566). (5) The mosr notable difference fromJude is that 2 Peter adds two counterexamples of righteous persons deliveredwhen the ungodly were judged: Noah corresponding to the generation ofthe Flood (and probably also ro rhe angels), Lor corresponding to Sodomand Gomorrah. Such counterexamples occur also in CD 3:24 (Abraham,Isaac andJacob); 3 Macc 2:7 (the Israelites at rhe Exodus). Comparison should

Comment 247

H[確Asl漏結寵∬総 〕五盤1蕊l‖鞘TRrr瞥寵電話ぶ譜静:露』ま雷F鷺電[RΨ溜Ч:』

fttI酵乱黛為盤∬¶::

鷺lι朧臨lltthま¶断::li謂辮∬g」鵠柵 癬iJRttξ

熱電1政蹴L需1朧l貰雰蹴l犠鵬ヤ♀Pill摯卜竃懲=∬:庭誡

eぽlぶ認,摯∬t,8圏Ъ犠鷲:器亀占l'ユ∫彙

殿 瀾 帥 斃 淵 蹴 舞 織 墨

traditions are renected in w 5,7,and probably 8.There may be an echoofthe Lord's Prayer(Matt 6:13)in v 9(See cθ mmat′ )。

Commθ"′

3.」sro d“`ε

ttαλa ωκ(摯涸ら出減 うとπあたに出 ων ω 刀o7“CC,``the con―

騰思智普T』精誌継謡:洲蹴I魔鷺絆崎品器f宙ぶ1:詠離ま叫棚 L繋1脹Ll晃宙」獄誤

=メ

VttSttλααmettm面oピリare

器織l犠群1熙櫛駐翼踊縦辮

248 2 PETER 2:3b-10a

was idle or asleep, it is more relevant to note that these ideas were used bypagan skeptics to mock the inactivity of the gods who seem so rarely tointervene in the world. An Epicurean opponent of providence asks: "Whydid these deities suddenly awake into activity as world-builders after countlessages of slumber (donninintl . . . Why did your Providence remain idle (cas-

savnitl all through that extent of time of which you speak?" (Cicero, De naturad,eorum l.2l-22, Loeb tr.; cf. also Oenomaus of Gadara, ap. Eusebius, haep.Eaan. 5.19.2; Celsus, ap. Origen, C.Ceb. 6.78).

Ewra\ot ("long ago"; cf. ralvt,Jude 4) must mean that the condemnationof the false teachers was pronounced long ago, though this is grammaticallyrather awkward. But the author of 2 Peter does not indicate when or wherethis condemnation was pronounced. It is just possible that he regards theOT condemnation of false prophets as a condemnation which includes thefalse teachers of his own time (Mayor, Wand), but this is not very likely.Jude saw the condemnation of the false teachers in the whole series of OTtypes and prophecies set out in Jude 5-18 (see Commmt on Jude 4), and itmay therefore be that the author of 2 Peter sees it in the OT examples ofsinners judged which he gives in vv 4-6. At first sight, it looks as thoughthese examples are not, as in Jude, prophetic types, but only illustrationsof the general principle that God judges (v 9). But although this impressionis given by the maxim with which, following the paraenetic tradition (seeForm,/Structure/Setting section), the author concludes, the details of his accountof the judgments in vv 5-6 makes it clear that he did see those as prototypesof the eschatological judgment (see below). Alternatively, he may have simplytaken over from Jude the idea of condemnarion long ago without feelingthe need to substantiate the point.

The condemnation pronounced on the false teachers long ago is not, asthey allege, ineffective: it will soon take effect. The destruction which is dueto them is not, as they say, "asleep": it will soon overtake them.

4. ei yap 6 0eos a77i\otv d,paprno&nott oix iQeioaro, "for if God did notspare the angels when they sinned." For the basis of this interpretation ofGen 6:14 in I Enoch, see the commentary onJude 6. The author of 2 Peterhas followed Jude. He may not himself have known I Enoch and probablyin any case could not expect his readers to be familiar with it (see Introdrution,section 2 of Literary Relationships), but he must have known the story of rhefall of the Watchers, which was well known in contemporaryJudaism, Hellenis-tic as well as Palestinian. In his rewriting ofJude 6 the specific verbal echoesof I Enoch have mostly been lost (a fact which is mosr easily explained ifJude is prior to 2 Peter), but this is probably accidental rather than a ileliberateattempt to avoid echoes of I Enoch. No significance should be seen in thefact that 2 Peter omits to specify the sin of the angels (the sexual aspect ofwhich evenJude only alludes to:Jude 7). Those who (later) objected ro theidea that angels could have mated with women did not suggest that the angelssinned in some other way, but that "the sons of God" in Gen 6:l were notangels at all, but men. If the author of 2 Peter and his readers knew thestory of the fall of the Watchers at all, they must have known it as an interpreta-tion of Gen 6:l-4 and have known that the angels sinned by taking humanwives. But instead of specifying the sins of each of his three OT examples

Commcnt 249

of sinners in turn, the author has chosen to sum up the sins of all three inthe words of v l0a, which in fact give a strong emphasis to sexual indulgence.

dtr)\d oerpals (ifut raprapdnas rape}ostcsrt, "but cast them into hell andcommitted them to fetters of nether darkness." The verbs rdprapdn and(rather more common) tararagrapotr mean "to cast into Tartarus," and werealmost always used with reference to the early Greek theogonic myths, inwhich the ancient giants, the Cyclopes and Titans, were imprisoned in Tarta-rus, the lowest part of the underworld, by Uranos, Kronos and Zeus (Pearson,GRBS l0 [969] 7878). They are not used in the Greek version of I Erwch,though rapraps ("Tartarus") is used of the place of divine punishment inI Enoch 20:2, as elsewhere inJewish Greek literature (tJXJob 40:20; 4l:24;Prov 30:16; Sib. U. 4:186; Philo, Mos. 2.433; haen. 152). But HellenisticJews were aware that the Greek myth of the Titans had some similarity tothe fall of the Watchers (though Philo, Gig. 58, rejects any comparison).Sometimes the Watchers' sons, the giants (the Nephilim), were comparedwith the Titans (fosephus, Ant. 1.78; cf. LXX Ezek 32:27; Sir 16:7) but inJdt 16:6 (and also the Christian passage Sib. Or. 2:231) the Watchers them-selves seem to be called rnfues ("Titans"). Thus in using a term reminiscentof the Greek myth of the Titans the author of 2 Peter follows HellenisticJewish practice.

lf oeeals ("fetters") is the correct reading (see the Nota), the author hasinterpreted Jude's "chains" (6eopo[s; see Comment on Jude 6) metaphoricallyof the darkness Krt@os is the gloom of the underworld: see Commenl on Jude6) in which the angels are confined. In a highly rhetorical description ofthe Egyptian plague of darkness, Wis 17:16 says that the Egyptians "werebound with one chain of darkness" (rl.€ riltuoer orcsrow d6e0noor,, cf. also l7:2),and it is not impossible that the author of 2 Peter recalled this expression.If, however, the correct reading is oeipds ("pits";, we must suppose thatthe author of 2 Peter had independent knowledge of the tradition of thefall of the Watchers as it was told in I Enoch, for this reading must refer tothe "valleys" (l Enoch 10:12: vanrast cf. l0:4; Jub. 5:l0l or the abyss (l Enochl8:ll;21:7;88:1,3) which served as a dungeon fior the fallen angels. Thisis by no means impossible, since the author elsewhere augments his borrow-ings fromJude with details independently drawn fromJewish haggadic tradi-tion (see w 5, 7, 16), and may have drawn on independent knowledge of acatechetical tradition similar to that which lies behind Jude 5-7 (see Fmn/S hw twe / Se ttirg section).

eis rcptow ttlryvpivur, "to be kept until the judgment." The judgment(rcptot:t) is undoubtedly, as in Jude 6, tlu (eschatological) judgment (cf. 2:9;3:7), and nlpeiv ("to keep"), which 2 Peter has adopted from Jude but useswithoutJude's ironic wordplay, always in 2 Peter has reference to eschatologi-cal judgment (2:9, 17;3:71. Throughout this section the author emphasizesthat the examples of judgment he has chosen prefigure the final judgment.

5. d dplaiou rcin,aou obrc iQeioaro, "and did not spare the ancient world."The story of the Watchers was closely connected with the Flood (in I Enochthe Flood comes as a consequence of the activity of the Watchers and theirsons), and this connection is found in other examples of the traditional pame-netic schema which this passage follows (3 Macc 2:4; T. Napht. 3:5). This

250 2 Psrnn 2:3b-l0a

close connection explains why Noah appears in this verse to serve as thee-xample 9f deliverance which is the countirpart to two examples ofjudgment:the angels (v 4) and the "ancient world" (v f). Kbpos 1"woild"1 here meansprimarily the inhabitants of the world (cf. I Clm. 9:4: Noah preached "rothe world": but the word also emphasizes the univeisal scope ofthe Flood and invites comparison wirh the coming eschatological judgment,the second such universal judgment (cf. 3:6-7). The author oF2 piter seemsto have thought of three successive worlds: the ancient world before theFlood, the present world, and the new world to come (3:13) after the eschato-logical judgment (Chaine). (For d,pTgiov, "ancient": cf. Sir l6:7: "the ancientgiants"; and for the idea, cf. Cbn. Hom..9:2:l:raindianrcara<\w0iwqt<fupou,"the ancient world which was deluged.")

Aryfuv Nc.r, "Noah the eighth p1rson," is a classical Greek idiom (cf. 2Macc 5:27; other examples in BAG s.u. 6f6oos) and means "Noah with sevenothers." The reference is to Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives(Gen 8:18). I have retained a literal translation because the author may haveseen a special significance in the number eight here. Some think the numberis mentioned to stress the small number oT those who were saved (Mayor,{u.4, Green; cf, Jub. 5:19; 4 Ezra 3: I l), but rhere seems no particular reasonwhy that point should be emphasized here. Ir is stressed in f pet B:20 (ri)\i7or,'fr*"), which also mentions the number eight, but there is no good reason{.^t_t4$t"_S_? !g!.t is here dependent on that verse (against-Dalton, BiD60 tl979l 551-52): the only real point of contacr between-l pet 3:20 and 2Pet 2:5 is the number eight, and this probably indicates that for some reasonchristian tradition was in the habit oflpeci$ing that rhere were eight personswho were saved our of rhe Flood. N6ah ii alio called "eighth""(dybos) inliD. Or. l:280-81, a palsagg which may beJewish (KurfeJs in NI Apoc 2,707), and the number eight is srressed in Theophilust accounr of the rieluge(Ad AutoL 3.19).

The reason for this -stress is perhaps to be found in the eschatologicalsymbolism of the number eight, which represented an eighth day ofiewcreation,_following the seven days of the old crearion's hiitory (ci 2 Enoch33:l-2; |oy. l5:9). Early Ch,ristians associated this symbolism with Sunday,the "eighth -day" (Born" l5:g: Justin, DiaI. 24.1:41:4; l3g.l). Sunday wisthe eighth day because it was rhe day of christ's resurrection in which thenew creation- was beqln, 1nd this symbolism is linked by Justin to the eightpeoqlg saved in the Flood (Dar 138.1). It would be vir! appropriate ii 2Pet 2:5, and so may well have been in the author's mind.-

^ Noah, preserved from the old world to be the beginning of the new world

after the Flood, is a type of faithful christians wh6 wil 6e pr..e*ed fromthe present world to inherit the new world after the judgment.

exga,mtwrE rcfipwtn, "a preacher of righteousness." [.,roih's preaching is notmentioned in Genesis, but was well-kn6wn inJewish tradition. It is esf,eciallyprominent in the first book of the sibylline o-racles, a product bf geilenisticJudaism, in which a long sennon of Noah's is given $ib. or. l:l4g-gg). Nor-mally-Noah was said to have preached repentaice to his wicked conremporar-ies (SiD. Or. l:129: orgrk" 1teraum+ "6e preached repentance";Josiphus,Ant. 1.74; Gcn" Rab. 30:7: "one herald arbse fior *e in rhe genirati6n of

Commmt 251

the flood"; Ecclcs. Rab. 9:15; Hrqe R. El.22; b. Sanh. 108; cf. also Theophilus,Ad Autol. 3.19; Methodius, Conuiu. 10.3; Apoc. Paul 50: o0r druuoaprw . , .tcqpwoeut, Meratueire, "I did not cease to preach, Repent"; Booh of Ad.an andEae (ed. Malan) 3:2, 4; Noah's preaching of repentance may also be impliedin I Pet 3:20: &te0ipoow, "did nor obey"). The fact that this tradition appearsalso in I Clmmt (7:6: ittitpvkv perdttotnt, "he preached repentance"; cf.9:4)does not prove that Clement knew 2 Peter; on the contrary, his use of perdtuat("repentance") shows that he had independent access to the tradition aboutNoah's preaching. But it is one of many signs that the two works belong toa common milieu.

Second Peter no doubt uses 6wcroo0y?s ("righteousness"), meaning thatNoah exhorted his contemporaries to righteous living, in order to contrastwith dse$av ("ungodly people"). (Some commentators find a parallel in Jub.7:20, where Noah exhorts to righteousness, but this is irrelevant because itrefers to Noah's instruction of his sons after the Flood.)

Jewish tradition also regarded the period before the Flood as a period inwhich God delayed judgment to give men time for repentance (Tgs. to Gen6:3; Hrqe 'Abot 5:2; Philo, Qnest. Gm. 2.13; also I Pet 3:20) and in view of3:9 this idea would fit well into 2 Peter's typology. But rhe fact that rheauthor uses Au<atnotms ("righteousness") rather than perfuuas ("repentance,"which would create a link with 3:9) seems to indicate that he did not havethis aspect of the typology in mind here.

eflbl\qta, ("preserved"l,cf.6uQv\d,ooetv,"copreserve,protect,"inWis I0:l,5, 12, a chapter which, like this section of 2 Peter, gives examples of God'sprotection and rescue of the righteous when the wicked are judged. Theexample of Noah appears in Wis l0:4.

tcaratcltwpbv rcinpqo one&iw dnaftas, "when he brought the deluge on theworld of ungodly people," is an echo of Gen 6: I 7 IXX (ina1oo riw rnrox\wpintfio:p iri rilv 'lf,v, "I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth"; andcf. SiD. Or. l: 189: rcinpos dnas dnetpeoiav MgJmc'n, "the whole world of count-less people"). For the Flood as a punitive judgment inJewish literature, seeSchlosser, RB 80 tl973l 15-16. Ir was sometimes seen as a prototype ofthe eschatological judgment (this is implicit throughout I Enoch l-16; cf.93:4: the Flood as "the first end"; IQH 10:35-36; Matt 24:37-39), and ourauthor certainly undersrood it in this way (3:6-7). For doepdv ("ungodly";also in 2:6; 3:7j see Commmt on Jude 4; ihe word does not have in I peierthe catchword significance it has in Jude. As in rhe case of the angels, thesins of the generation of the Flood are not here specified, but in view of vlOa, it is relevant to note thatJewish tradition usually held rhem to be guiltyof the same series of vices as it attributed to the Sodomites (Schlosser, 8B80 ue73l 18-25).

6. r6l,ers Zo6ripun rcdlopippag refiginas rnraor @ffi tcarEtcptuez, "he reducedthe cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes and condemned them to extinc-tion." regptr ("to reduce to ashes"), a Nl hapax, is used of Sodom andGomorrah by Philo (Ebr. 2231. (fhe smoking ashes were rhought to be stillin evidence on the site of Sodom and Gomorrah: Wis l0:7; Josephus, Brl4.483; Philo, Mos. 2.56;4 (5) Ezra 2:9; cf. Strabo 16.2.44, where the regionaround the Dead Sea is called fit re0po:6rts, "land of ash.") rcaraorpofil ("ex-

252 2 PsrEn 2:3b-l0a

tinction, destruction") is used of Sodom and Gomorrah in Gen 19:29 IXX,where Lot's deliverance from the destruction is mentioned. Neyrey (Pobnic,132-33) is probably correct in suggesting that the alliteration (rcaraor@f1rcarErcpuet, "he condemned to extinction") has the effect of reinforcing theparallelism with the preceding example of destructivejudgmen t (rca.r arc\wpbtc6ottc+t, "the deluge on the world," v 5).

in&rypa pe\ltbnoy doepeow reflewd:s, "making them an example of whatis going to happen to the ungodly." in66eqpc (on which see E. K. Lee, "Wordsdenoting'Pattern' in the New Testament," NTS 8 [96]-62] 16&S9; Spicq,Lacicographiz, 907-9) means here a waming example; cf. Jude 7 (6efl.lo,l; SMacc 2:5 (God made the Sodomires "an example to those who should comeafterward": rapofuqpa rcicg Cnrywop€rlors); Clmt. Hom. 9.2.1 ("you have the ex-ample of the ancient world deluged," rot ra}olt tcaroxiwfliwos rcoopou rb imo-&qpa). F_or thejudgment of Sodom and Gomorrah as an exemplaryjudgment,see the Commmt on Jude 7. It should also be noriced that, as in 2-Peter,the Flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah were sometimes linkedtogether as the two signal examples of divine judgment (lub. 20:5; T. Napht.3:4-5; cf.Josephus, BJ 5.566; Schlosser, RB 80 t1973] 13-14, 23-24; Liihr-T1nn, ZNW 63 [972] 130), sometimes as the two prototypes of eschatologicaljydgrnent (Luke l7:2il30). In rhis connection it should bC noted that togeiherthey exemplify the pattern of two destructions by water and by fire (Fornberg,Ear\ Church, 4l; Neyrey, Pobmic, 133-34), which is used later in 2 Pet 3:5.7. Undoubtedly the author sees the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah byfi1e as a pattern for the fieryjudgment of the ungodly ar rhe Parousia (3:7j.This conclusion is strengthened by the words pelt\ilttrt tv doepeow ("whatis going_ to happen to the ungodly"), which have the ungodly conrempo-raries of the author, i.e. the false teachers and their followers, especially inview.

The author seems consistently to omit Jude's references to the eternityof punishment (w 4, 6, 17; cf. Jude 6, 7, l3). Is this because his artentionis

-focused on preliminary punishmenr in the intermediare srate (cf. perhaps

2:9; but see the discussion of this v below) or because he prefers to see thefate of the wicked at the day of judgment as annihilation?

-

7. &tcatov l\on rcaranovobpevw ind rh rcisv d.iliopav Ev doelqeiq, utampoQf6ippinaro, "rescued the righteous man Lot, who was distressed by the dissolutebehavior of the lawless." Genesis does nor portray Lot as entiiely blameless(see Gen 19:30-38), butJewish tradition interpreted Abraham's plea on behalf9[ th_e righteous in Sodom (Gen 18:23-32) is referring to Lol (Hrqe R. Et.

?!; Cry. Rab. 49:13), and so could speak of him as frighteous mln (Wis10:6; l9:17: tircatns; cf. I Cbm. I l:l: Philo, Mos. 2.58). His -xemplary deliver-ance from the fate that overtook his wicked fellow-citizens is mentioned inWis 10:6; Philo, Mos. 2.58; and l Cltn. ll:1, which seem to belong to thesame paraenetic radition as 2 Pet 2:4-9 (see Form/Strutture/Setting section).ippinaro ("rescued") is used four times in Wis l0 (w 6, g, 13,-lb), oncewith reference to Lot (10:6) and once in a generalizing summary (10:9) compa-rable with 2 Pet 2:9a. Note the contrast between Loi as 6itcgltrl,, ("righteoui")and the Sodomites as d,iliopc'n ("lawless").

8. FlGwo'rt.ldp tcoi hafi 6 &xra;os evxarou<iv dv ainois ipipat, iE itftpo,s {vxrL

Commmt 253

ensint a$pus Eyyus Apwutgev, "for when that righteous man was livingamong them his righteous soul was day after day tormented by the sightand sound of their unlawful doings." The point of this extended descriptionof Lot's righteous distress must be to heighten the contrast between therighteous whom God delivers and the wicked he punishes, and hopefully toecho the feelings of 2 Peter's readers in their own situation. It may be depen-dent on haggadic tradition which has not come down to us elsewhere. Itmust refer to Lot's inner distress (cf. Herm . Mand. 4:2:2, for rltvxiv $aoatti(eu),his sense of impotent outrage at the evil all around him (cf. Ezek 9:4), notto his outward suffering at the hands of the wicked (Bigg). This inner sufferingwas his rctrysttos (2:9), "trial" in the sense of suffering through confrontationwith evil, from which God delivered him.

9. dkv mfipros euoepelg d,rc rctpoo1tol itrco1ot, "then the Lord is well able torescue the godly from trial." This v is the apodosis of the long conditionalsentence w 4-10a. Putting the lesson concerning the righteous first enablesthe writer to end emphatically with the lesson concerning the wicked, appliedto his opponents.

reryoopu) ("trial, test, temptation") must be interpreted in the light ofthe examples of Noah and Lot, to which in the first instance it refers. Itcannot therefore mean temptation to sin, for Noah and Lot are not representedas being attracted by evil, but as reacting against it (Chaine). Rather rctqop6grefers to the good man's situation in a world in which the powers of goodand evil confront each other and he is therefore exposed to attack fromevil (K. G. Kuhn, "New Light on Temptation, Sin, and Flesh in the NewTestament," in K. Stendahl (ed.), The Sctolls and the Nrw Testamsnt [London:SCM Press, 19581 108-9). It can therefore refer generally to the affiictionswhich the righteous suffer in an evil world (Luke 8:13; Acts 20:19;Jas l:2;I Pet l:6). Since the reference here is in the first place to Noah and Lotthe retpaopdg cannot be simply the ordeal of the last days (Rev 3:10; I Pet4:12), but this overtone may be intended so far as the application to 2 Peter'sreaders is concerned. Since the Flood and thejudgment of Sodom and Gomor-rah are prototypes of eschatological judgment, the situations of Noah andLot are typical of the situation of Christians in the final evil days before theParousia.

There is quite a good parallel in Sir 33:l (nsv: "No evil will befall theman who fears the Lord, but in trial (irc reqs.ottQ) he will deliver (iEellruo't")

him again and again"), as well as in Wis l0:9 (nsv: "Wisdom rescued (ipptnarolfrom troubles (dr nbow\ those who served her"). Some have detected anecho of the Lord's Prayer (Matt 6: l3: 1lr| eioeviIrc71s ?ipds eis n et pao pdv, riltrriFtoat rtpds hrb rfr row1pol), and this is quite possible, especially in view ofthe other echoes of Gospel traditions in 2 Peter. Verse 9a could be a summaryof the last two petitions of the Matthean version of the Prayer. But sincethe wording of 2 Peter is quite natural and explicable without such an echo,we cannot be sure of it. (With even less certainty can this v be used to helpreconstruct a hypothetical original version of the last petition of the Prayer,as G. Schwartz, "Matthdus vi. 9-13l Lukas xi.24," NfS l5 [1968-69] 241n. 3, proposes.)

dfirous 6e eis ipew rcpioeux tlr,} g,|sopevous rrlpiu, "but to keep the wicked

254 2 Pnrnn 2:3b-l0a

to be punished at the day ofjudgment." The present participle rco)tcfopeyous(lit. "being punished") should, strictly, describe an action contemporaneouswith rqpdt ("to keep"), and therefore some commentators, along with mostEnglish translators, understand it to refer to a preliminary punishment beforethe last judgment ("to keep the wicked under punishment until the lastjudg-ment": Rv, Rsv, NEB, NIv, cNn; Spitta, Mayor, Wand, Barnett, Boobyer, Kelly,Schrage; TDNT 3, 816; Fornberg, Early Church, 45). In favor of this, it canbe argued: (a) This is the proper grammatical sense. (b) It draws the moralof v 4, where the angels are held under punishment in Tartarus awaitingtheir final doom. (c) CurrentJewish belief did hold the wicked to be sufferingin the intermediate state before the judgment (l Enoch 22:10-ll;4 Ezra7:79-87; Luke 16:23-24). On the other hand, a majority of commentatorstake rco)\cfoyivoug to refer to punishment at the day of judgment (Calvin,Chaine, Windisch, Schelkle, Reicke, Spicq, Michl, Green, Grundmann; av,3n). In favor of this, it can be argued: (a) In the Greek of this period thefuture participle is rare, and the future passive participle extremely rare (Heb3:5 contains the only NT example), so that a loose use of rol,ofopezoug witha future sense is possible. In 3:ll our author uses the present participleItuolrivuv (lit. "being dissolved") with future sense (other likely NT examplesof the present participle with future sense are Matt 26:25; Luke l:35;Johnl7:2O; Acts 2l:2-3; cf. Moulton, Grarnmar 3,87). (b) In v 4 (as in I Enoch)the angels are held in detention awaiting judgment, and this was also thecommon Jewish view of the state of the wicked dead, whose suffering inthe intermediate state (I Enoch 22:ll) can be portrayed as that of remorseand anticipation (4 Ezra 7:7947, cf. 93). ro)\cfopezorS ("being punished")seems too strong a tenn for this detention, while both rcll o,(ev ("to punish")and r6)\aots ("punishment") are elsewhere used of the last judgment andhell after the last judgment (rotrtifeiy: 2 Clnn. l7:7; Apoc. Pet. A 2l; Herm.Sirn. 9:18:2; rcdtraots: Matt 25:46; 2 Clen.6:7; Apoc. Pet. A2l: Mart. Pol.2:3;l1:2). (c) While punishment in the intermediate state might be appropriatein view of the examples in w 4-6, it is not relevant to the case of the falseteachers, whom the author also ha_s in mind (w 3b, l0a) and whosejudgmentat the imminent Parousia is the point at issue (v 3b). It seems odd that theauthor should emphasize preliminary rather than final punishment.

It is not easy to decide between the two alternatives, but. the second seemssomewhat preferable. In that case v 9, while drawing the general lesson ofw 4-8, does so with special reference to the eschatological deliverance ofthe righteous at the Parousia and the eschatological punishment of the wickedat the Parousia (cf. 3:7).

The dual conclusion--deliverance and punishment-is the most prominentrespect in which 2 Peter diverges from Jude G8, where the examples areonly of punishment. But the dual conclusion, and the examples on which itis based, no doubt come from the catechetical tradition which our authorknew: cf. I Clem. ll:1, which draws a similar double moral from the case ofSodom and Lot; and Philo, Mos. 2.57, where both aspects of the Flood andof the ruin of Sodom are brought out (cf. also Sir 16:ll-14). Evidently ourauthor wished to stress the discriminating character of divine justice. Thefact that the wicked go unpunished raises the double problem of God'sjustice

Explnnation 255

in judging the wicked and the suffering of the righteous while the wickedflourish. Second Peter's assertion of God's intervention in judgment aimsto meet this double problem.

10. pril\rrc6e roDidrioc,r oaprcbsdvdn0vpiq,pooltotropanpivorlg, "especiallythose who in polluting lust indulge the flesh." This phrase seems to echotwo phrases inJude: "went after strange flesh" (furel$o\oot iniooo oarybs &€pas:Jude 7, of the Sodomites), and "defile the flesh" (oapa . . . lttoivunw:Jude 8, of the false teachers). For Jude's dne\flofloat imioc't, "went after," 2Peter has substituted the more familiar LXX phrase rcpeirco1ot drioc,r (LXXDeut 4:3; 6:14; 28:14; 3 Kdgms ll:10; Hos ll:10; for contexts comparableto this, cf. Isa 65:2; 7i Jut. l3:2; Herm. Vis.3:7:31, which implies that theyfollow the flesh as a god or a master (cf. v 2). oript ("flesh") here seems tohave a less neuFal sense than inJude, and means sensuality as an evil power,or at least as a power for evil when it is allowed to dominate.

This phrase and the next are intended to summarize the sins of the threeexamples in w 4-8, in such a way that they also apply to the false teachers.

rcuporqros tura$povotlrog, "flout the authority of the Lord," is modeledon nspinrya . . . dfrerc\ow ("reject the authority of the Lord," Jude 8). Wecannot simply assume that wrtcmrtg, "lordship," is intended in the same senseas it bears in Jude (see Commmt on Jude 8), but in fact it is likely that it is.Human authorities cannot be intended, because this summary must be applica-ble to the examples listed in w 4-8. As in Jrrde, the class of angels knownas rcuporqres can hardly be meant by the singular wpwrryq. So the meaningmust be the authority of God or Christ (so Bigg, Chaine, Spicq, Kelly, Schrage,Grundmann; Neyrey, Polmtic, 44). Since rcbpt.os, "Lord," in v g presumably(cf. v 4) refers to God, wpwrrfros could be held to refer more naturally toGod's than to Christ's authority; alternatively, the parallel with v I ("denythe Master") points to Christ's authority. The author may not have made aclear distinction.

The reference will be to practical disregard for divine authority by ethicalmisconduct. Those who subject themselves to the flesh cannot be subjectto the Lord. Thus v lOa specifies the same two sins as w l-2 ("deny theMaster," "dissolute practices").

Explanation

The false teachers mocked the idea of the eschatological judgment, whichthey claimed should have arrived by now if it were coming at all. If there issuch a thing as divine judgment, they said, it must be taking time off ortaking a nap. Our author's negation of this claim in v 3b amounts to a solemnpronouncement of their doom. The condemnation which was long ago pro-nounced on them in the prophetic Scriptures will not be without effect.

For the time being the author does not attempt to tackle the problem ofthe alleged delay of the eschatologicaljudgment, but is content to demonstrateits certainty against the claim that it is ineffective. He does so by citing threeof the best-known examples of divine judgment in OT times: the judgmentof the angelic Watchers, the Flood, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomor-rah by fire. These examples show that God is able to punish the wicked,

256 2 PsrEn 2:3Ll0a

and therefore that he will certainly also punish the false teachers and theirfollowers who claim impunity and live accordingly. However, the OT examplesare more than instances which establish the general rule (v 9b) that Godpunishes the wicked. They are also typological prophecies of the eschatologicaljudgment. They fioreshadow the doom of the wicked of the last days, amongwhom the false teachers and their followers are numbered, and so in theirdual character as proplwtic instances ofjudgment they make the eschatologicaljudgment certain. If the false teachers doubt the verbal prophecies ofjudg-ment, they should consider that there have also been acled prophecies.

The details of the references to the three examples in w 4-6 bring outtheir typological character. The angels are detained in Tartarus awaiting con-demnation and punishment at the final universal assize-which is to be theday of reckoning for all the wicked (cf. v 9b). The Flood destroyed a wholeworld of ungodly people, thus prefiguring the only other universaljudgmentwhich the world is to suffer, the coming eschatological judgment (cf. 3:6-7).The burning of Sodom and Gomorrah was a warning example of the fatein store for the wicked in the future, especially of the cosmic conflagrationwhich threatens the ungodly of the last days (cf. 3:7).

Into this argument about the certainty of punishment fior the wicked, theauthor has woven a second theme: the deliverance of the righteous. If, asthe false teachers allege, there is to be no eschatological judgment, thenthere will also be no deliverance of the righteous from their sufferings in aworld where the wicked flourish. But the same examples which show thecertainty of judgment on the wicked show the certainty of deliverance forthe righteous. For God did not destroy the godly and ungodly indiscriminately.When he bound the angels in hell and destroyed the world in the Flood,he rescued Noah and his family, and when Sodom and Gomorrah perished,their single righteous inhabitant escaped.

Just as the OTjudgments prefigured the eschatologicaljudgment, so Noahand Lot are described in terms which make them types of the faithful Christianswho will be delivered at the Parousia. Noah was a man who tried to teachhis contemporaries righteousness. The detail that, with his seven relatives,he was the "eighth" person, evokes the eschatological symbolism of the num-ber eight. As the "eighth" person he stands f,or the new creation which willsucceed the old, the "eighth" day after the week of creation's history. Saved-from the world of the ungodly in which he alone preached righteousness,he was able to enter a new world, in which, for a time, only the righteouslived. Similarly, faithful Christians, persisting in righteousness and preachingit in this present world where the ungodly flourish, will be delivered fromit and enter the new world in which righteousness dwells (3:13).

The description of Lot focuses on the predicament from which he wasrescued: the mental torment of the conscientious person surrounded by bla-tant evil and helpless to prevent it. This picture of Lot is extremely significant.It goes beyond the common apocalyptic theme of the suffering of the righteousat the hands of the wicked and their deliverance from this suffering. Lotsuffers not because he is a victim of the wicked, but because he is a genuinelyrighteous man, a man who loves righteousness, who longs to see righteousness

Explanation 257

done in the world, and is affiicted by its absence. If 2 Peter's readers canidentify with him, they too may hope for deliverance.

This assurance of deliverance is no mere consolation for 2 Peter's readers.It provides the eschatological condition for their persistence in righteousness,just as the false teachers' denial of eschatology undermines the Christianpractice of righteousness. In biblical thought adherence to righteousness re'quires the expectation that in the end God's righteousness will prevail overall opposition to it. Only such an expectation satisfies the love of righteousnessand sustains the practice of righteousness.

If the theme of deliverance is important, the certainty of judgment is themain point of this section as a refutation of the false teachers' objection,toChristian eschatology, and so the section ends on that note. The OT examplesshow that judgment comes especially on those who allow themselves to bedominated by sensual desires, and who, in ignoring the Lord's command-ments, treat his moral authority with contempt. Since these are the two catego-ries of sin to which w l-2 referred, the implication is plain that the falseteachers and their followers incur the same judgment.

D““"daι

づれ。/磁θ Faおθ Taattθrs(a)

(2Jθらイ

`)Bibliography

Abbott, E. A. "On the Second Epistle of St. Peter. tI. Had rhe Author read St.Jude?"Exp 2/3 (1882) 14248. Bishop, E. F. F. Apostles, 218-21. Farrar, F. I{. "Dr Abbotton the Second Epistle of St. Peter." Eep 2/3 (1882) 415-18. Reicke, B. Diahonie,Fatfradr und Zehs in Vnbindung mit der akchristliclwn Agapmfein. UUA l95l:5. Uppsala:A. B. Lundequistska/ Wiesbaden: O. Harrassotwitz, lg5l. 35247. Sickenberger,J."Engels- oder Teufelsliisterer imJudasbriefe (8-t0) und 2. Petrusbriefe (2, 10-12)?"Festschrift zw Jahrhmdntfein dn Univasitiit zu Breslnu, ed. T. Siebs : MSGVK 13-14(l9ll-12) 621-39. Skehan, P. W. "A note on 2 Peter 2,13." Bib 4l (1960) 69-71.Vermes, G. "The story of Balaam-lThe scriptural origin of Haggadah." Scriptu,re andTraditioninJudaisn: Haggadb Studics. SPB 4. kiden: E.J. Brill, 1961.127-77,

Translation

\6 These recklzss and headstrong peopb are not afraid to insult ^ tlu gloriousones,,rr whereas angek, althotryh tlwy are greatfr in strmgth and pown, d,o not useinsults what pronouncing judgmcnt on than from the lnrd.v 12 But thae peopb areIike unreasoning animak, which are bom mahnes of mne instirut, to be carryhtand dzstroyed. Thq are ignorant of those whom tlwy insult, but wltm thq are dtstroyed,tluy themsdaa will abo pnish in tlu so"nw dtstmrtion, rs sufning harmc in rewardfor tlu harm tlwy haae daru. For d self-indalgmce in broad daylight is tlwir idea ofanjoymmt. Tlwy are spots and blnnishes, iwlulging in thei,r fuceitful pleaswes. whilzthey feat with you. ta Tluir eya are full of adulterors lust and always on the lookout tfor sin. TIwy aunare uwtablc peopb and haae lwarts weII trained in greed. Thtyare und.n God,'s anrse. tE ltaaing tlw straight way thcy haae gorc astray, and havefoll.owed tlw way of Baham tltc son of Bosor,s who Inaed the ramrd of urongdoing.hro But lw was rebuked for his ofiense: a dumb ass spoke with a human voice andrestrairud the proplwt's nadruss

Notes

r For rftpeur, "to tremble," with the paniciple, see BDF $ 415.

- rThe reading na&,wptw (e?t cl) must bepreferred, as the more difficult reading, to thebetter attested nafft,wfiq: (N B C K P c/). To avbid attributingthe 9\os,enpw rcpiory, "slinderousjudgment," to the Lord, scribes either changed rc,pd,wptov to napd, r<upiqr or omitted the phrasealtogether (A cl). It is true that rcpd, @piq would make good sense: the angels pronouncejud-gment before God's judgment seat in the heavenly courtioom. But rapri rulou is-explicableas 2 Peter's equivalent ofJude's Emnpipat, ou rbpos, "May the [,ord rebuke you" (fude 9; seeC,ommml section).

_ c'dhxrittmtu, "suffering harm" (rzr N' B P al) is preferable to rcpdtpevo., "receiving" (N. AC K al). Scribes will have changed to rcprobpam to obtain a simpler conslrucdonand avoid the apparent attribution ofwrongdoing to God.. d-The participles which follow seem to be loosely dependent on gilagiowrot, "they will perish"

-(v l2), presumably as explaining the ridrrias ("the harm they have done") for which they wilt

be destroyed.

Fomt/Strurture/Setting 259

.dn6t, shows that rhe reading &n&rcg,s, "deceitful pleasures" (rzr N {r C K P al) is original,and &1&rats, "love-feasts" (A" B al) is an assimilation to Jude 12.

I On dt<nan&;or:o.n (A B ol) see Mayor, cxcvii<xcviii; the word is unknown and is doubtlessa mistake for &rzrarainran, "unceasing" (most MSS).

. Brrlop, "Bosor," is by far the besi attested reading, but since this fiorm of the name ofBalaam's father is not found elsewhere, it has been corrected to the LXX form Bec.rp, "Beor,"in a few MSS and versions.

h "The reward of wrongdoing" translates the same phrase (F1godu d6.d,as) which is translated"reward for the harm they have done" in v 13. Unfortunately it is impossible in English totranstate the phrase in the same way in both w while also preserving the word-play in v l3and the intentional ambiguity of the phrase in v l5 (see Conmmt section)'

Form / Structure / Setting

The whole passage 2:l0b-22 is a loosely structured series of denunciationsof the false teachers, which for convenience we can divide after v 16, wherethere seems to be a slight pause in the rapid flow of accusations.

These w draw heavily onJude 8-12:

2Pct2l0b. rotrplrai an&i&rg, 66lcscit t pt pnnu 9\,a o grt tro 0 wes,I l. 6nou tttellot. loxifr tqn&niger peitors 6vres o0 0ipunvt@f cdn6t, ro,ftxupiovFltcorbttllol tcpiotv.

12. o0ror 6d, 6s &)\ora l<lcTepqyi*u 0v o t xd eis d)v'mv,ei Ailopb, b ris d7.affiou$l,.aogr11to0vres, tu rfl @offdrrd;rt ,si f|apiowtu,13. thtoitpatcr pa0b dfucias.ffuip rlloittrezwnp ep fuAWrptilv, otrlltu ttoi ttdrylrdrrtptiljrcres dv to'ls dnuotscinittovvevotxotlevoti)p. . . .

15. rcrc)teirores €fielm, ilirt& \, a vifqo a+ €loto\orft ipqrtesrfl 66<l ro0 Ba)\acp roiiBoooa 6s pr.o0bv dhxinstnarWat. . . .

2Pet2

l0b. These rectless and headstrongpeople are not afraid to ituult thcglotiotts ottts,ll. whereas argels, althoughthey are greater in strength andpower, do not use insults whenpronouncin g jud$et l on themftom tlu lmd

Jude

8. ...66tcs6dQltaoQnpoinv.9. 'O & Mrxaa)r 6 d,pxatteltcr,,be rQ &o{h}re &ucpw61w6&e)\d1ero rcpt ro0 Mr,rl)odcus

o<,owros, cix irihywev xpiotverc v e 1 xeit 9)\co0?das, dN\dtetna4 'Em.rt1i7oo,r ou xb pLoq.10. oirot 6d ina ytv oix ci.fu,otY

F\.ao0npoinv, 6oa 6e Quouain<irs rri ri)to?a lQq, iiim@nahtv rcinus g0eipwtu.

12- Ofnu eiou d dv rots d:f&.nots0g<iru onr )\ri:&g o vv ev axot ue v o tddi&rs. . . .

I l. o0ai aindts, 6rt. rfl 66Q rd)l(ut hopeb0ryat, xoi rfl rltarrylro0 Bo)taap pto 0 oD lrkxit&Pattcai fit furtl. rtigrai Koreint slgtro.

Junc

8. ... and slandcrtlwshiolts owld. But when Michael the archangcl,in debate with the devil, disputedabout the body of Moses, he didnot presume to condcnn him forslander, but said, "May tlw LoxIrebuke you!"

260 2 PETER 2:10b-16

12. But lhese poph arc liheunreasoning animak, which are borncreatures of mere irulizct, to becaught and destroyed. They areignorant ofthose whom theyirualt, but when they aredestroyed they themselves will alsopnish in the same destruction,13. suffering harm in reward for the

t0. Bul ttvse popb slandtrwhatever they do not understand,while by the things they dounderstand, insliwlively, lihcunreasoning anirwb, they aredtstroycd

harm they have done. For self- 12. These are rhe people whofcastindulgence in broad daylight is uith you a, your fellowship meals,their idea of enjoyment. They are without reverence, like dangerousspots and blemishes, indulging in reefs . . . .their deceit[ul pleasures uhile they

feast with you .

15. kaving the straight way they have ll. Woe ro them! For they walked ingone astray, and have followed' the ual tlw way of Cain, they plunged intoof Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved Balaam's error for projt, andttv rcuard of wrongdoing . . . .

ffi;rjr:lk:nrroversy of Korah

The author has freely adapted material fromJude to suit his own purposes.He has omitted reference to the srory of Michael's dispute with the devil,probably because he and his readers were unfamiliar with the story. He hasalso omitted Jude's references to Cain and Korah, to concentrate on thesingle figure of Balaam. Probably this is because he brought in the referenceto Balaam to illustrate his opponents' greed (v l4). Cain and Korah werenot relevant to this point. Had he known the Jewish tradition which repre-sented Cain as a heretic who denied the reality of eschatological judgment(see Commml onJude I l), a comparison of the false teachers with Cain wouldhave been highly appropriate, but he may not have known this tradition.

It is characteristic of our author's use of Jude that he gets an idea fromJude and then gives it a fresh rwisr or developmenr of hia own (w 12, 13,l6).

In addition to Jude, the author may be dependent on Jewish haggadictradition about Balaam (see Commmt on v 16).

- The author's "improvement" ofJude includes some ingenious literary de-vices: the word-play (paronomasia\ dhrcobpevu. . . d&rias (v l3); ori\uKqitri,ttu (v l3), echoing &ont\u rai apaprfru (3:14); d.naraB (v l3), an ironicpun.on-dTctTrdrs; the parechesis rapavoltiag . . . Ta,pqfupvior (v 16); the parono-masia dS,swv . , . $ern (v 16).

Comment

l0b. rotrprpd aifio,}es, "rhese reckless and headstrong people." r6).ga("daring, audacity") and abfld&rc ("arrogance, willfulness") art a natural pairwhich quite often occur together (/ Clem. 3O:8, with 0prioos, "boldness";Spicq, kxicographu, 160 n. l). rolanpai (lit. "daring people") was suggestedto our author by ourc ir6).prloev ("did not presume") in Jude 9: where thearchangel Michael feared to tread, these fools rush in. aifra66 (cf. especially

Conmmt 261

Titus l:7; I Cltln. l:l; Herm. Sim. 9:22:l; Did. 9:6; LXX Prov 2l:241meansbasically "self-willed," with the implications of presumptuousness, arrogance,and obstinacy.

lOb. &ifcs cit rpdpanw f\oofunwtvres, rr 6na) dry1ze\ot. lsxix Kn 6wc;pstpeilwes 6vres rfi fipww tcar> qindtt rcW wpinu 0ltaotnprlt rcfiou, "are notafraid to insult the glorious ones, whereas angels, although they are greaterin strength and power, do not use insults when pronouncing judgment onthem from the Lord." The interpretation of this obscure passage hingeson the meaning of &itas (lit. "glories") and rcar> ainitt ("against them").

The possibility that 6dfcs refers to human authorities, ecclesiastical (Bigg,Green) or civil (Luther, Calvin, Reicke), can be ruled out at once, for it canmake no good sense of v ll. We must take &itas, as inJude 8, to refer toangelic powers. In that case there are two possible interpretations. Either(a) &i[cs are evil angels and rcar' aina, refers to these &tas (so most commen-tators); or (b) 6rifo9 are good angels, identical with the &l,yeltu, and Kor'@ina, refers to the false teachers (Sickenberger, "Engels"; Wand; also Neyrey,Polmric, 13842, who holds that v I I gives the false teachers'own blasphemousstatement about the angels). In the first case, the false teachers are accusedof insulting devils-something which not even the angels do. In the secondcase, they are accused of insulting angels, and this behavior is contrastedwith that of the angels toward the false teachers.

InJude 8, &fas ("glories") are good angels (see Commeil), but this cannotdetermine the meaning of our author, who could have misunderstood orreinterpreted Jude. Since the false teachers opposed by Jude are not thesame as those opposed in 2 Peter, there is no reason why the same accusationshould be made inJude 8-9 and 2 Pet 2:l0Lll. The most natural readingof v I I is that the dpe)\or ("angels") are to be distinguished from the 6ofct("glories"), and that tcsr' cindtt ("against them") refers back to 6otas, whichmust therefore designate evil angels.

This reading of v I I is supported by its relationship to Jude 9. The truesignificance of Jude 9 depends on a knowledge of the apocryphal story towhich it alludes (see Commmt on Jude 9). Probably the author of 2 Peterdid not know the story, and therefore he misunderstood the point ofJude9, in the same way in which many modern commentators have misunderstoodit. He thought the story of Michael and the devil must be intended as anexample of an angel's respect fior the devil, contrasting with the false teachers'disrespect for the &itcs Uude 8). This implied that the 6dfcs rvere, or at leastincluded, evil angels, of whom the devil is one. Not wishing to baffie hisreaders with Jude's obscure allusion to the story of Michael and the devilbut wishing to retain what he took to be its significance, the author of 2Peter substituted a general reference to the behavior of angels. For Jude's|Mryari\6d,pXalld\os ("Michael the archangel") he wrote dtr,ellrr- ("angels"),and for Jude's rQ &oprilqp ("the devil") he wrote aindsv ("them"), referringback to 6otcs ("the glorious ones"). He also took Jude's rcpiow Blsr'|rlptas,as someone who did not know the story most naturally would, [o mean "areviling judgment," and accordingly wrote p\oofunqv rcpiou ("a reviling judg-ment"). His zcpri wptn ("from the Lord") replaces the words of Michael

262 2 Pmen 2:l0b-16

in Jude 9 ('Enmpioot ou dtp.6, "May rhe Lord rebuke you!"), which hetook to indicate that Michael pronounced God's judgment on the devil, whileavoiding insulting language.

The phrase loy3n ,coi 6uva1rct. peilwes 6zres ("although they are greater instrength and power") compares the angels either (a) with the 6ofas ("gloriousones"), or (b) with the false teachers. Either would make good sense: (a)Even the angels, who are more powerful than the devils, do not insult them.How foolhardy of the false teachers, who are less powerful than the devils,to do sot (b) The false teachers venture to insult the devils, whereas eventhe angels, who are so much more powerful than the false teachers, do notdo so. It is probably slightly more natural to read the phrase in sense (a)(in which case both psiloves ("greater") and ainav ("them") refer back to&fcs), but the general significance is the same in either case. What is importantto notice is that this phrase implies that the false teachers are being rebukedfor ignoring the pown of the 6ofa9 ("glorious ones"). The same implicationis to be found in ob rpepoww ("are not afraid," v lOb). The 6ofcr ('lloriousones") are powerful beings whom the false teachers ought to be afraid ofinsulting. Since o0 rpepww ("are not afraid") and iox0i rcai 6wa1n pei(oveg6rres ("although they are greater in strength and power") are not borrowedfromJude, but have been added in the author's redaction ofJude, it is clearthat this was the particular point he was intending to make.

The significance of the hlse teachers' behavior toward the powers of evilis also clarified by the two terms (ro\,pqraiaifrd,&ts, "reckless and headstrongpeople") with which the author has so emphatically introduced rhis senrence.The arrogant audacity of the false teachers is seen in the fact that they dareto abuse the powers of evil.

This accusation must correspond to some real characteristic of 2 Peter'sopponents. If the author had not thought the material inJude 8c-9 relevantto his polemic against his own opponents he could have simply omitted it,as he omitted other parts of Jude. Moreover, he has redacted it, not onlyto eliminate the obscure reference to Michael's dispute with the devil, butalso to emphasize the arrogant audacity of the false teachers. He has clearlyadapted Jude's material deliberately for use in his own artack on his ownoPponents.

- It is not likely that the false teachers slandered the angelic guardians ofthe Law (asJude's opponents did) or that, as Gnosrics, they reviled the demi-urge_ and his angels. In these cases the author of 2 Peter would have regardedthe &itct ("glorious ones") as good angels, whereas in fact he seems to sharehis opponents' view of them as evil angels. The most plausible view is thatin their confident immorality the false-teachers were iontemptuous of thedemonic powers. When they were rebuked for their immoral-behavior andwarned of the danger of falling into the power of the devil and sharing hiscondemnation, they laughed at the idea, denying that the devil could haveany power over them and speaking of the powers of evil in skeptical, mockingte-rms- T!9y may have doubted the very exisrence of supernatural poweriof evil. This explanation has the advantage of accounting for 2 Peter'Jredac-tional emphasis on the false teachers' foolhardy disregaid for the power andmight of the 6d[ar ("glorious ones"). It is also consistent with the general

Comment 263

attitude of skeptical rationalism which seems to characterize the opponenrs'stance.

As an explanation ofJude 8c, this interpretation was rejected in the com-mentary on Jude, because neither drifcr nor p\oo$ryt€iv, "to slander," areSppropriate terms fior a contempruous arrirude to evil angels. This objection,however, has much less force in the case of 2 Pet 2:10b, where thi termshave not been used spontaneously but have been taken over fromJude.

I 2. da &lsla t6;g- rctarypevq, ilwu<a eis dlc^nv rc) Silofu , "like unreason-ing animals, which are born creatures of mere instinct, to be caught and de-stroyed." The author has borrowed rilto.yc fQa . . . Qwuca, "unreasoninganimals . . . creatures of mere instinct," from Jude 10, but has expandedthe comparison. The false teachers are like animals not only in their irrational-ity, but also in being destined for destruction. The idea that certain animalswere born to be slaughtered and eaten was common in the ancient world(fuvenal l.l4l; Pliny, I{ist Nar. 8.81; b. B. Meg. 8ba). ffiopo.here must mean"destruction" (not "comrption") and this determines the sense of S0op(. . .@a,pi1owrat, "destruction . . . they will perish," later in the v.

b ds dTn\ou p}.gl:,Stlllrftmes, lit. "inzulting those of whom they are igno-rant." In classical Greek plwosqlrctv is followed by eis (as in Mark 3:29), rcp.or rcnra, but in the NT usually by the accusarive (as in 2 Pet 2:10). However,the Koine sometimes uses dy for eis, and so probably err ois is here simplyqhe gbjecg of the opponents' insults. It is usually taken'to represent at roiiusg ("[inl those things which," "[in] matrers which"), but could (with Spitta)be taken to represent tv rcinus o0s ("those whom"), with reference to the&itar (v l0; the masculine ois is natural in spite of the fact that 6rip.r is feminine).It is true that the underlying phrase in Jude has an indefinite neurer object(6'oa p oittccifuow F^wtnwtnu), but this is required inJude for the sake ofthe parallel with the contrasting phrase which follows (,6oc 6e Owu&;ts clr rri&lrarc ftpa dnimanotl. Since the author of 2 Peter has not reproduced thisparallelism, he did not need to followJude in giving Fl.cotrtgriirlrres a neuterobject. From the context in 2 Peter alone, it seems more natural to give eudg a personal reference, conrinuing the thought of v 10. If the false telchersunderstood how powerful the evil angels really are, they would not scoff atthem.

There is no need to see &.1vuttow ("are ignorant") as a polemical referenceto the gpponents' claim to g?osr:r. In fact, in rewriting Jude 10, our authorhas reduced the stress on the theme of knowledge, iJ he would not havedone if he were countering Gnostic claims. Instead he has put the emphasison the comingjudgment of the false teachers, in line with his general ipolo-getic concern to counter their denial of divine retribution.

-at rfi Q1ofi airrGnt t@i Napipwrot, "bur when they are destroyed they them-

selves will also perish in the same destruction." This clause has been-under-stood in a variety of ways: (l) Reicke takes Cp rfiNope with P\qo$?got)vres,and translates from Cy ds onward as: "by those whom they do not recognize,but defame in their corruption, they will also be destroyed." But a connectionbetween fropQ and @agipurrat must be intended. Furthermore, Reicke'stranslation depends on his view that the 6o[ar are the civil magistrates.

(2) "They will quite certainly destroy themselves by their own work of

264 2 Pergn 2:l0Ll6

destruction" Qn; similarly nv, Wand). But this active sense of @0opf is notthe most natural.

(3) They "shall utterly perish in their own cormption" (ev; Plumptre).(4) In their own destruction they shall be destroyed-i.e. a Hebraism con-

veying emphasis (cf. 3:3: tv dpnoqpwlt d,prdtcrot, "scoffers with scoffing")(soJames, Green). The author of 2 Peter would be familiar with similar phrasesin the tXX (e.g. Exod 18:18: 00op( t<araSilagipp, "you will be destroyedwith destruction"; Isa 24:3: @op(Qilapipera4"it will be destroyed with de-struction"; Mic 2:10: &s$apqreOeopQ, "you have been destroyed with destruc-tion"). But in this case oirdsv seems redundant. Moreover, (2), (3) and (4)are obliged to give roi the unnatural sense of "certainly," rather than itsexpected sense "also."

(5) They "will be destroyed in the same destruction with them," i.e. theanimals (nsv; similarly nnn, Nrv). The m4iority of modern commentators takeainciv to refer to fQa ("animals"). Some of them then interpret the clauseas meaning that in the coming eschatological destruction of the world animalsand ungodly people will perish together, as they did in the Flood (Windisch,Schrage). But most interpret it as meaning that the false teachers will suffera destruction similar (in its suddenness and violence, or in its finality) tothe slaughter of animals by hunters (Bigt, Mayor, Chaine, Schelkle, Sidebot-tom, Kelly, Grundmann; Fornberg, Early Church, 46).

(6) They will be destroyed together with the evil angels whom they insult(Spitta, Senior). ds is the nearest antecedent for aindtt and so, if it is correctto take ds as masculine, referring to the evil angels (see above), this interpreta-tion becomes the most natural. The false teachers will share the fate of thepowers of evil who will be eliminated at the day ofjudgment. The objectionthat this interpretation destroys the connection between the first Q0oft,, "de-struction," in this v (that of the animals) and the second (Mayor) is not valid.The comparison of the false teachers' fate with that of the animals has alreadybeen made in the first part of the v and does not need to be repeated inthe phrase ert rrt NopQ, aincisv. This phrase introduces a second comparison,with the fate of the evil angels.

13. ddmo0lreua pwflbv tidrrics, "suffering harm in reward for the harm theyhave done." Skehan (Bib 4l tl960l 69-71; followed by Spicq) places a colonafter tir&rot1rerra, and takes p1g,flbv rifrrias with ri6o/4t, rfyobpatu, translating:". . . in their cormption will suffer the harm of being corrupted. They, whothink that the wages of iniquity is pleasure . . ." But (l) if @agftoorrct means,as it must, "will be destroyed," it hardly needs the addition of dfi.tloibparu;(2) the play on words, dlurclitpevu and dr&rcics, must be intentional.

lf dluobpevu ptoflbv dhrcias constitutes a phrase, there are two possibleinterpretations: (l) "being defrauded of the profits of their evil-doing" (Wand,Moffatt, Reicke, Green; Fornberg, Early Church, 46; Moffatt's translation at-tempts to render the play on words: "done out of the profits of their evil-doing"). The meaning "defraud" for diucdv is attested in the papyri (Moultonand Milligan, Vocabulnry, r.u.), though not this use of the accusative (of re-spect?) Wo1w with it. The advantage of this interpretation is that it gives1noflbv diwias the same sense as it has in v 15, i.e. the profit which the falseteachers expected to get from their iniquity. However, it may be doubted

Commmt 265

whether this sense is the one which a reader would naturally give the phrasein this context. It is true that Acts l:18 uses plrlF,bs ri$ a&rcias, "reward ofwrongdoing," of the moneyJudas received for his betrayal ofJesus, but thisis clear from the context. ln Diogn. 9:2, 6 pw9bs a0rfs (sc. r4s d6rias), "its(i.e., wrongdoing's) reward," and in Barn. 4:12 pw0i6ri6nov?ptcs, "the rewardof wickedness" refer to the punishment due to iniquity (cf. also Rev 22:12;1 Cbn, 34:3; Barn. 2l:3), and this seems the more obvious sense in 2 Pet2:13. It may be that in v 15 also, while the primary reference must be tothe money Balaam expected to be paid for his evil-doing, there is a secondaryironic reference to the reward he would receive at the hands of divine justice(see below). (2) "suffering the recompense for their wrong-doing" (so, essen-tially, Mayor, Chaine, Schelkle, Kelly, Grundmann). d.&rceiv ("to wrong, in-jure") can take two accusatives, of the person injured and the injury done,but the latter is normally. restricted to z (Phlm l8), o06dz (Acts 25:10; Gal4:12; Mart. PoL 9:3) and diircnpa. It is, however, credible that the authorshould have somewhat strained normal usage in order to achieve his playon words, which embodies an example of eschatological jru talionis: the falseteachers will suffer wrong (d.&xobpevw) in recompense for the wrong they havedone (rii6rxias). However, since ddwei, can mean simply "to harm" (passivein this sense: Wis 14:29;3 Macc 3:8; Rev 2:ll), there is no attribution ofwrongdoing to God. Unfortunately, in English it is impossible to translatedlwotpevu with a morally neutral term and d&rcias with a morally pejorativeterm, while retaining the play on words.

ifuvi1 inoituew riv iv ipiry rpvfiilv, "self-indulgence in broad daylight istheir idea of enjoyment." rpuQil (elsewhere in NT only in Luke 7:25) canhave a good sense ("delight": 2 Clen. l0:4; Herm. Sdrn. 6:5:7), but is frequentin Hermas in the sense of "self-indulgence" (see especially Sl'rn. 6:5:5 for.adefinition), and can be associated with drunkenness and other forms of sensu-ality (Herm. Mand. 6:2:5; 8:3; l2:2: l). Most commentators agree that iv ittiryis best taken to mean "in the daylight" (cf.3 Macc 5:ll;John ll:9b; Roml3:13). Drinking or feasting in the daytime was a standard mark of degeneracy(Eccl l0:16; Isa 5:ll; T. Mos. 7:4;Juvenal 1.103).

It is not clear whether this phrase already refers to the agapes, whichare the subject of the rest of the verse (as Grundmann holds). The verballink between rpvti\ ("self-indulgence") and iwpuQ<ivres ("indulging") wouldsuggest that it does. But we do not know whether the agapes were held indaylight hours at this period (as they were by the time of Hippolytus, toavoid scandal: Aposl Trad,. 26).

ori)\ot tcoi ltdtltu, "spots and blemishes." This phrase is the author's substi-tute forJude's ord\ti&s ("dangerous reefs"), which perhaps puzzled him asit has puzzled many modern commentators. Like some of them he may havethoughtJude really meant o1i).or.("spots"). His "improvement" ofJude isin its own way very apt, for it is in contrast to his own description of whatthe church must aim to be at the Parousia: &otrt\u xd d,p<bpnror ("withoutspot or blemish": 3:14). The latter was probably a fixed liturgical or paraeneticphrase (see references in Comrnmt on 3:14) and so the readers of 2 Peterwould readily see the point of describing the false teachers as "spots andblemishes" in the church. Like the blemishes on an animal not fit for sacrifice

266 2 Pnrnn 2:l0Ll6

(Lev l:3) or on a man not fit for priestly service (Lev 2l:21), these immoralpeople were frustrating the church's aim of holiness and could make thechurch unfit to be presented as a sacrifice to God.

dwpv|tisvres iv rais drarats abiav wveu\4obpevu tply, "indulging in theirdeceitful pleasures while they feast with you." iwpv@ Ev rut (in a goodsense: IXX Isa 55:2; Herm. Mand,. l0:3:l) means "to delight in, indulge insomething." d.narq ("deceit") had also come to mean "pleasure," especiallysinful pleasures which entice people with an illusion of enjoyment (Spicq,lzxicographie, I l6-lS). Hermas often associates rpuQrt and &.narq (Mand. I l: l2;Sirn. 6:2: l-2, 4; 6;4;4, 6:5: 1, 34, 6), and r pu@) and dnartu (Sim. 6:4: l ; 6:5:3),as almost interchangeable terms (see especially Sim. 6:5:6). Thus, especiallyagainst the background of the Roman Christianity to which both Hermasand 2 Peter belong, the phrase ivtpuQiswes irt rois dtrar&s aindv ("indulgingin their deceitful pleasures") is a very natural and readily intelligible one.

However, it must also be noticed that ip rois dnaros ainisv ouveuc'ttrobpatwripiuis evidently based onJude's words ivroisdls.nalstp6sv. , .ouveve1otpevu,"eating with you at your fellowship meals" (Jude l2). Although confusionof anarats and diyana$ would have been a very easy scribal error, the changeof pronouns makes it unlikely that the variant reading d1anots in 2 Peter iscorrect, or that the copy ofJude used by the author of 2 Peter already hadthe. corrupt reading anaros. The author of 2 Peter must have made a deliber-ate alteration. It is possible that he wished to exclude any reference to theagapes (Schrage), but in that case it is odd that he has done so by substitutingthe similar-sounding dnarats for d.lano.q. The suggestion that he intendeda deliberate pun is more likely, and he might have expected his readers tosee the pun (ouzeuol1pitpevu trriy, "while they feast with you," would naturallysuggest the agapes) even if they were not familiar with Jude's letter. Themeals which were defiled by the gluttonous and riotous behavior of the falseteachers could not be called d1aro,t, but they might be called "deceits" (thebasic meaning of dnarcts).

The curciv ("their") does not imply that the false teachers hosted theirown meals (Windisch), because &raro,q primarily means "pleasures," andonly as a punning overtone alludes to the meals. The author had to change

Jude's 01rd.u ("your") to ainisv ("their") when he changed ayanors to dnar&s,and made it part of the phrase iwpvfiGswes b rais dnarac oindil, ("indulgingin their deceitful pleasures"). But he added tpiz ("with you," not in Jude)to make it clear that he was talking about the common meals of the church.

14. 600a1,,w16 eloures peorois porxctriDos, lit. "They have eyes full of anadulteress": a vivid expression which means that their eyes are always lookingfor a woman with whom to commit adultery. There was a well-known rhetoricaltag according to which the shameless man does not have ropas ("pupils"or "rnaidens"-a pun) in his eyes, but ndpuag ("harlots": Plutarch, Mor. 5288;the reverse, of a chaste man, is attributed to Timaeus (4th century u.c.) inPseudo-Longinus, De sub. 4.5). It is possible that our author echoes this saying,as he does other well-known sayings (2:19, 22).

6e)\edfoures *uxas aornpirroug, "they ensnare unstable people." The verbmeans "to entice with a bait," a metaphor from fishing and snaring (usedin a similar way by Philo, Praem. 25). |uxag (lit. "souls") is here virtually

Conment 267

"people" (cf. Acts 2:41; I Pet 3:20). The "unstable" are those not firmlygrounde'J in Christian teaching, who are easily led astray; see Commmt onl:12.

tcap&,at Telvpvoophtrlv fi.aweliag Elwtes, "they have hearts well trainedin greed." yyvlwoopbtyv (lit. "trained," a metaphor from athletics) contrastswith dtrqfixrovs ("unstable"). Unlike their inexperienced pupils the falseteachers are experts-in greedl They make disciples in order to make a profitout of them (cf. 2:3a).

xsrapas titoa,lit. "children of a crrrse," is a "Hebraism," which the authorhas probably fiormed by analogy with similar phrases in the IXX (Isa 57:4:r€toa dra,\eios, "children of destruction"; Hos l0:9: rhua dfrxiat, "childrenof wrongdoing") and in Christian usage (Eph 2:3;5:8; I Pet 1:14; Barn.7:L;9:7; 2l:9; lgn. P.hId,. 2:l; and cf. Deissmann, Bibb Studics, 16l-66). It meanssimply that the false teachers are under God's.curie (cf. Sir 4l:9-10).

It is impossible to tell whether this exclamation is intended to concludethe preceding denunciations or to inroduce the following. If the idea derives

. from Deut ll:26, 28 (Fornberg, Early Chwch, 102-3), then it connects withv 15a (cf. Deut ll:28).

L5. ltrzra}ainowes eb1ein, 66bv ir\afi|rpat, "leaving the straight way theyhave gone astray." This idea was suggested by Jude's fi1 fitol4 rcD fu\ss4t("Balaam's error," Jude I l). For the use of phrases with "way" to designateChristianity in 2 Peter, see Cornfiwnt on 2:2, The metaphorical use of"straight way" for the path of obedience to God was commo" (66o9 etfleia:Ixx I Kgdms L2:23; pi tOO:7; Prov 2:16; Isa 33:15; I Clcrl7:3; 66oi eifrewizIXX: Prov 2:13; Hos 14:10; Acts l5:10; d6bs 6p0ri': Herm. Mand 6:l:2; Philo,Det.22: Agr. l0l; viarecta: Act. Vna6; cf. also 2 Enoch 42:10), while "leaving"and "going astray" were obvious metaphors to use with it (LXX Deut I l:28:il.c,ttfftre dnb 116 o6oD {s arcretlalrcv t1frv, "you go astray from the way whichI commanded you"; Prov 2:13: u ittcolta}.ehrwres 66o0s erfeics, "those whoforsake the straight ways"; 2t:16: r\wupatqdEfu|exonoinr4g, "going astrayfrom the way ofrighteousness"; Wis 5:6: ir\afi?q1rcv rird Q6ou dl40eics, "westrayed from the way of truth"; Philo, Det. 22: "they have gone astray(nei\atn$uu) because of their inability to see clearly the sraight way (rr1v

6Niw ffir\"; Apoc. Pet. A 34 u d@,res rip it6bv ro0 iledt, "those who forsookthe way of God"; cf. also Apoc. Pet. n; lQ.S 10:20-21; CD l:13; 2:6;Jas 5:19-20; Ddd 6:l).

Ctorc\oufthoottes rf o&ir ro8 fu\on1t rot Booop, "they followed the way ofBalaam the son of Bosor." The idea of Balaam's "way" (66rh) is borrowedfrom Jude I l, which speaks of Cain's "*ay" (rn o6<l rot Ko'w), but the authorof 2 Peter may also have in mind the emphasis on Balaam's "way" (6&is)'both literal (Num 22:23 IXX) and metaphorical (Num 22:32 I)(X), in Num22:21-35, the passage to which v 16 refers. The false teachers are Balaam'sfollowers on the road of disobedience to God for the sake of financial profit.

hoop, "Bosor," is an otherwise unattested form of the name of Balaam'sfather Beor (1lyl, IJ(X Becop). Zahn (Introdrurtion, 292) suggested that it re-flects Peter's Galilean pronunciation. A more plausible suggestion is thatthe form reflects a Jewish tradition of a play on the name and the wordlbl (,,flesh"). Balaam's immoral character would be indicated by calling

268 2 PBrnn 2:l0b-16

him "son of flesh" (so already Luther; Wettstein; Vitringa, cited by Bigg).Although this explanation of the name is not known from Jewish sources, arather similar explanation connected 1l!3 ("Beor") with 1'93 ("beasts")in order to accuse Balaam of bestiality (b. Sanh. l05a).

b poilb dluias ilantpa4 "who loved the reward of wrongdoing." ForBalaam's greed and reward inJewish tradition, see Commmt onJude ll. ToJude's we6 ("reward") the author of 2 Peter has added &hxhas ("of wrongdo-ing"), probably to repeat the phrase already used in v 13. Literally, the poflivd,hxins, "reward of wrongdoing," is the money Balaam expected to receivefrom Balak for cursing Israel and for his evil advice (cf. Acts l:18, wherew0:6 fis dhxins is the money Judas received fior betraying Jesus)..But byusing this phrase (d. Diogn. 9:2; Barn. 4:12) the author probably intendsan ironical secondary referencg to the recompense which Balaam would re-ceive for his iniquity from God's justice. Jewlsh exegetes implied a similarirony when they explained that Balaam was killed with the Midianite kings(Num 3l:8) because he had gone to them to receive his reward (b. Sanh^l06a; Nzn Rab. 22:5; and especially Sipre Nlrm. l57z the Israelites "killedBalaam son of Beor with the sword. The Israelites paid him his full salaryand did not deprive him"; cf. Neyrey, Polemic,92-93; Philo, Mut. 2031.

16. inotiry w e#aw ett hfr gnu il*tt4 &e*arcw dd;Dtwat rfiv rN WoilirwrcwfuWtat, "a dumb ass spoke with a human voice and restrained the proph-et's madness." In the ancient world animals were called mute because theydo not speak language (Horace, Sat. 1.3.100; Tacitus, Hist. 4.17r. The storyof the donkey's speech is told in Num 22:21-35 (and cf.Josephus, lnl. 4.109:U'illif, du0pt'xrivrle dgita, "cried out with a human voice"). Commentatorshave often pointed out that there the rebuke is really administered by theangel rather than the ass, who merely complains of ill-treatment. The authorof 2 Peter could simply have cited the story rather freely for the sake ofthe point he wanted to make, but it is likely that he is dependent on Jewishhaggadic tradition. The Targums to Num 22:30 (Frg. Tg., Tg. Ps.-J., Tg. Neof.)attribute to the donkey a speech in which she rebukes Balaam for his fioolish-ness in supposing that he can curse Israel when he is unable even to cursehis donkey.

This targumic tradition also accounts for the mention of Balaam'srapogpwiat- ("madness"): the ass rebukes Balaam

'for his foolishness (Tg.

Ps.y'. Num 22:30: "Woe to you, Balaam, you foolt"; Frg. Tg. Num 22:30:"You have no understanding and there is no wisdom in you"). The idea ofBalaam's fioolishness or madness is quite common in the haggadic expansionsof the Balaam story (Philo, Mut.2O3 Balaam died "stabbed by his own mad-ness [@peirop)ta.ftias]"; Mos. 1.293: when Balaam failed to curse Israel, Balakcalled him "very fioolish" (arcryrinarc) and "mad" (Q*vofilsQitg for sacrificingthe wealth he could have had as a reward for cursing Israel; cf. also theAramaic Balaam text from Deir (Alla (8th-7th century g.c.), in which it seemsthat those who reject Balaam's prophecy accuse him of "foolishness and silli-ness": J. Hoftijzer and G. van dei Kooij (eds.) , Aramaic Tacts from Deir <AlliIDMOA ll; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 19761 181, 24U7r.It was embodied in anexplanation of his father's name (Tg. P*J. Num 22:5: "the son of Beor, whowas insane from the magnitude of his knowledge"; cf. 1I11, "to be brutish,

Explanation 269

stupid"), and Philo explained the name "Balaam" as meaning "foolish people"Q&ralltslto;dr: Clw. 82; Conf. 159; Mig. ll3; Det. 7l; cf. Conf. 661.

The word rapQptiat ("madness") is not found elsewhere in extant Greekliterature. The author has probably used this form (rather than rapofupooitvtlor lrcplgrildmpts) for the sake of its assonance with rap,topia ("offense").The two words are closely connected, representing two aspects of Balaam'sbehavior in Num 22. His transgression was his determination to curse Israelfor the sake of financial profit. His madness lay in supposing that he wouldbe able to do so. His greed swayed his judgment and made the crime seemfeasible.

That Baldam was in some sense a prophet, in spite of himself, is impliedin the OT account of his prophetic blessings on Israel (Num 23-24) andwas widely accepted in Jewish tradition (cf. Igs. Neof. and Ps.y'. Num 23:7;Frg. Tg. Num 23:l; 24:4; Bib. Ant. 18:12; Philo, MuL 203; b. Sanh. l06a;Num. 'Rab. 20:7, l0). It is mentioned here, no doubt, to enhance the irony:the prophet who should know God's will foolishly failed to perceive it, whilea mere donkey uttered a prophetic rebuke. Philo (who avoids mention ofthe ass's spachl perceives a similar irony in the story: "The unreasoninganimal (dfuhou f<pou) showed a superior power of sight to him who claimedto see not only the world but the world's Maker" (Mos. 1.272, Loeb tr.).

It is not likely that by calling Balaam tpQipw ("prophet") the authorintends to allude to a claim to prophetic inspiration by his opponents, becausein that case he would have had to make clear that he saw Balaam as a fabeprophet. As it stands, his statement most naturally reflects the belief thatBalaam proved a true prophet against his will.

Why did our author include v 16 (an addition to Jude's reference to Ba-laam)? Probably because he saw the opportunity of taking up a theme alreadymentioned in v 12: the false teachers are like diruyc. fipc ("unreasoning ani-mals"). The same point is now made with humorous emphasis, by comparingthem to Balaam, whose irrational behavior (naWipoviol was rebuked by anunreasoning animal speaking in rational speech (cf. Philo, Mos. 1.272, quotedabove). He was so carried away by his cupidity that even a donkey knewbetter than he. Similarly the false reachers. That the author intended thedonkey to represent his simple Christian readers (Reicke) is much less certain.

F.xplanation

Having concluded the previous section (v l0a) with a reference to thevices of his opponents, the author now begins a more expansive denunciationof their sins.

He refers first to their arrogant recklessness in speaking contemptuouslyof the demonic powers. They are brazen in their immoral behavior and takeno notice of the danger they run of falling into the grip of the powers ofevil and sharing their fate. When they are warned of this danger, they pourscorn on the devil and his forces. The author highlights the foolhardinessof this attitude by pointing out that even the angels, when they pronounceGod's judgment on the demons, have a healthy respect for their power andrefrain from treating them with contempt. They do so in spite of the fact

270 2 PsrEn 2:l0b-16

that they have the strength to master the demons, which the false teacherscertainly do not.

Their attitude to the powers of evil is gross stupidity and will lead totheir downfall. The author continues his insistence that, despite their denialof eschatologicaljudgment, they are in fact heading for it. He compares them,in their stupidity, with the irrational animals whose natural destiny is to behunted and slaughtered. Similarly the false teachers, who do not know whatthey are talking about when they scoff at the powers of evil, are on the wayto sharing their fate when all evil is eliminated on rhe day of judgment.This will be no more than justice.

The author turns to condemn their sensuality. Accustomed to feastingand reveling in broad daylight, they evidently turn even the church's fellowshipmeals into occasions for self-indulgence. By means of a bitter pun the authorimplies that in consequence these meals are no longer fit to be called "love-feasts," but only "deceits." When he calls the false teachers "spots and blem-ishes" on the church's community life, he alludes to the church's aim ofbecoming a sacrifice fit for offering to God, "without spot or blemish" (3:14),at the Parousia. The immoral behavior of the false teachers is frustratingthis aim. After a reference to their sexual lust, and the greed with whichthey lure immature Christians into their following to make financial profitout of them, the author pronounces them under God's curse.

Their greed prompts comparison with Balaam. Like Balaam the false teach-ers have wandered from the "straight way" of obedience to God's command-ments in their greed for "the reward of wrongdoing." This phrase containsthe ironic overtone that, also like Balaam, they will in fact receive their justreward.

Balaam's judgment was swayed by his greed so that he actually thoughthe could succeed in his plan of opposing Gbd's will. Similarly the false teaih-ers, who deny the reality of God's judgment, foolishly imagine they can sinwith impunity. But in Balaam's case even his donkey knew bettert

認Ｊ２′日

、

D““πααιづo2o/磁θ Faおθ Tcattθrs(b)

Bibliography

Aubineau, M. "La thdme du 'bourbier' dans la Littdrature grecque profane et chr€ti-enne." RSR 33 (1959) 185-214. Bishop, E. F. F. Apostles, 218-19. Hemmerdinger-Iliadou, D. "II Pierre, II, 18 d'aprds I'Ephrem grec." ftB 64 (1957) 399401. Marshall,l. H. Kept by tlu Pown of Cod: A Study of Pnsnnance and Falling Auay. London: EpworthPress, 1969. 165-66. Qpacquarelli, A. "Similitudini sentenze e proverbi in S. Pietro."Associazione Biblica ltaliana, San Pietro, 42542, Wendland, P. "Ein Wort des Heraklitim Neuen Testament." SPAW.PH (1898) 738-96.

Trcnslation

r7 These peopb are wells without water, mists driam by a squall. For them a tlurutlw gloom of darkness has bem resnved. rs For by their high-flown mpty talk,with hntr of tlw fush and dissolute practicesb they ensnare peopb who are onlyjut c escaping u fro those who liae in error. rs Thq pronise them freedom, buttluy tlvmselaes are sl,aaes of corntption; for "a man becomes tlw slaae of hirn whoounpowns him." N For if, lwaing once escaped tlv pollutions of tlw world throughtlu hnowbdge of tlv. Lord and Saaior Jenn Christ, thq are again mtanghd intlwn and oanpowned by thmt, "tlwir final state has becomc worse than tlw first."2r For it wwld luae been bettn for thm, n@er to have cone to hnow tlu way ofrighuoustuss tlnn, haaing corne to hnow it, to tum backfromt tlu holy command,mmtwhich wos dzliuned to than. 22 What has happened to thm. is what the tnu proanbsays, "A dng which relurns to its aonit, and, a sow which aftu washing rehtms towallnw in tlu mire."

Notes

.ds refers to o0rol, not to rrTyol and 6rdxlar.boaprb is probably best taken with Cn0ugiars rather than with rloeLteiars (cf. Gal 5:16,24;

Eph 2:3; I Pet 2: I l; I John 2: 16; Dirl l:4). doe)\Teiars seems to be, rather awkwardly, in appositiono &Avpiots. The reading rioeltZelcs (P al) is probably an attempt to avoid the awkwardness ofthe dative here.

cdili7c^rs, "just" (pzr A B al) is to be preferred to durc.r, "really" (N K L P cl) and durcssee Metzger, Tqlrnl Commmwy, 704. Hemmerdinger-Iliadou (RB 64 [957] 399-401) defendsthe reading rotrs IdZoU &rofiirywrag ro0S edeis t<oi rovs dv n|,un ansrpe@piwtn, found in theGreek version of Ephraim Syrus, but this is not really a superior reading in the context (whichdeals with apostasy: w 20-22) and is easily explained as an attempt to make sense of a textwhich had lliryous, "words," by mistake for dtri7<.rg, 'ljust."

dThe present participle &rqtrJwtas is better attested than the aorist riroSuyorrca (K L P),which could be the result of assimilar.ion to v 20.

t It is dimcult to know whether or not to rcad iyip (after ralpior: p?, R A C P and mostMSS). The expression occurs with iAratu in l:ll; 3:18; without lUtttu in 3:2. It could have beenomitted by mistake (in B K cl) or added from the more familiar form of the expression.

tlmurrt*ot dr (r7t B C P al) is the best attested reading, bur harpArltot (K L al) or eis rdbaisotbrualrrltotdr6 (N A al), which looks like an explanatory gloss, would make little differenceto the meaning.

272 2 PETER 2:17-22

Form / Structure / Se tting

In the first part of this section the author continues to draw inspirationfrom Jude:

2Pet2

17. obtoi eiow nrnoi itvuipotrai opixtrar 0ro )tailcrosi\@wrcvu,

ois 6 l60os roDor6rous rerilpqru.18. tne po"tratdp wroritryra@etl6rcw &)\etiforu evC n fi u p i a s oa6i6 d',eltleiolsrous d)fif<^r dr@;irywt asrois iv nltbn amtf@yivow.

2Pct217. 'fhue peopb ara wellsuithoul uatn, mists driven Dy asquall.

For llvm tlv rcllvrgloom of darhncss hw bem rcsmed18. For by their high-foun,empty talk, with lurs of the fleshand dissolute practices they ensnarepeople who are onlyjust escapingfrom those who live in error.

ludt12. Otroi eiow. . . ve&llgltd.vu6pot trb Myolr a p,& f$ pevot tiGv6 p Qeuorct prvddxaprairs ardwivrdtxr(afiiwd, 13. rcitpdra&,t &d fialdn oqt in a0 ril ovr ards iawcv aiaxtuas, dortpesr\afipot, ois 6 l60os ro0ordrouseis aidlivdtetipntct. . . .

16. Ouroi eiou tsflr,groitrcp:/,tqmpou xsrd ras

1 r t 0 u p i as ain at no pev6pot,wi fi m6pc a)rdv trdrelbrdpolxq,. . . .

Judl12. Tlvse popb ara. . . cloudsblown along D1 the wind uillodgiaiq rain; autumnal trees bearingno fruit, dead twice over, uprooted;13. wild waves ofthe sea casting upthe foam of their abominations;wandering stars /br ulwm tlv netlwgloom of darhzas ltos bem resdualfor ever ,

16. These people are discontentedmurmureis, who follow their owndtsires. Their mouths utteranogant uords . , . .

The omission of the rest of the metaphors inJude l2-13 is probably becausethe author of 2 Peter, having expanded the first of Jude's metaphors intotwo, felt the rest to be redundant. But it leaves the last clause of 2:17 withoutthe special appropriateness it has in Jude. Another effect is to eliminate theallusions to I Enoch inJude 12-13, but this must be accidental. If the authorof 2 Peter objected to allusions to I Enoch on principle, he is unlikely tohave been sufficiently familiar with t Enoch to detect the allusions in Judel2-13.

The omission ofJude's explicit quotation from I Enoch $ude l'1-15) may,however, indicate that the author of 2 Peter and/or his readers were notfamiliar with the book (see Introduction, section 2 of Litcrary Rehtiorchipsl.On the other hand, the author of 2 Peter is not in this section concernedwitlr prophecies of the false teachers and their doom, as Jude was when hequoted from I Enoch l:9; it is possible that the author of 2 Peter simplyfound the quotation irrelevant to his purpose.

F orm / S hrc tur e / S e t tittg 273

After 2:18, he leaves asideJude until 3:2, probably because he wanted toinclude a fuller and more explicit treatmena of the-false teachers' apostosythan h.efo_und inJu-de. A notabl-e feature of 2: lg-22 is its reliance on proverbiaimaterial. Verse lgb quotes a current proverb (see commmr); v 205 quotes asaying 9fJesu1, bur one with a proverbiil ring to it; v 2l is cast in the proverbialfory of the Tobspruh (a saying expressing:the idea ..better . . ihan,': seebelow), perhaps o.n $e model of siyings oflesus; and v 22 explicitly quotesa proverb Qraptpiasl.

The saying of Jesus quoted in v 20b occurs in identical words in Matt12:45 and Luke ll:26, and so it is impossible to tell whether the author isdependent on either of these Gospe6 or on their common source (e) oron oral tradition.. The two sayings in v 22, which derive originally from prov 26:ll and

the proverb-in Ahihar 8:l5,zl8 (see commmt), ieem'to be cited as a singleplgv_erb and were probably already combined in this form in a source onwhich 2 Peter depends. Since one saying is biblical and the other oriental,the source was mosr li_kely a Jewish Hellenistic work, perhaps a collectionof proverbs (so Bigg; cf. OliviCr,.,Correction,,, l4Z4B): Bigg'(22g) suggeststhat this work could have been in iambic verse, which migllt ac.ouif fotthe rare words_dftpc1ra ("vomit") and ru)troga ("wallowing")."However, sincethe author of 2 Peter is himself fond of obscure ter*r

"id-.omewhat poetic

rhythms and effects, we cannot be sure that he has not rewritten his source.2:21 is a "better . . . than" saying. such sayings (sometimes known as

Tobsprihlw: -see G. F. snyder, "The T6bspnrch in'thE New Testament," Nrs

?1 Il97G77l l17-20) are found in OT Wisdom literature (e.g. prov lE:16,l7; Eccl 7:1, 2, 5), but NT examples are closer in form an? function tothose found in rabbinic literature (e.s. D. Ketub. 67b: "Ir would be better,for a man to throw himself.into a fiery fu--rnace than publicly to pur his neighborto shame"; cf. D. SaDD. 56b).

The fiorm of the saying in 2 Pet 2:21 corresponds with that of other early!!{stia1 Tobspriiche: (l) rcpeTrw is found in f Cor Z:g; I pet 3zl7; I Cbi.46:8 (cf. IXX Prov _16:19, 32); (2) the personal pronoun in the dative isnormal (Matt 5:29, 30; 18:6, 8, g; 26:24; Mark g:+2; t+:2t I CImt. 46:g;I.s_"..for.6:lh (3) the particle ri is frequently used (Matt lil:g, g; Mark 9i4?,45,47; I Cor 7:g; l pet l:l7; I Cteri. +O:g; bl:3; ign. Rom. b:l).

.Jfo.ush the precise function of NT examples variei, they are oiten, likerabbinic examples,_admonitory, designed to-emphasize the' heinousness ofa certain course of action. In function, the examples closest to 2 pet 2:21are Mark 9:42 (par. Luke l7:2; Matt 18:6) and Maik l4:21 (par. Matt 26:14).These two J€sus .l,ogia are quoted together and applied to those who aiecreating factions in_ the corinthian church in I clil. 46:g, which also givesthem a more complete Tobspnrch form (lca)\du ip critrA . . . ;t. . ., ..it ieregood tbr him . . . rather than . .,"; Kstrrov ip airre . . . i. . .,.it werebetter for him . . . than . . .") like that used in 2

-pet 2:2i. It therefore

seems possible that the saying in 2 Pet 2:21 was in fact modeled on theseJesus Jogia,

-either _in a tradition on which the author of 2 peter draws or bythe author himself.

274 2 PETER 2:17-22

Comment

17 . rwoi &tudpot tcoi ilttix)lrurd )tcil,cnos E\wvilparu, "wells without water,mists driven by a squall." The author has expandedJude's phrase "waterlessclouds blown along by the wind" (ve@\ol duuipot trb attiltuv rrcpQephpevo't,

Jude 12) into two distinct images. Perhaps he objected to "waterless clouds"because all clouds in fact carry water. Perhaps the feature of Palestinianweather to which Jude refers was less familiar to a writer resident in Italy(but cf. Virgil, Georg. 9.197). In any case, he has substituted two equallyeffective metaphors. The dried up spring or well is a "bitter symbol of disillu-sionment to the thirsty traveller oi anxious farmer" (Kelly; cf.Jer l4:3). Insteadof the damp mists which refresh the countryside in hot weather (Sir 43:22),ilpix).ot ("mists") are the haze which heralds dry weather (Aristotle, Meteor.1.3468; Theophrastus, Da signir 4) and is quickly dispersed by a gust of wind(cf Wis 2:4).

Probably the significance of both metaphors is the same as that ofJude's-They depend on tFe sandard use of the image of water for religious teachi1g,which sustains spiritual lifb as water does natural life (Prov l3:14; Sir 24:25-26; CD 6:4; and for nrno) hn6pu, "wells without water," cf. especially Jer2:13; Gnostic Apoc. Pet. ICG 7, 8179231). The false teachers supply theirfollowers with no such life-giving teaching.

ofls 6 frr,@os rol orcinws rcrtfipyro4 "for them the nether gloom of darknesshas been reserved." This clause comes uerbatim fromJude 13, but the omissionof dordrysrltafirrot ("wandering stars") deprives it of the metaphorica! appro-priateness it has in Jude. It remains intelligible, however, because darknesswas a standard image of the eschatological fate of the wicked (see Cornmmton Jude l3). For tf,e omission of JudC's phrase eis oi1sva ("for ever"), cf.Commmt on 2:6.

18. iniparcatd,p wruinrrros Q0en6pm, "for by their high-flown, emptytalk." Although inipuytto" "high-flown," is borrowed from Jude 16, it hasprobably lost ihe nuance of arrbgant speech against God, which it has there.Here its significance is found in the contrast with psxqtbrrfos ("vanity, ggptj-ness, folly;; for this word and cognates used of words, cf. IXX Ps 37:13;143:8; I Tim l:6; Titus l:10; Ign. Phld. l:l; Pol. PhiL 2:l). The words ofthe false teachers sound very impressive, but they are deceptive; in reality,they are worthless. Perhaps lnrciirryos was suggested to the author _Uy tl etraditional description of Balaam as parolos (Philo, Clw.32; Conf 159;,Mig.lL&; Det.7l; see ibove, on v 16). Probably ltip ("for") introduces an explana'tion of the previous v.

De)tetifouorz iv rln0vpras oapKrr. dselqeiaq, "with lusts of the flesh and dis-solute practices they ensnare." See Conmmt on w 2 and l0a, and, forde)tetifoturv ("ensnare") on v 14. "Grandiose sophistry is the hook, filthy lustis the bait" (Bigg). By removing the sanction of eschatological judgment,the false teachers were encouraging their followers to return to the morallylax ways of pagan society.

roDs d)tilc,rs-dn&eVlwtag ro0S b il'.c,rn anorpe@pittons, "people who areonly just escaping from those who live in error." d)\iror could mean "to asmall extent" and indicate that these new converts have not yet completely

Commntt' 275

broken free of the influence of pagan society, or (more probably) "for ashort while, recently," indicating that, as recent converts, they have not yetbecome "established" (l:12) in the faith, and so may easily slip back intopagan ways.

"Those who live in error" are pagans (for a')\tiz4, "error," as the conditionof non-Christians, see Rom l:27; Titus 8:3; 2 Clm. l:7; Bam. 4:l; 14:51.

19. dlrrrfreptot awo[s dna1ple]r]$pevu, "they promise them freedom." Thisphrase continues the explanation of the message with which they entice theirfollowers: they use the catchword "freedom," with all its deep attraction andambiguity. Frorn what did they promise freedom? The following answers havebeen given: ([) Freedom from moral law (Plumptre,James, Windisch, Green,Kelly; Fornberg, Early Church, 106-7): this is the common view of those whosee 2 Peter's opponents as comparable with the Corinthian libertines (cf. ICor 8:9; 10:23) orJude's antinomians, or as extreme Paulinists who misusedPaul's doctrine ofjustification by faith and freedom from the Law. That Chris-tian "freedom," as taught by Paul and others, was open to this kind of antino-mian abuse, is clear enough (Rom 3:8; Gal 5:13; I Pet 2:16; and for laterGnostic examples, cf. Irenaeus, Ada. Han. 1.23.4; 1.24.4-5), while 2 Pet 3:16could mean that the false teachers misused Paul in this way. (2) The Gnostic'sfreedom from the archons or the demiurge. The Gnostic saw himself as freedthrough knowledge from the inferior powers who created the world, and assubject to no authority whatever, the truly free man (Irenaeus, Adu. Han.1.23.4; 1.24.4-5; 1.25.2-3). However, there is no evidence in 2 Peter thatthe false teachers held the dualistic gnostic theory of inferior creators. (3)Freedom from 00opa, "perishability" (Harnisch, Existlzv" 100; cf. ICisemann,"Apologia," l7l): the "realised eschatology" of the opponents taught thatChristians were already beyond the power of mortality. This view has themerit of finding an explanation within v l9 itsef but it cannot be regardedas certain that the author intended "slaves . . . to corruption" (Do0)\or . . .rfis Nopo5\ to imply also "freedom from cornrption" as the promise thefalse teachers made. Although it is frequently assumed that the false teachersbelieved in a "realised eschatology," 2 Peter itself provides no evidence ofthis. It indicates only that they were skeptical of future eschatology. (4) Politicalfreedom (Reicke). But Reicke's attempt to read the controversy in 2 Peterin political terms has no real basis in the text. (5) Freedom from fear ofjudgment at the Parousia (Neyrey, Polmtir, 4649; IBL 9g [980] 419-20).The false teachers deny the reality of eschatological judgment (see Commmton 2:3b) and so they and their followers escape from moral accountabilityand punishment. This view has the merit of linking the promise of freedomwith the eschatological skepticism which we know to have been characteristicof the false teachers. View (l) need not be entirely rejected: freedom frommoral restraint is a consequence of freedom from fear of judgment, andthe false teachers may indeed have appealed to Paul's doctrine of Christianfreedom (see Commmt on 3:16). If "freedom" was one of their catchwords,they could have given it a broad spectrum of significance: freedom fromjudgment, freedom from moral constraint, perhaps also freedom from fearof the powers of evil (cf. v l0). But so far as we can tell, freedom from fearof eschatologicaljudgment will have been the fundamental freedom.lt 00ops.

276 2 Psrnn 2:17-22

is understood as God's judgment (as in v 12, and see below), then the view(3) that the author implies that the false teachers promised freedom fromNoW,is also acceptable (so Neyrey, Pobniq202).

Neyrey (JBL99 tl980l418-19) compares rhe conrroversy berween Epicure-ans and their opponents; Epicurus offered freedom from fear of divine retribu-tion in this life and after ir, and thereby, his opponents held, encouragedimmorality (Lactantius, Dia. Inst. 3.17\.

ainci 6oD)\o imap4ouweg rls Q0opds, "they themselves are slaves of corrup-tion." Many commentators think that 00oWs must mean "moral cormption,"but, although this might be a secondary overtone, the word is bes- giventhe same basic meaning as it has in l:4 (see Comncnt). It designatei that"corruptibility" or "mortality" which is the consequence of sinful desire(l:4) and which ends in eschatological destruction (Sahelkle, Kelly, Schrage).The false teachers are "slaves of comrption" because by yielding to 1inthey put themselves in the power of corruptibility and desiruction (NoW ishere.personified as a power, Destruction). From another point of view,@op, can be seen as the divine judgment on sin (2:12). ThC false teacherswho promise freedom from retributive judgment are themselves subject toit.

The_phrase 6o0)\a . . . rdg Aflopas ("slaves . . . of comrption") is reminis-cent of Rom 8:21, where also gilopa is personified: "the creation itself willbe set free from its bondage to decay (d\afrep<,:eioerar d,nb ri6 Dou)telas risfiflopfls) and obtain the glorious freedom (dltafiepiat) of the children of God"(-nsv).-For the general thought of rhis v, cf. also Rom 6:16; 7:5. It is possiblethat the author of 2 Peter, who is almost entirely uninfluenced by-Paulinetheology, here shows some influence from Paul. It is noreworthy that theparallels are from Romans, a letter with which the author must have beenacquainted if 2 Peter was written from Rome.

(There is also a striking parallel in the description of the Carpocratians in Clem.Nex., ktlq to Tlwothns [M. Smith, Ckrcnt of Alacailrb and, a Seqet Gospd of Marh(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973)1 1.6-7: rcnry.:tapatr dllu&posebar,6o0)\a rctwao,y da.6poltrd')*,y h0up6n, "boasting that they are free, theyhave become slaves of servile lusts." In view of the quotations from Jude 13 iir1.3, 6, this may well be an allusion to 2 Pet 2:19.)

- The point of v l9a is that the false teachers promise what they cannotgive because they themselves do not have it. Neyrey (Polmic, 410) makesthe attractive suggestion that in using the term Enalyeltldpam ("promise")the author is turning back on his opponents the charge of unfulfilled prophecy.They complain that the "promise" (dzorye)\ic) of the Parousia is unfulfilled(3:4,9), but are themselves guilty of making unfulfilled promises.

The vocabulary of w 18-20 seems to echo that of l!34 Grtyc,;xars: l:8;2:20; &rtflupia: l:4;2:18; 00opa l:4; 2:lg; furstyew: l:4; 2:18, 2O; xfupos:l:4; 2:19; dral"1,il,,pa, dnalr,eltlGoflat: l:3; 2:19). The resemblance results fromthe fact that this is the vocabulary in which our author expresses the essentialcontent of Christianity. That was his subject matrer in l:&4, his positiveexposition of the Christian message, and it recurs again in 2:18-20, which

Commmt 277

deals with apostasy from Christianity. But the correspondence between thetwo passages suggests a contrast between the promises of Christ, throughwhich Christians will escape from corruption (l:34), and the promises ofthe-false teachers, which will only result in slavery to corruption (2:19).

q $rp 16 iyrryu, rotrcp 6e6o0).a.rrcr, "for a man becomes the slave of himwho overpowers him." This saying, widely quoted in later centuries, wasdoubtless already a common proverb (cf. Hippolytus, /n Dan. 3.22.4: cp ldpfu rB inoralfl rowq rcai 6e6o0),c^rraq Clem. Rec. 5.12; Origen, In Exod. Hom.12; "Adamantius," De recta in Deumfide l, calls it b ilailev ).6tos, "the sayingcurrent among non-Christians"; cf. also Rom 6:16; John 8:34). It derivesfrom the practice of enslaving enemies overpowered in battle. The Greekcan mean "him who overpowers" or "whatever overpowers," an ambiguitywhich allows the metaphor from human activity to be applied to impersonalforces. The English translation "him" preserves the metaphor and the implicitpersonification of Qilopa (" corruption").

20. ei 1ap fur@irywreg rd, prcopara ro0 rfupou iv irryvdnet ro0 xvptou w)oonfl4r6'lpol XpnroD, "for if, having once escaped the pollutions of theworld through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Thisphrase refers to conversion to Christianity: for this significance of iv irqvdnet("through the knowledge") see the Comment on l:2 (and cf. Dupont, Gnosis,3l). With ra ponpara ro0 rcfupou ("the pollutions of the world") , cf. T. Benj.8:3: 1rrsopds rfq 1,rls ("pollutions of the earth"). "They" are most naturallyunderstood as the false teachers themselves, rather than their followers (soMayor, Green, Senior, against Spitta, Bigg, Chaine, Kelly; cf, Marshall , Kept,166). The false teachers are in the state of definite apostasy described in w2V22; their followers are doubtless in severe danger of joining them in it,and so these w serve as a serious warning to the followers, but the authorno doubt hopes that the warning will be effective in preventing them fromsharing the false teachers' doom. Whether he held out any hope for thereclamation of the false teachers themselves we do not know, but w 20-122do not rule it out (cf. Commmt on 3:9).

On "the Lord and Savior," see Comment on l:11.rcinus 6e rti)\ry iptrltucivreg r1rrisvran, "they are again entangled in them

and overpowered by them." For the notion of being "overpowered" by sins,cf. Rom 6:12-19; Titus 3:3; Bam.4:l;2 CIen. l0:l; Herm. Mand. 12,2:3;l2:5:1.

liywat atnois rd, €oxara yeipova rdsv npurusv, "their final state has becomeworse than the first." This is a practically unbatim quotation (only substitutingairois for ro0 au|pamou irceivou) of the saying of Jesus: Tiveran rd, Eoaara rotatilgJmou irceiwu Xeirnva r6sv rpGtruv ("the last state of that man has becomeworse than the first," Matt 12:45: Luke ll:26), which concludes the storyof the return of the unclean spirit (Matt L2:4345 par. Luke ll:24-26). Thereseems to be an allusion to this saying in another passage about apostasy,Herm. Sdm. 9:17:5, and the whole story seems to have inspired Herm. Mand,.5:2:7; 12:5:4. which also describe the backsliding of Christians into immorality.Thus it appears that the author of 2 Peter was familiar with an applicationof this passage ofJesus' teaching to apostasy, current in the church of Romein the late first century A.D.

278 2 PETER 2:17-22

Herm. Sira. 9:17:S-18:2 is worth quoting in full, as a parallel to the thoughtof 2 Pet 2:20-21: ". . some of them defiled themselves (iptarut dcuroug) andwere expelled from the people lTeirous) of the righteous, and became again suchas they were before, or rather even worse (tra\w i"livottto dcit ry'urepov fiow, pa)r\wtE rr;i l6ipves). 'Sir,' I said, 'how did they become worse, after they had knownGod? (z<irs . . . i|twrtto xeipoves, 1iov ircTvotrcores).' 'He that does not know (?r-vdnxav) God,' he said, 'and commits wickedness, has a certain punishment forhis wickedness. But he who knows (inr7uo0s) God ought not any longer to commitwickedness, but to do good. So if he who ought to do good commits wickedness,does he not seem to do greater wickedness than he who does not know (TldnxutralGod? Therefore those who have not known (i1vt xines) God and commit wicked-ness, are condemned to death, but those who have known (iyvt'xines) God andseen his mighty works and (still) commit wickedness, shall be doubly punished,and shall die eternally (eis rdu ai<hva)."

For the seriousness of the state of the apostate, which to the postapostolicgenerations of the early church seemed extreme, cf. also Heb 10:26; lctsJohn lO7; the "elder" quoted by Irenaeus, Ada. Han. 4.27.2. To sin in igno-rance, as the heathen do, is one thing; to sin deliberately when "the way ofrighteousness" (2:21) is known and to spurn the gift of salvation is far moreculpable.

21. Gne^fvosrcivatriy 66ou rrlg iwanwbvns, "to have come to know the way ofrighteousness." For ireyvarcivan ("to have come to know"), see Commmt onl:2. For the use of phrases with "way" to describe Christianity in 2 Peter,see Commmt on 2:2. For "the way of righteousness," see tXX Job 24:13;Prov 2l:16, 2l; Jub. 23:26; I Enoch 82:4; Matt 2l:32; Bam. l:4; Apoc. Pet. E7; A22,28; Clm. Rec. 2:2I:7 (cf. also, plural: IXX Prov 8:20; 12:28; 16:31;Tob l:3; I Enoch gl:18-lg; 94:l; 99:10; IQS 4:2; "the righteous way": I)(XJob 24:4, ll;28:4; Ps 2:12; 2 CIen, 5:7; Bam. l2:4), and especially Bam.5:4: "a man shall justly perish who, having the knowledge of the way ofrighteousness, holds to the way of darkness" (and cf. Repo, Weg, especially2O4-l l). As a designation of Christianity as an ethical way of life, "the wayof righteousness" is especially appropriate in this context, where the apostasyis fundamentally a moral matter (though based on denial of futurejudgment).

rf6 rapaMeio4s aurois a7ias iwolfip, "the holy commandment which wasdelivered to them." "The holy commandment" is here used in the sameway as "the way of righteousness," as a description of Christianity consideredas a body of ethical teaching (for the use of the singular "commandment,"cf. Rom 7:12, of the OT law; and, with reference to Christian ethical teaching,I Tim 6:14; Ep. Apost. fEthiooic] 26, 27,36,39,46,50; the plural "command-ments of the Lord" is frequent in 2 Clmr.: 3:4; 4:5;6:7; 8:4; l7:1, 3, 6)."Delivered" (napabo0eioz6, perhaps a reminiscence ofJude 3) indicates thatthis teaching was given them in their initial Christian instruction (see CommmtonJude 3).

22. rfisdlt4f,olgnapoqtias, "the true proverb." The author probably intendsthe citation which follows as one proverb, not two. Although the two sayingsabout the dog and the sow originally derive from distinct sources (see below),they are so closely parallel as given here (especially if irwrp6la.oa. "returns,"is to be understood in the second) that the author probably found them

Connmt 279

together in the form he quotes, no doubt in some HellenisticJewish collectionof proverbs. Dogs and pigs, both dirty and despised animals, were oftenassociated in sayings of this kind (Horace, Ep. 1.2.26;2.2.75; Pap. Oxy.840,lines 33-34; and a similar pair of proverblike sayings in Matt 7:6).

rcituv dnwrpefias iil rb ll.rlv iEipaW, "a dog which returns to its vomit."This is from Prov 26:ll (nsv: "Like a dog that returns to its vomit is a foolthat repeats his folly"; cf. also Gos. Truth 33:15-16, which may be dependenton 2 Peter), but the translation here is quite different from LXX. The pointof both the sayings is that the animal, having got rid of its filth, returns toit. The dog cannot leave its vomit alone but goes back to sniff around it.The observation of this habit confirmed the ancient oriental's dislike of dogs,which inJewish literature were usually the pariah dogs that roamed the streetsscavenging and were thought of as dirty and disgusting animals.

$s \owapevrl eis rcu)\ro;rdz !op!opu, "a sow which after washing returns towallow in the mire." There is no need to make eis rulorrdy fuplapov ("towallow in the mire") dependent onltowapeyn ("after washing"), which wouldbe a very awkward constmction ("a sow that washes herself by wallowingin the mire," suggested in BAG s. 96p9opos), because verbs are often omittedin proverbial expressions, and in any case Crwrpillooc ("which returns") caneasily be supplied here from the previous phrase.

In the Hellenistic world there was a well-known saying, deriving at leastin one form from Heraclitus (see G. S. Kirk (ed.), Heraclitw, The Cosrnic Fragmmts[Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954] 76-80), according to whichpigs delight to wash in mud rather than in pure water (e.g. Sextus Empiricus,Hypot. l.14.56: oues . . . it&w $opgop<pl.oinwot . . . n ifu.rt . . . tuflapQ; cf.Clem. Alex., hotr. 10.92.4; Strom. 1.1.2.2;2.15.68.3; and many other refer-ences in Aubineau, RSR 33 [959] 2014 for versions which use ru],iep orrcv\w&ioilot, "to wallow," and cognates, see 204 ns. IOLZ). If 2 Peter's proverbwere simply a version of this saying, we should have to adopt either thetranslation rejected above, or Bigg's interpretation, according to which thepig, having once washed in the mud, returns to do so again. In neither casewould there be any reference to washing clean in water. But the parallelwith the dog, which gets rid of its filth before returning to it, as well as theapplication of the proverb to the false teachers, seems to demand the usualinterpretation, according to which the sow first washes itself clean in waterbut then returns to wallowing in the mud.

This interpretation, more appropriate to the context, can be sustainedby referring to another proverb, an oriental proverb preserved in the ancientStory of Afiihar (whether this proverb has any connection with the Hellenisticsaying is uncertain: observation of the pig's love of mud is too universal tomake a connection necessary). In the Syriac version (8:t8) it runs: "My son,ttrou hast been to me like the swine that had been to the baths, and when itsaw a muddy ditch, went down and washed in it, and cried to its companions:come and wash." The Arabic version (8:15) is perhaps rather closer to 2Peter's: "thou hast been to me like the pig who went into the hot bath withpeople of quality, and when it came out of the hot bath, it saw a filthy holeand it went down and wallowed in it" (APOT 2, p.772 and F. C. Conybeare,J. R. Harris, and A. S. Lewis, TIw Storl of Alikar, 2nd ed. [Cambridge: Cam-

280 2 PsrEn 2:17-22

bridge University Press, l9l3l 125, 158, cf. the Armenian version on p. 54).The point is that pigs do enjoy bathing in water (cf. Pap. Oxy. 840, line33) and may even visit the public baths, but they are so indifferent to cleanli-ness that they will immediately return to the mud. This proverb is undoubtedlythe origin of 2 Peter's (and perhaps we should even ranslate )\ouoqreu4 as"when it has been to the baths": so Conybeare, Harris and lewis, lxviii),even if its Greek translation has employed vocabulary familiar from the well-known Hellenistic saying. (It should be noted thar the Hellenistic saying wasnever given a moral significance in non-Christian writers: Aubineau, RSR 33[959] 20L6. Most recent commentators, as well as Olivier, "Correcdon,"14&48, recognize the proverb in All,ihar as the original of 2 Peter's.)

Both sayings of course illustrate the false teachers' apostasy. Having been"cleansed from their past sins" (l:9) in conversion and baptism, thLy arenow reverting to the immorality of their pagan past. Many commentatorssee an allusion to baptism in the sow's "washing," but this theme is so integralto the pre-Christian proverb that its suggestion of baptism can be no mbrethan a h"ppy coincidence.

This verse is the author's final extension of his comparison of the falseteachers with ri)\o7c f<pc ("unreasoning animals," 2:12, cf. 16). He sees themnow as unclean animals, dogs and pigs, which to theJewish mind symbolizedthe immorality of Gentile life (cf. Rev 22:15).

F*platution

The two metaphors with which this section begins condemn rhe author'soppone_lts as people who purport to be religious reachers. Like dry wellswttich disappoint the thirsty, and hazy mists which are blown away withoutrelieving-the he-at of the atmosphere, these people have in reality norhingto offer those who look to them for spiritual lustenance. Consequenrly theyare doomed to eschatological judgment. Of course, they do make disciples-especially of young Christian converts who have scarcely had time to-breakwith pagan ways-but they do so by means of talk which only sounds impres-sive, and especially by denying the need for strict morality. "Freedom" istheir promise-freedom from fear of divine judgment, and so from moralrestraint. But this is a promise which they cannot fulfrll, for ironically theythemselves are not free. By yielding to sin they have subjected themselvesto the p_olver of comrption and mortality, the consequence of sin and themeans o-f God'sjudgment on sin. Unlike Christ who has promised his followersescape from mortality and eschatological destruction (l:4) and can fulfill hispr-omise, these people can provide no escape from destruction, for they them-selves have been overpowered by Destruction and become its slaves. Theauth_or clinches his point by quoting a common proverb.

The rest of this section concerns the seriousness of the apostasy involvedwhen a Christian returns to the immoral ways of his pagan past. This appliesqrigrtrly to the-false teachers themselves, but is cleaily Clso a warninlg totheir followers who are also being enticed into apostasy. Because moral a[os-tasy involves sinrring with full knowledge of God's moral demands and spurn-ing the grace which is available through christ for holy living, its culpability

Explanation 281

is much greate_r- than that of the sins committed in ignorance during a person'spre-christian life. Like the man in Jesus' story to whom rhe dispissesseddemon returned with seven companions more-evil than itself, the apostatedoes not simply rerurn to his pie-christian condition, but enters a worsestate, in .langer of more severeJudgment.

. Again the point is clinched with iproverb, which is peculiarly appropriatebecause it continues the animal theme of this chapter (cf. w ti, to) anabecause it concerns anim-als which to theJewish mini were dirty and diigust-ing, like the immoral life style of pagan society. christians who retuir totheir former plgan ways are like a dog which vomits, but instead of leavingwell enough alone goes back to sniffiound its vomit, or like a sow, whicf,has a good wash in clean water, but cannot resist the urge to wallow in themud again.

Peter's Prediction of Scffirs (i:14)

Bibliography

Allmen, D. von. "L'apocalyptique juive et le retard de la parousie en II Pierre 3:l-13." RfP 16 (1966) 256-58. Boobyer, G. H. "Indebtedness," 56-39. Harnisch,IY.Esclntolngisclu Exttlme" 99-104. Ladeuse, P. "Transposition Accidentelle dans la IIrPetri." RB 2 (1905) 543-52. McNamara, M. "The Unity of Second Peter: A Reconsid-eration." Scr 12 (1960) 13-19. Talbert, C. H. "II Peter and the Delay of the Parousia."I/C 20 ( 1966) 13745. Viigtle, A. Zuhw{t, l2,t-33. Zmijewski, J. "Apostolische Parado-sis." 8Z 23 (1979) 16l-71.

Translation

I My dcar frimds, this is now rny second lpttq to you, and in this oru, as in the

frst, I am arousing yow sincue undnstanding with a ranindn, 2 tlnt yu shouldremtmbn tlw predictions of tlw holy prophets and tlw commandmmt of tlw Lordand Saaior through your apostbs. I Aboae all you must und,erstand this, that in tlwlast days scofns will come, scofing, folhwing tluir own /usls, . and saying, "Wltneis tlu promise of his coming? For sirue tlu fatlws fell aslzep, nerythhg ranainsjut as il has been since the beginning of tlu world"

Form / S tructure / Se tting

Verses l-2, which mention I Peter and echo l:12-15, are doubtless in-tended to reestablish in the readers' minds the fact that it is Peter's testamentthey are reading, after a long section in which this has not been evident. In2:l0b-22 the author has been writing about the false teachers in the presenttense, as his own contemporaries, but he now wishes to return to the conven-tions of the testament genre, in order to provide a second prophecy (cf.2: l-3a) in which Peter foresees the false teachers who are to arise after hisdeath. This device enables the author not only to remind his readers thatthe apostles predicted such false teachers as they are now encountering, butalso to emphasize that these false teachers are a phenomenon of the end-time which was still future from Peter's perspective (v 3). For the first timein the letter the false teachers' objection to the expectation of the Parousiais given in explicit quotation (v 4), though doubtless phrased in the author'sown words (see Commml), to prepare for his final and full refutation of it.

In w 2-3 the last extensive borrowing from Jude occurs:

Fom/Sι爾`ι

a″/Sa′′j昭

2 Pat' μ

よ ::::サ:[群比 if=ν l:L棚 籠 亀 ′IIIIIttψπρOCtρ ημせνω″ ημこ7ων lπO ,ρ octρ ημ

`ν

ω″Oπ 0ゆ 卸 υ 7pO17伽 d林τ●ν a70σ 76λων bp詢

“λぉ τO″ aπ oσ 76λων τoo κυρloυ

700 κυρ`Oυ

d σα″1鶴 ぅμこ〃'I"ω Xptoraら3. 7mO■

"0レ竿屁 m"て、 18. ″tどを7071ロス

67tご 配`U“″“ `π

》ισχar.″ ・E7)dσχaroυ詢 権

…

わ申lrat7哺 繭 xpoν

"柿prat

ごμπατκταt κατと,ast蹴 せμπαこκ7α`κ

αアとras dα″d〃

`π `θ

υμιαs a"`ン 70ρ Cυ 6μενol・ =πιθυμ`α

s 70ρ Cυ 6μ cν ot

価レd鐵

“

″ .

2ルιタ ル″

より協1爛鶴i脇脇ιル 協馘 み雅滋rルヘ

283

- rhe-f^olowing modifications ofJude are especially important: (l) The au-thor of 2 Peter introduces the pre-dicrions of

-the pr6phels (v 2), inline with

his stress in l:19-21 that the christian e*pectation-of the furure is basednot only on the apostolic wirness but also bn or prophecies. (2) whereasJude quotes a predic-tion by the aposrles, 2 peter puis the prediciion direcrlyinto P,eter's mouth, since it is Petei's testament. (3)-Whereaj forJude ipronxrot("scoffers") is a general term for people who despise religioriand morality,in 2 Peter it has in view particulaily their mockery of the-parousia-hope, iithe continuation in v 4 Chows. The importance of the eschatological'issuedistinguishes

-the o,pponents in 2 Peter from those in Jude, and ou-r author'sconcern with it explains why at this point he finds no fuither value in followingl-ude, but turns to another sourcC in which the problem of eschatologicjdelay was explicitly rreated.

In the commentary on the rest of the chapter it will become clear thatthe writer is rather closely dependent on Jewish apocalyptic ideas, and thehypothesis of a writtenJewistr-apocalypticlource for paris of the chap. has*q"41 been suggested by otheis (noiably by von Alimen, ftrp 16 itgOOl25ffi4, who tries to distinguish between the material borrowed from ajewishapocalypse and the aurhor's own contributions: cf. also the rather diFerentanalysis of \IqiI, EE 50 [1975] 228-34, who distinguishes traditional apoca-lyptic material from the aurhor's didactic-exhortator:y material). Ir is posiible,however, that this source need not remain purely hypothetical, and'that ourauthor's use of it begins in v 4. I CInn. 2g:g-4 dia Z Cbn. ll:24 bothpreserve a- frlgr-ne-ng of an unknown apocryphal work in which the problemof eschatologrg4 g.l"y was confronred. Ttre beginning of the fragment bearscomparison with 2 Pet 3:4:

284

I Chn. 2J:J

n6ppt:1ereo0u dS ny<ati lry#i attttt, dnar )\eyerTc\ainopci eiow ri6i{ryc, d &oralanes ripVuxtlv, d l\a'tdrr€t T@ir @

iwinarcpxai iil rtit tatip<,tt ripr;,t,,@i a6on

flq4qn w)d*eilat,tdm* oa,ftprpcet

I Cbn 23:J

Let this scripture befar from us. where hesavs. Wretched are thedouble-minded, whodoubr in their soul,and say, "These thingswe heard in thedays of our fathersalso, and behold we havegrown old, and noneof these things hashappened to us.

2 Pnrrn 3:l-4

2 Clm. II:2ldlet 1d,p w)6 trpo@qru<d9 lcyosTal\qinogi eiov ti{ii{ruxa, d 6ordlorres r0Ka,pliq, d )rd?ovres Tc0rcrdlar (v.1. rfurc) nruinqrvxai iti tb rdtigttt tlyritt,ircts E ipipav tE lwogstp&adpetm d*v rint*topiu<auev.

2 Cbn. ll:2For the prophetic wordalsosays, Wretched are thedouble-minded whodoubt in their heart.and say, "These thingswe heard of old in thedays ofour fathersalso, yet we havewaited day after dayand have seen none ofthese things.

2 Par,fイ

rci lfilureg, IIo) dorry ditattelia rfn rarrl'nir5 aind@ in7dtCcitorirstto, piptpo, r fur a, cin ets[io,yi+r,tar' dpaflgnineus

2 Par,:イ

and saying, "Where isthe promise of his coming?For since the fathersfell asleep, everythingremainsjust as it hasbeen since the beginningof the world,"

The resemblance, which has often been noticed, may not at first sight seemsumcient to suggest 2 Peter's dependence on the apocryphal work quoted in ICbmml and 2 Clmtnt. But the following considerations make such dependence astrong possibility: (l) The close similarities of distinctive ideas and terminologybetween 2 Peter and I CLemmt and 2 Cbment, which have been observed throughoutthis commentary, probably indicate that all three works derive from a commonmilieu: the theology of the church of Rome in the late first century. From themanner in which the apocryphal work is (independently) quoted in I Clenr. 23:8(i tpattt atnq, "this scripture") and 2 Clm. ll:.2 (b rpogrpu<os )\riryos, "the propheticword": for the meaning of this phrase, see 2 Pet l:19, with Commatt), it is clearthat it was highly esteemed in the church of Rome at that time, and must thereforehave been known to the author of 2 Peter. (2) Second Pet 3:10, 12 resemble afurther quotation from an unknown apocalyptic source in 2 Clmt.l6:3 (see Form/Structure/Selling section on 3:8-10). It is an economical hypothesis to attribute 2Clen.ll:24

^nd 2 Clcn.l6:3 to the same.fewish apocalypse, and to account fior

the resemblance between 2 Pet 3:4 and 2zttn.ll:2, and-between 2 Pet 3:10, 12and 2 CItm. 16:3, by postulating common dependence on thisJewish apocalypse.(3) Second Pet 3:8-9, 12 tackles the problem of eschatological delay by means ofarguments which were current in Jewish apocalyptic (see Comment on those w).This suggests that 2 Pet 3 is indebted to a Jewish apocalypse concerned with theproblem of delay. The work quoted in I Cbn. 23:34 and 2 Clcnlll:24 was anapocalypse, probably Jewish, and very probably known to the author of 2 Peter,in which the issue of eschatological delay was explicitly posed. (4) If the quotationgiven above inspired 2 Pet 3:4, clearly our author has not copied his source butrewritten it in accordance with the needs of his own work (see Comnmt s€ctionfor an explanation of his changes). This would be comparable with the freedomhe shows in his use ofJude.

". It is therefore a plausible hypothesis that, just as our author has followedJude in 2:l-3:3, so in 3:4-13 he fiollows theJewish apocalypse quoted in I

Conmmt 285

Clm.28:34; 2 Clm. ll:24. There is much to be said for Lightfoot's guessthat this work was the Booh of Etdad and Modnd, of which we have only onecertainly identified fragment quoted in Herm. Vi^s. 2:3:4. But where the textof this work is not attested elsewhere, it will be hazardous to try to determineprecisely what our author owes to it, just as it would have been impossibleto determine what parts of 2:l-3:3 derive fromJude if we did not possess

Jude's letter.

Comment

l. roinqv i6n, dtamfru, Mtrdpr b@ tpd$ot trtmo\iyv, "my dear friends,this is now my second letter to you." To what letter does the author hererefer as Peter's first letter? The following answers have been given:

(l) An earlier part of 2 Peter. The theory that chap 3 was originally aseparate letter, first proposed by Grotius, has been revived by McNamara(Scr 12 tl960l 13-19), who suggests that chap I is the first letter and chap3 is one of the further letters promised in l:15. He points to the abrupttransition between chap 2 and 3:1, and argues that 3:l would more appropri-ately open a letter than the concluding section of a letter. One major difficultyin this view is that the author's borrowing from Jude continues up to 3:3.l:15 is better understood as referring to the whole of 2 Peter (see Commentl,and 3:l can be adequately explained in its present context following chap 2(see below).

(2) Jude. Robinson holds thatJude wrote both the letter ofJude and (asPeter's agent) 2 Peter, which is the longer letter which, according to Jude3, Jude put aside to write "the letter of Jude." In 2 Pet 3:l Jude refers tohis own previous letter (Redating, 1951. As suggested by Robinson, this theorypresupposes the common authorship of Jude and 2 Peter: but the authorof 2 Peter does not use material from Jude in the way in which a writerwould use his own material. Smith (Petrbu Controansics) also suggests thatthe first letter is Jude, but, unlike Robinson, regards 2 Peter as late andpseudepigraphal. He holds that either the author of 2 Peter was also theauthor of the (pseudepigraphal) letter of Jude, or (less probably) referredto the highly respected letter of Jude as a way of authenticating his ownwork. It is, however, extremely unlikely that readers of 2 Peter could haverecognized a reference to Jude in this v, for 2 Peter is written in Peter'sname. Probably they recognized the pseudepigraphal device as a literary con-vention, but the convention consists in the fact that the "I" of the letter isPeter. Our author does deliberately break the literary convention in one re-spect (when he uses the present tense in 2:l0b-22; 3:5, 16), but it is mostunlikely that he is doing so in 3: l, because the purpose of this v is to introducea ProFheq by Peter (3:l-4). In 3:l he is in fact deliberately reestablishingfhe fact that he writes in Peter's name (see below). The first letter musttherefore have been a letter written in Peter's name.

(3) A lost letter. Spitta, Zahn (Introdurtion, 197-98) and Green, who allregard 2 Peter as written by Peter himself, hold that the reference is to alost Petrine letter, and urge that there must have been many such letters.It is obviously impossible to rule out this possibility, though the notion that

286 2 Psrsn 3:l-4

Peter wrote many letters, now lost, is not perhaps as self-evident as thesewriters assume. But if there is a known document which meets the require-ments of the reference we should not resort to the hypothesis of a lost docu-ment.

(4) First Peter. The m4iority of commentators accept that the referenceis to the letter we know as I Peter. Against this, Spitta argued 2 Peter waswritten toJewish Christians, I Peter to Gentile Christians, and that the readersof 2 Peter were known personally to Peter, while those of I Peter were not.But neither of these assercions about 2 Peter is justified (for the latter, seeCommmt on l:16). More commonly it is said that I Peter does not answerto the description of the contents of the first letter in 3:2 (there is no needto regard 3:3 as included in the contents of the first letter). ladeuse (RB 2[905] 544) connects 1utt1o|f1uot ("that you should remember," v 2) with wq,Q@("I am writing," v l), so that 3:2 describes the intention of the second letteronly, but it is more natural to connect pvno|rtvo,t ("that, you should remember")with &e7eig,r ("I am arousing," v l), so that v 2 describes the contents ofboth letters. But if so, 3:2 is in fact sufficiently appropriate as a descriptionof I Peter, which refers to the predictions of the OT prophets (l:10-12)and largely consists of reminders of the ethical implications of the Gospel.If in 3:2 the author of 2 Peter has in mind especially the expectation ofjudgment at the Parousia and the consequent need for holy living in thepresent, these too could be seen as themes of I Peter (l:13-17; 4:3-5, 7,17; 5:4). It is quite unnecessary to seek any closer similarity between thetwo letters, because the author's real purpose in 3:l-2 is (a) to link his ownletter to I Peter (see below), and (b) to describe the intention of his ownletter. He wrote 3:2 primarily to describe his own purpose in writing 2 Peter,and so it need not describe ihe first letter as accuritely as it does thi second.

If the reference is to I Peter, why did the author make it? Not becausehe himself had written I Peter (see Introduction, section 5 of Lilnary Relation-ships\, nor because (as Boobyer, "Indebtedness," thinks) he was influencedby I Peter and modeled his own letter on I Peter. Second Peter in factprovides no evidence that its author was influenced by or made any use ofI Peter when writing 2 Peter (see Introduction, section 5 of Litrrary Rehtion-ships). He probably had two reasons for referring to I Peter: (l) Evidentlythe author was a member of the same Petrine circle in Rome from which IPeter derives, whether I Peter was written, like 2 Peter, after Peter's death,or, as seems to me more probable, befiore. Moreover, 2 Peter was probablyaddressed to the same churches as had received I Peter (this is implied by3:1; and see below, Commmt on 3:2 and 3:15). The reference to I Peter istherefore a way of identifying (not the author but) the source of the letterfor its readers. But this reason is probably only a secondary one. (2) Afterthe long passage 2:10W22, in which the author has abandoned the conven-tions of the testament. genre to describe the false teachers in the presenttense, he now needs to reestablish the fact that he is writing in Peter's name.He must do this so that he can cast 3:3_4 in the form of a prophecy in thefuture tense, in which Peter fioresees the "scoffers" who will arise after hisdeath. 3:1, both by recalling l:12-15 and by referring to I Peter, serves toremind the readers that they should be reading this passage as though itwere written by Peter.

Comment 287

ta ois ilqeipiuoitp:lat b inoWioetrilv ei\mpyi &.atua4 "and in this one, asin the first, I am arousing your sincere understanding with a reminder." Thesewords recall l:13. For the idea of "reminding" in 2 Peter, and the implicationthat the teaching is already known to the readers, see C,ommntl on l:12. eifu-xputits means "pure, unmixed, uncontaminated," and hence, in a moral sense,"sincere, honest." It often describes purity or sincerity of motive or thought(cf. Plato, Phado 66A: ei)trxpruei rfi &nvoiq,, "pure reason," but in a differentsense from 2 Peter's; Phacdo 8lC: 9ufi ei)\rrpyri,s, "a pure soul"; 2 Cltn^9:8: df ei)\wpttrous rcap&ias, "from a sincere heart"; Theophilus, Ad Autol 2.35:ei\wpwei1vap11, "with a sincere mind"; T. Bmj6:5: "the good mind (&ayota)has a pure disposition (eilwpvn . . . &iieow)"; for sincerity of understanding,cf. also I CIzm.32: l), and here probably means that the readers' understandingis not (or the author hopes it will not be) distorted or led astray by immoraldesires, as the thinking of the "scoffers" was (3:34).

2. rdat tptptlltbc'n p\parav inb rdt &ti,':t, rpbqrdsv, "the predictions ofthe holy prophets." For the epithet &tiuv ("holy"), cf. Wis l l:l; Luke l:70;Acts 3:21 (in a speech of Peter). In this v the writer appeals to the sametwo authorities, prophets and apostles, whose testimony was invoked to vali-date the preaching of the Parousia in l:1G21. It is therefore certain thatthe OT prophets are meant, not (as Sidebottom thinks) the Christian prophets.

Viigtle (Zuhunft, 125-26) thinks that in view of w 34 rhe author mustbe thinking primarily of the prophets' preaching against scoffers who mockthe delayed judgment of God (Amos 9:10; Mal 2:17:' cf. Ezek 12:22; Zephl:12) and their predictions of divine judgment on them (Isa 5:18-20; Jer5:12-24; Amos 9: l0). The author's use of the rott €orv ("Where is?") formulain v 4 probably indicates that such passages in the prophets are in his mind,but there is no need to restrict the meaning of v 2 to predictions of thescoffers and theirjudgment. In v 2 he is still referring to the general purposeand content of I Peter and especially of 2 Peter. The teaching of which 2Peter is intended to remind the readers is the teaching about the Parousia,and about the moral requirements of the gospel, which are related to theeschatological expectation. So, as in l:19, the predictions of the OT prophetsmentioned here are predictions of the Parousia and eschatological judgment.

rf6 rhv d,noor6ltav bpc;:tt iwo\its rfr tcupiw rni ooniTpg, "the commandmentof the Lord and Savior through your apostles." The double possessive genitivein this expression is awkward. It must mean that the commandment is primarilyChrist's, but also in a secondary sense the apostles' because they were thepeople who preached it to the readers. Since most commentators think theapostles here are all the apostles, the apostolic "college," and that the readersare all Christians, 0p<il ("your") has caused some difficulty. Some think that,from a second-century perspective, all the apostles are seen to belong toall Christians (Moffatt, Schelkle, Kelly, Schrage; Zmijewski, BZ 23 [979]166)-others that "your" distinguishes the true apostles from the false teach-ers (Bigg, Sidebottom). However, the natural meaning of "your apostles"is those apostles who preached the gospel and founded the churches in thearea to which 2 Peter is addressed, contrasted implicitly with the rest of theapostles (so Spitta, Mayor; Zahn, Introd,ucti,on,204-5; Fornberg, Early Church,146 n. 22; cf. I Pet l:12; I CIsn.44:1, where "our apostles" are the apostleswho founded the Roman church), and this meaning causes no difficulty once

288 2 Psrsn 3:14

it is acknowledged that 2 Peter is addressed to specific churches (see Commcnton 3:15). Evidently the readers' apostles included Paul (3:15).

It is therefore not true that, as has often been asserted, the writer herelapses into an expression which Peter himself could not have used. It is noteven the case that the phrase "your apostles" necessarily excludes Peter him-self (see Spitta; Zahn, Introduction, 218 n. 7; Dillenseger, MFOB 2 tl907l204-5), but it is perhaps rather more natural if it does so. If the churchesaddressed are those addressed in I Pet l:1, then Peter would be excluded.

The "commandment" is used here in the same way as in 2:21 (see Comnwnton that v): it emphasizes the ethical aspect of the Christian message becauseit is on this, along with the eschatological expecrarion, that the author wishesto insist, in opposition to the false teachers.

It is not especially surprising to find the apostolic message set side byside with OT prophecy as an authority (3:16, which puts Paul's writings onthe same level with OT Scripture is a little more remarkable), but for similarpassages which couple the prophets and the apostles, or the prophets andthe Gospel, cf.2 Clmu l4:2; Ign. Phld.5:l-2;9:l-2; Pol. PhiL 6:3i "3 Cor."3:36; Act. Vqc. 13.

3. roino nglrw lwontanes, "above all you must understand this." Onthis expression, see Form/Stnrcture/Setting section on l:20-21. The nominativecase here prevents the phrase from being too closely linked with the precedingv, and it is difficult to tell whether the author intends the prediction of thescoffers (w 34) to be part of the conrenr of the predictions of the prophetsand the commandment of the apostles which the readers are to remember(v 2). Appropriate passages can be found in the prophets (see above) andprophecies of the false teachers of the last days were common in early Christianteaching (see Commml onJude l8). But it appears rhat whereasJude l8 quotedthe teaching of the apostles, the author of 2 Perer has inrroduced the phraserctrrorginwTvdmovreg precisely in order to be able to attribute the prophecydirectly to Peter.

dtt' Coyarosv rci:v fipegit, "in the last days." The author has substitutedthe more familiar expression (LXX Gen 49:l; Jer 37:24; Ezek 38:16; Dan2:28; Hos 3:5; Mic 4:l; @ Dan 10:14; T. Dan l:l; 2 Clm. l4:2; Barn. l2:9;16:5; Herm. Sim. 9:12:3) forJude's unusual Eil do1t.r;rwrot)Xtfu), "at rheend of time." For its use with reference to the eschatological future, seeCommntt on Jude 18. The appearance of the "scoffers" is a phenomenon ofthe last days, a period still future from the ficrional standpoint in Peter'slifetime, but to be identified as the presenr in which the writei and his readersare living. This is important for our assessment of the writer's eschatologicalperspective: likeJude, he sees the appearance of the false teachers as a signthat the last stage of history before the Parousia has arrived. There is alJo,as Fornberg (Early Church, 6l) notes, "an ironic ring to the passage: Theadversaries who denied the Parousia were themselves a proof of iti immi-nence." It f,ollows that their appearance ought not to disturb the faithful,but rather to confirm their faith in the prophecies (Viigrle, Zuhunft, l2g-30).

tv €praqpov[1 d.ptroixrol,lit. "scoffers with scoffing." Second Peter has bor-rowed the term ipnfiurot ("scoffers") fromJude l8; for irs OT background,

Connwfi 289

see Commenl on Jude 18. It denotes people who scorn and despise God'srevelation, both moral and prophetic. iv ipnat1r,povi ("with scoffing"), which2 Peter adds to iproixrot ("scoffers"), is probably a Septuagintalism, imitatingthe frequent occurrence in the IXX of a cognate noun with a verb (e.g.Gen 3 I :30; Exod 2 1:20; Deut 7:26: 13: 16; 20: l7) as a rendering of the Hebrewuse of the infinitive absolute for emphasis. The fact that the author of 2Peter uses b ipnarypffi with a cognate noun (ipnoltcrat) shows that he isnot thinking in Hebrew, but merely imitating LXX style.

rard, rd,s ifiias dndvpias aindv ropuilpevoq "following their own lusts." SeeCommnrt on Jude 16 and 18. The emphasis is on the fact that they followtheir ourn desires, not the will of God (cf. Jude 16), but infiupia ("desire")has a consistently bad sense in 2 Peter (1:4;2:10, l8) and so it is probablytaken for granted that their desires are for evil, even though 2 Peter omitsJude's rdv doepe6n (Jude l8), which makes this explicit. In 2 Peter this im-moral behavior is to be seen as closelv connected with their denial of futurejudgment (v 4).

It may be that the scoffers are portrayed in vv 34 in deliberate antithesisto v 2. Whereas the readers are to remember the predictions of the prophetsand the apostolic commandment, the scoffers reject the commandment byfollowing their own lusts (v 3), and the predictions of the prophets by mockingthe Parousia hope (v 4).

4. ro0 iorp i iraTle\ia ri6 rapouoias ainoli "where is the promise ofhis coming?" The rhetorical question beginning not ioru. ; ("Where is. . ?") is a standard form in the OT. "Where is your/their God?" is thetaunt of the psalmist's enemies, when God does not intervene to rescue himfrom trouble (IXX Ps 4l:4, ll), or of the Gentile nations when God doesnot intervene on behalf of his people (LXX Pss 78:10; l13:10; Joel 2:17;Mic 7:10). Especially relevant are Mal2:17, where those who doubt that Godis concerned to punish the wicked and reward the good ask cynically, "Whereis the God of justice?" and Jer 17:15, where Jeremiah's enemies scoff atthe nonfulfillment of his prophecies, with the words, "Where is the word ofthe Lord? Let it come true!" The form is therefore highly appropriate toexpress the sarcastic rejection of the prophecy of divine intervention in judg-ment at the Parousia of Jesus Christ, on the grounds of its nonfulfillment.Although Strobel (IJnlnnrchungen,96-197 and n. 3) thinks the alliteration pointsto an actual current saying, circulating perhaps in "enlightened"Jewish circles(cf. the "proverb" expressing similar skepticism in Ezek 12:22\, it is muchmore likely that the author of 2 Peter has himself put his opponents' skepticalattitude into this particular form of words, following OT models. (Similarly,the Letter of the churches of Lyons and Vienne [ap. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl.

5.1.601 attributes to pagans, who have watched the Christian martyrs die,the jibe, "Where is their God?": noD 6 9ebs ain<isv;)

In the Form/Structure/Setting section we have argued that 2 Peter is nowpartly following aJewish apocalypse, which puts a complaint about the failureof eschatological expectation into the mouth of doubters. For other expres-sions of eschatological skepticism arising from the nonfulfillment of prophecy,cf. Ezek 12:22; Sir 16:22; b. Sanh. 97b.

Of course, the author of 2 Peter has made the specifically Christian expecta-

290 2 Pgrnn 3:l-4

tion of the Parousia of Jesus Christ the target of his opponents' skepticism.The "promise" (dnape)\ia) may include reference to OT prophecy (cf. v2), but is likely to refer primarily to Jesus' own promise, both because ofthe possible echo of l:4 (itra1p,iltltara, "promises") and because the rest ofthe v seems to have in view especially those sayings ofJesus which apparentlyset a temporal limit on the expecration of the Parousia (see below).

dQ fisld,ptiraripegitcupi?noap, "for since the fathers fell asleep." "Sleep"was an accepted metaphor for death, which did not necessarily imply anyparticular understanding of death or life beyond death (see R. E. Bailey,"Is 'Sleep' the proper biblical term for the Intermediate State?," ZNW 55tl964l 16l-67; G. Rochais, ks rCcits d,e rdsunection dzs morts dans lz NouueauTestammt ISNTSMS 40; Cambridge: Cambridge Universiry Press, l98U 193-97, for references and discussion; and add / Clem. 44:2; Herm. Zis. 3:5:l;3:ll:3; Mand.4:4:l; Sim.9:15:6;9:16:5,7). Those who wish ro maintainthat "the fathers" are the OT parriarchs or prophets (Bigg, Lumby, Green)have the weight of usage on their side. In early Christian literature, continuingJewish usage (on which see ?DNI 5,976), oi naripes ("the fathers") meansthe OT "fathers," i.e. the patriarchs or, more generally, the righteous menof OT times (fohn 7:22; Acts 13:32; Rom 9:5; Heb l:l; Bam. 5:7; l4:l;Apoc. Pet. E 16; Ep. Apost. [Coptic] 28); aparr from our passage, the onlypossible exception is 2 Clen. l9:4, which could refer to dead Christians butmost probably refers to the OT saints (note the parallel with Apoc. Pet. El6).

However, in spite of this consistent usage, there are difficulties in the wayof supposing 2 Peter to refer to the OT fathers, and almost all modern com-mentators understand cinaripes ("the fathers") to be the first Christian gener-ation. If they are the OT farhers, then the argument of the scofferJ mustbe that since the death of those to whom the promise of the Parousia ofJesus Christ was first given, in OT times rhrough the OT prophers, everyrhinghas remained the same. This would be a general argument for the nonfulfill-ment of prophecy over the course of many centuries. Such an argument mightbe plausible in a purely Jewish conrext (cf. 2 Apoc. Bar. 2I:24j, but it is anodd argument in an early Christian context. Early Christianity constantly ar-gued that many OT prophecies, afrer remaining unfulfilled for centuries,had quite recently been fulfilled in the history of Jesus. The fulfillment ofeschatological prophecy had begun and would be completed in the futurewith the fulfillment of those OT prophecies which they held to be as yerunfulfilled. From this perspective it would not be very relevant to objectthat these prophecies had remained unfulfilled since OT times. Even if thefalse teachers denied that oT prophecies had been fulfilled in the life andwork ofJesus, one would expect some reference to this fulfillment in 2 Peter'sresponse.

_ It could be suggested that in 2 Pet 3 the author is following, with minorChristian modifications, a Jewish apocalypse, and that in v 4 he has takenover an objection based on the nonfulfillment of OT prophecy which reallybelongs inaJe.wish context. However, as suggested abovi inThe Form/snactwi/setling section, it is probable that we have rhe relevant fragment of theJewishapocalypse which inspired 2 Pet 3, in the quorarions in I Cbm. 23:3-and 2

Comtnent 291

Cbttr. I l:2. In this fragment the doubters complain that they heard the eschato-logical promises "in the days of our fathers" (dri r6n taripuv rirrd'y) butthey have not been fulfilled. Here it is clear that "our fathers" (rdn nar|g,svn4bvl are the actual physical fathers, the immediate forebears, of the speakers.If 2 Pet 3:4 is a free rewriting of this source, adapted to our author's require-ments, then he has made two important changes: (l) he has changed "owfathers" to "the fathers" (u nariresl; (2) he Cxplicitly srates, whai is onlyimplied in theJewish apocalypse, thar the fathers have died.

What is the significance of these changes? The first change means thatthe author of 2 Peter can hardly be referring to the acrual physical fathersof the scoffers, i.e. the first generation of Christians in the churches to whichhe writes (as Spitta though$. urardpes ("the fathers"), without ripciru ("our"),would be very unnatural in that sense. But it is possible that he deliberatelydropped rilrclu ("our") from his source, so that his reference should be, notto the fathers of the scoffers, but to tiz first Christian generation, the genera-tion of the apostles. That generation of the original disciples, the fioundersof the churches, might appropriately be called unar€rcs, the Christian "patri-archs," as it were. Although this usage is unattested elsewhere, it is a naturalone, which perhaps the author of 2 Peter coined when he changed rdttrar€putrt-riflQu

("our fathers") in the Jewish apocalypse to d to,r€pes ("the fathers")in his own work.

The reason for this change becomes apparent in connection with his secondchange, the emphasis on the dtath of the fathers. In a Christian context aspecial significance attached to rhe death of the generarion of the apostles,for there were several well-known sayings ofJesus which seemed to predicthis Parousia within the lifetime of his contemporaries (Matt 16:28 pai. Mark9:l par. Luke 9:27; Matt 24:34 par. Mark l3:30 par. Luke 2l:32;John 2l:22-23; cf. Matt l0:23). Thus the critical point for the nonfulfillment of the promiseof the Parousia came at the time when it could be said that the generationof the apostles had died. The objecrion of rhe scoffers was nor just thar along time had elapsed since the promise was given, but that the promiseitself had set a timeJimit within which it would be fulfilled and this time-limit had passed.

There are two possible problems about this explanation of the words ofthe scoffers: (l) Their objection ought to be, not that norhing has happenedsinca the fathers died, but that nothing happened before they died (cf. Vdgtle,Zuhunfi, 130). Since the attempts of Spitta and von Allmen (RfP 16 [966]258 n. 2) to give a different sense to the scoffers'words by a strained interpre-tation of rid f6, "since," cannot be allowed (see Zahn, Introduct'ion, 237-38),in strict logic there is a problem here. But in terms of polemical argument,2 Peter's wording is quite understandable. The scoffers are saying: "TheParousia was promised before the death of the fathers. Well, the fathers havedied and slilf nothing happens." (2) Second Perer does not ansuil the objectionthat a specific timeJimit has passed. The reason for this may be that theauthor does no more than reproduce the answers to the problem of eschato-logical delay which he found in his Jewish apocalyptic source, and these an-swers were, of course, designed to meet the general problem of eschatologicaldelay rather than the specifically Christian problem of nonfulfrllment within

292 2 Pnrsn 3:l-4

the lifetime of the apostles. In addition, however, it may be said that 3:9,while not mentioning the problem of the time-limit, does contain the mostadequate response to it that could have been made: if God has extendedthe time-limit, he has done so in his grace, to give people the opportunityfor repentance (cf. J. Jeremias, Ntu Testammt Tfuolngy: Part 1, tr. J. Bowden[London: SCM Press, l97l] 140). In effect, w 8-9 raise the issue ofeschatolog-ical delay above the level of calculating dates, and in doing so are faithfulto the intentions of the sayings of Jesus which posed the problem, sincethe real concern of these sayings was not with a datable time-ldmit but withthe imminence of God's judgment (Jeremias, Neu Testammt Tlwology, L39).

If 2 Pet 3:4 does refer to the death of the first Christian generation, thenit is clear that the author lived at a time when the first generation could besaid to have passed away. He is not looking forward to such a time, since v5 speaks of the "scoffers" in the present tense, as his own and his readers'contemporaries. But it is not, as many commentators think, a blunder onhis part to have put a mention of the death of the first Christian generationinto Petn's mouth in v 4. In v 4 he is using the pseudepigraphal device quitecorrectly, for he represents Peter as proplwsying that aftn his death there willbe scoffers who speak of the death of the fathers.

Many commentators think that the words "since the fathers fell asleep"indicate that the author is writing hng after the death of the first generation.Two reasons are given f,or this: (l) "the use of the term d. rctipes, Ithefathersl in itself implies a considerable lapse of time. The founders of amovement are not called 'the fathers' till a later age looks back upon theirwork" (Chase, DB(H) 3, 812). This argument would be more cogenr if otherexamples of the use of the term were given, but in fact 2 Peter seems to beunique in the literature of the first two Christian centuries in referring tothe first Christian generation as "the fathers." Since the apostles had a uniquerole in Christian history and the second Christian generation who lived aftertheir death was very conscious of being the second generation (Herm. Sdm.

9:15:4; cf.,l Clm.44:l-3), it would not be unnatural for a writer soon afrerthe death of the first generation to call them "the fathers."

(2) The words "since the fathers fell asleep everything remains just as ithas been . . ." are said to presuppose a considerable lapse of time sincethe death of the fathers (Chase, DB(H) 3, p. 812; cf. Kelly). But this is notnecessarily so. We must imagine that in the years when only a few prominentChristians of the first generation were known to be still alive (cf. Asc. Isa.4:13; Herm. I/i.s. 3:5:l) eschatological expectation would have reached a highpitch in many circles. The Parousia would be expected from year to year,but as year after year passed and the few survivors of the first generationpassed away, skeptics would have more and more reason to call the expectationdisproved. In such circumstances each year in which the promise remainedunfulfilled was a long time, and the words of the scoffers in 2 Peter wouldbe quite natural as soon as it was widely admitted that the first generationhad in fact passed away.

In fact the probability is that the death of the first generation was a tmtporaryproblem for Christian eschatology for a shorr period in the late firsr cenrurywhen the problem had first to be confronted (cf. I Clm. 23:2-5; 2 Clm"

Commsnt

ll:l-7; Herm. Vk.3:4:3;3:5:l;3:8:9), but once the immediate crisis wassurmounted the issue was forgotten and is never mentioned in the literatureof the second century. The problem of the death of the first generation wasnever, so far as we know, raised as an objection to traditional eschatologyby second-century Gnostics. Even the more general question of the delayof the Parousia was very rarely raised in the second century (cf. L. W. Barnard,'Justin Martyr's Eschatology," VC 19 t 19651 86-98). The probability is there-fore that 2 Peter dates from the period, late in the first century, when thedeath of the first generation was a fresh and challenging issue. It played itspart in ensuring that it was not an enduring issue.

rfuta olrcls Weyer &P dn171tts tuloeots, "everything remains just as it hasbeen since the beginning of the world." The sentence, with its two paralleltemporal clauses, is rather awkward, but must have the sense given it inthis translation. rrioec,rs ("creation") here refers to the created world, notthe act of creation, and so is best translated "world," even though this ratherobscures the fact that the word rcrioeors prepares for the idea of creation inv 5 (Viigtle, Zuhunft, 1331.

Many have seen in these words an assertion of the immutability and inde-structibility of the universe (Bigg, Moffatt, Spicq, Sidebottom, Green; vonAllmen, RTP 16 [1966] 257): the scoffers deny the eschatological expectation,which involves cosmic dissolution (w 10, l2), because the stability of thecosmos makes such a prospect inconceivable. There are, however, some diffi-culties with this interpretation:

(l) The phrase hr> d,p1i6 tcrioeots ("since the beginning of the world") isnot presented as a distinct argument against the expectation of the Parousia,but as part of the argument that the Parousia prophecy has failed. The scofferspoint out that since the death of the fathers everything remains the same.The phrase &r> d,pXils rcrioec'ss ("since the beginning of the world") clarifiesthis: everything goes on as it has always done. There is no assertion thatthe nature of the universe is such that everything must go on as it has alwaysdone.

The force of this objection must be granted. But in w 5-7 the authortreats the phrase df diltf rcrioeo6, ("since the beginning of the world") asthough it contained an assertion which requires refutation. He argues thatthe world is dependent on the word of God, and that it is not in fact truethat everything has always continued unchanged. Thus it appears that, al-though the phrase hr' dr|lits rcrioec'E ("since the beginning of the world")in v 4 is not a separate argument, the author sees in it an unjustified assumptionwhich strengthens the scoffers' main argument about the nonfulfrllment ofthe Parousia prophecy, and which is therefore worth refuting.

(2) Vitgtle (Zuhunft, 132-33) argues that the function of dt' dpxtsrcrioeo:s("since the beginning of the world") is not to report a view held by thescoffers, but to give the author a starting-point for his discussion of the Cre-ation and the Flood in w 5-7. Of course, it does provide such a starting-point, but if it does not also correspond to anything the scoffers actuallythought, then the force of w 5-7 as a reply to the scoffers' objection is muchdiminished. Even if they did not explicitly argue that there will be no Parousiabecause nothing ever changes, the author must have attributed to them a

293

294 2 Pnrsn 3:l-4

general view of the world which left the Creation and the Flood out of account.He correctly saw that their denial of future eschatology was at home in sucha world-view.

(3) Vttgtle (Zuhunft, l3l-32) also argues that when the scoffers assert that"everything remains just as it has been since the beginning of the world,"they are not denying the destruction of the physical universe, but the interven-tion of God in the course of history. This objection is partially correct. From2:3b-l0a (see Commmt on that section) it has already become clear thar whatthe opponents deny and what the author intends is the expectation of divineintervention injudgment. It will also become clear thar in 5:A-13 rhe aurhor'sprimary concern is with the Parousia as judgment, rather than as cosmicdissolution. However, it is also clear that the coming divine intervention injudgment will take the form of cosmic catastrophe. The destruction of thephysical universe is involved in God's judgment of its human inhabitants.Just as his judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah (2:6) was a physical event,and just as his judgment of the whole human race at rhe time of the Floodwas a physical catastrophe of cosmic proporrions (2:5; 3:6), so his universaljudgment at the Parousia is conceivedas i cosmic conflagration. Thus, whileit is true that the scoffers intend to reject divine intervention in history, wec-annot, with Vtigtle, draw a sharp distinction between human history andthe physical universe.

In the light of the above discussion, we must modify the view that thescoffers advanced the "scientific" dogma of the indestructibility of the universeas an argument against the possibility of the Parousia. The phrase &r' d,pfrstcrioec'x ("since the beginning of the world") is intended by the author tohighlight an assumption the scoffers made, but not necessarily an argumentthey advanced, and it may be too precise to describe this assumption as theindestructibility of the universe. lhe scoffers assumed that God does notintervene in the world. The course of the world, i.e. of human history andof the physical world in which it is set, has always conrinued without thecatastrophic intervention of divinejudgment. Obviously this view of the pastcoheres with the scoffers' skepticism about future judgment, even thoughwe cannot be sure they used it as an argument against future judgment. Inchallenging their view of the past the author of 2 Peier will be able tolhallengetheir skepticism about future judgment.

It is not necessary to seek the background to the scoffers' ideas in theAristotelian belief inthe imperishability"of the world, which was denied byEpicureans and Stoics. They are not influenced by cosmology as much asby a rationalistic skepticism about divine inrervention in the wrirld, to whichqle Epiqrrean denial of providence seems the closesr pagan parallel (Neyrey,JBL 99 tl980l 420; Polmtic,203-5).

- There is n-othing in this v (or elsewhere in 2 Peter) ro support the viewthat the scoffers' denial of future judgment was based on a-Gnostic beliefin -a wholly realized eschatology. On that view, "their question about the9elay of the Parousia, just as their appeal to the stability-of rhe universe, isbut,4 argument used to justify a poiition already held on other grounds"(Talbert, I/C 20 [1966] 143; so also Werdermann, hrlzhrn,6T-68; von Allmen,RTP 16 tl966l 265; Harnisch, Existm,z, 102). But this is a highly speculative

Explarwtion 295

view, which requires us to believe that we can know more about our author'sopponents' views than he himself tells us. Clearly their denial of the Parousiawas not so/ely motivated by the apparent nonfulfillment of the prophecy ofthe Parousia, since their skepticismabout futurejudgment was evidently linkedwith ethical libertinism. But rhe delay of rhe Parousia was apparenrly rheircentral argument (cf. 2:3b; 3:9) and, since our author gives it so muctr atten-tion, the most effective in gaining fiollowers for them. Our author wouldnot have dealt so extensively with the issue of the delay of the Parousia,nor would his letter have been preserved, if that issue had not been a realsource of concern fior his contemporaries (cf. Fornberg, Early Chnch, 65).

Exphnation

The reference to Peter's first letter (l Peter) identifies the present letteras deriving from the Petrine circle in Rome, and also markJ the author'sreturn to the "testament" convention of writing in Peter's name, in order!o prepare fora second Petrine "prediction" (cf. 2:l-3a). The purpose of 2Peter, like that of I Peter, is to "remind" (cf. l:12-15)-specificilly, to recallth^e-eschatological prophecies of the oT prophets and the ethical implicationsof th-e-Christian gospel, rhe two points ihat need emphasis in opposition tothe false teachers. The reminder is reinforced with

-an example of Peter's

own apocalyptic prophecy, in which he predicts the false teachers, this timeunder the guise of "scoffers," i.e. skeptics who mock divine revelation, bothmoral and prophetic. Thus the scoffeis are libertines, who follow their ownevil desires instead of the commandment of Christ, and they scornfully rejectthe_prophec-y of the Parousia ofJesus Christ as unfulfilled and disproved.- The p-rophetic form ofw 3-4 enables the writer to portray his contemporar-ies, the false teachers, as a phenomenon of the last days, i,vtricn the apostlespred^ic-ted. The readers need not be disturbed by them. On the conrrary,the false teachers, who reject eschatological prophecy, should in fact be'aconfirmation of the readers' faith in eschatological prophecy, since they them-selves are a fulfillmenr of prophecyt

The quotation from the scoffers in v 4 is the author's own formulationof the objection his opponents were making to the expectation of the Parousia.The Parousia had been expected during-the lifetime of the first christiangeneration, lut that generation had now passed away and still nothing hadhappened. The objection reflects what foi a period in the late first centurywas evidently an acute problem for Christian eschatology until it was success-fully surmounted and forgotten. The false teachers were no doubt able toexploit a genuine source of perplexity for 2 Peter's readers, as the seriousattempt the author makes to meet the problem shows. But the last phraseof v 4 reveals a further dimension to the skepticism of the false teichers.The failure of the Parousia hope only confirms their assumption that divineinterventions in history do not-happen. The world continues unchanged justas it always- has done. This rationllistic assumption about the past piobiblycontributed as much to their eschatological skepticism as the fait of ihe delayof _the Parousia did, and so the authoi will challenge that assumption firsibefore tackling directly the issue of delay.

Reply to Objection 4: (al The Souereignty

o/GoJな 隕,用 σJ-7)

Bibliography

Allmen, D, von. "L'apocalyptique juive et le retard de la parousie en II Pierre 3:l-13." RTP 16 (1966) 26GSl. Chaine, J. "Cosmogonie aquatique et conflagrationfinale d'aprds la secunda Pelri." RB 46 (1937) 207-16. Harnisch, Y. EschatologischzExklmz, 104-5. Testa, P. E. "La distruzione del mondo per il fuoco nella secondaepistola di san Pietro;' RiuB l0 (1962) 252-81 (not available). Viigtle' A. Zukunft,133-36. Kn*rh kr, i.h,ye iere ? L!, _ 4 j,

Translation

6 For in maintaining this, they overlook the fact that long ago there wne heauens

and an earth, reated s out of watn and by means of water by the word of God6 By theseb tlw world of lhat time was fultged wilh watn and dcstroyed. 7 Bul by

the same word tlw heaams and, the earth which now nisl haae been held in stnre

for fre, and are being kept until the day of judgnmt and destruction of ungodtypeople.

Notes

. Since the whole argument of these w requires a statement that the heavens, as well asthe earth, were created by the word of God, it is best to take oweorina, "created," with oi'pavdas well as with y1 and to explain its feminine singular form by attraction to the nearest subject,m.

b One minuscule (69) has &' 6v instead of &' cbu and this reading is accepted by Mayor(cxcix) and Wand. It gives excellent sense, by conlrast with the difficult 60'6t/, but must thereforebe regarded as a correction.

Form / Structure / Se t ting

The section 3:4-10 is chiastically structured: w 5-7 take up the last wordsof v 4 and then w 8-10 respond to the main statement of v 4. The mentionof creation (rcrisees) at the end of v 4 provides a starting-point for the author'sresponse in v 5, while v 6 is a contradiction of the assumption in v 4b thateverything has remained the same from the beginning of the world. Out ofthis response to v 4b the author creates an argument for the certainty ofeschatologicaljudgment (v 7). The present tense in v 5a shows that the authorhas again abandoned the "testament" convention of prophecy, in favor ofdirect present-tense argument with his contemporaries.

In view of the Jewish apocalyptic parallels to the correlation of the Floodand the eschatological conflagration (see Comm.ent section), von Allmen (RTP16 [966] 26GSl) suggests that these vv, apart from the introductory v 5a,are dependent on a Jewish apocalyptic source. It is likely that the author isfollowing the source we have already postulated for the section 3:4-13, andthis suggestion is confirmed by a parallel in I Cbm. 27:4: dv I6tC rfn pe-

7a\t';rl;itvrls ainot ouveorfioaro rd. ravra, xoi b \irrqt }bvarat qind, Karaorpthltot,"By a word of his majesty he created all things, and by a word he can destroy

Conmmt 297

them." The use of owtmfuot (transitive here; contrast the intransitive usein 2 Pet 3:5) for God's creation of the world is not uncommon (Philo' Leg.

AIL 3.10;Josephus, Ant. 12.22; Corp. Hent l.3l; cf. I Erwch 10l:6) and ofcourse the idea of creation by the word of God is very common, but theparallel between creation by word and destruction by word is rare and strik-ingly similar to 2 Pet 3:5, 7 (cf. also Apoc. Pet. E 4, probably dependent on2 Pet 3:5, 7). This could be just one of the many similarities between ICImt. and 2 Peter, but the v in I CImt. occurs in a passage defending futureeschatology (23-27\ which began with the quotation from an apocryphal work(23:3-4) which resembles 2 Pet 3:4. It is therefore quite likely that I CInn.27:4 echoes the sameJewish apocalypse on which 2 Pet 3:5-7 is dependent.

Comment

5. lwilarct$,pqincinrottrofli\owas, "for in maintaining this they overlookthe fact." There are two possible translations: "For they deliberately ignorethis fact" (cf. ev, Rv, Rsv,JB, cNB, Nrv; Plumptre, Bigg, Mayor, Moffatt, Spicq)'or "For in maintaining this, they overlook the fact" (cf. Nns; Spitta, Windisch,Schelkle, Reicke, Kelly, Schrage). It is impossible to be sure which is correct,but the position of roitro ("this") makes it rather more likely that it shouldbe taken as the object of 0d)torrros, "maintaining," as in the latter translation(see especially Kelly's discussion). The point of lap ("for") will be that thescoffers are only able to maintain the views expressed in v 4 because theyoverlook the facts of the Creation and the Flood.

6rn oilptu ipat hctra\ot ,@i'tn df 06cros rsi &' 86cros oweordna rQ ro0 fleu)Id"yqr, "that long ago there were heavens and an earth, created out of waterand by means of water by the word of God." This clause contains no implica-tion that the heavens were created before the earth (against Spitta), but simplyechoes the reference to "the heavens and the earth" in Gen l:1. Accordingto the creation account in Gen l, and in accordance with general Near Easternmyth, the world-sky and earth-emerged out of a primeval ocean (Gen l:2,t7,9; cf. Ps 33:7; 136:6; Prov 8:27-29; Sir 39:17; Herm. Zis. l:3:4). Theworld exists because the waters of chaos, which are now above the firmament,beneath the earth and surrounding the earth, are held back and can no longerengulf the world. The phrase df 06aros ("out of water") expresses this mytho-logical concept of the world's emergence out of the watery chaos, ratherthan the more "scientific" notion, taught by Thales of Miletus, that water isthe basic element out of which everything else is made (cf. Cbm. Hom. I l:24: l).The second phrase 6r' 06aros ("by means of water") is more difficult to explain.Since the reference is to the creation of the world, it cannot refer to thesustenance of life on earth by rain (Bigg, Green). Some give 6ui a local sense,"between, in the midst of the waters" (nv,;n; Mayor, James, Chaine, Wand,Spicq), which accords well with the creation account (Gen l:6-7, 9), but wouldbe an unusual use of the preposition (Gen l:6 [,XX expresses this thoughtby ah, piow itfuros rcai 06cros), especially as 6l' cbp in the next v means "bymeans of which." So it is best to translate "by means of water" (Knopf,Windisch, Kelly; Chaine, RB 46 U9371 210 n.3); the writer means that waterwas, in a loose sense, the instrument of creation, since it was by separatingand gathering the waters that God created the world. This also provides a

298 2 PsrEn 3:5-7

good parallel with the next v, which states that by means of water he afterwarddestroyed the world.

Creation by the word of God is a common idea (Gen l:3-30; Ps 33:6; 148:5;Wis 9:l; 4Ezra 6:38,43; Sib. U.3:30; Heb ll:3; / Cbn. 27:4; Herm. Zis.l:3:4; Kn. Pet., ap. Clem. Alex., Strom. 6.5.39.3). Our author is anxious tostress that the world existed only because God commanded that it should;by the sagre word he destroyed it (v 6) and will do so again (v 7).

6. &' cbu, lit. "by means of which." It is by no means obvious what theantecedent of the plural relative pronoun is. The following are the mainpossibilities:

(l) oirryrrot . . . t@) fi ("heavens and an earrh") is proposed by Reickeand Marin (EE 50 tl975l 232 n.44). Reicke translates "because of them,"but it is unclear in what sense the Flood could be said to have occurred"because of" the heavens and the earth.

(2) oi:pari ("heavens"): James, who proposes this, translates "by meansof which" (cf. Gen 7:ll), bttabWei is a remote antecedent, and why theauthor should have wished to say that the world was deluged "by means ofthe heavens" is obscure. Suggestions (l) and (2) both require that 6 rmexinpos ("the world of that time") refer to people, not the physical universe.

(3) ,iE 06aros ,<o) &' 06oros ("out of water and by means of watbr"), i.e.two different categories of water, the waters above and below the hrmament,as in Gen 7:ll (Plumptre, Spitta, Moffatt, Chaine, Sidebottom). This sugges-tion depends on the view that the repetition of 06cros ("water") in v 5 refersto two different categories of water; but this is not very likely (see above).Furthermore, the use of 06ca ("with water") in v 6 becomes, on this view,wholly redundant.

(4) f;6cros ("water") and rQ rd ileN )\&yq;r ("the word of God") are sug-gested by Bigg, Kelly, Green. This is stylistically rather awkward, but seemsto give the best sense. On this view 06orl ("with wa!er") in v 6 is still somewhatredundant, but in view of the ambiguity of 6t' uv ("by means of which")less so than in the case of suggestion (3). The writer's argument seems torequire some statement that the word of God, by which the world was created(v 5) and which has decreed its eschatological destruction by fire (v 7), alsoaccomplished its destruction in the Flood (v 6).

If &' cbv refers to both water and the word of God, there is a neat parallelismin all three w in this section: by his word and by means of water God createdthe world (v 5); by his word and by means of water he destroyed it (v 6);by his word and by means of fire he will destroy it in the future (v 7).

6rme rcoopos, "the world of that time." Most commentators take this phraseto refer to the whole physical universe, heavens and earth, but a few (James;Sasse in TDNT 3, 890; Viigtle, Zuhntft, 134-36; cf. Green) limit it to theinhabitants of the earth, especially human beings. In favor of the formerview are the references to the heavens and the earth in w 5,7, and especiallythe apparent parallelism between 6 rorc rrloprs and oi . . . vW dryroL ,@i i7i! ("the heavens and the earth which now exist") in v 7. Viigtle (Zuhrnft,135) argues that the parallelism is between otpavoi . . . Etcnallotloim ("heav-ens and an earth . . . long ago") in v 5, and o[ . . . vttv obpavoi xq] i fl("the heavens and the earth which now exist") in v 7, but this parallelismitself implies that the Flood marks a break berween r,he heavens and the

Comment 299

earth which existed before it and those which exist now. In fact the argumentof w 5-7 requires a threefold parallelism: God created the heavens and theearth, he has destroyed them once by water, he will destroy them again by fire.

It is true that in 2:5 d,pTaaiw rfupou ("the ancient world") is equivalent torcopcp doepGv ("the world of ungodly people"), and refers to the people whoperished in the Flood. It is also true that, as in 2:5, the author's real concernthroughout this discussion is not with cosmology but with judgment (cf. 3:7,9, I l-14). We may therefore concede that in 3:6 his anphasis is on the Floodas a universaljudgment on sinful men and women. But he evidently conceivesthis judgment as having been executed by means of a cosmic catastrophewhich affiected the heavens as well as the earth.

This idea is not so alien to the Genesis narrative as many commentatorsallege: according to Gen 7:ll the waters of chaos, confined at the creationabove the firmament, poured through the windows of the firmament to inun-date the earth. It is an extension of this idea when, in I Enoch 83:3 (Enoch'svision of the Flood), the heaven is said to collapse onto the earth, so thatthe earth is swallowed up by the waters of the abyss.

ifun rcaraxltwfleis dtrt'ivro, "was deluged with water and destroyed." Theverb (a NT ftapax) is used of the Flood in Wis l0:4; Josephus, Ant. 5.566;Cbn. Hom. 9.2:l (cf. also Ezek 38:22 IXX; Sib Or. 3:690). The addition of[rdcrr ("with water") emphasizes that this destruction was by water, to makethe contrast with the coming destruction by fire Qru&, v 7). Perhaps thereis an allusion'to the.lewish tradition of a flood of fire corresponding to theflood of water in N6ah's time (Gar. RaD. 39:6; 49:9; Im. Rab. l}:J; Meh-Amalek 3:14; cf. IQH 3:1S20, 29-33).

The idea of the destruction of the antediluvian world need not be takento mean total annihilation. Rather, just as it was created by being broughtout of the primeval ocean, so it was destroyed when it was once again sub-merged in the primeval ocean. The ordered world (rbpos) reverted to chaos.

The author of 2 Peter (no doubt following his Jewish apocalyptic source)seems to envisage world history in three great periods, divided by two greatcataclysms: the world before the Flood, the present world which will end inthe eschatological conflagration (v 7), and the new world to come (v l3).This periodization, with the typological correspondence between the Floodand the eschatological judgment which it entails, is also presupposed in IEnoch (cf. especially l0:ll-ll:2; 93:4) and in the Jewish Sibylline Oracles(cf. Collins, Oracla, 102-3). According to SiD. Or. l:195;7:ll, a "secondage" (6ewepo9 ciciu) began after the Flood (cf. rrs)\qlareoicr, "regeneration,"in Philo, Mos. 2.65; I Clm. 9:4).

7. rQ atrrQ )tayC, "by the same word." For a similar thought, cf. I Clm.27:4, probably dependent on the sameJewish apocalyptic source (see Form/Suutnne/Setling section) and Kn. Pet. (ap. Clent. Alex., Slrom. 6.5.39.3): "thereis one God who created the beginning of all things and has power to endthem." Our author's point is that since the world was created by God's wordand has already been destroyed once by God's word, we can confidentlyexpect the future judgment which has also been decreed by his word.

rc0qoaupwltivw eioiv tupi, "have been held in store for fire." The choiceof verb is a little surprising, but may be influenced by the common use ofthis image, also with the sense of preservation until the Day of Judgment,

300 2 PsrEn 3:5-7

with reference to the rewards of the righteous and the punishment of theungodly "stored up" in heaven (Pss. So/. 9:5:4 EzraT:77,83-84; Frg. Tg.Deut 32:34; Rom 2:5; Clcm. Hom. l6:20). The HellenisticJewish writer Pseudo-Sophocles (ap. Clem. Alex., Strom. 5.14.121.4), writing of the eschatologicalconflagration, says that the air "will open the storehouse full of fire" (rupds"t€powa ?rpavpw; cf. Deut 32:34; Jer 27:25 tXX).

The idea of an eschatological world conflagration-found only in 2 Peterin the NT-has been attributed to Stoic or Iranian influence, but there canbe no real doubt that its immediate background is to be found in Jewishapocalyptic. The idea of divine judgment by ftre is frequent in the OT, nodoubt partly because the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah provided aparadigm (see e.g. Deut 32:22; Ps 97:3; Isa 30:30; 66:15-16; Ezek 38:22;Amos 7:4;Zeph l:18; Mal 3:19 [EW 4:l]; full survey and discussion in Mayer,Weltmbrand, 79-l l4). In OT texts the function of this fire is to consumethe wicked, not to destroy the world, but as the idea of a universal, eschatologi-caljudgment developed (cf. already Isa 66:15-16; Mal3:19) it is not surprisingthat the idea of judgment by fire should develop into the expectation of auniversal conflagration, especially when the future universal judgment wasenvisaged by analogy with the Flood as a universal judgment in the past.The idea of an eschatological conflagration is not by any means found through-out Jewish eschatology in the postbiblical period, but it occurs in sufficienttexts, both Palestinian and Hellenistic, to show that it was a fairly widespreadconception (l qH 3:19-36; StA. Or. 3:5447;4:173-81;5:21l-13,531; Pseudo-Sophocles, ap. Clem. Alex., Strom. 5.14.121.4;5.14.122.1; Adnm and Eae 4928;

Josephus, Ant. 1.70; Mek. Amalek 3:14; and see discussion in Mayer, Weltm-brand, ll4-25). The author of 2 Peter doubtless found it in theJewish apoca-lypse on which he is dependent in this chapter (see Form/Structwe/Settingsection on 3:8-10). Although it is not found in the NT outside 2 Peter, fromthe late first century onward it became common in Christian writings (2 Cbm16:3; Herm. Vts. 4:3:3; Apoc. Pet. E 5;Justin, I Apol.2O.l-2,4;60.8; 2 ApL7.2-8; Theophilus, Ad AutoL 2.38; SiD. Or. 2:19il200; Minucius Felix, OcLll.l;34).

An eschatological conflagration also featured in Iranian (Zoroastrian) reli-gion (Mayer, Weltmbrand,.l-79; Collins, Oraclzs, 10ffi), and it is probablethat the lranian ideas exercised some influences onJewish eschatology. Suchinfluence is perhaps especially to be found in Christian texts which depictthe river of fire through which all people, good and bad, must pass to betested and purified (cf. Apoc. Pet. E54; Sib. Or.2:19il205,315;James, Apoc"l-pha, 90-91; l,actantius, Div. Itut. 7.21). The Iranian eschatology was probablyknown in the Hellenistic world of the first century especially through theOracb of Hystaspes (cf. Justin, I Apol. 20:1), but the expectation of a worldconflagration was even more familiar through the teaching of Stoicism. TheStoics taught that periodically the universe was dissolved and renewed bymeans of a conflagration (iwritpc'nc) in which everything returned to its mostbasic element, fire, before reconstituting itself (Diogenes Laertes 7.184;Cicero, De Nat. Deoru.m 2.118; cf. Collins, &adts, 102; and other literaturecited in Spicq). HellenisticJewish writers cannot have been unaware of thisparallel (whichJustin fully recognized: I ApoI. 20;' 2 APoI.7) and it may some-times have influenced their accounts of the eschatological conflagration. How-

Explanation 301

ever, the essential element in most Jewish and Christian references to theeschatological conflagration is the destruction of the wicked by the fire ofdivinejudgment; this idea, which differs from the Zoroastrian fire of purifrca-tion and from the Stoic idea of a natural, deterministic cycle of destructionand renewal, is fundamentally Jewish and biblical. The author of 2 Peter,who is really interested in the conflagration as judgment on the wicked (seebelow), follows thisJewish tradition. If he was aware of the pagan parallels,he is unlikely to have been very concerned with them (against Fornberg,Early Church, 66; Neyrey, Pobmic, 294-97).

However, a further series of parallels still requires notice. An ancient idea,found both in Plato (Tirnaeus 22C-E) and in Berossus, the Babylonian writerof the third century z.c. (ap. Seneca, Quaest. Nat. 3.29.1), envisaged the worldas undergoing recurrent destructions by flood and fire alternately (cf. alsoSeneca, Qrust. Nat. 3.28; Lucretius, De Nat. Rm.rm 5; Origen, c. Cek. 4.ll-12; see Chaine, RB 46 tl937l 2ll-14; Collins, Oracles, l0l-2). This ideamay have exercised some influence on the Jewish notion of two universaljudgments, the Flood and the eschatological conflagration Qosephus, Ant.1.70-71; Adam and Eae 49'3; Mek. Amalek 3:14; the same scheme is appliedto the Flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Philo, Mos.2.53; Gm. Rab. 27:3;39:6; 49:9; Ln. Rab. l0:l; cf. also Gos. Eg. 63:6; cf.J. P. Lewis, A Study of tlu Intnpretation of Noah and the Flood inJrwish and ChristianLitqature [Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1968] 169-73). Undoubtedly the pattern of de-struction by flood and destruction by fire is present in 2 Pet 3:6-7, but unlikethe pagan notion it is a pattern of two divine judgments in a linear, not acyclical, scheme of world history. Its immediate antecedents are thereforeJewish.

When the author of 2 Peter writes that D1 tfu word of God the world "hasbeen held in store fior 6re," he must mean that the expectation of the eschato-logical conflagration is founded on prophecy which reveals that God hasdecreed it. Although his immediate source is aJewish apocalypse, theJewishexpectation was an interpretation of OT texts such as Deut 32:22 (quotedin this connection by Justin, I Apol. 60.8); Isa 34:4 LXX (to which 2 Pet3:10, 12 alludes); Mal 3:19 (EW 4:1; cf. 2 Clem. 16:3); Isa 66:15-16; Zephl:18.

rqptpam eis ilftpat tcfxoec'ss xai rin<,rtreias rGsv dsefuisv &t|ptnrav, "are beingkept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly people." rqp&t("to keep") is used as in 2:4, 9. For the phrase ipipav tircotreias ("day ofdestruction") cf. IXX Deut 32:35;Job 2l:30. For aoeBciv ("ungodly people,"also in 2:5-6) see Comm.ent on Jude 4.

This emphatic phrase makes it quite clear that the author's concern inthis section is not with cosmology, for its own sake, but with judgment. Itis God's comingjudgment of the wicked that the scoffers deny and our authorasserts. Taking up current ideas he envisages this judgment as occurring bymeans of a cosmic conflagration.

Explanation

The author takes up the rationalistic assumption which he has detectedin the scoffers' objection. They ignore the fact that the continuance of the

302 2 Psrsn 3:5-7

world as a stable habitation for mankind has always depended and continuesto depend on the will of God. It was the divine decree which first broughtthe world into existence, separating and gathering the waters of chaos tocreate the sky and the earth. Nor is it true that since the creation the worldhas survived without m4jor disturbance. The word of God which createdthe world has also once destroyed it, when in the Flood it was once againsubmerged beneath the waters of chaos. It is the same word of God whichhas decreed that the world will in the future be destroyed again, this timeby fire. The observable stability of the world is therefore no guarantee ofits continued stability in the future; it is being preserved in existence byGod only until the time he has appointed for the judgment of the wicked.The final phrase reveals that although in this passage the author is certainlyconcerned with catastrophic upheavals in the physical world, which amountto the destruction and creation of worlds, he is not concerned with thesefor the sake of mere cosmology, but with their interpretation in a world-view which sees them as occurring by the sovereign decree of God as instru-ments of his judgment on humanity.

This passage is perhaps the most difficult of several passages in 2 Peterwhich pose serious hermeneutical difficulties fior the modern reader. Theauthor clearly uses cosmological ideas current in his time which must beregarded as mythological: creation as the emergence of the world out of aprimeval ocean, the Deluge as a universal cosmic catastrophe, the idea thatthe world is to be subject to two universal destructions, one by water (theFlood) and the other by fire (in the future). But the religious belief whichis conveyed in these mythological forms remains valid, though it is not abelief which can be detached, in a purely existential way, from any referenceto the physical world. The idea of the waters of chaos held back by God'screative act to create an environment for human life, but released in theFlood to overwhelm and destroy that environment again, is not essentiallyalien to a modern understanding of the universe. We know very well thatthe continuity of an environment in which humanity can survive and flourishis not at all to be taken for granted. The fiorces of nature retain the appallingpotential to interrupt and obliterate human history. Primitive humanity's manyexperiences of this destructive power of nature are perhaps summed up inthe story of the Flood. Modern humanity faces the additional threat of ournewly acquired power to use the forces of nature to destroy ourselves. Al-though the eschatological conflagration to which 2 Peter alludes is an apoca-lyptic image, it is an image which remains powerful today, evoking both thethreat of nuclear holocaust and the eventual reabsorption of our planet intothe expanding sun. The world which now permits human life to flourish isfar from guaranteed against a destructive reversion to chaos. But in the biblicalperspective human history is not at the mercy of chance and meaninglesscatastrophe. The God who created the cosmos out of chaos is in sovereigncontrol of the forces of destruction. The threat is the threat of God's moraljudgment, and even that judgment is not an end in itself, but for the sakeof the new world of righteousness which he will once again create out ofchaos.

Reply to Objection 4: (b) The Forbearanee

of the Lord (3:8-10)

BJb」Jq♂ψり

轟識鮒fttl織,榔純孵勲柵 樅

Trattrarね"

胚徽鰍蒻娩祓縣隋ん犠r″霧鱗寧篭乱‰肌惚

助 res

塁Is:I胤」lil詳オ:蠍譜禦ずby繋罰瞭liFi』留徹靴留霧TW‰)淵

二鮮肥艦'営蠅 sttF:帯摺脚岬I翻

彙棚 繊縦縮難卜欄 翻 瑞鷲椰織芦S¥'(ぷ粧

=器精帯7∬l瀾聯7雰惣tsぶTW零躙

304

Fom/Sm′曖 /ser:蛇

2 PETER 3:8-10

The introductory words (v 8a) correspond to v 5a and indicate that asecond line of argument against the scoffers' objection in v 4 begins here.In v 5a the scoffers are accused of overlooking one important fact; in v 8athe readers are urged not to overlook one. In both cases, of course, thearguments are really addressed to the readers, so that their faith may notbe shaken by the scoffers' arguments.

Verse 9, with its reference to 1f6erc:nd\ias ("the promise," cf. v 4), explic-itly takes up the main point in v 4, and uses the an . . . dIId ("not . . .

but") form to reject the scoffers' contention (Neyrey, Polsmic, 18-19).Von Allmen (RTP 16 [966] 263) thinks that in 2 Peter'sJewish apocalyptic

source v lOb followed immediately after v 7. He acknowledges that v 8b isa fragment ofJewish material (RfP 16 tl966l 261-62) and sees v 9 as theauthor's own formulation following Jewish ideas (RTP 16 [966] 26osl),but does not derive them from the apocalyptic source which furnished w5-7, lOb. However, we have argued (see Form/Stntcture/Setti4g section on3:l-4) that 2 Peter'sJewish apocalyptic source was explicitly concerned withthe problem of eschatological delay, and since the arguments in w 8-9 cer-tainly derive fromJewish apocalyptic (see Commmt), it is plausible to attributethem to the same source as the author has fiollowed in w 4-7. (With theallusion to Hab 2:3 in 2 Pet 3:9, cf. the composite quotation of Isa 13:22and Mal3:1, in a version differing from the IXX, in I CIm.23:5, immediatelyfiollowing I Clmu's quotation from the Jewish apocalypse. This quotationmay well come from the same apocalypse.) Doubtless the author of 2 Peterhas rewritten the material, and we have no hope of recovering its originalform.

However, in the case of v 10, it seems likely that a fragment of 2 Peter'ssource survives in 2 Clmt. 16:3:

MaL ):19 IltX

&d,rr l6d)rtpEpa xvploo tgacrct

tutottllltt rhs xlJfutsIm. 34:4 LXX (8, Lucian):rd r o, xl o o v r a t *doot d,ht'qrcc fil obpevl!v

M″ ,J91X胎

For,bchold,`ルd4JO/`ル LOrd is

2 Chm 16:3

fodmcrc & 6n

Eexetat r$rt i tlptpa fiIgxdzrr;edts tdilorc tcrudgaq,rd,raxtoovtel trg,Cs

r.A, oipdvtbg,

rdl i@s frtl, ti8 ,tll\tb&irlopltwbwvq,xaiftre @tolttt4i*toKd@t&eplstat bCpt'nt'r.

2 Clan 16:)

But you know that tiado1 ofJudgment is now

2 PL Jff0

1:Ct腱 lμ`ρ

α

¨めs― ,

レ l ololρα″ot l● tζψ

…

, 070txCIC

“

姉 闊

…και γl

κOこ 7aル 働哺 ごργα

…2′しι JJ2

oO′ανoι コυ"動

瞑"“Ivancttral o701xCIC

mμ"●

71κ C,α

“

2 Pat':′ 0

But`ルdaJ oFthe Lord wll

F ont / S tntc ture / S e t ting

condng burning lila coniry lilz a burningan oven. Oven, and some (?)ka 34:4 LXk of tlu luauasand all the powers of will wlf,llp luarrrls will ttull

and all tfu earth

lwill bel like leadwlling in frrc, ardthen tia secret andopen arods of menwill appear.

305

come lile a thief.On that day liahcavau will pass aw:rywith a roar, theheavenly bodies willbe dissolved in theheat, and tlu carlh

atd llv umhs on itwill be found.

2 Pcr J:12

. , . tlu hraoats willbe dissolved in flamesand the heavenly bodiesnalt in the heat.

The similarity between these passages has been noticed before. Some havethought that 2 Clnn. I 6:3 is dependent on 2 Per 3: 10, I 2 (e.g. Salmon , Introdrn-tion, 521; Bigg 209; James, 35), while Donfried (Second Clnnail, 9l-92) sug-gests they both depend on similar traditions, but the lrypothesis of a commonwritten source seems not to have been suggested before. Yet it is fairly clearthat 2 Clm. 16:3 is a quotation, and more than a combined quotarion ofMal S:19; Isa 34:4 IXX (James, Apooypha, 88, suggested the quotation camefrom the Apoc. Pet., but it does not correspond ar all closely to Apoc. Pet. E5, while 2 Clm. is probably earlier in date than the Apoc. Pet.) A likely sourceis theJewish apocalypse already quoted in 2 Clcn. ll:24.

The similarity with 2 Pet 3:[0, 12 is greater than can be explained bycommon dependence on Isa 34:4 IXX, and it should be noticed that 2 Clmt.16:l; l7:1, in the vicinity of the quotation, express ideas similar to 2 Pet3:9b, which may indicate that both writers found them in the original conrextof the quotation. The puzzling final words of 2 Pet 3:10 are illuminated if2 Clflit. 16:3 represents their source (see Commmr). The free adaptation ofhis source by the author of 2 Peter would be comparable with his adaptationof Jude in ch. 2. For the opening words of the fragment, drawn from Mal3:19 LXX, he will have substituted a grammatically similar phrase from Chris-tian tradition, to stress the unexpectedness of the Parousia, which his argu-ment, following v 9, required.

The reference to the thief certainly depends ultimately on Jesus' parableof the thief (Matt 24:43 par. Luke 12:39). Against Harnisch (Existnlu,, 84-98, I l0-l l), who thinks I Thess 5:2 and, perhaps independently, 2 Pet 3:lOaderive not from Gospel tradition but fromJewish apocalypric usage, the factthat eschatological use of the thief image is fiound frequently but exclusivelyin early Christian literature shows that it derives from Jesus' parable (Smit-mans, "Dieb"; R. J. Bauckham, "Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apoca-lypse," NTS 23 [976-77] 162-76). In I Thess 5:2; 2 Pet 3:10; Rev 3:3;16:15 the image appears in "deparabolized" fiorm (see Bauckham, "SynopticParousia," 16749) as a simile: <irsr)\drr4g ("like a thief'). In Rev 3:3; 16:15it is the Lord himself who will come cbs r)\drr4s (cf. the applicatioh of theparable in Matt 24:44 par. Luke 12:40, where the Son of Man is comparedto the thieQ, while in I Thess 5:2 and 2 Pet 3:10 the simile applies to the

306 2 Pemn 3:8-10

coming of the Day of the Lord. We must assume that the simile d5 r)\izrrr6,though derived from Jesus' parable, was itself a traditional element of Chris-tian eschatological paraenesis (like other allusions to Parousia parables: seeBauckham, "Synoptic Parousia"). This observation lessens the need to sup-pose that 2 Pet 3:10 is dependent on I Thess 5:2 (as Smitmans, "Dieb,"6O-61; Fornberg, Early Church, 25, think). The close resemblance (l Thess5:22 ittiw wpiov cir rLdnr4g Cv w<ri otno:s Eplero4 "the Day of the Lordcomes like a thief in the night";2 Pet 3:10: fiEet 6eipipawpiov <isrctrirr4s,"the Day of the Lord will come like a thief") may only reveal common depen-dence on paraenetic tradition. The introductory formula in I Thess 5:2aconfirms such dependence in Paul's case, and (against Fornberg, Early Church,25 n. 5) such oral traditions were certainly still current at the time when 2Peter was written (cf. Did. 16:l). Although the author of 2 Peter knew acollection of Pauline letters (3:15-16), he shows so little Pauline influence(see Conmmt on 2:19; 3:15) that direct dependence on I Thess 5:2 seemsunlikely, though not impossible.

Comment

8. pifr ipepa rcpd n:pitat cbs xil\rc Erq t<oi ^1i)uc. Erq 6s ipEpa fc, "with theLord one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years are as one day."What this statement is intended to prove is disputed. All exegetes recognizethat it derives from Ps 90:4 (LXX 89:4), but then they divide into two groups:(l) those who interpret the statement according to parallels in contemporaryJewish and Christian literature, and conclude that it is intended to show that"the Day ofJudgment" (v 7) will last a thousand years (Spitta; Strobel, Untnsu-chungm,93-94; von Allmen, RTP 16 [966] 262); (2) the majority of commen-tators, who infer from the context that v 8 must be intended to meet theproblem ofeschatological delay, and conclude that the author has here pro-duced an original argument which has no known precedent or parallel inthe literature.

The first group point to the many Jewish and second-century Christiantexts in which an eschatological chronology is based on the formula, "A dayof the Lord is a thousand years." This formula seems to have been a standardexegetical rule, derived from Ps 90:4 (nsv: "For a thousand years in thysight are but as yesterday when it is past"), but existing as a relatively indepen-dent formulation. The usual procedure is to quote a text in which the word"day" occurs; then the exegetical rule, "A day of the Lord is a thousandyears," is cited, often with a further literal quotation of Ps g0:4 to supportit; the conclusion is therefiore that where the text says "day" it means, inhuman terms, a thousand years.

The exegetical rule was sometimes applied to the Genesis creation narra-tive, to yield the idea that the history of the world is to last six thousandyears, six "days" of a thousand years each, followed by a millennial Sabbath(Bant l5:4; Irenaeus, Ada. Han. 5.28.3; cf. b. Sanh. 97a\z this calculationlies behind the widespread Christian millenarianism of the second century.Similarly the rule could be applied to texts which were thought to mentionthe "day" or "days" of the Messiah (Ps 90:15; Isa 62:5; 65:22), yielding one,

commmt 3o7

two or seven thousand years of messianic rule (Justin, Dial. 8l:, b. Sanh.

99a: Midr. Ps. 90:17; Pesiq. R. l:71.Although it is sometimes said that the rule was only applied to eschatologi-

cal matteri (von Allmen, RTP 16 U9661 262 n. l; cf. Strobel, Untersuchungen,

93), this delimitation is not in fact true. The rule was sometimes used toprove from Prov 8:30 that the Torah preceded the creation of the world byiwo thousand years (Gm. Rab. 8:2; lm. Rab. L9:L; Cant. Rab. 5:l l). Moreover'the earliest attested and the commonest use was with reference to Gen 2:17,where the "day," understood as a thousand years, could include the 930years of Adam's llfe (Jub.4:30;Justin, Dial. Sl; Irenaeus, Ada. Han. 5.23.2;Mid,r. Ps. 25:8; Gm. ftab. l9:8; 22:l; Nurn. Rab. 5:4; Hrqe R. E/. l8). However,all these applications of the exegetical rule are strictly chronologic4. f.tSpoint is nol, as originally in Ps 90:4, to contrast God's everlasting^ life withihe transience of huhan life, but simply to yield the chronological informationthat one of God's days, when Scripture mentions them, is equal to a thousandof our years.

If these parallels are to govern the interpretation o! 2 P9q 3:8, then thev must mean that "the day oijudgment," mentioned in v 7, will last a thousandyears. Verse 8 is then not i contribution to the debate about the allegeddelay of the Parousia, but an almost parenthetical explanation of the eschato'logical expectation set out in v 7.

-lrlow it-is true that 2 Pet 3:8 appears to cite the current exegetical rulein the first half of the saying ("with the Lord one day is as a thousand Y9lst':this is closer to Ps 90:4 than the usual formulation of the rule in the rabbinicwritings, but for comparable forms, cf. Barn. l5:4;Justin, 4ol.8l; Irenaeus,Ada. &an.6.23.2;5.t8.3), while the second half of the saying ("a thousandyears are as one day") could be understood as a quotation of Ps 90:4 intro-duced to back up the rule. However, this distinction between the two halvesof the saying iJ not very natural. If the two halves are taken together as

complemintiry, they do not readily appear to be an instance of the usualexegetical rule used in chronological Lalculations. Moreover, the proposedexe[esis of v 8 is very hard to susiain in context: (l) The introductory yor.dsof v 8 formally indicate a fresh line of thought (see Form/Stnrchne/Settingsection), not an explanatory footnote to v 7. (2) If v 8 means that the dayofjudgment will last a thousand years, it contributes nothing t9 lhe argumentaglinsi the scoffers. It is hard to believe that in such a brief section theaithor would have allowed himself this quite redundant comment. (3) It ishard to see how a thousand-year-long day of judgment could fit into theeschatology of2 Peter.

Neyrey (Potezric, 298-300; JBL99 U9801 429-300) occupies a midway posi-tion between the two grouls of exegetes. He sees the application of theexegerical rule to Gen2:l7as the relevantJewish_pa-rallel, and points outthat-sometimes this was explained by the idei that God in his mercy delayedAdam's punishment for a ihousand years (Gm. Rab. 22:l). This provides.alink with 2 Pet 3:9. But, interesting though this parallel is, it cannot exp^la!1

2 Pet 3:8 satisfactorily. The appli-ation bf the exegetical rule to Gen 2:17is always a clvonoh$cal calculation, interpreting the "day" of the text to meana thousand years.-On this analogy, 2 Pet 3:& could only refer to the delay

308 2 Pn'rnn 3:&10

of the Parousia if the Parousia had been promised within "a day" or perhaps"days." Of course, it had not.

Must we then conclude, with the majority of commentators, that the author'suse of Ps 90:4 in this v is entirely unprecedented? In fact there are severalinstances of the use of this v in Jewish literature which the commentatorshave not previously noticed, but which may be more relevant parallels to 2Pet 3:8 than the material already discussed.

The first is a p_iece of rabbinic exegesis (Hrqe R. EI. 28; and the sametradition in Yal. Sim<oni 76) which belongs to the tradition of apocalypticinterpretation of the revelation to Abraham in Gen 15. It is ascribed to theearly second-century Rabbi Eleazar b. Azariah, and although the attestationis late, the fact that it seems closely related to the traditions embodied inthe Apoc.llr. (chaps. 28-30; cf. Bauckham, TynB 3l tl980l 23 n. 42; thisapocalypse dates from c. A.D. 100) may indicate its antiquity. From the textof Gen 15 it is deduced that the period during which Abraham (accordingto Gen l5:ll) drove away the birds of prey from the sacrificial carcases wasa day, from sunrise to sunset. The birds of prey are taken to represent theGentile oppressors of Israel during the period of the four kingdoms. There-fore, R. Eleazar says, "From this incident thou mayest learn that the rule ofthese four kingdoms will only last one day according to-the day of the HolyOne" (Pirge R. El. 28, tr. Friedlander). The refererlce to "the day of theHoly One" must be to the maxim, "A day of the Lord is a thousand years."

The relevance of this text is that, unlike the other rabbinic texts alreadymentioned, it does relate to the delay of the End, for in Jewish apocalypticthe period of the four kingdoms is precisely the period of eschatologicaldelay. Moreover, the exegesis is probably not intended as a chronologicalcalculation, at any rate primarily, again unlike the other texts. The point isthat whereas for oppressed Israel the period of the rule of the four kingdomsseems very long, from God's eternal perspective it is extremely short ("onlyone day"). This reflection therefore has the function of consolation for Israel,in that it relativizes the importance of the period of Gentile domination. Itthus provides a parallel to the thought of 2 Pet 3:8, which is surely thatthose who complain of the delay have got it out of perspective: in the perspec-tive of eternity it is only a short time.

It is impossible to be quite sure that the material in Pirqe R. El. 28 is ofsufficiently early date to be relevant to 2 Peter, but there are three otherparallels which raise no problems of dating. Sir l8:9-l I is not an explicitallusion to Ps 90, but is probably inspired by it: "The number of man'sdays is great if he reaches a hundred years [cf. Ps 90:10]. Like a drop ofwater from the sea and a grain of sand so are a few years in the day ofeternity [cf. Ps 90:4]. Therefore the Lord is patient (ittucphbpnoez) with themand pours out his mercy upon them" (nsv; cf. also 18:26). The context herehas no reference to eschatology, and although it is tempting to see in thereference to God's patience in v I I a parallel to 2 Pet 3:9 (pstcpofiurcl" "heis forbearing"), the thought is rather different in each case. Nevertheless,Sir 18:10 is evidence that the original idea in Ps 90:4, the contrast betweenthe brevity of human life and God's eternity, could be well appreciated bya laterJewish writer.

Commmt 309

A similar passage, rather more clearly derived from Ps 90:4, is 2 Apoc.Bar.48:12-13: "For in a little time are we born, and in a little rime do wereturn. But with thee the hours are as the ages, and the days are as thegenerations." This contrast between the endless existence of God and thetransience of human life is the basis for a plea for God's mercy (48:ll, 14-l9), a similar thought to that of Sir l8:9-l l, and probably based on Ps 90:13-17. Here, however, the context is eschatological. Baruch's plea fior mercy isa plea for the eschatological deliverance, and the reference to God's eternalperspective on the passage of time links up with a frequent theme in theApoc. Bar.: the divine sovereignty over the times. Because, unlike man, Godsurveys the whole course of history and is sovereign over all events, determin-ing their times, he alone knows the time of the End which he has appointed(48:2-3; and cf. 2l:8, l0; 54:l; 56:2). Thus, although the allusion to Ps 90:4in 2 Apoc. Bar. 48:13 is not a precise parallel to 2 Pet 3:8, because it is notintended to explain the eschatological delay, it does provide a general parallel,in that it contrasts the transience of human life and the everlasting life ofGod, in the context of a concern with the time of the End which the everlastingGod appoints.

Finally, Bib. Ant. l9:l3a: "Bur this age [correcting cefum to secuhm] willbe in my sight like a dloud which flies quickly by and like yesterday whichpasses." This clear allusion to Ps 90:4 is addressed by God to Moses at thetime of his death. The period which will pass so rapidly in God's sight isthe period from Moses' death to his resurrection at the End (19:12, l3b), aperiod which 19:l5b apparently indicates will be about 1500 years (acceptingthe present text and reckoning with C. Perrot and P.-M. Bogaert (eds.), Psardo-Phihn, Les Antiquitds Bibliqws, vol. 2 [SC 230; Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1976]134-35), or perhaps 4500 years (according to the emendation proposed byL. H. Feldman, in M. R. James [ed.], Tlu Biblical Antiquities of Phi,ln [2nd ed.;New York: Ktav, l97ll, p. CV; and M. Wadsworth, "The Death of Mosesand the Riddle of the End of Time in Pseudo-Philo,",//S 28 tl977l 14-15).It is therefore clear that the allusion to Ps 90:4 is not intended as a chronologi-cal reckoning, but makes the point that, although the period until the Endmay seem long by human standards, in God's sight it passes rapidly. (Thisis confirmed by l9:l5a which, although textually corrupt, certainly meansthat the lapse of time before the End is in reality inconsiderable.) Thus ina Jewish apocalyptic passage from the late first century A.D. we find a useof Ps 90:4 very similar to the use of it in Pirqe R. EI. 28.

These four parallels establish that in Jewish literature Ps 90:4 was usedwith reference to the contrast between the brevity of human life and God'seternity, that it was so used in apocalyptic contexts, and specifically that itwas used with reference to the period of time up to the End, to indicatethat although this period may seem long by human reckoning, in God's eternalPerspective it is short. The thought of 2 Pet 3:8 may plausibly be regardedas borrowed from a Jewish apocalypse which made this point.

The essential meaning of pia ipipc- fiaW wplp cis Xi},la Ern t<ai xi\n Erqdx ipdpa pic ("with the Lord one day is as a thousand years and a thousandyears are as one day") is therefore that in God's eyes a long period mayappear short. Possibly the repetition of the statement in reverse is intended

310 2 PETER 3:8-10

to allow also for the opposite contrast (e.g. God gives ample time for repen-tance [v 9], but to the unrepentant the End may come all too soon), but itmay be merely for stylistic effect. The two halves of the sentence could havethe same meaning ("One-day-before-the-Lord is as a thousand years, and athousand years are as one-day-before-the-Lord": so Spitta; Harnisch, Existenz"106). The fact that 2 Apoc. Bar. 48:18 reads "with thee the hours are as theages," when the meaning really requires "the ages are as the hours," shouldperhaps caution against too strict an interpretation.

The intended contrast between man's perception of time and God's isnot a reference to God's eternity in the sense of atemporality (Luther, Chaine).It does not imply, as Kdsemann complains, "a philosophical speculation aboutthe being of God, to which a different conception of time is made to applyfrom that which applies to us" ("Apologia," 194), so that the very idea ofthe delay of the Parousia becomes meaningless and nothing can any longerbe said about the time until the Parousia. The point is rather that God'sperspective on time is not limited by a human life span. He surveys the wholeof history and sets the times of events in accordance with his agelong purpose.His perspective is so much more comprehensive than that of men and womenwho, accustomed to short-term expectations, are impatient to see the Parousiain their own lifetime.

Nor does this v imply that the Christian should discard the imminent expec-tation so characteristic of primitive Christianity (against Fornberg, EarlyChurch,68). Of course, the figures used in v 8-a thousand years, one day-are borrowed from Ps 90:4 and its use in Jewish apocalyptic; they tell usnothing about the actual length of the period the author of 2 Peter expectedto elapse before the Parousia (against Windisch). The author in fact continuesto speak as though his readers will be alive at the Parousia (l:19; 3:14).This is not at all surprising. It was characteristic of Jewish and Christianapocalyptic to hold in tension the imminent expectation and an acknowledg-ment of eschatological delay (see Bauckham, TynB 3l tl980l 3-36). SecondPeter's readers may continue to expect the Day of the Lord which will comeunexpectedly like a thief, but lest they succumb to the skepticism of thescoffers, they must also consider that the delay which seems so lengthy tous may not be so significant within that total perspective on the total courseof history which God commands. Because he alone has such a perspective,God retains the date of the End in his own knowledge and power, and itcannot be anticipated by any human calculation.

9. oit Qpotivet rctp.os fi6 1..narzeltiss, dD rwes 9po,6wfya lnoawot, "rhe Lordis not late in fulfilling the promise, according to some people's idea of late-ness." The opening words of this verse are probably dependent on the lastwords of Hab 2:3, a verse which, as Strobel has shown in great detail (Ilntnsu-chungan, chaps l-2), was the hats classiars for reflection on the problem ofdelay in Judaism (Hab 2:3 IXX, Aquila; Isa 13:22; 5l:14 IXX; Sir 32:22[Hebrew]; 35:19 tXX; lQpHab 7:5-12; Heb 10:37; 2 Apoc. Bar. 2O.6;48:39;b. Sanh. 97b). In Hab 2:3b, IXX and Aquila, the subject is not "it" (rhevision), as in MT, bul "he," i.e. God in his eschatological coming (Strobel,Untnnthungm,5S-55; cf. also 2 Apoc. Bar. 48:39;Sir 32:22/35:lg). No doubt,in 2 Peter'sapocalypticsource, oi,p6 ("Lord") was God, but, followingnormal

Commmt 3ll

early Christian practice (cf. Heb 10:37), our author may take the subject tobe Christ. It is difficult to be certain (cf.2:9, ll;3:8, 10, l5).'lTlNr (nsv:"delay") in Hab 2:3 is translatedrunvion, "he will delay" in IXX, butFpotwel."he will be late," in Aquila's version, which may here represent a traditionaltranslation already current in the time of 2 Peter (cf. Strobel, Untunrchungm,6M9, 90, L46.47). Some commentators think 2 Peter is dependent, notdirectly on Hab 2:3, but on Sir 35:19 LXX (Schlosser, ftB 80 [1973] 3a;contra Strobel, (Jntersuchungm, 89-90), where certainly the combination ofFwfiin ("will be late") and pucp&uprton ("will be forbearing") is a strikingparallel to 2 Pet 3:9. But Pryitrrn there translates not lIlN' but ilDilDnr(cf. Strobel, (Jntusuchungan, 63), i.e. the delay which Hab 2:3 acknowledges,not the delay (lateness) which it denies, while the thought in Sir 35:19 israther different from that of 2 Pet 3:9. Probably both texts reflect a traditionalassociation of Hab 2:3 with the theme of God's poqeupin ("forbearance").rf6 dlrra1r1rle\ias ("the promise") of course refers back to v 4 ("the promiseof his coming").

The statement is not meant to rule out any kind of delay, for in his referenceto the Lord's forbearance in the second half of this v the author clearly ac-knowledges a deferment of the Parousia, at any rate from the human pointof view. What he here denies is that the Lord is "late," in the sense that hehas failed to fulfill the promise (so Harnisch, Existmz, 107). The meaning isalmost (see Nole): "The Lord is not too late to fulfill the promise." Thescoffers held that the promise had set a timeJimit (the lifetime of the apostolicgeneration) which had now passed, and so the promise had not been andwould not be fulfilled. Our author replies that the Lord may seem late tothe scoffers-"according to some people's idea of lateness" (for the use ofrlr€s see Comrnmt on Jude 4)-but in v 8 he has already shown that Godcannot be confined to human ideas of lateness. He does not explicitly facethe issue of the alleged time-limit in the prophecy of the Parousia, but simplydenies that the delay in fulfillment means that there will be no fulfillment.The Lord remains sovereign over the time of the End, and defers it in hisown good purpose, as the writer will go on to explain.

As Harnisch points out (Existmz" 108), this rejection of the scoffers' viewhas something of the character of an authoritative rebuke, in that the authorcontradicts them in the words of the classic text on the subject from theprophetic word: Hab 2:3. However, the author does not simply counter the^

lcoffers' argument with authority; he also produces, from the resources oftheJewish apocalyptic tradition, a theological understanding of the problemof eschatological delay (w 8, 9b).

For this interaction between our author and the scoffers, there is an interest-ing parallel in later rabbinic tradition: "R. Samuel b. Nahmani [c. 260 e.o.]said in the name of R. Jonathan [c. 220]: Blasted be the bones of thosewho calculate the end. For they would say, since the predetermined timehas arrived, and yet he has noi come, he will never come" (b. Sanh. 97b,Soncino tr.). Like 2 Peter, R. Jonathan went on to counter this skepticismby citing Hab 2:3.

dIId pqre&upei eis fpils, pi1 pouMpa,ds rwas &ro\ioilat, d)U\d rattas elsperotuav yafua4 "but he is forbearing toward you, because it is not his

312 2 PETER 3:8-10

will that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." Theidea of God's "forbearance" ("longsuffering, patience": poxpevpial derivesfrom the OT description of God as "slow to anger" in Exod 34:6, the centralOT revelation of God's character, and the numerous passages which echothat text (Num l4:18; Neh 9:17; Pss 86:15 [LXX 85:15]; 103:8 [IXX 102:8];145:8 [LXX 144:8];Joel 2:13;Jonah 4:2; Nah l:3; Wis l5:l: in all these wthe LXX translation is par'pdrupos "forbearing'l; see also CD 2:4; IQH 16:16;4Ezra7:134).It is that quality by which God bears with sinners, holds backhis wrath, refrains from intervening in judgment as soon as the sinner's deedsdeserve it, though not indefinitely (cf. 4Ezra 7:33; Sir 5:4-7).InJewish theol-ogy it has a strongly chronological implication (Strobel, Untersurhmgm, 8ll:God's forbearance creates an interval, a period of respite, while judgmentis deferred and a last opportunity for repentance is allowed (cf. the discussionof God's forbearance in H. Kiing, Justifcation: Tlw Doctrirc of Karl Barth atda Catholic Reflection, tr. T. Collins, E. E. Tolk & D. Grandskou [London: Burns& Oates, 19651 147-54).

The divine "longsuffering" was naturally associated with the opportunityfor repentance (e.g.Joel 2:12-13;Jonah 4:2, cf.3:10; Rom 2:4; Herm. Sdm.

8:l l:l; Clnn. Hon.ll:7:2;cf. Wis I l:23), and also with eschatology: only God'spatienca with sinners can account for the fact that he does not immediatelyintervene with eschatological judgment (/ Enoch 60:5;lgn. Eph. ll:l;Justin,I Apol. 28; Clm. Hom. 9:19:.l; 16:20). It is an especially prominent themein the Syriac Apoc. Bar., which wrestles with the problem of eschatologicaldelay and, like 2 Peter, appeals to the notion of God's forbearance (lt:3;l2:4; 2l:2G21;24:2;48:29; 59:6; 85:8). If the author finds God's toleranceof Israel's enemies incomprehensible, God's patienqe with his own people,delaying the final judgment to give them the opportunity of repentance, pro-vides at least a partial answer to the problem of eschatological delay (seeBauckham, TynB 3l [1980] 15-19). Evidently the idea of divine forbearancebelonged to the traditional resources of Jewish apocalyptic in the face ofthe problem of delay (cf. also 4Ezra 3:30; 7:33, 74;9:2I;7:l34l.It permittedthe appeal to God's sovereignty over the times to be filled out with someattempt to understand God's purpose in the delay, by relating it to his charac-ter as "slow to anger."

We should note that the association of repentance with the coming andthe deferment of the End was also traditional. The time up to the eschatologi-caljudgment was the time for repentance; with the coming of the End opportu-nity for repentance would cease and forbearance give place to justice andwrath (2 Apoa Bar.89:12; 4Ezra7:33-34,82;9:ll; Acts 17:30-31; 2 Clm,.8:2-3; 16:l). Thus it was thought that the End would come only after therepentance of God's people (7. Mol l:18; Z, lud. 23:15; T. Dan 6:4; Acts3:19-21). A famous debate between R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus and R. Joshuab. Hananiah, which may be authentic and therefore date from the late firstcentury A.D., concerned this issue (Mddr. Tanl.w.ma Belru4olai 5; y. Ta<an. l:l;b. Sanh. 97b-98a; tr. in J. Neusner, Elitzn bm Hycanw: TIu Tradition and tluMan, vol. I TSJLA 3; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 19731 477-79; on the debate, seeBauckham, TynB 3l [980] 10-14). R. Joshua, maintaining the traditionalapocalyptic belief in God's sovereign determination of the time of the End,

Comment 313

held that it would come at the appointed time, whether or not Israel repented.R. Eliezer, on the other hand, made the coming redemption conditional onIsrael's repentance. Probably this represents an attempt to understand thedelay of redemption in the difficult times following the catastrophe of thefall of the second Temple in a.o. 70.

It is not quite clear whether Eliezer thought that the divinely appointeddate for the End had actually been postponed because of Israel's sins (soStrobel, Untnnrchungm, 23-26), as some later rabbis certainly held (0. Sani.97b; b. <Abod. Zar.9a), or that there was no fixed date for the End (so E.E. Urbach, The Sages: Tluir Concepts and Beliefs, tr. I. Abrahams, vol. I [Jerusa-lem: Magnes Press, 19751 669), or that Israel's repentance was itself part ofGod's predetermined plan (so Bauckham, TynB 3l [980] l3). The sameambiguity exists in 2 Peter (cf. the controversy between Strobel, Untusuchun-gm,9l-92, and Harnisch, Existenz, 108-9 n. 59, about whether 2 Peter followsR. Eliezer's view). Does the author mean that lack of repentance on humanity'spart can defer the Parousia (3:9), while repentance and good works can hastenits coming (3:12: see Cornmmt), so that it is really not God, but humanity,that determines the date of the Parousia? He certainly does admit that, fromthe human point of view, there is a deferment, for the sake of human repen-tance, so that the Parousia comes later than was originally expected. Con-versely, if there is repentance, it may come sooner than we might otherwiseexpect, ifwe take account of the divine forbearance. But this does not necessar-ily detract from the divine sovereignty. Not human sin, but divine forbearance,which cannot be constrained, determines the delay. It is the sovereign Godwho graciously grants an interval for repentance. From his eternal perspectiveon the course of history (cf. v 8) he can incorporate such an interval intohis plan. Our author does not actually suggest that this interval can last indefi-nitely while Christians remain unrepentant. There can be no presuming onthe Lord's patience (cf. Rom 2:4). The persistently unrepentant will find thatjudgment comes unexpectedly soon (v l0a).

tuag ("any" ) does not take up rcrl€s ("some people") in v ga, but contrastswith tfuras ("all"): God desires all, without exception, to repent and escapedamnation. But ranas ("all") is clearly limited by 0ptns ("you"). There isno thought here of the Christian mission (against A. L. Moore, The Parousiain the Nsu Testammt [NovTSup 13; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966] 154). The authorremains close to his Jewish source, for in Jewish thought it was usually forthe sake of the repentance of his own people that God delayed judgment.Here it is for the sake of the repentance of 2 Peter's Christian readers. Nodoubt repentance from those sins into which some of them have been enticedby the false teachers (2:14, l8;3:17) is especially in mind. We need notsuppose that the author put the false teachers themselves entirely beyondpossibility of repentance and salvation, but here he addresses his readers,who are distinguished from the false teachers (3:5, 8, l7).

For the idea of the present respite before the Parousia as granted forChristians to repent, cf. especially Hermas (passirn; especially Slm. 9; andnote 9:14:2; 10:4:4), and the emphasis on repentance before the End in 2Cbn. (8:l-8; l3:l; 16:l; l7:l; and note that [6:l precedes the quotation in16:3 which corresponds to 2 Pet 3:10). For the thought that God does not

3r4 2 PETER 3:8-10

desire people to perish but to repent, cf. Ezek 18:23, 32;33:ll (echoed inthe Letter of the churches of Lyons and Vienne, ap. Eusebius, Hist. EccL

5.1.46); I Tim 2:4; I Cbrn, 8:5 ("he desires all his beloved ones to participatein repentance"). Of course, the principle of 2 Pet 3:9, that the Lord in hisforbearance defers the End to give opportunity for repentance, can be validlyextended, beyond the reference to Christians which it has in 2 Peter, to God'sdesire that all people should repent (cf. Acts 17:30;Justin, I ApoL 28).

Some commentators (Spicq, Kelly) and especially Neyrey (JBL 99 [980]415,425-27) point out pagan parallels to the controversy in 3:9, especiallyin Plutarch's De sera numinis aindicata. Epicurus' argument against providenceappealed to the delay of divinejudgment (548C,5498: Bpaiwits, "lateness,"as in 2 Pet 3:9), and among several counter arguments, Plutarch explainsthat the delay demonstrates God's "gentleness and magnanimity" (npafunstcni pela\orltuxic: 55lC) and gives opportunity for repentance (551D: perotuart). We have already noted (see Commmf on 2:3b) that the false teachersmay have been influenced by Epicurean polemic against the idea of divinejudgment, but it is unlikely that our author's reply to them was indebted topagan anti-Epicurean polemic. The parallels in Jewish literature are closerand, in view of the thoroughlyJewish apocalyptic character of 2 Pet 3, muchmore relevant.

Strobel (Untersuchungen, 94-96; cf. also Neyrey, JBL 99 [l980l 424-25')sees a Flood typology behind 3:9. Jewish tradition (Tgs. Ps.-J. and Naof Gen6:3; Philo, Quaest. Gm. l.9l; and cf.J. P. Lewis, A Study of the InterpretationofNoah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Li.terature [Leiden; E. J. Brill, 1968]130 n. 8) held that the Flood was delayed 120 years to give opportunityfor repentance, and, following such traditions, I Pet 3:20 says that "God'sforbearance (parcpoflupia) waited in the days of Noah." It would fit into thegeneral tradition of a correspondence between the Flood and the End, which2 Peter follows in 2:5; 3:G7, to see the delay of the Flood as correspondingtypologically to the delay of the End. But there is no hint of such a typologyin 3:9, which is completely explicable by reference toJewish traditions aboutthe delay of the End, without reference to traditions about the delay of theFlood. The coincidence with I Pet 3:20 (poxp&vpia) probably derives fromindependent influence of similar Jewish ideas, about the Flood in I Peter,about the End in 2 Peter. There is insufficient evidence to postulate a Floodtypology in 2 Pet 3:9.

lO. fiEet 6i ipipa tatpov <,ir r)\&1116, "but the day of the Lord will comelike a thief." fftr ("will come") placed first is emphatic. In contrast (& is adver-sative) to any mistaken inference from v 9b that God's forbearance cancelsthe day ofjudgment, it is made clear that it is only delayed and will certainlycome (cf. 2 Apoc. Bar. l2:4). Perhaps the allusion to Hab 2:3 (Aquila: Epxilpevqfikt tcai ob ppaiuv€t "he will surely come and will not be late") in v 9a ishere continued.

Thus God's forbearance is no reason for sinners to continue in sin withoutfear of judgment (cf. Sir 5:4-7), the more so since the coming of the Endis not only certain but also unpredictable. It will come with the unexpectednessof a burglar. As with all other NT instances of this metaphor (Matt 24:43-44; Luke 12:3940; I Thess 5:2; Rev 3:3; 16:15), derived fromJesus'parable

Comrwnt 315

(see Form/Struchne/Settizg section), it conveys both unexpectedness andthreat. To those who, in spite of the opportunity which the Lord's forbearancehas allowed them, remain unrepentant, the Day of the Lord should be afearful prospect, for it marks the end of that forbearance and the arrival ofjudgment.

u oitWvw pot?t6bv napelctnwrot, "the heavens will pass away with a roar."tapepxeoilat, "to pass away," is used of the passing away of heaven and earthin Gospel sayings (Matt 5:18; 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 16:17;21:33; cf. Did.10:6), whence perhaps our author derived it. For the idea, cf. I Enoch gl:16;Rev 2l:l; Clmr. Rec. 2:68:3. The more picturesque image of the sky rolledup like a scroll is used in Isa 34:4; Rev 6:14; Apoc. Pet. ap. Macarius Magnes,Apooit. 4.7; Sib. @. 3:82;8:414; Gos. Thom. lll. lotftltfiv ("with a roar") isan onomatopoeic word, used of hissing, rushing, whizzing, crackling sounds,and most commentators (following Pseudo-Oecumenius in PG I19. 616) referto the crackle or roar of flames consuming the firmament. There are variousparallels in passages describing the eschatological conflagration: SiD. Or.4:175: K@pq d.nas pitrcnpa rcd.\plpryov ixov drcoineu "the whole world shallhear a rumbling [of thunder] and a mighty roar"; IQH 3:32-36, tr. Vermes:"the deeps of the Abyss shall groan amid the roar of heaving mud. Theland shall cry out because of the calamity fallen upon the world, and all itsdeeps shall howl . . . . For God shall sound his mighty voice, and his holyabode shall thunder with the truth of his glory. The heavenly hosts shallcry out"; Apoc. -El. 3:82: the Lord "will command (rel,etrery) in a great rage,that the heaven and the earth produce fire"; cf. also Apoc. Thom. days l-6.These suggest that in 2 Peter the noise may either be that of the conflagrationitself, or it may be the thunder of rhe divine voice (y'olfqpc is used of thunderin Lucian,.,/up. Trag. l). The latter is a standard element in theophany descrip-tions: God's thunderous roar announces his coming as a wrathful warrior,and nature quakes and flees before him (Pss 18:13-15 [IXX 17:14-16]; 77:18[LXX 76:l9l;104:7 [LXX 103:7]; Amos l:2;Joel4:16 [EW 3:16]; cf.4Ezral3:4; I Thess 4:16). If this is the meaning here, then Puf$ut ("with a roar")contributes to a description, not simply of cosmic destruction, but of thedivine Judge coming to judgment, the fire of his wrath consuming all beforehim.

oru1pirr 6d xswobpepa \veipero4 "the heavenly bodies will be dissolvedin the heat." The meaning of oru^1eia here is disputed. There are three mainpossibilities: (l) The elements of which all physical things are composed,and of which there were normally thought to be four: water, air, fire, earth(this interpretation is adopted by Reicke; Olivier, "Correction," 150; Delling,TDNT 7, 686). This was a normal meaning of muxeTa (TDNT 7,672-79;Herm. Vis. 3:L3:3; Aristides, ApoL S-7),If 2 Peter's description of the confla-gration is influenced by Stoic ideas, then it is relevant that the Stoics spokeof the dissolution of all the elements into the primal element, fire, in thecosmic conflagration. This interpretation might also be supported by referenceto the descriptions of the conflagration in the Sib. U. According to an obscurestatement in Sd6. Or. 3:80-81, "all the elements (muXanl of the world willbe widowed (yr1orlinet)"; later Sibylline writers interpreted these elementsas air, earth, sea, light, heaven, days, nights (SiD. Or. 2:20il7;8:337-39), a

316 2 PETER 3:8-10

list which suggests not so much the four elements as the various constitirentparts of the universe. But a reference either to the four elements or to thisSibylline list of elements is not very appropriate in 2 Pet 3:10, between areference to the heavens and a reference to the earth. Moreover, the factthat in v 12, and probably in v l0 too, oruxeir" corresponds to rdso.toi&uvapecrdn c$pxin ("all the powers of the heavens") in Isa 34:4 LXX (see below)is decisively against this view.

(2) The heavenly bodies (sun, moon and stars) is the interpretation favoredby most commentators. This meaning of ororlela is well attested for the secondcentury e.n. (TDNI7, 681-82; Theophilus, Ad Autol L.44;2.15, 35;Justin,2 ApoL 5.2; Dial. 23.3; Polycrares, dp. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.31.2; Tatian,Orutio 9-101. In view of the second mention of the mu76ia in v 12, whichsays that they will "melt" (rfit<sro), it is clear that 2 Peter's references tothe oru13ia are ultimately dependent on Isa 34:4 tXX (B, Lucian): raxipowotr&oat ai ilwapa5 rdt oipaxht ("all the powers of the heavens will melt").ln 2 Clnn. 16:3, which seems to be 2 Peter's immediate source (see Form/Sttttctwe/Settdng section), this clause appears as: tucipwrat rues rdy oitWvt;t,("some of the heavens will melt"), but the text is almost certainly corrupt,and rures ("some") should be corrected to 6wg,1rc6 ("powers"; soJ. B. Light-fdot, Tlu Apostolit Fathm Part I vol. 2 [London; Macmillan, 1890] 250). Thus,if maxeia is our author's substitution for oi iwayer5 rhv oi)p@6ilt ("the powersof the heavens"), he is most likely to have used it in the sense of "heavenlybodies." He will have made the substitution in accordance with his regularpreference fior Hellenistic religious vocabulary: orul3Tain the sense of "heav-enly bodies" or "zodiacal signs" was at home in the astrology of the period(TDNT 7, 681-82). It is worth noting that Apoc. Pet. E 5, following either 2Pet 3:12 or Isa 34:4 or both, evidently took the reference to be to stars:"And the stars shall be melted by flames of fire, as if they had not beencreated, and the fastnesses [or, powers] of heaven shall pass away fior wantof water and become as though they had not been created" (tr. NT Apoc. 2,671).

(3) Angelic powers presiding over nature (Spitta, Kiihl, von Soden). Thissuggestion points to Paul's use (according to a common interpretation) oforu1git to refer to hostile spiritual powerc (Gal 4:3; Col 2:8, 20). SecondPeter's dependence on Isa 34:4 may be thought to support this meaning,fior there "the host of heaven" (E'ndil N13) are not simply the stars, butastral powers, and it is possible that this v in its IXX version was interpretedas a reference to angelic powers in T. lmi 4:l: "the invisible spirits meltingaway" (rdtt onproat naryarcn rryalftv<'tvl. Since, both inJewish and in pagancircles, the stars were often thought to be<r to be controlled by-spiritualbeings, this meaning cannot be ruled out in 2 Peter, though it is really addi-tional rather than an alternative to (2) (Schrage).

tqn Tn rcai fi, ert 6irrn Eyya eb60iperot, "and the earth and the works in itwill be found." This is a crux intapretum. ettpeilfioerat ("will be fiound") isundoubtedly the best reading (see Note), but the mqiority of exegetes havefiound it so difficult to give it an acceptable sense that they have had to rejectit. Interpretations fall broadly into three categories: (l) support for variant

Co7m閣′ 317

readings; (2) emendations of the text, not supported by MS evidence; (3)attempts to make sense of rhe reading etp,rperu.

(l) Supportfor variant readings.

, (al t@rqJ{afioerot ("will be burned up") has found little support amongthe commentators (von soden), but more support than it deserves amongthe E-nglish-translations (Av, Rv, nsv,;n). It clnnot be original because i-twould then be impossible to explain the other readings.

(b) dbavw|itowrot ("will vanish") is followed by one modern translation(cNn), but must be rejected for the same reason as (a).

(c) o0x eis60iperu ("will not be found") gives excellent sense and is there-9.r. qr.I.:tS9 by some (Wand, Moffatt, Schrage; Bigg, 213; Fornberg, EarlyChyrch,75-77). However, it should properly be considered as an emeidationrather than as a variant reading. Its two occurrences (in ancient versions,not in Greek MSS) have no chance of preserving the original reading, butthey-might be correct emmdations of the text. As Miyor sugg-ests, if oti1(.;not")had been accidentally omitted in the autograph or in a very early copy fromwhich all other MSS derive, rhen rhe otheriea'dings could eJsily bL exiriained.

-The expression "will not be found" would be a Hebraism or Septuagin-talism deriving from the common Hebrew use of NSIII ("to be fiound"I tomean virtually "to be, to exist." Thus "will not be found" (cfiX etfioKeolaimeans "will not exist" or "will cease to exist" in Isa 35:9 IXX; Dan ll:lgo and IXX; Pss. sol l4:9; Rev 16:20 (cf. l8:21). All these texrs are in eschato-logical contexts readily comparable with 2 Pet 3:10. oixetpehioerar wouldbe good apocalyptic style.

As an emendation, the addition of orry is the simplest proposed, and yieldssuch an excellent sense that it must be considereil the-besl solution unlessthe reading etpefuiperat can be given a satisfactory interpretation.

(d) etffuiperot \w1rcva ("will be found dissoived"),- the reading of p?2,

seems not to have commended itself to any scholar. In spite of our author's1e1{gn9f to repeat words, the clumsy repetition of )\tro0a three times in wl0-l I is unlikely.

It will be observed that all the variant readings (which musr be regardedas ancient emendations of e{tpefuftoerot) derive from the conviction that thecontext requires a word equivalent to "destroyed." The same conviction in-forms most of the modememendations.

(21 Emmdntiors(a) rug,flipercr ("will be burned") (Vansittart,JP 3 tl87ll gb7-bg).(b) dtcrwp<':0ioeror ("will be consumed by conflagration"): the case for this

emendation has been argued at length by oliviei ("correction"; followedby windisch). dwrvpa'oilot was the tethnical stoic term used in connectionwith the cosmic conflagration (Cmbg,rls).

(cl pvfioerotor peinerot ("will flow") was suggested by Hort, and wppviperot('will flow^together") by Naber (according to Metzger, Tactual Commmtary,706; and cf. Mayor, cc).

(d) d,friperot ("will be taken away") was tentatively suggested by Mayor.(e\ einerat ("will be singed"): F. F. Bruce suggested to me that our author,

with his fondness for rare words, may have bLen misled by the Latin uro

318 2 PETER 3:8-10

into thinking this is a more general word for burning (cf. Introduction, sectionon Language, fior the suggestion that the author may have been a native l.atinspeaker).

(fl rcp9r1oerot ("will be judged") (Nestl6, according to Metzger, TahnlCornmmtary, 7Q61.

(g) io,?ioerot or €$n|iperot ("will be healed") (Chase, according to Mayor,cc).

Some other emendations emend not €bpegipqql but other parts of theclause:

(h) fi ,@i & ev ainfi Egya etpe|ipero,t ("the earth and the works which arefound in it") (Spitta, following Buttmann).

(i) In ,(ai d, dv ainrt Epta dnd, eb60ipera ("the earth and the works in itwill be found useless") (H. Bradshaw, according toJames, lv).

0) fA trlad rd, ip ainn d,md, ebpeilipercr ("the earth and all that is in it willbe found as chaos") (Stauffer, Natt Testammt Tlwology, 225,320 n. 739; cf. 4Ezra 7:30).

(k) fn rcard, rd, €v atrfi Ena, etpe|ioerot ("it shall be found to the earthaccording to the works in it," i.e. "the earth shall be judged according tothe deeds done in it"). Danker (ZNW 53 [962] 82-86, summarized in Danker,90-91) proposed this emendation by analogy with Pss. SoL lT:8: turd, rd,d,paprr1para aindv dno8Jners cr)rds, 6 fleq, ettpe?fivo,r. aind.s rcard, rd, Ep'fa aindp,"according to their sins you will recompense them, O God, so that it maybe found to them according to their works." Danker is sometimes cited insupport of the reading etpe?ipero4 understood in a judicial sense (see (3)(b)below), but it should be noticed that the specialized judicial sense for whichPss. Sof. l7:8 seems to provide a parallel (Sir 16:14, cited by Spicq, is not aparallel, for etpfioet there probably means "obtain") really requires Danker'semendation.

Some of these proposed emendations are more plausible than others, butwe should not resort to emendation unless et60iperot proves incapable ofa satisfactory sense.

Q) ffu reading etpe9fioerau(a) etpe?iperar; ("will they be found?"). Spicq, Kelly and Marin (EE 50

tl975l 233) read the clause as a rhetorical question (as originally suggestedby Weiss), and so get the same general sense as o0x ebpe?iper@ ("will notbe found"). But this is forced (Prov ll:31 : I Pet 4:18, which has noti,"where?", is not an adequate parallel).

(b) etpeIioera ("will be found"). A minority of scholars (Chaine, Schelkle;Wilson, ExpTim 32 [920-21]4445; Bonus, ExpTim 32 [920-2U 28O-81;Roberts, RntQ6 tl962l 32-33; Lenhard, ZNW 52 tl96U 128-29; ZNW 69[978] 136) argue for this reading, along similar lines, giving it the generalsense of "will be made manifest before God and his judgment."

The attempt to find a comparable usage of Nsn ("to find") in the OTand ebpiorceur ("to find") in the IXX is not wholly successful. These verbsare certainly common in contexts concerned with moral and judicial scrutiny,but are not used in quite the same way as 2 Pet 3:10 uses etpe0riuercr. Ingeneral, there are three relevant categories ofusage: (i) "sin" or "righteous-ness" (or synonyms) is "found" (e.9. I Sam 25:28; 26:18; I Kgs l:52; Ps

Cornmmt 319

l7:3 (LXX 16:3); Jer 2:34; 50:20; Ezek 28:15; Zeph 3:13; Mal 2:6; cf. Luke23:4; John 18:38; l9:4; Acts 13:28; 23:9;24:20; Rev l4:5); (ii) someone is"found" righteous (or similar adjective) (e.g. Sir 44:17, 20; Dan 5:27 @; cf.I Cor 4:2; Rev 5:4; I Cbn. 9:3; l0:l); (iii) a criminal is said to be "found,"meaning "detected, discovered" (sometimes "caught in the act") or "caught"(e.g. Exod 22:8; Deut 22:22,28;Jer 50:24 (IXX 27:24); Ezra l0:18). Noneof these categories exactly fits 2 Pet 3:10. OT usage does not seem to supportthe absolute use of etptot<eut ("to frnd") meaning "to subject to judgment,"and although Pss. SoL lT:8 (see above, (2)(k)) seems to support some suchmeaning, the construction is different from that in 2 Pet 3:LO. (Bam. 2l:.6:tu€fie'ua etpe0fire ip ipEW rcptoec':s, "act so that you may be found on theday ofjudgment," is scarcely a valid parallel, for it uses "to be found" in apositive sense, presumably as the opposite of "not to be found" in the usageof (tXc) above.)

However, although the OT usage provides no exact parallel to e[tpefuhoeru.in 2 Pet 3:10, it is possible that general familiarity with that usage couldhave influenced the choice of words, either by the author of 2 Peter or bythe author of his source. At least it could provide the word with generallyjudicial overtones, and when full weight is given to the passive form as a"divine" passive, meaning "will be discovered by God," a plausible sense isobtained which is by no means such a weak climax to the v as the Englishtranslation suggests. etpe?ioerat is being used synonymously with @vioerot("will appear"l, @teg,siliperat ("will be made manifest") or 6a,eWTeviperot,("will become manifest"), as used in similar contexts (Mark 4:22; Luke 18:17;

John 3:21; I Cor 3:13; 14:25; Eph 5:13; 2 Clm. 16:3), but with the addedconnotation that it is God, the Judge, who will "discover" the earth and itsworks.

Wilson suggests the thought is this: when the intervening heavens areburned away, the earth and its works, from the divine point of view, becomevisible. This provides an ironic contrast with the picture of the wicked tryingto hide from God at his eschatological coming to judgment (Isa 2:19; Hosl0:8; Rev 6:lF-16). Thus the author "with a fine sense of climax makes thepassing away of the heavens and the destruction of the intermediate spiritualbeings, while terrible in themselves, even more terrible in that they lead upto the discovery, naked and unprotected on the earth, of men and all theirworks by God. TheJudgment is here represented not so much as a destructiveact of God, as a revelation of him from which none can escape" (ExpTim32 [920-21) 4Ub). Probably this view, that the manifestation of the earthis a consequence of the destruction of the heavens, is preferable to the viewthat rci should be given adversative meaning: everything else will be de-stroyed, but the world of mankind and their deeds will remain to facejudgment(Roberts,ftesrQ 6 [1962] 32-33; Lenhard, ZNW 52 [1961] 129).

Further support for this interpretation comes from the context. The section3:5-10 is by no means concerned solely with the Parousia as cosmic dissolu-tion, but is primarily concerned with the Parousia as judgment of the wicked.The destruction of the universe is of interest to the author only as the meansof judgment on men and women. The previous reference to the comingconflagration, in v 7, concludes on the same note ofjudgment as, according

320 2 Pnrnn 3:&-10

to the proposed interpretation, v l0 does. In v l0 itself, the introductoryreference to the thief requires that which follows to describe not simply adissolution of the physical universe, but ajudgment which threatens the unre-pentant (see above). Similarly the succeeding w (l l-14) focus very explicitlyon the moral dimension of eschatology. In v 14 (riordtor td futci,prfru ainQetpelivaq "to be found without spot or blemish in his sight"; for this usageof eitpiorcev. cf. category (ii) above) there may be a deliberate contrast withebpe?fioero.t. ("will be found") in v 10. In contrast to the wicked whose evildeeds will be "found" by God to their condemnation (v l0), 2 Peter's readersare to strive to be "found" innocent (v l4).

Against this interpretation, two major objections are made: (i) The contextdemands a reference to the annihilation of the earth. This objection hasalready been largely answered: in fact, a reference to the judgment of thewicked is, in context, a more appropriate climax to v 10. For the objectionthat v I la presupposes that the last words of v l0 refer to dissolution (Kelly;Fornberg, Early Church, 76), see Commmt on v I la. (ii) Ti ("earth"), followingu oitpatu ("the heavens"), must be the physical earth, and therefore rd bainQ Eyya ("the works inlon it") must refer to the contents of the earth, asGod's creation, not to the (evil) deeds of men and women. It is true that inthis context 7f cannot be given the sense simply of "humanity," but it caneasily mean the physical earth as the scme of human history, the earth as thedwelling-place of humanity (cf. Matt 5:13; 10:34; Luke l2:49, 5l; l8:8;John17:4; and especially Rom g:28). Given that the author is thinking, certainly,of a cosmic conflagration, but of a cosmic conflagration as the means ofjudgment on the wicked, this usage is entirely natural.

Finally, comparison with 2 CIm,. l6.t, which (as we have argued in theForm/Stnrcture/Selting section) may well be a quotation from the actual sourcewhich 2 Peter here follows, supports the proposed interpretation and helpsto counter objections to it: "The day ofjudgment is now coming like a burningoven, and some [the powers?] of the heavens will melt, and all the earthQranarT fzl) [will be] like lead melting in fire, and then the secret and openworks of men will appear Qcoi rme $@liperar rd, rcpgrc x.oi $areW Egya rdndtilg'muv)." Since gatttperat ("will appear") and Awepa ("open, apparent")are here used rather awkwardly together, it is not impossible that the originaltext of the source quoted in 2 Cbn. had etpefuiperar, which 2 Peter 3:10reproduces, rather than @vfioeran, and, that the author of 2 Clsm., thoughcorrectly understanding e{tphftoerar, found it a slightly odd usage and substi-tuted the more natural Qattfioerot. lf 2 Cl,en. 16:3 really does represent 2Peter's source, then it will be seen that the author of 2 Peter, by omittingthe phrase describing the earth ("like lead melting in fire") has made 7f("the earth") as well as rdEyya ("the works") the subject of e{try?iperat ("willbe found"). No doubt he did this because he wished to move swiftly to theidea ofjudgment, and thought of the earth as the place where the deeds ofthe wicked were to be found, but when it is seen that he is abbreviating hissource, then the slight awkwardness of his use of 7i (see objection (ii) above),as well as the grammatical incorrectness of the singular eitpefuiperat ("wrllbe fiound"), become intelligible (cf. 2:ll, 17, where his abbreviation ofJudehas produced difficulties or infelicities).

Even if the hypothesis-that 2 Cbn. 16:3 represents the source of 2 Pet

Expね“圧“

321

t:10-is not accepted,that v still provides an excellent parallel, which provesthat a description of the eschatological conflagration which climaxes in theexposure of human deeds to judgment need not be thought surprising in 2Pet 3:10 (against objection (i) above). Furthermore, the paraenetic context,of 2 Clm. 16:3, with its references to repentance (cf. especially 16:l; l7:1,with 2 Pet 3:9), is comparable with the context in 2 Pet 3:9, ll-14.

Explanation

To meet the problem of the delay of the Parousia, the author puts fiorwardtwo arguments, both already traditional in theJewish apocalyptic's treatmentof the issue of eschatological delay. In the first place, God, who determinesthe time of the Parousia, does so from a diffierent perspective on time fromthat of men and women. He is not limited by a human lifie span, but surveysthe whole course of human history, so that, as the psalmist observed (Ps

90:4), periods which by human standards are of great length may be fromhis perspective very short. Those who complain of the delay of the Parousia,impatient to see it in their own lifetime, are limiting the divine strategy inhistory to the short-term expectations to which transient human beings areaccustomed. But God's purpose transcends such expectations. Thus the falseteachers' accusation, that it is now too late for the Parousia to be expected,is based on their own evaluation of "lateness," not necessarily on God's.

I[ from the human perspective, the Parousia seems to be deferred, thisdelay must have its purpose in God's direction of history. So the author'ssecond argument, again following traditional apocalyptic thinking, explainsthat the delay is a respite which God has graciously granted to his peoplebefore his intervention in judgment. It derives from one of the fundamentalattributes of God, his forbearance, which characterizes God as "slow to anger"(Exod 34:6), mercifully deferting his judgment so that sinners may have theopportunity to repent and escape condemnation. God delays the Parousiabecause he is not willing that any of his Christian people should perish. Fromthis point of view, the delay of the Parousia should not be a matter for com'plaint. On the contrary, 2 Peter's readers, especially those whom the falseteachers have enticed into sin, should take advantage of the opportunity torepent.

Lest anyone should think that sinners can therefore presume on God'sforbearance, taking advantage of the delay by not repenting, the author imme-diately stresses that God will not defer his judgment indefinitely. The dayof judgment will come upon sinners with the unexpectedness of a burglarbreaking in while the householder sleeps.

The apocalyptic imagery which follows depicts not simply the dissolutionof the coimos but, more importantly, the eschatological coming of the divineJudge. When the wrathful voice of God thunders out of heaven and the fireof his judgment sets the sky ablaze, the firmament and the heavenly bodieswill bC destroyed, and the earth, the scene of human wickedness, will beexposed to his wrath. Then it will be impossible for the wicked to hide fromGod's judicial scrutiny. They and their ivil deeds will be discovered by himand condemned.

In this and the preceding sections there is nothing specifically Christian

322 2 Pnrrn 3:8-10

about the eschatology. The lack of "Christological orientation" (Kisemann)is such that it is not even possible to tell whether "the Lord" is God ofChrist. With the exception of the image of the rhief derived from Jesus'parable, the whole passage could have been written by aJewish apocalyptist,and in fact it is quite probable that the author has closely followed a Jewishapocalyptic source. This borrowing from Jewish apocalyptic is justified bythe apologetic purpose of the passage. The objections of the false teacherswere aimed against the expectation of eschatological julgnmt, against thehope that God will not allbw wickedness to prevail in his world forever, butwill intervene finally to vindicate and to establish his righteousness. For thisexpectation primitive Christianity was indebted to Jewish apocalyptic, whichwas much concerned with this theme and which had also wrestled with thetheological problem posed by the apparent delay of the eschatological judg-ment. It was therefore appropriate that our aurhor should draw on the re-sources ofJewish apocalyptic tradition to counter his opponents' objections.Both the apocalyptic hope for the triumph of God's righteousness in theworld and the apocalyptic undersranding of eschatological delay remain validfor Christians, even though the specifically Christian interpretation of theeschatological hope with reference toJesus Christ can also provide new per-spectives on the judgmenr and its delay.

Exhortafian (3:II-16\

Bibliography

C.onti, M. "La Sophia di 2 Petr. 3, 15." RiaB 17 (1969) l2l-38. Klein, G. Die zudlfApostel, 103-5. Lindemann, A. Pauhs,9l-97, 261-63. Rinaldi, G. "La 'sapienza data'a Paolo (2 Petr.3, l5)." In Sar Pirlr4 Associazione Biblica ltaliana. Pp.395411.Strobel, A. Unlnnnhunga4 92.

Translation r

Lt Since all tluse things are to be dissolaeda in this way,b what sort of peopleought you to be, holy and godly in all yow condact, 12 waiting for and hastmingthe coming of tlw Day of God, becanse of which the lwaaens will be dissolued infames and, the heaamly bodics melt in tlu luaL rs But according to his promke ueare waiting for nrw heaums and a nan earth, in which righteorunos is at home.

La So, my dtar frimds, since you are waiting for tlwse, striae to be fomd, withoutspot or blsrn;sh in his sight, at peace, L6 and. regard tlu forbearance of ow Lord assalaation, just as our dtar brothn Paul urote to you i,n accordance with tht wisd,omgiam to him, LG as hz does in alt his othr l,ettns, whmeun he speaks of these matttrs.His lettus contain some things that are hard n u.ndnstand" uhich tlu uninsmtctedand unstabb peoplc distort, es tful do tlu otlvr scyiptures, so as lo bring abouttheir own dtstrttttion.

Notes

r The present participle )\uopdzr,z, lit. "being dissolved," is used with future sense: see Ca rnailon 2:9 (rolcfo/6rrolrs, "being punished").

u It is difficult to decide between cim,r @tt B C P a/) and dy (N A K L cl), but since thelatter provides a more logical connection with v l0 it may be a correction.

Form / Structure / Se tting

In concluding his letter with a section of eschatological paraenesis, urgingthe moral implications of his eschatological teaching, the author not onlyrounds off his apologetic argument in an appropriate way, but also fulfillsthe requirements of the two literary genres in which he is writing: the apostolicletter and the testament. Eschatological paraenesis is not uncommon in theconcluding sections of NT letters (cf. I Cor 15:58; Gal 5:7-10; Eph 5:10-16; Phil 4:5; Col 4:5; l Tim 6:14; 2 Tim 4:l-5; I Pet 5:l-10), while manytestaments include ethical exhortations with eschatological sanctions (1 Enoch9l:3-19; 94:l-5; Jub. 36:3-ll; 2 Apoc.Bar. 84-85; Bib. Ant. 33:l-3).

Clearly v l2b, but probably also w l2a, 13, whose content is thoroughlyJewish (see Comrnnrf and cf. von Allmen, RTP 16 [966] 26M4), derivefrom theJewish apocalypse which underlies this chapter. It may be significantthat the verb nphrcAt, "to wait, for" (w 12,13,14), which is not common

324 2 PsrEn 3:ll-16

with reference to eschatological expectation, occurs in the quotation inI Clm. 23:5, which we suggested (see Form/Stnrctwe/Settdzg section on3:&10) may derive from 2 Peter's apocalyptic source.

The author's use of the present tense (instead of the future) in v l6b ishis most blatant breach of the pseudepigraphal fiction, following as it doesimmediately after his reference, in Peter's pcrsona, to "our dear brother Paul,"and preceding immediately his resumption of the idea of prediction in vL7a krqudntowes, "knowing in advance").

Comment

ll. roinoy o0rc^r tfuoy \wpax'n, "since all these things are to be dis-solved in this way." This opening phrase may seem to contradict our interpre-tation of the last, clause in v 10, according to which that clause refers notto the dissolution of the earth but to the judgment of humanity. It is truethat v l0 does not then refer explicitly to the dissolution of "all these things"(i.e. the heavens and the earth, cf. v l3), but only to the dissolution of theheavens. But this is probably because the author has abbreviated a sourcewhich made the dissolution of the earth explicit (see Cornm.ent on v l0), ratherthan because he wished to exclude the dissolution of the earth, which isimplied in v 7 as well as in v 13. But why does v I I not take up the thoughtof thejudgment of human works with which, according to our interpretation,v l0 ends? The reason is that in w I l-14 the author wishes to base hisexhortation to his readers not only on the threat of judgment, but morebroadly on the eschatological expectation of a new world of righteousness(v l3). Since the present world, the scene of human wickedness, is to disappearand be replaced by a new world, the home of righteousness, his readersshould be the kind of people who will be able to live in that new world.Then when they face the judgment of God they will be found ro be fit, notto perish with the old world, but to enter the new (v 14). Though the author'seschatological paraenesis, like thar of the NT generally, contains a negativewarning (the unrepentant will perish), its emphasis is positive (the hope forthe triumph of God's righteousness demands righteous living now).

€v &lials htosrWis tcoieine1eia.g, lit. "in holy forms of behavior and godlyacts": the force of the plurals, indicating many different forms of holy andgodly behavior (cf. doelt7eio6, "dissolute practices," 2:2, l8), can only beconveyed in English by paraphrase ("holy and godly in all your conduct");cf. I Pet l:15. For einegeiots, "godly acts," see Conmsnt on l:3; it is probablyour author's vocabulary, rather than that of his source.

12. tpoofu<nsvrag, "waiting for." On eschatological "waiting" in the NT,see Commml on Jude 21. The verb rpoofu<tut (also used of eschatologicalexpectation in 2 Macc 7:14; 12:44; Matt ll:3; Luke 7:19-20; I CIm.23:5;lgn. Pot. 3:2; Justin, Dial. 120.3; cf. Ign. Magn. 9:3) is used three times inw 12-14. In view of the allusion to Hab 2:3 in v 9, it is probable thar theemphasis on waiting in these w also derives from that text, whose demandfor action, in the face of the eschatological delay, is "wait for it,/him" (LXX:tmopeiuw cnro4 Aquila: rp&you cinfu; cf. I Clm.. 23:5; 2 Apoc. Bm. 83A;b. Sanh. 97b1.

Commm,t 325

otet&ltttag, "hastening," could perhaps mean "striving for" (Reicke), butthe Jewish background is decisive in favor of "hastening." Isa 60:22b (nsv:"in its time I will hasten it"; IXX does not give this meaning) was the basisfior a whole series ofJewish texts which speak of God hastening the time ofthe End (Sir 33:8[36:7] LXX: oreiwov rcatpbv, "hasten the time"; 2 Apoc. Bar.20:l-2; 54:l; 83:l; Bib. Ant. 19:13; Bam. 4:3; cf. also Isa 10:23 IXX). Itfeatured in the debate between R. Eliezer and R. Joshua (see Commml on v9). R.Joshua interpreted it to mean that redemption would come at theappointed time, irrespective of repentance, but (in one version of the debate:y. Ta<an. l:l) R. Eliezer taught that it meant that the Lord would hastenthe coming of redemption in response to Israel's repentance. A similar inter-pretation is attributed to R.Joshua b. Levi (c. e.o.250): "If you have merit,I will hasten it; if not, [it comes] in its time" (y. Ta<an. l:l; D. Sanh.98a;Cant. Rab. 8:14). Usually, as in Isa 60:22, it is God who is said to hastenthe coming of the End, but R. Eliezer's view implies that, since God hastensin response to repentance, repentance itself might be said to hasten the End.Later rabbinic texts actually say that repentance (b. Yoma 86b, attributed tothe early second-century R. Jose the Galilean; cf. also y. Ta<an. l:l; b. Sanh.97b; Acts 3:19) or charity (b. B. Bat. l0a, attributed to R. Judah, c. A.D.150) brings repentance nearer. An important parallel which demonstratesthe influence of theseJewish ideas in the Christian milieu from which 2 Peterderives is 2 Clen. 12:6: "When you do these things [good works, especiallysexual purityl, he [Jesus] says, the kingdom of my Father will come" (andcf. the exhortation to immediate repentance in l3:l; on this text, see Strobel,Untnnuhungm, 12U27). Cf. also Herm. Sirn. 10:4:4.

Clearly this idea of hastening the End is the corollary of the explanation(v 9) that God defers the Parousia because he desires Christians to repent.Their repentance and holy living may therefore, from the human standpoint,hasten its coming. This does not detract from God's sovereignty in determin-ing the time of the End (cf. Comment on v 9), but means only that his sovereigndetermination graciously takes human affairs into account.

rip rapowiot rflg roD ileo| ipipas, "the coming of the Day of God." Else-where in early Christian literature napwia always has a personal subject,and with eschatological reference the subject is always Christ (as in 2 Petl:16; 3:4). Also very unusual is the expression "the Day of God," in placeof the normal "the Day of the Lord" (Apoc. Pet. E4 has "the day of God,"but is probably dependent on this passage; Rev 16:14 has rfsgeTdtrrp npl-posru) ileq) rcft natrwcparops, "the great Day of God the Almighty"; cf. 2 Apoc.Bar.55:6: "the Day of the Mighty One"). Whether 2 Peter intends a distinctionbetween "the Day of the Lord" (: Christ?) in v 10, and "the Day of God"(: the Father) here, is very uncertain.

&' fiv, "because of which," indicates that the coming of the day of Godis the cause of the destruction, which will therefore "not be the result ofany natural cyclic process, like the periodical conflagration envisaged in Stoicthought, but the direct effect of God's all-sovereign will" (Kelly).

oror1€,f, rcmnobpeta ny<sra4 "the heavenly bodies melt in the heat." Thisclause derives from Isa 34:4 LXX (B, Lucian): rarcipowan ndoat q,i iwope5rciw oitp,vdn ("all the powers of the heavens will melt"): see Comrnmt on y

326 2 Psrnn 3:ll-16

10. (The verb rfircso1a.t, "to melt," here a NT hapax, is also used of the meltingof the mountains at the eschatological coming of God: IXX Isa 63:19-64:l;Mic l:4; I Enoch l:6). The description of the conflagration is repeated, withslight variations from v 10, in order to prepare for v 13.

L3. rcnvois 6e o0pcvous ttoi lrl rcauiy xo,rd, rb ina?rt,e).p ainoD rpoohruitpa4"but according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a newearth." The hope for a new heaven and a new earth is based on Isa 65:17;66:22, which must be the "promise" to which this v refers, and is foundthroughoutJewish apocalyptic (Jub. l:29; I Enoch 45:4-5;72:l;91:16; SiD.

Or. 5:212; 2 Apoc. Bar. 32:6; 44:12; 57:2; 4 Ezra 7:75; Bib. Ant. 3:10; Pseudo-Sophocles, ap. Clem. Alex., Strom. 5.L4.122.1; Apoc. El. 3:98) and was takenup in early Christianity (Matt 19:28; Rom 8:21; Rev 2l:l). The cosmic dissolu-tion described in vv 10, 12, was a return to the primeval chaos, as in theFlood (3:6), so that a new creation may emerge (cf. 4 Ezra 7:3G-31). Suchpassages emphasize the radical discontinuity between the old and the new,but it is nevertheless clear that they intend to describe a renewal, not anabolition, of creation (cf. I Enoch 54:4-5; Rom 8:21).

iv dts &umtooitvq xarotrcii, "in which righteousness is at home." "Righteous-ness" is personified, as in Isa 32:16 (LXX:iwatwisvr1ivrQKappil\t4rarowfioeq"righteousness will dwell in Carmel"). The only feature of the new worldwhich the writer considers relevant is that it will be a world in which God'swill will be done. In this he is in the mainstream of Jewish and Christianeschatology. For the righteousness of the new age, cf. Isa 9:7; ll:4-5; Pss.

SoI. l7:4O; I Enoch 5:&-9; 10:16,20-21;91:17; 2 Enoch 65:8;4 EzraT:lL4;Rom 14:17.

14. ratna r,pcr,iott;6r,rtes, "since you are waiting for these." "These" arethe new heavens and the new earth. Because a new world of righteousnessis coming, which only the righteous can enter, Christians must live righteouslynow to be fit to enter it. By abandoning the hope for the triumph of righteous-ness, the false teachers had removed this motive for holiness.

orovMoare, "strive": see Comment on l:10.&ont\u tcd dpapqrw ainQ ettpe?nydl, "to be found without spot or blemish

in his sight." d,ort\w rc) darcpryw ("without spot or blemish") is an exampleof our author's predilection for pairs of synonyms, but in this case he probablyfollows a traditional phrase. The combination dltapov tcai doillav occurs inI Pet I : 19, and similar phrases including either riparyos or doril\os are commonin early Christian literature (&pupas with a synonym: Eph l:4; 5:27; Col l:22;I Cbn. l:3; 45:l; Herm. Vis. 4:2:5; rioril,os with a synonym: I Tim 6:14;Herm. Vis. 4:3:5; Sim. 5:6:7; &pla,pcs alone in a comparable context: Jude24, where u. /. adds tionrtrou$ I Clem. 50:2; Ign. Trall. l3:3; cf. I Clen. 63:l;and comparable pairs of synonyms: Phil l:10; 2:15; Jas l:27; I Cbn. 29:l;2 Clen. 6:9; Herm. Mand. 2:7; cf. I Thess 3:13; 5:23). The majority of theseparallels are in an eschatological context, and many of them refer to thestate in which Christians or the church ought to be at the Parousia (Ephl:4;5:27; Col l:22; Herm. Vis. 4:3:5; Sim. 5:6:7;Jude 24; lgn. Trall. l3:3; /Cbn. 63:l; Phil l:10; 2:15; I Thess 3:13; 5:23; perhaps I Cbn. 50:2; cf.also I Cor l:8). Of these, three use the verb ebpottsw ("to find") as in 2Peter (/ Cbm. 50:2; Herm. Sim. 5:6:7; lgn, Trall. l3:3; cf. also Sir 3l:8).

Conmmt 827

Cl-early the author of 2 Peter here draws on standard terminology from liturgi-cal or paraenetic tradition (cf. Commmt on 2:13 andJude 24). Ir is unlikClythat he is dependent on Paul (who does not provide the closest parallels;against Fornberg, Early Church, 24-25, or on I Pet l:19 (where rhe conrextis quite different; against Kelly) or on Jude 24.

rior0tos, "without spot," describes sacrificial animals (l Pet l:19; paganusage in TDNT l, 502), though it also came ro denote moral purity (Job15:15 Symmachus;Jas l:27). Instead of rip<,lpos ("without blemish"), whichis the usual LXX term, used of sacrifical victims (e.g. Exod 29:38; Lev l:3;3:l; Heb 9:14), 2 Peter uses rhe rarer word &p,oprfros ("without blemish"),a biblical hapac (except Phil 2:15 ,a.1., following LXX Deut 32:5: pcilprrro,),although the LXX once uses pci,pryds to mean 'iblemished" (Deut 32:5). Incombination with rior0\os it is probably intended ro conrinue the sacrificialmetaphor, although (like rilr<,:pog, which derives its sacrificial meaning solelyfrom [xX usage) in normal Greek usage it referred to moral blamelessnesi(TDNT4,83l). The two words describe Christians as morally pure, metaphori-cally an unblemished sacrifice to God.

Christians are to be so "found" by the Lord at his coming to judgment(cf. Phil 3:9; I Cbn.35:4;57:2;2 Clen.6:9; Herm. Sdna 5:6:7;9:t3:2; Ign.TrallZ;Z; l3:3; Magn.9:2). Probably there is an echo of 3:10 (see Commmton that v). aur4l probably means "in his sight," rather than "found by him"(or "at peace with him"), and probably has a judicial sense ("in the eyes ofthe judge") rather than cultic overtones (as inJude 24).

iv eipi1vy1, "at peace", i.e. "at peace with God," in the state of reconciliationwith God which is Christian salvation. our author, like most early Christianwriters, expects his readers to be alive when the Lord comes.

15. riv ro0 wpou iyc;:v ttoxpofiupiatt oc,nnptot ryetoile, "regard the forbear-ance of our Lord as salvation." In contrast to the false teachels, who interpretthe delay of the Parousia as "lateness" (3:9), 2 Peter's readers can give-it apositive interpretation, as an opportunity to secure, through repentance, thesalvation which they might have missed if the Parousia had come sooner(cf. 2 Clen. 16:l).

6 &Tarryig rytc;w dDetr@s IIcOIo5:, "our dear brother Paul." The term d&I0os("brother") is regularly used by Paul as a terrn for his fellow-workers, hiscolleagues in the service of the gospel (e.g. 2 Cor 2:13; Phil 2:25; I Thess3:2), and I Pet 5:12 shows that this usage was not confined to Paul but wasfamiliar among the leaders of rhe chuich in Rome. The term was by nomeans confined to apostles. Paul uses dlanqrd,c d6€I0os ("dear brother") inEph 6:21; Col4:7,9 (cf. Col l:7; Phlm l; and for d:yarrfros, "beloved," alone,cf. Acts 15:25; Rom 16:12; 3John l), probably indicating that riTcrrpdg isnot merely conventional, but conveys affection

ripriu ("our") is not likely to mean simply "m/," though many commentatorsassume this. True epistolary plurals occur rarely, if at all, in the NT. Apparentexamples in Paul always (or almost always) include Paul's colleagues, fimothyand others. When Paul says "our brother" rather than "my brother," it isprobable that he means the plural literally (notice the careful alternation offirst person singular and plural in 2 Cor 8:22-23; even in I Thess 3:2 "our"is probably "Paul's and Silvanus"'). In 2 Peter, the first person plural in

328 2 Pnrrn 3:ll-16

l:1, lGl9 means "we apostles," and the first person singular is used forPeter himself in l:12-15;3:1. Probably, therefore, the first person plural in3:15 means, nol "we Christians" (Mayor), but "we apostles" (Schrage). Thisneed not imply that the author excluded Paul from the ranks of the apostles,which would be very surprising (cf. I Clm. 5:&-5), but simply means thatPaul is considered a fellow-worker with the rest, of the aposrles. Anotherpossibility (less likely because the first person plural would then have a differ-ent reference from the first person plural in l:16.18) is that "we" are Peterand his immediate colleagues, the Petrine "circle" of Christian leaders inRome.

Most commentators remark that this phrase could not have been usedby the historical Peter, because of the tension between him and Paul (Gal2:l l-14), and that it indicates the view of the postapostolic age, which lookedback to Peter and Paul as the two great leaders of the apostolic church (Acts;1 Cbn. 5; Ign. Rom. 4:3; cf. Ep. Apost. 3l-33). In fact Gal l:18; 2:7-9 showthat Peter recognized Paul as a fellow-apostle, and it is nailve to supposethat their disagreement at Antioch need have prevented Peter from writingof Paul in the terms used here. It was only one incident in a long relationshipof which we otherwise know next to nothing. If Peter had a critical view ofPaul, it is odd to find Silvanus in the Petrine circle in Rome (l Pet 5:12).As far as our evidence goes, there is nothing implausible in the attitude toPaul here attributed to Peter (so also Mayor, Green; Robinson, Redating,l8l). Our author, who had probably been a colleague of Peter's, may infact be reflecting accurately the historical Peter's cordial regard for Paul.

On the other hand, the fact that postapostolic authors generally refer toPaul in more reverenrial terms (I Clm.47:l; Ign. Eph. 12.2;Pol. Phil. 8:2;Act. Vac. 3) does not show that only Peter himself could have written 2 Pet3:15 (against Green). In adopting a phrase which would be plausible on thelips of the historical Peter, our author follows the practice of most pseudepi-graphal writers, who were easily able to avoid crass anachronisms like "theblessed apostle Paul" on the lips of a fellow-apostle (cf. the Ep. Pet. Phil.ICG 8,2] 132:l&-14: "Philip our beloved brother and our fellow apostle").

Some think the reference to Paul is an only too obvious attempt to bolsterthe author's claim to speak as the apostle Peter, but this is a misunderstandingof the pseudepigraphal device. The literary fiction of Petrine authorship iscarried through with verisimilitude, and the mtznntr of referring to Paul isan instance of this, but the fiction is not intended to deceive. The need f,orverisimilitude cannot therefore explain why the author introduced the refer-ence to Paul. As in the rather similar case of l:16-18, the reference to Paulhas an apologetic purpose. The author wishes to point out that his ownteaching (specifically in 3:14-l5a) is in harmony with Paul's because Paulwas an important authority fior his readers. The reason for this is clear: thechurches to which he writes (or at least sorne of them) had been foundedin the Pauline mission and naturally held in high regard the Pauline letterswhich they preserved and read. The author's appeal to Paul's letters is pre-cisely parallel to the appeal which I Clenl.47:l makes to I Corinthians. Clem-ent, a contemporary of our author, also writing from Rome to a church

Commail 329

founded by Paul (Corinth), similarly supports his own teaching by referringto the letter Paul had written to his readers.

tcard, dp ffieis@, ainQ oo(iu, "in accordance with the wisdom given tohim," is equivalent to fivilpo;rucd6 ("under the inspiration of the Spirit") in1 Clem. 47:.1. In both cases the appeal to Paul's teaching in his letters isreinforced by reference to the fact that the apostle wrote under divine inspira-tion.6o0doat ("given") is a "divine" passive, with God as the implied agent,and Paul's "wisdom" is therefore a charismatic gift of God (cf. "the utteranceof wisdom," I&Ios oo(ias: I Cor l2:8; and for wisdom as the gift of God,cf. Ezra 7:25;Dan l:19; Wis 7:7;9:17- Eph l:17; Col l:9; Mark 6:2;Jas l:5;and for wisdom associated with the Spirit: Acts 6:3, l0; I Cor 2:13).

Paul himself frequently refers to the "grace (Xrips) given to" him (Roml2:3; 15:15; Gal 2:9; I Cor 3:10; Eph 3:2,7; cf. Col l:25), i.e. his apostoliccommission, the divine enabling by which he receives and understands therevelation of God's purpose in the gospel (Eph 3:2-10), and by which hespeaks and writes with the authority of one who conveys God's message (Roml2:3; l5:15-16). Second Peter's reference to his charismatic wisdom impliesno more and no less than this. The choice of the word ooiia ("wisdom"),rather than the general term 1tiprg ("grace"), is appropriate in a referenceto Paul's teaching in his letters (cf. I Cor 2:6-13). It was with God-giveninsight into the truth of the gospel, the charisma of wisdom, that Paul wrotehis letters. (For wisdom as the gift of an inspired writer, cf. Prot. la. 25:"the Lord who gave me wisdom to write this history"; Pol. PhiL 3:2: "thewisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul," with reference both to his preachingand to his writing Philippians.)

It is possible that the author of 2 Peter deliberately echoes the Pauline"slogan," "the grace given to me" (Conti, RiaB 17 tl969l 129, l3l-34; Forn-berg, Early Church,26), and it may be significant that two of the most appropri-ate parallels occur in Romans (12:3; l5:15; for our author's possible familiaritywith Romans, see Cornmml on 2:19). But the phrase is too natural for depen-dence on Paul to be demonstrable. At any rate, the idea of the inspirationof Paul's letters expressed in this v cannot be branded "the later ecclesiasticalidea" (Knoch, "Vermichtnis," 154). It faithfully reflects the apostle's ownconsciousness of apostolic authority and charismatic inspiration.

Conti rightly points out the parallel between this description of Paul'sinspiration and the account of the inspiration of the OT prophets (l:20-2l). Like them, Paul did not speak out of his own wisdom, but in accordancewith the wisdom given him by God. It is this that accounts for the treatmentof Paul's letters, alongside the OT writings, as "scriptures" (v 16). Theirinspiration gives them normative authority, though not yet canonical status(see below).

fiW{ev ttrrar, "wrote to you." Some think "you" are all Christians (Moffatt,Spicq, Kelly, Sidebottom, Schrage, Senior; Lindemann, Pauhr, 92), but thismakes the comparison between what Paul wrote "to you" and what he wrotein "all his letters" (v 16) meaningless. These two verses are only intelligibleif "you" are a specific church or specific churches which had been the recipientsof one or more Pauline letters, and the claim that 2 Peter is a "catholic"

330 2 Pmnn 3:ll-16

letter, addressed to all Christians indiscriminately, comes to grief especiallyin the exegesis of these verses. fThe idea that Paul's letters were intentionallywritten for the whole church, which would be presupposed if "you" wereall Christians, is not in evidence in this period; cf, I Cbm. 47:l; Pol. PhiI3:2.)

To which letter(s) of Paul does this v refer? Most of the letters in thePauline corpus have been suggested: e.g. Romans (Mayor; Selwyn, Christianhopluts,l5T-58), Ephesians (von Soden), the Thessalonian letters (Plumptre,Reicke), Hebrews (R. P. C. Hanson, Tradition in tlu Early Church [London:SCM Press, 19621 189; already suggested by Bengel), or a lost letter (Spitta;Zahn, Introduction, 198-99). The grounds on which these choices have beenmade are basically two: (l) Destination. If 3:l indicates that the churchesaddressed are those of I Pet l:1, then Galatians, Colossians and Ephesiansare possibilities. (2) Subject-matter. If the rccOcbs rcci ("just as") clause relatesonly to v l5a, the letter must be one which treats of divine forbearance(Mayor), and among extant letters Romans is then the only plausible candidate(see especially Rom 2:4; cf. also 3:25; 9:22-23l' ll:22-23). But there is noneed to limit the subject-matter so narrowly. The ,cqf,rJos rai clause is naturallytaken to relate to the whole of w l4-15a. In that case the subject-matter isthe much more general one of eschatological paraenesis, ethical exhortationin view of the coming Parousia, a theme which is found in nearly all Paul'sletters (e.9. Rom l3:ll-14; I Cor 7:27-35; 15:58;2 Cor 7:l;9:6; Gal 5:21;6:7-8; Phil 2:15-16; 3:20; 4:5; Col 3:44,23-25; I Thess 5:4-ll), thoughunfortunately it is not easy to find in Ephesians (cf. 4:30; 5:5, 16, 27;6:131,which might otherwise be a very suitable candidate. Some take the subject-matter to be, more broadly, the eschatological discussion of chap 3, andtherefore suggest the Thessalonian letters as the most appropriate, but it isdoubtful whether this is justified.

The attempt to select a letter on grounds of subject-matter is, however,misguided, since according to v 16 (where refi rowdtv, "of these matters,"cannot, as Mayor thinks, refer to a broader subject, but continues the referenceto w l4-l5a) the same subject is treated throughout Paul's correspondence.The reason why the letter to 2 Peter's readers is singled out for special mentionin v l5b is not that it treated the subject more explicitly or more fully, butsimply that it was written to 2 Peter's readers.

The destination of 2 Peter must be decided on other grounds, principallythe indication in 3:l that the churches addressed are those (or some of those)addressed in I Pet l:1. If the reference is to an extant Pauline letter, it musttherefore have been Galatians, Colossians or Ephesians. There is no way ofdeciding berween these, and perhaps even the author of 2 Peter did notdecide. Since he shows no great familiarity with the Pauline letters, we neednot suppose that he had in mind much more than that Paul frequently includedeschatological paraenesis in his letters and that Paul had written letters tosome of the churches to which his own letter was addressed.

16. Av rd,oars drtmoltaig, "in all his letters," must imply that the authorhad some acquaintance with a number of Pauline letters, and so probablywith some kind of collection of Pauline letters, however small and informal,in use in his church. But of course he refers only to those Pauline letters he

Cornment 331

knew, and we have no means of knowing how many they were. His ownwork contains no certain allusions to Pauline material, and the only possibleallusions which are at all plausible are to Romans (in 2:19; 3:15), which ifhe wrote from Rome is not surprising, and to I Thessalonians (in 3:10).

Thus, although this phrase is rather unlikely in a letter written from Romebefore Peter's death, it gives little further help in determining the date of 2Peter. Pauline letters may have begun to circulate to churches other thanthose to which they were written even before Paul's death, and small localcollections probably preceded the formation of the corpus of ten letters (cf.L. Mowry, "The Early Circulation of Paul's Letters," JBL 63 tl944l 73-86).Clement certainly knew, not only Romans, but also I Corinthians (1 Cl.en.47:l), and perhaps other Pauline letters. The author of 2 Clm. seems tohave known a collection of Pauline letters (Donfried, Second Clmtent, 93-95,108, l6G$5), as Ignatius (Eplu l2:2) and Polycarp certainly did.

&nv&fra rwa & ci dpaleis tcd &srfipwru orpp\otow, "some things that arehard to understand, which the uninstructed and unstable people distort."&nvhryos ("hard to understand") is a rare word, used of texts which aredifficult to interpret (Diogenes faertes, Vit. PhiI. 9.13) and by Hermas ofhis symbolic visions (Herm. Sdrn. 9: l4:4). It is no qualification of Paul's "wis-dom" (v 15) to admit that Paul's writings contain difficult passages, since itis only the dpa0els rcoi &orfipwu ("uninstructed and unstable people") whowill be liable to misinterpret them, and they also misinterpret the "otherscriptures" (see below; cf. Lindemann, Paulus,94). The reference is probablytherefore to passages which are liable to be misunderstood unless they areinterpreted in the light of the rest of Paul's teaching and of the apostolicteaching generally, rather than to passages which are simply obscure. (Thepoint is therefore different from that made by Origen, Comm. in Rom. 6,who attributes the variety of interpretations of Paul to the fact that he wasunable to express himself clearly.) For the correct interpretation of such pas-sages some instruction in Christian teaching is required.

d,poiels (a fairly common word which happens not to be used elsewherein early Christian literature) means not simply "ignorant" but "uninstructed."These people have not received sufficient instruction in the faith to be ableto interpret difficult passages in the Scriptures correctly. dorfipwru ("unsta-ble") has a similar connotation (cf. Cornmmt on l:12; 2:14): they are easilymisled because their understanding and experience of Christianity are rela-tively superficial. There may be an element of condemnation in the descrip-tion: these people are ignorant. because they are unwilling to learn, andunstable because they allow thnnselaes to be misled.

The description "uninstructed and unstable" might seem to suit the follow-ers of the false teachers, rather than the false teachers themselves. dtrfiptuu("unstable") is used of those who are "ensnared" by the false teachers in2:14 (Wds dm1giuruq, "unstable people"), while 2:18 characterizes theirvictims as recent converts. Yet it is unlikely that misuse of the Scriptureswould be attributed to the false teachers' followers and not to the false teachersthemselves. Probably we should assume that the author speaks here of both(so Zahn, Introdttction,223-29). The false teachers themselves he regards asincompetent exegetes because they have never taken the trouble to understand

332 2 PETER 3:ll-16

Christian teaching thoroughly (for their ignorance, cf. 2:12;3:5). They andtheir followers are a case of the blind leading the blind.

orpepltotn, "to lwist, lorture," is interpreted by Neyrey (Polmic, 56-58)to mean that they rejecr Paul's teaching (as they did OT prophecies: l:20-2l), but in combination with &nv6rfra ("hard to understand") it must mean"distort," in the sense of "misinterpret." This could imply either that theygive Paul's teaching an unacceptable sense and reject it, or that. they misinter-pret it in such a way as to make it support their own misguided views. Inthe first case, it could be that they interpreted Paul's statements about theimminence of the Parousia (e.g. Rom 13:ll-12; 16:20; I Cor 7:29; Phil4:5;I Thess 4:15) in such a way as to imply that his expectarions were not fulfilledand therefore that his futnre eschatology musr be rejected. In the secondcase, the most likely texts (as most commentators argue) would be thosewhich could be held to support antinomianism (e.g. Rom 4:15; 5:20; 8:l; ICor 6:12; and the doctrine ofjustification by faith as a whole) and the falseteachers' offer of "freedom" (2:19; cf. Rom 8:2; 2 Cor 3:17). Such Paulinetexts were so used by second-century Gnostics (E. H. Pagels, Tlu Gnostic PaukGnostic Exeguis of tlw Paulirc bttqs [Philadelphia: Forrress Press, 1975] 66-67). Some commentators think that 2 Peter's opponents used Pauline textsin the interests of a wholly realized eschatology, excluding the future expecta-tion of the Parousia, but this is unlikely, both because such texts are muchmore difficult to find (second-century Gnostics used Pauline texts to support,a spiritual, rather than a physical, resurrection, but that is an issue to which2 Peter makes no reference), and because 2 Peter offers no evidence thatthe opponents taught a realized eschatology.

It is difficult to decide berween rhe rwo possibilities. The first fits wellinto 2 Peter's portrait of the false teachers as skeptical about future eschatol-ogy. The second could correspond to 2:lg, and is perhaps a more obviousmisuse of Paul, based on a misunderstanding of him which he himself hadto counter (Rom 3:8; 6:15; Gal 5:13).

Even if the second possibility is the correct interpretation, it does notreally 9ffer much support for the common opinion that the opponents wereradical Paulinists and that the author of 2 Peter refers to Paul because Paulwas the major authority for his opponents. He refers to Paul primarily becausePaul was an important authority for the churches to which he writes (see above),and this will also be the reason why the false teachers referred to Paul. Itwas not necessarily because Paul's letters were their major inspiration, butbecause Paul's letters were a major theological authority in thiir churches,that the false teachers discussed Paul's teaching, whether in order to rejectit or in order to use it in support of their own views.

still less justified is the opinion that 2 Pet 3:ls-16 is an attempt to rehabili-tate Paul in "orthodox" circles, which had viewed the Paulinl letters withsuspicion because of the gnostic heretics' use of them. Lindemann (Paulus,

95-96) points out that there is no evidence for a negative atritude to Paulin "orthodox" church circles. Second Peter's positive picture of Paul as awitness to the authentic apostolic teaching fits into the general trend of earlyChristian attitudes to Paul (Acts, .l Cbn., lgnatius, Polycarp, as well as thedeutero-Pauline letrers if rhey are pseudepigraphal).

Commmt 333

For lreretical 4gtsutg__q,f gg[-Qhn$ian_Unliqgsr cf. Pol. Phil. 7:1, whichconderfiiliaiy6ifTh6t-pervffs trriDiffij ihC-siyi"gs of the Lord to hisown lusts (rpos rris itiias drfivpias)"; and the Pseudo-Clementine Ep. Pet. Jamcs2:4, where Peter complains that some have tried to distort Arcrad7.r41qiilew)his words to supporr the abolition of the [,aw.

rtis )\arris 'tpo&s, "the other scriptures." It would make no sense to takepa.@s in the nontechnical sense of "writings"; the definite article requiresusto give it its technical sense (as always in thL NT) of "inspired, authorilativewritings," Le. "scriptures." )\orrdg (lit. "remaining") muit (against Green)imply that Paul's letters are included in the category of tW&I.

To determine the precise implication of this, we should first note rhat

;cf. Herm. Vis. 2:3:4: d61€1pnrot, "as il is written").I!_need not thereforeiryly g_!!non of Scqp!ureg!e!1. The inclusion of Paul's lCitGrsln this category

ed as inspired, authoritative writings (is vl5 in fact says), ranked alongside the OT and probably various othei books,including other apostolic writings. Probably the implication is that they ares-uitable _for reading in Christian worship. But this does nor at all requirethe conclusion that the author of 2 Peter knows a NT canon. Apostolic writingsmust have ranked as authoritative writings, suitable for reading in Christianworship, long before there was any fixed NT canon.

It is hard to tell at what date Paul's letters could have begun to be called1NMi ('scriptures"), but there is no real difficulty in dating 2 Pet 3:[6 inthe late first century. ln 2 Cbn. l4:2 apostolic writings are ranked alongsidethe OT: "the books Gd fitfiia, i.e. the OT) and the apostles declare"-(seeDonfried, ;ingqqttg9 TpQoi ("scriptures") are I Tim 5:18 (perhaps a quotation of Mati10:10, called tpofth along with an OT texQ; 2 Cltm. 2:4 (i Gospel saying iscalled dripa tpfih, "another scripture," following an OT quotation); Sarn4:14 ('6161prnot, "as it is written," introduces a quotaton from Matt 22:l4l;Pol. Phit. 12:l (Ps 4:5 and Eph 4:26 are called his soipturis, "these scriprures").The fact that in four of these insrances a NT quorarion is placed alongsidean OT text is not insignificanr. Ir shows that Gospels and aposrolic wriiingswere coming !o be ranked with the OT Scriptures. There is norhing at allsurprising in this development. Apostolic writings were regarded as inspiredand authoritative from the beginning (see above). Once thCy were beingreadalong with the OT in Christian woiship, it was quire narural that the termWafun ("scripture") should come to be used for them.

"The other scriptures" could have included Gospels, whose predictionsof the imminent Parousia the false teachers would have interpreGd as falseprophecy and rejected, as perhaps rhey did Paul's. We know (from l:20-2l) that they misinterpreted OT prophecies, in that they inrerpreted themas only the human ideas of the prophets and therefore dismissed them.Whether it is also implied that there were OT and non-Pauline apostolicwritings in which the false teachers claimed to find s6ort for their views itis impossible to tell.

rf;i6 rr1 itiolt aincby &trt's\eta\ "so as to bring about their own destruction."

334 2 PsrEn 3:ll-16

The misuse of the Scriptures by the false teachers and their followers wasserious enough to imperil their salvation. It was therefore not a question ofminor doctrinal errors, but of using their misinterpretations tojustify immoral-ity, for it is 2 Peter's consistent teaching that eschatological judgment (rfurciIe&!, "destruction") is coming on the false teachers because of their ungodlylives. In relation to their misinterpretation of Paul, this is clearly the case ifthey appeal to Paul's teaching about Christian freedom to justify libertinism.If they misinterpret Paul in order to reject his eschatological expectation,this too is in the interests of immorality, since it removes the eschatologicalmotive from Christian ethics. The false teachers' rejection of eschatologywill therefore lead to theirjudgment, just as 2 Peter's readers'proper under-standing of eschatology should lead to their salvation (w l4-l5a).

The emphatic itiial.t ("own") recalls l:20, and perhaps suggests an ironyconcealed in this phrase. Perhaps the author was going to say that they twistthe Scriptures "to their own interpretation" (npos riv i6io;,t inititor, cf. l:20),turning back on them their own accusation against the prophets. Insteadhe states what this amounts to: "their own destruction" (cf. Pol. Phil. 7:l:rM rds i&ag &nfiuping, "to their own lusts").

Explanation

The false teachers' denial of future eschatology was the corollary of theirlibertine behavior. In this section of exhortation the author shows how, bycontrast, his readers' eschatological expectation should have as its corollarya life of active Christian righteousness in the present. Eschatology suppliesa motive for ethical conduct, not only as a neg:itive warning of judgment,but also as a positive hope for a new world in which God's righteous willshall entirely prevail. The present world in which evil is all too dominant iscoming to an end and will be replaced by a world in which righteousness isat home. Christians, waiting in hope for this new world, should aim to bethe sort of people who can enter it, rather than the sort of people who mustperish with the old world. By repentance and righteousness, fulfilling God'spurpose in his deferment of the Parousia, they can even "hasten" its arrival.

The false teachers, who interpreted the Lord's forbearance in delayingthe Parousia as "lateness," made this an excuse for moral laxity which putsthem in danger of condemnation when the day ofjudgment does come. Bycontrast, 2 Peter's readers, who interpret the [,ord's fiorbearance as an oppor-tunity to repent and so be sure of salvation, should aim to be, when theLord does come, reconciled to him and innocent before his judgment seat.

That the expectation of the Parousia should be a motive for Christianrighteousness and the period up to the Parousia an opportunity for repentanceand righteousness had also been Paul's teaching in his letters. The authormakes this point to support his argument with the additional authority ofPaul, who, as founder of some of the churches tb which 2 Peter was addressed,was a mqior theological authority for the readers. Because of the locationof these churches in Asia Minor (l Pet l:l; 2 Pet 3:l), the reference to whatPaul had written to the readers of 2 Peter is presumably to Galatians, Colos-sians or Ephesians, or to more than one of these letters. Since, as the author

Explnnation 335

himself says, eschatological paraenesis occurs throughout Paul's extant corre-spondence, it is impossible to be more specific.

Paul is said to have written under divine inspiration. The reference tohis endowment with the gift of wisdom faithfully rehects Paul's own conscious-ness of charismatic inspiration and apostolic authority. As inspired, authorita-tive writings, Paul's letters rank alongside "the other scriptures," i.e. theOT and (probably) other apostolic literature. This does not imply that theauthor knows a NT canon, but probably means that some kind of collectionof Paul's letters-we cannot tell how many-was known to the author, andthat they were read in Christian worship along with the OT Scriptures. Thispassage belongs to a fairly early stage in the plocess which led to rhe fiormalrecognition of a canon of apostolic writings.

His reference to Paul gives the author the opportunity fior a final attackon the false teachers. Since Paul was a theological authority in their churches,the false teachers were also obliged to refer to his teaching in his letters,but in the author's view their exegesis amounted to a serious misinterpretationof passages which were too diffitult for the "uninstructed and uns-table" tounderstand. The correct interpretation of such passages required a broadand sound knowledge of apostolic teaching. The-author does not intend toimply that exegesis of Paul should therefore be limited to the church's officialteachers: his opponents may in fact have held office as teachers in theirchurches. His argument is that, for all their pretensions to be teachers, theyhave never bothered to acquire sufficient knowledge of christian teachin!to be able to understand either Paul or the other scriptures which they alsomisinterpret. Consequently they easily go astray. But 2 Peter's readers,whether teachers or not, are evidently expected to be well enough instructed(partly by 2 Peter) to understand Paul correctly.

It is impossible to be sure how the false teachers misinterpreted Paul.They may have used his teaching about justification by faith and Christianfr_eedom to support their antinomian attitude to morality and their offer of"freedom" (2:19). Alternatively, they may have taken his sratements aboutthe imminence of the Parousia to be prophecies which the delay of the Parousiahad- $i-sproyed, with the result that Paul's teaching on future eschatologycould be discarded. Whatever their misinterpreraribns of Paul and of tf,e"other scriptures" were, they used them to justify immorality and so theywould lead to their destrucrion on the Day ofJudgment.

Conclusion (3:17-18)

Translntion

rz So you, my dcar frimds, since you hnow this in ad,aarue, be on yow gwrd. sotlnt you may rct be canbd auay by the atm of tluse laulcss peopb and fall fromyou stabh position. rE But grow in gran atd in tlv hrcwlcdge of ou lard ardSavior Jews Christ.

To him belnngs ^ tlu glory both now and on tlw day of etemity,b

Notes

'The verb "to be" is understood, and most translations supply "be," making the doxologya prayer. But for the indicative meaning as normal in doxologies, see the commentary onJude24-25.

b Most MSS add apry, "amen," but this is omitted in a few MSS (including B 1739). Sincemost doxologies conclude with "Amen" and all other NT doxologies do so, it is more likelyto have been added than to have been omitted here.

Form / S truc ture / Se tting

The concluding exhortation (w l7-l8a), while it connects immediatelywith v 16 (note especially dtrilpwru, "unstable," v 16; ornpTpoti, "stableposition," v l7), also serves to conclude the whole letter, since it summarizesthe overall message of the letter. tpvytvdnxavreg ("since you know this inadvance") evokes the central idea in the author's use of the testament genre:Peter's prediction of the false teachers. The rest of the exhortation recallsthemes from earlier parts of the letter Qilriulp, "error": cf. 2:15; mqpqpd,"stable position," cf. l:12; v l8a, cf. l:5-7).

For the form of doxologies, see rhe commentary on Jude 24-25. SecondPeter's follows simply the most basic form, with the exception of the indicationof time and the omission of "Amen" (see Nole). The indication of time is atwofold form referring to present and future (as in I Cbln. M; Mart. PoLl4:3; cf. I CIm.6l:3) and is therefore not modeled onJude 25, which hasa (unique) threefold form (against Fornberg, Eorb Church,92). The use ofeis ipipov aiisvos ("on the day of eternity") in place of the usual eis ro0soitivas ("for ever"; and expansions of this) is unique and probably a modifica-tion of the usual flormula originared by the aurhor of 2 Peter.

Doxologies addressed to Christ are unusual in early Christian literature(2 Tim 4:18; Rev l:S-6 are the only other certain examples; less certainexamples are Heb 13:21; I Pet 4:ll; I Cbn.20:12; 50:7).

For doxologies concluding letters, see the commentary on Jude 24-25.Like Jude, but unlike most early Christian letters, 2 Peter has no specificallyepistolary conclusion and no personal greetings. The latter would have in-volved elaborating the pseudepigraphal fiction for its own sake, whereas ourauthor uses it purely functionally, as a device to convey what he has to say.

Comment 337

Comment

17. 0rreis oin, &yanyci, nptyrvosorcovr€g, "so you, my dear friends, since vouknow this in advance." tilreig ("you") is emphatic, in contrast to the falseteachers and their fiollowers who were the subject of the preceding v. npo1wdn-Kwres is not, pace Bigg, equivalent to ratra rpcinov lvaorcwres ("above allunderstanding": l:20; 3:3), but means "knowing beforehand." The fictionof Peter's prophecy is resumed from 2:l-3; 3:34. Peter is represented ashaving predicted the rise of the false teachers after his death, so that hisreaders, who according to the fiction are supposed to receive the letter beforehis death (l:13), will be forewarned even before they encounter the falseteachers. Of course, in reality the readers received the letter when the falseteachers were already active in their churches (hence the present tense evenin v 16), but the author wishes to remind them that the expectation of such"scoffers" did in fact form part of common apostolic teaching about thelast days (cf. Jude l7-18). His letter informs thern that these eschatologicalfigures about whom they had been warned are the very people now teachingin their churchesl

'wa piri|rfn afriopuv nltarylovvanay'ivt€g, "so that you may not be carriedaway by the error of these lawless people." r\av1 ("error") may combinepassive and active senses (see Commatt on Jude I l): their going astray (cf.2:15) and their leading others astray. d.iliopav ("lawless") was used in 2:7 ofthe Sodomites: it characterizes the false teachers as people who ignore allmoral constraints. ouvanrayeu ("to carry away") is similarly used in Gal 2:13.

Ewrioryeru)itiworqp1ltoD, "fall from yourstable position." orr1pt1lnt (con-trast doriplcru, "unstable" in v 16; and for this word-group in 2 Peter, seeComrnmt on l:12) is not to be taken as an abstraction ("steadfastness") butas a fixed position (used of the "stations" of the planets by Plutarch, Mon76D; cf. the quotation from Pseudo-Longinus, De Sub.40, in Bigg). The authorthinks of experienced and well-instructed Christians as firmly established ina fixed position from which they ought not to be swayed. No doubt the verbis chosen because of the common use of nhrrev, "to fall" (7. Gad 4:3; Romll:ll, 22; l4:4; I Cor 10:12; Heb 4:ll; Rev 2:5; I Cbm. 59:4; 2 Cbn.2:6)and compounds (irrirreut, "ro fall from," Gal 5:4; dtrotrLrrew: "to fall from":2 Clem. 5:7) for moral declension and apostasy.

18. atlarcre & iv xapm rcoi Tvinet rot rcuptou ryttitv tcai oc'nrtrrs'lr1ool Xplrlrol,"but grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and SaviorJesus Christ,"takes up the theme of l:S-10: the need for progress in the Christian life.The phrase "of our Lord and SaviorJesus Christ" could be taken with bothyc.pnandTvcJnet ("in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and SaviorJesusChrist"), but with xaprt it would have to be a subjective genitive ("gracegiven by Jesus Christ"), whereas with Tvdnet it is most natural to take it as

an objective genitive ("knowledge of Jesus Christ"). That the same phraseshould be taken in both ways is not impossible, but it is awkward (Mayor,Kelly). Some do take Tvc|net ro1 rcupiou rlptisv to be knowledge gium Dy JesusChrist, on the grounds that our author preserves a distinction between 1lv6;rlsand &riryc'nts, and reserves the latter for knowledge ofJesus Christ (so Bigg'Green). However, the distinction between the two terms, as used in 2 Peter,

338 2 Prrsn 3:17-18

is that inilrvorls designates the fundamental Christian knowledge receivedin conversion, whereas Wcinc is knowledge which can be acquired and devel-oped in the course of Christian life (see Commmt on l:2, 6). Both can beknowledge ofJesus Christ. Here Tzrirors is that deepening experience of Christand understanding of the truth of Christ which should continue to increaseuntil the Parousia brings a full revelation of him (cf I Cor 13:8-9, l2). Thereis no allusion to heretical 1v6n6, of which 2 Peter is not aware. For thetitle "our Lord and Savior," see Commmt on l:ll.

o.inA i 66ta, "to him belongs the glory." Although doxologies to Christare rare in early Christian literature (see Form/Stnrcture/Settr'ng section), thereis at least one unquestionable example from the first century (Rev l:S$)and so there is no need to date 2 Peter's in the second century. Their occa-sional appearance is in line with other evidence of a Christiin attitude ofworship toward Christ, which corresponded to his function in early Christianity(cf. Matt 28:9, 17; John 5:23; Phil 2:10; Heb l:6; Pliny, Ep. 10.96; and onthe material in Revelation and the Asc. Isa., see R.J. Bauckham, "The WorshipofJesus in Apocalyptic Christianity," NZS 27 [980-81]32241). For 2 Peter'shigh Christology see Comment on l:1.

eis ittipot oi6vos, "on the day of eternity." This unique substitution forthe phrase eis rous akiivas ("forever"), which is usual in doxologies, probablyrefers to the eschatological age as a day which will dawn at the Parousia(l:19) and last forever. The notion of the eternal day may derive from Isa60:19-20: "Your sun shall no more go down, nor your moon withdraw itself;for the Lord will be your everlasting light" (nsv; note the proximity to 60:22,echoed in 2 Pet 3:12). The actual phrase ipepaoitisvos ("rhe day of eternity")occurs elsewhere only in Sir 18:10: "Like a drop of water from the sea anda grain of sand so are a few years in the day of eternity" (nsv). Since thatpassage is based on Ps 90:4 (see Commmt on 3:8), it is possible that ourauthor connected the phrase ipiW ai6n6 ("rhe day of eternity") with hisreflection of Ps 90:4: the age to come is a day in the Lord's timescale whichcannot be measured in the timescale of this world.

Explanation

The message of the letter is summed up in a concluding exhortation. Ac-cording to the fiction of Peter's testament, the readers have been forewarnedof the false teachers who will arise after Paul's death, so that they can recognizethem as the danger they are, and avoid the perils of error and apostasy whichthey represent. This negative advice to beware of the false teachers has asits positive counterpart the theme taken up from l:3-l l: the need for progressin the Christian life.

The concluding doxology addressed to Christ corresponds to the highChristology of l:l ("our God and SaviorJesus Christ"), and shows the impor-tance which the Christian attitude of praise and worship toward Christ hadfor the recognition of his divine status. The author's own modification ofthe standard formula of the doxology reflects the eschatological theme ofhis letter; glory belongs to Christ not simply "forever" (the usual word),but throughout the endless day which will dawn when he comes in gtory(cf. l:19).

2fし′cr

Bibliography

A. CommmtaripsThese are referred to throughout the commentary by authors'names only.

Barnetg A. E. "The second Epistle of Peter." Tlu Intnpretn\ Bible. vol. 12. NewYorvMshville: Abingdon ?ress, 1957. Bigg, c. A crificAl atd, Exegetical commntaryo! tLz Epittlzs of St, Petn and St Judc. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, tgOt. BoobyeiG. H. "II Peter." Peake's Cornmantary on the Biblc, ed. M. Black and H. H. Rowley.London: Thomas Nelson, 1962. Borvman, J. W. Hebrews, James, I tt II Petr. LBA.London: SCM Press/Richmond, Virginia:John Knox Press,-1g63. Galvin,John. Corn-

!,!t!t1t o\ tlv catlwlic Eplistlzs. Tr. J. owen. Edinburgh: calvin Translation society,1855.-Chaine,l. Izs 4pttres catholiqns: La seconfu *pitre fu saint Piette, hs *pttres fu saint

Jean, l'6pttre dc saint Jwb. EBib. 2nd ed. paris: Gibalda, 1939. Cranfield, C. E. B. IA II Peter and Judz. TBC. London: SCM Press, 1g60. Danker, F. W. ..The SecondIetter of Peter." Hebrans, Jama, I and, 2 PeEr, Jufu, Ranhtina by R. H. Fuller, G. S.

9l_"J3", G. Krodel, F. W.-Danker, E. S. Fiore-nza. PC. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1977. Green,M. Tlv Second Epistb Gawal of Petn and tlw Gmnal EpXtte ogu*. TNTC.Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1968. Grundmannrw. Dn Bricf dis Jdas-und dn zueitepric{ dcs Pans, THKNT 15. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1974. Hauck, F. Diehatholischn-Bftrr. NTD 10. 3rd ed. Gtiuingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, lg37.fames,!r. R, r{r second Episth cataal of Petr and tlw Gawal Epistle ofJudc.Ccrsc. cambridge:Caplri-dS9 Uliversity Press, lgl2. Kelly, J. N. D. I Commentary on ttw Epistlts of pitr??d lry' PNfg. I,ondon: A. & C. Black,- 1969. Knopf, R. Dh Briefe Pitri und laiilIeyerK- 12: ?th ed. Giittingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprtcht, lgl2. KUhl, E. Die BricfePeliuufludaz. MeyerK 12.6thed.Giittingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, 1897. I*aney,4: E. C. Tlu Lettas of Pel,a and Jtdt. CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Presi,!fQJ. hmby,J.R.Tlu Episthsof St. Petn. ExpB.2ndeil. London: Hbdder&Stoughton,1908. Luther, Martin. "Sermons on the Second Epistle of St. Peter." Tr. M. H-. Ber-tram. Tlu Catholic Epittlcs, ed. J. Pelikan and W. A. Hansen. Lurher's Works 30. StLouis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 1967. Mayor, J. B. Tlv Episth of StJune and llw second Epistlz of st. Petq. London: Macmillan, 1907. Michl, l. Diz hatholiclwt{*r'. n-!.lT-8.?"d ed. Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1968. Mofratt,J. TfuGcttnal Epi^rlles: James, Petn, andJudas. MNTC. London: Hodder & Stoughton,-1928.ftulnptr-e, E.H.The Gawal Epistlzsof St Petqardstlult. CBSC. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1892. Reicke, B. Tlu Epktlas of Jamcs, Petn, atdlile. AB. New Yorl.:Doubleday, 1964. Schelkle, K. H. Db Panubricfe, furludnsbricf. HTKNT l3l2. Freiburg/Basel,/vienna: Herder, 1961. schlatter, A. Dic Briefe dts Petnts, Judar, lakobus, dzr Briefan die Hebrdn. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1964. Schneide4 l. Die B*fe dzs Jakobns,Pelfls, ludos uttd,Jolnnus: Db hatlwliscbn BrtF. NTD 10. grh ed. Giiaingen: Vander-hoeck &Ruprecht, 1961. SchragerW. Dbl'hatholisclvn" Bricfe: Die Britfe desJahobus,Petrus, Johannes wdJunas, by H. Balz and W. Schrage. NTD 10. llth ed. Gti-tingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973. Senior, D. / et 2 Petr, NTM 20. Dublin: VeiitasPublications, 1980. Sidebottom, E. M. Jam,es, Judc and, 2 Petn. NCB. London: ThomasNelson, 1967. Soden, II. von. HebriinbrieJ Bricfe dcs Petrus, Jahobus, ludas. HKNT 3/2. Freiburg i. B.: J. C. B. Mohr, 1899. Spicq, C. lzs Epthes dp Saint Pbne. SB. Paris:Gabalda, 1966. Spitta, F. Die zueite Brief des Petnu und dn Bricf dps Judet Halle a. S.:Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1885. Stiiger, A. Tho Second Epistlz of

340 Bibliography

Petn. Tr. W. Jerman. (One vol. with The First Epistle of Peter, by B. Schwank.)NTSR. London: Burns and Oates, 1969. Wan4 J. W. C. Thc Gawal Epittlts of Sl.Petcr and Sl. Junc. WC. london: Methuen, 1934. Wettstein,J.J. H KAINH DIA@HKH,Noaum Tatamanlum Grazce editbnis rccEtaz dm lzctionibus aariantihu codimm MSS, editiommaliarum, vqsionwt ct Patntm, tvc Nm conmmtario plmime ac soiptorihr actaibus Hehuis,Grucis ct latinis Historiam et vim uabmtm illustrante opna et shilio Joannb Jdcobi WetsteniiVol. 2. Amsterdam, 1752. Windisch,H. Diz hatholi,scltcn Brizfe. }lNT 15. 3rd ed., ed.H. Preisker, Tiibingen:J. C. B. Mohr, 1951.

B. Otlw WorksAbbotg E A. Contrast or a proplut atd aforgn. London: A. & C. Black, t903. AbbotgE. A. "On the Second Epistle of St. Peter. I. Had the Author Read Josephus? II.Had the Author read St.Jude? III. Was the Author St. Peter?" Exp 2/8 (1882) 49-63, 139-53, 204-19. Allmen, D. von. "L'apocalyptiquejuive et le retard de la parousieen II Pierre 3:l-13." RfP 6l (1966) 255-74. Associazione Biblica ltaliana. San Pbtro:Aui dell4 XIX Seuinoru Biblica. Brescia: Paideia, 1967. Bernett, A. E. Paul buomu alitaary influaua Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941. Bauckham, R. J. "TheDelay of the Parousia." TynB 3l (1980) &-36. Bauer, W., Arndt, W. F., and Gingrich,F. W. ,t Gmh-English laicon of tlu Natt Tatammt and OtLo Eorb Cfuistion Librahnc.2nd ed., ed. F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker. Chicago/London: University of ChicagoPress, 1979. Bishop, E. F. F. Apostles of Palcslitu. London: Lutterworth Press, 1958.Blass, F., Debrunner, A., and Funk, R. W. A Greeh Grammar of the Nat Tcstanwtt atdOtlw Eub Chistian litaatwe. Chicago,/London: University of Chicago Press, 1961.Boobyerr G. H. "The indebtedness of 2 Peter to I Peter." Nm Testomatt Essays: Stttdiasin Mmtory of Thomas Waltn Marco4 ed. A. J. B. Higgins. Manchester: ManchesterUniversity Press, 1959. 3,1-53. Cavallin, H. C. C. "The False Teachers of 2 Pt asPseudo-Prophets." NouT 2l (1979) 26y7O. Charles, R H. ed. Tlu Apoaypln andPsadepigrapl,a of tlu Old Testntnanl. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913. Charles,R H. ed. Tlv Apoca$psc of Baruch. [,ondon: 1896. Chase, F. H. "Peter, Second Epistleof;' DB(H) 3, 79G813. C,ollins, J.I fb Sifulliu Oracles of Egptian Jud4tnu SBLDS13. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1974. Deissmann, G. A. Biblz Slll/lics. Tr. A.Grieve. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901. Dillenseger, P. J. "L'authenticit€ de la IIrPetri." MFOB 2 (1907) l7r-212. Donfried, K. P. Tlv ntting of Second. Claner.t in carlyChristianity. NovTSup 38. Iciden: E. J. Brill, 1974. Dupont, J. Gaosis.. I-a contuissatuereligiase dau lzs *fitra dt Saint PaaL Louvain: Nauwelaerts,/Paris: Gabalda, 1949. Ed-mundson, G. TL2 Church of Rome in tlu Fint C,entury. BaL 1913. London: Longmans,Green, 1913. Elliott, J. H. "Peter, Silvanus and Mark in I Peter and Acts: Sociological-Exegetical Perspectives on a Petrine Group in Rome." Wort in dn Zeit: NailcstammtlieluStudiet K. H. Rengstorf Festschrift. Ed. W. Haubeck and M. Bachmann. lriden:E.J. Brill, 1980.25M7. Falconer, R. A. "Is Second Peter a Genuine Epistle to theChurches of Samaria?" Exp 6/5 (1902) 45S72;6/6 (1902) 47-56, ll7-27,21&,27.Ftrrar, F. W. "Dr. Abbott on the Second Epistle of St. Peter." hp 2/t (1882) 401-23. Farrar, F. I{. "The Second Epistle of St. Peter andJosephus." Erp 3/8 (1888)58-69. Fillion, L "Pierre (DeuxiCme Eplre de Saint)." DB(n 5, cols. 398-413. Forn-berg, T. An Eaily Chwch in a Plwalistb Socicty: A Strdy of 2 Peta. ConB.NT 9. Lund:C. W. K. Gleerup, 1977. Friedlander, G. tr. Pir&e de Rabbi Eliczn. 2nd ed. New York:Hermon Press, 1965. Green, E. M. B. 2 Petq Recotuidned- TynNTL 1960. London:Tyndale Press, 1961. Guthrie, D. Nat Tatammt Invodurtion. 3rd ed. London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1970. Harnirch, W. Escll,a,tolagischc Existcttz Ein aegetische Bcitrag ztttttSachanliegmvon I. Tlusnlanicher 4, l3-5, ll. FRL-ANT ll0. Gtittingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 1973. Hastings,J. ed. Dictiorcry of llv Aposlolic Chrnch. 2 vols. Edinburgh:T. & T. Clark, 1915, 1918. Hastings,J. ed. A Dictionary of tlw Biblz. 5 vols. Edinburgh.

Bibliography 341

T. & T. Clark, 1898-1904. Hennecke, E., Schneemelcher, W., and Wilson, R. McLNatt Teslammt A@qphq" 2 vols. London: Lutterworth Press, 1963, 1965. Holzmeister,U. "Vocabularium secundae Epistolae S. Petri erroresque quidam de eo divulgati."Bib 30 (1949) 339-55. James, M. R fi, Los, Apocafiln of tlu Old Tcstammt. London:S. P. C. K./New York Macmillan, 1920. Klsemann, E. "An Apologia for PrimitiveChristian Eschatology." Esscys on Neu Testarrreflt Tltclrus. SBT 41. Tr. W.J. Montague.London: SCM Press, 1964. 169-95. Kittel, G. Tluological Dictionary of tlu Nat Testancnt.Tr. G. W. Bromiley. l0 vols. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1964-76. Klein,G. Db zwiilf Aposlel: Urcpnng und Gehalt eina ldee. FRLANT 59. Giittingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 1961. Klinger,J. "The Second Epistle of Peter: An Essay in Understand-ing." SIzTQ l7 (1973) 15249. Knoch, O. "Das Vermlichtnis des Petrus: Der zweitePetrusbrief." Wort Gottes in det Zcit. K. H. Schelkle Festschrift. Ed. H. Feld and J.Nolte. Diisseldorf: Patmos-Verlag, 1973. 149-65l (: Knoch, O. Dic "Testammte" dtsPetrus und Paulus. SBS 62. Stuttgart: KBW Verlag, 1973. 6Hl.) Kolenkow, A. B."The Genre Testament and Forecasts of the Future in the HellenisticJewish Milieu.",lsj/ 6 (1975) 57:71. Kiimmel, W. G. Intro&rction n tlw Neu Tatamail. Tr. H. C. Kee.2nd ed. London: SCM Press, 1975. Lighdooq J. B. Tlu Aposblic Fatlws. Ed. andcompletedJ. R. Harmer. London: Macmillan, 1891. Lindemann, A. Pauhs hn iiileslmChristantum: Das Bild dcs Apostek urd dic Reuption dn paulinischm Theohgiz in tbfriilrclvist-lielwt Litnatur bis Marcion. BHT 58. Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1979. McNamara, M."The Unity of Second Peter: A Reconsideration." Scr 12 (1960) 13-19. Malan,S. C. Tn Booh of Adam and Eve, also callzd Tlu Confict of tulam and, Eue with SatattLondon: Williams & Norgate, 1882. Marfn, F. "Apostolicidad de los escritosneotestamentarios." EE 50 ( 1975) 2 I l-39. Mayer, R. Die biblisclw Vorstellung von Welnt-brand: Eitu Untenuchung iiba diz Baiehmgtn zubclwt Parsismts and Judmtun BOS 4.Bonn: Selbstverlag des Orientalischen Seminars der Universitet Bonn, 1956. Metzger,B. M. I Ta,twl Commmtary on tlw Greeh Nan Testanml. London/New York UnitedBible Societies, 1971. Migne, l.P. Patrologiu Ctmw Completus. Scries Gruem. 167 vols.Paris: J. P. Migne, 1857-66. Migne, l. P. Palrolngiae Cwstu Complclrel. Scrbs Latina.217 vols. Paris: J. P. Migne, l84l-55. Moulton, I. H. A C'rammar of Nat TcstamantGreeh. VoL II. Accidena and Wod-Fmnatiou by l. H. Moulton and W. F. Howard. Edin-burgh; T. & T. Clark, 1929. VoL III. Syntax, by N. Turner. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,196t. YoL IV. Styh, by N. Turner. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1976. Moulton, J. H.and Milligan, G. Tlv Vocabulary of tlu Greeh Testamant ilhunaudfrom llv pryi and otlwnon-littrary sotnces. Iondon: Hodder & Stoughton, 1929. NeyreyrJ. H. "The ApologeticUse of the Transfiguration in 2 Peter l:16-21." CBQ 42 (1980) 504-19. NeyreyrJ. H. "The Form and Background of the Polemic in 2 Peter." JBL 99 (1980) 407-31.Neyrey, I. H. TLc Font and Bachground of llv Polcnic in 2 Pctn. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, Yale University, 1977. Olivier, F. "Une correction au texte du NouveauTestament: II Pierre 3, 10." Essais dans h danairc dtt monde grlco-romain antiqn et datscelui du Nouueau Testanflt . Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1963. l2Ll52. (: RTP 8 (1920)257-78.) Pirog L, Cazelles, H., and Feuillet A. ed. Supplhnatt au, Dbliontwire dt lnBiblz. Pais: Irtouzey & An6, 1 928-. Repo, E. Dn "Weg" ak Sebstbeubhnung des Urchrisnt-tums: Eitu tradilionsgcschichtliclu und sarcsiohgisclu Untanchmg. STAT B. 132,2. Helsinki:Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1964. Robinson, J. A. T. Redating tlv Nat Testammt.London: SCM Press, 1976. Robson, E. I. Sludies in tlu Second Epistlo of St Peln. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1915. Salmon, G. A Historital Introduttion ta tlpStu$ of tfu Boohs of tlu Nat Testamat. lst ed. l.ondon:John Murray, 1885. Schelkle,K. H. "Spitapostolische Briefe als friihkatholisches Zeugnis." Nailcstammtlicfu Aufsiiluliir l. Schnid, ed.J. Blinzler, O. Kuss, F. Mussner. Regensburg: Verlag FriedrichPustet, t963. 225-32. SchlosserrJ. "Lesjours de No6 et de Lot: A propos de Luc,XVII,2&30." R8 80 (1973) 13-36. Schmitt,J. "Pierre (Seconde €pttre de)." DBSU|

342 Bibliography

7, cols. 1455-63. Selwyn, E. C. Tlv Chdstian hoplwts and tlw hoplutic Apocalypw. London:Macmillan, 1900. Smith, T.Y. Pebiru Controunsics in Early Cbistianiry: Auiludes TouardsPetn in Christian Writings of tlw First Tuo Cmturizs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,King's College, University of London, 1981. Spicq, Q. Notes de l*ticographie N6o-Testa-mmlaire. 2 vols. OBO 22. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires/Giittingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 1978. Stauffer, E. Narr Testammt Tluology. Tr. J. Marsh. London: SCMPress, 1955. Strobel, A. Unlnsuchungot zun eschatologischen Vaziigmrngspoblm auf Grunddn spiitjiidLsch-urchristkchen Geschirhte aon Habahuh 2, 2fr. NovTSup 2. Leiden: E.J. Brill,1961. (Talmud) Epstein, l. ed. Tlu BafuloninnTalmtd. 55 vols. London: Soncino Press,1935-52. Vermes, G. Tfu Dead, Sea Soolk in English. 3rd ed. Harmondsworth, Middx.:Penguin Books, 1968. Vermes, G. Soipture and Tradition in Jwlnism: Haggadic sludics.SPB 4. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961. Vigoroux, F. and Pirot, L ed. Dictionrcire fu hBibh. 5 vols. Paris: Letouzey & An6, 1895-1912. Viigtle, A, Das Nan Testammt uttddie Zuhunft dzs Kosmos. Diisseldorft Patmos-Verlag, 1970. Werdermann,H. Dic Inlzhrerdzs Judas- und 2. Petnubricfes. BFCT 1716. GUtersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1913. Zahn,T. Inlro&ntion lo tlu Neu Testammt vol. 2. Tr. M. W. Jacobus and others. Edinburgh:T. & T. Clark, 1909. Zmiiewski, J. "Apostolische Paradosis und Pseudepigraphieim Neuen Testament. 'Durch Erinnerung wachhalten' (2 Petr l, 13; 3, l')." BZ 23(1979) 16l-71.

Index of Ancient Authors

Adalllantiu3 277

Aeschytus 53,215Appian 223M3tideS 99,162,192,242,315Ansto,le 105,225,274Adlenagoぃ lQ 139

Bede 2293-ss" 301

Celsus 248Cicero 89,175,248,3"(letnent of AlexandHは 16, 17,35,37,

43,56,73,76,84,85,90,109,119,125,139,168, 175,176, 177,199,202,231,2 、ヽ279,298,299,300,326

Didソmu3 the B:ind 17,73,76,85脱odonls oFSk」y"5,213脱ogenes Lertes 3∞ ,331

EPhraim S,つ

“271

Eptha¬ ntls 175

Epkttus 202EPiphanius 2“,207,234EuiPides 88,89EMbius oFCaesam 14,:5,17.21,22,

24,39,113,161,162,163.169,188,198,202,237,238,239,2K1242,248,289,314,316,326

EⅥ

“I"of Uala 76

CeLsiu3句晨muS 73,74,75

H彎"ippu●

14,1■ 21,24,10町 23■238,239,240

Hmclion 18:Heraclitus 279

Hesiod 51,52,53,89Hesychius 85

=■

pp。lytus 84,163,228,230,234,239,26■ 277

Homer 53Horace 268,279

lrenacus 59, 139, 161, 162,202.275,278,306,307

Locntes 223

JerOme 17,43.109,143,145,162.163JOSephus 23,32.39,53,54.55,58,63,

68,69,7:,73,79,81,83,84,86,124, 131, 135, 140, 177, 178, 181,

182, 186, 194, 196,198,202,214,215,217,230,233,238,239,24Q249,251,252,268,297,299,300,301

Jldiu● 面籠mus 14,39

J“tin Martyr:6,39,43,105,136,139,148,162, 177, 189, 192,202,207,213,215,219,224,228,233,234,237.238,240,242,250,300,301,303,307,312.314,31Q324

Juved 263,265

Lactantius 276,300Lucin 35,315Lucrcti‐ 301

Macadus Magnes 315Manetho 181Maximus ConFessor 105Maximus ofTyre 175Melito 162,192Methodius 199,230,234,251Minuctus Fel破 3∞Moschus 89

Nicephou 76

¨ menius sec Pseudo‐ 0-"d“Oenolllaus oF Cadara 248

()Hgen 16, 17,48,55,66,66,67,69,73,76,139,162,168,181,225,248,277,301,331

Papias 52, 139, 177,202

Philo 39,63,54,55,57,73,76.79,81,82, 123, 124, 135, 140, 177. 178,

179, 180, 181, 182, 183. 185, 186,192,205,213,214,221,224.228,229,230,233,234,241,247,249,250,251,252,254,266,267,268,269,274,297,299,301,314

Plato 183,287,301Pliny 263,338Plutarch 99, 179, 181, 182,213, 266,

314,337POl,bius 35

Polycrates li3,316PseudO_Callisthenes 231

Pseudo‐ CypHan 94,95Pseudo」 ustin 230

Pscudo‐ Longinus 266,337Pseudo‐ Oecumenius 70,85, 125,229,

315Pseudo‐ Phocylides i80,182Pscudo‐ Sophocles鰤 ,326

Ⅲ dratus 169

Scneca 147, 175,301Sevcrus oF Antioch 70い 72,105Sextus EmpiHcus 279Stobaeus 223Suabo 213,251

Tactt¨ 268Tatian 139,196,316Tertullian 17,34,139,162Theodorct oF Cγ rus 69

mcoPhitus oFAntioch:6,90,162,233.234,240,250,251,287,300,316

鶴 ●ophrastus 274neophγlact 229

‐ ucydides 223

Vい 274

Xenophon 63

Index of Modern Authors

Abbott,E.A.137,:40,228.229,258,340

AbrahaIIIs,1.88

Al:en,L C 219Alimen,D von 282.283,291,293,294,

296,303,304.306,307,323,340AIsuP,J E 211Andry,E R 230Andt,W F 126,340 .Aubineau,M271,279,280Audet,J R lll

3ailey,R E 290Baltcnswcilcr,H204,210Balt2er,K 173Bamard,L W 293,303Bamett,A E 14,83,107,125,147,167,

178,202,254,339,340Barrett,C K 42,58,213,236.2383auckham,R J 93,94,97.140,lm.

151,303,305,306.308,310,312,313,338,340

Bauer,W 126,340Bcngcl,J.A330Berger, K 20,42,46,50,65,66,67,

98, 126.244Bet″,HD2:33ieder,W 108.110,115Bigg,C 16,49,83,85,86,87,88,105,

110, 123, 125, 137, 141, 144, 145,

162, 168, 165, 166, 173, 177, 178,

179, 188, 191, 195。 200,202,217.221,223,224,241,243,253,255,261,264,268,273,274,277,28■290,293,297,298,305,317,337,339

BI:lerbeck,P.127Birdsall,J‐ N108,l10,H5BishoP,E F F 258,271,340Black,M.42,43,98,94,97Blass,F.126,340Blin21er,J 204,205,206.211Boehmer,J.223,225Bogaert,P M 20,贈Bonus,A303,318Bonwetsch,N69B●●byer,G H.77,80,81,82,84,125,

:46, 166, 167, 172. 174, 187. 194,

199。 201,204,210,211,254,282,286,339,340

Boor,C_de 14Bowmn,J.W 145,339Boys‐ Smith,E P 228,230Bradshaw,H318Bretschcr,P C 2414,208,219Brown,RE.168,2GXlBmce,F n43,317Buchanan,C.W I(“Bultman■ ,R.33,58,169,170,210,211,

217Buttltlann 318

Cal宙n,J 21,55,56,125,190,229,254,261,339

Candnat,J.36,37,40,50,85,li3,123,125

Cannignac,J5Cartlidge,D.R.175Cavallin,H.C.C.142,180,340Cazclles,H.126,341Chaine,J 16, 17.26,29, 35, 36,40,

43,50,58,65,86,87.89,96.105,::3, 123, 125,135, 141, 158, 162,

163, 165, 172, 177. 178, 179, 181,

182, 184, 191,201,217,221,224,237.240,241,244.250.253,254,255,264,265,277,296.297,298,301,303,3:0,318,339

Charles,R H 42,65,70,71,73,74,75,76,93,94,96,98,100,126,198,201,340

Chage,F H 22.3:,79.l16.126,137,162,200,217,218,237,292,318,340

Child3,3S.48Chilton・ BD.218Collins,J J 299,300,301,340Conti,M323,329Conソbeare,FC.279,280Coughenour,Rん 78Cowlcy,A.20CraFer,TW.H9Cramer.J A 42,70,71,72,74Cranield,C.E B 125,339Culiman■ ,0.33,208,2:0Cumn,J ■■228,229,230,231,233

Dalton,W J 244,2"Daniel.C42,561Danr10u,J・ 1"Danter,RW. 142,172,174,303,318,

339Daube,D.112Da宙es,W.D.1121kbrunner.A.126.3401peichttber,R.119,120,12:,123Deissmann,C.A.172,174,177,179,

181,190, 102,267,340DelcOr,M.42.51Delling,C.123,226,3:5Denis,A M 42,65,70,73.74,76.139Dlllenseger, P J 145, 158, 162, 177,

181,237.288,3400obschut2,E von 6,:20Dttlger,F J 2250pnFned,K.R15Kl,173,135,1[n30ユ

331.333,340Dnver,C.R"Dubarle,A.M.30,42,52Dungan,DL.175Dunn,JDC.8,1:3.151du Plessls,PJ.22,126 _Dupont,J 170,174,176.178、 186.187.

188,277.340Durand,A.228

Easton,3.S.172.174,187Edmundson,C_lm,201,340Elliott,J H.146,161,340Ellis,E E.拓 ,4,22,25,45,49,78,126EPstein,I.:27,342Eソbers,I.H.126

Falconer,R.A141.145,340Fannon,P 33Fanttr,F.W i40,258,340Feldman,L.H3∞Feuillet,A.126,34:Ficld.F.196Fillion,L¨ 140,340FIschd,H A 172.175nusser,D67Fomberg,T.xi,141,142,143,:46,151,

166, 158, 166. 167, 168, 173, 177,

178,181,182,189,190,191,215,216.221.224,226.244,252,254,264,267,275,287.288,295,301,306,310,317,320,327,329,336,340

Foumier,WJ.22Freedman,H.126Fnedlander,C 308,340Fuller,RH.151.208Fmk.R.W.126.340

Carland,D E 77Gingnch,F.W 126.340Cinzberg,L81,32.33,126Classon,T.F42,51,244G…■,E.M B.85,88,1:6,123,125,

141, 144, 145。 :58,162,166. 170,179, 181, 188. :89,198,199,200,202,213,217,221,223,226。 229,

250,254,261,264,275,277,235,290,293.297,298,328,337,339,340

Ctelot,P30Coet2,K.C_210Cross,J.172,180,181Crodus,H.22,285C―dlllangl,W.:4,33,36,37,40,48,

50,85,38,105,107,123,125,132,:39, 141,168,177. 188, 191,201,213,217.224,225,226.233,240,241,254,255,264.265,339

Cundり ,R.H.2t17,203,知Cunther,J.J22Cudlne,D.141,145,340

L由 軋 K.42.68Hanse,H.167,168Hanson,A.T42.43,49Hanson,R.P C 330Harder,C 182, 184

-■ にh,W 275,282.294,296,303,305,310,311,313,340

H茄ngton,D.J.9Ha市3.J.R.279,280Hastings,J:26,340HaucL,F 125,339Helmbold,A.K:62Hemmerdinger‐ Illadou,D.271Hcngel,M.3Henn畿。E.1出 341Hew,H2:HilgenFeld,A.70Hill,D2t18Hoh“ n,J.C.K.von 211HOnj2er.J.268HoLday,C.R177,180

HOit2mei3ter.U 144,341H∞ker,M D 208Horgan,M P45Horstey,RA.106Horst,P W van der180Holt,FJ A 19,317Hunter.A.M.H2

E―晦 ,S80

Ja―,M R 42:65,69,71,74,75,106,1:0, 125, 140, 166, :67, 178, 191,

22:・ 226,264,275,297,298,300,305,318.339,341

J"miaS,J 105,203,240,292JOneS,早 S,77,35

Kam,J vander 93,94.96,97Кttseman■ ,E 139, 151, 152, 153, 168,

183. :96.212,216.224,22Q233,275,310,322,341

Kee,H.C.42.",65,獅 ,211,212Kellett,E E.42Kdiy,J・ N D 14,24,30,31,35,43,

50.54,60,81,83,85,86,87.89,96. 104, 105, 107, 109, 116, 123,

124, 125,137. 139, 146,167, :68,

170, 173. 178, 181, 182, 183, 188.

189,191.201,213,2:5,217,224・226.232,244,254,255,264.265,274.275,276.277.287.297.298,314,318,320,325,327,329,337,339

KilpathcL,CD.207Kirk,C.S.279Kittel,C 126.341Klein,C204,216,323.341KIJn,A FJ 22Klhger.J187.188,216.341Knlbb,M.A.40,56,38,89,90,91,93.

96, 126

Kooch.く ). 132, 152, 197.329,341

KnoPC R.30,35, 125, 173,201,297,339

Knox.A.D77,85Koester,H.22,182Kolenkow,A.B.:31,2t15,341К∞薔,G"n der 268Krodd,C.",125К●hi,E. 125,316,339Ktlhn,K G 253Kommel,W G 139,34:Kung,H.312Kurre,A.250

Ldd,C.E.33Ldeuse,2232,286Lmpe,Cw.H.126LperOusa2.E.M.42,75,76,93,98,

126。 139LwbL C.L:25Lwlor.H.J:5,139Laney.A R C 125,141,167,339Lconte,R 126k,E.K54,252

…rd,H.303.318.319

い ,A.S.279,280Ln“3.J.2301,314ughtFOOt,J3.176,285,316,341undemann,A.147.148,323,329,331,

332.341L●ewenstamm.S.E.42.68,09,75L●hr,E.208hw,J.228,230

“

vestam,E.219

hね 0/Mο滋知И“ιλο宵

Lth● nann,D 46,244,252Lumby.J R 167.182,2∞ ,229,290,

339Luther,M 40.56. 125, 141, 190,261,

268,310,339

MacDemOt,V.57MacDonald,J71McDonald,J:.H・ 33Mac:ean,A J 205McNaman,M88,121,126.201,282,

285,341MacRae,C.W.59Matr.F28,36,42,50Malan,S.c.251,341Marln・ F.215,236.283,298,318,・ 341Marshall,I H.84, 108,240,271,277Mayer,R3KXl,341Mayor,JB.15,19,31,35,36.37,43,

48,63,82,35,86,87,88,89,99,103, :05,123,125。 i36, 137. 138,140, 141, 144,145, 166, 172.:76,

177, 179, 188,189, 191, 195,202,

217,224,225,226.229,231,244,248,250,254,259,264,265,277,287.296.297,317,318,328,330,337.339

M●“,M 42,43,108,110

Met2geL B M 172,317,318,341MthLJ 125,254,339Migne,J P 126.341MniL,J.■ 42,43,51,52.5■ 65,軋

89,93.94,96,126M■ligan,C.29,84,126,264,303,341MOratt.J 22.56,87,107.100,110,125,

167. 181, 191,224,239,241,264.287,293,297,298.3:7.329,339

Molland.E.228,232.234M∞re.A.L313Mo口o■・A.Q145Moule,C.F.D.43,126Moult●n,JH・ 25,29,84.12a137,254,

204,34:Moい層y,L331Muller,H.P217Mullins,T Y 28Mun`ム J.131,132

Naber 317Nestle,E.318Neusner,J.312Neyrey,J.H.Xi,132,142,143.156,182,

197,204,205,213,2:4,223.224.228,232,234,238,240,247,252.255,261,268,275,276,294,301,3t13,307,314,332,341

Nickelsburg,G.WE.78Nineham,D.E2tX,216Nomann,F.172,18:

Oleson,J.■ 77,8901i●er.F 273,280,303,315,317,3410sbum,CD.93,94,108,lCЮ,1100tto,JK.‐ .von 303

Pagels,E.H 59,1∞ .126.332hrson.BA.106,244,249Perrot,C.309PetersOn,E.200晰t2ner,V.C31PhlliPs.J_B・ 109ndrel■ ,RE.1(も ,169Arot,L126.341,342Plぃ■,P.J du Stt du Ple3SiS,P.J.

345

Plummer,A20,40,55,79,85,86.87,89, 116.125

Plumptre,E.H.22.125,167.168,l社183, 188, 198, 199,200,202,223,224.226,229,240,264,275,297,298,330,339

PuMs.J.D.76

Ql■aCquarelli,A27:

Rappaport,S.244Reicte, 3 14, 20, 30, 42. 55, 59, 77,

83,85,86,39,105,100, 125, 126,132, 137. 138, 141,158,167, 170,

173, 178, 179, 181,182,188,215,223.24:,254,258,261,263,204,269,275,297,298,315,325,330,339

Rengst。氏 K H 98Repo,E.236.242.278,341Rin」di,G.323Roberts,J W 303,318,3:9Robin30n,J A.209Robinson,J A.lR 14,30,126.141.145,

150. :59,167,285,328,34:RobinsOnoJ M・ 210,2‖Robson,E.1.141,224,閣 ,341R∝hais,C.290Rohiand,J P.69RowstOn,D.J.10,14,24,34D.126

Sabbe,M m.206,211,218,221Salmon,C.138,140,305,341Sanders,E.P40Sasse,H.298Sch議は、P.42.68象由elkle,KH9。 14.32,48,50.123,

125,126. 139. 151,167. 168. 170,

173, 181, 188, 191,20,,213.217,221,224,226,240,254,264.265,276.287,297,318,339,341

SchillebuLx,E.183Schlatter,A.125,339Schlosser.J.42,46,244,251,252,311,

341Schmidt,C57Schmitha:3,W.204,210Schmitt,J341SchllacLenburg.R.192Schneemeld“ t W 126,341Schndder.J・ 125,339Schrage, W. 125, :51, 167, 168, 182,

183,191,2:3,226,254,255,264,27● 287,297,316,317.328,329,339

錨 呻鵡 G.220Schwa"は,C 253Sel¬り■,E.C.22,127,145,330,342Senior,D. :91,264,277,329,339SiЫnga,J.S・ 223,225Sickenbqer.J.42,57,258.26:Sttbottom.E.M.12,14,",58.35,

107. 125, 141, 167.182, 191,224,

264,287,293,298.329,339Simon,M.126SLehn,P W 258,264Smith,M.90,276Smith,T.V.149,285,342Smitalans,A.303,3115,鵬Snソ der,C.F_273Soden,H v●●125,316,317,330,339Spence,R.M.228,230S,Cq,C19,77,35,108.127,132,141,

158, 167,168, 172.173, 179, 181,

:33.184,186. 188,18a190,191,

346

213,215,217,221,223,224,225,226,231,240,254,255,260,264,266,293,297,300,314,318,329,339。 342

SPitta,n33.観 43,48,m,85,86,90,105, 123,125, 141,143, 145, 158,

165, 167, 173, 177, 178, 188, 189,

201,205,254。 263,264.277,285,286.287.288,291,297,298,3鴫310,316,318,330,339

Stthlin,C.167staurer.E.123,131,318,342Steln,R.H2“ ,210,211St●ger.A 168,339Stone,M.E.69Strack,Ho L 127St―er.B.H.22Strobel,A.114,289,303,306,307,310,

311,312,313,314,323,325,342

Talbert,c.H.282,294Taylor.V 10,168Testa,P.E.296■hiselton,AC.229‐ omson,R228Towllsend,M.J.84

INDEX OF MODERN AuTHoRS

Turdeanu,E.69Tum‐ C.H.208Tumer,N.137,138,341

Urbach,E.E.313

van der Horst,RW.See Ho"t,RW.van der

vander Kam,J.See Kam.J.Vandervan da K●●J,C・ See K∞J,C.Valll derVansittart,A.A.303,317Vassillev,A.67Vennes,G 16,77,78,80,81,83,88,

127,208,258,315,342電ヽgoroux,F.342Vithnga,C.268Vogtle,A.172,174,185,187,194,196,

199,200,282,287,238,291,293,294,296,303

von Alimen,D See Alimen,D.vo■von Soden,H.See Sodcn,H.von.

Wadsworth,M.309Wain― ght,AW.168Wand,J.W.C・ 19,126,188,195,217,

224,248,250,261,263,264,297,317,340

Wetss,3.318Wendland,R271Werdennann, H. 56, 58,83,98, 127,

156,294,342Westcott,3.F.19Wettstein,J J 179,268,340Whitaker,G H 28,31White,J L.28,44.102,127Wibbing,S 172,174Wikrn,A42,43Wilson,R.McL.126,212,341Wllson,W.E.303,318,319Windtsch,H 20,30,32,35,68,83,85,

89, 105, 107, 109, 115, 126, 168,

173. 188,201,217,247,254,264,266,275,297,310,317,340

Wtse,F.3,20,35,39,127Wohlenberg.G.‖ 0

Ztthn,T. 15,30,36.541,83,85,86,94,96.98,127,141,144,165,167,173,177, 178, 179, 195, 199,211Kl,201,

205,215,267,285,287,288,291,330,331,342

η eWJは ,J・ 161, 197,282,287, 342

Index of Principal Subjects

Agape(3). 11, 77, 84-85, 86.92,265,270

Angels, :1, 12,43.52.54,55,56.57-59,6Ю L61,62,63,64, 65-67, 63,

71,89,93,97, 155,261 63,264,269-70

See also Watchc",MichaelAntinomianism.10,H.12.13,16,34,

37,38,39,41,56,58-59,64,79,82,83,84,91,98,99,100-1, 105,107.113.l14, 115, l16.117, 155,241,275,332,335

See also ubertinism

APocalyptic.5,8,10-ll,13,41,89,103,104, 107. 140, 151, 152, 153-54,

156,205,206,212,218,219,221,240,283.284,299,300,301,302,304, 309, 312, 314,317, 321-22,323,326

APostaSy,46,49-50,52,63,38,105,170,171,190,277-31,338

Balaam,78,81-33,84,87,90,91,2等259,260,265,267-70,274

Baptim.179,181.189-90。 280

Cain, 11,78,79…81,34,91,247,260,267

Catchwords,6.6,7.29,37,44,53,57,60,79,86,90,94, 102, lll, l14,142,191

Ch●stology, 49, 9697. 114, 151-52,153,158,168-69,:92,217-18,338

coneagration tesChatOloglca:), 149,252,256,294,296,298,299,300-2,315‐21,325ぃ 86

Delaッ of the Parousia,8-9, 140,151,153, 156, 196, 241, 243, 247-48,

255,283, 284, 289L93, 295, 304,307-15,321-22,325,327.334.335

Devil,47¨48,57-68,60‐ 62,64,65-75,139,155,261-62,264,269-70

Earty Cathollclsm,8-10,13,32-34,41,151-53,158,197.198

EPicurCans, 156, 213, 214, 234, 24ι276,294,314

H●●d,246■47,249L52,253,254,255-56.264.29394,296,297.298-99,300,301,302,314,325

Cnostidsm,1(卜 11,12,13.20,38,40,56, 58, 59, 75-76, 105, 106, 107,

:23, 149, 153, 156‐ 67. 158, 170,

213,216,234,262,263,275,293,294,332,338

Henenism,151,15● 54,156,163.169,174. 175, 177. 178, 179, 18984,185, 186, 187, 192■ 93, 198, 212,

226,279し 80,316Hdlenisdc JudiSm,121,13卜 36.140,

153, 166, 158, 159, 169-70, 171,

180L82, 185, 186, 192, 205, 213,

228 29, 233. 234, 235, 239, 249,250,273,279,300

lmminent expectatbn, 8-9, 115, 151,158,226,241,243,288,310,327,332,333,335

lmmortality,18084,190,192-93

JameS the■●rd's broふ

“

14,21-25,27,166,167

JeWiSh ChiSthnity,8-10,13,14,16,21,97,121, 167,234

JudaS the apostle.21-22

JudaS Bambbas,22,25

KoFah,78,83-84,87,91,98,105,260

Lw OF MOses,9-10,ll,12.58-59,61,64,83,98,100,188,27b

uLrtinism.154,15'め 6,170,171.186,188,190, 193.241.243,255,275‐76,280,295,334

象r a13o Antinomiattm

Mた園 ,4H4,4748,52,59-62,64,65」75, 139,260,261-62

P―usia,8-9,26,27,31.37,50,63,94,9●97. 100‐1, l14, 115, l17,

145, 151-52, 153, 154, 165, 156,

158, 211, 214,215, 216‐ 17, 218,

219,220,221-22,225‐ 27,234,241,252,253,254,256,265,270,276,282, 283. 287,288,289し 95,305-6,319,338

Paul(and Paulinism),8,9, 10い 11, 12,

13, 14, 16.23-24,25,26.31,32-34,38,59,:03,106,112,113,146,147-48, 149, 152, 155, 157. 159.

l∞,:",181,182,188,190,197,

198. 226, 275,276, 288, 327-35,338

Peshanm,5,45Peter. 132, 133. 14344, 145‐ 46, 147,

149,158-59,160,161,16667.171,174,178,192,196,197,200-1,205,214, 239, 285… 86. 288, 295, 328,

337Pethne ctrcle,134,146,147,1(Ю → 1,

167, 171.286,295,328Pr●ph●り,4-5, 10,36‐87,41,78,91,

93, 100, 102. 107, 154, 156.214,223, 224, 225, 226, 227. 229し 85,

282,283,287,289,290,295,333Pr●verbs,273,277,278… 81

υ mran,5,10,26,45,34,88,96,241

Readers oFJude,3,16,19■ 20,31Readers of2 Pcter,131,148,159,165-

66,196,287-88,328,329L80,332.334,335

Rome,Church in,133,13■ 146,148.154,159,:∞

“

l,166,176,210,266,276,277,284,286,287,295,327,328

SⅢ

lllT曲 躍 跳 よ蹴 ∬銑

Sttm, 31, 174, 175, 185, 186, 187,188,213,294,300,315,317

Testament literature,67,76.131-34,140,161-62,173.194,19G■ 97,198,

199, 201, 203, 205, 237-38,245,282,295,323,336,338

碗器電11織::8,15%3,■ 1-

=鴨:霊魂品閉雹:競 :

鰐 l騒島:ヶ:λまし1::離∬b遣250,251,252,253,256,314

Watchers,46■ 47,50-53,54,65,56,58,6L64,89,139,140,244,24849,254,25356

・・Way"terminology,144,149,152,241‐42,267,278

ZOrOa31南山m,関卜 l

Index of Principal Passages CitedOld Testament

い

1

1:l

2:17

4:8

5,24

6::46:177:ll

1519:4-11

19:2"219:24-25,2819:29

22:2,12.1640:841:8, 12

Ewa●

2:12

4:2224:1634:6

…19:17-18

Ⅳ赫

13:414:11

14:18

15:37-41

1616:ll

16:30

16:35

2222:1822:20L2122:21-8522:3524:1324:1725:1‐ 3,926●26:1026:46531:8

31:16

D-011:26,2818:15

23:4

23:5

31:2.14,1632:2233:23434:5-634:6

297138,297

3078096

51,248138,247,251

298,299308545455

:38,247,251,252208,220

231231

メ“施

13:2122

′κⅢ『

18:27

rcル“山鮨

29:ll

N′力"戯

晨

9:17

13:2

」●|

24:13

P3ah

2 211,2:9,2212:6 221,2222:(F7 1382:7 207.208,219,220,2212:9 2248:5(-6) 138,217.2184`4(隠 43):23 24765:5(LXX 64:6) 12379(LXX 78):9 :2386(EXX 85):15 31290(LXX 89):4 :38,306‐ 10,321,33890(LXX 89)1)17 翻95(颯 94):l 12395(LXX 94):8 98103(LXX 102):8106(EKX 105):17106(LXX:05):25121(LXX 120):3-3121(LXX 120〕 :4

140(LXX:39):4141(LXX 140):9145(L】 D(144):5,12

344

3594●5542:1

5::14

52:5

57:2000::9-2060:2263:19‐64:l

65:2

65:1766:l卜1666:22

」― lal

2■ 314:13

17:15

23::6

"12:22

13:3

18:23.3233:11

34:2

138,304,305,315,316,32531727

207,208,209,220310

138,237.2427,79,38,91

338138,325,338

326255

138,326300,301

326

274234289

230,234

289230,234

314314

7,78,87,91,92

醐

7:8 "7:13‐ 14 2247:14 138,2187:20 997:27 138,19210:13 60,6911:19 31711:36 9912■ 59

‖崚

9:7 233

」●J

2:12二 13 312

′●●|

4:11 7, 114. l16

lll

5249,98

6tl

31283

83,87988484

2698182

138,267.2688281

138,224,22681

7,83,8483,84

508:,268

81

267207,219

8183199301977071

68,73

―t

8:30

2::16,2125:14

26:ll

助喀ヴ助甲

2:17

′麟

5:27

6:10

9:711:4-5

13:22

32:16

247

120,124

31281,83

278

3128498:22247122122218

307278

7,78,79,87138, 168,273,279

138,225

247189326326

霊 ,310325

７３

“

‐８

２‐

４８

　

　

２，

145(EЮ【144)3 132

」麟

4:2

“

献

14

N蔽1:3

326

′`‰

占“

4:40

`E"(2島a“ )

7:30-31

7:33347:75

7:79‐ 877:82

7:li4

7:134

8:29-309:11

10:43

12:31-33124213:37-3814::"1514:2346

勧

14:3「 ll

Jd■

166

M―3:17

6137:6

7:15

7:16増Ю7:21⊇310:25

12:18

12:4513:55

16:21-27:6:28

17:5

18:6

18:15-1719:2821:3224:3424■ 324:4躍

a肱蔵ぬ

33:l⊇

3:1-5

3:2

3:243:3

3:343:4-5

14:5

2:23

5:9-12. 14

6::7-2010

10:410:7

:0:9

14:1

15:l

17:6

19:17

Strarl(&`な lasIIm)

16:6

16:7

16:7-10

16:ll-14

:6:18

:6:22

18:9Lll

18■032:22/35:1933:1

38:8′ 36:745:19

24:44

26:14

M麟

1:11

3:2:

3:313:33-354:22

6:3

8:31-389:1

9:5

9:7

9:4213:27

13:30

14:2:

2M∝c●麟

8::

,Mにcb●s

2:4

2:4-7

2:5

6:11

6:39

イM∝ca麟

18:3

18:24

Maracぬ :

2:9

2■ 7

3:l

3:19 (4:1)

4:2

4:5

ι山

::33

1:44

2:14

3:22

6■ 66:26

6:36

9:27

9:319:32

9:35

11:26

12:39

12:39L4012:40

13:6

13:25

16:23-24

17:2

17:26-30

349

14Xl

289304

300,301,304,30522652

177, 178,180, 185

180121

192122120

206.207,209,21921,24

238116

2:0,291202217

206,207.208.209148,273.277

148.3053143058839

254273252

Index of Principal Passagu Cited

‖山劇議

2:3

"1■ 41::8

34

l14,138,304,310,311,314,324

32631232625432632631263

31223:97

22597199

131,132. 173

四M●"0/S●

あ"勁

:21, 123

4770

65,110,11462,65,69, 110, 114, 115

111,1:2,1157

116.l1711797

Apocrypha

18018079

175,:90247,251,252

29955,251

25389

312249252

EP=′″ξいヽ 3al

70-71 79

Prarグ Mα"ぬ15 :21

５２

０１

３３

２

２４

２５

２

‐２

４６

”４７

２４６劉４６２４６２４６四畑３３８３‐‐２５３３２５“

２４

　

　

　

　

　

３０

　

３‐

New Testament

2002417,200,210148,247,253

27912,35

8816,40

39207,208,2C19148,273.277

14,21201

:48.210.215,291206,207.209,2:0

273111

326278291

:48,305314

０５

７３

202206,207,209

1414

24319

14.21,24201

:48,210,211,215,291198

206,207148,273

39148,291148,273

350

18:17

20:12

20:21

21:3224:34

」・力"

10:8

10:14-1510:16

12:3

13:12

14:16

15:15

16:17

16:18

16:25

16:17

rc.五"′

ぬ″"

1:11-12

1:20

2:14-153:13

5■ -6

6:2

6:3

6:12

6:12-208:4

9:5

10:7-11

10:9

10:20

10:23

11:2

11:10

11:18

11:20L3411:21

13:8-12

14:25

15

15:1-3

15:2

15:3815:5

:5:7

15:42

15:44

15:52-54

2C●●wha“

4:4

5:145:348:7

8:22-231(トー1111:3-4

12:1-3

INonx or Pnrxcrpel Pessacrs Crrno

‐９

∞

∞

９‐

Ю

3217532

147,329225242

147,3299,13,34

12,83120

120,123

144,159,328,33129120106319

12,38256141

12,3858

14,235tl

43,4958

12,38,413458

239,24084,86

8722631911

13

3421621023182106182

4:894:24

5:13

5:13-265:20

5:21

5:23

6:8

EPttЙ瑯

l:4

1:6

1:21

3:2 103:20

4:22

5:13

5:27

6:18

6:21

2iIIPpl●"

1:10

1:27

1:27-30

2:15

4:8

C●I● .・5之

"

1:16

1:22

2:632;8,202:8-23

2:183■ 23:14

4:7,9

J■レ“●I●

"I●●

l:4

3:2

3:4

3::3

4:1-2

5:2

5:23

2■触Mb歯"

l:8

2:5

2:13

2:15

3:3

3:6

3:10

r rml"

::17

2:4

3:304:l

4:1-3

5:18

6:l

6:5

6:ll

6:14

12.5944

12,38,186,275,332188239190

174,186182

l:34 2083:21 3194:23-23 1137:5 147:22 2908:34 27712:28 20612:41 4913:36 200,20114■6 19614:22 22,2415:9L10 26,li3,11417:ll, :b 12220:29 167, 16821:18 148,199,200,201,20321:19 21Xl21:2223 291

′r●

328,3321:13 211:14 14,231:18 265,2682:20 522:44-48 842:46 1223:19 3253:19L21 3123:21 234,2876:7 3210:25 19910:42 21913:32 27013:33 21914:22 19115:14 166, 16715:22 22,24,2515:27 2215:32 2217:29 17717:30 31417:3日 1 312

17:31 21920:17-34 13220:25 20020:29L30 3620:31 19621:l1 2∞

Roma●

32631,32

32326,327174, 185

330,33456

122,32634

31612

:2,56,5825187326

25327103

122,32613

147,148,305,306,31426,326

３４

２６

２。

５６

２９

２０

８３

‐９

２６

‐３

２７

３。

２２

０９

　

　

　

　

　

２２

‐４４‐８９‐９８題‐７６３２７・３５“瀬

142:4

2:24

3:8

5:3お

6■

6:76:156■ 67:5

7:12

8:21

8:29-308:33-399:5

3m,334934

13,34328233219732835

3263375912

12,59,3:6

147.148,276,330,331 `路ЙII‐・

219312,313,330 1:6」 9

242 1:8912,38,275,332 1:9

176, 184 1:1812,38 1:19

13 1:2312,38,332 2:7

147,276,277 2:7-9147,276 2:10

59 2:11-14147,182,276,326 2:13

175 3:1912 3:20

29K1 4:3

３２，３３鵬２５“‐２２“鵬　　　‐２３呻，４７，４９Ⅱ”３３３２４２‐２，８３Й郷

2 rl●●rly

1321:18 1:42:8, 14 1962:19 78,832:25 1693:1 1043:1-9 105,2453:7 1698:13 864:6 1994:21 160

■

“1::

1:11

1:16

2:5

2:13

3:14

Hめ輸嘔

l::

2:8

29資10:26

10:37

13:22

16912,33

40242168188

3,30,31,330290218

217,2:8

"169,278310,3H

m

」m●

3::1 241:5 1761:27 326,3272:1-9 992:10 1912:20 1883:2 1913:15 1∞4:5 333

′J複″

131,14347,14&149,157.159,160,161.168,165,166,167.171,196,215,282.286,287.295

1:l 159,165,166,167,288,

286149,161,16366,16“ 9,

328,338146,165, 17:

152.:66.169-70176-79

192■93.276,277:53,154,169

132,153,160,172-74,192L93,197,203,338

151-62,:58,:79L34,206,276.280,290137, 184-86336, :74-76

193.337186・ 87187-38

:52,188 89136,149,:89L90,280

19●91149,191-92,193,218141, :52,160.195…98,

Indn of kincipal Passages Cited 351

2:10b-18 :422:10b-22 132,259,282,2862:l1 43, i39,261-622::2 63,138,151,183,263-64,

276,280,3322:12-16 1372:13 77,84,85,86.:39,264‐

662:14 136,138,154,197,166¨

2::567,331

149,152,241,386.267-68

2:16 149,268-692::7 :39,147,149,252.2742:17-22 271-73,280L812:18 99.138,154,155,274-75,

331276-77

147,168,186,266,273,275-77,331,332,335

148,183,266,273,277-78169

138,148,149,152.:69,241,273,278,288163,190,278■ 80

11,152.157,182. 192,202,206,245,285

146,159, 160。 165, 196,

285-87.328,330161. 196,282

132.282-85。 295152,273,287_38

282L83102,13Q138,229,264,

28889138,148,151,153,154,155, 158,210.283-35,289-95,296,304,311

2R″

l

l:l

l:1-2

1:2

1:3

1:341:3‐81:3-1:

1:4

1:5

1:デ7

1:卜 lol:6

1:7

1:8

1:9

1::0

1:11

1■ 2

2:18-202■9

2:20

2:20-21

2:21

2:22

3

3:l

3:1-2

3::43:2

3:2-3

3:3

34

l:13

1:14

1:15

1:16

1:16-18

1:16‐ 191■ 7

1:17-18

1:18

1■9

2:1-2

2:l-3a

275,3361:12-15 132. i33, 134, 161, 167.

194,202-3,232,286,295,328

198,287,337:48,159,199-201

201-2.285148,149, 154,156. 157.

100,177.2い。210,2:3-17.236.243

148,:49,152,153,204-12,221-22.223,236

132,232,323206■210,211,212,2:7-20

211149,20“ 。22"1

137. 151,223-27.228,287,310,338

1:19=21 2831:241 138,229L83,3341:20=21 132, 152, 153,154,156,

224,228■ 29,235,236,329,332,333

1:21 204,233… 35,2382 3052:1 35,39,136,151,152,155,

163,199,232,237,238-41

255,257132,141,154,155,160,

236"87.237-38,243

3:4-10 2963:4-13 140,153,154,2963:5 :35,297-98,304,3323:卜

' 252,298,29●97.301-2

3:t卜 10 132,1343:5■13 2943:6 294,298-993:6″ 250,3:43:7 299-3013:8 311C103:8-9 196,241,284.2923:8-10 296,303-6,321-223:9 140,146,151,154,204,

241,243,247,251.292,295,304,310‐ 14,327

3:10 136,147,118,284,304-6.314-21,324,326,331

3:11 254,3243:ll-14 3203:ll-16 :32,323… 24,334-353:12 284,304-5,324-26.3388:13 179,182,192,250,2撻 ,

299.3263:14 137,151,260,265,270,

310。 320,326■ 273:15 147.149,152, :55,159,

160, 197,288,327…303:15-16 14748,165,3063:16 137,147,152,224,232,

275,288,330L34,3363:16● 1343:16b 3243:17 3873:17a 132,3243:17-18 386,3383:18 11a168,169,192.225,

336.387_38

1:2

1:"1:4

1:5

1:1● 12

1:19

1:20

2:9

2:122:163:2

383:204:175:l

5:105:125:12-135:13

33016617426

26,31,104,122286

326,3271(レ

`179,190216

38,275216187

146,250,251,31433

2411

178,179327,328146.161

159

2:1-3:4 362:2 149,241¨422:3 :39,2142:3a 157,24323b 138,154,15,295,247-

482:3b-10a 132,134,142,24447,

25“7,29424 49,13Q139,140,248492“卜8 462“L0 1542:4卜 10 1372:5 146,24鴨 1,294,299,3142:6 251-52,2942:7 252.3372:8 252-532:9 148,149,253-552:10 57,138, 1552:10a 2552:10b l製 5,2い 1

2::OLll :552:10b-16 258-60,269-70

352

′」●A●

2:ll

2:17

2:18

4■

4■ 6

2」●h10

」.ra

l

…

げ′Man2剛

″“

ゥ"げ

3- (s"“ )

12:4

20:1-220:621:2321:2424:l

32640:l

43:244:1248:2-348:ll48:12-2348:1348:14-1948:3954:l

55657-8657:2

67:7

70:2

76:2

78-86

ll-1312

12,35,116 :2-13

13

14

14‐15

14,19‐ 20.21-27.53,111, 14-16114.116.167 15

3.27 1620=21,27.166

9,29-34.48,111,li3, 17117,152,198,278,285 17-18

3,4,28-29,40■ 41 17-1912,35¨ 40,57.59,97,141, 18151.168,236.239,240,

241 1948-Il,98,102,103, :41,

197 2046‐47 20■21

4245,63-64 2Ю ■233,4,7.9。 29,32,34,36,

37,41.141 2150-53,89,139,244.247 22

245,246.254 22-23a47.53‐ 55,255 22-23

111 23

45,47,5“9,106.110, 24155,255,263

10,ll.261,262 24-252,9■X) 25

4748,59L62,65-76.1:0,‖4濯

淵 1盤 ROrar流

8,ll,49,77-78,79-34,98,267 1:5ヨ 6

7,11.56,77,91-92 2:1411,45,8●88,116.188,

266.274 2:2078-79,90L01,139,272 2:20し22

88-90,274 2:249●97 2:26-28

49,62,90,9● 96,139, 3:3140,272 3:4

9394,100‐ 101 3:1097-98. 102 3:17

1:,12,45,96,98-100, 5:13102,272.274 6:17

13,48,49,102-4,283 7::0337 12:5

102. 107 13:57.:3,36,94. 104-5,283, 16:14

288.289 16i1511.12.45,86.105-7,113. 16:18

155 16:209,112-13 17:14

111-12 19:13,4,7,29,32,108,111, 19:15

117-18,142 21:126,27,31,53, li3-14 22:15

114-15 22:16108-111

11285,86.l15¨ l17

26,27,122■ 23.191,326,327

3,7, 119L21.124123-24,336

13,16.:34121.338

12,:6.38,47,49,78,79,81

16,38,47,49,7912

:2

2:9305,314

1:612218912:

52121

21999

315,325305,314

52317196121

219315,326

280226

INosx or PRtncrpeu Pnssncns Crrso

８　口観９　Ю＝

３””０５３５“

ｐ６，

＝２３　貿‘

５　日卸卸　６“７Ｈ

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

30878:2

78:3

78:5

83:l

84:l

84'■89::2

″“

吻聴げεら

“

(C●Par)

3:82

3劇

″閾朝“・falmlal

…・J′轟a

l:8

3■ 6S:21

3:22

3:23283:21-4:18

3:24

3:25

3:30

3:31

20,27 4:325,27 4:13

198.20: 4:18325 9:32198 11il196312 ィ

“3mprt●●●rに

159158,234.292

625768

17,73-76

３‐２３‐４３２５３‐。”躙３５泌９７鵬３２６贈贈謝３‐。贈３‐０３２５３２５闘泌”９７蒻ｇ

Se al$ T6a.mdil of Motcr

Eiblical Anta4uiria lPttvdnPtib, Ij;lraa.ji*italu Eiili.mlS:10

56 16:l16:3

16:6

16:7

209,乳 338 18:260 18:860 18:12105 18::3

235,240 19::-5105 19:5

234-35 19:687 19:13100 19:15104 19:16235 21:l

瑯田““８７””四８‐‐３‐働蒻３２５畑“辮

麟　贈

Indn of hincipal Passages Cited 353

67-69,198

198

24:1-528:34,卜 10

33

蹴 ●/Fa“ ●だM嗣

07●減燃グル■湖

′E13arl

278 ′ha“口″it_7,8929989

89,244.249 Patp● _0」_m

ぷ 6日729 &鷹 ●rsal..m

:lil I:譜536698," St●lll″ Orarf●

131 82:413: 83-90131 83:3

86:1-388:1,390:24

:40,285 81:1勝

91:391:791:16

69 9::1792-10593:3

93:4

95:17,10,15,17,35-86.37, 99:8

47,52.53.56,78,89,96. lol:397.139。 140。 142.157.

2&27: 2E●●rl

96,97 7:294 18:4.6

326 22:7.1090,94-96,97.99,114,272 33:l-2

54 301-291 55:1-2

79.90 65:891

91,範 98,器 興 げ繊“326

122 15751

2缶 翻 胸ヮげM・・・“―Й→

5253

轟 ル52,53.244.249

326 1:27-29326 1:2952 4:3053 5■ 052 7:2052 7:3951 16:5

244,249 17:15-18:689 :8:1289 20:2-7

249 20:5m 21-2289 22■ 6

244,249 23:26244 35254 35:6

98,99 36:l

7.40 36:1-18220 48220

69

7258

326307

53,244,2492519656656546

252131

196278131

199199131

6L66

馴 ι"グ

′盪"・だ臓(陥イを″E″)

135, 140

H29 2501::48‐ 98 2501:189 2511:195 2991:280L81 25tl2::96ぃ200 3002:20●7 3152:231 2492:279 563:54-87 3103:3● 81 3153:82 3153:690 2993:778 89443 534:17381 3004:175 3154:186 2495:211-13 3005:212 3265:249 1775:531 3007:l1 2998:92 268:337-39 3158“ :4 315

‐２３３‐７‐２３ｍ２‐９椰

1-361:4

1:4-6

1:6

192-52::

2:1-5:4

2:3

5:4

5:6

5:8-9

5:9

6-191010:4

10:4-6

10:5

10010:ll-11:2

10:12

10:16

10:2)2:12:4

14:5

15:3

:5:7

15:8■ :6::

18:ll

18::3-1618:15

20:2

20:7

21:362::7

22:2

22:10-1127:2

37-7137:4

39:9

4045:4-548:1054:4‐ 560:5

m:867:● 1372:l

8080:280:2-380:3

80:68::1-232

５３５３５７別鵬鵬瑯　　　‐３５‐７７

stO orィ

“

″

8:15/18

rara_祀 .r′械山疇

7

273,279-30

Tara“"●

r和レ

4:4 566:4-6 667:: 63

７６

”

”

3940 2329326 39:1312 45:2

40,96 49::65 49:3

326

』1器 りげ・r.5“ lSaVar)

79. 90

38,91

"'糎 :Od・ グSOfOmm

89 11:23

300,爵 :: 79馨 :

抽″― ●rDa"

60L70 04 3:2

L●―`●

f」●|

188 67,76.131

354

L"爾"`●

r」●|●l

17:3

7●ra翻 ●rJ●Jal

13:2

21:923:1524:l

T●ra_r●/聞1:2

4:l

18:H

INDEX OF PRINCIPAL PASSACES Ci■ LD

亀"″"●

rM“ ‖ 68畑購 i∴締雌酔 :1:14 75

藝:ま 鷺夢ヴ申

位域7:7 98,17:3 139■9 99 rar-0/麟

|::1 1" 駄5 53199 :0:12 68,76316 10::4 68 餞r―●●r議 ′22誦醐臓226 10:15 68 38,",131

CD l::3242:6

2:9

2::4‐ 172:14-3:12

2::7-3:12

2:20-21

3:243:7-9

4:4

4:14

5:17-187:18-2013:9-10

lQH 212-132:27-283:●73:19-203:19-363:29-33

24131224126469846

246246

"264566

22687

Dead Sea Scrous

3:32-365:636:23

8:15

:0:8

10:338616:16

19イ 11:卜717

lQP Hab2“7:5■ 12

lQS 4lQS 8:13-14

9:17-1810:2"1

4Q176」 77,182=834くと280‐82,286‐ 87

4qAmmln4QAmrambl:10‐ ll

i■ 2

4∝ n・ l:2:13

4∝ nbl:4■ 1

4∝nCi:::l卜 174QEnel:1:174∝nel:6:15

4QFlor4Qporl:16

1:18-2:l

昴”８８８８５７２５‐３‐２　２２６∞　Π３‐。

65,6648,66

66

""9●96

"53

““７９霜枷潮

“”２‐９　４５９３　躙　５　”

８２知８‐“８‐“

創

８３

”

８３

ｍ

174 4Q● Isa

241 4(む Isab2″

241241 4QTestim 9_13

5 11螂 ekh57

110R・Zおm22:13

Ta響“(― ll

Cen.4:8Cen.4:13,24Cen.6:3Num.22:5Num.22:7Num.22:"

Fr-0ぃNum.23:lNul■ .244

８０

８‐

１４

８２

８‐

“

Targums

¨ M可麟

Exod.15■ 8Num 16:1Num.23:7Num.269

い 呻 LDettt.33:2

raFm― ¨

Num.16:1-2Num.22:5

Num.22:30Num 23:7Num.24:14,25Num.26:9Num.31:8Deut.34:6

7_“ ル P70PL●

Mic.1:3

い "P3ahP3.2:7

97

８３

“

””

94

２５‐μ２４６“Ｈ

８‐５。，　Ｌ

２５

∞

８‐

“輌観

Index of Principal Passages Cited

Rabbinic Literature

Mi&ol n A,alrcИI●

`とRめb3N山

rthr n"口 M鮨

′“・r」・ l・

222910●7107

′“

●IPalII

Acts oF Paul&necla lActs oF Paul&nccla loActs of Paul a necla 25Ac● oF Pau1 10

mo/"″ (36″眩`)

′rt or腋

″tlaa

nrqe DAbot 5:2

PIrqe■ bot 522Sanh 10:3Sota l:9

SOta 9:15

355

307

307251252

308.309

78,84

65

308

…

婉

CAbod.Zar.9a 3133.3at.10a 325 ″晟″ピ脳 lal

訛 盤 ::: 臨電も:まFNum.Rab 18:2

鶉 弓淋難鮮Num.Rab 20:9

M,1蘭" Num Rab.20:10

AmaleL■ M 299,3∞ ,ml Nll驚 ::&:Num Rab 20:20

M●隔JL甲嗜r00 Num Rab 22:5

69

307 09ra Rぁ麟

325 1:768

:::晦助

"睦307 18307 22301 25250 28

299,301299,::i S"“ D― ●●nJ

299,::: :::

963::ッ

"助"麟83 13783 15784

胎・Ⅲ"82 Sota 4:981

:: 施

"R赫81 43:381,268

施靱 ■・ %ni

76

312

“

“

　

　

　

８‐

６８

68

M麟ぜ■¨ &,09● la

5 '

New Testament Apocrypha and Other Early Christian Literature

‐４７２４２Ｈ‐３２，‐７３　　　中““‐”，２２４　　　］

Aca. Vcrc.2Act. Verc. 3Act. Vcrc,6Act. Vcrc.7Act. Verc.8Act. Verc. 12Act. Verc. ItAa. Verc. 20Acr. Verc. 35Acr. Verc. 36Act. Vcrc. 3F39

Acls of Tlws

tl,39t43t5s0

tllqrc (CC II,r')

Ａｌ

Ａ２‐

Ａ２２

Ａ２８

Ａ３０

Ａ３２

脳

Ｂ

“

鵬

３２

２３

４２

４２

‐３

４２

８８

２‐

０‐

９６

３２

　

　

　

２２

２２

‐２

３２

…

・IPaJ147

:1(Synac) 6714 202:5 19850 251

““劫″ ●r2"

147.148■ 49,157, 162,163,211.3:5237,238,240

136,225149,242,278149,242,278

24256

:49,242,267149,242,267

297,325300,305,316147=48,157,162

356

E7 149,242,278E8 242E10 56,242E15 221El卜 17 212E16 290E17 20● 7,209R 159,179,190,191,192,21Xl

C"“′セ/2oraウか 0/P″ (CCス タ)

147,148.14979:13 147, 149,274

/Paraウ″ 0/TAο nas

days l-6 315

″OoP力οη Or」・力"

16229:16-3012 :39

/pOs′ 。fr CO●`"“ `3●"

6:4 1117:46 22

3●●lo/■o2aSル COn婉″ (CC 2,7)

22138:4-8 32

a贖〃卜c麟″"″″ι:ねに,“″

INonx or PnrNcrpnl Pnssnces Cneo

Clem. Rec.5:12 277Epirtle of Clement to Jamer 201Epistlc of Pctcr roJamer 2l2:4 339

J Corinlhiarc

cagpalげ PAllIP(CC 2,,)

26 2:2

α中′●/TA● mas(GC a2)

E"ル グル″″a,Itp(cc a2)

132:13-14

132:17_18

6osPI o/`ル Eら30"鮨

147,148149,328

149

206‐7,210,219

60SPa`0/′ルEDp`la“ (cc',2,イ ,2)

63:6 301

6ospal●/ル ″ル即S

175

cOsp●10/2″

147,162.2167 77

ApostoEc Fathers

lo1gw Pclw

147, t4Fl9, 215, 298, 299

laoditare

146

hata oI rlu Aptth Pad (CG l,llt47

holanngcliun oItaw

22111:

G●●prf●/rn"ぬ (cc′ ,'コ 22)

18::9-21

18:20

33■ 3‐ 16

242163

163,279

9:2

25

餞漏 η"`“

●rル Grar■ rl〈cc z2)

64:l―:0 59

rasrm●●y・/■ぼん(CC'3)

29:11-30:17 59

147,196235288

20,21

1:10

3:36

3:40

Epllで″0/ル ′′ぼ臓

l

36815

2831-333746

鵬‐９２‐９２‐９２・８５躙３２６鵬醐

２０，

　

７０，　

３４

“”

Clem Hom 2:22Clcm Hom 3:53Clem Hom 9:2:lClem Hom 9:19:1Clcm Hom H17:2Clem Hom H124:1Clem Hom 16:20Clem Rec 2:21:7Clem Rec 2:68:3

24,234230

20● 7,2∞ ,21026Kl,252,299

312312297312278315

EP●ル●/3a"`麟

1:4

2:2-3

2■ 03164:3

4:8

419

4■ 2

4■ 3

4:13-144■ 4

5:4

5:7

:2:8

:4:l

l15:4

15:9

16:5

16:“19:3-5

19:4

16,37, 162. 163 21:6136.278 21:9

174

85,2t19,2錦 IC~li39,209,220.325

209,22030,35

265,268 inscr191 1:226 1:3

333 3:4278 4:7290 4:1243 5

290 5:4306.307 7:6

250 8:5333 9:2:39 9:41:l ll:l

:(H0

3:930, 190

16,149し50,154,157.159,162,163, 166, :75, :77,

178. 186,218,33219,20,21,26.27, 166

174

3261897983

160,328:"251314218

250,251,299247,252.254

297292

1,0.224,284,290,333140,283-35,297

140,304,324179

140,29●97,298,2993262∞287188179287

1∞.292326273

159,328,329,330,331242326837848

23-2723:2-5

23:3

23:3423:5

26:l

27:4

29:1

30:8

32:1

34:4

34:7

44:l

44:1‐ 345::

46:847:147:7

511:2

51:1451:3453::

124

169174326174

123,124

:49-50,154,157,159,162, 177,178,185,186.

:91,278,331

305,3:3,32140

290120,121,123

268 9:24:3169 :o:4:4

357

24D

Si3,325

9,19.173,332169181

23911635

312328,331

1763316987

288238

192.215169159:69

159,160,32687

20,220116116

84,35239242326

1616,",21

199169120122

Indn of Principal Passages Cited

58:2

59:2

62:2

63::

64:l

65:2

2…

”ｎ

‖m嘔

149L60,154,i57.159.161, 162, 163.175,177,185,186.231,265,266,

rrari“

Eph.inscr.EPh. 4:2

6:27::

9:1

1::l

12:3

14:l

16:2

18:2

Phid.2:15::-2

9■ -29:2

Pol.8:3Rom.3:l

3:3

4:3

9:l

Smym inscrSmym 4:l

7:2

8:2

Trall.6:l

8:2

13:3

MarrJrd●●●J晦

2:4 333H 2414:3 1745:1 1785:5 1796:9 190,191.3268:1-3 3138:2-3 3129:8 287:日-7 292-9311:2 1541,224,284.290‐ 9111:2-4 140,283-35,30512:l li412:6 32513:1 3131S:2 24213:3 214

14:2 288,33316:: 305,312,313,321,32716:2 11416:3 140,284.300,3111,304-

5,313,316,319,320,321

Vis.1:3:4

2:2:2

2:3:4

2:4:3

3:4:3

3:5::

3:7:l

3:7:3

3:8:7

3:8:8

3:8:9

3::3:3

4:2:5

4:3:3

4:3:5

Mand.2:74:::9

4:2:2

4:3:1

4:3:2

5:2:4

5:2:7

6:1■

8:9

:2:3:1

12:5:4

Sim 5:6:15:6:7

5:7:2

H6:2:3

6:2:5

6:5:5

6:5:6

8:3:3

8:‖ :l

99::2:349:14:2

9::4:4

9:14:5

9:15:2

9::5:4

9:16:249::6:7

9:17:5

9:17:5-18:2

313298241

140.235,333159293

150,292,293242

:05,255174.:76.184

17629331532630032632656

253189:90

176. :87

277174174

174

27756

3265613624213626526658

312313191

313136.331

178174.176150,292

191

170277278

5:2

14::

:4:3

18:3

20:2

21CPil M●8q.l

λfra● ハillpptam

3:2

5:26:3

7:l

7:2

10:3

12:l

16.21.120.121, 123,192120,121

240

1a331,3322Cl,21

■

，

４

５

‐７

‐７

‐９

”

DldacL

162:7 ::OL:1, 112, 115, l164:: 564:3 14Xlll―:2 12,3511:3■6.12 12,8313:1 3315:: 8316:l 鰤16:3 :0416:7 96

仰蔵t to DIon

6:8 198

33.196.328,329.33083,122

238333,334

:36.237,238242333