the years, the opponents in Jude have been conflated with the pseudodidaskaloi (false-teachers) in 2 Peter, even though nowhere in Jude are they referred to as false-teachers.39 However, a close analysis of the two letters reveals significant differences between the opponents in Jude and the false-teachers in Jude. In Jude, the opponents seem to have emanated from the community and there still seems to be hope for them to be saved, while in 2 Peter the false teachers seem to have crossed the red line and are beyond redemption.40 While in Jude the opponents are already in the community, 2 Peter is ambiguous in reference to the presence of false-teachers as he speaks of their arrival in the future tense (2:1).
Identity of Jude’s opponents has ranged from “Gnoctics”41 to “antinomian/ libertines,”42 besides the letter’s own reference to them as “intruders”/“infiltrators,” and “scoffers.” The abundance of stereotyping language in Jude’s rhetoric—vilifying the opponents—makes it virtually impossible to make any identification based on the described characterization possible.43 Recent arguments have sought to connect the opponents with Jewish libertines, perhaps those reflected in Acts 15 and in Paul’s letter to the Galatians, who seem to have misunderstood Paul’s teaching on freedom.44 The judiciousness of Thomas Schreiner to avoid any attempts at identifying the opponents with any labels is a more commendable perspective.45 Overall, Gene Green is probably most accurate when he states that the identity of the opponents “cannot be fixed with any precision” and there is no sufficient data to positively identify them with any known specific philosophical groups from antiquity.46
2 Peter
Date and Authorship
The author in this letter introduces himself as “Peter, slave of Jesus Christ and a brother of James,” and goes on to present elements in his writing that would portray a person intimately familiar with the life of Peter the apostle (talks of impending death [1:14] prophesied by the Lord), awareness of an earlier letter he wrote (3:1), familiar with the Gospels (reference to Jesus’ Transfiguration—1:17–18, described in Matt 17:1; Mark 9:2–7; Luke 9:28–35) and also familiar with the writings of Paul (3:15). All these personal anecdotes would usually provide sufficient grounds on which to attribute the letter to the self-identified author. However, in the case of 2 Peter, it has not proved to be conclusive and, in fact, has become the premise of counter-arguments against a Petrine authorship.47
Arguments about dating are closely related to those on authorship. Basically, the positions seem to fall into two categories; of Petrine authorship (including use of amanuensis), which would give it an early pre-70 CE dating, versus pseudepigraphic writing which puts it between 70 CE and 125 CE. But if it was written before Peter’s death then it has to be dated before 64 CE. This letter is perhaps the one NT writing to which most modern scholars overwhelmingly assign pseudepigraphic authorship. From very early on in the life of the church, the authenticity of this book has been questioned, albeit for differing reasons. While the letter very clearly states its author as “Simeon Peter, slave and apostle of Jesus Christ” (1:1), it does not seem to have a clear historical trail among the canonical writings for the first two centuries of the Church. The first time the letter is clearly mentioned by name is by Origen at the beginning of the third century, who though clearly citing it as Scripture, explained that it was still a disputed writing within the Christian circles.48
Nonetheless, studies have shown that there may be plausible references of 2 Peter in earlier writings such as Epistle of Barnabas (ca. 70–150),49 1 Clement (ca. 95 CE), 2 Clement (ca. 135 CE) and Shepherd of Hermas (ca. 120 CE).50 Third century Church historian Eusebius (ca. 260–340 CE) says that it was by then accepted as Scripture even though he himself raises concerns about its authenticity.51 Jerome (Epist. 12.11) was the first to offer the possibility that 2 Peter was written by a secretary (amanuensis) giving its distinct style. Their initial rejection (or lack of mention) in the Syrian Church of 2 Peter (and Jude) may have been more to do with their references to angels, a subject the Syrian Church may have been eager to quell since it had dominated Jewish angelology in the region.52
In the Reformation period (sixteenth century) there were also misgivings about the letter; Luther is said to have included it, among other NT writings whose authenticity he is famously known to have questioned (antilegomena), Calvin cautiously accepted it stating, “If it be received as canonical, then we must allow Peter to be its author . . .”, while Erasmus rejected it as a forgery.53 However, while doubts had been raised about its provenance, it was not until a German scholar named Grotius in the seventeenth century dated the book to the period of the Roman Emperor Trajan (98–117 CE), and altogether eliminated the possibility of it having been written by Simeon Peter (the apostle who died under Nero in 64 CE, as it claims in its salutation).54
Over time, primary concerns raised about (and responses to) authenticity issues in 2 Peter have included the following:
1. Stylistic and theological differences with 1 Peter (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3. 3. 1, 4; 3.25.3, 4)—At least from the time of Jerome (ca. 345–420), it has been adduced that 1 Peter’s Greek is excellent and dignified while that of 2 Peter is flamboyant and cumbersome. Yet Peter in the Gospels and Acts is presented as uneducated lowly fisherman (Matt 4:18–19; Acts 4:13). A common response given is that each letter could have been written by a different secretary giving the distinctive styles.55 While a linguistic analysis shows that 2 Peter follows an “Asiatic style of writing” with an Aramaic thought background,56 it is generally agreed that the sizes of both letters are not large enough to warrant sufficient proof of difference.57 These make reasonable explanation to the differences between the letters.
2. Dependence on Jude whose earliest plausible date is 60–70 CE. The earliest the letter of Jude would have been completed is between 60 CE and 70 CE. Thus, 2 Peter must be later since it contains a majority of Jude. And if Jude’s provenance is Palestine and 2 Peter’s is Rome, we must allow for a period of time for Jude to get to Rome for the author of 2 Peter to be familiar with it. A plausible response here is that 2 Peter was written not too long after Jude’s letter which 2 Peter’s audience were not familiar with. So the author of 2 Peter would have a copy of the letter, but his audience would not know that it exists and that is why he finds no problem both quoting it extensively and also altering its content for his audience. However, a further objection would be, if this is Peter’s letter why does he find the need to copy Jude’s letter so extensively? If as many scholars are now convinced, Jude’s letter is authentic from Jesus’ brother, then it would explain why Peter would consider it significant enough to replicate in his own letter.58 And as has been shown, 2 Peter does not simply copy Jude, but has consciously utilized Jude and integrated Jude into his own arguments.59
