(2006) for earlier writers, since they “shape the pre‐understanding” of subsequent interpreters. In some cases the issues raised by these early thinkers continue to challenge writers through current times. This preference for early thinkers, however, will certainly not preclude later innovative insights: these challenges along with new insights or innovative issues of later eras will be considered in light of their effects on the reception history of our epistles as appropriate. In some cases “kernels” of ideas create dialog which would lead eventually to major theological doctrines, sometimes even opposing theories. For example, Peter’s reference to God’s foreknowledge in 1:1–3 actively engaged in the discussion and development of the later doctrines of election / free will. In a similar but different way, 1 Peter’s passage on the good pastor (5:1–6) strongly influenced writers such as Chaucer, George Herbert, and William Langland when they created literary pastoral characters. This commentary, then, will explore the reception history of 1, 2 Peter and Jude in terms of dialogs on important issues from the earliest comments by Papias and Irenaeus, the development of the tradition represented by Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Didymus the Blind, Hilary of Arles, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas, through the Middle Ages with Wycliffe, William of Ockham, and Erasmus, through the centuries to the time of the Reformation and Renaissance with Martin Luther, John Calvin, Arminius, and others and to later thinkers such as John Bengel, John Henry Newman, Charles and John Wesley, and finally to relevant current scholars. As stated before, reception history is not only the study of the voices from biblical and theological scholars, but also considers the effects of the tradition on poetry, literature, philosophy, art, sermons, music, and even suffering, so writers such as Matthew Poole, Thomas Watson, Søren Kierkegaard, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Bob Dylan, and others will be taken into account when relevant. In some cases such as 1 Peter 3:18–22, Jude 6 with // 2 Peter 2:4, and Jude 9, the effect of the text on art will be considered as well.
This commentary on these three texts is formatted to highlight how the various readings dialog and interact with one another and others as the discussion moves through the centuries to eventually develop into major theological doctrines or to affect culture, society, and sometimes even politics and relationships. Of course, not every section or passage has equally significant effects but each of them has some extremely noteworthy passages which have indeed impacted culture, society, art, and even politics. For example, the passage on slavery (1 Pet. 2:18–25) was used to support both sides of the intense conflict over slavery in early American history. In other cases, the section on marriage roles and even ornamentation has influenced religious and social customs and relationships (of course, along with Pauline parallels) through the ages. There are still other cases, like the good pastor (1 Pet. 5:1–6) which informed literary characters. Christ’s visit to the spirits in prison, 1 Peter 3:18–22, has remarkably shaped art, drama, literature, and theology. In light of this, this passage has its own chapter (Chapter 3). Generally, the format will include a brief “Overview” of the main issues, topics and sometimes historical context of the section, followed by “Ancient Receptions,” which will provide various kinds of readings and interpretations from the ancients through the Middle Ages; the Reformation has its own little section. This will be followed by “Other Interpretations” which will briefly survey issues treated by modern scholarship, particularly some of the innovative perspectives such as social‐scientific methodology, along with effects in Church organization, liturgy, and creeds, literature, music, and art as appropriate.
The general layout of the commentary will be by chapter; within each chapter, main topics and issues will be highlighted. Usually, the topics/issues fall neatly into the specific chapter of the text; in some cases, they do not, as clarified in the table of contents; also, the reception of the texts will be organized chronologically, except in some cases when topics call for a more thematic approach.
It is important to address a significant issue as we proceed: the relation between Jude and 2 Peter. There are many exceptional commentaries which treat this and other related issues at length, so this will be merely an overview. However, a few words are necessary to explain the reason this commentary is structured the way it is: 1 Peter, Jude, 2 Peter.
Literary Relationships: Which Came First – Jude or 2 Peter?
It has been noted through the centuries that there is an extremely close relationship between 2 Peter and the epistle of Jude. In fact, 2 Peter 2 includes almost the entire epistle of Jude. Hence, it is not surprising that the question must be considered as to which epistle was written first. The major similarities are between Jude 4–13, 16–18 and 2 Peter 2: 1–18, 3: 1–3. Although some of the material is extremely similar, the treatment of it by each author is significantly different, for example, whereas Jude describes the heresy and false teachers in his community using a series of three Old Testament examples to make his points, the author of 2 Peter structures his letter around the main issue of the certainty of the coming final judgment which is being distorted by the false teachers. However, much of Jude’s material is interwoven through Peter’s chapter.
Four explanations are logically possible; all of them are held by outstanding scholars. The problem is that although each of them has some strong supporting evidence, none is so strong that it conclusively discounts the others. Similarly, each can be adequately opposed but not so conclusively that it can be withdrawn as a possibility. Hence, the challenge remains for every serious scholar to come to their own conclusion on the relation of these two texts. Whatever position one accepts, it remains a significant issue, and has some consequences for dating, although other factors must be considered as well. The four explanations are:
1 Jude is dependent on 2 Peter. Many of the ancient writers as well as Luther hold this position. Noteworthy modern scholars include Spitta (1885: 381–470), who has the most details, Zahn (1901: 250–251, 265–267, 285), and Bigg (1961: 216–224).
2 2 Peter is dependent on Jude. Most modern scholars hold this position. See Mayor (1907: i–xxv) for the most detailed argument; Chaine (1939: 18–24); Grundmann (1974: 75–83), and Bauckham (1983).
3 Both are dependent on a common source. Some adherents to this position are Reicke (1964: 148, 189–190). There are serious problems with this option since no such possible source has ever been located (for details see Bauckham, 1983: 141).
4 They share common authorship. See Robinson (1976: 192–195). This option, however, is highly unlikely on account of the epistles’ vast differences in style and very few if any current scholars adhere to this view.
The consideration of the literary relations between the two texts provides the strongest reason for the dependence of 2 Peter on Jude rather than the reverse: the most compelling one is that Jude 4–18 is meticulously crafted in structure as well as wording (see Bauckham, 1983: 142 for details, and Neyrey’s 1993 “Introduction” for his analysis of Jude’s unusual pattern of threes). An additional factor to be considered is the redaction of the parallel passages which has been done by Fornberg, 1977: ch. 3, and Neyrey, 1980: ch 3; see Bauckham, 1983: 142–143 for a thorough analysis of this evidence with its strengths and weaknesses. A further exploration into this issue goes beyond the purview of this current study, but it hardly needs to be undertaken given the treatment of Bauckham along with the redaction critical studies of Fornberg and Neyrey already mentioned. Several important points concluded by Bauckham are noteworthy here:
1 The case for the dependence of 2 Peter on Jude is a strong one, although in some instances it can be countered by evidence from an analysis of the reverse.
2 The late dating of 2 Peter is not a consequence of this relationship. There are other relevant factors which call for a date later than the death of Peter (e.g. the situation in the letter) which have nothing to do with the relation to Jude. Jude could be dated earlier or later than 2 Peter and the evidence would still indicate a late first‐century or early second‐century date for 2 Peter. Again, there are many commentators who address this issue more than adequately, so the details
