Part II , Week 11 - Chapter 23 - Jude and 2 Peter -

These are fairly obscure texts which, as de Silva notes, have found a home near the end of the NT, where they can be honoured more in the breach than in the observance. Jude is of particular interest to me, however, since it purports to have been written by one of the younger brothers of Jesus. Regardless of its relative obscurity, de Silva indicates that Jude addresses the issue of determination of legitimate authority within the church, a matter still highly relevant today.

As expected, questions of authenticity arise, as in James and 1 Peter, firstly because of the author's mastery of the Greek language, which some deem unlikely for a 1st. century A.D. son of an artisanal family. De Silva suggests that a tradesman in Palestine of the era would likely have had some knowledge of Greek, and over a period of decades as a church leader Jude's facility in Greek might well have increased. De Silva also notes that Jude is steeped in Jewish traditions, particularly apocalypticism, and the author seems to have relied on the Masoretic text (in Hebrew) of the Old Testament, rather than the Septuagint, an indication of Palestinian provenance. Some critics have suggested that the letter cannot be authentic, because it reflects "early Catholic" (i.e. second century) developments which would make it too late to have been authored by the Lord's brother. De Silva cites the apocalypticism I have referred to and the lack of reference to an elaborate church hierarchy in support of an early date prior to 80 A.D. In addition, he notes that Jude's use of the word "faith," in the sense of a belief system, rather than "faithfulness," which was in most cases Paul's usage, was actually used by Paul in the sense of meaning a belief system in at least two instances. It appears on balance that, as in most of the earlier letters which are included in the NT canon, de Silva, without being dogmatic, comes down on the side of the letter likely being the authentic work of Jude, the brother of Jesus and James.

Although this is classed as a "general epistle," de Silva notes that Jude is writing for a specific community facing a definite problem. Following a pattern which we have seen on many occasions, Jude is writing his letter to counter a threat from "false teachers." Since it appears that he is writing from a Jewish Christian perspective and challenging the false teachers' willingness to profit materially from their preaching while indulging grossly in sexual license and gluttony and encouraging such practices among their audience, it almost appears that these could have been some of the same false teachers that Paul was confronted with, in particular those who challenged him in Corinth. Although as de Silva notes, some of these charges were also levelled against Paul, I don't see evidence of Paul being personally corrupt, certainly not where sexual profligacy is concerned, and I suspect that if his preaching was misconstrued, he took pains to rectify such matters as soon as they were brought to his attention. For example, instances of sexual license, drunkenness, and so on may have been an unintended consequence of preaching that the Gentile converts were not bound by the Jewish Law. However, in some of his letters, Paul preached the "Law of Christ," and I believe he used other similar terms, to indicate the new system of beliefs binding the believers. So, though no longer bound by Torah, that did not mean that the believers were in fact freed of all restraint.

The Second Epistle of Peter is the exception to the previous rule of de Silva's generally favouring authenticity. He notes that, while appearing to be a straightforward letter written by Peter near the end of his life in 64 A.D., there is a greater likelihood that this is a pseudonymous work than any of the other letters of the NT canon. De Silva points out that "testaments" were an accepted genre of the period, usually being ostensibly authored by patriarchs, kings and prophets from the distant past. He obviously recognizes that 2 Peter may be an example of such a pseudonymous work but notes that, unlike the later "secret teachings" of the apostles which contained heretical teachings from the 2nd. or 3rd. centuries, he notes that this is a more "respectful" type, more consistent with the OT traditions. He seems to acknowledge the likelihood of 2 Peter being pseudonymous when he notes that "Peter's" prophecies are written in the future tense, while the coming to fruition of those prophecies is couched in the present tense - thus seeming to be a pretty clear indication of the work of a post-Petrine author.

According to de Silva, the author of 2 Peter counters a more rationalistic sect of teachers, perhaps seeking to purge the early church of some of its Jewish traditions, perhaps disillusioned by the failure of the promise of the parousia as the apostolic generation passed from the scene. De Silva indicates that the author of 2 Peter makes a strong defence of apocalypticism and the traditions and authority inherited from OT traditions and the apostles.

I am currently reading a bestselling book by Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels, N.Y.: Random House, 1979. Without going into a lot of detail here, I would just like to point out that according to Ms. Pagels, the beliefs (which were quite diverse) that were classed under the rubric of heretical Gnostic beliefs by the 2nd. Century were those which did not support the institutionalized orthodox church. The beliefs that became "orthodox," even though they may have been rather extraordinary, such as the resurrection of the body, were those that implicitly supported the growth of the institutional church. I am not endorsing this - but at the least, these hypotheses are thought-provoking and merit further investigation.