Robin Parry on Jude and 1 Enoch

My buddy and some-time editor, Robin Parry, raises some good questions about Jude's use of 1 Enoch.

2 Peter & Jude Interview - Thomas R. Schreiner

Thomas R. Schreiner is James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is the author of several volumes including Paul, Apostle of God's Glory in Christ, Romans (BECNT), and 1-2 Peter, Jude (NAC).

MB: Earlier on in your career you worked on the Synoptics but have specialized for the most part on Paul. How hard was it moving from Paul to 1-2 Peter, Jude? What did you learn in the process?

TS: One of my goals was to respect the distinctive contribution of Peter and Jude, and hence I tried to explain the argument in the letters instead of reading Pauline theology into the letters. Reading is hard work, and it is always difficult to discipline ourselves to follow the line of thought that an author pursues. 1-2 Peter and Jude emphasize that believers are to live a transformed life, and that God judges those who give themselves over to evil. Such themes are a helpful corrective for those who misunderstand Paul’s theology of grace, and it seems from 2 Pet. 3:15-16 that some of Peter’s readers fell prey to that very mistake.

MB: In your view, what are the best arguments for and against Petrine authorship of 2 Peter? Where do you come out on that one?

TS: Perhaps the best arguments against Petrine authorship are the Hellenistic terms used in 2 Peter and a style that differs from 1 Peter. The most significant argument supporting Petrine authorship is the self-claim of the letter (2 Pet. 1:1, 16-18). Indeed, the claim of the author that he heard God’s voice on the mountain and was with Jesus on the mountain amounts to deception if the author is not Peter. Further, as I argue in my commentary, evidence is lacking that pseudonymous writings (especially epistles) were accepted as authoritative during the NT era. The difference in style and terminology between 1 and 2 Peter may be explained by an amanuensis (either in 1 or 2 Peter or in both) or the particular situation Peter faced. Finally, arguments from style are notoriously subjective when we are testing 2 Peter against 1 Peter since the books are exceedingly brief. Some scholars also argue that the theology of 2 Peter is early catholic and departs from 1 Peter which is often seen as more Pauline. I don’t have space to defend my view here, but I argue in my commentary that the introduction to 2 Peter (1:1-4) demonstrates that the new life demanded by believers is rooted in God’s gracious work in their lives.

MB: Does postulating 2 Peter as a ‘Testament’ or as ‘pseudonymous’ adversely affect one’s view of biblical inspiration and the canonization of the New Testament?

TS: The question needs to be answered carefully. If the author of 2 Peter practiced deception in writing his letter so that he could dupe the readers into thinking Peter wrote the letter, then biblical inspiration and canonicity are both threatened. Others argue that pseudonymity was well-accepted during the NT age, or that 2 Peter is a testamentary writing, so that it was clearly evident to the original readers that the author who wrote the letter was not genuinely Peter. If such a view could be demonstrated historically, then the inspiration and canonicity of the NT are not called into question, for everyone would have recognized that the author was not truly claiming to be Peter. The problem with such views, however, is the lack of evidence that pseudonymous writings were accepted as authoritative. Further, it cannot be substantiated from early church history that 2 Peter was accepted as authoritative or recognized as a ‘transparent fiction.’ Ultimately, then, testamentary or pseudonymous views of 2 Peter undercut its authority and inspiration, for there is no evidence in the NT era that pseudonymous writings were accepted as authoritative, or even that was acceptable to write in someone else’s name.

MB: How does 2 Peter 1.10, ‘make your calling and election sure’ relate to the Reformed view of election?

TS: In context Peter argues that one must practice the godly virtues listed in 2 Pet. 1:5-7 to make one’s calling and election sure. Peter does not focus here on one’s subjective assurance regarding one’s calling and election. Rather, the point is that one must practice such virtues in order to obtain a final reward (eternal life) on the last day. Still, if believers are not living in a godly way and have given themselves over to evil, they should (by implication from 2 Pet. 1:10) examine themselves to see if they are truly believers.

MB: When Jude quotes 1 Enoch, does he think of Enoch as Scripture and did Jude really believe that Enoch uttered the prophecy that he is purported to have?

TS: It is unlikely that Jude thought 1 Enoch was part of inspired scripture. We need to remember that 1 Enoch is not considered to be canonical scripture by Judaism, Roman Catholicism, the Greek or Russian Orthodox, or Protestantism. Citing a quotation from another source does not indicate that the entire work is inspired, even if the saying drawn upon is true. For instance, Paul quotes Aratus (Phaenomena 5) in Acts 17:28, and he does not intend to teach that the entire work is inspired scripture. Similarly, he quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12, without any notion that he accepted the truth of the whole work. It is difficult to see how Jude could be citing an actual oral tradition from the historical Enoch since the book of Enoch was in circulation in Jude's day and was well known in Jewish circles. Jude almost certainly derived the citation from the book of 1 Enoch, and the latter is clearly pseudepigraphical. We would be faced with having to say that Jude knew that this specific quotation from 1 Enoch derived from the historical Enoch. It is better to conclude that Jude quotes the pseudepigraphical 1 Enoch, and that he also believes that the portion he quoted represents God's truth.

MB: Who were the ‘false-teachers’ in Jude?

TS: In the history of scholarship the opponents have usually been described as Gnostic or as representing some kind of incipient gnosticism. Evidence for full-fledged Gnosticism is clearly lacking in Jude. If we restrict ourselves to the letter, we can say that the opponents came from outside Jude’s community and that they were libertines. Perhaps they distorted Paul’s theology of grace as in 2 Pet. 3:15-16.

MB: If you had to preach one passage on 2 Peter and one passage from Jude, which passages would they be and why?

TS: That is a hard question to answer! I think I would preach 2 Pet. 1:5-11, for Peter emphasizes that those who enter the kingdom live a new kind of life. Good works are necessary for eternal life. Then I would probably preach Jude 1-2, 24-25, so that God’s people would understand that God keeps those whom he calls, so that we would have confidence that the God who called us will give us strength to do his will.

MB: I understand that you are currently working on a New Testament Theology. What contribution do Jude and 2 Peter make to the theology of the New Testament?

TS: I just turned in my manuscript for my NT Theology, but it will not appear until June 2008. Jude and 2 Peter remind us of a truth that is very unpopular today. God judges evil, and those who give themselves over to evil will not enjoy an eternal reward. Any theology of grace which teaches that it doesn’t matter how Christians live has forgotten about Jude and 2 Peter (and other parts of the NT as well!). Both Jude and 2 Peter also remind us that believers must persevere to the end in order to be saved, but at the same time they comfort us with the truth that the God who called us will strengthen us to do his will.

MB: Thanks Tom!

2 Peter & Jude Interview - Bob Webb

Dr. Robert L. Webb is a Canadian scholar who specializes in both the Historical Jesus and the Catholic Epistles. Bob was also Michael Bird's associate supervisor for his Ph.D thesis (so blame him!) and Bob has written or edited several volumes including John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Sociohistorical Study (1991), Nag Hammadi Texts and the Bible (1993), Jesus and Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ (2004), and Reading James with New Eyes (2007). He is also editor of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus.

MB: You have chosen two areas of specialization in your research, historical Jesus and the Catholic Epistles, what prompted your interest in these two areas?

BW: My interest in historical Jesus was spawned by a desire to round out my study of the NT, for I had focused on Paul in my M.Div. thesis and on 1Peter in my Th.M. thesis. I wanted to do something in the Gospels, and the subject of historical Jesus was (and still is) a hot topic. It sparked my interest and has held it ever since. My interest in the General Letters arose out of my Th.M. thesis. I find these "more neglected" books provide abreadth of diversity to NT studies that is lacking if one only focuses on Paul.

MB: In your view, what are the best arguments for and against Petrine authorship of 2 Peter? Where do you come out on that one?

BW: Well, to answer you first question, I'll say, "See my commentary when it is out." But on the second one, I do conclude that 2 Peter is a pseudepigraphic text.

MB: Does postulating 2 Peter as a 'Testament' or as 'pseudonymous' adversely affect one's view of biblical inspiration and the canonization of the NewTestament?

BW: Not in the least. I view this somewhat simply: The reason the books of the NT are considered authoritative and therefore canonical is because they are understood to be inspired by the Spirit of God. It is on the basis of their divine origin that they are authoritative, and not on the basis of the particular human author that was the inspired instrument. While these texts are fully inspired they are also fully human, in that human processes--including language, style, rhetoric, etc., but also pseudepigraphy--could be used in the process.

MB: What is your take on the reference to the transfiguration in 2 Peter 1.16-18?

BW: I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with this question, but my understanding of these verses is contrary to most modern commentators. Most understand the phrase in v. 16, "the power and coming" of Christ (better translated "powerful coming") as referring to the yet-future coming of Christ. In this view, then, the author uses the transfiguration in vv. 17-18 as proof of this claim about "the powerful coming", and so the transfiguration must then interpreted as somehow proleptically anticipatingthe yet-future coming of Christ. In contrast, my view is that the referentof the phrase "the powerful coming" of Christ (v. 16) is to the first coming of Christ; that is, to the past life of Jesus understood as a "powerful coming" in which God manifests himself as coming to his people in the ministry of the earthly Jesus. In this view, then, the transfiguration in vv. 17-18 supports this claim: the glorification and the heavenly voice demonstrate what God was doing in the ministry of the earthly Jesus, and in this view the transfiguration does not need to be 'transformed' (bad pun) into a proleptic anticipation of Christ's yet-future coming. Again, for full argumentation I'll refer you to my commentary.

MB: When Jude quotes 1 Enoch, does he think of Enoch as Scripture and did Jude really believe that Enoch uttered the prophecy that he is purported tohave?

BW: I'm not sure that it is quite as cut-and-dried as your question implies, for it depends on how one is using the term "scripture." So I'll answer but without using the term. Jude views Enoch as a text that has weight/authority in his community and was understood to convey truth. And so he cites it. Did he think it actually went back to Enoch? No. I think most literate people in his day would understand the genre characteristics of pseudepigraphic texts of apocalypses like 1 Enoch.

MB: What benefits are there to a socio-rhetorical interpretation of 2 Peter and Jude?

BW: A socio-rhetorical reading (as per Vernon Robbins' understanding) provide a inter-woven tapestry of ways of understanding how texts convey meaning. Thus a full socio-rhetorical interpretation provides an opportunity to explore a text from these various perspectives. It helps one to surface elements that might be missed otherwise.

MB: What do you think is the significance of 2 Peter and Jude for Christians today?

BW: The significance(s) will vary depending upon the context of today's readers. But to make one, rather general observation, truth still matters, whether doctrinal or ethical.

MB: You are the head of the Methodological Reassessments of the Letters ofJames, Peter, and Jude section at SBL. What has that seminar done in the past and what are they doing in the future?

BW: We are actually a "consultation" which has a three-year mandate: examine each of these letters in light of recent methodological developments thatare most often applied first to either the Gospels or to Pauline literature. So, we are exploring such methods as socio-rhetorical readings, post-colonial readings, narrative readings, etc. These are showing the riches that can be gleaned from fresh readings of these texts. We are going into the third of our three years. We intend to follow up with an application to become a full-blown section with a longer mandate. We will probably drop the "Methodological Reassessments" element in our name and simply focus continued study on these letters. We have not yet developed any particular themes yet.

MB: You are currently writing a commentary on 2 Peter and Jude, any idea on a possible publication date?

BW: [Sigh!] Writing a good commentary has proven far harder than I had ever thought! Knowing what it takes to write a good one has helped me understand why there are so many poor commentaries on the market. I hope to be finished within the next two years.

MB: Thanks Bob!