52. Green 1987: 21.
53. Calvin 1885: 363.
54. McNamara 1960: 13.
55. Jerome Ep. Heb. 120.11. Rejection of this reasoning states that if the secretaries had such freedom to construct the letters, then the letters cannot be rightfully called Peter’s. However, this objection is driven by our modern understanding of authorship.
56. Green 1987: 23–26. This apparent use of Attic Greek style may also lend support to a late dating of the letter.
57. Green 2008: 145.
58. Ibid., 144.
59. Davids 2006: 145.
60. Green 2008: 147.
61. Green 1987: 34–35.
62. Webb 2012: 476. “. . . the issue at hand is not a questioning of the parousia in the future because of its delay, but rather a rejection of the truth of the parousia itself because there is no evidence of divine intervention and judgment in the past” (emphasis original).
63. Green 1987: 35–36.
64. McNamara 1960: 13–14.
65. Green 1987: 38.
66. Charles 2006: 357–412.
67. Kümmel 1975: 433; Bauckham 1983: 159–62.
68. Charles 1997: 45–75.
69. Green 2008: 149.
70. Serapion (ca. 180) is quoted by Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. 6.12.2) declaring about the Gospel of Peter,” “For our part, brothers, we revere both Peter and other apostles as [we revere] Christ, but the writings which falsely bear their name we reject” (emphasis added).
71. Bauckham (1983: 162) is aware of these arguments and does not think they disqualify the pseudepigraphy argument. Instead, he thinks that a more apt comparison of acceptance of 2 Peter as Petrine would be with Origen’s acceptance of Hebrews as written by Paul because it contains the apostles’ thoughts.
72. Witherington III 2007: 269–70.
73. Bauckham 1983: 158.
74. See Green (1987: 40–48) for a detailed presentation of the concerns with pseudepigraphy in 2 Peter. Peter H. Davids (2006: 149) seems to come to an impasse, concluding that there is no way of proving “from historical investigation” whether the Simeon Peter in the salutations is the disciple or a pseudepigrapher.
75. Green 1987: 51.
76. Bauckham 1983: 130–33.
77. Davids 2006: 148–49.
78. Kraftchick 2002: 74–75: Davids 2006: 145–49.
79. Davids 2006: 146.
JUDE
Letter Opening and Greeting (vv. 1–2)
1Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ, the brother of James, to those who are beloved and called in God the father and are kept safe in Jesus Christ; 2Mercy and peace and love be multiplied to you.
Jude’s letter greeting, while still in keeping with Jewish salutations, is slightly distinct from Paul’s “Grace and peace,” (Rom 1:8; 1 Cor 1:4–9; Phil 1:3–11; 1 Thess 1:2–4; 2 Thess 1:3; Phlm 4–7; 2 Tim 1:3–7) but is not a typical Greek letter greeting which was simply chairein (“Greetings”), as seen in James 1:1.80 Jude replaces chairein with heleos (mercy) where Paul usually uses grace, and adds Christian love (agapē), which Paul does not usually have in his greetings. Mercy (Hebrew—chesed) and peace, likely originate from the typical Jewish salutations of shalom (“peace”), which is more than just a wish for peace but includes the notions of wellness, prosperity, and wholeness.81 And since Jude ends the epistle with two mentions of mercy (v. 24), both of which are related to the safe keeping of the believers until eternal life, then it must also serve as an inclusio that encapsulates the eschatological context of the message.82
The author of this brief letter identifies himself as Jude (Grk. Judas or Judah), a common Jewish name (and calls himself a “slave of Jesus” and “brother of James” (cf. Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3). In ancient literature, it is typical to identify oneself as son of so and so, which makes Jude’s identification with his brother rather atypical.83 The most plausible reason for doing so would be that this brother is well known and highly regarded among the recipients of the letter. James, the brother of Jesus (also called the “Just”), had risen to become a leading member of the early Church in Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; Gal 2:9, 12).
If this is the case, it is also peculiar that Jude chooses not to identify himself as the brother of Jesus but instead as a slave (doulos). However, it is no more peculiar than James (1:1) who in his epistle does not call himself “brother of Jesus” but uses the same exact phrase as Jude in identifying himself as, “a slave of the Lord.” As Bauckham explains it, “Palestinian Jewish-Christian circles in the early church used the title ‘brother of the Lord’ not simply to identify the brothers, but as ascribing to them an authoritative status, and therefore the brothers themselves, not wishing to claim an authority based on mere blood-relationship to Jesus, avoided the term.”84 This may be even more perplexing for Jude, however, if the majority of his audience was Gentile.
For most scholars then, the traditional identity of Jude as the brother of Jesus (Matt 13:15; Mark 3:21, 31, 6:3; John 7:5) remains the name’s most plausible identity.85 Scholars, nevertheless, remain divided as to whether Jude actually wrote the letter or someone else did so in his name (pseudepigaphy).86 Critics have pointed at, among other things, the erudite Greek language and rhetorical skill of the letter as evidence against Jude’s authorship.87 However, these and other concerns of authorship