Another key component for all of these texts is the concept that believers exist in a world engaged in spiritual warfare, the cosmic struggle between good and evil. This is not the dualism of Platonism or gnosticism, but is rather an understanding that both evil and good are creations of God and are therefore within his control. Each of the writers treat this topic in some way; 1 Peter includes Christ’s visit to the spirits in prison (3:18–22) where he subordinates all powers; for Jude it is the war between Satan and the Archangel Michael (Jude 9) while 2 Peter along with Jude, discusses the state of the fallen angels (2 Pet. 2:4 & Jude 6). For all of them, however, there is one struggle which will continue until Christ will come again to judge all creatures and creation. This belief in God’s eventual redemption is lived out in the hope and love practiced in the life of individuals as well as the community.
In summary, although risking oversimplification, modern scholarship generally follows the ancient writers in categorizing the Catholic epistles as: (i) probably authentic: 1 Peter and 1 John; (ii) possibly authentic: James, 2, 3 John, and Jude; and (iii) doubtfully authentic: 2 Peter (more details can be found in Appendix 1). For convenience, the authors of both Petrine epistles and Jude will be referred to as “Peter” and “Jude” respectively.
Reception Historical Sources for 1, 2 Peter, and Jude
We are seeking to include a variety of kinds of interpretations through the centuries to highlight the dialogs which led to significant developments. Because of the diversity of topics included in these little texts it seems best not to specify every interpreter here (for descriptions of these, see the Glossary). Rather it is important to show the variety of interpreters when appropriate, while including more detail here on the dominant ones. Since some of the passages have had effects on art, literature, or music, while the influence of others has been more political or social, each chapter will have some unique sources.
The following is a brief overview of the most important sources on all three of these epistles. As mentioned earlier, there are numerous early attestations to each of them, but many of them are in the form of allusions so will only be mentioned whenever relevant; these can be found for 1 and sometimes 2, Peter in the epistle of Barnabas (c.70–79); Clement of Rome (c.95); Hermas (c.140); and Papias (c.130–140). Polycarp (d. 155) actually quotes 1 Peter but does not name him; apparently, he knew and used the epistle but not necessarily as Peter’s. Irenaeus (b. 130) is the first to particularly quote 1 Peter by name. Evidently the heretic Marcion did not accept 1 Peter. (For more details on all of these, see Bigg, 1975.) For Jude, there are five primary early sources which have full commentaries or a major complete work on the epistle (Jones, 2001): Clement of Alexandria (second century), Didymus (mid‐fourth century), several catenae (one probably compiled by Andreas, seventh century, and one by Severus, late fourth to early fifth century), Oecumenius (sixth century), and Bede (eighth century). Once in a while, Hilary of Arles, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, or others will comment.
No one in the medieval era wrote a complete commentary on any of these three epistles unless you locate Theophylact of Ohrid (1050–1108) in this period. (He wrote commentaries on the whole New Testament and some of the Old but is often considered within the earlier period.) Our three epistles are referred to numerous times, however, in debates and controversies on major theological issues throughout this time. In fact, scholars such as Erasmus, Grotius, Ockham, Dun Scotus, Karlstadt, and St. Francis de Sales occasionally include 1 and 2 Peter in their arguments. St. Thomas Aquinas also cites 1 Peter and sometimes 2 Peter in his explanations on the nature and foreknowledge of God and other pertinent topics. He does not cite Jude. Aquinas is an indication that both Peters are intrinsically involved in the theological discussions and controversies as theology developed. Although Jude is clearly not as involved in the discussions and councils, the epistle is taken seriously by many of the denominations as they constructed their confessions, creeds, and church constitutions – these are noted throughout the commentary.
Luther and Calvin represent the time of the Reformation, along with Arminius, Melanchthon, and others who are included as appropriate. Bengel, Matthew Poole, Thomas Watson, and John Wesley reflect the following era. Brief explanations of the main writers follow to provide a sense of dating as well as significance. Descriptions of others who are used less regularly are included in the Glossary.
Significant Ancient Interpreters
Clement of Alexandria (c.150–215) is the earliest commentator to write a full although fragmentary commentary on 1 Peter. Probably born in Athens, he was an early Greek theologian and leader of the catechetical school of Alexandria, one of the earliest centers for Christianity. Although the entire original text no longer exists, ample comments do exist throughout the entire epistle. His work is the oldest existing commentary on Jude but it consists of sketched outlines and thoughts possibly intended to be elaborated upon by later writers. These are gathered into the appropriately named “Hypotyposes” (Jones, 2001: 2). He also comments on the other Catholic epistles but he did not accept 2 Peter as authentic. According to Bray (2000: xxvi) this stance was customary at this time.
Didymus the Blind (c.313–398), an Alexandrian exegete who was influenced by Origen and was admired by Jerome, is probably the next of the earliest to have written a full commentary on all of the seven epistles, but they only exist in a Latin translation. However, surviving Greek fragments suggest that they represent a “reasonably faithful rendition of the original” (Bray, 2000). These writings are apparently a primary source of most if not all of the later Greek commentaries on the Catholic epistles, reflecting the strong exegesis of his Alexandrian predecessors (Bray, 2000; Jones, 2001: 4–5). Jones makes much of this material more readily available in translation.
After this, a number of writers took selections from the commentary of Didymus along with excerpts from other writers, and linked them together to form a “catena” (Bray, 2000). The earliest catena is attributed to Andreas, a seventh‐century monk. Some of his sources can be identified from existing documents, for example Ammonius of Alexandria (fifth century), Eusebius of Emesa (c.300–359), Hesychus of Jerusalem (fifth century), Severus of Antioch (c.465–538), and Maximus the Confessor (580–662). However, speculation continues as to exactly how much of the remaining commentary is actually his or what might be from another lost work. In any case, whatever sources he used certainly predate himself, so that his commentary represents ideas existent at this early time. Later, John Anthony Cramer, in 1838–1844, during his years at Oxford, undertook the task of compiling the Patristic texts on the seven epistles. The volume on Jude is the final of his eight‐volume works and is the primary concern of Jones (2001, see pp. 5–6 for a complete description of his project). He has gathered and translated this material, some of which was not available before. The material, along with that of Clement of Alexandria’s work on Jude, reflects writings which date as early as the ninth to tenth centuries (Jones, 2001: 6).
After this, the first full Latin commentary on 1 Peter was by Hilary of Arles (403–448). This document became an important source for later writers such as Gregory the Great (d. 604). Although Gregory himself did not write a commentary on Peter, his notes were collected by his secretary Palerius and circulated as a sort of catena (Bray, 2000: xxvi). In the twelfth century, Alulfus, a French monk, imitated and elaborated on this document.
Oecumenius, sixth‐century philosopher and orator (not to be mistaken for Oecumenius, bishop of Tricca), possibly also wrote catenae, but like Andreas it is debated whether or how much is actually his contribution. Theophylact of Ohrid, Byzantine archbishop of Bulgaria