INTRODUCTION TO THE OTHER EPISTLES

Authorship / Date

There is no reason to question the traditional view that James, the first bishop of Jerusalem and ‘brother²⁰⁹⁶ of the Lord’ was the author of this inspiring and practical epistle. The Jewish-Christian element is very strong, and the epistle is a refutation of extreme interpretations of St. Paul’s antithesis between faith and “the works of the Law.” St. James the Just was martyred in 62 or 68 AD, which means that his epistle can be dated between 48 (date for Romans, which may be alluded to in James) and 68 AD.

Themes

James can be seen as a form of Christian wisdom literature (1:5; 3:13–15). The author applies this theme to a large array of practical subjects, including:

· Authentic Christian living (endurance, temptations, speech, hospitality)

· Relations in the Christian assembly (partiality, mutual support, quarrels)

· Prayer and illness.

Authorship / Dates

On the basis of common themes, expressions and ancient tradition, all three epistles can safely be ascribed to the same John who wrote the fourth gospel. They can be dated to the very end of the apostle’s life, circa 96–98 AD.

Themes

Like James, John stresses the difference between a mere claim to know God and a true and tested faith. Important themes include:

· The centrality of Christ as word and revelation of God the Father

· The centrality of love as a practical demonstration of one’s faith

· The importance of true doctrine, and the contrast between genuine Christians and antichrists, or light and darkness, truth and deceit. The apostle also issues a stern warning on having any association with rebellious heretics (2John 1:10).

Authorship / Dates

1 Peter has always been recognized as an authentic letter of the great apostle, probably written in Rome or Jerusalem (5:13) with Sylvanus (5:12) as secretary. It may have been written between 50 and 67 AD.

Conversely, 2 Peter had a long and controversial reception in the canon of the New Testament. Writing in the mid to late second century, Origen noted:

And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of Hades shall not prevail, has left one acknowledged epistle, and, it may be, a second also, for it is doubted.

As late as the mid-third century, Eusebius classified 2 Peter among the ‘disputed books’ (antilegomena) and seemed to have rejected its canonicity:

Of the disputed books which are nevertheless known to most are the letter called James, that of Jude, the second letter of Peter, and the so-called second and third letters of John. But the so-called second letter [of Peter] we have not received as canonical, but nevertheless it has appeared useful to many, and has been studied with other scriptures.

(EcclesiasticalHistory, 3.25.3; 3.3.1–4)

Eusebius’ doubts regarding 2 Peter stemmed from the fact that unlike 1 Peter, it was not quoted by the early writers.

Modern scholarship is even more negative on the possibility of ascribing 2 Peter to the second half of the first century and therefore to the chief apostle. However, the consensus of the Churches crystallized during the mid-300s and the epistle was accepted as genuinely Petrine. This discernment took into account the fact that two secretaries or ‘interpreters’ could very well explain the major differences in styles and vocabularies. Indeed, the Greek-speaking bishops would have also noticed significant indications that both epistles had a common mind behind them:

There are several words and phrases in 1 & 2 Peter that either occur only in these two letters or are relatively rare elsewhere in the New Testament: «virtue» (arete) (2Pet 1:3, 5; 1Pet 2:9); «manner of life» (anastrophe) (2Pet 2:7; 3:11; 1Pet 1:15, 18; 2:12; 3:1, 2, 16); «to live in a certain manner» (anastrephomai) (2Pet 2:18; 1Pet 1:17); «without blemish or defect» (aspilos kai amomos [or amometos]) (2Pet 3:14; 1Pet 1:19 [in reverse order]); «putting off» (apothesis) (2Pet 1:14; 1Pet 3:21); «eyewitness» or «to be an eyewitness» (epoptes or epopteuo) (2Pet 1:16; 1Pet 2:12; 3:2); «support» (sterigmos) (2Pet 3:17) and «unstable» (asteriktos) (1Pet 2:14; 3:16); «never ceasing from sin» (akatapaustos hamartias) (2Pet 2:14) and «He has ceased from sin» (pepautai hamartias) (1Pet 4:1); «indecency» (aselgeia) (2Pet 2:2, 7, 18; 1Pet 4:3); «soul» (to designate persons) (psuche) (2Pet 2:8, 14; 1Pet 1:9, 22; 2:11, 25; 3:20; 4:19); use of the metaphor «growth» to describe spiritual progress (auxanein) (1Pet 2:2; 2Pet 3:18). (Source: course syllabus for New Testament Introduction, Atlantic Baptism Seminary)

Moreover, the close relationship between 2 Peter and Jude actually reinforced the reception of both epistles as genuinely apostolic. The Judeo- Christian mindset of 2 Peter and Jude is consistent with Peter’s ministry and with the specific needs of this community; hence, Peter is called “Simeon,” not Simon Peter or Kephas. It seems that Jude, a brother²⁰⁹⁷ of James of Jerusalem (1:1) (and therefore a relative of the Lord) may have adapted Peter’s second epistle. However, other scholars favor the view that 2 Peter used Jude as a source since the Petrine epistle is actually longer and that Peter’s edition deliberately omitted specifically Jewish-Christians elements such as the references to 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses.

Both 2 Peter and Jude are difficult to date and may be placed between 60 and 110. This later date is suggested by those who consider 2 Peter and possibly Jude as ‘pseudepigrapha,’ i.e. writings placed under the mantle of a departed prophet or master by their disciples in order to perpetuate and actualize their teaching and ministry.

Themes

1. Peter deals with the practical aspects of Christian living and the call to personal holiness of those who have been “begotten again through to living hope.”

2. Peter is a final admonition on the danger of false teachers and the tragic consequences of embracing false doctrine or falling into apostasy.

Jude explores the same themes as 2 Peter and presents apostasy as a rebellion against divinely established order.