-
5 Watchers Traditions in the Catholic Epistles
- Augsburg Fortress Publishers
- Chapter
- Additional Information
5 Watchers Traditions in the Catholic Epistles Eric F. Mason Watchers traditions are present in three books among the Catholic Epistles: 1 Peter, Jude, and 2 Peter. Most scholars agree that 2 Peter is dependent on Jude and that there is no direct authorial relationship between 1 and 2 Peter. Each of these texts exhibits some level of independent use of Watchers traditions, and this provides insight into the influence of these traditions on early Christian thought. The ways in which the letters make use of the Watchers traditions, especially allusions to the punishment of the Watchers, suggest that Christian audiences were well acquainted with the larger narrative frame associated with the angels. Author and Audience Though some scholars defend the tradition of Petrine authorship of 1 Peter shortly before the apostle’s martyrdom in the mid-60s, the mainstream consensus is that the epistle is the product of a Petrine school or a pseudepigraphic author, writing from Rome to Christians in Asia Minor in the latter decades of the first century ce.1 Scholarly agreement that 2 Peter 1. Commentators defending Petrine authorship include Ernest Gordon Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, 2nd ed. (New York: St. Martin’s, 1947); Wayne A. Grudem, The First Epistle of Peter: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988); and Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005). Those assuming pseudonymity include Leonhard Goppelt, A Commentary on 1 Peter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993); Ralph P. Martin, in The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude, NTT, ed. Andrew Chester and Ralph P. Martin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Pheme Perkins, First and Second Peter, James, and Jude, Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox, 1995); Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996); John H. Elliott, I Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB (New York: Doubleday, 69 is pseudepigraphic—and by extension not directly related to 1 Peter—is even stronger. J.N.D. Kelly could write already in 1969 that “scarcely anyone nowadays doubts that 2 Peter is pseudonymous,” and this view is finding increasing acceptance even in conservative circles.2 Though earlier generations of scholars debated how best to explain the literary relationship between 2 Peter and Jude (whether Jude was excerpted from 2 Peter, 2 Peter used Jude as a source, both relied on common traditions, or both had the same author), virtually all scholars today recognize the dependence of 2 Peter on Jude. Proposals for dating the book extend as late as 125 ce.3 In contrast, most recent commentators on Jude are inclined to consider its authenticity, and those who ultimately decide otherwise often do so cautiously. Richard Bauckham, who argued for pseudonymity for 2 Peter, defends the traditional view that Jude is the product of mid-first century ce Palestinian Jewish Christianity, even by the “brother” of Jesus himself, while others question whether Jude would have had the requisite rhetorical and linguistic skills to produce this epistle. Alternately, Udo Schnelle argues that the author’s concept of tradition, distinction between orthodoxy and heresy, and discussion of the rise of false teachers as a sign of the last days demand a date in the late first century ce; thus the letter, in his estimation, would be pseudonymous.4 2000); and Reinhard Feldmeier, The First Letter of Peter: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008). Both J.N.D. Kelly (The Epistles of Peter and of Jude, BNTC [London: A&C Black, 1969]), and J. Ramsey Michaels (1 Peter, WBC [Waco, TX: Word, 1988]) admit difficulties with the assumption of Petrine authorship but opt for theories that find strong Petrine influence on a letter written after the apostle’s death. Peter H. Davids (The First Epistle of Peter, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990]) opts for Silvanus as author, writing on behalf of Peter. 2. Kelly, Epistles, 235; see the similar comment of Jerome Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 128. Richard J. Bauckham’s rejection of Petrine authorship (Jude, 2 Peter, WBC [Waco, TX: Word, 1983]) has been influential among evangelical scholars; see also Scot McKnight, “2 Peter,” in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, ed. J.D.G. Dunn and J.W. Rogerson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). Others, though, defend Petrine authorship (Gene L. Green, Jude & 2 Peter, BECNT [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008]) or argue for a core of authentic Petrine tradition (Ben Witherington III, Letters...