The Catholic Epistles and Apostolic Tradition: A New Perspective on James to Jude

Chapter 14 - The Epistle of Jude between Judaism and Hellenism

309 Chapter 14 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE BETWEEN JUDAISM AND HELLENISM Jörg Frey The issue of the historical context of the Epistle of Jude is a particular crux interpretum. In New Testament scholarship, this short text has received only marginal attention.1 This is due to its brevity and obscurity, but also to its theological contents and uncertain origin. There are only a few hints that enable interpreters to specify the historical and theological location of the author and to render more precisely the profile of his adversaries. One of them is the inscriptio “Jude . . . brother of James” (Jude 1), but it provides numerous problems. Even though a majority of interpreters are convinced that the epistle was composed as a pseudepigraphon by a later author who used the name of Jude, the brother of the Lord, the question remains why this writer published his text under the name of a figure of rather marginal relevance.2 What is the reason for the attribution to Jude, the brother of Jesus; what does such an attribution mean theologically; and how does the epistle fit into the early history of Christian tradition and theology? These questions are to be considered in view of both the Jewish and the Hellenistic elements of the text. 310 JöRg FREy The Classification of Jude between Judaism and Hellenism in Scholarship The point of departure of the present essay is the classification of Jude between Judaism and Hellenism. It adopts the observation that the short text strongly refers to biblical and early Jewish traditions, but is written in a profound, almost artistic rhetorical style. Thus, it seems to combine Jewish and Hellenistic elements. In New Testament scholarship, however , Jude is usually interpreted in close connection with 2 Peter, and in comparison with that epistle, which appears even more hellenized, Jude is often classified as more Jewish or Judeo-Christian than it actually is. Judaism and Hellenism in Jude in the Mirror of Second Peter This is observed by Anders gerdmar in his Uppsala dissertation. Using Jude and 2 Peter as examples, the author critically reflects on the scholarly categories Judaism and Hellenism, which are often used as a dichotomy in New Testament scholarship.3 According to his view, the classification of Jude as Jewish and the classification of 2 Peter as Hellenistic are chiefly the results of the heuristic key chosen to approach both texts. Therefore, as an experiment, gerdmar turns away from the common heuristic approach and seeks to demonstrate Jewish elements in 2 Peter and Hellenistic elements in Jude. The result, however, might be more challenging for the interpretation of 2 Peter than for Jude. While gerdmar cannot provide evidence for a strong Hellenistic influence in Jude, 2 Peter becomes more Jewish in his analysis. gerdmar points to the fact that 2 Peter independently adopts elements of Jewish exegetical tradition, such as in the references to Lot and Balaam, that are not used in Jude.4 He also refers to the apocalyptic worldview in 2 Peter and the eschatological dimension of its soteriology, which is quite clearly oriented toward Jesus’ Parousia.5 In gerdmar’s view, even the quality of the language is remarkably lower in 2 Peter than in Jude. generally, he concludes that Jude is more Hellenistic than 2 Peter.6 Many of these arguments, however, are questionable. One should ask whether it is possible, for example, to view anacolutha and anarthrous nouns as a general mark of bad style.7 Most problematic in gerdmar’s study is his attempt to invert the literary relation of the two epistles and abandon the commonly accepted view that 2 Peter is based on Jude. Instead, he tries to understand 2 Peter as the literary model for the composition of Jude.8 This creates numerous difficulties. If this sequence is presupposed, the composition of Jude can hardly be explained. Why would the author have written at all if 2 Peter had already existed as a testament of an apostle? Why would he have abandoned the “higher” THE EPISTLE OF JUDE BETWEEN JUDAISM AND HELLENISM 311 attribution to Peter and chosen the rather unknown and unimportant figure of Jude? Why would he have left aside all the parts of 2 Peter 1 and 2 Peter 3, and only copied or modified the polemics of 2 Peter 2? How could we explain the fact that Jude is almost completely parallel to 2 Peter 2:1...