Abstract
This commentary is a translation of the German language commentary Der Brief des Judas und der zweite des Petrus published in the THKNT series in 2015. This is an important commentary, with many fresh perspectives on these two letters, so its appearance in English so soon after the publication of the German edition means that its proposals can be disseminated more widely and discussed more fully.
In relation to Jude, Frey note that it is ‘a good object for rhetorical studies …, a witness to the reception of Jewish traditions, and an interesting example of early Christian scriptural interpretation’ (p. 3). Frey sees the substantive and linguistic features of the letter militating against an early (pre-70 ce) date and consequently he rejects the idea that the letter was actually written by a brother of the Lord. He notes the terminus ad quem as being the composition of 2 Peter, and hence comes to the conclusion that ‘[a] rough timespan for dating Jude is thus found in the years 100–120 ce’ (p. 32). Although far less certain, Frey suggests the possibility that the letter was written in Asia Minor perhaps responding to some of the issues raised in Colossians. In this vein Frey states that the author of Jude reveals his fundamental theological concern through ‘his recourse to Enoch, which holds quasi canonical status and remains the only text quoted by the author, attests to the importance of angelology in the author’s theology’ (p. 41). By contrast the rejection of ‘the worship of angels’ in the deutero-Pauline epistles such as Colossians (Col 2.18), is seen as explicating the concerns of the author of Jude. However, Frey is careful to state that this is not a direct or linear type of response to the situation discussed in Colossians (pp. 33–44).
Frey devotes even more space to introductory matters in relation to Second Peter. While Second Peter is viewed as being literarily dependent on Jude, Frey notes that this does mean it addresses the same opponent, theological interests, or originates in the same milieu. Frey does see the letter as being the latest New Testament text (pp. 163–164). Tracing the literary dependencies of Second Peter is important for the thesis Frey presents. In particular, the relationship with the Apocalypse of Peter is key. Drawing upon the work of Wolfgang Grünstäudl, Frey argues that there is a literary relationship but that it is Second Peter that is dependent upon the Apocalypse of Peter, not vice versa. However, Frey rejects that case that the letter show dependence on Justin Martyr, and hence he dates the letter to ‘a time span around the middle of the second century (140–160 ce)’ (p. 221). This is no doubt a position that will generate debate and responses.
The commentary on the text of both letters is also detailed and reliable throughout. Frey is a helpful guide, and he is attuned to the interpretive issues surrounding both texts. This volume will become one of the major commentaries on these two small, but theologically rich letters.