Examining the Relationship of Jude and 2 Peter
(avg. read time: 17–35 mins.)
Of all the single-chapter books in the NT, Jude is perhaps the most intriguing. It is not one that received a lot of attention among the early Christians, but more recently it has caused much controversy. Today, we will only be interacting with one of those controversies, which drew my interest because of its similarity to Synoptic comparisons I have done elsewhere and for which I have larger plans. That is, scholars generally take it for granted that there is a literary relationship of dependence of 2 Peter and Jude. Scholars have posited theories related to such in order to explain some interesting similarities between the texts. The degree of similarity is greater than that of 1 Peter with Paul or even of James with Synoptic Gospel texts, but is akin to some of the less extreme examples of similarity between the Gospels. How, then, are these similarities to be explained?
As Lee Jared Garcia notes here, there are generally five kinds of explanations for the similarities. First, there is the belief that the texts are entirely independent with the commonalities being due to the common inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This explanation as it stands may seem attractive to some of those with high views of the divine character of Scripture, but it is less of an explanation than the declaration for the lack of need for explanation. Nor does it go that far. After all, if we think the same Holy Spirit inspired all of the NT, and most other NT texts are not as similar as Jude and 2 Peter, that still leaves the question of how these two texts specifically are more similar to each other than they are to any other NT text amidst all the differences they have with each other. Of course, inspiration does not need to be removed from the question. It is simply not all that explanatory for this issue even within the theological framework.
Second, it could be that a single human author is responsible for both works. I do not know if anyone besides John A. T. Robinson has suggested this, but in his view, Jude is responsible for both and represents Peter in writing 2 Peter. While this view attempts to explain the similarities, it cannot really explain the more substantial differences. And while both texts provide some difficult Greek, Jude’s Greek is especially difficult to deal with, even by comparison to 2 Peter. Indeed, with the possible exception of Acts 27, Jude is probably the most difficult Greek in the NT. Frankly, it is unclear what exactly commends this solution.
Third, it is possible that Jude and 2 Peter used a common third source. Was this source a text that is now lost to us? Or was it some common oral tradition? Could it have been specifically a sermon or sermon pattern/rubric? It depends on who you ask.
Fourth, to deviate from Garcia’s order for the sake of the particularities of this post, the first kind of literary dependence thesis is that Jude depended on 2 Peter. In this view, Jude could have thought it beneficial to honor Peter’s apostolic authority by drawing on this text. Jude’s tendency to write of the false teachers in the present in general distinction to 2 Peter writing of them in the future may also indicate that Jude was motivated to draw from 2 Peter as being one seeing the fulfillment of the latter in his situation. Given his awareness of other sources throughout his text, it would also, so the theory goes, be unsurprising for him to be drawing on a source for his text as a whole.
Fifth, the second kind of literary dependence thesis is that 2 Peter depended on Jude. I have not done a census, but this certainly appears to be the majority view in scholarship today, and the various sources I have consulted over the years reinforce that impression. Unfortunately, because of how widely it is advocated, that can lead to some sloppy statements, even from sources I respect like N. T. Wright and Michael Bird’s The New Testament in Its World: “The epistle of Jude was incorporated almost in its entirety into 2 Peter 2.”1 As we will see, despite how interesting some of the parallels are, this is not an accurate characterization of the matter.
We will examine the issues here through a detailed breakdown with the entirety of the text of Jude in Greek replicated in juxtaposition to the proposed parallels in 2 Peter.2 As my base text, I will be using the NA28—not because I am necessarily enamored with it but because it is a standard critical text—and I will note any significant textual variants that bear on the matter of similarity. My marking method will be mostly the same as with my synoptic comparisons, though it will seem unintuitive for this context because the bold text will take up the vast majority. The words that are identical between the two texts are in plain font. The words that are similar, but appear in different forms or are synonyms, are in italics. Words that are not reflected in any of these ways in the parallel text are in bold. If there are textual variants that make the Jude text more similar to 2 Peter, they will be marked with brackets. If there are textual variants that make the 2 Peter text more similar to Jude, they will be marked with curly braces. Because of the issues that come with transferring tables to Substack, I will divide this up by how many consecutive verses in Jude can be paralleled with consecutive verses from 2 Peter rather than in one massive table.
These verses illustrate the issue of identifying actually significant parallels amidst simple verbal similarities. The first verses in both texts have seven words that are exactly the same and two others that are different forms of the same words, but the word order varies, the overlapping words are extremely common in the NT, the phrases are also common, there are several intervening words that differ, and potentially the most significant similarity in v. 1—the author referring to himself as a “slave” of Jesus Christ—is by no means unusual in the NT era (Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 7:22; Gal 1:10; Eph 6:6; Phil 1:1; Col 4:12; Titus 1:1; Jas 1:1; 1 Pet 2:16; Rev 1:1; 2:20; 7:3; 11:18; 19:2, 5; 22:3, 6). For v. 2, I have not marked what could be considered a synonym between “mercy” in Jude and “grace” in 2 Peter, because even though they can be synonyms and are often associated, I want to highlight here how unusual it is for Jude’s greeting to be stated in this way (though cf. the more elaborate 1 Tim 1:2; 2 Tim 1:2; 2 John 3), whereas Peter follows standard practice in the early letters of wishing “grace and peace” on the audience. While the verb form that follows is certainly unusual, 2 Peter also has it in common with 1 Pet 1:2, which is more similar to 2 Peter than 2 Peter is to Jude. Despite all the similarities and the proportion of the same compared to the total words, it is not clear that any of them are significant for the case of one letter depending on the other, unless one approaches the texts with the assumption of dependence.
By the time we reach the third verse of Jude and the fifth verse of 2 Peter (though “verses” are later reference systems for the texts), we already see that, on the assumption of dependence, there is no fixed pattern of one text expanding or contracting the other. 2 Peter is obviously the longer text overall, but even if we assume that he is expanding Jude, not everything about the text can be explained on that basis. If the similarities are supposed to be the fixed points around which to analyze the text, the parallels here involve a longer text of Jude and a shorter text of 2 Peter, in contrast with the first two verses (and first sentences) of both texts. Even the simple two-word phrase translated as “all diligence” or “all earnestness” is not replicated in the same order. The phrase is elsewhere used only in 2 Cor 8:7, so it is certainly unusual in the NT. But are we, for that reason, to think that these two words must come specifically from Jude or 2 Peter to the other? And are we supposed to think this despite the fact that the phrase plays a completely different role in one text as opposed to the other? In Jude it refers to Jude’s own purpose to write, while in 2 Peter it is his directive to his audience as part of a longer list of virtues to embody. And are we supposed to think the reference to “faith” could only be derived from one source or the other, despite how common it is in the NT?
Again, the 2 Peter equivalent is slightly shorter than the Jude equivalent, but now this parallel is after a large amount of intervening text in 2 Peter. But whereas the verb that can be translated “sneak in,” “creep in,” or “infiltrate” is fronted in Jude and is the only main verb in a thirty-word sentence, the somewhat synonymous term in 2 Peter is near the middle of a twenty-seven-word sentence with two other main verbs. And I say it is only “somewhat synonymous” because while both terms begin with the same six letters, the one in Jude refers to the presence of people while the one in 2 Peter refers to the action of smuggling in or surreptitiously introducing something, in this case destructive heresies.
The common conjunction καὶ is a rather clear-cut example of an incidental similarity. Not counting the definite article, it is the most common term in the entire NT, and the same can be said for Greek texts in general because it is probably the most common word used for beginning a sentence. It is not even part of a fixed phrase.
Speaking of phrases, 2 Pet 2:1 features a participial phrase (“denying the Master”) that resembles two words separated by a reference to “our Lord Jesus Christ” in Jude 4. On either theory of literary dependence, it is difficult to make sense of this if this parallel is supposed to be significant. Why would Jude see the need to break apart the phrase to insert this reference? Why would Peter remove the reference to “our Lord Jesus Christ” simply to make a participial phrase? And while this type of divine reference is unusual in the NT, it is not unique to these texts, either (Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; 2 Tim 2:21; Rev 6:10). Thus far, we are lacking in any significant parallels. That is not to say there will not be more significant ones later, but when scholars cite examples like these, they tend to vitiate the strength of their arguments by diluting the examples, instead of strengthening the arguments by quantity of evidence.
The hunt for parallels requires doubling back here to find two exactly matching words that are in different positions in their respective clauses, plus two infinitive forms of the same word that function in complementary fashion in their respective sentences. One of the two exact matches is a second-person plural pronoun, and thus not a significant match. The other exact match is a word which only appears in this form in these two texts in the NT, both times in the function of a concessive participle (although the form is common before and after the NT). The other verb is rare in the NT (though not more generally), but the position of one form or the other in the clauses of Jude and Peter are notably different. More importantly, the contents of what is “remembered” and “known” are decidedly different in Jude and 2 Peter, even though the contents are obviously more significant than the terms themselves that serve to point to the content that follows. And yet, in one author’s apparent attempt to copy the other in this particular case, he seemingly thought that a couple terms were more important to resemble than the content. This is especially peculiar if 2 Peter was supposed to have depended on or “incorporated” Jude, and yet he apparently did not want to include reference to the exodus, despite the importance of that event in the OT and beyond.
We now return to the overall conceptual order of one text resembling the other from here until Jude 11. The stories both authors reference from the OT overlap, but they are certainly not identical. We already noticed that Jude mentioned the exodus, but after that he focuses on events of judgment, rather than deliverance. Peter’s list is more chronologically consistent, and he includes references to the deliverance of Noah and Lot, which have no equivalents in Jude. In this particular parallel, both reference angels who acted wrongly and describe them as being “kept” for judgment. Peter states the latter point more economically in comparison to Jude, but as we have seen from elsewhere in this comparison, that does not favor either view of dependence.
The only other similarities to note are an absolute but insignificant one in the conjunction ἀλλά, appearing in contracted form because it is juxtaposed to a different word beginning with a vowel in Jude’s text, and the different forms of the word ζόφος (“darkness/gloom”). The latter may have some significance, as it is a rare word in the NT, appearing only in 2 Peter and Jude twice each, as well as once in Heb 12:28. And though its earliest uses go back to Homer and Hesiod, there are less than 100 uses of it altogether before the time of the NT. It is no smoking gun of dependence, but the common notion of certain angels being kept in the deep darkness for judgment points at least to a shared concept. And while the terminology and phrasing in combination are unique to these texts in the NT, we see similar imagery in Rev 20:1–3, as well as the association of darkness with judgment (Exod 10:21–22; Jer 13:16; Joel 2:2; Amos 5:18–20; Zeph 1:15; Matt 8:12; 22:13; 25:30), and the idea of some angels being reserved for judgment (Matt 25:41; 1 Cor 6:3) elsewhere.
Sodom and Gomorrah are not mentioned too often elsewhere in the NT (Matt 10:15 and a Scripture quotation in Rom 9:29), so that they should both be featured here is itself significant. More significant is the fact that they are both featured here after a reference to angels who are destined for judgment. The word order is not significant because it is a trope throughout biblical and extrabiblical references for Sodom to be mentioned first. It would be more surprising if Gomorrah was mentioned first and the other text replicated that.
Otherwise, we have references to multiple “cities,” though the place in the word order differs in such a way that is odd if one is copying or borrowing from the other. The reference to an example or pattern is notable, though Jude uses the simple form and 2 Peter uses the compounded form. The latter is rare in the NT, while the former is a hapax therein (interestingly enough, the former is more common before the NT and the latter is much more common after).
This section of text represents the longest consecutive series of similarities between the two books, as long as one keeps it on the verse-by-verse level. Once again, when we get down to the word-by-word level, the similarities are not so consecutive. However, they are closest to consecutively similar in Jude 8 and 2 Pet 2:10. That is, the order of similarities is parallel between the one piece of verbatim similarity and the five other different forms or synonymous words.
But even with similar vocabulary, there are differences that go beyond what could be slight tweaking of a source on which one is dependent. Jude refers to people who defile the flesh, while Peter refers to those who go after the flesh in its defiling/corrupt desires. That is, 2 Peter sounds more like the negative use of “flesh” that is especially characteristic of Paul, while Jude refers to flesh in a more neutral sense. Though the texts use similar wording, one presents the flesh as a victim of the defiling action, while the other describes the defilement as caused by indulging “the flesh.”
The term for “lordship/dominion/authority” in both texts is rare in the NT, appearing only twice more in Eph 1:21 and Col 1:16. It is only sparsely attested prior to the NT. The verbs attached to both have some overlap, though Peter’s “despise” is stronger than Jude’s “reject.”
Even more significant is the fact that both refer, with different surrounding phrasing, to blaspheming/reviling “glories.” This is a rather unusual phrase that does not as closely resemble anything else outside of these texts. Of course, when “God,” “the name,” or other such words and phrases are the object being blasphemed, the sense is not all that different. But the shared curious phrasing does appear to be significant. In fact, no extent text of an ancient Greek writer who was not using one of these texts appears to have utilized such phrasing. In any case, it seems we have rather similar descriptions of the people being criticized.
There is a clear conceptual parallel between Jude 9 and 2 Pet 2:11, although there is only one word in absolute common between them (“judgment”). Jude refers to a specific incident drawn from an extrabiblical story commenting on the death of Moses and the aftermath, which leads him to refer to a specific “archangel,” whereas Peter simply refers to “angels.” Both texts refer, through using different forms of similar verbs and similar adjectives, to the possibility of “bringing reviling judgment.” That is, they refer to how their adversaries take on themselves a claim of authority even angels do not arrogate themselves. The use of the term equivalent to “Lord” is a similarity, but it is not a significant one. The word is extremely common in the NT, and it is used in different settings in these texts, as Peter refers to bringing judgment “in the presence of the Lord,” whereas Jude features Michael invoking the Lord in a rebuke against the devil.
We also see an example here from Jude 9 and 2 Pet 2:10 that it is possible to draw more similarities between the texts by going beyond the parallel rows of verses. In this case, the same verb for “daring” appears in both. I do not highlight these because the further away in structural placement a similarity appears the less probable is the case for it being a product of literary dependence, lest we end up with a convoluted scenario in which dependence somehow leads to taking one word and putting it in one place while taking another word close by and putting it in a completely different place, apropos of nothing, and so on (as in some convoluted scenarios of how the supposedly inauthentic Mark 16:9–20 came to be).
The similarity in description carries on in Jude 10 and 2 Pet 2:12. The demonstrative pronoun, the conjunction, the relative pronoun, and the preposition are not significant parallels between these texts. They have similar descriptions highlighting the antagonists’ ignorance of what they blaspheme, but this itself is not terribly surprising. Neither is the common threat of their destruction. Where they are closer together on the lexical level seems, like the rest of the similarities in this section, to be part of standard—even if not fully standardized—description of the antagonists as devoted to the world as it is, the world of this age, and to their engagement with it by the lower/lesser senses (hence the description of them as being characterized by “instinct” or merely “natural/physical” capacities as opposed to the wisdom they would claim or the higher plane they claim to operate on). The comparison to unreasoning animals is common to only Jude and 2 Peter in the NT, but it is hardly unheard of in the Greek world outside of these texts, as the earliest attested use of the phrase is Aesop, others up through Philo used the phrase before the NT, and still others used it after the NT without showing dependence on the same (e.g., Plutarch). Its significance here is more a result of it being one in a series of synonymous or common elements between the two texts that otherwise have little verbatim similarity. Indeed, the most significant similarities thus far have not necessarily relied on verbatim similarity.
Both of these texts refer to Balaam and his reward, and these are almost the only times Balaam is referenced in the NT, except for Rev 2:14. Beyond that, there is not much connecting these texts. Both reference “the way,” but they obviously use it in different ways, as Jude links it to Cain and the “deceit for pay” to Balaam, while Peter simply refers to the “way of Balaam” and how these false teachers have gone astray in the same way. Jude also adds another OT reference to the rebellion of Korah, which supplies yet another Moses connection. Jude is thus connecting these teachers to a variety of antagonists in the OT being murderous, deceitful, and overall rebellious, as they attempt to dissolve the integrity of God’s people. By contrast, 2 Peter is focused only on the comparison to Balaam in terms of deceit to idolatry and being deceived.
We have doubled back again to track one similarity before we move on to the more continuous structure that has a more notable string of similarities. In fact, the only relevant portion of 2 Pet 2:13 is the rare verb συνευωχέομαι (“I feast with”). The verb only appears here and in Jude 12 in the NT. It is not a common verb at all in Greek. Does that sufficiently point to a connection of literary dependence between these texts? Not really. The verb is rare simply because there are not a lot of contexts in which it works to use it.
Other elements of Jude 12 are only superficially similar to 2 Pet 2:17a. The two words “these are” are not rare in the slightest, and I cannot think of a reason to identify these as significant links that could possibly be evidence of literary dependence. What, then, about the word translated as “without water” (ἄνυδρος)? Naturally, it is a rare word in the NT (cf. Matt 12:43; Luke 11:24). But the nouns it modifies makes it apply to opposite metaphors. For Jude, the term applies to waterless clouds. For Peter, the term applies to waterless springs.
The next parallel of Jude 13 and 2 Pet 2:17b supplies the longest consecutive string of verbatim similarity yet with five words plus an extra one for Jude and six consecutive words for 2 Peter. Of course, that fact highlights how the similarities between the documents have been overstated, even if some of the similarities are significant. In this case, both texts refer to those for whom “the gloom of darkness/dark gloom … has been kept/reserved.” Only these texts share this unusual, intensified phrase, whereas other texts that use both of the nouns tend to use them in parallel or synthetic constructions, rather than having one modify the other. The manuscript witnesses differ on whether the phrase translated as “everlasting” is featured in 2 Peter or not. The three earliest witnesses favor its omission, and the reading also has the best distribution of witnesses (besides several Greek manuscripts, it is reflected in Latin, Syriac, and Coptic witnesses), although most Greek manuscripts favor the inclusion of the phrase. It is much easier to explain why these two words were later included out of a sense of being proper for the context than it is to explain why they would be omitted by later scribes.
The next two verses in Jude have no parallel at all, which leaves us with Jude 16 and 2 Pet 2:18. The texts have only a few words that are similar between them, one of which is the same word in the same form. The word order does not match at all, and the one identical word appears in completely different parts of each sentence. An additional word in each only provides a loose connection, as Jude uses a common word for “speak,” while 2 Peter’s equivalent typically means something more like “(make a) sound,” though it can by extension have an overlapping sense of “speaking.” The only potentially significant similarity is the word for “arrogant words.” This is certainly not a common word in Greek, and only rarely appears before the NT. But it does appear several times in the LXX (Exod 18:22, 26; Deut 30:11; 2 Kgdms 13:2; Lam 1:9; Dan 5:12), and it appears in Philo (Alleg. Interp. 3.18; Confusion 17; Dreams 2.211; Moses 1.83; 1.306; 2.29; Spec. Laws 2.21; 3.18; Virtues 183; Rewards 80; Good Person 126; Embassy 154; QE fr. 2). These sources account for around half of the uses documented in the TLG database before the NT, meaning that it is rather disproportionately represented in Jewish sources (depending on what one thinks of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, one could also add T. Ash. 2:8). There does not appear to be a particular reason to explain this one word as being the result simply of one text depending on the other.
While we have found a few significant similarities between these texts, most of the possible connections, even where the same words are in the same form, appear to be simply incidental. And in any case, we are far from the claim quoted earlier of Jude being incorporated “almost in its entirety” into 2 Pet 2. Not only are 144 words of Jude still left out of 468 total, but two verses consisting of forty-three words have zero parallels, and even the majority of words we have covered thus far do not have direct parallels (205, which means, combined with the non-paralleled verses, 248 out of 324 words covered thus far do not have even a synonymous parallel in 2 Peter, and most of the words that do are not significant parallels).
The densest collection of similarities between these two texts appears here, rather than in ch. 2, as might be the common impression given. Fifteen words are the same, though there is slight variation in word order, two words are in different forms, and two others are synonyms of what is present in the other text, out of a total of thirty-one words in Jude and thirty-six words in 2 Peter. Peter’s frame around these parallel texts is completely different and much more extensive than Jude’s, as this portion serves as an introduction to his teaching on those who doubt the coming of the Lord, as well as his presentation of what to expect in the time that is coming. Despite the density of similar words, this is a rather curious string of similarities to explain on either theory of dependence. If Jude borrowed from Peter, he decided to cut his letter short right around here before he got to the eschatological indicatives that motivate the ethical imperatives later, and all he sought to borrow from him were some introductory words. If Peter borrowed from Jude, all he apparently needed, after taking a few sentences off from borrowing to any extent, was some words for framing to introduce the last major teaching in his letter. Either way, some odd choices were made by one of the writers in between the similar words, if they wanted simply to copy certain words and yet alter the force of the same. Consider for example how much more complicated the syntax is in Peter to change the point, if he copied Jude, from “remember the word spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ” to “remember the spoken-beforehand word by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior by your apostles.” The more difficult syntax of 2 Peter does not appear explicable simply by appeal to him using Jude as a source. It seems rather that the commonalities in the first verse of each text are driven by a common task of reminding by appeal to the apostles (and others, in the case of Peter), which they both emphasize was declared beforehand to emphasize that none of this is a surprise, and that God is guiding even bad parts of their experience to the achievement of his purposes. I do not see a compelling reason to think that they could not have come up with such similar wording for the same task in their appeals to the same tradition.
Indeed, I think the similarities of the second verses in each text are explicable by appeal to a common tradition. As I have noted on several occasions, reference to the “last days” (or in the case of Jude, “last time”) appears across the NT as an element of common tradition/thinking involving an eschatological lens. Likewise, given the suffering and conflict Christians experienced, including mocking and attempts to shame them by outsiders, it is hardly surprising that a common element of apostolic teaching would involve warning about the mockers the faithful would face. Both authors are drawing on a common message, which explains the common core of similar terms in combination with flexible wording, as they are both summarizing something the apostles have surely said many times over.
There would be an unbroken string of non-parallels from Jude 19 to 23, if not for two words in 2 Pet 3:14. The term for “beloved” is common in the NT, appearing in twenty-one of the twenty-seven books. And the preposition translated as “in” is extremely common. Neither of them are really worth writing about in this context, but they are noted for the sake of completeness. This is another reminder that not every common word, even when the word forms are exactly the same, is significant. In fact, as I have argued throughout, they are not significant, or they are not necessarily demonstrative of literary dependence, despite their significance.
Finally, we come to the last two verses of both Jude and 2 Peter. The first verse does not involve any verbatim similarity, but there is one word that is in different forms and one word that supplies only a roughly synonymous idea. But again, the ways similar words are used are so different it is strange to think that one author took nothing from the other but one word (in a different form) and crafted one synonym, only to thereby make such a divergent message. Jude’s text refers to God as the one who is able to keep the audience unfailing. By contrast, Peter’s use of the same verb is an imperative, since he is calling on the audience to be on guard, and this is for a purpose that includes not falling away from their own steadfastness.
The last verse contains rather standard elements of Christian texts. This includes the reference to “our Lord” and “Savior,” as well as invoking the name of Jesus Christ. Moreover, giving “glory” to God and Jesus is also a standard element in NT letters. The last set of similar words is interesting, but not significant enough to demonstrate any sort of dependence. The similar words are used to form distinct phrases with similar functions.
In the end, most of the similarities we have examined are incidental and not significant enough that it would be necessary to posit literary dependence to explain them. Only a few of the possible parallels are significant enough that it might be necessary to posit some commonality of relationship for them. These potentially include portions of Jude 6 // 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 7 // 2 Pet 2:6; Jude 8–10 // 2 Pet 2:10–12; Jude 13 // 2 Pet 2:17b; and Jude 18 // 2 Pet 3:3.
The first three parallels are not necessarily significant because of a lot of shared vocabulary or verbatim similarity. There are twelve instances of verbatim similarity between them, but seven of those are highly common words, and they are not even clustered together. It is more the overall structure and content similarities that are significant, which are made more prominent by shared vocabulary or synonyms. Of course, the order itself is not necessarily as striking, because chronological order, an intuitive ordering fashion, has some influence here. What is fascinating is that both texts hit these same beats, including by describing the blasphemers in such similar fashion in combination with the reference to angels, God’s action against the same, the reference to the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah, and the overall prospect of judgment. I do not think there is enough here to assert so confidently a case of literary dependence of one text on another. But there is a consistency of pattern and language that points to a common oral source that is being reused here, whether that is a sermon one or the other has delivered, a sermon someone else delivered, a pattern of teaching/sermon/proclamation that both participated in or are familiar with, or some other kind of tradition that included these elements and may have been used in multiple contexts, like Jesus himself would have repeated teachings multiple times with natural variations.
The last two cases have more significant overlap in shared vocabulary, and they also point to shared concepts and shared messaging in how they summarize what had been spoken beforehand by the apostles. The last parallel in particular points to a common source of tradition beyond both of these texts. That comports with what I have noted already of their shared knowledge of some kind of oral tradition. The other example could be explained similarly, but with the added qualification that the authors were probably working closely together, operating in the same circles.
Addendum
If the reader has not gotten the impression yet from this post, my observations on claims about 1 Peter’s derivation from Paul, and even my work on synoptic comparisons of the Gospels, I am generally skeptical about genealogical claims about the relationships of texts in the absence of solid anchor points that show authorial purpose in drawing on a text. Beyond the bad habits I have seen too many times of undue inferences scholars make on the basis of similarities and of apparent redactions, I find the comparative reasoning is generally poorly thought out and leads far from best practices in comparison, which I explore in this series. And while in popular teaching professors like to make comparisons to plagiarism, usually after overstating similarities between documents, they seem to forget that plagiarism software can identify entire sentences or more as possible sites of plagiarism without the student even being aware of a source. (And similarities even in wording can be even higher than the rate of similarity observed here if students are covering the same subject for a paper and drawing from the same material.)
I also cannot help but think that reasoning that leads to genealogical claims would tend to lead to the wrong conclusion when applied to cases when it can be known whether or not one author used another author’s work as a source. As a personal example, the first journal article I ever had appear in print was about the use of Zech 13–14 in Mark 13, which built on the use of Zechariah elsewhere in Mark (titled ““The King Arrives, but for What Purpose? The Christological Use of Zechariah 13—14 in Mark 13” in Journal of Theological Interpretation 10). Yet unbeknownst to me, on the other side of the Atlantic, Paul Sloan was making similar observations and arguments, even appealing to many of the same texts and sources in his dissertation. However, my article was not publicly available while he was working on his dissertation, and his dissertation was not publicly available while I was working on my article. I did not even know of his dissertation until years later, and if he ever knew about my article, it was only after his dissertation was finished. We were never in correspondence about our findings, there was no intermediate link of common contacts between us, and yet the reader will find similar, though not necessarily identical, claims and arguments in both of our works. And yet scholars unaware of the facts of the matter might no doubt conclude that one of us used the other as a source if they applied their reasoning consistently.
N. T. Wright and Michael F. Bird, The New Testament in Its World: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the First Christians (London: SPCK; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2019), 739. I had initially planned for a more thorough interaction with Elizabeth A. Myers’s work “Probability of Intertextual Borrowing,” in Exploring Intertextuality: Diverse Strategies for New Testament Interpretation of Texts, ed. B. J. Oropeza and Steve Moyise (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2016), 254–72. However, the issue I ran into there is that while it may have summarized the overall methodological philosophy well enough, only the results of the calculation and not the means of arriving at the same were made clear in that text. Since the probability depends on the assumptions put into the equation (and the justification of the same), I could not properly evaluate all the claims based on probability theory without having access to the full argument, which I had difficulty with once I realized I needed to get the full book and could not rely on the summary of the essay. As another example, she mentioned twenty-five “first-order parallels” between the documents, but she nowhere defines the meaning of that phrase in the essay, which left me confused because, as far as I could tell, not all of these claimed parallels are of equal significance in extent of verbal, structural, or conceptual/thematic similarity. As such, despite my misgivings about the initial presentation of her argument in her essay, I decided it would not be fair to judge her argument on the basis of the essay simply because I had difficulty getting access to the book version and being able to assess it in a timely fashion. Thus, for now, I skip over it.
While I will not be interacting directly with Myers’ argument, one should note that the following resembles her list of parallels on p. 268 of her essay, while not overly simplifying texts to note only the similarities.