Introduction
There are some small puzzles in the Bible that I have been curious about for a decade or two. These are miniscule curiosities that, while odd enough to catch my attention, I had no serious expectation of finding an explanation.
One example is that of the trifecta of Peter, John, and James. In the synoptic gospel tradition, these three men are given the privilege of witnessing unique moments in Jesus’ career. In Paul’s letter to the Galatians we also find Peter, John, and James as the senior leaders of the early Jesus Movement. However, these two attestations to such a trio of men are not identical. In the synoptic tradition, James is the brother of John; these two sons of Zebedee are each counted among the twelve disciples. In Galatians, James is the brother of Jesus, and was evidently not one of the twelve. In the New Testament, the only text to depict both John’s brother James and Jesus’ brother James as active within the Jesus Movement is the Book of Acts, which introduces Jesus’ brother to the reader only after John’s brother had died. This prevents the two men from being confused, and may indicate the author also noticed this little oddity—the importance of James as part of a trifecta of disciples in the synoptics, and the primacy of James as part of a trifecta of leaders in Paul’s letter, but these two men are not the same James—and intended to explain it by omitting any reference to Jesus’ brother until after John’s brother had left the narrative.
In this case, another such curiosity is that of an overlap in the picture sketched out in each the Revelation of John and 2 Peter 3.
Item
Revelation
2 Peter
The (day of the) Lord will come like a thief
3.3; 16.15
3.10
After a thousand years
20.2–11
3.8
Final judgment
20.11–15
3.7
Destruction by fire
20.9–10, 14–15
3.7, 10, 12
End of the current sky(s) and earth
20.11; 21.1
3.7, 10, 12
Creation of the new sky(s) and earth
21.1
3.13
This specific, dense cluster of these details is not found in other ancient Christian literature that is not dependent on one or the other book. Upon noticing this some twenty years ago, I wondered if the Revelation of John had borrowed from 2 Peter or vice versa. To my memory, I have not found any commentators that directly address this question, so it remained an idle curiosity. After two decades, I finally decided to try digging into this to see what explanations might be available.
At the outset, I consider it ruled out that the Revelation borrowed from 2 Peter. The Revelation of John, itself possibly a composite document (albeit from a single author), appears to have been completed by about 95–100 CE, given its use by other Christians writers in the early second century. Meanwhile, 2 Peter does not appear to be known until at least the late second century, placing its authorship circa 150 CE at the earliest. If there were any direct literary dependence between the two, it would need to be 2 Peter upon the Revelation of John.
Intertextuality
This does not require that 2 Peter knew the Revelation of John. But we do know that 2 Peter knew and borrowed from other New Testament literature, some of it contemporary with the Revelation.
Second Peter is sixty one verses long. About eighteen of those—just under one third of the epistle—reproduce passages from the Letter of Judah (written roughly 110–120 CE). This primarily consists of paraphrasing the source (e.g. Judah 6 becomes 2 Peter 2.4). A few points are not reiterated, but only loosely inspired by the source (e.g. Judah 15 stands behind 2 Peter 3.7). Most of this reproduction of Judah is concentrated in 2 Peter 2.
Second Peter also shows familiarity with the synoptic tradition. This is, in my opinion, most likely explained by the author having the Gospel of Matthew available to him.
2 Peter 1.16–18
Matthew 17.1–5
For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our lord, Jesus the Messiah, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the majestic glory, saying, ‘My son, my beloved: this is in whom I am well-pleased.’ We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain.
Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and his brother John and led them up a high mountain, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became dazzling white. Suddenly there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. Then Peter said to Jesus, ‘Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will make three dwellings here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.’ While he was still speaking, suddenly a bright cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud a voice said, ‘This is my son, the beloved: in him I am well-pleased. Listen to him.’
2 Peter 2.9
Matthew 6.13
The Lord knows to rescue the reverent out of the trial.
‘And do not lead us into the trial, but rescue us from evil.’
2 Peter 2.20–21
Matthew 12.43–45
For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our lord and savior Jesus the Messiah, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of justice than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment that was passed on to them.
‘When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it wanders through waterless regions looking for a resting place, but it finds none. Then it says, “I will return to my house from which I came.” When it comes, it finds it empty, swept, and put in order. Then it goes and brings along seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and live there. And the last of that person is worse than the first.’
2 Peter 3.10a
Matthew 24.43
But the Day of the Lord will come like a thief
‘if the master of the house had known which night-watch the thief would come’
2 Peter 3.10b
Matthew 24.35
in which the skies will pass away with a roar
‘The sky and the earth will pass away’
Among these was a detail which to me had seemed to support a connection with the Revelation of John, the analogy of the thief. Instead, I suspect both 2 Peter and the Revelation of John were familiar with the Gospel of Matthew (cf. Rev 1.7 and Matt 24.30; Rev 2.29 and Matt 13.16; Rev 3.3, 16.15 and Matt 24.43; Rev 11.3 and Matt 18.16). In addition to Judah and Matthew, our anonymous letter-writer explicitly identifies himself as the author of the pseudepigraphical 1 Peter (3.1). This claim has been unanimously rejected by critical scholarship, but it nevertheless demonstrates that the author knew the earlier text and its contents. He does not reproduce 1 Peter in any obvious way, though some of his expansions to Judah may have been influenced by his knowledge of 1 Peter (e.g. 2 Pet 2.5; 3.5–6 from 1 Pet 3.20). Likewise, 2 Peter’s author expresses his knowledge of a Pauline corpus (3.15). He does not cite anything from Paul directly, but given his elevation of Paul’s letters to the status of ‘scripture’ (
A Deathbed Instruction
Relevant here is the genre we call a ‘testament’: instruction given by an authoritative elder before his passing. This genre stands adjacent to the apocalypses (books like 1 Enoch, Daniel, 4 Ezra, and the Revelation of John)—books which more commonly depend upon belabored allegory or extravagant symbolism—in that the elder’s instructions are predicated on information which must have divine origin (generally knowledge of the future). Hence, like apocalypses, testaments are written by a pseudonymous author after-the-fact of any historical events they claim to predict. While the testament appears to have primarily developed in the late Second Temple period, some earlier instances are found in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Gen 49).
Though presented as an epistle, 2 Peter may easily be identified as a testament, since the author explicitly states that his purpose is to provide guidance prior to his imminent death (1.12–15). On this basis, I think 1.3–11 (and 3.17) may be set aside as original, if generic, material coming from the mind of the author. Likewise, 1.19–21 follows directly from the author’s adaptation of the transfiguration account from Matthew. It functions as little more than the writer justifying why his interpretation of prophecy is authoritative over any interpretations from his readers. The accusations in 2.14 further read as stock slanderous claims against outsiders (cf. Rom 1.28–32; Col 3.5–6; Eph 4.17–19; Rev 9.20).
New Creation After a Thousand Years
After filtering out portions of 2 Peter based on the survey of sources and influences so far, the remainder comprises 3.4, 8–9, 10c–15a. Except for 3.4, this is the portion which contains the parallels with the Revelation. Despite the initial similarity to Rev 20–21, in that both texts depict the final judgment of fire and the creation of a new world taking place after a ‘thousand years’, the details are significantly different. In the Revelation of John, the fire consumes sinners specifically (20.9–10, 14–15), where in 2 Peter the fire burns the old creation (3.7, 10, 12).
When comparing the Revelation of John to contemporary apocalypses, as well as Christian and rabbinic debates on the duration of the messianic kingdom, the thousand years (20.2–7) was most likely intended to be read literally: an era of history which would endure for a full ten centuries. In contrast to this, 2 Peter intends his ‘thousand years’ as nothing more than an analogy for helping reader’s comprehend the apparent delay in the time period before the return of Jesus. (That is, while a reader cannot, and should not, build a systematic eschatology from these two texts, the essential distinction between them is that the Revelation’s literal millennium takes place after the second coming of Jesus, while 2 Peter’s metaphoric millennium takes place before the second coming.) From a human perspective, time has dragged on with no sign of the Messiah’s return being near. From God’s point of view, that time frame has come and gone in the blink of an eye. The end is near as commonly thought (as the author implies in 1.19; 3.3), but its allegedly late arrival is because God is closing the gate to salvation just slowly enough to ensure the maximum number of converts (3.9).
The author makes this argument by paraphrasing from Psalm 90 (numbered as Psa 89 in the Septuagint).
2 Peter 3.8
LXX Psalm 89.4
But do not let one thing be hidden from you, beloved: that one day with the Lord is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.
For a thousand years in your eyes are like the day of yesterday which passed, and a watch at night.
This psalm was cited frequently to explain God’s perspective on the passage of time. It was sometimes used to construct theories for the duration of the world, in which the span of history would last seven thousand years in correspondance to the ‘creation week’ (Genesis Rabbah 8.2; Rosh Hashanah 31a.8), or to explain the incredible lifespan of Adam and his earliest descendants (Gen Rab 19.8; cf. Jubilees 4.29–30). Where some theologians arrived at different time frames for the Messiah’s reign, such as claiming it would last four hundred years on the basis of Gen 15.13 (Sanhedrin 99a.6; cf. 4 Ezra 7.28), others argued from Psa 90 that it would last one thousand years (Barnabas 15) or even seven thousand years (Sanhedrin 99a.9). That the creation of a new heaven and earth might be subsequently found in texts which discuss the duration of the world and/or the conclusion of the messianic period is hardly surprising (e.g. 4 Ezra 7.29ff; Barnabas 15.5, 8–9). Positioning the Revelation of John in front of this background suggests its millennial kingdom was also based, in part, on Psa 90, which creates a secondary point of contact with 2 Peter, with the mutual decision to anticipate the new creation following naturally from that shared inspiration.
In surveying 2 Peter’s use of Psa 90.4 (= LXX 89.4), I found a few scholars who suggested the author took up this verse from the writings of Justin Martyr.
2 Peter 3.8–13
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 81
But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed. Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, what sort of persons ought you to be in leading lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set ablaze and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire? But, in accordance with his promise, we wait for new heavens and a new earth, where justice is at home.
For Isaiah spoke thus concerning this space of a thousand years: ‘For there shall be the new heaven and the new earth’ […] We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, ‘The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,’ is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of the Messiah, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place.
Justin, naming John’s apocalypse, explicitly connects the idea of a millennial kingdom with Psa 90.4. If 2 Peter was dependent on Justin here, it would strengthen the possibility that 2 Peter was also then dependent on the Revelation of John. However, 2 Peter’s use of Justin’s Dialogue seems doubtful to me, since (a) the thought process in either text is entirely different, (b) the message of either text is nothing alike, (c) we see that Psa 90 was not uncommon in eschatological calculations, and (d) the scant verbal similarities are far slimmer than the suspected overlap with the Revelation itself. I think it safe to reject this theory.
An Unidentified Quote
The passages which I had once thought may have borrowed from the Revelation of John have been addressed, but there is a final passage from 2 Peter which has not: the speech attributed to the ‘scoffers’ (3.4). The quotation is one of just four provided to the reader, along with the proclamation in 1.17 (from Matt 17.5) and the two proverbs in 2.22 (the first from Prov 26.11, the second a common saying even in that era). Did the author invent the scoffers’ criticism, part of his embellishment to Judah 17–18 in 2 Pet 3.1–7? Given the author’s proclivity for borrowing from other texts, I think it necessary to question whether 2 Pet 3.4 should be attributed to the author’s original thinking (developed within a common Christian apocalypticism), or if it is dependent on another identifiable source.
The Letter of Judah identifies a group of theological opponents, who were causing problems for the letter’s original audience, as the fulfillment of a prophecy about the end times.
Judah 17–19
But you, beloved, must remember the predictions of the apostles of our lord, Jesus the Messiah, because they said to you, ‘In the last time there will be scoffers, indulging their own ungodly lusts.’ It is these worldly people, devoid of spirit, who are causing divisions.
Second Peter 3 reframes this passage from Judah so that the prophecy appears to have originated here, in the Petrine epistle itself.
2 Peter 3.3–4
First of all you must understand this, that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and indulging their own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!’
This point seems to be the driving motivation behind the author’s decision to write his pseudonymous testament. The failure of Jesus to return within the originally-expected time period—the lifetime of the first generation of his followers (evident throughout early Christian literature), an era now long past—caused people to doubt Christianity’s common eschatological expectations, and possibly Christianity as a whole. Rather than acknowledging any such complaints, the author doubled down: people having critical skepticism of the failed predictions of Jesus’ second coming were, in fact, proof that his coming was well on its way. (Compare the idea to 1 John 2.18–19 and 4.3, the author of which also argues that the presence of schism-causing ‘antichrists’ was proof the end was near. Perhaps the authors of 1 John and 2 Peter built this claim on a prediction found in the synoptic tradition; cf. Mark 13.5, 22; Matt 24.4, 24.) This then led to the author’s attempt to explain why Jesus’ return was ‘not slow … as some think of slowness’.
With this approach, it seems sufficient to identify the quotation in 2 Pet 3.4 as a fabrication of the author, intended to summarize the criticism of his opponents. But there is good reason to suspect there is more to the text.
2 Peter 3.3-4
1 Clement 23.3
2 Clement 11.2
First of all you must understand this, that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and indulging their own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!’
May this scripture be far removed from us, which says, ‘How miserable are the double-minded, who doubt in their mind, who say, “We have heard these things from the time of our ancestors, and see, we have grown old, and none of these things have happened to us.” ’
For the prophetic word also says, ‘How miserable are the double-minded, who doubt in their hearts, who say, “We heard these things long ago, in the time of our ancestors, but though we have waited day after day, we have seen none of them.” ’
The resemblance between the quotation in 2 Peter and these two other texts is uncanny. The mysterious quote in 1 Clement is immediately followed by a reference to the sudden arrival of the end times, substantiated with citations of Isa 13.22 and Mal 3.1. It appears again in 2 Clement, which substantially reproduces the passage from 1 Clement, but instead concludes with a paraphrase of Isa 64.4 (cf. 1 Cor 2.9–10; Thomas 17) to describe the eschatological reward. Both the Clementine quotations appear in context of the end times, substantiated with biblical references. If 2 Pet 3.9 is identified as a potential reference to Hab 2.3, or 2 Pet 3.13 to Isa 65.17ff, the structural parallels between 2 Peter and the Clementine passages are even stronger.
Yet, the Clementine texts (which, in actuality, were not written by the same author) identify the quote as coming from ‘scripture’ and ‘the prophetic word’. No such quote exists in the Hebrew Bible or New Testament. There have been attempts to locate it in the Torah, the complaining voice belonging to the Israelites amid their time in the wilderness between Egypt and Canaan (cf. Num 11.1; 14.1–12; recapped in Deut 1.26–33; Psa 106.24–25), but no specific passage yields a clear match.
This initially appears to be a dead-end, but astute scholars have taken note of the peculiar word ‘double-minded’ in the Clementine texts. This word,
James 4.5
Or do you suppose that it is for nothing that the scripture says, ‘God yearns jealously for the spirit that he has made to dwell in us’?
As in the Clementine verses, this does not match anything in the Hebrew Bible. The closest fit (Num 11.29) comes from the same chapter as an occasion when the Israelites complained (11.1). The term
Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 2.3.4
‘But say to Maximus, “Behold, tribulation is coming. Go ahead and deny again if you wish.” “The Lord is near to those returning,” as it is written in the Book of Eldad and Modad, who prophesied to the people in the desert.’
As in 2 Peter and the Clementine passages, Hermas provides a mystery quote in reference to the end times. Similar to 2 Peter in particular, Hermas does this in response to skepticism regarding the end times. The otherwise unknown Book of Eldad and Modad is named for a duo of prophets who appear just once in canonical scripture: Num 11.26–27. This is the third time this specific chapter from the Torah has emerged as a point of interest in our survey of 2 Peter’s mystery quote.
Although the Book of Eldad and Modad no longer exists, there can be found just enough information to determine a reasonable summary of its contents. In the late Second Temple period, many books were written to supplement the historical accounts in the Hebrew scriptures, especially for characters in the Torah. These included testaments for the various patriarchs beyond that found in Genesis, as well as novellas which retold popular stories, such as Judah’s impregnation of Tamar, or filled in gaps in the narrative, a major example being Abraham’s life before his departure from Ur. These texts were based on relatively accepted oral traditions. Just as Melchizedek’s tantalizingly brief story in Gen 14.18–20 led to the emergence of an elaborate set of traditions around him, the one-time appearance of Eldad and Modad in Num 11.26–27 was met by similar embellishment, though to a lesser degree.
Sanhedrin 17a.9, 11
Eldad and Medad said, ‘We are not fitting for that level of greatness. We are not worthy of being appointed among the Elders.’ The Holy One, blessed be he, said, ‘Since you have made yourselves humble, I will add greatness to your greatness.’ And what is the greatness that he added to them? It was that all of the prophets, meaning the other elders, who were given prophecy, prophesied for a time and then stopped prophesying, but they prophesied and did not stop. […] Rav Naḥman says, ‘They were prophesying about the matter of Gog and Magog’
Numbers Rabbah 15.19
Eldad and Meidad were there, and they excluded themselves, ‘We are not worthy to be included in the appointment of the elders.’ Because they excluded themselves, they were found superior to the elders […] The elders prophesied only the next day […] but these prophesied regarding what will transpire at the end of forty years, as it is stated, ‘Two men remained in the camp.’ What were they prophesying? Some say it was regarding the downfall of Gog.
Targum Neofiti, Numbers 11.26
and the holy spirit rested upon [Eldad and Modad]. [...] And both of them prophesied together, saying, ‘At the very end of the days, Gog and Magog ascend on Jerusalem, and they fall at the hand of King Messiah, and for seven years the sons of Israel shall kindle fires from their weapons, and they will not have to go out to the forest.’
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Numbers 11.26
And the spirit of prophecy resting upon [Eldad and Modad] […] And both of them prophesied together, and said, ‘See, a king will arise from the land of Magog at the end of days, and will assemble kings crowned with crowns, and captains wearing armor, and all nations will obey him. They will prepare for war in the land of Israel against the sons of the exile, but the Lord is near them in the hour of distress, and all of them will die from the burning blast of fire which comes from beneath the throne of glory. And their corpses will fall on the mountains of the land of Israel, and the wild animals of the field and the birds of the sky will come and devour their bodies. And after this, all the dead of Israel will live, and be fed from the ox which has been set apart for them from the beginning, and they shall receive the reward of their works.’
A few scholars have argued that these sources represent the same or similar material to that found in the Book of Eldad and Modad. The phrase ‘the Lord is near them’ (with ‘them’ referring to the ‘sons of the exile’ who returned to the Israelite homeland after the diaspora) corroborates the quote found in Hermas, ‘the Lord is near to those returning’. (Compare also James 4.8.)
Pulling the threads together, it would seem that the Book of Eldad and Modad was a revisionist expansion on Num 11, written perhaps in the first century BCE or CE, exploring prophecies uttered by the titular duo. When the people of Israel complained that divine promises made to their ancestors failed to materialize, they were criticized as being ‘double-minded’, trusting God to rescue them from slavery, but not to bring them safely through the wilderness. Moses was instructed to choose seventy elders to accompany him for a meeting with Yhwh. Moses, wanting to provide equal representation for each of the twelve tribes of Israel, intended to select six men from each tribe, but realized this would result in two extra elders, meaning one or two tribes would fall short of equal representation. To avoid any appearance of favoritism, Moses devised a lottery to achieve the desired number, but two men who were under consideration, Eldad and Modad, voluntarily excluded themselves. God rewarded the duo for their humility by appointing them to be lifelong prophets. (This may explain the sudden pivot to the topic of humility in James 4.6, quoting Prov 3.34.) At least one prophecy concerned the protection of the Israelites by God amid an attack during the end times. When complaints against Eldad and Modad arose, either they or Moses defended their legitimacy.
The Book of Eldad and Modad, like many other prophetic and apocalyptic texts in the late Second Temple period, was regarded as authoritative scripture by some who read it (e.g. 1 Enoch 1.9 in Judah 14–15). One of these readers appears to have been the author of 2 Peter, who loosely quoted a passage to build his justification of the delayed return of Jesus.
Conclusion
The fuller context provided by our hypothetical reconstruction of the Book of Eldad and Modad may enrich our understanding of 2 Peter 3, but the author did not draw on it beyond a single, brief quotation, a neglect which unfortunately trended across other literature that also borrowed from the document.
Although the Revelation of John does borrow from Ezekiel extensively, we find in Rev 20 the same cluster of details taken from Ezek 37–39 as found in the Book of Eldad and Modad: the gathering of all nations by/as Gog and Magog for war against the restored people of God at Jerusalem, the destruction of these enemies by fire from the sky, and the resurrection of the dead. These were not the only two texts to discuss these eschatological elements, but the density of the shared use of Ezek 37–39 is noteworthy. Could the Revelation of John have also known the Book of Eldad and Modad, or an oral traditions related to it?
In any case, the commonalities here establish another point of secondary contact between the Revelation of John and 2 Peter 3. The two books may not be connected directly, but their relationship is not as distant as might be implied by the stark lack of discussion of their commonalities in the articles and commentaries I looked into.
Sources
Carolyn Osiek, The Shepherd of Hermas (1999).
Dale C Allison Jr, ‘Eldad and Modad’, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 21.2, 99–131 (2011).
Dale C Allison Jr, James (2013).
David E Aune, Revelation 17–22 (1998).
Edward Adams, ‘“Where Is the Promise of His Coming?” The Complaint of the Scoffers in 2 Peter 3.4’, New Testament Studies 51.1, 106–122 (2005).
Gene L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter (2008).
Jerome H Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude (1993).
Richard Bauckham, Jude–2 Peter (1983).