On the other hand, practically the whole of Jude is taken up into 2 Pet., the author merely avoiding, so far as he discovers them, the quotations from apocryphal writings, and prefixing and affixing sections of his own to refute the heretical eschatology. On the priority of Jude see especially against Spitta _Zur Gesch. u. Litt. d. Urchristenthums_, ii. 409-411, F. H. Chase, _loc. cit._ p. 803. (On 2 Pet. see PETER EPISTLES OF.) Unfortunately, the date of 2 Pet. cannot be determined as earlier than late in the second century, so that we are thrown back upon internal evidence for the inferior limit.
The treatment of the heresy as the anti-Christ who precedes "the last hour" (v. 18), reminds us of 1 John ii. 18, but it is indicative of conditions somewhat less advanced that the heretics have not yet "gone out from" the church. The treatment of the apostolic age as past, and the deposit of the faith as a _regula fidei_ (cf. Ign. _ad Trall._ ix.), the presence of antinomian Gnosticism, denying the doctrine of lordship and "glories" (v. 8), with "discriminations" between "psychic" and "pneumatic" (v. 19), strongly oppose a date earlier than 100.
Sieffert, on account of the superscription, would date as early as 70-80, but acknowledges the hyper-Pauline affinity of the heresy, its propagation as a doctrine, and close relation to the Nicolaitan of Rev. ii. 14. To these phenomena he gives accordingly a correspondingly early date. The nature of the heresy, opposed, however, and the resort to the authority of Jude "the brother of James" against it, favour rather the period of Polycarp and Papias (117-150).
The history of the reception of the epistle into church canons is similar to that of James, beginning with a quotation of it as the work of Jude by Clement of Alexandria (_Paed._ iii. 8), a reference by Tertullian (_De cult. fem._ i. 3), and a more or less hesitant endorsement by Origen ("if one might adduce the epistle of Jude," _In Matt._ tom. xvii. 30) and by the _Muratorianum_ (_c._ 200), which excepts Jude and 2 and 3 John from its condemnation of apocryphal literature, placing it on a par with the Wisdom of Solomon "which was written by friends of his in his honour." The use of apocryphal literature in Jude itself may account for much of the critical disposition toward it of many subsequent writers. Eusebius classed it among the "disputed" books, declaring that as with James "not many of the ancients have mentioned it" (_H. E._ ii. 23, 25).