Jude, Epistle Of

VIEW:34 DATA:01-04-2020
JUDE, EPISTLE OF.—This short epistle is an earnest warning and appeal, couched in vivid and picturesque language, addressed to a church or a circle of churches which have become suddenly exposed to a mischievous attack of false teaching.
1. Contents
(1) Text.—For its length Jude offers an unusual number of textual problems, the two most important of which are in Jud_1:5 and Jud_1:22-23. Though the RV [Note: Revised Version.] is probably right in translating ‘Lord’ in Jud_1:5, many ancient authorities read ‘Jesus.’ Also, the position of ‘once’ is doubtful, some placing it in the following clause. In Jud_1:22-23 editors differ as to whether there are two clauses or three. The RV [Note: Revised Version.] , following the Sinaitic, has three; and Weymouth also, who, however, follows A in his ‘resultant’ text based on a consensus of editorial opinion. But there is much in favour of a two-claused sentence beginning with either ‘have mercy’ or ‘refute.’
(2) Outline
(i.) Salutation, Jud_1:1-2. The letter opens moat appropriately with the prayer that mercy, peace, and love may increase among the readers, who are guarded by the love of God unto the day when Jesus Christ will appear.
(ii.) Occasion of the Epistle, Jud_1:3-4. With affectionate greeting Jude informs his readers that he was engaged upon an epistle setting forth the salvation held by all Christians—Jews and Gentiles—when he was surprised by news which showed him that their primary need was warning and exhortation; for the one gospel which has been entrusted to the keeping of the ‘saints’ had been endangered in their case by a surreptitious invasion of false teachers, who turned the gospel of grace into a plea for lust, thereby practically denying the lordship of Jesus Christ. It had long been foretold that the Church would be faced by this crisis through these persons. (This was a common expectation in the Apostolic age; see 2Th_2:3, 1Ti_4:1, 2Ti_3:1 f., 2Ti_4:3, 2Pe_3:3, Mat_24:11-12.)
(iii.) Warnings from history, Mat_24:5-7. Versed as they are in Scripture, they should take warning from the judgments of God under the Old Covenant. His people were destroyed for a postasy, though they had lately been saved from Egypt. Even angels were visited with eternal punishment for breaking bounds, and for fornication like that for which afterwards the cities of the plain perished. These are all awful examples of the doom that awaits those guilty of apostasy and sensuality.
(iv.) Description of the invaders, Mat_24:8-16. Boasting of their own knowledge through visions, these false teachers abandon themselves to sensuality, deny retribution, and scoff at the power of a spiritual world. Yet even Michael the archangel, when contending with Satan for the body of Moses, did not venture to dispute his function as Accuser, but left him and his blasphemies to a higher tribunal. But these persons, professing a knowledge of the spiritual realm of which they are really ignorant, have no other knowledge than that of sensual passion like the beasts, and are on their way to ruin. Sceptical like Cain, greedy inciters to lust like Balaam, rebellious like Korah, they are plunging into destruction. Would-be shepherds, they sacrilegiously pollute the love-feasts; delusive prophets, hopelessly dead in sin, shameless in their apostasy, theirs is the doom foretold by Enoch on the godless. They murmur against their fate, which they have brought upon themselves by lewdness, and they bluster, though on occasion they cringe for their own advantage.
(v.) The conduct of the Christian in this crisis, Mat_24:17-23. The Church need not be surprised by this attack, since it was foretold by the Apostles as a sign of the end, but should resist the disintegrating influence of these essentially unspiritual persons. The unity of the Church is to be preserved by mutual edification in Divine truth, by prayer through the indwelling Spirit, by keeping within the range of Divine love, and by watching for the day when Christ will come in mercy as Judge. Waverers must be mercifully dealt with; even the sensual are not past hope, though the work of rescue is very dangerous.
(vi.) Doxology, Mat_24:24-25. God alone, who can guard the waverer from stumbling, and can remove the stains of sin and perfect our salvation through Jesus Christ, is worthy of all glory.
2. Situation of the readers.—The recipients of Jude may have belonged to one church or to a circle of churches in one district. They were evidently Gentiles, and of come standing (Mat_24:3; Mat_24:5). The Epistle affords very little evidence for the locality of the readers, but Syria or the Hellenistic cities of Palestine seem to suit the conditions. Syria would be a likely field for a distortion of the Pauline gospel of grace (Mat_24:4). Also, if Jude was the brother of James of Jerusalem, whose influences extended throughout Palestine and probably Syria (Gal_2:9; Gal_2:12), the address in Gal_2:1 is explained. Syria was a breeding-ground for those tendencies which developed into the Gnostic systems of the 2nd century. Even as early as 1 Cor. ideas similar to these were troubling the Church (1Co_5:10; 1Co_11:17 ff.), and when the Apocalypse was written the churches of Asia were distressed by the Nicolaitans and those who, like Balaam, led the Israelites into idolatrous fornication (Rev_2:2; Rev_2:6; Rev_2:14-15). In 3 Jn. there is further evidence of insubordination to Apostolic authority. New esoteric doctrine, fornication, and the assumption of prophetic power within the Church for the sake of personal aggrandizement, are features common to all. Jude differs in not mentioning idolatry. Possibly magic played no inconsiderable part in the practice of these libertines. We know that it met the gospel early in its progress (Act_8:9-24; Act_13:6-12; Act_19:18-19). There is, however, no trace in Jude of a highly elaborated speculative system like those of the 2nd cent. Gnosticism. These persons deny the gospel by their lives,—a practical rather than an intellectual revolt against the truth. The inference from Act_19:5-7 is that these errorists would not refuse to acknowledge the OT as a source of instruction; being in this also unlike Gnostics of the 2nd century. The phenomenon, as it is found in Jude, is quite explicable in the last quarter of the 1st century.
3. Authorship.—The author of this Epistle is very susceptible to literary influence, especially that of Paul. Compare Jud_1:1 with 1Th_1:4, 2Th_2:13; Jud_1:10; Jud_1:19 with 1Co_2:14; Jud_1:20-21 with Rom_5:5; Rom_8:26, Col_2:7; Jud_1:24-25 with Rom_16:25-27, Col_1:22; and with the Pastoral Epistles frequently, e.g., 1Ti_1:3; 1Ti_1:17; 1Ti_5:24; 1Ti_6:5, 2Ti_3:6; 2Ti_3:8; 2Ti_3:13; 2Ti_4:3 f. His relation to 2Peter is so close that one probably borrowed from the other, though there is great diversity of opinion as to which. See Peter [Second Ep. of], 4. (e). Bigg suggests ‘that the errors denounced in both Epistles took their origin from Corinth, that the disorder was spreading, that St. Peter took alarm and wrote his Second Epistle, sending a copy to St. Jude with a warning of the urgency of the danger, and that St. Jude at once Issued a similar letter to the churches in which he was personally interested.’ Jude is also unique in the NT in his use of apocryphal writings—the Assumption of Moses in 2Ti_4:9, and the Book of Enoch in v. 6, 14, 15 almost in the same way as Scripture.
The Jude who writes cannot be the Apostle Judas (Luk_6:16, Act_1:13), nor does he ever assume Apostolic authority. James (Act_1:1) must be the head of the Jerusalem Church, and the brother of our Lord. Jude probably called himself ‘servant’ and not ‘brother’ of Jesus Christ (Mat_13:55, Mar_6:3), because he felt that his unbelief in Jesus in the days of His flesh did not make that term a title of honour, and he may have come to understand the truth that faith, not blood, constitutes true kinship with Christ. The difficulty of accounting for the choice of such a pseudonym, and the absence from the letter of any substantial improbability against the traditional view, make it reasonable to hold that Jude the brother of our Lord was the author. He may have written it between a.d. 75 and 80, probably before 81, for Hegesippus (170) states that Jude’s grandsons were small farmers in Palestine, and were brought before Domitian (81–96) and contemptuously dismissed.
4. External testimony.—In the age of the Apostolic Fathers the only witness to Jude is the Didache, and that is so faint as to count for little. By the beginning of the 3rd cent. it was well known in the west, being included in the Muratorian Fragment (c [Note: circa, about.] . 200), commented upon by Clement of Alexandria, and accepted by Origen and by Tertullian. Ensebius places it among the ‘disputed’ books, saying that it had little early recognition. It is absent from the Peshitta version. The quotations from apocryphal writings hindered its acceptance, but the early silence, on the assumption of its genuineness, is to be accounted for chiefly by its brevity and its comparative unimportance.
R. A. Falconer.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909


Doubts have been thrown upon the genuineness of this Epistle from the fact of the writer having been supposed to have cited two Apocryphal books?Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. But notwithstanding the difficulties connected with this point, it was treated by the ancients with the highest respect, and regarded as the genuine work of an inspired writer. Although Origen on one occasion speaks doubtfully, calling it the 'reputed Epistle of Jude,' yet on another occasion, and in the same work, he says, 'Jude wrote an Epistle, of few lines indeed, but full of the powerful words of heavenly grace, who at the beginning says, ?Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James.?' The same writer calls it the writing of Jude the Apostle. The moderns are, however, divided in opinion between Jude the Apostle and Jude the Lord's brother, if indeed they be different persons. The author simply calls himself Jude, the brother of James, and a servant of Jesus Christ. This form of expression has given rise to various conjectures. Hug supposes that he intimates thereby a nearer degree of relationship than that of an Apostle. At the same time it must be acknowledged that the circumstance of his not naming himself an apostle is not of itself necessarily sufficient to militate against his being the Apostle of that name, inasmuch as St. Paul does not upon all occasions (as in Philippians, Thessalonians, and Philemon) use this title. From his calling himself the brother of James, rather than the brother of the Lord, Mich?lis deduces that he was the son of Joseph by a former wife, and not a full brother of our Lord's, as Herder contends [JAMES; JUDE]. From the great coincidence both in sentiment and subject which exists between this Epistle and the second of St. Peter, it has been thought by many critics that one of these writers had seen the other's work; but we shall reserve the discussion as to which was the earlier writing until we come to treat of St. Peter's Epistle. Dr. Lardner supposes that Jude's Epistle was written between the years 64 and 66, Beausobre and L'Enfant between 70 and 75 (from which Dodwell and Cave do not materially differ), and Dr. Mill fixes it to the year 90. If Jude has quoted the apocryphal book of Enoch, as seems to be agreed upon by most modern critics, and if this book was written, as Lucke thinks, after the destruction of Jerusalem, the age of our Epistle best accords with the date assigned to it by Mill.
It is difficult to decide who the persons were to whom this Epistle was addressed, some supposing that it was written to converted Jews, others to all Christians, without distinction. Many of the arguments seem best adapted to convince the Jewish Christians, as appeals are so strikingly made to their sacred books and traditions.
The design of this Epistle is to warn the Christians against the false teachers who had insinuated themselves among them and disseminated dangerous tenets of insubordination and licentiousness. The author reminds them, by the example of Sodom and Gomorrah, that God had punished the rebellious Jews; and that even the disobedient angels had shared the same fate. The false teachers to whom he alludes 'speak evil of dignities,' while the archangel Michael did not even revile Satan. He compares them to Balaam and Korah, to clouds without water, and to raging waves. Enoch, he says, foretold their wickedness; at the same time he consoles believers, and exhorts them to persevere in faith and love. The Epistle is remarkable for the vehemence, fervor, and energy of its composition and style.
The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.


Jude, Epistle Of
The last in order of the catholic epistles.
I. Author. — The writer of this epistle styles himself, 1Co_9:1, "Jude, the brother of James" (ἀδελφὸς Ι᾿ακώβου), and has usually been identified with the apostle Judas Lebbaeus or Thaddeus, called by Luke (Luk_6:16) ἀδελφὸς Ι᾿ακώβου, A.V. "Judas, the brother of James." It has been seen above that this mode of supplying the ellipsis, though not altogether 'in accordance with the usus loquendi, is, nevertheless, quite justifiable, although there are strong reasons for rendering the words "Judas, the son of James." Jerome, Tertullian, and Origen among the ancients, and Calmet, Calvin, Hammond, Hänlein, Lange, Vatablus, Arnaud, and Tregelles among the moderns, agree in assigning the epistle to the apostle. Whether it were the work of an apostle or not, it has from very early times been attributed to "the Lord's brother" of that name (Mat_13:55; Mar_6:3): a view in which Origen, Jerome, and (if indeed the Adumbrationes be rightly assigned to him) Clemens Alexandrinus agree; which is implied in the words of Chrysostom (Hom. 48 in Joan.), confirmed by the epigraph of the Syriac versions, and is accepted by most modern commentators — Arnaud, Bengel, Burton, Hug, Jessien, Olshausen, Tregelles, etc. The objection that has been felt by Neander (P1. and Tr. 1, 392) and others, that if he had been "the Lord's brother" he would have directly styled himself so, and not merely "the brother of James," has been anticipated by the author of the "Adumbrationes (Bunsen, Analect. Ante-Nicoen. 1, 330), who says, "Jude, who wrote the catholic Epistle, brother of the sons of Joseph, an extremely religious man, though he was aware of his relationship to the Lord, did not call himself his brother; but what said he? 'Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ' as his Lord, but 'brother of James.'" We may easily believe that it was through humility, and a true sense of the altered relations between them and him who had been "declared to be the Son of God with power.... by the resurrection from then dead" (comp. 2Co_5:16), that both Jude and James forbore to call themselves the brethren of Jesus. The arguments concerning the authorship of the epistle are ably summed up by Jessien (De Authent. Ep. Jud. Lips. 1821.) and Arnaud (Recher. Critiq. sur l'Epist. de Jude, Strasb. 1851, transl. in the Brit. and For. Ev. Rev. July 1869); and, though it is by no means clear of difficulty, the most probable conclusion is that the author was Jude, one of the brethren of Jesus, and brother of James, as also the apostle, the son of Alphaeus. SEE BRETHREN OF OUR LORD.
II. Genuineness and Canonicity. — Although the Epistle of Jude is one of the so called Antilegomena, and its canonicity was questioned in the earliest ages of the Church, there never was any doubt of its genuineness among those by whom it was known. It was too unimportant to be a forgery; few portions of holy Scripture could, with reverence be it spoken, have been more easily spared; and the question was never whether it was the work of an impostor, but whether its author was of sufficient weight to warrant its admission into the canon. This question was gradually decided in its favor, and the more widely it was known the more generally it was received as canonical, until it took its place without further dispute as a portion of the volume of holy Scripture. SEE ANTILEGOMENA.
This epistle is not cited by any of the apostolic fathers; the passages which have been adduced as containing allusions to it (Hermas, Past. Vis. 4, 3; Clem. Rom., Ep. ad Corinthians ch. 11; Polycarp, Ep. ad Phil. ch. 3) presenting no certain evidence of being such. It is, however, formally quoted by Clement of Alexandria (Poedag. 3, 239, ed. Sylburg.; Strom. 3, 431), and Eusebius testifies (Hist. Eccles. 6, 14) that he treated it in his Hypotyposes; it is also treated in the Adumbrationes, ascribed to Clement, and preserved in a Latin version. Tertullian refers to the epistle as that of Jude the apostle (De Habit. Mulieb. ch. 3). It appears in the Muratori Fragment among the canonical books. Origen repeatedly refers to it, and occasionally as the work of the apostle Jude (Hom. in Mat_13:55, in Opp., ed. De la Rue, 3, 403; Com. in Ep. ad Rom., in Opp. 4, 519; Hom. in Jos., in Opp. 2, 411; De Princip., in Opp. 1, 138, etc.); though in one place he speaks as if doubts were entertained by some as to its genuineness (in Mat_22:23, in Opp. 3, 814). It is not in the Peshito, and does not appear to have been known to the Syrian churches before the 4th century, near the close of which it is quoted by Ephraem Syrus (Opp. Syr. 1, 136). Eusebius ranks it among the Antilegomena, but this rather because it was not universally known than because where known it was by any regarded with suspicion (Hist. Eccles. 2, 23; 3, 25). By Jerome it is referred to as the work of an apostle (in Titus 1; Ep. ad Paulin. 3), and he states that, though suspected by some, in consequence of containing a quotation from the apocryphal book of Enoch, it had obtained such authority as to be reckoned part of the canonical Scriptures (Catal. Script. Eccles.). From the 4th century onwards, the place thus conceded to it remained unquestioned (Westcott, Canon of the N. Test.). Thus the epistle is quoted by Malchian, a presbyter of Antioch, in a letter to the bishops of Alexandria and Rome (Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. 7, 30), and by Palladius, the friend of Chrysostom (Chrysostom, Opp. 13, Dial. cc, 18, 20), and is contained in the Laodicene (A.D. 363), Carthaginian (397), and so called Apostolic catalogues, as well as in those emanating from the churches of the East and West, with the exception of the Synopsis of Chrysostom, and those of Cassiodorus and Ebed Jesu.
Various reasons might be assigned for delay in receiving this epistle, and the doubts long prevalent respecting it. The uncertainty as to its author, and his standing in the Church; the unimportant nature of its contents, and their almost absolute identity with 2 Peter 2; and the supposed quotation of apocryphal books, would all tend to create a prejudice against it, which could only be overcome by time, and the gradual recognition by the leading churches of its genuineness and canonicity.
At the Reformation the doubts on the canonical authority on this epistle were revived, and have been shared in by modern commentators. They were more or less entertained by Grotius, Luther, Calvin, Bergen, Bolten, Dahl, Michaelis, and the Magdeburg Centuriators. It has been ably defended by Jessien, De Authentia Ep. Judoe, Lips. 1821.
There is nothing, however, in the epistle itself to cast suspicion on its genuineness; on the contrary, it rather impresses one with the conviction that it must have proceeded from the writer whose name it bears. Another, forging a work in his name, would hardly have omitted to make prominent the personality of Judas, and his relation to our Lord, neither of which comes before us in this epistle (Bleek, Einl. in. d. N. Test. p. 557). SEE CANON.
III. Time and Place of Writing. — There are few, if any, external grounds for deciding these points, and the internal evidence is but small.
1. The question of date is connected by many with that of its relation to 2 Peter (see below), and an earlier or later period has been assigned to it according as it has been considered to have been anterior or posterior to that epistle. Attempts have also been made to prove a late date for the epistle, from an alleged quotation in it from the apocryphal book of Enoch (2Pe_2:13); but it is by no means certain that the passage is a quotation from the now extant book of Enoch, and scholars have yet to settle when the book of Enoch was written; so that from this nothing can be inferred as to the date of this epistle.
From the character of the errors against which it is directed, however, it cannot be placed very early; though I there is no sufficient ground for Schleiermacher's opinion that "in the last time" (ἐν έσχάτῳ χρόνῳ, 2Pe_2:18; comp. 1Jn_2:18, ἐν έσχάτῳ χρόνῳ) forbids our placing it in the apostolic age at all. Lardner places it between A.D. 64 and 66, Davidson before A.D. 70, Credner A.D. 80, Calmet, Estius, Witsius, and Neander, after the death of all the apostles but John, and perhaps after the fall of Jerusalem; although considerable weight is to be given to the argument of De Wette (Einleit. in N.T. p. 300), that if the destruction of Jerusalem had already taken place, some warning would have been drawn from so signal an instance of God's vengeance on the "ungodly." From the allusion, however to the preaching of the apostles, we may infer that it was among the later productions of the apostolic age; for it was written while persons were still alive who had heard apostles preach, but when this preaching was beginning to become a thing of the past (1Jn_2:17). On the other hand, again, if the author were really the brother of Jesus, especially an elder brother, we cannot well suppose him to have lived much beyond the middle of the first century. We may therefore conjecturally place it about A.D. 66.
2. There are still less data from which to determine the place of writing. Burton, however, is of opinion that inasmuch as the descendants of "Judas, the brother of the Lord," if we identify him with the author of the epistle, were found in Palestine, he probably "did not absent himself long from his native country," and that the epistle was published there, since he styles himself "the brother of James," an expression most likely to be used in a country where James was well known" (Eccles. Hist. 1, 334). With this locality will agree all the above considerations as to date.
IV. Persons to whom the Epistle is addressed. — These are described by the writer as the called who are sanctified in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ." From the resemblance of some parts of this epistle to the second of Peter, it has been inferred that it was sent to the same parties in Asia Minor, and with a view to enforcing the apostle's admonitions; while others, from the strongly Jewish character of the writing, infer that it was addressed to somebody of Jewish Christians in Palestine. From the fact that the parties addressed seem to have been surrounded by a large and wicked population, some have supposed that they may have dwelt in Corinth, while others suggest one of the commercial cities of Syria. The supposition that the parties addressed dwelt in Egypt is mere conjecture. But the address (1Jn_2:1) is applicable to Christians generally, and there is nothing in the body of the epistle to limit its reference and though it is not improbable that the author had a particular portion of the Church in view, and that the Christians of Palestine were the immediate objects of his warning, the dangers described were such as the whole Christian world was exposed to, and the adversaries the same which had everywhere to be guarded against.
V. Object, Contents, and Errors inveighed against. — The purpose which the writer had in view is stated by himself. After the inscription, he says that, intending to write "of the common salvation," he found himself, as it were, compelled to utter a solemn warning in defense of the faith, imperiled by the evil conduct of corrupt men (1Jn_2:3). Possibly there was some observed outbreak which gave the occasion. The evil for a while had been working in secret — "certain men crept in unawares" (1Jn_2:4) — but now the canker showed itself. The crisis must be met promptly and resolutely. Therefore the writer denounces those who turned the grace of God "into lasciviousness," virtually denying God by disobeying his law. He alarms by holding out three examples of such sin and its punishment — the Israelites that sinned in the wilderness; the angels that "kept not their first estate;" and the foul cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (1Jn_2:5-7). He next describes minutely the character of those whom he censures, and shows how of old they had been prophetically marked out as objects of deserved vengeance (1Jn_2:8-16). Then, turning to the faithful, he reminds them that the apostles had forewarned them that evil men would rise in the Church (1Jn_2:17-19); exhorts them to maintain their own steadfastness (1Jn_2:20-21), and to do their utmost in rescuing others from contamination (1Jn_2:22-23); and concludes with an ascription of praise to him who alone could keep his people from falling (1Jn_2:24-25). The whole was thoroughly applicable to a time when iniquity was abounding, and the love of many waxing cold (Mat_24:12)..
The design of such a train of thought is obviously to put the believers to whom the epistle was addressed on their guard against the misleading efforts of certain persons to whose influence they were exposed. Who these persons were, or to what class of errorists they belonged, can only be matter of conjecture. Some, indeed (De Wette, Schwegler, Bleek), think the persons alluded to held no peculiar opinions, and were simply men of lax morals; but, from the manner in which the writer refers to them, it is evident that they were, to use the words of Dorner (Entwickelungsgesch. 1, 104, E.T. 1, 72), "'not merely practically corrupt, but teachers of error as well." Their opinions seem to have been of an antinomian character (vers. 4, 18, 19), but there is nothing to connect them, except in a very vague and distant way, with any of the later gnostic systems. The writer formally charges them with "denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ," language which De Wette admits usually applies to error of doctrine, but which here he, without any reason, would understand of feeling and conduct. The licentious courses in which they indulged led Clement of Alexandria to think that they were the prototypes of the Carpocratians and such like: "Of these, and such as these," he says," I think that Jude spoke prophetically in his epistle" (Strom. 3, 431, Sylb.); but this does not imply that they had formed a system like that of the Carpocratians, but only that the notions and usages of the one adumbrated those of the other. Perhaps there have been in all ages persons who have sought by perverted doctrine to gain a sanction for sensual indulgence. and such undoubtedly were found disturbing the peace and corrupting the purity of the churches of Christ in different places as early as the second half of the 1st century. The persons against whom Jude writes, were apparently of this class, but in their immorality the practical element was more prominent than the speculative.
VI. Style. — The main body of the epistle is well characterized by Alford (Gk. Test. 4, 147) as an impassioned invective, in the impetuous whirlwind of which the writer is harried along, collecting example after example of divine vengeance on the ungodly; heaping epithet upon epithet, and piling image upon image, and, as it were laboring for words and images strong enough to depict the polluted character of the licentious apostates against whom he is warning the Church; returning again and again to the subject, as though all language was insufficient to give an adequate idea of their profligacy, and to express his burning hatred of their perversion of the doctrines of the Gospel.
The epistle is said by De Wette (Einleit. ins. N.T. p. 300) to be tolerably good Greek, though there are some peculiarities of diction which have led Schmid (Einleit. 1, 314) and Bertholdt (6, 3194) to imagine an Aramaic original. VII. Relation between the Epistle of Jude and 2 Peter. — The larger portion of this epistle (Mat_24:3-16) closely resembles in language and subject a part of the second Epistle of Peter (2Pe_2:1-19). In both the heretical enemies of the Gospel are described in terms so similar as to preclude all idea of entire independence. Jude's known habit of quotation would seem to render the supposition most probable that he has borrowed from Peter. Dr. Davidson, however (Introd. to the N. Test. 3, 607), maintains the priority of Jude. As Jude's Epistle apparently emanated from Palestine, and (if the above date be correct) from Jerusalem, it may in some sort be regarded as an echo of Peter's admonitions uttered not long before at the Roman capital. This question will be more fully examined under SEE PETER, SECOND EPISTLE OF.
VIII. Apocryphal Quotations. — This epistle presents one peculiarity, which, as we learn from Jerome, caused its authority to be impugned in very early times — the supposed citation of apocryphal writings (2Pe_2:9; 2Pe_2:14-15);
1. The former of these passages, containing the reference to the contest of the archangel Michael and the devil "about the body of Moses," was supposed by Origen to have been founded on a Jewish work called the "Assumption of Moses" (Α᾿νάληψις Μωσέως), quoted also by OEcumenius (2, 629). Origen's words are express, "Which little work the apostle Jude has made mention of in his epistle" (De Princip. 2, 2; vol. 1, p. 138); and some have sought to identify the book with the פְּטַירִת משֶׁה"The Demise of Moses," which is, however, proved by Michaelis (4, 382) to be a modern composition. Attempts have also been made by Lardner, Macknight, Vitringa, and others, to interpret the passage in a mystical sense, by reference to Zec_3:1-2; but the similarity is too distant to afford any weight to the idea. There is, on the whole, little question that the writer is here making use of a Jewish tradition, based on Deu_34:6, just as facts unrecorded in Scripture are referred to by Paul (2Ti_3:8; Gal_3:19), by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb_2:2; Heb_11:24); by James (Jam_5:17), and Stephen (Act_7:22-23; Act_7:30). (See further, Zirkel, De Mosis ad Superos translatio, Wirceb. 1798.) SEE MOSES, ASSUMPTION OF.
2. As regards the supposed quotation from the book of Enoch, the question is not so clear whether Jude is making a citation from a work already in the hands of his readers — which is the opinion of Jerome (1.c.) and Tertullian (who was, in consequence, inclined to receive the book of Enoch as canonical Scripture), and has been held by many modern critics — or is employing a traditionary prophecy not at that time committed to writing (a theory which the words used, "Enoch prophesied, saying," ἐπροφητευσεν... Ε᾿νὼχ λἐγων, seem rather to favor), but afterwards embodied in the apocryphal work already named. This is maintained by Tregelles (Horne's Introd. 10th edit., 4, 621), and has been held by Cave, Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, 1, 420), Lightfoot (2, 117),Witsius, and Calvin (comp. Jerome, Comm. in Jph. c. 5, p. 647, 8; in Tit. c. 1, p. 708). The present book of Enoch actually contains (ch. 2 of The Book of Enoch, in AEthiopic and English, by Dr. Laurence, 3d ed. Lond. 1838) the very words cited by Jude; but some modern critics maintain that they were inserted in that book out of Jude's epistle. SEE ENOCH, BOOK OF.
But why should not an inspired author appropriate a piece of an apocryphal writing? If it contained elements of truth, or was simply apposite to his purpose, why should he not use it? He does not (as some allege) attribute to it any inspired authority, nor ever vouch for its accuracy. It is never objected in derogation of the apostle Paul that, both in speech and writing, he cited heathen authors, sometimes with a special reference (Act_17:28; 1Co_15:33; Gal_5:23; Tit_1:12). It has also been asserted that in various parts of the New Testament there are allusions (if not formal citations) to several of the books commonly called apocryphal, and to other Jewish productions (see Gough's N. Test. Quotations, p. 276-296). Common proverbs, we know, have been introduced into Scripture (1Sa_24:13; 2Pe_2:22, where the former part only of the proverb cited is from the Old Testament).
But there is no decisive proof that Jude could have seen the so called book of Enoch. For, though this has been ascribed in part to the Maccabaean times, and is said to have assumed its present shape prior to our Lord's advent (see Westcott, Introduct. p. 93, note), yet this is a theory on which critics are by no means agreed. One of the latest who has investigated the question, Prof. Volkmar, of Zurich (Zeitschrift der deutsch. morgenl. Gesellschaft, 1860), maintains that it was composed by one of the disciples of Rabbi Akiba, in the time of the sedition of Barchochebas, about A.D. 132. Dr. Alford is convinced by Volkmar's arguments, and infers hence that "the book of Enoch was not only of Jewish, but of distinctly antichristian origin" (Proleg. to Jude, p. 196). We are authorized, then, in believing that Jude merely incorporated into his epistle the tradition of Enoch's prophecy, which was afterwards embodied in the book as we now have it. SEE TRADITION.
IX. Commentaries. — Special exegetical helps on the whole Epistle of Jude exclusively are the following, of which we designate the most important by an asterisk prefixed: Didymus Alexandrinus, In Ep. Judoe (in Bibl. Max. Patr. 5; and Bibl. Patr. Gallandii, 6); Bede, Expositio (in Opp. 5); Luther, Auslegung (Wittenb. 1524, 4to and 8vo; etc.); Maffe, Explanatio (Ven. 1576, 8vo); Ridley, Exposition (Lond. n. d. 16mo); De Bree, Enarratio (Sagunt. 1582; 4to); Radeus, In Judoe ep. (Antw. 1584, Gen. 1599, 8vo); Danaeus, Commentarius [includ. Ep. John] (Geneva, 1585, 8vo); Feuardent, Commentarius (Colon. 1595, 8vo); Junius, Notoe (Lugd. Bat. 1599, 8vo; also in Opp. 1, 1654); Willet, Commentarius (Lond. 1603, Cambr. 1614, fol.; also Catholicon, in "Harmonie," etc.); Turnbull, Sermons (London, 1606, 4to); Lancelott, Exegesis (Antw. 1613, 1626, 8vo); Boulduc, Commentaria (Paris, 1620, 4to); Pareus, Commentarius. (Francof. 1626, 4to); Rost, Commentarius (Rostock, 1627, 4to); Stumpf, Explicatio (Coburg; 1627, 8vo);. Otes, Sermons (London, 1633, 4to); Gerhard, Adnotationes (Jen. 1641, 1660, 1665, 4to); Du Bois, Explicatio (Paris, 1644, 8vo); Jenkyn, Exposition (Lond. 1652-54, 2 pts. in 1 vol. 4to; Glasgow, 1783; Lond. 1839, 8vo); Calovius, Explicatio (Vitemb. 1654, 1719, 4to) Manton, Lectures (London, 1658, 4to); Broughton, Exposition (Lond. 1662, fol.; also in Works, p. 402); Wandalin, Prodromus (Hafniae, 1663, 4to); Rappolt, Observationes (Lipsiae, 1675, 4to); Grelot. Commentarius (L.B. 1676, 4to); Verryn, Commentarius (L. Bat. 1677, 4to); Visscher, Verklaaring (Amst. 1681, 4to; also in German, Bremen, 1744, 4to); Titelmann [Schenck], Commentarius (Marp. 1693, 8vo); Antonio, Verklaaring [includ. 1 Peter] (Leoward. 1693, 1697, 4to; also in German, Brem. 1700, fol.); Martin, Commentarius (Lipsiae, 1694, 1727, 4to); Fecht, Expositio (Rost. 1696, 4to); Nemeth, Explicatio (1700, 4to); Dorsche, Commentarius (fragment. in Gerhard's Commentatio. Francf. et Lips. 1700 4to) Perkins, Exposition (in Works, Cambridge, 1701, etc. 3, 479); Szattmar, Explicatio (Franec. 1702, 4to); Witsius. Commentarius (L.B. 1703, 4to; also in Meletemata, p. 323); Feustking, Commentarius (Vitemb. 1707, fol.); Quade, In Epistolam et vitam Judoe (Gryph. 1709, 4to); Creyghton, Ontleeding. (Haarlem, 1719, 4to); Weiss, Commentatio (Helmstadt, 1723, 4to); Walther, Exegesis (Guelpherb. 1724, 4to); Buckner, Erklärung (Erfurt, 1727, 4to); Reimmann, Entsiegelung (Brunsw. 1731, 4to); Van Seelen, Judas antifanaticus (Lub. 1732, 4to); Semler, Commentatio [on var. read.] (Hal. 1747, 1784, 4to); Schmidt, Observationes (Lipsiae, 1768, 4to); Herder, Briefe zweener Brüder Jesu (Lemgo, 1775, 8vo); Pomarius, Commentarius (Vitemb. 1784, 8vo); Hasse, Erläuterung (Jen. 1786, 8vo); Hartmann, Commentatio (Cothen, 1793, 4to); Kahler, Anmerkungen (Rint. 1798, 8vo); *Hanlein, Commentarius (Erlangen, 1799, 1801, 1804, 8vo); Harenberg, Expositio (in Miscell. Lips. nov. 3, 379 sq.); Elias, Dissertatio (Ultraj. 1803, 8vo); Dahl, De αὐθεντίᾷ, etc. [including 2 Peter] (Rost. 1807, 8vo); Laurmann, Notoe (Gron. 1818, 8vo); *Jessien, Commentatio. [introductory] (Lipsiae, 1820, 8vo); Muir, Discourses (Glasg. 1822, 8vo); *Arnaud, Sur l'authenticite, etc. (Strasb. 1835, 8vo); Scharling, Commentarius [includ. Jaines] (Havn. 1841, 8vo); Brun, Introduction (in French, Strasb. 1842, 8vo); Bickersteth, Exposition (London, 1846, 12mo); Macgillivray, Lectures (Lond. 1846. 8vo); *Stier, Auslegung (Berl. 1850, 8vo); *Rampf, Betrachtung (Salzburg, 1854, 8vo); Gardiner, Commentary (Boston, 1856, 12mo); Ritschl, Antinomisten, etc. (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1861, p. 103 sq.); Schott, Erläuterung (Erlang. 1863, 8vo). SEE EPISTLES, CATHOLIC.

CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.





Norway

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores

Comments   2

BUSCADAVERDADE

Visite o nosso canal youtube.com/buscadaverdade e se INSCREVA agora mesmo! Lá temos uma diversidade de temas interessantes sobre: Saúde, Receitas Saudáveis, Benefícios dos Alimentos, Benefícios das Vitaminas e Sais Minerais... Dê uma olhadinha, você vai gostar! E não se esqueça, dê o seu like e se INSCREVA! Clique abaixo e vá direto ao canal!


Saiba Mais

  • Image Nutrição
    Vegetarianismo e a Vitamina B12
  • Image Receita
    Como preparar a Proteína Vegetal Texturizada
  • Image Arqueologia
    Livro de Enoque é um livro profético?
  • Image Profecia
    O que ocorrerá no Armagedom?

Tags