THE GENERAL EPISTLE
OF
JUDE
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I
Relation of the Second Epistle of Peter to the Epistle of Jude [450]
[450] For the justification of the readings and interpretations adopted in the following Chapter s, see critical and explanatory notes.
THE general resemblance between the two Epistles will be apparent from the marginal references to my text. I propose here to compare them throughout, stating the reasons which have led me to believe that the epistle of Jude was known to the author of 2 Peter, not vice versa. [451]
[451] In what follows P. stands for 2 Peter, J. for Jude.
To begin with, both style themselves servants of Jesus Christ and address themselves to those who in some way belong to God and to Jesus Christ, desiring that peace might be multiplied upon them. We notice here certain differences occasioned by the difference of the writers. Jude marks his identity by naming his brother James; 2 Peter claims apostleship. Jude adds the prayer for mercy and and love to that for peace; 2 Peter who is about to speak more fully of love immediately, omits it here, and changes ἔλεος into the wider χάρις. Jude defines his readers as “the called who have been beloved by God the Father and kept safe in Jesus Christ”; 2 Peter defers the notion of “calling” to the third and tenth verses, and dwells here on God's free gift of faith (τοῖς λαχοῦσιν πίστιν) as characteristic of his readers. He adds two remarkable phrases (1) that, through the justice of our God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, this faith is (2) equally privileged with that of the writer (whether we are to regard him as representing the Apostles, or the Jews, as seems to me more probable), and he emphasises this equality of Jew and Gentile by the unique use of his own double name, the Hebrew “Symeon” added to the Greek “Peter,” suggesting that his sympathies embrace both. We may compare with this the friendly reference to St. Paul in 2 Peter 3:15, and the association of Silvanus with the writer in 1 Peter.
After this greeting Jude turns at once to the immediate occasion for his letter. He had been preparing, he says, to write on the subject which is of highest interest to all Christians, viz., salvation, [459] when news reached him of a new danger threatening the Church, against which he felt bound to warn his readers. It seems hardly possible to suppose that this note of alarm could have come to him through 2 Peter, who writes in a much more leisurely way, not feeling it necessary at once to plunge into controversy and supply his readers with weapons for the defence of the faith. In fact the latter begins with the very subject which Jude had felt himself obliged to omit, or at least to postpone to the end of his Epistle (Jude 1:20), viz. the doctrine of salvation. Thus we seem to lose sight of Jude until the beginning of the second chapter of 2 Peter, but we shall see that in the intervening passage of 2 Peter there is frequent recurrence to thoughts which are found in the former epistle.
[459] The word κοινήν here may have suggested to 2 Peter his phrase ἰσότιμον πίστιν.
After speaking generally of the blessings in store for man through the goodness of God, 2 Peter goes on (2 Peter 1:5) to speak of the corresponding duty on man's part. We are to use every effort to build up the Christian life in its seven-fold completeness on the rock of faith. Towards the end of Jude we find words which may very possibly have suggested to 2 Peter this idea of the seven ascending tiers rising on the foundation of faith and culminating in love (Jude 1:20), ἐποικοδομοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ ὑμῶν πίστει … ἑαυτοὺς ἐν ἀγάπῃ Θεοῦ τηρήσατε. The phrase σπουδὴν πᾶσαν of 2 Peter 1:5 occurs also in Jude 1:3. The mention of εὐσέβεια in 2 Peter 1:3; 2 Peter 1:6-7 may be due to the prevalence of ἀσέβεια so often deplored by Jude. The verses which follow (2 Peter 1:8-11) dwell on the importance of the cultivation of these virtues or graces. “Their continued growth will tend to make us not unfruitful (cf. Jude 1:12) in regard to that knowledge of God, out of which they grow. Their absence causes blindness, or at least limits us to narrow earthly views, and makes us forgetful of the baptismal cleansing from the sins of our old life. Remember that it is not enough simply to have been baptised. We have to make sure the calling and election of which baptism was the seal. If you are diligent in doing this, you will never stumble, but will have a glorious entry into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” Here too we find connecting links with the later verses of Jude “Eternal life” is the goal in Jude 1:21, “the eternal kingdom,” in 2 Peter 1:11. The οὐ μὴ πταίσητε and the πλουσίως ἐπιχορηγηθήσεται of 2Peter remind us of Jude's summing up in Jude 1:24, “God our Saviour is able to keep us without stumbling and to set us before His glory without blemish in exceeding joy ”.
2Peter continues (2 Peter 1:12-15), “I know that you are established in this truth, but it will be always my care to remind you of it, as I am indeed bound to do, whilst I continue in this earthly habitation. Even after I leave it, as our Lord Jesus Christ has warned me that I must soon do, I hope to bequeath to you a legacy which will enable you to make mention of these things after my departure.” We have here an echo of Jude 1:5, “I desire to put you in remembrance, though ye know all things,” i.e., as it is explained afterwards, though you are familiar with the examples of judgment contained in the O.T., including the punishment of the angels who sinned. 2 Peter addressing Gentiles, who could hardly be expected to be familiar with a narrative resting mainly on Jewish tradition, gives the phrase a more fitting application in reference to the general moral and religious teaching which precedes.
The connexion between the two Epistles is most conspicuous in the second chapter of 2 Peter In both, this section begins with a short Introduction (Jude 1:4; 2 Peter 2:1-3), describing in general terms the innovators against whom the readers are warned. They steal into the Church, they deny the only Master (δεσπότην), their lives are impure, the verdict of heaven has long been pronounced against them. To this 2 Peter prefixes a clause to connect the new subject with that of the preceding chapter. The gift of prophecy was liable to misuse under the old dispensation (of which he presently quotes Balaam as an example, cf. 2 Peter 2:15-16, and Jude 1:11). Corresponding to this in the new dispensation will be the abuse of teaching (cf. James 3:1-12); and these false teachers will introduce destructive heresies and bring on themselves swift destruction. [The word ἀπώλεια does not occur in Jude, but in the next verse he says that the Lord τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν.] 2 Peter adds the Pauline epithet ἀγοράσαντα before δεσπότην. He foretells that many will follow the loose living of these teachers and that thus the way of truth (Psalms 119:30) will be evil spoken of (Isaiah 52:5). He speaks of their covetousness (cf. Jude 1:11 on Balaam) and of their glozing words. While Jude denounces οἱ πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα (where the reference in τοῦτο is obscure), 2 Peter has the fine phrase οἷς τὸ κρίμα οὐκ ἀργεῖ καὶ ἡ ἀπώλεια αὐτῶν οὐ νυστάζει. On the other hand we lose Jude's τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ χάριτα μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν, for which perhaps ἐλευθερίαν αὐτοῖς ἐπαγγελλόμενοι, αὐτοὶ δοῦλοι ὑπάρχοντες τῆς φθορᾶς (2 Peter 2:19) was intended as an equivalent, cf. Galatians 5:13, ἐπʼ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἐκλήθητε · μόνον μὴ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν εἰς ἀφορμὴν τῇ σαρκί.
Then follow (Jude 1:5-7) three examples of judgment taken from the O.T.: Israel in the Wilderness, the offending angels, the sin of Sodom, which are repeated in 2 Peter 2:4-9, except that the Deluge takes the place of the punishment of Israel. Why was this change made? Probably because the destruction of the world by water and the destruction of Sodom by fire were recognised types of Divine vengeance (Luke 17:26-29), and also because 2 Peter is about to speak of the Deluge below (2 Peter 3:5-7) to show that there is nothing incredible in the destruction of the existing universe by fire. Moreover he had already referred to the case of Israel (ἐν τῷ λαῷ) in comparing the false prophets of the O.T. with the false teachers of the N.T. Perhaps, too, he wished to keep the chronological order in his three examples. It has been suggested in the note on τὸ δεύτερον that, in speaking of the destruction of Israel after their falling back into unbelief, Jude may have had in his mind the question of the forgiveness of post-baptismal sin. There is perhaps a similar reference in 2 Peter 1:9, λήθην λαβὼν τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ τῶν πάλαι αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτιῶν as well as in 2 Peter 2:20. With regard to 2 Peter's triplet, it is to be noticed that it is given in a far more animated form than that of Jude, being used as a protasis to an apodosis applying the same principles to the persons addressed, εἰ γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς οὐκ ἐφείσατο κ. τ. λ. Of the angels 2 Peter says merely that they sinned, Jude dwells on their pristine dignity, and follows the book of Enoch in making their sin to consist partly in the fall from their high estate, and partly in their going after σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, as the men of Sodom did afterwards τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις, Jude 1:7. If 2 Peter had Jude before him, these omissions are natural; if Jude wrote after 2 Peter, he would scarcely have gone out of his way to insert particulars so derogatory to the angelic nature. As to their punishment, they are reserved, in both epistles, for judgment under darkness in chains.
It is interesting to compare what is said in the two Epistles about the two missionaries of the antediluvian world. In Jude 1:14 Enoch, the seventh from Adam, appears simply as the denouncer of vengeance to come: in 2 Peter Noah is a preacher of righteousness and he is the eighth saved. In my edition of 2 Peter I have suggested that the writer may have intended a mystical opposition between the two numbers; and, I think, this is confirmed by the way in which the number 8 is introduced in 1 Peter 3:20 (κιβωτοῦ) εἰς ἣν ὀλίγοι, τοῦτʼ ἔστιν ὀκτὼ ψυχαί, διεσώθησαν διʼ ὕδατος. The ark is here regarded as a symbol of the Church. What was the writer's motive in adding that it contained only a few, and further that these few, on being reckoned up, were found to amount to 8? Must he not have intended to signify that, while the visible Church consisted of a mere “remnant,” a “little flock,” yet these few represented all who share the Resurrection of Christ, “the general assembly and church of the first-born,” which would be continually recruited not only from the living, but also from the dead by the ever-present, ever-active Spirit of Christ (1 Peter 3:19)? In the account of Sodom 2 Peter (2 Peter 2:6) differs from Jude in laying stress on Lot's protest against surrounding wickedness, and on the mercy shown towards him, just as he had done Defore in regard to Noah (hereby illustrating the duty of the faithful under the present stress); and the moral he draws from the two stories is that “God knows how to deliver the godly from trial, as well as to keep the wicked under chastisement for the day of judgment”. 2 Peter alone gives details as to the destruction of Sodom (τεφρώσας καταστροφῇ κατέκρινεν), while Jude speaks of its present state as a warning to future ages. As regards this warning 2 Peter's ὑπόδειγμα μελλόντων ἀσεβέσιν is better expressed than Jude's rather confused πρόκεινται δεῖγμα πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκην ὑπέχουσαι. In Jude 1:8 Jude turns to the libertines and declares that they are guilty of like sins with these sinners of the old world: they defile the flesh, make light of authority and rail at “glories” (as the men of Sodom did towards the angels), and this they do because they are still buried in a carnal sleep (cf. Ephesians 5:14). These men (Jude 1:10, οὗτοι δέ) rail at things beyond their ken, while they surrender themselves like brute beasts to the guidance of their appetites, and thus bring about their own destruction. [509] 2 Peter (2 Peter 2:10) combines part of Jude's description of the men of Sodom, who went ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας (for which he substitutes ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασμοῦ πορευομένους) with Jude's condemnation of the libertines as despising authority, [513] and predicates both characteristics of the wicked, whom God keeps under chastisement for the day of judgment. Then turning to the libertines he exclaims against them as “headstrong and shameless (τολμηταί, cf. ἐτόλμησεν, Jude 1:9) men that shrink not from railing at glories” (2 Peter 2:10). In 2 Peter 2:12 he goes on, as Jude does in Jude 1:10, with a οὗτοι δέ, “these are like brute beasts”. Apparently he wants to bring out more fully the force of Jude's ὅσα φυσικῶς ἐπίστανται, ἐν τούτοις φθείρονται by the periphrasis γεγεννημένα φυσικὰ εἰς ἅλωσιν καὶ φθοράν and ἐν τῇ φθορᾷ αὐτῶν φθαρήσονται. That is, while Jude simply states that the libertines are destroyed through their indulgence in their animal instincts, 2 Peter draws out the comparison to the brute beasts, “which are born mere creatures of instinct, with a view to capture and slaughter,” and then adds that the libertines will share their fate, since they mock at that higher world which is beyond their ken. Here there can be no doubt that 2 Peter's language is far more obscure than that of Jude Even Jude is not quite clear. The true antithesis would have been “they rail at what transcends the senses, they admire what appeals to the senses and appetites” (and yet these are the causes of their ruin). Is it possible that 2 Peter, writing with an imperfect recollection of Jude, understood ἐν τούτοις φθείρονται to mean “perish among them,” i.e., among the brutes?
[509] For the connexion between the darkened heart which refuses to know God, and the indulgence in the vilest lusts, see Romans 1:21-28.
[513] It will be noticed that, while J. couples κυριότητα and δόξας as belonging to the same category, P. only names the abstract word κυριότητα here, and introduces δόξας later on as a concrete example.
We have now to consider the very curious verse interposed between Jude 1:8; Jude 1:10; 2 Peter 2:10; 2 Peter 2:12. In Jude it runs: “Michael, the archangel, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not venture to bring a judgment of railing, but said, ‘the Lord rebuke thee' ”: in 2 Peter “whereas angels, though greater in power and might, do not venture to bring against them a railing judgment before the Lord”. The former is a little difficult, but with the help of the Assumptio Mosis we can understand that, if the chief of the archangels abstained from using any contemptuous expression against Satan, and contented himself with making his appeal to God, much more should frail and sinful mortals abstain from slighting language about the powers of the invisible world. What, however, is to be made of 2 Peter? Standing by itself, it is merely a riddle, for which the answer is to be found in Jude That is to say, 2 Peter wrote with Jude's sentence in his mind, but for some reason or other chose to eliminate the points essential for its intelligibility. What was his reason? The same, I think, which led him to omit the details as to the fall of the angels, which are mainly derived from the Book of Enoch, in ii. 4, and the reference to the preaching of Enoch below. He objects, that is, to make use of these apocryphal writings, and generalises the story by dropping the proper names and by twice changing a singular into a plural (ἄγγελοι, αὐτῶν). So, too, a vague παρὰ Κυρίῳ takes the place of ἐπιτιμήσοι σαι Κύριος, and the vagueness is increased by the use of the indeterminate αὐτῶν and by the omission of the object of the comparative μείζονες. In fact the sentence is meaningless except to one who was already acquainted with its parallel in Jude, though it may perhaps be true, as Dr. Bigg suggests, that 2 Peter felt himself justified in his generalisation by the remembrance of an obscure passage in the Book of Enoch.
I go on to Jude 1:11, “Woe to them, for they have followed in the steps of Cain, and been carried away in the error of Balaam for gain, and lost themselves in the rebellion of Korah. These are sunken rocks in your love-feasts, where they join your feast without any feeling of religious reverence, caring only for their own enjoyment. They are clouds without water, scudding before the wind; trees without fruit in. the fruit-bearing season, twice dead, torn up by the roots; raging waves foaming out their own shame; wandering stars for which the blackness of darkness is reserved for ever.” This passage corresponds to 2 Peter 2:13-17, but, in the latter, the order is considerably altered and there are various additions and omissions. Balaam (who is also prominent in the Apocalypse 2 Peter 2:14) is the only one of the old hæresiarchs referred to, but his story is given at more length in 2 Peter 2:15-16 : “They (the libertines) have wandered from the straight path, following the path of Balaam, who loved the wages of unrighteousness and was convicted of his error by the dumb ass, which spoke with human voice and stayed the prophet's madness”. Here 2 Peter clenches the comparison made before (2 Peter 2:1) between the false prophet of the O.T. and the false teacher of the N.T., and brings out again the motive of covetousness (see above 2 Peter 2:3 and 2 Peter 2:15). Has he any special reason for introducing the story of the ass rebuking the prophet? We may compare other passages in which God is represented as choosing the foolish things of this world to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27; Psalms 8:2), or in which men are called upon to learn a lesson from animals, as Isaiah 1:3; Jeremiah 8:7; Proverbs 6:6; Job 12:7. Possibly 2 Peter may be thinking of the scorn entertained for simple believers by those who called themselves Gnostics (see below 2 Peter 2:18).
Jude 1:12 appears with some remarkable alterations in 2 Peter 2:13, σπίλοι καὶ μῶμοι ἐντρυφῶντες ἐν ταῖς ἀπάταις αὐτῶν συνευωχούμενοι ὑμῖν. Here σπίλοι and ἀπάταις are substituted for σπιλάδες and ἀγάπαις in Jude Some editors read ἀγάπαις with [538], but the addition of αὐτῶν suits much better with ἀπάταις. Jude speaks of ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν. It was natural of course that the wolves should seek to find their way into the sheep-folds; but can we suppose that the faithful would enter the love feasts of the libertines? Moreover the change of an original ἀγάπαις to ἀπάταις by a copyist is hardly conceivable, while the reverse change to suit Jude is most natural. But how are we to account for the disappearance of the important we might almost call it the indispensable word ἀγάπη ? In my edition of 2 Peter, p. 195., I have suggested that ἀγάπην was the original reading, instead of ἡδονήν, in the earlier part of this verse (ἡδονὴν ἡγούμενοι τὴν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τρυφήν); where my explanatory note shows how hard it is to make a satisfactory distinction between ἡδονήν and τρυφήν. On the other hand ἀγάπην gives exactly the sense required “thinking that revelling in the daytime makes an ἀγάπη,” as may be seen from the quotations from Clement given in the passage referred to (cf. too Romans 13:13). I account for ἡδονήν by supposing that it was a marginal gloss on τρυφήν. The word ἀπάτη is often joined with τρυφή, as shown in the explanatory note, and it is wanted here to explain how the libertines managed to gain admission to the love-feasts of the Church. We have next to ask why σπιλάδες should have been changed to σπίλοι. The former word is a daring metaphor even among the metaphors which accompany it in Jude, but quite out of place here, and 2 Peter substitutes for it the similar sounding σπίλος found in Ephesians 5:27, of which the derivatives ἄσπιλος and σπιλόω occur elsewhere in 2 Peter and Jude Are we to suppose that 2 Peter intentionally replaced Jude's words by others of similar sound, in order not to startle people who were already familiar with them? or was it the unconscious action of the mind, calling up similar sounds, as in rhyming or alliteration? The latter seems to me the more probable explanation.
[538] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
2 Peter returns to Jude's metaphors in 2 Peter 2:17, where he splits up νεφέλαι ἄνυδροι ὑπὸ ἀνέμων παραφερόμεναι into two, πηγαὶ ἄνυδροι and ὀμίχλαι ὑπὸ λαίλαπος ἐλαυνόμεναι, perhaps because he regarded Jude's expression as superfluous, and also because he thus provides distinct pictures of present disappointment (the well) and future uncertainty (the cloud). He omits the fruitless trees, the stormy waves and wandering stars as unsuited to his purpose, but inappropriately appends to his last metaphor, the clause in which Jude describes the doom of the wandering stars, οἷς ὁ ζόφος τοῦ σκότους τετήρηται. Of course the gender shows that 2 Peter intends this clause to apply to the persons whom he has just figuratively described, as it is indeed applied by Jude himself in Jude 1:6, but it loses the aptness which it has in Jude 1:13, and thus supplies another convincing proof of the priority of Jude How could the latter have had the patience to gather the scattered fragments out of 2 Peter in order to form the splendid cluster of figures in Jude 1:12-13 ? We have still to consider the insertion in 2 Peter (2 Peter 2:13), ἀδικούμενοι μισθὸν ἀδικίας, which commences the loose series of participles ending in 2 Peter 2:15. If the participle is omitted, this phrase recalls Jude 1:11, τῇ πλάνῃ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ μισθοῦ ἐξεχύθησαν, and is repeated again in 2 Peter 2:15; but ἀδικούμενοι is difficult. Apparently 2 Peter intends his paradoxical phrase to correspond to Jude's οὐαί : the libertines are miserable, because they are, as they think, “robbed of (or ‘robbed as') the reward of their iniquity”. The following participles gave a striking and powerful description of the evil influence which these men exercise over unstable Souls, ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔχοντες μεστοὺς μοιχαλίδος καὶ ἀκαταπαύστους ἁμαρτίας, δελεάζοντες ψυχὰς ἀστηρίκτους (cf. γεγεννημένα εἰς ἅλωσιν, 2 Peter 2:12), καρδίαν γεγυμνασμένην πλεονεξίας ἔχοντες, κατάρας τέκνα. Perhaps 2 Peter may intend this partly to take the place of Jude's fine figure κύματα ἄγρια θαλάσσης ἐπαφρίζοντα τὰς ἑαυτῶν αἰσχύνας.
In Jude 1:14-15 Jude gives the prophecy of Enoch, the seventh from Adam, which simply announces the future judgment on impious deeds and words. To this 2 Peter makes no direct reference, but, as I have before suggested, it may have been one reason for speaking of Noah as the eighth. In Jude 1:16 (perhaps taken from the Assumption of Moses) Jude goes on to describe the libertines as “murmuring and discontented, walking after their own lusts, whose mouth λαλεῖ ὑπέρογκα, and who flatter others for the sake of advantage”. To the same effect 2 Peter (2 Peter 2:18) speaks of them as uttering ὑπέρογκα ματαιότητος, by which they seduce through the lusts of the flesh those who were just escaping from heathen error. In 2 Peter 2:19-22; 2 Peter 2:2 Peter is mostly independent of Jude, but I have already noticed that ἐλευθερίαν ἐπαγγελλόμενοι may be an echo of Jude 1:4, χάριτα μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν. He continues, εἰ γὰρ ἀποφυγόντες τὰ μιάσματα τοῦ κόσμου ἐν ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, words which recall what he had said in Jude 1:4, ἀποφυγόντες τῆς ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ φθορᾶς, … διὰ τῆς ἐπιγνώσεως … τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, and goes on to give an impressive warning against the dangers of backsliding, in which he borrows from Jude 1:3, ὑποστρέψαι ἐκ τῆς παραδοθείσης αὐτοῖς ἁγίας ἐντολῆς, concluding with the proverb of the dog and the sow returning to their foulness after being cleansed from it.
In the third chapter of 2 Peter we go back again to Jude The readers are addressed as ἀγαπητοί in 2 Peter 3:1 as in Jude 1:17. In both, they are bidden to remember the words of the Apostles, warning them against mockers who should come in the last days, walking after their own lusts. To this Peter adds (2 Peter 3:1-2) “This is the second letter I am writing to you, and in both I stir up your sincere mind by calling on you to remember the command of the Lord and Saviour spoken by your Apostles”. Since in 2 Peter 1:16, he had used the phrase ἐγνωρίσαμεν ὑμῖν τὴν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν παρουσίαν, it would seem that Peter must himself be included among “your Apostles”. He further bids them “remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets,” recurring in this to what he had said in 2 Peter 1:19. What are we to understand by the allusion to a previous letter? Our first thought is naturally of 1 Peter But is there anything in it which would answer to the description here given? Many have denied this, because they thought that the contents of the prophecy, as given in Jude 1:18, were included in 2 Peter's reference to an earlier Epistle. Jude there says, ὅτι ἔλεγον ὑμῖν Ἐπʼ ἐσχάτου χρόνου ἔσονται ἐμπαῖκται κ. τ. λ., that is, he asserts that the words quoted by him were words which were often in the mouth of the Apostles. On the other hand 2 Peter makes a clear separation between 2 Peter 3:2 and 2 Peter 3:3 by inserting the phrase τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες, which he had previously used in 2 Peter 1:20, not to introduce a particular prophecy, but to lay down how prophecy was to be understood. The reference to a former letter is therefore restricted by 2 Peter to 2 Peter 3:2, bidding the readers pay heed to the words of the prophets and the apostles. If we turn now to 2 Peter 1:10-12, περὶ ἧς σωτηρίας ἐξεήτησαν … προφῆται οἱ περὶ τῆς εἰς ὑμᾶς χάριτος προφητεύσαντες … οἷς ἀπεκαλύφθη ὅτι οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς, ὑμῖν δὲ διηκόνουν αὐτά, ἃ νῦν ἀνηγγέλη ὑμῖν διὰ τῶν εὐαγγελισαμένων ὑμᾶς πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (cf. 1 Peter 1:16), we shall find an exact correspondence to what is stated here. The words τῶν προειρημένων ῥημάτων (Jude 1:17; 2 Peter 3:2) remind us of Jude 1:4, οἱ πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα (though no doubt the immediate reference there is to the prophecy of Enoch) and of 2 Peter 2:3, οἷς τὸ κρίμα ἔκπαλαι οὐκ ἀργεῖ. In citing the prophecy, 2 Peter adds the emphatic ἐν ἐμπαιγμονῇ, which may be compared with ἐν τῇ φθορᾷ αὐτῶν καὶ φθαρήσονται of 2 Peter 2:12, and with the reiterated ἀσεβεῖς of Jude 1:15 and κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας πορευόμενοι of Jude 1:16; Jude 1:18.
In 2 Peter 3:4; 2 Peter 3:2 Peter, omitting Jude's somewhat obscure Jude 1:19, οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες, ψυχικοί, πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες, goes on to specify in what the mockery of the ἐμπαῖκται consisted. They said that the promise of the coming of Christ (to which 2 Peter had borne witness in 2 Peter 1:16) remained unfulfilled, and that the world was not liable to the catastrophic changes predicted as accompaniments of the final judgment. There is a little awkwardness in 2 Peter's wording, ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως following ἀφʼ ἧς ἐκοιμήθησαν, but it is a very natural blending of two objections. I cannot think that if Jude had known this verse, which gives so much point to the preceding prophecy, he would have refrained from inserting it. 2 Peter gives a double answer in 2 Peter 3:5-10 : (a) as the world was created out of water by the word of God, so, owing to [591] the same word, it was destroyed through water, and will be destroyed again by fire on the day of judgment (cf. Jude 1:6-7; 2 Peter 2:3-4; 2 Peter 2:9); (b) God is not limited to days and years. If He waits, it is from His long-suffering patience, because He desires that all should repent and be saved. We may compare this with 2 Peter's use of the O.T. types of judgment to point out proofs of mercy in the case of Noah and Lot (2 Peter 2:5; 2 Peter 2:7), in contrast with the severer tone of Jude 1:5-7. In 2 Peter 3:10; 2 Peter 3:2 Peter bids his readers make a practical use of the knowledge that the Lord is about to come unexpectedly. “Do not be blind to the symptoms of the breaking up of the frame of nature (perhaps a reference to volcanic eruptions and earthquakes). Make ready for the coming of the day of God by the practice of holiness and piety. Look forward to the fulfilment of the promise of the reign of righteousness in a new earth and heaven.”
[591] Reading διʼ ὅν, for which see my edition of 2 Peter.
At this point Jude and 2 Peter again come together in Jude 1:20 and 2 Peter 3:14, both commencing a new section with ἀγαπητοί. Jude's exhortation to his readers “to build themselves up on their most holy faith and keep themselves in love” has been already used by 2 peter., as we have seen, in 2 Peter 1:5-7. His reference to the Spirit's help in prayer may be compared with 2 Peter 1:20 on the inspiration of the prophets. His phrase in Jude 1:21, προσδεχόμενοι τὸ ἔλεος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον is taken up in the προσδοκῶντας of 2 Peter 3:12 and προσδοκῶμεν of 2 Peter 3:13, and again in 2 Peter 3:14, while the goal εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον may be compared with εἰς τὴν αἰώνιον βασιλείαν in 2 Peter 1:11; 2 Peter 1:2 Peter inserts ἄσπιλοι καὶ ἀμώμητοι (cf. 1 Peter 1:19) from Jude's ἀμώμους in Jude 1:24, and in contrast to his own σπίλοι καὶ μῶμοι in 2 Peter 2:13, and to Jude's ἐσπιλωμένον in Jude 1:23. ἐν εἰρήνῃ looks back to Jude 1:2 and 2 Peter 1:2. While in Jude 1:22-23 we have Jude's stern rule for the treatment of backsliders, 2 Peter gives utterance again (2 Peter 3:15) to the more hopeful view of 2 Peter 3:9, and claims for it the inspired support of Paul. “Yet Paul's letters, wise and good as they are, offer some difficulties, which have been misunderstood and perverted, like the rest of the Bible, [605] by the unlearned and unstable to their own destruction.” The word σωτηρία in 2 Peter 3:15 reminds us that Jude had originally intended to write περὶ τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας (3 John 1:3) and that his purpose is apparently carried out to a certain extent in these last verses from 20 onwards. In Jude 1:24 Jude begins an Ascription partly borrowed from St. Paul, addressed “to Him who is able to keep His people free from stumbling (cf. 2 Peter 1:10) and present them before His glory in exceeding joy” (cf. 2 Peter 1:11). 2 Peter bids his readers, “knowing these things beforehand (see above Jude 1:12; 2 Peter 3:2) to be on their guard, that they may not be led away by the error (Jude 1:11; 2 Peter 2:18) of the wicked (2 Peter 2:7, cf. Jude 1:23, ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ), and so fall from their own steadfastness” (cf. 2 Peter 1:12; 2 Peter 2:14; 2 Peter 3:16). Jude's ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει soars higher than the lesson which 2 Peter here inculcates: it may be compared, as we have seen, with the πλουσίως ἐπιχορηγηθήσεται of 2 Peter 1:11; 2 Peter 1:2 Peter continues his exhortation in 2 Peter 3:18, αὐξάνετε ἐν χάριτι καὶ γνώσει, for which we may compare χάρις πληθυνθείη in 2 Peter 1:2 and ταῦτα πλεονάζοντα in 2 Peter 1:8, also Jude 1:4. The Ascription in 2 Peter is much simpler than that in Jude, being addressed to our Saviour Jesus Christ, while Jude's is addressed μόνῳ Θεῷ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. 2 Peter has δόξα only, while Jude has the full liturgical form, δόξα, μεγαλωσύνη, κράτος, καὶ ἐξουσία. [620]. has καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς ἡμέραν αἰῶνος, while Jude has πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας, concluding with ἀμήν, which is omitted in 2 Peter by W.H. after Cod. B. Cf. A. J. Wilson, J. of Theol. Stud. vol. viii. 75 on Emphasis in N.T.
[605] For the justification of this rendering see explanatory notes in my edition of 2 Peter.
To sum up: What do we find to be the main points in which the two Epistles agree, what the points in which they differ? Both agree in making faith, which is itself the gift of God (2 Peter 1:1, λαχοῦσιν πίστιν), the foundation of the Christian life (Jude 1:3; Jude 1:20, 2 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:5): both agree that its commencement lies in the divine call (Jude 1:1; Jude 1:2 Peter Jude 1:3; Jude 1:10). The call was sealed in baptism for the forgiveness of sin (Jude 1:5 in connexion with 1 Corinthians 10:1-2; 2 Peter 1:9), but we have to make our calling sure through good works (2 Peter 1:10), to build ourselves up on the foundation of the faith (Jude 1:20; 2 Peter 1:5-7), to keep ourselves in the love of God by praying with the help of the Holy Spirit (Jude 1:20), looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ (which shall be fully revealed) in the life eternal (Jude 1:21). God our Saviour is able to keep us without stumbling and to present us before His glory unblemished in joy (Jude 1:24-25). 2 Peter does not expressly mention prayer, and he lays more stress on personal effort than Jude in the words “give diligence that ye may be found in peace, without spot and blameless in His sight” 2 Peter 3:14, “beware lest ye fall from your steadfastness, grow in grace” 2 Peter 3:17-18. So in Jude 1:5-8 he bids his readers add all diligence to supply “in your faith energy, in your energy knowledge,” etc., and goes on in Jude 1:10 to say “if ye do these things, ye shall never stumble: for thus shall be richly supplied to you the entrance into the eternal kingdom”. At the same time he ascribes to the divine power “all that pertains to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by the manifestation of His own goodness”. That manifestation has been to us the guarantee of most blessed promises, through which we are enabled to become partakers of the divine nature (P. Jude 1:3-4).
The broad distinction between the two Epistles may be said to be that, while Jude is throughout occupied with the denunciation of evil-doers, except in Jude 1:1-3 and Jude 1:20-25; Jude 1:2 Peter's denunciations are mainly confined to a portion of chapter 2, and that the latter dwells more upon the mercy of God as shown even in his punishments.
The conclusion I have drawn from the above comparison of the two Epistles as to the priority of Jude, is confirmed by the general opinion of modern critics, as by Neander, Credner, Ewald, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Harnack, Bernhard Weiss, Abbott, Farrar, Salmon, above all by Dr. Chase in his excellent article on the “Second Epistle of St. Peter” in Hastings' D. of B. It is true some of the best authorities speak very doubtfully both of this priority and of the authenticity of 2 Peter. Thus Döllinger, who, in his First Age of the Church, had maintained the priority of 2 P., wrote to Dr. Plummer in the year 1879 that he could no longer hold this opinion (Plummer's St. James and St. Jude 1891, p. 400). See also Plummer's St. Jude, p. 268: “While admitting that the case is by no means proved, we may be content to retain the priority, as well as the authenticity of 2 Peter, as at least the best working hypothesis”. And Hort is quoted by Dr. Sanday (Inspiration, p. 347) as saying that “If he were asked he should say that the balance of argument was against the epistle; and the moment he had done so he should begin to think that he might be wrong”. On the other hand three of the most recent critics, Spitta in his Commentary on the two Epistles, 1885, Dr. Bigg in his International Critical Commentary, ed. 2, 1902, and the veteran Zahn in his Einleitung in das N.T., ed. 3, 1906, have no hesitation in maintaining the priority and authenticity of 2 Peter. I proceed to consider the arguments which have been adduced by them or by others in favour of that view. [634]
[634] I agree with Dr. Bigg that it is superfluous to consider theories which suppose 2 Peter. to be made up of two independent epistles. Its unity, as shown in the earlier part of this chapter, forces itself on the mind of any careful reader.
(1) Assuming the genuineness of the two Epistles, it is easier, in a case of evident borrowing, to suppose that the borrower should be the comparatively obscure Jude, rather than Peter, the foremost of the Apostles.
(2) Jude seems to acknowledge his obligations to Peter in Jude 1:4 οἱ πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα … τὸν μόνον δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι and in Jude 1:17-18 μνήσθητε τῶν ῥημάτων τῶν προειρημένων ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅτι ἔλεγον ὑμῖν Ἐπʼ ἐσχάτου χρόνου ἔσονται ἐμπαῖκται κατὰ τὰς ἑαυτῶν ἐπιθυμίας πορευόμενοι, the former verse being regarded as an allusion to 2 Peter 2:3 ἐν ὑμῖν ἔσονται ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι … τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι … οἷς τὸ κρίμα ἔκπαλαι οὐκ ἀργεῖ, the latter to 2 Peter 3:2-3 μνησθῆναι τῶν προειρημένων ῥημάτων ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν καὶ τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων ὑμῶν ἐντολῆς τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος, τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες ὅτι ἐλεύσονται ἐπʼ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐν ἐμπαιγμονῇ ἐμπαῖκται κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῶν πορευόμενοι.
(3) The priority of 2 Peter is confirmed by the prevailing use of the future tense in regard to the innovators, whereas Jude uses the past or the present; cf. 2 Peter 2:1 ἔσονται, παρεισάξουσιν, 2 Peter 2:2 ἐξακολουθήσουσιν, βλασφημηθήσεται, 2 Peter 2:3 ἐμπορεύσονται, with Jude 1:4 παρεισεδύησαν, Jude 1:8 μιαίνουσιν, Jude 1:10 βλασφημοῦσιν and the aorists in Jude 1:11.
Dealing with these objections in order, we may concede that, if both Epistles are genuine, we should rather have expected the borrowing to be on the side of the more obscure. Yet the probability is not one that can be pressed. Milton and Handel borrowed from men much inferior to themselves; Isaiah borrows from Micah, 1 Peter from James. If on the other hand we find reason to believe that 2 Peter was not written by the Apostle, the objection only amounts to this, that, though St. Peter himself had borrowed from James in 1 Peter, an admirer of St. Peter could not have borrowed from Jude in 2 Peter. With regard to obj. (2), I have pointed out in my note that the word πάλαι in Jude 1:4 cannot refer to 2 Peter, but must be understood of the prophecy of Enoch, quoted in Jude 1:15, in which the word ἀσεβεῖς (which sums up the judgment in Jude 1:4), occurs no less than four times (if we include the cognate verb and abstract noun). I have also pointed out that Jude in Jude 1:17 refers not to any one writer, but to the oral teaching of the Apostles, and that 2 Peter in 2 Peter 3:2 does not profess to utter any new prophecy, but simply adds to what Jude had said, that the teaching of the Apostles rested upon the authority of Christ, and that it was in agreement with the teaching of the prophets. As regards obj. (3), the difference of tense, 2 Peter is not consistent in his use of the future. We have the pres. in 2 Peter 2:10 τρέμουσιν, 2 Peter 2:17 εἰσίν, 2 Peter 2:18 δελεάζουσιν, 2 Peter 3:5 λανθάνει, from which we should conclude that the innovators had already begun their work, if not among those to whom he writes, yet among other churches, to which Jude may have addressed himself. If the former Epistle is a product of the second century, the writer may have used the future tense to give it verisimilitude, while falling at times into the present from inadvertence.
(4) Spitta asks why, if 2 Peter is borrowing from Jude, he makes no reference to him, as he does to Paul? It might be enough to ask in reply, “Why, if Jude borrows from 2 Peter, does he make no definite acknowledgment of the fact”? But we have a parallel case, though no doubt on a smaller scale, in the unacknowledged borrowings from the Epistle of James in 1 Peter, on which see the Introduction to my edition of James, pp. 98. to 102. The reason however for the mention of Paul in 2 Peter. is quite distinct from the acknowledgment of a debt. The libertines claimed his authority in behalf of their own views (cf. Jude 1:4), and it was necessary for 2 Peter to protest against this.
It would be endless to go into a minute examination of the parallel passages which have been cited to prove the priority of 2 Peter I have said all that I think need be said about them in the earlier part of this chapter and in the explanatory notes of my edition of 2 Peter. The impression which they leave on my mind is that in Jude we have the first thought, in 2 Peter the second thought; that we can generally see a reason why Peter. should have altered Jude, but very rarely a reason why what we read in 2 Peter should have been altered to what we find in Jude 1:2 Peter is more reflective, Jude more spontaneous.
CHAPTER II
The Epistle of Jude, Author, Style, Authenticity, Circumstances of Writing. The name Judas (Ἰούδας) was naturally in very common use among the Jews at the time of the Christian era. It was dear to them as having been borne not only by the Eponymos of their tribe, but also by their great champion Judas the Maccabee. Two among the Twelve bore this name, Judas Iscariot, and the Judas not Iscariot (John 14:22), who is also called Judas son of James (ὁ Ἰακώβου, Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13) and Thaddaeus (Matthew 9:3; Mark 3:18, where some MSS. add Λεββαῖος). Besides these we meet with a Judas among the Brethren of the Lord (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3), Judas of Galilee (Acts 5:37), Judas surnamed Barsabbas (Acts 15:22), Judas of Damascus (Acts 9:11). It is therefore not surprising that the writer should have added a note of identification, δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἀδελφὸς δὲ Ἰακώβου. The most famous James in the middle of the first century was the head of the Church at Jerusalem and brother of the Lord, who also begins his epistle by styling himself simply δοῦλος (Θεοῦ καὶ Κυρίου) Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Hence it seems probable that the addition was made, not merely for the purpose of identification, but, like the addition of ἀπόστολος δέ in Titus 1:1, as giving a reason why his words should be received with respect, since he was brother of James and therefore one of the Brethren of the Lord. In my Introduction to the Epistle of St. James (pp. 1 47), I have endeavoured to show that the Brethren of the Lord were sons of Joseph and Mary, that they did not join the Church till after the Crucifixion, and that none of them was included among the Twelve. [659]
[659] See ver. 17, where the writer appears to distinguish between the Apostles and himself.
Other facts which we learn from the N.T. are (1) that Jude was probably either the youngest or the youngest but one of the Brethren of the Lord, as he is mentioned last among them in Matthew 13:55 οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ Ἰάκωβος καὶ Ἰωσῆς καὶ Σίμων καὶ Ἰούδας, and last but one in Mark 6:3 ἀδελφὸς δὲ Ἰακώβου καὶ Ἰωσῆ καὶ Ἰούδα καὶ Σίμωνος; (2) that the Brethren of the Lord (of course exclusive of James, who remained stationary at Jerusalem) were engaged in missionary journeys like St. Paul (1 Corinthians 9:5), but that they differed from him in the fact that they were married and were accompanied by their wives, and also, as we may suppose from Galatians 2:9; Matthew 10:23, that their ministrations were mainly directed to the Jews. In my edition of James (p. cxv) I have argued that his Epistle was addressed to Jews of the eastern Diaspora and it seems not improbable that Jude, writing many years after his brother's death, may have wished to supply his place by addressing to the same circle of readers the warnings which he felt bound to utter under the perilous circumstances of the new age. His cousin Symeon, the son of his uncle Clopas, had succeeded to the bishopric of Jerusalem (Eus., H.E., iii., 22, iv., 22, quoted in my edition of James pp. viii foll.), and is said to have been crucified A.D. 107 at the age of 120 [660] (cf. Hegesippus ap. Euseb., H.E., iii., 32, ἀπὸ τούτων τῶν αἱρετικῶν κατηγοροῦσι τινὲς Συμεῶνος … ὡς ὄντος ἀπὸ Δαβὶδ καὶ Χριστιανοῦ. καὶ οὕτως μαρτυρεῖ ἐτῶν ὢν ἑκατὸν εἴκοσιν ἐπὶ Τραϊανοῦ Καίσαρος καὶ ὑπατικοῦ Ἀττικοῦ).
[660] More probably under 95.
Eusebius (H.E., 3., 19) quotes again from Hegesippus an interesting story of the grandsons of Judas, “who were seized and carried to Rome by order of Domitian, whose fears had been excited by the report he heard of them as descendants of David, and akin to the Messiah. When they were brought before him, he quickly ascertained that they were poor men, and that the kingdom they looked forward to was not of this world, and accordingly dismissed them as men of no importance, and ceased from his persecution of the Church. When they returned home, they received special honours, as having witnessed to the truth, and also as being kinsmen of the Lord. They lived till the time of Trajan.”
In my Introduction to St. James I have pointed out that his Epistle bears marked traces of some characteristics which are found in the Lord Himself. I propose to call attention here to some resemblances and differences between the Epistles of the two brothers.
A. (1) Among the former we may note the tone of undoubting and unquestioned authority which pervades the two Epistles, combined with the personal humility of the writers. They do not arrogate to themselves that relationship which constituted the ground of the reverence with which they were regarded by their fellow-believers. They are simply servants of Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory, to whose coming, as the righteous Judge, they look forward, whose power still manifests itself in works of mercy (James 1:1; James 2:1; James 5:8-9; James 5:14); of Jesus Christ, who keeps His people safe to the end, through whom they hope for eternal life, to deny whom is the climax of impiety, in whom the Father is glorified for ever (Jude 1:1; Jude 1:4; Jude 1:21; Jude 1:25). They are sharers of a common salvation (Jude 1:3), they need forgiveness of sin like other men (James 3:2).
(2) Mental characteristics as exhibited in the two Epistles.
In my edition of James (p. ccxxix.) I have summed up the more general qualities of his style in the words “energy, vivacity, and as conducive to both, vividness of representation, meaning by the last that dislike of mere abstractions, that delight in throwing everything into picturesque and dramatic forms, which is so marked a feature in our Epistle”. To a certain extent this is true also of Jude, as shown in his imaginative power and his frequent use of figurative speech. Cf. Jude 1:8, where the innovators are spoken of as dreamers polluting the flesh; Jude 1:12, where they are compared (1) to sunken rocks on which those who meet them at the love-feasts run aground and perish, (2) to waterless clouds driven by the wind, (3) to trees which have to be rooted up, because they bear no fruit in the fruit-bearing season, (4) to wild waves foaming out their own shame on the shore, (5) to falling stars which are extinguished in everlasting gloom. In Jude 1:20 the faithful are bidden to build themselves up on their most holy faith; in Jude 1:23, to save sinners, snatching them from the fire; to hate the garment spotted by the flesh. In regard to St. James I further illustrated the quality of vividness by “the frequent reference to examples such as Abraham, Rahab, Job, Elijah”. In the same way St. Jude gives animation to his warnings by reference to the Israelites who perished in the wilderness for their unbelief after being saved from Egypt; to the fallen angels who are reserved for the judgment in everlasting chains; to Sodom and the neighbouring cities, which sinned in the same way as the angels, and now suffer the penalty of eternal fire (Jude 1:5-7). Reverence for the powers of the unseen world is commended by the pattern of the archangel Michael, who, even in his dispute with the devil for the body of Moses, refused to bring a railing accusation, but committed the case to God (Jude 1:8-9). Cain and Balaam and Korah are cited as the predecessors of the present disturbers of the Church (Jude 1:11). Enoch the seventh from Adam has left us his warning against such men (Jude 1:14-15). “You have yourselves heard the same warning from the Apostles” (Jude 1:17).
(3) For moral strictness and stern severity in rebuking sin, the whole of this short Epistle may be compared with such passages as James 2:19; James 3:15; James 4:1 to James 5:6. For noble and weighty expression we may compare Jude 1:20-21, ὑμεῖς δέ, ἀγαπητοί, ἐποικοδομοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ ὑμῶν πίστει, ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ προσευχόμενοι, ἑαυτοὸς ἐν ἀγάπῃ Θεοῦ τηρήσατε, προσδεχόμενοι τὸ ἔλεος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον and the final doxology, with the passages which I have selected from St. James in p. ccxxviii. The appealing ἀγαπητοί, which is thrice found in St. James, is also thrice repeated in Jude. The warning against Respect of Persons is found in James 2:1-9 and in Jude 1:16 : that against a murmuring discontented spirit in James 1:13; James 4:1; James 5:9, in Jude 1:15-16; that against the misuse of the tongue in James 3:1-10, in Jude 1:16 : the charge to labour for the salvation of others in James 5:19-20, in Jude 1:22-23.
For special details of the style of St. Jude see my larger edition, pp. 26 66: one point which may be noticed here is his fondness for triplets. Thus in Jude 1:2 we find ἔλεος καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ ἀγάπη πληθυνθείη. In Jude 1:4 “the men who were designed for this judgment” are described as ἀσεβεῖς, τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ χάριτα μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν, τὸν μόνον δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι. In Jude 1:3-7 three examples of punishment are adduced, Israel in the wilderness, the angels who sinned, the overthrow of Sodom. In Jude 1:8 the libertines, σάρκα μὲν μιαίνουσιν, κυριότητα δὲ ἀθετοῦσιν, δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν. [In Jude 1:9-10 we have two couplets οὐκ ἐτόλμησεν ἀλλὰ εἶπεν : ὅσα μὲν οὐκ οἴδασιν βλασφημοῦσιν, ὅσα δὲ φθείρονται.] In Jude 1:11 we return to the triplet, Cain, Balaam, Korah. [In Jude 1:12-13 we have a quintet of metaphors, hidden rocks, rainless clouds, dead trees, turbid waves, falling stars. In Jude 1:15 again two Couplets ποιῆσαι κρίσιν ἐλέγξαι, περὶ πάντων ὧν ἠσέβησαν ὧν ἐλάλησαν.] In Jude 1:16 we return to the triplet πορευόμενοι λαλοῦντες (disguised in the form καὶ τὸ στόμα λαλεῖ ὑπέρογκα) θαυμάζοντες. So in Jude 1:17, the word the Apostles the Lord. Jude 1:18 does not admit of subdivision. Jude 1:19 has the triplet ἀποδιορίζοντες, ψυχικοί, πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες. Jude 1:20-21 have a double triplet, ἐποικοδομοῦντες προσευχόμενοι προσδεχόμενοι and πνεῦμα ἅγιον Θεός Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. Jude 1:22 has the marked triplet οὓς μὲν οὓς δὲ οὓς δέ. Jude 1:24 has a couplet, φυλάξαι στῆσαι. Jude 1:25 has a quartet δόξα, μεγαλωσύνη, κράτος, ἐξουσία, followed by the triplet πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος, καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας, thus closing with a septet. Compare the stress laid on the fact that Enoch was seventh from Adam, Jude 1:14.
There are some traces of the triplet in St. James, as in James 1:14, ἕκαστος πειράζεται ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας εἶτα ἡ ἐπιθυμία τίκτει ἁμαρτίαν, ἡ δὲ ἁμαρτία ἀποκύει θάνατον, James 1:19 ἔστω δὲ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ταχὺς εἰς τὸ ἀκοῦσαι, βραδὺς εἰς τὸ λαλῆσαι, βραδὺς εἰς ὀργήν, James 2:23 ἐπίστευσεν Ἀβραὰμ τῷ Θεῷ, καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην, καὶ φίλος Θεοῦ ἐκλήθη, James 3:6, ἡ γλῶσσα ἡ σπιλοῦσα, καὶ φλογίζουσα καὶ φλογιζομένη, James 4:8, ἐγγίσατε τῷ Θεῷ καθαρίσατε χεῖρας ἁγνίσατε καρδίας, So James 4:9; James 5:17-18. Perhaps we may find a septet in the beautiful description of heavenly wisdom (James 3:17) πρῶτον μὲν ἁγνή, ἔπειτα εἰρηνική, ἐπιεικής, εὐπειθής, μεστὴ ἐλέους καὶ καρπῶν ἀγαθῶν, ἀδιάκριτος, ἀνυπόκριτος. But the distinctive mark of St. James's style is “paronomasia” passing at times into such a climax as we find in James 1:14-15 quoted above and in James 1:3-4, τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως κατεργάζεται ὑπομονήν, ἡ δὲ ὑπομονὴ ἔργον τέλειον ἐχέτω, ἵνα ἦτε τέλειοι. See pp. 222 f. of my edition.
Another characteristic which may be noted is the love of forcible antithesis as in Jude 1:10, ὅσα μὲν οὐκ οἴδασιν βλασφημοῦσιν, ὅσα δὲ φυσικῶς ὡς τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα ἐπίστανται, ἐν τούτοις φθείρονται. As regards vocabulary, the most striking resemblance is the occurrence of ψυχικός as opposed to πνευματικός, of which the earliest biblical example is in James 3:15, but this had been adopted by Paul (1 Corinthians 2:10 foll.) before it was made use of by Jude.
[662] [663] (1) The differences between the two Epistles are hardly less marked: Jude evidently belongs to a much later period of Christian development. James, as I have endeavoured to show in the Introduction to his Epistle, wrote about the year 45 A.D. before any of the other canonical books was in existence, and his theological position is that of the early Church described in the opening Chapter s of the Acts. Jude is familiar with the writings of St. Paul. He is familiar with the terms σωτήρ and σωτηρία (Jude 1:3; Jude 1:25): in Jude 1:20-21 he brings together the three Persons of the Trinity; he addresses those to whom he writes in Pauline language as κλητοί (Jude 1:1) and ἅγιοι (Jude 1:3), and uses forms of ascription and doxology closely resembling those which occur in St. Peter and St. Paul. Their “most holy faith” is a “tradition once delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:4; Jude 1:20): they are bidden to “remember the words of the Apostles, how they told them that in the last time there should come scoffers” (Jude 1:17-18). The error which he combats appears to be a misgrowth of St. Paul's teaching in regard to a salvation of free grace, “not of works, lest any man should boast” (Jude 1:4). Many of the features which he distinguishes are such as we find delineated in St. Paul's farewell to the Ephesian Church, and in some of his Epistles, especially those to Titus and Timothy.
[662] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[663] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
(2) Another difference might seem to be Jude's repeated references to Pseudepigrapha such as the book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses (on which see the next chapter) and his readiness to give credence to fanciful legends such as the fall of the Watchers, and the contention for the body of Moses. Credulity of this kind seems to be far apart from the strong practical sense of James. Yet there are signs that the latter was not unacquainted with rabbinical traditions. Spitta even goes so far as to trace most of his teaching to pre-Christian sources. I have argued against this view in ch. vii. 2 of my Introduction to his Epistle; but my notes on James 1:8 (δίψυχος) and James 4:8-9 ἁγνίσατε καρδίας, δίψυχοι · ταλαιπωρήσατε, suggest a connexion with an apocryphal writing quoted in Clem. Rom. i. 23 ἡ γραφὴ αὕτη, ὅπσυ λέγει Ταλαίπωροί εἰσιν οἱ δίψυχοι [664] and identified by Lightfoot and Spitta with Eldad and Modad (on which see Herm., Vis., ii., 3), by Hilgenfeld with the Assumption of Moses. The phrase in James 4:14, ἀτμὶς γάρ ἐστε πρὸς ὀλίγον φαινομένη, has been traced by some to another apocryphal quotation found in Clem. i. 17 ἐγὼ δέ εἰμι ἀτμὶς ἀπὸ κύθρας, which Hilgenfeld also supposes to be taken from the Assumption of Moses. The phrase κόσμος ἀδικίας in James 3:6 is found in Enoch xlviii. 7. The Testaments of the Patriarchs, which also contain quotations from Enoch (such as Sim. 5 ἑώρακα ἐν χαρακτῆρι γραφῆς Ἐνώχ, Leviticus 10; Leviticus 10 βίβλος Ἐνὼχ τοῦ δικαίου, ib. 14, ἔγνων ἀπὸ γραφῆς Ἐνὼχ ὅτι ἐπὶ τέλει ἀσεβήσετε ib. 16, Juda 18, Benj. 9, Zab. 3, Nepht. 4. ἐν γραφῇ ἁγίᾳ Ἐνὼχ ὅτι … ποιήσετε κατὰ πᾶσαν ἀνομίαν Σοδόμων), furnish several parallels quoted in my note on James 4:7 ἀντίστητε τῷ διαβόλῳ καὶ φεύξεται ἀφʼ ὑμῶν. The words which immediately precede (ἐγγίσατε τῷ Θεῷ καὶ ἐγγίσει ὑμῖν) are not unlike another quotation which occurs in Herm. Vis. ii. 3, ἐγγὺς Θεὸς τοῖς ἐπιστρεφομένοις, ὡς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἐλδὰτ καὶ Μωδὰτ τοῖς προφητεύσασιν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ τῷ λαῷ. James has also been credited with a knowledge of the Sibylline writings on the ground of the phrase ἰοῦ θανατηφόρου which occurs in 2 Peter 3:8 and also in Sib. Prooem. 71.
[664] The quotation, as given more fully in Clem. Romans 2:11, contains the somewhat rare word ἀκαταστασία, which is also used by James 3:16.
εἰσὶ θεοὶ μερόπων δηλήτορες [665] ἀβούλων,
[665] MS. δολοητορες. Geffcken reads δόλῳ ἡγητῆρες.
τῶν δὴ κἀκ στόματος χεῖται θανατηφόρος ἰός.
But if there is borrowing, it is just as likely to be on the other side. The strange expression τροχὸς γενέσεως in 2 Peter 3:6 is regarded as Orphic by some, but it seems to have been used by the Orphic writers in a different sense, viz. that of the endless changes of metempsychosis.
(3) Another difference which strikes one on reading the two epistles is that while the former is full of instruction for the present time, the bulk of the latter is male up of denunciations, which have very much lost their force. To a modern reader it is curious rather than edifying, with the exception of the beginning and end (Jude 1:1-2 and Jude 1:20-25). This is no doubt to be explained by what is stated of the purport of the letter in Jude 1:3. It was called out by a sudden emergency, to guard against an immediate pressing danger, and was substituted for a treatise περὶ τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας which Jude had hoped to send (Jude 1:3), and which would probably have been more in the tone and spirit of Jude 1:20 f.
The Epistle of Jude was recognised as canonical in the Third Council of Carthage, A.D. 397 (Westcott on the Canon, p. 566), with which agree Jerome (Westcott, p. 580) and Augustine (De Doctr. Christiana, ii. 12). Jerome, however (De vir. ill. iv.), mentions that, owing to the use made of the apocryphal Enoch, the epistle of Jude a plerisque reicitur. So Eusebius H.E. ii. 23, “Not many old writers have mentioned the Epistle of James, nor yet the Epistle of Jude, which is also one of the seven so-called Catholic Epistles, though we know that these have been publicly used with the rest in most churches.” Ib. iii. 25, “Among the controverted books, which are nevertheless well known and recognised by most, we class the Epistle circulated under the name of James and that of Jude.” Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386 A.D.) acknowledged both Jude 1:2 and 2 Peter. In Asia Minor both Jude 1:2 and 2 Peter were recognised as canonical by Gregory Naz. (d. c. 391). In Alexandria Didymus (d. 394) wrote comments on the Catholic Epistles, especially defending Jude from the attacks made upon him as having made use of apocryphal books. Athanasius (d. 373) in his list of the books of the N.T. “agrees exactly with our own Canon” (Westcott, p. 520). Origen (In Matthew 10:17) says of Jude ἔγραψεν ἐπιστολήν, ὀλιγόστιχον μέν, πεπληρωμένην δὲ τῶν τῆς οὐρανίου χάριτος ἐρρωμένων λόγων. In the same treatise (xvii. 30) he quotes Jude 1:6, adding words which signify that it was not universally received, εἰ δὲ καὶ τὴν Ἰούδα πρόσοιτό τις ἐπιστολήν. Clement of Alexandria commented on Jude in his Hypotyposes (Eus. H.E. iv. 14) the comment is still extant in the Latin translation and quotes him by name (Paed. iii. 44, 45) with commendation, διδασκαλικώτατα ἐκτίθεται τὰς εἰκόνας τῶν κρινομένων. He quotes him again Strom. iii. 11, and, without naming him, in Strom. vi. 65. Tertullian (De Cult. Fem. 3) says “Enoch apud Judam apostolum testimonium possidet”. It appears in the Muratorian Canon (c. 170 A.D.), “Epistola sane Judae et superscripti Johannis duae in catholicis habentur”. Theophilus of Antioch (ad Autol. ii. 15) seems to allude to Jude 1:13 in the words quoted in my note on that verse. Athenagoras (c. 180) speaks (§ 24, p. 130 Otto) of the fallen angels in a manner which suggests acquaintance with Jude 1:6, ἀγγέλους τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχήν. (Of the angels some) ἔμειναν ἐφʼ οἶς αὐτοὺς ἐποίησεν καὶ διέταξεν ὁ Θεός, οἱ δὲ ἐνύβρισαν καὶ τῇ τῆς οὐσίας ὑποστάσει καὶ τῇ ἀρχῇ, and he adds that he asserts this on the authority of the prophets, which may perhaps refer both to Enoch and Jude. The form of salutation in Jude 1:2 ἔλεος καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ ἀγάπη πληθυνθείη is found in Mart. Polyc. Inscr. and Polyc. ad Phil. The earliest reference however to Jude is probably to be found in 2 Pet., which, as we have seen in the preceding Chapter 1, is largely copied from him. There appears also to be an allusion to it in Didache ii. 7, οὐ μισήσεις πάντα ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ οὓς μὲν ἐλέγξεις, περὶ δὲ ὧν προσεύξῃ, οὓς δὲ ἀγαπήσεις, cf. Jude 1:22. Jude's epistle was included in the Old Latin Version, but not in the Peshitto.
The most important passage in Jude bearing upon the circumstances of its composition is Jude 1:17, where the readers are bidden to call to mind the words formerly spoken to them by the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ (which would fit in with the suggestion that it was addressed to the Syrian churches) ὅτι ἔλεγον ὑμῖν Ἐπʼ ἐσχάτου χρόνου ἔσονται ἐμπαῖκται, the latter words showing that these communications of the Apostles had now ceased, either by their death or by their removal from Jerusalem. Jude recognises that “the last time,” of which they had preached, had now arrived. The long retrospect which these words imply agrees with the far-away note of Jude 1:3, παρακαλῶν ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι τῇ ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστει, as contrasted with such passages as Luke 4:21 σήμερον πεπλήρωται ἡ γραφή αὕτη, though we must not forget that the idea of a Christian tradition is familiar to St. Paul, and that there are other examples in the N.T. of the objective use of πίστις.
It has been argued that this epistle must have been written before 70, or it would have contained some reference to the destruction of Jerusalem among the other notable judgments of God. We may grant that this is what we should have expected, if the letter were written shortly afterwards, though even then it is a possible view that a patriotic Jew might shrink from any further allusion to so terrible a subject, beyond the reference to the destruction in the wilderness (Jude 1:5); but this difficulty is lessened if we suppose the date of the Epistle to be nearer 80 than 70.
CHAPTER III
Use of Apocryphal Books by Jude. Clement of Alexandria in his Adumbrationes (Dind. vol. iii. p. 483), after quoting Jude 1:9, “Quando Michael archangelus cum diabolo disputans altercabatur de corpore Moysis,” remarks “hic confirmat Assumptionem Moysis,” i.e., here the writer corroborates the Assumption of Moses; and again, in commenting on Jude 1:14, “Prophetavit autem de his septimus ab Adam Enoch,” he adds “His verbis prophetam (al. prophetiam) comprobat”.
The Hebrew original of the book of Enoch [666] is now lost. It was translated into Greek, of which only a few fragments remain, and this was again translated into Ethiopic, probably about 600 A.D. A copy of the last was found in Abyssinia in 1773 by Bruce, the famous traveller, and an English version was published by Abp. Laurence in 1821, followed by the Ethiopic text in 1838. The composite nature of the book is generally recognised. The latest editor, R. H. Charles, who is my authority for what follows, divides it into five sections and recognises many interpolations in these. He considers that the larger portion of the book was written not later than 160 B.C., and that no part is more recent than the Christian era. It exercised an important influence on Jewish and Christian literature during the centuries which followed being used by the author of the Assumption of Moses (written about the Christian era), also by the writers of the Book of Fubilees, the Apocalypse of Baruch, the Fourth Book of Ezra, and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Mr. Charles traces its influence in the N.T. not merely in the epistles of St. Jude and the two epistles of St. Peter, but above all, in the Apocalypse; also in the Acts, and the epistle to the Hebrews, in some of the epistles of St. Paul, and in the Gospels. It is quoted three times (twice as Scripture) in the Epistle of Barnabas, is referred to, though not named, in Justin and Athenagoras, is cited by Irenæus, iv. 16. 2: “Enoch … cum esset homo, legatione ad angelos fungebatur et translatus est et conservatur usque nunc testis judicii Dei, quoniam angeli quidem deciderunt in terram in judicium” (En. xiv. 7). Tertullian quotes it as Scripture, calling Enoch the oldest of the prophets (Idol. xv., Apol. xxii.). He allows that its canonicity was denied by some, “quia nec in armarium Judaicum admittitur,” and also because it was thought that, if it were a genuine writing of Enoch, it must have perished in the Deluge. He considers, however, that it should be received, because of its witness to Christ, and because it has the testimony of the Apostle Jude. It is twice quoted in Clement's Ecl. Proph. (Dind. iii. pp. 456, 474) as well as in Strom. iii. 9. Origen speaks doubtfully of the authority of Enoch: cf. C. Celsum, ver 54, ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις οὐ πάνυ φέρεται ὡς θεῖα τὰ ἐπιγεγραμμένα τοῦ Ἐνὼχ βιβλία, and In Johannem, vi. 25, ὡς ἐν τῷ Ἐνὼχ γέγραπται, εἴ τῳ φίλον παραδέχεσθαι ὡς ἅγιον τὸ βιβλίον, also In Num. Hom. xxviii. 2, De Princ. i. 3. 3. Hilary (Comm. in Psalms 132:3) writes: “Fertur id, de quo etiam nescio cuius liber extat, quod angeli concupiscentes filias hominum, cum de caelo descenderent, in montem Hermon convenerant”. Jerome says that the doubts entertained as to the epistle of St. Jude arose from his quoting an apocryphal book as an authority (De Vir. Ill. iv), “quia de libro Enoch, qui apocryphus est, in ea assumit testimonia, a plerisque reicitur”. Cf. also Comm. in Psalms 132:3 and Comm. in Titum, i. 12. Augustine (Civ. Dei, xv 23. 4) and Chrysostom (Hom. in Genesis 6:1) speak of the story of the angels and the daughters of men as a baseless fable. Still more severe is the condemnation passed on the book of Enoch with other apocryphal writings in Const. Apost. vi. 16. 2, as φθοροποιὰ καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐχθρά.
[666] On which See Schürer, Hist. of Jewish People, vol. iii. pp. 54 73.
Mr. Charles has also edited the Assumption of Moses (1897), which he regards as a composite work made up of two distinct books, the Testament and the Assumption of Moses. [667] “The former was written in Hebrew between 7 and 29 A.D., and possibly also the latter. A Greek version of the entire work appeared in the first century A.D. Of this only a few fragments have been preserved. The Greek version was translated into Latin not later than the fifth century” (pp. xiii., xiv.). “The book preserved in the incomplete Latin version, first published by Ceriani in 1861, is in reality a Testament and not an Assumption.” “The editing of the two books in one was probably done in the first century, as St. Jude draws upon both in his epistle” (pp. xlvii and l). Thus Jude 1:9 [668] is derived from the Assumption, Jude 1:16 from the Testament (p. lxii.). On the latter Charles compares οὗτοί εἰσι γογγυσταί, μεμψίμοιροι, καὶ τὸ στόμα αὐτῶν λαλεῖ ὑπέρογκα, θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα ὠφελίας χάριν with Ass. M. vii. 7, quaerulosi, vii. 9, et manus eorum et mentes immunda tractantes et os eorum loquetur ingentia, 3 John 1:5, erunt illis temporibus mirantes personas … et accipientes munera (MS. acceptiones munerum). He identifies the ἐμπαῖκται of Jude 1:18 with the homines pestilentiosi of Ass. M. vii. 3, and calls attention to the frequent recurrence of the word ασεβεῖς in the former (of Jude 1:4; Jude 1:15; Jude 1:18) and impii in the latter: see vi. 1, facient facientes impietatem, vii. 3, pestilentiosi et impii, ib. vii, ix. 3, xi. 17.
[667] Cf. Schürer, pp. 73 83.
[668] See note on this, and add to the illustrative passages there quoted a scholium printed for the first time in James' Test. of Abraham, p. 18: ὁ διάβολος ἀντεὶχεν θέλων ἀπατῆσαι, λέγων ὅτι Ἐμόν ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα, ὡς τῆς ὕλης δεσπόζων · καὶ ἤκουσεν τὸ Ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι Κύριος, τούτεστιν ὁ Κύριος ὁ πάντων τῶν πνευμάτων δεσπόζων · ἄλλοι δέ, ὅτι βουλόμενος ὁ Θεὸς δεῖξαι ὅτι μετὰ τὴν ἔνθενδε ἀπαλλαγήν, ταῖς ἡμετέραις ψυχαῖς ἀνθιστάμενοι δαίμονες πορευομέναις τὴν ἐπὶ τὰ ἄνω πορείαν, τοῦτο οὖν συνεχώρησεν ὁρᾶσθαι ἐπὶ τῆς Μωσέως ταφῆς · ἐβλασφήμει γὰρ καὶ ὁ διάβολος κατὰ Μωσέως, φονέα τοῦτον καλῶν διὰ τὸ πατάξαι τὸν Αἰγύπτιον · ὁ Μιχαὴλ ὁ ἀρχάγγελος, μὴ ἐνεγκὼν τὴν αὐτοῦ βλασφημίαν, εἴρηκεν αὐτῷ ὅτι Ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι Κύριος ὁ Θεός, διάβολε. ἔλεγε δὲ καὶ τοῦτο, ὅτι ἐψεύσατο ὁ Θεὸς εἰσαγαγὼν τὸν Μωσῆν ἔνθα ὤμοσεν αὐτὸν μὴ εἰσελθεῖν.
Again there appears to be a reminiscence of the Testaments of the Patriarchs, [669] where the sin of the Watchers is connected with that of Sodom: cf. Test. Nepht. 3, ἥλιος καὶ σελήνη καὶ ἀστέρες οὐκ ἀλλοιοῦσι τὴν τάξιν αὐτῶν … ἔθνη πλανηθέντα καὶ ἀφέντα κύριον ἠλλοίωσαν τάξιν αὐτῶν … ἐξακολουθήσαντες πνεύμασι πλάνης. Ὑμεῖς μὴ οὕτως … ἵνα μὴ γένησθε ὡς Σόδομα, ἥτις ἐνήλλαξεν τάξιν φύσεως αὐτῆς. Ὁμοίως καὶ Ἐγρήγορες ἐνήλλαξαν τάξιν φύσεως αὐτῶν, οὓς κατηράσατο Κύριος ἐπὶ τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ, Test. Aser 7, μὴ γίνεσθε ὡς Σόδομα ἥτις ἠγνόησε τοὺς ἀγγέλους κυρίου καὶ ἀπώλετο ἕως αἰῶνος. There seems to be more than a casual coincidence between these passages and Jude 1:6-7; Jude 1:13, ἀγγέλους τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχήν … ὡς Σόδομα … τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον ἐκπορνεύσασαι καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας πρόκεινται δεῖγμα πυρὸς αἰωνίου … ἀστέρες πλανῆται.
[669] An edition has lately been brought out by Charles.
We have seen how this use of apocryphal books was viewed by the early Christian writers. They were at first disposed to think that a book stamped with the approval of St. Jude must be itself inspired. Later on, the feeling changed: the authority of St. Jude was no longer sufficient to save the apocryphal writing: on the contrary the prejudice against the Apocrypha and its “blasphemous fables” (Chrys. Hom. 22 in Gen.) led many to doubt the authority of St. Jude: see above quotation from Jerome, who argues that the approval of the Apostle need not be supposed to extend to the whole of the book of Enoch, but only to the verses quoted by him. So Augustine (Civ. Dei, xv. 23, 4): “Scripsisse quidem nonnulla divina Enoch illum septimum ab Adam negare non possumus, cum hoc in epistola canonica Judas apostolus dicat” (although the book as a whole has been justly excluded from the Canon).
Some modern writers have endeavoured to avoid the necessity of allowing that an apocryphal writing is quoted as authoritative in the Bible, by the supposition that the words quoted may have come down by tradition and have been made use of by the inspired writer, independently of the book from which he is supposed to quote, or that they were uttered by immediate inspiration without any human assistance, or again, that the book of Enoch may be subsequent to that of Jude, and have borrowed from it. But the careful investigation of many scholars, as summed up by Charles, can leave little doubt in any candid mind as to the proximate dates, both of Enoch and of the Assumption. St. Jude does not put forward his account of the burial of Moses or the preaching of Enoch, as though it were something unheard of before. As regards the libertines described in the latter book, he uses the phrase προγεγραμμένοι, implying that he refers to a written prophecy. None of the early Fathers find a difficulty in supposing him to refer to a book which was not included in the Canon. Jews of that time were accustomed to accept rabbinical explanations or additions to Scripture as having authority. Thus St. Paul accepts the story of the Rock which followed the Israelites in their wanderings (1 Corinthians 10:4), gives the names of the magicians who withstood Moses before Pharaoh (2 Timothy 3:8), recognises the instrumentality of angels in the giving of the Law (Galatians 3:19, cf. Hebrews 2:2; Acts 7:53). So, too, Stephen speaks of Moses as learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians (Acts 7:2); the author of the epistle to the Hebrews (Hebrews 11:37) alludes to the tradition as to the death of Isaiah (see Charles' Ascension of Isaiah, pp. 45. foll.), and James (James 5:17) limits the drought predicted by Elijah to 3½ years.
CHAPTER IV
The Story of the Fallen Angels. St. Jude (Jude 1:5-8) introduces as examples of the divine wrath against those who had sinned after receiving favours from God (1) the Israelites who perished in the wilderness for unbelief after they had been saved from Egypt; (2) the angels who abandoned their original office and habitation, being led away by fleshy lusts, and are now kept in chains under darkness till the day of judgment; (3) the people of Sodom, who inhabited a land like the garden of the Lord (Genesis 13:10), who were rescued from Chedorlaomer by Abraham (Genesis 14:16-17), and yet sinned after the fashion of the angels, and are now a warning to all, suffering the punishment of eternal fire. A similar account is given in 2 Peter 2:4-9 where it is said (1) that God spared not the angels who sinned, but hurled them into Tartarus, to be detained there in chains (or pits) of darkness until the final judgment; (2) that He brought a flood on the world of the ungodly, while he spared Noah; (3) that He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, while he delivered righteous Lot; in all three cases punishing impurity and rebellion.
As is shown in the explanatory notes, this account of the Fall of the Angels is taken directly from the book of Enoch, which is itself an expansion from Jewish and Gentile sources of the strange narrative contained in Genesis 6:1-4 : “It came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the ground and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose.… The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bare children unto them: the same were the mighty men which were of old, the men of renown” (R.V.). ἐγένετο ἡνίκα ἤρξαντο οἱ ἄνθρωποι πολλοὶ γίνεσθαι ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ θυγατέρες ἐγεννήθησαν αὐτοῖς, ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὅτι καλαὶ εἰσὶν ἔλαβον ἑαυτοῖς γυναῖκας ἀπὸ πασῶν ὧν ἐξελέξαντο … οἱ δὲ γίγαντες ἧσαν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις, καὶ μετʼ ἐκεῖνο, ὡς ἂν εἰσεπορεύοντο οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ πρὸς τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἐγέννωσαν ἑαυτοῖς, ἐκεῖνοι ἦσαν οἱ γίγαντες οἱ ἀπʼ αἰῶνος, οἱ ἄνθρωποι οἱ ὀνομαστοί (LXX). That the version ἄγγελοι gives the true force of the original is evident from the other passages in which the phrase “sons of God” occurs, Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7; Daniel 3:25; Daniel 3:28; Psalms 29:1; Psalms 89:6. It has been suggested that the phrase μετʼ ἐκεῖνο may be a marginal note having reference to Numbers 13:33, where the Nephilim are mentioned as a gigantic race, “in whose eyes the spies were as grasshoppers,” inhabiting a part of Canaan at the time of the Exodus. The translation γίγαντες implies not only superhuman size, but also superhuman insolence and impiety. According to Greek mythology they were children of Heaven and Earth, who rose up in insurrection against the Gods and were hurled down to Tartarus or buried beneath the mountains. This resemblance is noted by Josephus in the passage quoted below.
It is evident that the passage in Genesis 6 is a fragment unconnected either with what precedes or follows. Driver says of it: “We must see in it an ancient Hebrew legend … the intention of which was to account for the origin of a supposed race of prehistoric giants, of whom no doubt (for they were ‘men of name') Hebrew folk-lore told much more than the compiler of Genesis has deemed worthy of preservation”. Ryle (Early Narratives of Genesis, pp. 91 95) speaks of it as “an extract from a very early legend which gives an alternative explanation of the Fall, in which woman is again tempted by one of higher race”.
The story was variously commented on by later Jewish writers, most of whom supposed that the Nephilim were the offspring of the intercourse between the angels and the daughters of men, and that they were destroyed in the Flood.
The Fall of the Angels is largely treated of in the collection of treatises which goes under the name of the Book of Enoch. The earliest portion of the book is considered by the latest editor, Mr. R. H. Charles, to have been written in the first quarter of the second century B.C. Two hundred of the angels, or watchers, Ἐγρήγοροι as they are called in the Greek versions of Daniel 4:13 by Aquila and Symmachus, conspired together under the leadership of Semjaza (elsewhere called Azazel, as in Enoch, Chapter s viii. and ix.) and descended on Mount Hermon in the days of Jared, father of Enoch (vi.). There they took to themselves human wives whom they instructed in magic and various arts, and begot giants, who afterwards begot the Nephilim: cf. viii., οἱ δὲ γίγαντες ἐτέκνωσαν Ναφηλείμ … μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἤρξαντο οἱ γίγαντες κατεσθίειν τὰς σάρκας τὰς ἀνθρώπων (like Polyphemus). Complaint having been made of the sin and misery thus introduced into the world, Raphael is sent down from heaven to bind Azazel hand and foot and shut him up in darkness till the judgment day, when he will be cast into eternal fire. Gabriel is at the same time sent to slay the giants (x. 9): the watchers will be bound under the hills for seventy generations, and then be confined for ever in the abyss of fire: the spirits of the slain giants become demons. In chap. xix., however, the demons are represented as existing before the fall of the watchers.
The prevailing demonology of the Book of Enoch is thus summed up by Dr. Charles (Enoch, p. 52). The angelic watchers who fell from lusting after the daughters of men have been imprisoned in darkness from the time of their fall. The demons are the spirits which proceeded from the souls of the giants who were their offspring. They work moral ruin on earth without hindrance till the final judgment. Satan is the ruler of a counter kingdom of evil. He led astray the angels and made them his subjects. He also tempted Eve. The Satans can still appear in heaven (as in Job). They tempt to evil, they accuse the fallen, they punish the condemned. Ir portions however of the Book of Enoch there is no mention of a Satan or Satans, but the angels are led astray by their own chief Azazel, or as he is sometimes called Semjaza (En. ix., x., xiii., liv.). Of the Secrets of Enoch, which is supposed to date from about the Christian era, Dr. Charles says: [670] “It is hard to get a consistent view of the demonology of the book: it seems to be as follows: Satan, one of the archangels, seduced the watchers of the fifth heaven into revolt in order to establish a counter kingdom to God. Therefore Satan or the Satans were cast down from heaven and given the air for their habitation. Some however of the Satans or Watchers went down to earth and married the daughters of men.” Compare xviii. 3, “These are the Grigori, who with their prince Satanail rejected the holy Lord, and in consequence of these things they are kept in great darkness”.
[670] See his note on pp. 36, 37.
In chap. liv. there appears to be an attempt to connect the two different stories of the Fall: the guilt of the Watchers is said to have consisted in their becoming subject to Satan, who was either identified with the Serpent, as in Revelation 12:9, καὶ ἐβλήθη ὁ δράκων ὁ μέγας, ὁ ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος, ὁ καλούμενος Διάβολος καὶ ὁ Σατανᾶς, ὁ πλανῶν τὴν οἰκουμένην ὅλην ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν, καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ μετʼ αὐτοῦ ἐβλήθησαν; or else was supposed to have made use of the Serpent as his instrument, as in the Assumption of Moses quoted by Orig. De Princip. iii. 2. 1 (Lomm. vol. xxi. p. 303): “In Genesi serpens Evam seduxisse describitur, de quo in Asc. Mosis (cujus libelli meminit apostolus Judas) Michael Archangelus cum diabolo disputans de corpore Mosis ait a diabolo inspiratum serpentem causam exstitisse praevaricationis Adae et Evae”. [671]
[671] Cf. Tennant, The Fall and Original Sin, pp. 245, 246.
The history of the gradual development of the belief in regard to Satan, as exhibited in the Bible, will be found in any of the Dictionaries of the Bible. Beside the attempt to harmonise the two Fall-stories by making Satan the cause of both, an attempt was made to arrive at the same result by ascribing to Satan or the Serpent the same motive which led to the fall of the angels. In Wis 2:24 we read “By the envy of the devil death entered into the world”. This envy is explained in rabbinical writings sometimes as occasioned by the dignity of Adam and his lordship over the creation, but more frequently by Satan's desire for Eve: [672] cf. 4Ma 18:8. οὐδὲ ἐλυμήνατό μου τὰ ἁγνὰ τῆς παρθενίας λυμεὼν ἀπάτης ὄφις. Sometimes again his fall is ascribed to the less ignoble motive of pride, as in the pseudepigraphic Life of Adam: “When God created Adam, He called upon the angels to adore him as His image.… Satan however refused, and on being threatened with the wrath of God said that he would exalt his throne above the stars of heaven” (Isaiah 14:13). In other writings (Life of Adam, Secrets of Enoch) Satan refuses to worship God Himself, “entertaining the impossible idea that he should make his throne higher than the clouds over the earth, and should be equal in rank to [God's] power”. [673]
[672] See Tennant pp. 152 foll.; Thackery, St. Paul and Jewish Thought, pp. 50 foll.; Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus, i. p. 165. ii. 753 foll. In the latter passeage the rabbis are quoted to the effect that the angels generally were opposed to the creation of man, and that the demons were ther offsping of Eve and male spirits, and Adam and female sprits, especially Lilith.
[673] See Tennant, pp. 199, 201, 206.
There can be little doubt that the story of the punishment of the angels took its colouring from two passages of Isaiah, the fine imaginative description of the mighty king of Babylon, under the figure of the morning star, entering the realm of Hades (Isaiah 14) and what appears to be an account of the punishment of guardian angels for their neglect of the nations committed to their charge (Isaiah 24:21 f.), “It shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall punish the host of the high ones on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth. And they shall be gathered together as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison and after many days shall they be visited.”
St. Jude's allusion to this story is merely parenthetical, to illustrate the law of judgment. He appears not to recognise any connection between the Fallen Angels and Satan. The former are suffering imprisonment in darkness till the final judgment: the latter was apparently able to confront the archangel on equal terms, when contending for the body of Moses. So the continued activity and even the authority of Satan and his angels in this world are asserted both in the O.T., as in Job 1:6 and Zechariah 3:1-2, and in the N.T. as in James 4:7; James 4:1; 1 Peter 5:8; Ephesians 6:11; Ephesians 6:12 (we have to stand against the wiles of the devil, … our warfare is not against flesh and blood, but) πρὸς τὰς ἀρχάς, πρὸς τὰς ἐξουσίας, πρὸς τοὺς κοσμοκράτορας τοῦ σκότους τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, πρὸς τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις, see Lightfoot on Colossians 2:15. In 2 Corinthians 4:4 Satan is spoken of as the god, in John 12:31; John 16:11 as the prince of this world. He is the tempter and accuser of the brethren, and did not shrink even from assailing the Son of God Himself (Matthew 4:3).
The above account of the Fall of the Angels was that usually accepted, with slight variations, both among Jews and Christians till towards the close of the fourth century A.D.
Julius Africanus is said to be the only one of the ante-Nicene Fathers who enunciated the view which afterwards prevailed, viz., that “the sons of God were the descendants of Seth, and the daughters of men descendants of Cain”. [674] See the quotation in Routh, Rel. Sacr. ii. p. 241, where he also gives the alternative explanation εἰ δὲ ἐπʼ ἀγγέλων νοοῖτο τοῦτο, τοὺς περὶ μαγείας καὶ γοητείας … ἐσχολακότας συνιέναι χρὴ τῶν μετεώρων ταῖς γυναιξὶ τὴν γνῶσιν δεδωκέναι. Eusebius (Pr. Ev. 3 John 1:4; 3 John 1:11-12) still keeps to the old view and compares the narrative of Genesis 6 to the stories of the Titans and Giants of Greek mythology. So Lactantius, Div. Inst. ii. 14: “Deus ne fraudibus suis diabolus, cui ab initio terrae dederat potestatem, vel corrumperet vel disperderet homines, quod in exordio rerum fecerat, misit angelos ad tutelam cultumque generis humani.… Itaque illos cum hominibus commorantes dominator ille terrae fallacissimus consuetudine ipsa paullatim ad vitia pellexit et mulierum congressibus inquinavit … sic eos diabolus ex angelis Dei suos fecit satellites,” etc. So Sulpicius Severus (Chron. Jude 1:2): “Angeli quibus caelum sedes erat, speciosarum forma virginum capti … naturae suae originisque degeneres … matrimoniis se mortalibus miscuerunt.” Julian, like Celsus, used this belief as a ground for attacking Christianity. Cyril of Alexandria, in his reply (ix. p. 296) repudiates the belief as altogether unworthy, and injurious to morality, since men plead the angels' sin as excuse for their own, and adopts the interpretation of “sons of God” previously given by Africanus. Chrysostom deals at length with the subject in his 22nd homily on Genesis. He calls the old interpretation blasphemous, and holds that it is precluded by the words of Christ, that “in the resurrection men shall be like angels, neither marrying nor given in marriage”. Augustine (Civ. Dei, xv. 23) thinks it cannot be denied “Silvanoset Faunos, quos vulgo incubos vocant … mulierum appetisse ac peregisse concubitum.… Dei tamen angelos sanctos nullo modo sic labi potuisse crediderim, nee de his dixisse Apostolum Petrum … sed potius de illis qui primum apostatantes a Deo cum diabolo principe suo ceciderunt,” unless we are rather to understand this of the children of Seth. A little later Philastrius (Haer. 107) goes so far as to condemn the old opinion as a heresy.
[674] It is also found in the apocryphal Conflict of Adam and Eve of uncertain date, on which see the art. “Adam, Books of,” in the D. of Christ. Biog. i. 36 foll.
The sympathies of Christians in the present day must assuredly be with those who endeavoured to eliminate from the Scriptures all that might seem to be dishonouring to God and injurious to men. But the methods employed with this view were often such as we could not now accept. For instance, the allegorical method borrowed from the Stoics by Philo, and adopted from him by many of the Fathers, is too subjective and arbitrary to be of any value in getting rid of moral difficulties. We have replaced this now by the historical method, first enunciated by our Lord, when he contrasted the spirit of the Gospel with that of the old Dispensation. [675] There is a continuous growth in the ideal of conduct as set before us in the Bible. Much that was commanded or permitted in the days of Abraham or Moses or David is forbidden to those who have received the fuller light of Christianity. So, what it was found possible for men to believe about God Himself and about the holy angels, is impossible for us now. The words put into the mouth of God in Genesis 3:22, and in Genesis 11:6-7, we feel to be inconsistent with any true idea of the power and wisdom and love of God, and only suitable to a very low state of human development. So also for the story of the fall of the angels. But is it a satisfactory explanation of the latter to suppose that “sons of Seth” are meant by “sons of God”? Ryle (Early Narratives of Genesis, 91 95) points out that “there is nothing in the context to suggest this, no sign that the Sethites were distinguished for piety: they are not even exempted from the charge of general wickedness which brought on the Flood”. Equally untenable is the Jewish explanation that “sons of God” are the nobles. I think no one who has studied with any care the recent investigations as to the origin of the book of Genesis, of which Driver's Book of Genesis may be taken as a specimen, can doubt that it contains much which is unhistoric, though full of moral and spiritual teaching. The pre-Abrahamic narrative shows many resemblances to the Babylonian records, but in general the motive has been changed and purified. [676] Thus Driver says (p. 63.): “It is impossible, if we compare the early narratives of Genesis with the Babylonian narratives, from which in some cases they seem plainly to have been ultimately derived … not to perceive the controlling operation of the Spirit of God, which has taugh these Hebrew writers … to take the primitive traditions of the human race, to purify them from their grossness and their polytheism, and to make them at once the foundation and the explanation of the long history that is to follow.” Of the particular passage in question, however, Driver says (p. 83): “As a rule, the Hebrew narrators stripped off the mythological colouring of the piece of folklore which they record; but in the present instance it is still discernible”. [677]
[675] Cf. Matthew 5:21-48; Matthew 19:8; Luke 9:54-56
[676] Tennant, 20, 21, 41.
[677] For further information on this subject see Suicer's Thesaurus under ἄγγελος, and Ἐγρήγορος, Hasting's D. of B. under “Angel,” “Demon,” “Fall,” “Flood”; Encycl. of B. Lit. under “Angel,” “Demon,” “Deluge,” “Nephilim,” “Satan”; Maitland's Eruvin (Essays iv. vi.), where the literal interpretation is defended; Hagenbach, Hist. Doctr. § 52 and § 132.
CHAPTER V
Notes on the Text of the Epistle of Jude. The Epistle of Jude is contained in the uncials [678] [679] [680] [681] [682] [683] [684]. It is omitted in the Peshitto, but included in the later Syriac versions, [685] the Philoxenian and Harkleian, here distinguished as syr p and syr h. In citing the Egyptian versions I have used the notation Boh., now commonly employed, instead of the less distinctive Copt., employed by Tischendorf. The only other point which it may be well to mention is that, as in the Epistle of James, the symbol + is appended in the Critical Notes to signify that the reading in question is found in other authorities besides those previously mentioned. In discussing the readings I start with that of WH.
[678] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[679] Codex Alexandrinus (sæc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
[680] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[681] Codex Ephraemi (sæc. v.), the Paris palimpsest, edited by Tischendorf in 1843.
[682] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.
[683] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
[684] Codex Porphyrianus (sæc. ix.), at St. Petersburg, collated by Tischendorf. Its text is deficient for chap. 2 Peter 2:13-16.
[685] See Dr. Gwynn's Later Syriac Versions, Publised in 1909.
If we may judge from the number of “primitive errors” suspected by WH in the short Epistle of Jude, it would seem that the text is in a leas satisfactory condition than that of any other portion of the New Testament. There are no less than four such errors in these twenty-five verses, the same number as are found in the eight Chapter s of the two Petrine Epistles, and in the forty-four Chapter s of the first two Gospels. I notice below some passages where the text presents special difficulties.
Jude 1:5. ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας ἅπαξ πάντα, ὅτι Κύριος λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν. I quote Tregelles' notes with additions from Tischendorf in round brackets, only changing the notation of the Egyptian and Syriac versions to prevent confusion, and correcting the citations in accordance with more recent collations.
εἰδότας add. “ ὑμᾶς [686] [687] [688]. 31 syrr., om. [689] [690] [691] [692] 13 Vulg. Boh. Sah. Arm.,” and so Tisch.
[686] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[687] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.
[688] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
[689] Codex Alexandrinus (sæc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
[690] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[691] Codex Ephraemi (sæc. v.), the Paris palimpsest, edited by Tischendorf in 1843.
[692] Denotes correction by later hands
In point of fact however [693] reads εἰδότας ὑμᾶς, as any one may convince himself by looking at Cozza-Luzi's photographic reproduction. Also Dr. Gwynn reports that h and all the MSS. of p give the same reading, though he adds that the pleonastic idiom of the Syriac would lead the translators to supply the pronoun even if wanting in the Greek. The preponderance of authority is therefore in favour of this latter reading. The repeated ὑμᾶς emphasises the contrast between the readers (“to remind you, you who know it already”) and the libertines previously spoken of. The repetition here may be compared with the repeated ὑμῖν of 1 Peter 5:3.
[693] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
ἅπαξ ante πάντα [694] [695] [696] [697]. 13. 31. Vulg. Ante ὅτι [698]. Ante λαὸν. (Syrr.) Arm. Ante ἐκγῆς Αἰγ. Clem. 280 (and 997) Did. Cassiod. ὅτι κύριος σώσας τὸν λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγ. ἅπαξ Sah., ὅτι ἅπαξ κύριος σώσας λαὸν αὐτοῦ Boh. Om. ἅπαξ Lucif. 28. [ἅπαξ is so placed in Syrr. as to be connected with σώσας “when he had once saved them,” [699].]
[694] Codex Alexandrinus (sæc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
[695] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[696] Codex Ephraemi (sæc. v.), the Paris palimpsest, edited by Tischendorf in 1843.
[697] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
[698] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.
[699] Codex Boernerianus (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., at Dresden, edited by Matthæi in 1791. Written by an Irish scribe, it once formed part of the same volume as Codex Sangallensis (δ) of the Gospels. The Latin text, g, is based on the O.L. translation.
παντα [700] [701] [702] [703] 13 Vulg. Syr h. Boh. Arm. Aeth. Lucif. [In the App. to WH (Sel. Readings, p. 106) it is suggested that this may be a primitive error for πάντας (cf. 1 John 2:20) found in Syr [704]], τοῦτο 31 [705] [706]. Sah.
[700] Codex Alexandrinus (sæc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
[701] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[702] Codex Ephraemi (sæc. v.), the Paris palimpsest, edited by Tischendorf in 1843.
[703] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[704] “ This is an error: the two best MSS. of p represent πάντα.” G.
[705] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.
[706] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
ὅτι] add. ὁ C [707] [708] [709] [710]. 31. Arm. Clem. 280. Om. [711] [712] [713] 13.
[707]. Codex Ephraemi (sæc. v.), the Paris palimpsest, edited by Tischendorf in 1843.
[708] Denotes correction by later hands
[709] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.
[710] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
[711] Codex Alexandrinus (sæc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
[712] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[713] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
κύριος] [714] [715] [716] [717]. Syr h. Θεὸς C. 2 Tol. Syr p Arm. Clem. Lucif. Ἰησοῦς AB 13 Vulg. Boh. Sah. Aeth. [In App. to WH. (Sel. Readings, p. 106) it is suggested that there may have been some primitive error, “apparently οτιΚΣ (ὅτι Κύριος), and οτιΙΣ (ὅτιʼ Ιησους) for ΟΤΙΟ (ὅτι ὁ)”.]
[714] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[715] Codex Ephraemi (sæc. v.), the Paris palimpsest, edited by Tischendorf in 1843.
[716] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.
[717] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
γῆς] om. Syr p.
It appears to me that the true reading of the passage is ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας ὑμᾶς πάντα, ὅτι Κύριος ἅπαξ λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον [τοὺς] μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν. I see no difficulty in πάντα, which gives a reason for the use of the word ὑπομνῆσαι, “I need only remind you, because you already know all that I have to say”. It was easy for the second ὑμᾶς to be omitted as unnecessary, and then the word ἅπαξ might be inserted in its place partly for rhythmical reasons; but it is really unmeaning after εἰδότας : the knowledge of the incidents, which are related in this and the following verses, is not a knowledge for good and all, such as the faith spoken of in 3 John 1:3. On the other hand, ἅπαξ is very appropriate if taken with λαὸν σώσας (a people was saved out of Egypt once for all), and it prepares the way for τὸ δεύτερον. For the reading πάντας I see no reason. Can it be assumed that all who are addressed should be familiar with the legends contained in the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses, to which allusion is made in what follows? It is surely much more to the point for the writer to say, as he does again below (ver. 17), that he is only repeating what is generally known, though it need not be known to every individual. As to Hort's suggestion on the word κύριος, that the original was ὅτι ὁ (λαὸν σώσας), I think the fact of the variants is better explained by Spitta, who considers that the abbreviations ΙΣ, ΚΣ, ΘΣ might easily be confused, if the first letter was faintly written, and that the mention of τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ Κύριον Ἰ. Χ. in the preceding verse would naturally lead a later copyist to prefer ΙΣ, a supposition which is confirmed by Cramer's Catena, p. 158, εἴρηται γὰρ πρὸ τούτων περὶ αὐτοῦ, ὡς εἴη ἀληθινὸς θεὸς οὗτος ὁ μόνος δεσπότης ὁ κύριος Ἰ. Χ., ὁ ἀναγαγὼν τὸν λαὸν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου διὰ Μωσέως. Spitta himself however holds that ΘΣ is the true reading, as it agrees with the corresponding passage in 2 Peter 2:4, ὁ Θεὸς ἀγγέλων ἁμαρτησάντων οὐκ ἐφείσατο, and with Clement's paraphrase (Adumbr. Dind. iii. p. 482): “Quoniam Dominus Deus semel populum de terra Aegypti liberans deinceps eos qui non crediderunt perdidit”. There is no instance in the New Testament of the personal name “Jesus” being used of the pre-existent Messiah, though the official name “Christ” is found in 1 Corinthians 10:4; 1 Corinthians 10:9, in reference to the wandering in the wilderness. But in the second and later centuries this distinction was less carefully observed. Thus Justin M. (Dial. 120), speaking of the prophecy in Genesis 49:10, says that it does not refer to Judah, but to Jesus, τὸν καὶ τοὺς πατέρας ὑμῶν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐξαγαγόντα, and this use of the name was confirmed by the idea that the son of Nun was a personification of Christ (see Justin, Dial. 75; Clem. Al. 183; Didymus, De Trin. 1. 19, Ἰούδας καθολικῶς γράφει, ἅπαξ γὰρ κύριος Ἰησοῦς λαὸν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου σώσας κ. τ. λ.; Jerome, C. Jov. 1. 12; Lact. Inst. 4. 17, “Christi figuram gerebat ille Jesus, qui cum primum Auses vocaretur, Moyses futura praesentiens jussit eum Jesum vocari”). In the explanatory note I have stated my reasons for considering that the article before μή did not belong to the original text.
Jude 1:12. οὗτοί εἰσιν [οἱ] ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν σπιλάδες συνευωχούμενοι ἀφόβως ἑαυτοὺς ποιμαίνοντες. The article here is omitted by [718] [719] and many inferior MSS. with vg. (but not syrr. or sah. or boh.), and some of the patristic quotations. I agree with Dr. Chase in thinking that it is out of place here, as in 3 John 1:5 above. There is not only the difficulty of construction (οἱ … σπιλάδες), but the very bold assumption that the signification of σπιλάδες will be at once apparent. If we omit the article, ἀφόβως should be attached to συνευωχ. as by Ti. In syrr. it is joined with ποιμαίνοντες.
[718] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[719] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.
Jude 1:19. οὖτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες, ψυχικοὶ πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες.
ἀποδιορίζοντες add. ἑαυτούς [720] vulg. syrr. Om. [721] [722] [723] [724] [725] 13, etc.
[720] Codex Ephraemi (sæc. v.), the Paris palimpsest, edited by Tischendorf in 1843.
[721] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[722] Codex Alexandrinus (sæc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
[723] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[724] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.
[725] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
Schott, B. Weiss, and Huther-Kühl suppose the words ψυχικοὶ πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες to be spoken by, or at least to express the feeling of οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες : “welche Unterscheidungen machen, sc. zwischen Psychikern und Pneumatikern, wobei dann der Verfasser diese Unterscheidungen in seiner drastischen Weise sofort zu ihren Ungunsten umkehrt”. This explanation seems to me to give a better sense than the gloss approved by Spitta, οἱ τὰ σχίσματα ποιοῦντες; for one cause of the danger which threatens the Church is that the innovators do not separate themselves openly, but steal in unobserved (παρεισεδύησαν, 3 John 1:4), and take part in the love-feasts of the faithful, in which they are like sunken rocks (3 John 1:12); and, secondly, it is by no means certain that the word ἀποδιορίζω could bear this sense. ἀφορίζω is used in Luke 6:22 of excommunication by superior authority, which of course would not be applicable here. On the other hand, it seems impossible to get the former sense out of the Greek as it stands. Even if we allowed the possibility of such a harsh construction as to put ψυχικοί in inverted commas, as the utterance of the innovators (and should we not then have expected the contrast ψυχικοί, πνευματικοί ?), still we cannot use the same word over again to express Jude's “drastic” retort. This difficulty would be removed if we supposed the loss of a line to the following effect after ἀποδιορίζοντες :
ψυχικοὺς ὑμᾶς (or τοὺς πιστοὺς) λέγοντες, ὄντες αὐτοὶ
ψυχικοὶ πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες.
The opposition of ψυχικοί to πνευματικοί is familiar in the writings of Tertullian after he became a Montanist. The Church is carnal, the sect spiritual. So the Valentinians distinguished their own adherents as pneumatici from the psychici who composed the Church. These were also technical terms with the Naassenes and Heracleon (see my notes on James 3:15), and were probably borrowed by the early heretics from St. Paul, who uses them to distinguish the natural from the heavenly body (1 Corinthians 15:44), and also to express the presence or absence of spiritual insight (1 Corinthians 2:14 f.) ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος οὐ δέχεται τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ Θεοῦ, μωρία γὰρ αὐτῷ ἐστιν … ὁ δὲ πνευματικὸς ἀνακρίνει πάντα. The innovators against whom St. Jude writes seem to have been professed followers of St. Paul (like the Marcionites afterwards), abusing the doctrine of Free Grace which they had learnt from him (3 John 1:4 τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ χάριτα μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν), professing a knowledge of the βάθη τοῦ Θεοῦ (1 Corinthians 2:10), though it was really a knowledge only of τὰ βάθεα τοῦ Σατανᾶ (Revelation 2:24), and claiming to be the true δυνατοί and πνευματικοί, as denying dead works and setting the spirit above the letter. This explains the subsequent misrepresentation of St. Paul as a heresiarch in the Pseudo-Clementine writings.
Jude 1:22-23. (Text of Tischendorf and Tregelles) καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακρινομένους, οὓς δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ, μισοῦντες καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένον χιτῶνα. (Text Of WH. and B. Weiss) καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλεᾶτε διακρινομένους σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ μισοῦντες καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένον χιτῶνα. In App. to WH. it is added, “Some primitive error probable: perhaps the first ἐλεᾶτε an interpolation” (Sel. Readings, p. 107).
Jude 1:22 ἐλέγχετε Acts 13. Vulg. Boh. Arm. Aeth. (Eph. Theophyl. Oec. Comm. Cassiod.). ἐλεᾶτε [726] [727] [728] [729] Syr h. ἐλεεῖτε [730] [731] [732] (Theophyl. Oec. txt.), ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζετε (hic) Syrp. Clem. 773.
[726] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[727] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[728] Codex Ephraemi (sæc. v.), the Paris palimpsest, edited by Tischendorf in 1843.
[729] Denotes correction by later hands
[730] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.
[731] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
[732] Codex Porphyrianus (sæc. ix.), at St. Petersburg, collated by Tischendorf. Its text is deficient for chap. 2 Peter 2:13-16.
διακρινομένους [733] [734] [735] [736]. 13. Vulg. Syrr. Boh. Arm. Clem. 773, διακρινόμενοι [737] [738] [739] +.
[733] Codex Alexandrinus (sæc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
[734] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[735] Codex Ephraemi (sæc. v.), the Paris palimpsest, edited by Tischendorf in 1843.
[736] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[737] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.
[738] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
[739] Codex Porphyrianus (sæc. ix.), at St. Petersburg, collated by Tischendorf. Its text is deficient for chap. 2 Peter 2:13-16.
Jude 1:23. οὓς δὲ (1st) [740] [741] [742] [743] [744] [745] 13 Vulg. Syr h. Boh. Arm. Om. B., δὲ Syrp. Clem
[740] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[741] Codex Alexandrinus (sæc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
[742] Codex Ephraemi (sæc. v.), the Paris palimpsest, edited by Tischendorf in 1843.
[743] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.
[744] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
[745] Codex Porphyrianus (sæc. ix.), at St. Petersburg, collated by Tischendorf. Its text is deficient for chap. 2 Peter 2:13-16.
σώζετε [746] [747] [748] [749] 13 Vulg. Boh. Arm. Aeth., ἐν φόβῳ σώζετε [750] [751] [752] +, ἐλεεῖτε Clem. 773 (quoted below), ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ Syrp. ἐκ πυρὸς [753] [754] [755] [756] [757] [758] [759] 13 Arm., ἐκ τοῦ π. Boh. Om. σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες Syrp.
[746] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[747] Codex Alexandrinus (sæc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
[748] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[749] Codex Ephraemi (sæc. v.), the Paris palimpsest, edited by Tischendorf in 1843.
[750] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.
[751] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
[752] Codex Porphyrianus (sæc. ix.), at St. Petersburg, collated by Tischendorf. Its text is deficient for chap. 2 Peter 2:13-16.
[753] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[754] Codex Alexandrinus (sæc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
[755] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[756] Codex Ephraemi (sæc. v.), the Paris palimpsest, edited by Tischendorf in 1843.
[757] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.
[758] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
[759] Codex Porphyrianus (sæc. ix.), at St. Petersburg, collated by Tischendorf. Its text is deficient for chap. 2 Peter 2:13-16.
ἁρπάζοντες οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ [760] [761] [762] 13. Vulg., Arm., om. ἁρπάζοντες Boh., ἁρπάζοντες ἐν φόβῳ. C. Syrh, ἁρπάζοντες [763] [764] [765] +.
[760] Codex Alexandrinus (sæc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
[761] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[762] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[763] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.
[764] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
[765] Codex Porphyrianus (sæc. ix.), at St. Petersburg, collated by Tischendorf. Its text is deficient for chap. 2 Peter 2:13-16.
Tischendorf makes the matter clearer by giving the consecutive text of versions and quotations as follows: Vulg. Et hos quidem arguite judicatos, illos vero salvate de igne rapientes, aliis autem miseremini in timore. Ar o. Et quosdam corripite super peccatis eorum, et quor-undam miseremini cum fuerint victi, et quosdam salvate ex igne et liberate eos. Ar p. Et signate quosdam cum dubitaverint orbos (?) et salvate quosdam territione, abripite eos ex igne. Aeth. quoniam est quem redarguent per verbum quod dictum est (Aeth p.p. propter peccatum eorum), et est qui et servabitur ex igne et rapient eum, et est qui servabitur timore et poenitentia. Arm. Et quosdam damnantes sitis reprehensione, et quosdam salvate rapiendo ex igne, et quorundam miseremini timore judicando (? indicando). Cassiodor. 142 Ita ut quosdam dijudicatos arguant, quosdam de adustione acterni ignis eripiant, nonnullis misereantur errantibus et conscientias maculatas emundent, sic tamen ut peccata eorum digna execratione refugiant. Mr. Horner states that ver. 22, 23 are omitted in Sah. He translates Boh. as follows: καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακρινομένους, οὓς δὲ σώζετε ἐκ τοῦ πυρός (al. om. τοῦ), οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε (al. φέρετε) ἐν φόβῳ. Commentaries of Theophylact and Oecumenius, κἀκείνους δέ, εἰ μὲν ἀποδιΐστανται ὑμῶν τοῦτο γὰρ σημαίνει τὸ διακρίνεσθαι ἐλέγχετε, τουτέστι φανεροῦτε τοῖς πᾶσι τὴν ἀσέβειαν αὐτῶν · εἴτε δὲ πρὸς ἴασιν ἀφορῶσι, μὴ ἀπωθεῖσθε, ἀλλὰ τῷ τῆς ἀγάπης ὑμῶν ἐλέῳ προσλαμβάνεσθε, σώζοντες ἐκ τοῦ ἠπειλημένου αὐτοῖς πυρός · προσλαμβάνεσθε δὲ μετὰ τοῦ ἐλεεῖν αὐτοὺς καὶ μετὰ φόβου.
In all these it will be observed that three classes are distinguished as in the text or Tregelles and Tischendorf, and in A, οὓς μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακρινομένους, οὓς δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ, and [766], οὓς μὲν ἐλεᾶτε διακρινομένους, οὓς δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, οὓςδὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ. We should draw the same conclusion from the seeming quotation in Can. A post. vi. 4 (οὐ μισήσεις πάντα ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ) οὓς μὲν ἐλέγξεις, οὓς δὲ ἐλεήσεις, περὶ ὧν δὲ προσεύξῃ (οὓς δὲ ἀγαπήσεις ὑπὲρ τὴν ψυχήν σου), which occurs also, with the omission of the cause οὓς δὲ ἐλεήσεις in the Didache ii. 7.
[766] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
Two classes only are distinguished in the following: SyrP. Et quosdam de illis quidem ex igne rapite; cum autem resipucrint, miseremini super eis in timore, representing καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζετε, διακρινομένους δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ. Syr h. et hos quidem miseremini resipiscentes, hos autem servate de igne rapientes in timore, representing καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλεᾶτε διακρινομένους, οὓς δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες ἐν φόβῳ. Clem. (Adumbr.) quosdam autem salvate de igne rapientes, quibusdam vero miseremini in timore, [767] representing οὓς δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ. Clem. Strom. vi. 773, καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζετε, διακρινομένους δὲ ἐλεεῖτε, implying that he was acquainted with two different recensions. With these we may compare the texts of B [768] followed by WH. and B. Weiss, καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλεᾶτε διακρινομένους σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ, of C [769] καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακρινομένους, οὓς δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες ἐν φόβῳ, and of [770] [771] [772], καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλεεῖτε διακρινόμενοι, οὓς δὲ ἐν φόβῳ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες.
[767] The paraphrase continues, id est ut eos qui in ignem cadunt doceatis ut semet ipsos liberent. (It would seem that this clause has got misplaced and should be inserted after rapientes.) Odientes, inquit, eam, quae carnalis est, maculatam tunicam; animae videlicet tunica macula (read maculata) est, spiritus concupiscentiis pollutus carnalibus.
[768], Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[769], Codex Ephraemi (sæc. v.), the Paris palimpsest, edited by Tischendorf in 1843.
[770] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.
[771] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
[772] Codex Porphyrianus (sæc. ix.), at St. Petersburg, collated by Tischendorf. Its text is deficient for chap. 2 Peter 2:13-16.
St. Jude's predilection for triplets, as in Jude 1:2; Jude 1:4; Jude 1:8, in the examples of judgment in Jude 1:5-7, and of sin in Jude 1:11, is prima facie favourable to the triple division in this passage. Supposing we take A and [773] to represent the original, consisting of three members, a b c, we find [774] complete in a and c, but confused as to b. As it stands, it gives an impossible reading; since it requires οὓς μέν to be taken as the relative, introducing the subordinate verb ἐλεᾶτε, depending on the principal verb σώζετε; while οὓς δέ, on the other hand, must be taken as demonstrative. WH suggest that ἐλεᾶτε has crept in from below. Omitting this, we get the sense, “Some who doubt save, snatching them from fire; others compassionate in fear”. It seems an easier explanation to suppose that ἐλεᾶτε was written in error for ἐλέγχετε and οὕς omitted in error after διακρινομένους. The latter phenomenon is exemplified in the readings of Syrp. and Clem. Str. 773. The texts of [775] and [776] [777] [778] are complete in a and b, but insert a phrase from c in b. The most natural explanation here seems to be that the duplication of ἐλεᾶτε in a and c (as in [779]) caused the omission of the second ἐλεᾶτε, and therefore of the second οὓς δέ. The reading διακρινόμενοι in [780] [781] [782] was a natural assimilation to the following nominative ἁρπάζοντες, and seemed, to those were not aware of the difference in the meaning of the active and middle of διακρίνω, to supply a very appropriate thought, viz., that discrimination must be used; treatment should differ in different cases.
[773] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[774] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[775] Codex Ephraemi (sæc. v.), the Paris palimpsest, edited by Tischendorf in 1843.
[776] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.
[777] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
[778] Codex Porphyrianus (sæc. ix.), at St. Petersburg, collated by Tischendorf. Its text is deficient for chap. 2 Peter 2:13-16.
[779] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[780] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.
[781] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
[782] Codex Porphyrianus (sæc. ix.), at St. Petersburg, collated by Tischendorf. Its text is deficient for chap. 2 Peter 2:13-16.
The real difficulty however of the triple division is to arrive at a clear demarcation between the classes alluded to. “The triple division,” says Hort (App. p. 107), “gives no satisfactory sense”; and it certainly has been very diversely interpreted, some holding with Kühl that the first case is the worst and the last the most hopeful: “Die dritte Klasse … durch helfendes Erbarmen wieder hergestellt werden können, mit denen es also nicht so schlimm steht, wie mit denen, welchen gegenüber nur ἐλέγχειν zu üben ist, aber auch nicht so schlimm, wie mit denen, die nur durch rasche, zugreifende That zu retten sind”; while the majority take Reiche's view of a climax: “a dubitantibus minusque depravatis … ad insanabiles, quibus opem ferre pro tempore ab ipsorum contumacia prohibemur”. My own view is that Jude does not here touch on the case of the heretical leaders, of whom he has spoken with such severity before. In their present mood they are not subjects of ἐλεος, any more than the Pharisees condemned by our Lord, as long as they persisted in their hostility to the truth. The admonition here given by St. Jude seems to be the same as that contained in the final verses of the Epistle written by his brother long before: ἐάν τις ἐν ὑμῖν πλανηθῇ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ ἐπιστρέψῃ τις αὐτόν, γινώσκετε ὅτι ὁ ἐπιστρέψας ἁμαρτωλὸν ἐκ πλάνης ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ σώσει ψυχὴν ἐκ θανάτου. The first class with which the believers are called upon to deal is that of doubters, διακρινόμενοι, men still halting between two opinions (cf. James 1:6), or perhaps we should understand it of disputers, as in Jude 1:9. These they are to reprove and convince [cf. John 16:8-9, ἐλέγξει περὶ ἁμαρτίας ὅτι οὐ πιστεύουσιν εἰς ἐμέ). Then follow two classes undistinguished by any special characteristic, whose condition we can only conjecture from the course of action to be pursued respecting them. The second class is evidently in more imminent danger than the one we have already considered, since they are to be saved by immediate energetic action, snatching them from the fire; the third seems to be beyond human help, since the duty of the believers is limited to trembling compassion, expressing itself no doubt in prayer, but apparently shrinking from personal communication with the terrible infection of evil. We may compare with this St. Paul's judgment as to the case of incest in the Church of Corinth (1 Corinthians 5:5), and the story told about Corinthus and St. John.
ΙΟΥΔΑ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ