Editorial note: Source collation note — paragraph 18: “in hebrew, and intitled פשׂירת משה that is, ‘the death”. source PDF page 9: “in Hebrew, and intitled משה פשׂירת that is, ‘The Death”. Compared with CLA_JUD.PDF PDF p. 3, CLA_JUD.PDF PDF p. 9. The source-font or layout comparison does not securely establish every letter, mark or local sequence in these passages. The flagged language readings or layout are retained; the original source pages should be consulted for these specific readings. Additional-source investigation: an automated comparison of surrounding English text located possible corresponding passages in OCR from separately digitized printed volumes. The linked scan pages are research locators; their images have not been collated for this note's flagged readings. OCR agreement does not verify Greek or Hebrew letters, diacritics, word order, or table layout. The flagged readings or layout remain uncertain. CLA_JUD.PDF, PDF page 3; CLA_JUD.PDF, PDF page 9; Additional printed-scan page locator (OCR context only; flagged reading unverified).
PREFACE TO THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE.
IN the preface to the Epistle of James several things have been said relative to Jude the brother of James, the supposed author of this epistle; and to that preface the reader is requested to refer. What is farther necessary to be said on the author and the authenticity of this epistle, I shall take the liberty to borrow principally from Michaelis.
“If James and Jude, whom the evangelists call brothers of Jesus, were in fact only cousins or relations as some suppose, and were sons, not of Joseph, but of Alpheus, these two persons were the same as the two brothers James and Jude, who were apostles. And in this case Jude, the author of this epistle, was the same as the Apostle Jude, the brother of James who was son of Alpheus. On the other hand, if the James and the Jude, whom the evangelists call brothers of Jesus, were not the two brothers of this name who were apostles, but were the sons of Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, we have then two different persons of the name of Jude, either of which might have written this epistle. And in this case we have to examine whether the epistle was written by an apostle of the name of Jude, or by Jude the brother-in-law of Christ.
“The author of the epistle himself has assumed neither the title of apostle of Jesus Christ, nor of brother of Jesus Christ, but calls himself only ‘Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James.’ Now, as the author distinguishes himself by the title ‘brother of James,’ and this was a common name among the Jews, he undoubtedly meant some eminent person of this name, who was well known at the time when he wrote, or the title ‘brother of James’ would have been no mark of distinction. We may infer, therefore, that the author of this epistle was the brother, either of the Apostle James the son of Alpheus, or of James, named the brother of Jesus, or of both, if they were one and the same person.
“The first question, therefore, to be asked is, Was the author of this epistle the Apostle Jude? or was he brother of James, the son of Alpheus? Now, I have already observed, that this question must be answered in the affirmative if James and Jude who were called brothers of Jesus, were the same as the two brothers James and Jude who were apostles. And it may be answered in the affirmative, even if they were different persons, for Jude, the author of this epistle, had in either case a brother of the name of James, and therefore might in either case call himself Jude the brother of James. I say the question may be answered in the affirmative, even if the Apostle Jude was a different person from Jude, called the brother of James. But whether it ought in this case to be answered in the affirmative, is another matter; and I really believe that it ought not: for if the Jude who wrote this epistle had been himself an apostle, and brother of an apostle, he would hardly have called himself, in an epistle written to Christians, simply ‘Jude, the brother of James’ without adding the title apostle. It is true that the Apostle Jude, who was brother of James, is called by St. Luke ιουδας ιακωβου; but St. Luke gives him this title merely to distinguish him from another apostle of this name, who was called Iscariot. Now the author of this epistle could have no motive for distinguishing himself from Judas Iscariot, who had hanged himself many years before this epistle was written. The name of Jude was very common among the Jews; and therefore the author of this epistle wished to distinguish himself from other persons who were so called. But James was likewise a very common name, and therefore if the author had been an apostle he surely would have preferred an appellation which would have removed all doubts to an appellation which left it at least uncertain whether he was an apostle or not; I grant that the omission of this title does not necessarily prove that the author of this epistle was not an apostle, for Paul has omitted it in four of his epistles: in the Epistle to the Philippians, in both Epistles to the Thessalonians, and in that to Philemon. But St. Paul was sufficiently known without this title, whereas the author of the epistle in question felt the necessity of a distinguishing appellation, as appears from the very title which he has given himself of ‘brother of James.’ Besides, at the time when this epistle was written, only one apostle of the name of James was then alive; for the elder James, the son of Zebedee, had been beheaded many years before. If then the author of this epistle had only given to his brother James the title of apostle, he would thus likewise have clearly ascertained who he himself was. But since he has no more given to his brother than to himself the title of apostle, I think it highly probable that neither of them were apostles.
“The next question to be asked, therefore, is, Was the Jude, who wrote this epistle, the same person as the Jude whom the evangelists call brother of Jesus? and who, according to the opinion which I think the most defensible, was in this sense brother of Jesus, that he was son of Joseph by a former wife, and therefore not his own brother, but only brother-in-law of Jesus. Now, that this epistle was written by a person of this description, appears to me highly probable; and on this supposition we may assign the reason why the author called himself ‘brother of James;’ for, if he was the brother-in-law of Jesus, his brother James was the person who, during so many years, had presided over the Church at Jerusalem, was well known both to Jews and Christians, and appears to have been more celebrated than either of the apostles called James. It will be objected, perhaps, that the very same reasons which I have alleged, to show that an apostle of the name of Jude would have assumed his proper title, will likewise show that a person who was called brother of Jesus would have done the same, and styled himself brother of Jesus. To this I answer, that if he was the son of Joseph, not by Mary but by a former wife, and Jude believed in the immaculate conception, he must have been sensible that though to all outward appearance he was brother-in-law to Jesus, since his own father was the husband of Jesus’ mother, yet in reality he was no relation of Jesus. On the other hand, if Jude, called the brother of Jesus, was the son of Joseph, not by a former wife but by Mary, as Herder asserts, I do not see how the preceding objection can be answered; for if Jesus and Jude had the same mother, Jude might without the least impropriety, have styled himself ‘brother of Jesus,’ or ‘brother of the Lord;’ and this would have been a much more remarkable and distinguishing title than that of brother of James. A third question still remains to be asked on this subject. The apostle whom St. Luke calls Jude is called Thaddæus by St. Matthew and St. Mark, as I have already observed. But the apostle of the Syrians, who first preached the Gospel at Edessa, and founded a Church there, was named Thaddæus or Adæus. It may be asked, therefore, whether the author of this epistle was Thaddæus, the apostle of the Syrians? But the answer is decisive: the old Syriac version does not contain this epistle; consequently it is highly probable that Adai or Adæus was not the author, for an epistle written by the great apostle of the Syrians would surely have been received into the canon of the Syrian Church.”
The most accurate critics have been unable to determine the time when, and the persons to whom, this epistle was written; so that much concerning these points, as well as the author of the epistle, must remain undecided. “I am really unable to determine,” says Michaelis, “who the persons were to whom this epistle was sent; for no traces are to be discovered in it which enable us to form the least judgment on this subject; and the address with which this epistle commences is so indeterminate, that there is hardly any Christian community where Greek was spoken, which might not be denoted by it. Though this epistle has a very great similarity to the Second Epistle of Peter, it cannot have been sent to the same persons, namely, the Christians who resided in Pontus, &c., because no mention is made of them in this epistle. Nor can it have been sent to the Christians of Syria and Assyria, where Jude preached the Gospel, if he be the same person as the apostle of the Syrians; for in this case the epistle would not have been written in Greek, but in Syriac or Chaldee, and would certainly have been received into the old Syriac version.
“With respect to the date of this epistle, all that I am able to assert is, that it was written after the Second Epistle of Peter; but how many years after, whether between 64 and 66, as Lardner supposes, or between 70 and 75, as Beausobre and L’Enfant believe; or, according to Dodwell and Cave, in 71 or 72, or so late as the year 90, as is the opinion of Mill, I confess I am unable to determine, at least from any certain data. The expression, ‘in the last time,’ which occurs Jude 1:18, as well as in 2 Peter 3:3, is too indeterminate to warrant any conclusion respecting the date of this epistle; for though, on the one hand, it may refer to the approaching destruction of Jerusalem, it may, on the other hand, refer to a later period, and denote the close of the apostolic age; for in the First Epistle of St. John a similar expression occurs, which must be taken in this latter sense. The inference, therefore, that the Epistle of St. Jude was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, which some commentators have deduced from the
above-mentioned expression, on the supposition that it alluded to that event then approaching, is very precarious, because it is drawn from premises which are themselves uncertain. However, there is some reason to believe, on other grounds, that this epistle was not written after the destruction of Jerusalem; for, as the author has mentioned, Jude 1:5-8, several well known instances of God’s justice in punishing sinners, which Peter had already quoted in his second epistle to the same purpose, he would probably, if Jerusalem had been already destroyed at the time he wrote, have not neglected to add to his other examples this most remarkable instance of Divine vengeance, especially as Christ himself had foretold it.
“Lardner, indeed, though he admits the similarity of the two epistles, still thinks it a matter of doubt whether St. Jude had ever seen the Second Epistle of St. Peter; his reason is, that ‘if St. Jude had formed a design of writing, and had met with an epistle of one of the apostles very suitable to his own thoughts and intentions, he would have forborne to write.’ “To this argument I answer:—
“1. If the Epistle of St. Jude was inspired by the Holy Ghost, as Lardner admits, the Holy Ghost certainly knew, while he was dictating the epistle to St. Jude, that an epistle of St. Peter, of a like import, already existed. And if the Holy Ghost, notwithstanding this knowledge, still thought that an epistle of St. Jude was not unnecessary; why shall we suppose that St. Jude himself would have been prevented writing by the same knowledge? “2. The Second Epistle of St. Peter was addressed to the inhabitants of some particular countries; but the address of St. Jude’s is general: St. Jude therefore might think it necessary to repeat for general use what St. Peter had written only to certain communities.
“3. The Epistle of St. Jude is not a bare copy of the Second Epistle of St. Peter, for in the former, not only several thoughts are more completely unravelled than in the latter, but several additions are made to what St. Peter had said; for instance Jude 1:4, 5, 9, 16. “Eusebius, in his catalogue of the books of the New Testament, places the Epistle of St. Jude among the αντιλεγομενα, contradicted or apocryphal books, in company with the Epistle of St. James, the Second Epistle of St. Peter, and the Second and Third of John.
“But Origen, who lived in the third century, though he speaks in dubious terms of the Second Epistle of St. Peter, has several times quoted the Epistle of St. Jude, and has spoken of it as an epistle on which he entertained no doubt. In his commentary on St. Matthew, when he comes to Matthew 13:55, where James, Joses, Simon, and Jude are mentioned; he says Jude wrote an epistle of few lines indeed, but full of the powerful words of the heavenly grace, who at the beginning says, ‘Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James.’ This is a very clear and unequivocal declaration of Origen’s opinion; and it is the more remarkable because he says nothing of the Epistle of St. James, though the passage, Matthew 13:55, afforded him as good an opportunity of speaking of this epistle, as it did of the Epistle of St. Jude. Nay, Origen carries his veneration for the Epistle of Jude so far that, in his treatise De Principiis, lib. iii. cap. 2, he quotes an apocryphal book, called the Assumption of Moses, as a work of authority; because a passage from this book had been quoted by St. Jude. In one instance, however, in his commentary on St. Matthew, Origen speaks in less positive terms, for there he says, ‘If any one receive the Epistle of St. Jude,’ &c. Tertullian, in whose works Lardner could discover no quotation from the Second Epistle of St. Peter, describes the Epistle of St. Jude as the work of an apostle; for in his treatise De cultu fæminarum, chap. 3, he says, ‘Hence it is that Enoch is quoted by the Apostle Jude.’
“Clement of Alexandria, in whose works likewise Lardner could find no quotation from the Second Epistle of St. Peter, has three times quoted the Epistle of St. Jude without expressing any doubt whatever. It appears, then, that the three ancient fathers, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen, as far as we may judge from their writings which are now extant, preferred the Epistle of St. Jude to the Second Epistle of St. Peter. However, I think it not impossible that if all the writings of these authors were now extant, passages might be found in them which would turn the scale in favour of the latter; and it may be owing to mere accident that in those parts of their works which have descended to us, more passages in which they speak decidedly of St. Jude are to be found, than such as are favourable to the Second Epistle of St. Peter. For I really cannot comprehend how any impartial man who has to choose between these two epistles, which are very similar to each other, can prefer the former to the latter, or receive the Epistle of St. Jude, the contents of which labour under great difficulties, and at the same time reject, or even consider as dubious, the Second Epistle of St. Peter, the contents of which labour under no such difficulties.
“But it is much more difficult to explain Jude 1:9, in which the Archangel Michael is said to have disputed with the devil about the body of Moses. The history of this dispute, which has the appearance of a Jewish fable, it is not at present very easy to discover; because the book from which it is supposed to have been taken by the author of this epistle is no longer extant; but I will here put together such scattered accounts of it as I have been able to collect.
“Origen found in a Jewish Greek book called the Assumption of Moses, which was extant in his time, this very story related concerning the dispute of the Archangel Michael with the devil about the body of Moses. And from a comparison of the relation in his book with St. Jude’s quotation, he was thoroughly persuaded that it was the book from which St. Jude quoted. This he asserts without the least hesitation; and in consequence of this persuasion he himself has quoted the Assumption of Moses as a work of authority, in proof of the temptation of Adam and Eve by the devil. But as he quoted it merely for this purpose, he has given us only an imperfect account of what this book contained, relative to the dispute about the body of Moses. One circumstance, however, he has mentioned, which is not found in the Epistle of St. Jude, viz., that Michael reproached the devil with having possessed the serpent that seduced Eve. In what manner this circumstance is connected with the dispute about the body of Moses, will appear from the following consideration:—
“The Jews imagined the person of Moses was so holy that God could find no reason for permitting him to die; and that nothing but the sin committed by Adam and Eve in paradise, which brought death into the world, was the cause why Moses did not live for ever. The same notions they entertained of some other very holy persons; for instance, of Isaiah, who they say was delivered to the angel of death merely on account of the sins of our first parents, though he himself did not deserve to die. Now, in the dispute between Michael and the devil about Moses, the devil was the accuser, and demanded the death of Moses. Michael therefore replied to him that he himself was the cause of that sin, which alone could occasion the death of Moses. How very little such notions as these agree, either with the Christian theology, or with Moses’ own writings, it is unnecessary for me to declare. Besides the account given by Origen, there is a passage in the works of Œcumenius, which likewise contains a part of the story related in the Assumption of Moses, and which explains the reason of the dispute which St. Jude has mentioned concerning Moses’ body. According to this passage, Michael was employed in burying Moses; but the devil endeavoured to prevent it by saying that he had murdered an Egyptian, and was therefore unworthy an honourable burial. Hence it appears that some modern writers are mistaken, who have imagined that in the ancient narrative the dispute was said to have arisen from an attempt of the devil to reveal to the Jews the burial place of Moses, and to incite them to an idolatrous worship of his body.
“There is still extant a Jewish book, written in Hebrew, and intitled פשׂירת משה that is, ‘The Death of Moses,’ which some critics, especially De La Rue, supposed to be the same work as that which Origen saw in Greek. Now if it were this Hebrew book, intitled ‘Phetirath Mosheh,’ it would throw a great light on our present inquiry; but I have carefully examined it, and can assert that it is a modern work, and that its contents are not the same is those of the Greek book quoted by Origen. Of the Phetirath Mosheh we have two editions, which contain very different texts; the one was printed at Constantinople in 1518, and reprinted at Venice in 1544 and 1605, the other was published from a manuscript by Gilbert Gaulmyn, who added a translation of both texts, with notes.” To show that neither St. Jude, nor any inspired writer, nor indeed any person in his sober senses, could quote or in any way accredit such stuff and nonsense, I shall give the substance of this most ridiculous legend as extracted by Michaelis; for as to the Phetirath Mosheh, I have never seen it.
“Moses requests of God, under various pretences, either that he may not die at all, or at least that he may not die before he comes into Palestine. This request he makes in so froward and petulant a manner as is highly unbecoming, not only a great prophet, but even any man who has expectations of a better life after this. In short, Moses is here represented in the light of a despicable Jew begging for a continuance of life, and devoid both of Christian faith and heathen courage; and it is therefore not improbable that the inventor of this fable made himself the model after which he formed the character of Moses. God argues on the contrary with great patience and forbearance, and replies to what Moses had alleged relative to the merit of his own good works. Farther, it is God who says to Moses that he must die on account of the sin of Adam; to which Moses answers, that he ought to be excepted, because he was superior in merit to Adam, Abraham, Isaac, &c. In the meantime Samael, that is, the angel of death, whom the Jews describe as the chief of the devils rejoices at the approaching death of Moses: this is observed by Michael, who says to him, ‘Thou wicked wretch, I grieve, and thou laughest.’ Moses, after his request had been repeatedly refused, invokes heaven and earth, and all creatures around him to intercede in his behalf. Joshua attempts to pray for him, but the devil stops Joshua’s mouth, and represents to him, really in scriptural style, the impropriety of such a prayer. The elders of the people, and with them all the children of Israel, then offered to intercede for Moses; but their mouths are likewise stopped by a million eight hundred and forty thousand devils, which, on a moderate calculation, make three devils to one man. After this, God commands the angel Gabriel to fetch the soul of Moses; but Gabriel excuses himself, saying, that Moses was too strong for him: Michael receives the same order, and excuses himself in the same manner, or, as other accounts say, under pretence that he had been the instructer of Moses, and therefore could not bear to see him die. But this latter excuse, according to the Phetirath Mosheh, was made by Zinghiel, the third angel who received this command. Samael, that is, the devil, then offers his services; but God asks him how he would take hold of Moses, whether by his mouth, or by his hands, or by his feet, saying, that every part of Moses was too holy for him to touch. The devil, however, insists on bringing the soul of Moses; yet he does not accuse him, for, on the contrary, he prizes him higher than Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. The devil then approaches towards Moses, to execute this voluntary commission; but as soon as he sees the shining countenance of Moses, he is seized with a violent pain, like that of a woman in labour: Moses, instead of using the oriental salutation, ‘Peace be with thee,’ says to him, in the words of Isaiah, (for in this work Moses frequently quotes Isaiah and the Psalms,) ‘There is no peace to the wicked.’ The devil replies that he was come, by the order of God, to fetch his soul; but Moses deters him from the attempt by representing his own strength and holiness; and saying, ‘Go, thou wicked wretch, I will not give thee my soul,’ he affrights the devil in such a manner that he immediately retires. The devil then returns to God, and relates what had passed, and receives an order to go a second time; the devil answers that he would go everywhere God commanded him, even into hell, and into fire, but not to Moses. This remonstrance is, however, of no avail, and he is obliged to go back again; but Moses, who sees him coming with a drawn sword, meets him with his miraculous rod, and gives him such a blow with it that the devil is glad to escape. Lastly, God himself comes; and Moses, having then no farther hopes, requests only that his soul may not be taken out of his body by the devil. This request is granted him; Zinghiel, Gabriel, and Michael then lay him on a bed, and the soul of Moses begins to dispute with God, and objects to its being taken out of a body which was so pure and holy that no fly dared to settle on it; but God kisses Moses, and with that kiss extracts his soul from his body. Upon this God utters a heavy lamentation; and thus the story in the Phetirath ends, without any mention of a dispute about the burial of Moses’ body. This last scene, therefore, which was contained in the Greek book seen by Origen, is wanting in the Hebrew. But in both of these works Michael, as well as the devil, expresses the same sentiments in respect to Moses: in both works the same spirit prevails; and the concluding scene, which was contained in the Greek book, is nothing more than a continuation of the same story which is contained in the Hebrew.”
Had Jude quoted a work like the above, it would have argued no inspiration, and little common sense; and the man who could have quoted it must have done it with approbation, and in that case his own composition would have been of a similar stamp. But nothing can be more dissimilar than the Epistle of Jude and the Phetirath Mosheh: the former contains nothing but manly sense, expressed in pure, energetic, and often sublime language, and accompanied, most evidently, with the deepest reverence for God; while the latter is despicable in every point of view, even considered as the work of a filthy dreamer, or as the most superannuated of old wives’ fables.
“Lastly,” says Michaelis, “besides the quotation which St. Jude has made in the 9th verse relative to the dispute between Michael and the devil, he has another quotation, Jude 1:14, 15, likewise from an apocryphal book called the ‘Prophecies of Enoch;’ or, if not from any written book, from oral tradition. Now, should it be granted that Enoch was a prophet, though it is not certain that he was, yet as none of his prophecies are recorded in the Old Testament no one could possibly know what they were. It is manifest, therefore, that the book called the ‘Prophecies of Enoch’ was a mere Jewish forgery, and that too a very unfortunate one, since in all human probability the use of letters was unknown in the time of Enoch, and consequently he could not have left behind him any written prophecies. It is true that an inspired writer might have known, through the medium of Divine information, what Enoch had prophesied, without having recourse to any written work on this subject. But St. Jude, in the place where he speaks of Enoch’s prophecies, does not speak of them as prophecies which had been made known to him by a particular revelation; on the contrary, he speaks of them in such a manner as implies that his readers were already acquainted with them.”
From all the evidence before him, Michaelis concludes that the canonical authority of this epistle is extremely dubious; that its author is either unknown, or very uncertain; and he has even doubts that it is a forgery in the name of the Apostle Jude. Others have spoken of it in strains of unqualified commendation and praise, and think that its genuineness is established by the matters contained in it, which in every respect are suitable to the character of an inspired apostle of Christ. What has led to its discredit with many is the hasty conclusion that St. Jude quotes such a work as the Phetirath Mosheh; than which nothing can be more improbable, and perhaps nothing more false.
In almost all ages of the Church it has been assailed and defended; but it is at present generally received over the whole Christian world. It contains some very sublime and nervous passages, from the 10th to the 13th verse {Jude 1:10-13} inclusive; the description of the false teachers is bold, happy, and energetic; the exhortation in verses 20 and 21 {Jude 1:20, 21}, is both forcible and affectionate; and the doxology, in verses 24 and 25 {Jude 1:24, 25}, is well adapted to the subject, and is peculiarly dignified and sublime.
I have done what I could, time and circumstances considered, to present the whole epistle to the reader in the clearest point of view; and now must commend him to God and the word of his grace, which is able to build him up, and give him an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in Jesus.
THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE.
Chronological Notes relative to this Epistle.
-Year of the Constantinopolitan era of the world, or that used by the Byzantine historians, and other eastern writers, 5573.
-Year of the Alexandrian era of the world, 5567.
-Year of the Antiochian era of the world, 5557.
-Year of the world, according to Archbishop Usher, 4069.
-Year of the world, according to Eusebius, in his Chronicon, 4291. -Year of the minor Jewish era of the world, or that in common use, 3825. -Year of the Greater Rabbinical era of the world, 4424.
-Year from the Flood, according to Archbishop Usher, and the English Bible, 2413.
-Year of the Cali yuga, or Indian era of the Deluge, 3167. -Year of the era of Iphitus, or since the first commencement of the Olympic games, 1005.
-Year of the era of Nahonassar, king of Babylon, 814.
-Year of the CCXIth Olympiad, 1.
-Year from the building of Rome, according to Fabius Pictor, 812. -Year from the building of Rome, according to Frontinus, 816. -Year from the building of Rome, according to the Fasti Capitolini, 817. -Year from the building of Rome, according to Varro, which was that most generally used, 818.
-Year of the era of the Seleucidæ, 377.
-Year of the Cæsarean era of Antioch, 113.
-Year of the Julian era, 110.
-Year of the Spanish era, 103.
-Year from the birth of Jesus Christ, according to Archbishop Usher, 69. -Year of the vulgar era of Christ’s nativity, 85.
-Year of Gessius Florus, governor of the Jews, 1.
-Year of Domitius Corbulo, governor of Syria, 5.
-Year of Matthias, high priest of the Jews, 2.
-Year of Vologesus, king of the Parthians, 16.
-Year of the Dionysian period, or Easter Cycle, 66.
-Year of the Grecian Cycle of nineteen years, or Common Golden Number, 9; or the year after the third embolismic.
-Year of the Jewish Cycle of nineteen years, 6; or the second embolismic. -Year of the Solar Cycle, 18.
-Dominical Letter, it being the first year after the Bissextile, or Leap Year, F.
-Day of the Jewish Passover, the seventh of April, which happened in this year on the Jewish Sabbath.
-Easter Sunday, the fourteenth of April.
-Epact, or age of the moon on the 22d of March, (the day of the earliest Easter Sunday possible,) 28.
-Epact, according to the present mode of computation, or the moon’s age on New Year’s day, or the Calends of January, 6.
-Monthly Epacts, or age of the moon on the Calends of each month respectively, (beginning with January,) 6, 8, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 13, 14, 16, 16.
-Number of Direction, or the number of days from the twenty-first of March to the Jewish Passover, 17.
-Year of the Emperor Caius Tiberius Claudius Nero Cæsar, 12. -Roman Consuls, A. Licinius Nerva Silanus, and M. Vestinius Atticus. Vestinius was succeeded by Anicius Cerealis on the first of July.
Joseph Benson
Preface
BEN_VOL8.PDF, source PDF p. 887
GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE.
PREFACE
WE learn from the inscription of this epistle, that the writer of it was Judas, the “brother of James;” not of James the son of Zebedee, and brother of John, but of James the son of Alpheus, the author of the epistle that bears his name. Jude was therefore an apostle. Indeed we find his name mentioned in two catalogues of the apostles given us by St. Luke; namely, Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13. In the catalogue, however, given Matthew 10:3, in the place of Judas, we find “Lebbeus, whose surname was Thaddeus;” and in Mark 3:18, “Thaddeus,” simply. But as all the evangelists agree that there were only twelve apostles, we must suppose that Judas, the brother of James, was surnamed Lebbeus and Thaddeus. The reason why he is styled “brother of James” probably was, because James was the elder brother, and because, after our Lord’s ascension, James became a person of considerable note among the apostles, and was highly esteemed by the Jewish believers. This Judas, being the brother of James, was, consequently, the brother, or kinsman, of Christ: see preface to the epistle of James. Accordingly, we find James, Joses, Simon, and Judas, expressly called the brethren of Jesus, Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3. Of his election to the apostleship, see Luke 6:13. As it is certain, then, that Judas was an apostle, no other proof is wanted of the divine inspiration and authority of his epistle. Accordingly, we find the matters contained in it, in every respect, suitable to the character of an inspired apostle of Christ. For the writer’s design in it was, evidently, to characterize and condemn the heretical teachers, who in that age endeavoured, by a variety of base arts, to make disciples; to reprobate the impious doctrines which they taught for the sake of advantage, and to enforce the practice of holiness on all who professed the gospel. In short, there is no error taught, nor evil practice enjoined, for the sake of which any impostor could be moved to impose a forgery of this kind on the world. Hence, although the authenticity of this epistle was doubted of by some in the early ages, yet, as soon as it was understood that its author was Judas, the brother of James, mentioned in the catalogues of the apostles, it was generally received as an apostolical inspired writing, and read publicly in the churches as such. The evidence of these important facts is stated and proved at large by Lardner, in his “Credibility of the Gospel History;” to which the reader, who desires full satisfaction on the subject, is referred.
The inscription of this epistle leads us to believe that it was written to all, without distinction, who had embraced the gospel; and, from its contents, we plainly see that the design of the apostle was, “by describing the character of the false teachers, and pointing out the divine judgments which persons of such a character had reason to expect, to caution Christians against listening to their suggestions, and being thereby perverted from the faith and purity of the gospel.” Indeed, Jude’s design seems to have been the same with that of Peter in writing his second letter, between the second chapter of which, and this epistle of Jude, there is a remarkable similarity; which, as was observed in the preface to that epistle, was probably owing to this circumstance, that both the apostles drew their character of the false teachers, against whom they cautioned their readers, from the character given of the false prophets, in some ancient Jewish author. Or, as Bishop Sherlock observes, Jude might have the second epistle of Peter before him when he wrote; a circumstance which, if admitted as probable, will give us light as to the date of this epistle. That of Peter was written but a very little while before his death; whence we may gather, that Jude lived some time after that event; and saw that grievous declension in the church which Peter had foretold. But he passes over some things mentioned by Peter, repeats some, in different expressions, and with a different view, and adds others; clearly evidencing thereby the wisdom of God which rested upon him. Thus St. Peter cites and confirms St. Paul’s writings, and is himself cited and confirmed by St. Jude.
Mill hath fixed the date of this epistle to A.D. 90; but Dodwell, who is followed by Cave, supposes, with a greater appearance of probability, that it was written soon after the destruction of Jerusalem; namely, about A.D. 70 or 71. L’Enfant and Beausobre also thought it was written about the same time; namely, between the years 70 and 75. There are various other opinions respecting its date, among the learned. But, upon the whole, though the precise date of it cannot be determined, it is highly probable that it was written in the latter part of the apostolic age, and not long before Jude’s death.
Daniel Whedon
Introduction
WHD_CO14.PDF, source PDF p. 391
JUDE
INTRODUCTION
OF JUDE, (Greek form of name Juddas, Hebrew, Juah,) there is very little recorded history. He styles himself “brother of James,” by which we know that there are two epistles from brothers, who were also brothers of Jesus. The only mention of his name in the Gospels occurs in the list given by the Nazarenes of the brothers of Jesus, Matthew 13:55, and Mark 6:3. From that remarkable passage we note something of the family of Nazareth. The brothers and sisters and father are ordinary folk in comparison with that strange phenomenon, the eldest son, Jesus. We can thence trace Jude only as one of the four brethren, collectively, whose conduct is mentioned in the Gospels and Acts, as noticed in our Introduction to the Epistle of James.
The next point of his history can be only inferred from his epistle. That brief, intensive fragment was written, probably, either in Palestine or Asia Minor. From it we learn that he is a persevering and powerful assertor of Christianity, and arraigner of the heretical demoralizers of the Church. Of his subsequent history we have nothing but contradictory traditions. Eusebius gives a narrative of a correspondence between Jesus and Abgar, king of Edessa, the letters between whom the historian professes to have seen in the archives of that city, and furnishes a copy of them. Jesus is invited by the king to visit his capital, but declines; promising, however, that after his own death a missionary of Christianity should be sent. After his death the missionary arrived, and proved to be Thaddeus the apostle. Those who identify our Jude with Thaddeus find here a trace of his career, somewhat legendary, but with, perhaps, some historic basis. This identification, however, we do not adopt.
A more authentic narrative is given by Hegesippus, as quoted by Eusebius, of the dealing of the Roman Emperor Domitian with the grandsons of Jude. Disturbed, like Herod of old, by the reports of spies that there were descendants of David who really claimed the throne of empire, Domitian sent an officer to bring the two descendants of “the Lord’s brother according to the flesh” (as both Hegesippus and Eusebius style him) into the royal presence. The emperor asked them if they were of the line of David. Both confessed the fact. He then asked them the amount of their wealth, and what resources they possessed. They both named a few thousand denarii of money shared between them, and a few acres of ground, cultivated with their own hands, from which (an important fact to the emperor) they paid their taxes and eked out a living. Their hard hands and compact bodies fully established the truth of their statements. The emperor inquired about the Christ and his kingdom; what its nature and when it would appear. They replied that it was not a secular or earthly kingdom, but celestial and angelic; that it would take place at the end of the dispensation, when he, coming in glory, would judge the living and the dead, and give to each one according to his doings. The emperor recognised their innocence, and despised their simplicity, and thereupon dismissed them from his presence, and ceased the then existing persecution against the Christians.
AUTHENTICITY AND DATE.
Eusebius tells us, that though not recognised by some, this epistle was read in the service of most churches; a very sure test of a canonical book. The Muratorian fragment accepts its canonicity at Rome; and Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, in Africa. After the reception of the epistle in such distant quarters, one is inclined to wonder that the Peshito, at home, did not contain it; yet it was recognised by Ephrem Syrus, the greatest light of the Syrian Church in the fourth century. Considering its brevity, its lateness, and the prejudices arising, as Jerome tells us, from the apparent quotation of the book of Enoch, the testimony in favour of the book is very decisive.
From this early non-recognition of the book in Syria, there arises reason of doubt whether it was written in Palestine. Yet its entire character points to Asia rather than to Europe or Africa.
The date we think to be later than the Second Epistle of Peter, inasmuch as a state of things predicted in Peter as future is vividly painted by Jude as present. Its exhibition of the facts of the age, and in the Church, correspond more nearly with that of the Epistles of John. The heretics are in the Church, or pressing hard upon it, yet have in some cases seceded, and the whole are more or less separatists in spirit. We place it, then, after the destruction of Jerusalem. The fact that that event is not enumerated among the examples of divine judgment has no bearing, since Jude quotes none but the most ancient instances, as the Exodus, the fallen angels, and Sodom. A number of destructions of Jerusalem had since taken place, with captivities and desolations; but none of them is mentioned. Jude deals with only examples of the most archaic character, which had long been consecrated by public thought as established monitions from God for all ages.
The later date of Jude is, we think, conclusively proved by the fact that Peter predicts the errorists as future, and Jude narrates their present existence. Peter gives the prophecy, Jude portrays the terrible fulfilment. Dr. Frederick Gardiner, in his scholarly monograph on Jude, (Boston, 1856,) takes issue with this view of the tenses of the two writers, on the grounds that Peter’s are not “exclusively future.” “The false teachers are described with equal clearness as already come.” But, 1. While Peter’s main verbs are uniformly future, Jude’s never are, but are past or present.
2. In fact, Peter’s entire description is of a future. Even while he uses terms in the present tense which are descriptive of objects, they are descriptive of objects he has declared to be future. His expressions of time are like this: The corruptionists will in due time come; and their actions and characters are of such and such a character. It is never once said nor meant that they have come. 3. Thus in 2:1, it is said, “There shall be false teachers, denying, etc.; where surely the present participle does not vary the future of the verb. And this applies to Peter’s Second Epistle throughout. On the contrary, in Jude these “men” have “crept in unawares.” “These speak evil of things they know not.” “These are spots,” “are murmurers,” “their mouth speaketh.” St. Jude is giving a sharp sketch from present real life. His objects are present, both in place and time. Hence he is vivid, brief, and profoundly impassioned. And this self-consistency of Jude’s in tenses, goes to justify us in saying, that, while Paul to the Ephesian elders and to Timothy, and Peter in the second chapter of his Second Epistle, predict these errorists, Jude, and John in his Epistles and in the earlier part of his Apocalypse, describe the fulfilment.
Both Dr. Gardiner and Alford found an argument for the posteriority of Peter on his greater diffuseness. The brief and more condensed must, they assume, be the original; of which the more extended must be an expansion. Why not assume the exact reverse? If Peter gave a full prediction of the future coming of the corruptionists, why might not Jude afterwards take his prediction, and by a few bold strokes—a few brief, vivid pictures, a few concentrated denunciations—describe accordantly, and often in similar terms, the present fulfilment? A condenser may just as easily omit some things, abbreviate others, interspersing now and then a few original touches, as an expander performs the reverse feat. This we believe Jude has done. The vivid, graphic conciseness of his style, while evidently natural to his genius, are rendered still more graphic by the living presence of the characters who awaken his holy indignation.
SPECIMEN PARALLELISMS BETWEEN PETER AND JUDE.
SECOND PETER.
Chapter 2:1. But there were
false prophets also among the
people, even as there shall be
false teachers among you.
4. For if God spared not the
angels that sinned, but cast them
down to hell, and delivered
them into chains of darkness, to
be reserved unto judgment;
6. And turning the cities of
Sodom and Gomorrah into
ashes condemned them with an
overthrow, making them an
ensample unto those that after
should live ungodly;
11. Whereas angels, which are
greater in power and might,
bring not railing accusation
against them before the Lord.
JUDE.
Verse 4. For there are certain
men crept in unawares, who
were before of old ordained to
this condemnation.
6. And the angels which kept
not their first estate, but left
their own habitation, he hath
reserved in everlasting chains
under darkness unto the
judgment of the great day.
7. Even as Sodom and
Gomorrah, and the cities about
them, in like manner giving
themselves over to fornication,
and going after strange flesh, are
set forth for an example,
suffering the vengeance of
eternal fire.
9. Yet Michael the archangel,
when contending with the devil
he disputed about the body of
Moses, durst not bring against
him a railing accusation, but
said, The Lord rebuke thee.
10. But these speak evil of those
things which they know not: but
12. But these, as natural brute
beasts made to be taken and
destroyed, speak evil of the
things that they understand not;
and shall utterly perish in their
own corruption;
13. Spots they are and
blemishes.
17. These are wells without
water, clouds that are carried
with a tempest; to whom the
mist of darkness is reserved for
ever.
things which they know not: but
what they know naturally, as
brute beasts, in those things they
corrupt themselves.
12. These are spots in your
feasts of charity… clouds they
are without water, carried about
of winds; trees whose fruit
withereth, without fruit, twice
dead, plucked up by the roots;
13. Raging waves of the sea,
foaming out their own shame;
wandering stars, to whom is
reserved the blackness of
darkness for ever.
A comparison of the above and numerous other parallel passages, induces us to say, that if Jude be the earlier, Peter seems to have copied him very unskilfully; not only expanding, but often omitting many of the happiest points, and weakening nearly all he imitates. The additional strokes which Jude furnishes are often master-strokes.
Adam Clarke
Preface to the General Epistle of Jude.
CLA_JUD.PDF, source PDF p. 3
Editorial note: Source collation note — paragraph 18: “in hebrew, and intitled פשׂירת משה that is, ‘the death”. source PDF page 9: “in Hebrew, and intitled משה פשׂירת that is, ‘The Death”. Compared with CLA_JUD.PDF PDF p. 3, CLA_JUD.PDF PDF p. 9. The source-font or layout comparison does not securely establish every letter, mark or local sequence in these passages. The flagged language readings or layout are retained; the original source pages should be consulted for these specific readings. Additional-source investigation: an automated comparison of surrounding English text located possible corresponding passages in OCR from separately digitized printed volumes. The linked scan pages are research locators; their images have not been collated for this note's flagged readings. OCR agreement does not verify Greek or Hebrew letters, diacritics, word order, or table layout. The flagged readings or layout remain uncertain. CLA_JUD.PDF, PDF page 3; CLA_JUD.PDF, PDF page 9; Additional printed-scan page locator (OCR context only; flagged reading unverified).
PREFACE TO THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE.
IN the preface to the Epistle of James several things have been said relative to Jude the brother of James, the supposed author of this epistle; and to that preface the reader is requested to refer. What is farther necessary to be said on the author and the authenticity of this epistle, I shall take the liberty to borrow principally from Michaelis.
“If James and Jude, whom the evangelists call brothers of Jesus, were in fact only cousins or relations as some suppose, and were sons, not of Joseph, but of Alpheus, these two persons were the same as the two brothers James and Jude, who were apostles. And in this case Jude, the author of this epistle, was the same as the Apostle Jude, the brother of James who was son of Alpheus. On the other hand, if the James and the Jude, whom the evangelists call brothers of Jesus, were not the two brothers of this name who were apostles, but were the sons of Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, we have then two different persons of the name of Jude, either of which might have written this epistle. And in this case we have to examine whether the epistle was written by an apostle of the name of Jude, or by Jude the brother-in-law of Christ.
“The author of the epistle himself has assumed neither the title of apostle of Jesus Christ, nor of brother of Jesus Christ, but calls himself only ‘Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James.’ Now, as the author distinguishes himself by the title ‘brother of James,’ and this was a common name among the Jews, he undoubtedly meant some eminent person of this name, who was well known at the time when he wrote, or the title ‘brother of James’ would have been no mark of distinction. We may infer, therefore, that the author of this epistle was the brother, either of the Apostle James the son of Alpheus, or of James, named the brother of Jesus, or of both, if they were one and the same person.
“The first question, therefore, to be asked is, Was the author of this epistle the Apostle Jude? or was he brother of James, the son of Alpheus? Now, I have already observed, that this question must be answered in the affirmative if James and Jude who were called brothers of Jesus, were the same as the two brothers James and Jude who were apostles. And it may be answered in the affirmative, even if they were different persons, for Jude, the author of this epistle, had in either case a brother of the name of James, and therefore might in either case call himself Jude the brother of James. I say the question may be answered in the affirmative, even if the Apostle Jude was a different person from Jude, called the brother of James. But whether it ought in this case to be answered in the affirmative, is another matter; and I really believe that it ought not: for if the Jude who wrote this epistle had been himself an apostle, and brother of an apostle, he would hardly have called himself, in an epistle written to Christians, simply ‘Jude, the brother of James’ without adding the title apostle. It is true that the Apostle Jude, who was brother of James, is called by St. Luke ιουδας ιακωβου; but St. Luke gives him this title merely to distinguish him from another apostle of this name, who was called Iscariot. Now the author of this epistle could have no motive for distinguishing himself from Judas Iscariot, who had hanged himself many years before this epistle was written. The name of Jude was very common among the Jews; and therefore the author of this epistle wished to distinguish himself from other persons who were so called. But James was likewise a very common name, and therefore if the author had been an apostle he surely would have preferred an appellation which would have removed all doubts to an appellation which left it at least uncertain whether he was an apostle or not; I grant that the omission of this title does not necessarily prove that the author of this epistle was not an apostle, for Paul has omitted it in four of his epistles: in the Epistle to the Philippians, in both Epistles to the Thessalonians, and in that to Philemon. But St. Paul was sufficiently known without this title, whereas the author of the epistle in question felt the necessity of a distinguishing appellation, as appears from the very title which he has given himself of ‘brother of James.’ Besides, at the time when this epistle was written, only one apostle of the name of James was then alive; for the elder James, the son of Zebedee, had been beheaded many years before. If then the author of this epistle had only given to his brother James the title of apostle, he would thus likewise have clearly ascertained who he himself was. But since he has no more given to his brother than to himself the title of apostle, I think it highly probable that neither of them were apostles.
“The next question to be asked, therefore, is, Was the Jude, who wrote this epistle, the same person as the Jude whom the evangelists call brother of Jesus? and who, according to the opinion which I think the most defensible, was in this sense brother of Jesus, that he was son of Joseph by a former wife, and therefore not his own brother, but only brother-in-law of Jesus. Now, that this epistle was written by a person of this description, appears to me highly probable; and on this supposition we may assign the reason why the author called himself ‘brother of James;’ for, if he was the brother-in-law of Jesus, his brother James was the person who, during so many years, had presided over the Church at Jerusalem, was well known both to Jews and Christians, and appears to have been more celebrated than either of the apostles called James. It will be objected, perhaps, that the very same reasons which I have alleged, to show that an apostle of the name of Jude would have assumed his proper title, will likewise show that a person who was called brother of Jesus would have done the same, and styled himself brother of Jesus. To this I answer, that if he was the son of Joseph, not by Mary but by a former wife, and Jude believed in the immaculate conception, he must have been sensible that though to all outward appearance he was brother-in-law to Jesus, since his own father was the husband of Jesus’ mother, yet in reality he was no relation of Jesus. On the other hand, if Jude, called the brother of Jesus, was the son of Joseph, not by a former wife but by Mary, as Herder asserts, I do not see how the preceding objection can be answered; for if Jesus and Jude had the same mother, Jude might without the least impropriety, have styled himself ‘brother of Jesus,’ or ‘brother of the Lord;’ and this would have been a much more remarkable and distinguishing title than that of brother of James. A third question still remains to be asked on this subject. The apostle whom St. Luke calls Jude is called Thaddæus by St. Matthew and St. Mark, as I have already observed. But the apostle of the Syrians, who first preached the Gospel at Edessa, and founded a Church there, was named Thaddæus or Adæus. It may be asked, therefore, whether the author of this epistle was Thaddæus, the apostle of the Syrians? But the answer is decisive: the old Syriac version does not contain this epistle; consequently it is highly probable that Adai or Adæus was not the author, for an epistle written by the great apostle of the Syrians would surely have been received into the canon of the Syrian Church.”
The most accurate critics have been unable to determine the time when, and the persons to whom, this epistle was written; so that much concerning these points, as well as the author of the epistle, must remain undecided. “I am really unable to determine,” says Michaelis, “who the persons were to whom this epistle was sent; for no traces are to be discovered in it which enable us to form the least judgment on this subject; and the address with which this epistle commences is so indeterminate, that there is hardly any Christian community where Greek was spoken, which might not be denoted by it. Though this epistle has a very great similarity to the Second Epistle of Peter, it cannot have been sent to the same persons, namely, the Christians who resided in Pontus, &c., because no mention is made of them in this epistle. Nor can it have been sent to the Christians of Syria and Assyria, where Jude preached the Gospel, if he be the same person as the apostle of the Syrians; for in this case the epistle would not have been written in Greek, but in Syriac or Chaldee, and would certainly have been received into the old Syriac version.
“With respect to the date of this epistle, all that I am able to assert is, that it was written after the Second Epistle of Peter; but how many years after, whether between 64 and 66, as Lardner supposes, or between 70 and 75, as Beausobre and L’Enfant believe; or, according to Dodwell and Cave, in 71 or 72, or so late as the year 90, as is the opinion of Mill, I confess I am unable to determine, at least from any certain data. The expression, ‘in the last time,’ which occurs Jude 1:18, as well as in 2 Peter 3:3, is too indeterminate to warrant any conclusion respecting the date of this epistle; for though, on the one hand, it may refer to the approaching destruction of Jerusalem, it may, on the other hand, refer to a later period, and denote the close of the apostolic age; for in the First Epistle of St. John a similar expression occurs, which must be taken in this latter sense. The inference, therefore, that the Epistle of St. Jude was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, which some commentators have deduced from the
above-mentioned expression, on the supposition that it alluded to that event then approaching, is very precarious, because it is drawn from premises which are themselves uncertain. However, there is some reason to believe, on other grounds, that this epistle was not written after the destruction of Jerusalem; for, as the author has mentioned, Jude 1:5-8, several well known instances of God’s justice in punishing sinners, which Peter had already quoted in his second epistle to the same purpose, he would probably, if Jerusalem had been already destroyed at the time he wrote, have not neglected to add to his other examples this most remarkable instance of Divine vengeance, especially as Christ himself had foretold it.
“Lardner, indeed, though he admits the similarity of the two epistles, still thinks it a matter of doubt whether St. Jude had ever seen the Second Epistle of St. Peter; his reason is, that ‘if St. Jude had formed a design of writing, and had met with an epistle of one of the apostles very suitable to his own thoughts and intentions, he would have forborne to write.’ “To this argument I answer:—
“1. If the Epistle of St. Jude was inspired by the Holy Ghost, as Lardner admits, the Holy Ghost certainly knew, while he was dictating the epistle to St. Jude, that an epistle of St. Peter, of a like import, already existed. And if the Holy Ghost, notwithstanding this knowledge, still thought that an epistle of St. Jude was not unnecessary; why shall we suppose that St. Jude himself would have been prevented writing by the same knowledge? “2. The Second Epistle of St. Peter was addressed to the inhabitants of some particular countries; but the address of St. Jude’s is general: St. Jude therefore might think it necessary to repeat for general use what St. Peter had written only to certain communities.
“3. The Epistle of St. Jude is not a bare copy of the Second Epistle of St. Peter, for in the former, not only several thoughts are more completely unravelled than in the latter, but several additions are made to what St. Peter had said; for instance Jude 1:4, 5, 9, 16. “Eusebius, in his catalogue of the books of the New Testament, places the Epistle of St. Jude among the αντιλεγομενα, contradicted or apocryphal books, in company with the Epistle of St. James, the Second Epistle of St. Peter, and the Second and Third of John.
“But Origen, who lived in the third century, though he speaks in dubious terms of the Second Epistle of St. Peter, has several times quoted the Epistle of St. Jude, and has spoken of it as an epistle on which he entertained no doubt. In his commentary on St. Matthew, when he comes to Matthew 13:55, where James, Joses, Simon, and Jude are mentioned; he says Jude wrote an epistle of few lines indeed, but full of the powerful words of the heavenly grace, who at the beginning says, ‘Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James.’ This is a very clear and unequivocal declaration of Origen’s opinion; and it is the more remarkable because he says nothing of the Epistle of St. James, though the passage, Matthew 13:55, afforded him as good an opportunity of speaking of this epistle, as it did of the Epistle of St. Jude. Nay, Origen carries his veneration for the Epistle of Jude so far that, in his treatise De Principiis, lib. iii. cap. 2, he quotes an apocryphal book, called the Assumption of Moses, as a work of authority; because a passage from this book had been quoted by St. Jude. In one instance, however, in his commentary on St. Matthew, Origen speaks in less positive terms, for there he says, ‘If any one receive the Epistle of St. Jude,’ &c. Tertullian, in whose works Lardner could discover no quotation from the Second Epistle of St. Peter, describes the Epistle of St. Jude as the work of an apostle; for in his treatise De cultu fæminarum, chap. 3, he says, ‘Hence it is that Enoch is quoted by the Apostle Jude.’
“Clement of Alexandria, in whose works likewise Lardner could find no quotation from the Second Epistle of St. Peter, has three times quoted the Epistle of St. Jude without expressing any doubt whatever. It appears, then, that the three ancient fathers, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen, as far as we may judge from their writings which are now extant, preferred the Epistle of St. Jude to the Second Epistle of St. Peter. However, I think it not impossible that if all the writings of these authors were now extant, passages might be found in them which would turn the scale in favour of the latter; and it may be owing to mere accident that in those parts of their works which have descended to us, more passages in which they speak decidedly of St. Jude are to be found, than such as are favourable to the Second Epistle of St. Peter. For I really cannot comprehend how any impartial man who has to choose between these two epistles, which are very similar to each other, can prefer the former to the latter, or receive the Epistle of St. Jude, the contents of which labour under great difficulties, and at the same time reject, or even consider as dubious, the Second Epistle of St. Peter, the contents of which labour under no such difficulties.
“But it is much more difficult to explain Jude 1:9, in which the Archangel Michael is said to have disputed with the devil about the body of Moses. The history of this dispute, which has the appearance of a Jewish fable, it is not at present very easy to discover; because the book from which it is supposed to have been taken by the author of this epistle is no longer extant; but I will here put together such scattered accounts of it as I have been able to collect.
“Origen found in a Jewish Greek book called the Assumption of Moses, which was extant in his time, this very story related concerning the dispute of the Archangel Michael with the devil about the body of Moses. And from a comparison of the relation in his book with St. Jude’s quotation, he was thoroughly persuaded that it was the book from which St. Jude quoted. This he asserts without the least hesitation; and in consequence of this persuasion he himself has quoted the Assumption of Moses as a work of authority, in proof of the temptation of Adam and Eve by the devil. But as he quoted it merely for this purpose, he has given us only an imperfect account of what this book contained, relative to the dispute about the body of Moses. One circumstance, however, he has mentioned, which is not found in the Epistle of St. Jude, viz., that Michael reproached the devil with having possessed the serpent that seduced Eve. In what manner this circumstance is connected with the dispute about the body of Moses, will appear from the following consideration:—
“The Jews imagined the person of Moses was so holy that God could find no reason for permitting him to die; and that nothing but the sin committed by Adam and Eve in paradise, which brought death into the world, was the cause why Moses did not live for ever. The same notions they entertained of some other very holy persons; for instance, of Isaiah, who they say was delivered to the angel of death merely on account of the sins of our first parents, though he himself did not deserve to die. Now, in the dispute between Michael and the devil about Moses, the devil was the accuser, and demanded the death of Moses. Michael therefore replied to him that he himself was the cause of that sin, which alone could occasion the death of Moses. How very little such notions as these agree, either with the Christian theology, or with Moses’ own writings, it is unnecessary for me to declare. Besides the account given by Origen, there is a passage in the works of Œcumenius, which likewise contains a part of the story related in the Assumption of Moses, and which explains the reason of the dispute which St. Jude has mentioned concerning Moses’ body. According to this passage, Michael was employed in burying Moses; but the devil endeavoured to prevent it by saying that he had murdered an Egyptian, and was therefore unworthy an honourable burial. Hence it appears that some modern writers are mistaken, who have imagined that in the ancient narrative the dispute was said to have arisen from an attempt of the devil to reveal to the Jews the burial place of Moses, and to incite them to an idolatrous worship of his body.
“There is still extant a Jewish book, written in Hebrew, and intitled פשׂירת משה that is, ‘The Death of Moses,’ which some critics, especially De La Rue, supposed to be the same work as that which Origen saw in Greek. Now if it were this Hebrew book, intitled ‘Phetirath Mosheh,’ it would throw a great light on our present inquiry; but I have carefully examined it, and can assert that it is a modern work, and that its contents are not the same is those of the Greek book quoted by Origen. Of the Phetirath Mosheh we have two editions, which contain very different texts; the one was printed at Constantinople in 1518, and reprinted at Venice in 1544 and 1605, the other was published from a manuscript by Gilbert Gaulmyn, who added a translation of both texts, with notes.” To show that neither St. Jude, nor any inspired writer, nor indeed any person in his sober senses, could quote or in any way accredit such stuff and nonsense, I shall give the substance of this most ridiculous legend as extracted by Michaelis; for as to the Phetirath Mosheh, I have never seen it.
“Moses requests of God, under various pretences, either that he may not die at all, or at least that he may not die before he comes into Palestine. This request he makes in so froward and petulant a manner as is highly unbecoming, not only a great prophet, but even any man who has expectations of a better life after this. In short, Moses is here represented in the light of a despicable Jew begging for a continuance of life, and devoid both of Christian faith and heathen courage; and it is therefore not improbable that the inventor of this fable made himself the model after which he formed the character of Moses. God argues on the contrary with great patience and forbearance, and replies to what Moses had alleged relative to the merit of his own good works. Farther, it is God who says to Moses that he must die on account of the sin of Adam; to which Moses answers, that he ought to be excepted, because he was superior in merit to Adam, Abraham, Isaac, &c. In the meantime Samael, that is, the angel of death, whom the Jews describe as the chief of the devils rejoices at the approaching death of Moses: this is observed by Michael, who says to him, ‘Thou wicked wretch, I grieve, and thou laughest.’ Moses, after his request had been repeatedly refused, invokes heaven and earth, and all creatures around him to intercede in his behalf. Joshua attempts to pray for him, but the devil stops Joshua’s mouth, and represents to him, really in scriptural style, the impropriety of such a prayer. The elders of the people, and with them all the children of Israel, then offered to intercede for Moses; but their mouths are likewise stopped by a million eight hundred and forty thousand devils, which, on a moderate calculation, make three devils to one man. After this, God commands the angel Gabriel to fetch the soul of Moses; but Gabriel excuses himself, saying, that Moses was too strong for him: Michael receives the same order, and excuses himself in the same manner, or, as other accounts say, under pretence that he had been the instructer of Moses, and therefore could not bear to see him die. But this latter excuse, according to the Phetirath Mosheh, was made by Zinghiel, the third angel who received this command. Samael, that is, the devil, then offers his services; but God asks him how he would take hold of Moses, whether by his mouth, or by his hands, or by his feet, saying, that every part of Moses was too holy for him to touch. The devil, however, insists on bringing the soul of Moses; yet he does not accuse him, for, on the contrary, he prizes him higher than Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. The devil then approaches towards Moses, to execute this voluntary commission; but as soon as he sees the shining countenance of Moses, he is seized with a violent pain, like that of a woman in labour: Moses, instead of using the oriental salutation, ‘Peace be with thee,’ says to him, in the words of Isaiah, (for in this work Moses frequently quotes Isaiah and the Psalms,) ‘There is no peace to the wicked.’ The devil replies that he was come, by the order of God, to fetch his soul; but Moses deters him from the attempt by representing his own strength and holiness; and saying, ‘Go, thou wicked wretch, I will not give thee my soul,’ he affrights the devil in such a manner that he immediately retires. The devil then returns to God, and relates what had passed, and receives an order to go a second time; the devil answers that he would go everywhere God commanded him, even into hell, and into fire, but not to Moses. This remonstrance is, however, of no avail, and he is obliged to go back again; but Moses, who sees him coming with a drawn sword, meets him with his miraculous rod, and gives him such a blow with it that the devil is glad to escape. Lastly, God himself comes; and Moses, having then no farther hopes, requests only that his soul may not be taken out of his body by the devil. This request is granted him; Zinghiel, Gabriel, and Michael then lay him on a bed, and the soul of Moses begins to dispute with God, and objects to its being taken out of a body which was so pure and holy that no fly dared to settle on it; but God kisses Moses, and with that kiss extracts his soul from his body. Upon this God utters a heavy lamentation; and thus the story in the Phetirath ends, without any mention of a dispute about the burial of Moses’ body. This last scene, therefore, which was contained in the Greek book seen by Origen, is wanting in the Hebrew. But in both of these works Michael, as well as the devil, expresses the same sentiments in respect to Moses: in both works the same spirit prevails; and the concluding scene, which was contained in the Greek book, is nothing more than a continuation of the same story which is contained in the Hebrew.”
Had Jude quoted a work like the above, it would have argued no inspiration, and little common sense; and the man who could have quoted it must have done it with approbation, and in that case his own composition would have been of a similar stamp. But nothing can be more dissimilar than the Epistle of Jude and the Phetirath Mosheh: the former contains nothing but manly sense, expressed in pure, energetic, and often sublime language, and accompanied, most evidently, with the deepest reverence for God; while the latter is despicable in every point of view, even considered as the work of a filthy dreamer, or as the most superannuated of old wives’ fables.
“Lastly,” says Michaelis, “besides the quotation which St. Jude has made in the 9th verse relative to the dispute between Michael and the devil, he has another quotation, Jude 1:14, 15, likewise from an apocryphal book called the ‘Prophecies of Enoch;’ or, if not from any written book, from oral tradition. Now, should it be granted that Enoch was a prophet, though it is not certain that he was, yet as none of his prophecies are recorded in the Old Testament no one could possibly know what they were. It is manifest, therefore, that the book called the ‘Prophecies of Enoch’ was a mere Jewish forgery, and that too a very unfortunate one, since in all human probability the use of letters was unknown in the time of Enoch, and consequently he could not have left behind him any written prophecies. It is true that an inspired writer might have known, through the medium of Divine information, what Enoch had prophesied, without having recourse to any written work on this subject. But St. Jude, in the place where he speaks of Enoch’s prophecies, does not speak of them as prophecies which had been made known to him by a particular revelation; on the contrary, he speaks of them in such a manner as implies that his readers were already acquainted with them.”
From all the evidence before him, Michaelis concludes that the canonical authority of this epistle is extremely dubious; that its author is either unknown, or very uncertain; and he has even doubts that it is a forgery in the name of the Apostle Jude. Others have spoken of it in strains of unqualified commendation and praise, and think that its genuineness is established by the matters contained in it, which in every respect are suitable to the character of an inspired apostle of Christ. What has led to its discredit with many is the hasty conclusion that St. Jude quotes such a work as the Phetirath Mosheh; than which nothing can be more improbable, and perhaps nothing more false.
In almost all ages of the Church it has been assailed and defended; but it is at present generally received over the whole Christian world. It contains some very sublime and nervous passages, from the 10th to the 13th verse {Jude 1:10-13} inclusive; the description of the false teachers is bold, happy, and energetic; the exhortation in verses 20 and 21 {Jude 1:20, 21}, is both forcible and affectionate; and the doxology, in verses 24 and 25 {Jude 1:24, 25}, is well adapted to the subject, and is peculiarly dignified and sublime.
I have done what I could, time and circumstances considered, to present the whole epistle to the reader in the clearest point of view; and now must commend him to God and the word of his grace, which is able to build him up, and give him an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in Jesus.
THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE.
Chronological Notes relative to this Epistle.
-Year of the Constantinopolitan era of the world, or that used by the Byzantine historians, and other eastern writers, 5573.
-Year of the Alexandrian era of the world, 5567.
-Year of the Antiochian era of the world, 5557.
-Year of the world, according to Archbishop Usher, 4069.
-Year of the world, according to Eusebius, in his Chronicon, 4291. -Year of the minor Jewish era of the world, or that in common use, 3825. -Year of the Greater Rabbinical era of the world, 4424.
-Year from the Flood, according to Archbishop Usher, and the English Bible, 2413.
-Year of the Cali yuga, or Indian era of the Deluge, 3167. -Year of the era of Iphitus, or since the first commencement of the Olympic games, 1005.
-Year of the era of Nahonassar, king of Babylon, 814.
-Year of the CCXIth Olympiad, 1.
-Year from the building of Rome, according to Fabius Pictor, 812. -Year from the building of Rome, according to Frontinus, 816. -Year from the building of Rome, according to the Fasti Capitolini, 817. -Year from the building of Rome, according to Varro, which was that most generally used, 818.
-Year of the era of the Seleucidæ, 377.
-Year of the Cæsarean era of Antioch, 113.
-Year of the Julian era, 110.
-Year of the Spanish era, 103.
-Year from the birth of Jesus Christ, according to Archbishop Usher, 69. -Year of the vulgar era of Christ’s nativity, 85.
-Year of Gessius Florus, governor of the Jews, 1.
-Year of Domitius Corbulo, governor of Syria, 5.
-Year of Matthias, high priest of the Jews, 2.
-Year of Vologesus, king of the Parthians, 16.
-Year of the Dionysian period, or Easter Cycle, 66.
-Year of the Grecian Cycle of nineteen years, or Common Golden Number, 9; or the year after the third embolismic.
-Year of the Jewish Cycle of nineteen years, 6; or the second embolismic. -Year of the Solar Cycle, 18.
-Dominical Letter, it being the first year after the Bissextile, or Leap Year, F.
-Day of the Jewish Passover, the seventh of April, which happened in this year on the Jewish Sabbath.
-Easter Sunday, the fourteenth of April.
-Epact, or age of the moon on the 22d of March, (the day of the earliest Easter Sunday possible,) 28.
-Epact, according to the present mode of computation, or the moon’s age on New Year’s day, or the Calends of January, 6.
-Monthly Epacts, or age of the moon on the Calends of each month respectively, (beginning with January,) 6, 8, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 13, 14, 16, 16.
-Number of Direction, or the number of days from the twenty-first of March to the Jewish Passover, 17.
-Year of the Emperor Caius Tiberius Claudius Nero Cæsar, 12. -Roman Consuls, A. Licinius Nerva Silanus, and M. Vestinius Atticus. Vestinius was succeeded by Anicius Cerealis on the first of July.
Joseph Benson
Preface
BEN_VOL8.PDF, source PDF p. 887
GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE.
PREFACE
WE learn from the inscription of this epistle, that the writer of it was Judas, the “brother of James;” not of James the son of Zebedee, and brother of John, but of James the son of Alpheus, the author of the epistle that bears his name. Jude was therefore an apostle. Indeed we find his name mentioned in two catalogues of the apostles given us by St. Luke; namely, Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13. In the catalogue, however, given Matthew 10:3, in the place of Judas, we find “Lebbeus, whose surname was Thaddeus;” and in Mark 3:18, “Thaddeus,” simply. But as all the evangelists agree that there were only twelve apostles, we must suppose that Judas, the brother of James, was surnamed Lebbeus and Thaddeus. The reason why he is styled “brother of James” probably was, because James was the elder brother, and because, after our Lord’s ascension, James became a person of considerable note among the apostles, and was highly esteemed by the Jewish believers. This Judas, being the brother of James, was, consequently, the brother, or kinsman, of Christ: see preface to the epistle of James. Accordingly, we find James, Joses, Simon, and Judas, expressly called the brethren of Jesus, Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3. Of his election to the apostleship, see Luke 6:13. As it is certain, then, that Judas was an apostle, no other proof is wanted of the divine inspiration and authority of his epistle. Accordingly, we find the matters contained in it, in every respect, suitable to the character of an inspired apostle of Christ. For the writer’s design in it was, evidently, to characterize and condemn the heretical teachers, who in that age endeavoured, by a variety of base arts, to make disciples; to reprobate the impious doctrines which they taught for the sake of advantage, and to enforce the practice of holiness on all who professed the gospel. In short, there is no error taught, nor evil practice enjoined, for the sake of which any impostor could be moved to impose a forgery of this kind on the world. Hence, although the authenticity of this epistle was doubted of by some in the early ages, yet, as soon as it was understood that its author was Judas, the brother of James, mentioned in the catalogues of the apostles, it was generally received as an apostolical inspired writing, and read publicly in the churches as such. The evidence of these important facts is stated and proved at large by Lardner, in his “Credibility of the Gospel History;” to which the reader, who desires full satisfaction on the subject, is referred.
The inscription of this epistle leads us to believe that it was written to all, without distinction, who had embraced the gospel; and, from its contents, we plainly see that the design of the apostle was, “by describing the character of the false teachers, and pointing out the divine judgments which persons of such a character had reason to expect, to caution Christians against listening to their suggestions, and being thereby perverted from the faith and purity of the gospel.” Indeed, Jude’s design seems to have been the same with that of Peter in writing his second letter, between the second chapter of which, and this epistle of Jude, there is a remarkable similarity; which, as was observed in the preface to that epistle, was probably owing to this circumstance, that both the apostles drew their character of the false teachers, against whom they cautioned their readers, from the character given of the false prophets, in some ancient Jewish author. Or, as Bishop Sherlock observes, Jude might have the second epistle of Peter before him when he wrote; a circumstance which, if admitted as probable, will give us light as to the date of this epistle. That of Peter was written but a very little while before his death; whence we may gather, that Jude lived some time after that event; and saw that grievous declension in the church which Peter had foretold. But he passes over some things mentioned by Peter, repeats some, in different expressions, and with a different view, and adds others; clearly evidencing thereby the wisdom of God which rested upon him. Thus St. Peter cites and confirms St. Paul’s writings, and is himself cited and confirmed by St. Jude.
Mill hath fixed the date of this epistle to A.D. 90; but Dodwell, who is followed by Cave, supposes, with a greater appearance of probability, that it was written soon after the destruction of Jerusalem; namely, about A.D. 70 or 71. L’Enfant and Beausobre also thought it was written about the same time; namely, between the years 70 and 75. There are various other opinions respecting its date, among the learned. But, upon the whole, though the precise date of it cannot be determined, it is highly probable that it was written in the latter part of the apostolic age, and not long before Jude’s death.
Daniel Whedon
Introduction
WHD_CO14.PDF, source PDF p. 391
JUDE
INTRODUCTION
OF JUDE, (Greek form of name Juddas, Hebrew, Juah,) there is very little recorded history. He styles himself “brother of James,” by which we know that there are two epistles from brothers, who were also brothers of Jesus. The only mention of his name in the Gospels occurs in the list given by the Nazarenes of the brothers of Jesus, Matthew 13:55, and Mark 6:3. From that remarkable passage we note something of the family of Nazareth. The brothers and sisters and father are ordinary folk in comparison with that strange phenomenon, the eldest son, Jesus. We can thence trace Jude only as one of the four brethren, collectively, whose conduct is mentioned in the Gospels and Acts, as noticed in our Introduction to the Epistle of James.
The next point of his history can be only inferred from his epistle. That brief, intensive fragment was written, probably, either in Palestine or Asia Minor. From it we learn that he is a persevering and powerful assertor of Christianity, and arraigner of the heretical demoralizers of the Church. Of his subsequent history we have nothing but contradictory traditions. Eusebius gives a narrative of a correspondence between Jesus and Abgar, king of Edessa, the letters between whom the historian professes to have seen in the archives of that city, and furnishes a copy of them. Jesus is invited by the king to visit his capital, but declines; promising, however, that after his own death a missionary of Christianity should be sent. After his death the missionary arrived, and proved to be Thaddeus the apostle. Those who identify our Jude with Thaddeus find here a trace of his career, somewhat legendary, but with, perhaps, some historic basis. This identification, however, we do not adopt.
A more authentic narrative is given by Hegesippus, as quoted by Eusebius, of the dealing of the Roman Emperor Domitian with the grandsons of Jude. Disturbed, like Herod of old, by the reports of spies that there were descendants of David who really claimed the throne of empire, Domitian sent an officer to bring the two descendants of “the Lord’s brother according to the flesh” (as both Hegesippus and Eusebius style him) into the royal presence. The emperor asked them if they were of the line of David. Both confessed the fact. He then asked them the amount of their wealth, and what resources they possessed. They both named a few thousand denarii of money shared between them, and a few acres of ground, cultivated with their own hands, from which (an important fact to the emperor) they paid their taxes and eked out a living. Their hard hands and compact bodies fully established the truth of their statements. The emperor inquired about the Christ and his kingdom; what its nature and when it would appear. They replied that it was not a secular or earthly kingdom, but celestial and angelic; that it would take place at the end of the dispensation, when he, coming in glory, would judge the living and the dead, and give to each one according to his doings. The emperor recognised their innocence, and despised their simplicity, and thereupon dismissed them from his presence, and ceased the then existing persecution against the Christians.
AUTHENTICITY AND DATE.
Eusebius tells us, that though not recognised by some, this epistle was read in the service of most churches; a very sure test of a canonical book. The Muratorian fragment accepts its canonicity at Rome; and Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, in Africa. After the reception of the epistle in such distant quarters, one is inclined to wonder that the Peshito, at home, did not contain it; yet it was recognised by Ephrem Syrus, the greatest light of the Syrian Church in the fourth century. Considering its brevity, its lateness, and the prejudices arising, as Jerome tells us, from the apparent quotation of the book of Enoch, the testimony in favour of the book is very decisive.
From this early non-recognition of the book in Syria, there arises reason of doubt whether it was written in Palestine. Yet its entire character points to Asia rather than to Europe or Africa.
The date we think to be later than the Second Epistle of Peter, inasmuch as a state of things predicted in Peter as future is vividly painted by Jude as present. Its exhibition of the facts of the age, and in the Church, correspond more nearly with that of the Epistles of John. The heretics are in the Church, or pressing hard upon it, yet have in some cases seceded, and the whole are more or less separatists in spirit. We place it, then, after the destruction of Jerusalem. The fact that that event is not enumerated among the examples of divine judgment has no bearing, since Jude quotes none but the most ancient instances, as the Exodus, the fallen angels, and Sodom. A number of destructions of Jerusalem had since taken place, with captivities and desolations; but none of them is mentioned. Jude deals with only examples of the most archaic character, which had long been consecrated by public thought as established monitions from God for all ages.
The later date of Jude is, we think, conclusively proved by the fact that Peter predicts the errorists as future, and Jude narrates their present existence. Peter gives the prophecy, Jude portrays the terrible fulfilment. Dr. Frederick Gardiner, in his scholarly monograph on Jude, (Boston, 1856,) takes issue with this view of the tenses of the two writers, on the grounds that Peter’s are not “exclusively future.” “The false teachers are described with equal clearness as already come.” But, 1. While Peter’s main verbs are uniformly future, Jude’s never are, but are past or present.
2. In fact, Peter’s entire description is of a future. Even while he uses terms in the present tense which are descriptive of objects, they are descriptive of objects he has declared to be future. His expressions of time are like this: The corruptionists will in due time come; and their actions and characters are of such and such a character. It is never once said nor meant that they have come. 3. Thus in 2:1, it is said, “There shall be false teachers, denying, etc.; where surely the present participle does not vary the future of the verb. And this applies to Peter’s Second Epistle throughout. On the contrary, in Jude these “men” have “crept in unawares.” “These speak evil of things they know not.” “These are spots,” “are murmurers,” “their mouth speaketh.” St. Jude is giving a sharp sketch from present real life. His objects are present, both in place and time. Hence he is vivid, brief, and profoundly impassioned. And this self-consistency of Jude’s in tenses, goes to justify us in saying, that, while Paul to the Ephesian elders and to Timothy, and Peter in the second chapter of his Second Epistle, predict these errorists, Jude, and John in his Epistles and in the earlier part of his Apocalypse, describe the fulfilment.
Both Dr. Gardiner and Alford found an argument for the posteriority of Peter on his greater diffuseness. The brief and more condensed must, they assume, be the original; of which the more extended must be an expansion. Why not assume the exact reverse? If Peter gave a full prediction of the future coming of the corruptionists, why might not Jude afterwards take his prediction, and by a few bold strokes—a few brief, vivid pictures, a few concentrated denunciations—describe accordantly, and often in similar terms, the present fulfilment? A condenser may just as easily omit some things, abbreviate others, interspersing now and then a few original touches, as an expander performs the reverse feat. This we believe Jude has done. The vivid, graphic conciseness of his style, while evidently natural to his genius, are rendered still more graphic by the living presence of the characters who awaken his holy indignation.
SPECIMEN PARALLELISMS BETWEEN PETER AND JUDE.
SECOND PETER.
Chapter 2:1. But there were
false prophets also among the
people, even as there shall be
false teachers among you.
4. For if God spared not the
angels that sinned, but cast them
down to hell, and delivered
them into chains of darkness, to
be reserved unto judgment;
6. And turning the cities of
Sodom and Gomorrah into
ashes condemned them with an
overthrow, making them an
ensample unto those that after
should live ungodly;
11. Whereas angels, which are
greater in power and might,
bring not railing accusation
against them before the Lord.
JUDE.
Verse 4. For there are certain
men crept in unawares, who
were before of old ordained to
this condemnation.
6. And the angels which kept
not their first estate, but left
their own habitation, he hath
reserved in everlasting chains
under darkness unto the
judgment of the great day.
7. Even as Sodom and
Gomorrah, and the cities about
them, in like manner giving
themselves over to fornication,
and going after strange flesh, are
set forth for an example,
suffering the vengeance of
eternal fire.
9. Yet Michael the archangel,
when contending with the devil
he disputed about the body of
Moses, durst not bring against
him a railing accusation, but
said, The Lord rebuke thee.
10. But these speak evil of those
things which they know not: but
12. But these, as natural brute
beasts made to be taken and
destroyed, speak evil of the
things that they understand not;
and shall utterly perish in their
own corruption;
13. Spots they are and
blemishes.
17. These are wells without
water, clouds that are carried
with a tempest; to whom the
mist of darkness is reserved for
ever.
things which they know not: but
what they know naturally, as
brute beasts, in those things they
corrupt themselves.
12. These are spots in your
feasts of charity… clouds they
are without water, carried about
of winds; trees whose fruit
withereth, without fruit, twice
dead, plucked up by the roots;
13. Raging waves of the sea,
foaming out their own shame;
wandering stars, to whom is
reserved the blackness of
darkness for ever.
A comparison of the above and numerous other parallel passages, induces us to say, that if Jude be the earlier, Peter seems to have copied him very unskilfully; not only expanding, but often omitting many of the happiest points, and weakening nearly all he imitates. The additional strokes which Jude furnishes are often master-strokes.