Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:21:42.292Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Alexandrian Epistle of Jude

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

John J. Gunther
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The hypothesis of Jude's Alexandrian origin, which was set forth by Ernst Th. Mayerhoff in 1835 and has been supported by D. Schenkel, W. J. Mangold, H. Holtzmann, O. Pfleiderer and James Moffatt, deserves to be revived.

Its associations with Syria and Palestine are superficial. Although the Apostolic Constitutions (Apost. Canon 85) canonizes all of the Catholic Epistles, it was not until the early sixth century that Philoxenus brought Jude into the Syriac canon. Eusebius (hist.eccl. ii,23.25; iii,25.3) placed it among the disputed writings. J. N. D. Kelly deems it unlikely that the readers ‘were converts from Palestinian Judaism, for the Gnostic libertinism attacked cannot have had much attraction for people brought up to reverence the Law’. There is no evidence that libertine Gnostics ever were a problem anywhere in Syria either. There is no point of contact between Jude and either the Judas Thomas apocrypha or Ignatius or the Docetic and Judaizing errors he opposed at home or on the road. Hans Windisch remarked that the suppression of the blood relationship of Judas with Jesus bespeaks the non-Palestinian origin of the letter. The readers of the epistle did respect both Judas and James, who represented Palestinian dynastic Christianity. But such esteem did not prevail at Antioch (Acts 15.1; Gal. 2. 12) or where Matthew (12. 46–50) and Mark (3. 31–35), with their bias against the Lord's brothers, were written. The Synoptic Gospels did not influence Jude. The remoteness of Rome and the West from Judaean Christianity argues against any association with our epistle. Neither 1 Clement nor the Shepherd of Hermas reveals an awareness of the problems with which Jude deals. The epistle has nothing in common with Revelation or Asian millenarianism; Papias did not even include Judas in his list of disciples. Justin's ignorance of Jude tends to forbid its connection with Ephesus or Rome.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , October 1984 , pp. 549 - 562
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

[1] Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die petrinischen Schriften (Hamburg, Perthes), p. 195.Google Scholar

[2] Bibliogr. in Holtzmann, , Lehrbuch der historisch-kritische Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Freiburg i.B.: Mohr-Siebeck, 1892), p. 329Google Scholar; Moffatt, , Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1918), p. 358Google Scholar; The General Epistles (Moffatt N.T. Comm.) (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1928), p. 224Google Scholar; Pfleiderer, , Primitive Christianity (London: Williams & Norgate, 1911) 4, p. 252.Google Scholar

[3] Albin, C. A., Judasbrevet. Traditionen Texten Tolkningen (Stockholm: Natur och Kultur, 1962), pp. 60–62, 88–90, 111–27.Google Scholar On Judas' Coptic translations see pp. 85–88, 451–74. The oldest manuscript of Jude is P72, dating from the first third of the third century. This Bodmer Papyrus was copied by a Coptic scribe, probably for a private library at Thebes (Testuz, Michael ed., Papyrus Bodmer VII–IX, [Cologny Genève: Bibliothèque Bodmer, 1959] pp. 7, 9–10, 32).Google Scholar Clement commented on the letter in his Hypostases (Eusebius, hist.eccl. vi, 14), as preserved in Cassiodorus' Adumbrationes (Albin, , Judasbrevet, pp. 97–103). Origen granted it apostolic and canonical authority (in Matth. x,17).Google Scholar

[4] A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude (HKNT) (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), pp. 233–4.Google Scholar

[5] Die Katholischen Briefe (HKNT) (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1951), p. 38.Google Scholar

[6] Rowston, D. J., ‘The Most Neglected Book in the New Testament’, NTS 21 (1975), p. 562CrossRefGoogle Scholar He points out the authoritative influence of James on Jude. ‘Both books opposed perversions of Pauline Christianity by harking back to Jesus Christ … through his brothers.’

[7] Trocmé, E., La Formation de l'Evangile selon Marc (Paris: Presses Universitaires, 1963), pp. 105–9Google Scholar; Lambrecht, J., ‘The Relatives of Jesus in Mark’, NovT 16 (1974), pp. 253–5Google Scholar; Crossan, J. D., ‘Mark and the Relatives of Jesus’, NovT (1973), pp. 81–113.Google Scholar

[8] His Dial. 120 teaching (‘Jesus led your fathers out of Egypt' [Albin, , op. cit., pp. 56–8])Google Scholar is not drawn from the best text of Jude 5 (or its meaning; cf. vv. 6, 9, 25), but represents his own doctrine of frequent Christophanies, O. T. (Gunther, St. Paul's Opponents and Their Background [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973], p. 238).Google Scholar

[9] The Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter (London: Macmillan, 1907), p. 22.Google Scholar

[10] In a future publication the author hopes to present evidence that the beloved disciple was Judas (John 14. 22), the brother of James (Jd. 1; cf. Lk. 6. 16) and of Jesus (Jn. 19. 26–27). He was called Thaddaeus and Lebbaeus (Matth. 10. 3; Mark 3.18), hypochoristic names derived from tad (breast) and leb (heart) and implying love, understanding and faith. See below, n. 60. He was the last disciple to die (John 21. 23; Mark 9. 1). ‘Jude’ took Jn. 21. 24 (⋯; γράψας ταῡτα) to mean more than that the beloved disciple caused or authorized (cf. 19. 1,19, 21, 22) the writing of resurrection narratives in the Fourth Gospel. Its teachings were useful and authoritative for both Jude's church and the opponents (see pp. 552,553,555; n. 45). Because of heretics' misuse, more and more of, or responsibility for, the Gospel was attributed to the beloved disciple by tradition during the generation between its completion and the writing of Jude. Thus Ps.-Jude could claim in his daily disputes that Judas, having already understood and opposed the antinomians in his Epistle, meant his subsequently completed and published Gospel to be understood fully in an anti-Gnostic sense; no anti-Gnostic editorial portions were added by ‘the elder’ (who wrote the Letters of John). I.e. the beloved disciple himself wrote against the Gnostics in his Gospel; they should not misconstrue it. See Gunther, , ‘The Meaning and Origin of the Name “Judas Thomas”’, Museon 93 (1980), pp. 113–48Google Scholar; ‘The Relation of the Beloved Disciple to the Twelve’, TZ 37 (1981), pp. 129–48.Google Scholar

[11] That the Cainites were a pre-Christian, semi-Jewish sect is indicated by a divided attitude toward Judas' betrayal of Jesus, by the statement of Philaster (haer., praef. and 1–3), and by Philo's description of the city of Cain (Fiedländer, M., Der vorchristliche jüdische Gnosticismus [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1898], pp. 19–23, 52–3, 118–19Google Scholar; Pfleiderer, O., Primitive Christianity, 3 [1910], pp. 72–4). See below, n. 39. The loveless works of Cain were not to be imitated (1 John 3. 11–12).Google Scholar

[12] de Stryker, E., La forme la plus ancienne du Protévangile de Jacques (Brussels: Societé des Bollandistes, 1961), pp. 419–23.Google Scholar

[13] Epistula Iacobi Apocrypha. Codex Jung, ed. Malinine, M., Puech, H. C., Quispel, G. et al. (Zurich/Stuttgart: Rascher, 1968), pp. XXIX–XXX; cf. XX–XXIII. This is the opinion of Quispel and W. C. van Unnik. Some verses may be anti-libertine (5. 7–9; 9. 27–30; 10.1–5; 11. 35–12. 13).Google Scholar

[14] On Philo's and Josephus' understanding of Cain, Balaam and Korah see Rowston, , ‘The Most Neglected’, p. 558, nn. 18, 19.Google Scholar

[15] Mayor, , The Epistle of St. Jude, pp. cli–clviiGoogle Scholar; Grundmann, W., Der Brief des Judas und der zweite Brief des Petrus (HKNT) (Berlin: Evangelische, 1974), pp. 33–4, 36–44Google Scholar; cf. Laperrousaz, E.-M., ‘Le Testament de Moise’, Semitica 19 (1970), pp. 48–59.Google Scholar

[16] Pearson, B. A., ‘The Pierpont Morgan Fragments of a Coptic Enoch Apocryphon’, Studies on the Testament of Abraham (ed. Nickelsburg, G. W. E.; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1976), p. 228, n. 4.Google Scholar

[17] Acts 7. 36; 38–39, 43; and 56 reflect knowledge of the Assumption of Moses (3.11; 3.12–13; 10. 3, respectively) (Pesch, R., Die Vision des Stephanus [Stuttgart: Katholisches, 1966], pp. 19–20, 35, 55–8Google Scholar; Laperrousaz, , ‘Le Testament’, pp. 66–73).Google Scholar It is unclear whether Stephen was so influenced in Palestine or in Egypt, or whether the Acts 7 speech reflects later Alexandrian teaching (W. Mundle). B. Bacon, H. Rackham, C. Spicq, L. W. Barnard and M. Simon have argued for Stephen's Alexandrian training, partly on the basis of resemblances of Acts 7 to Barnabas (Barnard, , Studies in the Apostolic Fathers and Their Background [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966], pp. 57–72Google Scholar [NTS 7, 1960–1961], pp. 31–45). The Righteous One ready to come as judge (Acts 7. 52, 55–56) is found in 1 Enoch 38. 2; cf. 44–46. Star worship is criticized in 1 Enoch 80. 7 and Acts 7. 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[18] Barnabas (4. 3–4; 16. 4–6) probably twice cited 1 Enoch (89. 56, 61–64, 66, 73; 91.12–13) as ‘Scripture’. Its origin is discussed in Gunther, , ‘The Association of Mark and Barnabas with Egyptian Christianity’, EvQ 54 (1982), pp. 219–33; 55 (1983), pp. 21–9.Google Scholar

[19] Darkness is past (1 Enoch 58.5; 1 John 2. 8). Children of light (108.11; John 12. 36) should not love worldly goods (108. 8; 1 John 2.15–17). The Righteous One (38. 2; 1 John 2.1) walks in the light (92. 4; 1 John 1. 7). Knowing men's secrets (49. 4; John 2. 25; cf. Hebr. 4.12–13), the Son of Man, who was from the beginning (48. 6; 62. 7;John 1. 1), will judge (41. 9; 49. 4; 69. 27; John 5. 22, 27) and rule forever (62. 14; John 12. 34). Wisdom was rejected in its earthly dwelling-place and returned to its place in heaven (42.1–2; John 1.10–11; 3. 13). The righteous have their dwelling-places (39. 4; 1 John 14. 2–3). On their origin see Gunther, , ‘The Alexandrian Gospel and Letters of John’, CBQ 41 (1979), pp. 581–603Google Scholar; ‘Early Identifications of Authorship of the Johan-nine Writings’, JEH 31 (1980), pp. 407–27Google Scholar; ‘The Elder John, Author of Revelation’, JSNT 11 (1981), pp. 3–20.Google Scholar

[20] Ruwet, J., ‘Clement d'Alexandrie, canon des Ecritures et Apocryphes’, Bib 29 (1948), pp. 240–68.Google Scholar

[21] Ibid., pp. 242–4.

[22] ‘Jude, Epistle of’ Dictionary of the Bible (ed. Hastings, J.; New York & Edinburgh), 2 (1899), pp. 800–1.Google Scholar

[23] ‘Jude, Letter of’, IDB ii, pp. 1010.Google Scholar

[24] The translation, ‘spots’ or ‘blemishes’, which suggests an imperfection, is too weak to portray the perilous danger which they posed to others. Against this translation see Fornberg, T., An Early Church in a Pluralistic Society (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1977), p. 48, n. 1; p. 55, n. 1.Google Scholar

[25] 2 Peter 2. 17 (‘mists driven by a storm; for them the nether gloom of darkness has been reserved’) also describes Egyptian coastline conditions. It is based on the Alexandrian Wisdom 5.14; cf. 23 (‘dust blown away by the wind, spindrift driven by a storm [λαῑλαψ]’).

[26] McCoan, J. C., Egypt as It Is (New York: Henry Holt, 1877) p. 336Google Scholar; cf. The Middle East 1959 (London: Europa Publications, 1959), pp. 343–4: ‘Another unusual condition is the occurrence of early morning fog in Lower Egypt during spring and early summer. This … has a beneficial effect on plant growth in that it supplies moisture and is a partial substitute for rainfall.’Google Scholar

[27] On its Egyptian origin see Gunther, , ‘The Alexandrian Gospel’, p. 592, n. 72.Google Scholar

[28] Albin, , Judasbrevet, pp. 37–41.Google Scholar

[29] van Unnik, W. C., ‘A Greek characteristic of prophecy in the Fourth Gospel’, Text and Interpretation. Studies in the N.T. presented to Matthew Black (ed. Best, E. and Wilson, R. McL.; Cambridge/London/New York/Melbourne: Cambridge University, 1979), pp. 218–19Google Scholar (‘the original Greek readers understood … “he knows all things” … The expression “the original Greek readers” was deliberately chosen, because so far no such term for omniscience has come to my notice in the sphere of the Old Testament and later Palestinian Jewish literature’); cf. pp. 220–2 (2 Enoch). Krodel, G. (‘The Letter of Jude’, Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, Revelation [Proclamation Comm., Philadelphia: Fortress 1977], p. 95) comments that knowing all things ‘expresses … the conviction that the orthodox tradition mediates true Gnosis (cf. 1 John 2:21,27)’.Google Scholar

[30] Its Alexandrian or Egyptian origin has been upheld by Mayerhoff, (Einleitung, pp. 193–4)Google Scholar, Harnack, A. (Die Chronologie, p. 469)Google Scholar, Chase, (‘Peter, Second Epistle of’, Dictionary of the Bible 3 [1900], pp. 802–4, 817)Google Scholar and in the commentaries by Robson, E. I. (pp. 30–1)Google Scholar, Moffatt, (p. 175: ‘possibly’)Google Scholar, Wand, J. (p. 144)Google Scholar, Spicq, C. (p. 195)Google Scholar and Kelly, J. N. D. (p. 237).Google Scholar This is based on its Hellenistic piety, Philonisms, commercial expressions, similarities to Barnabas and the Preachings of Peter, and its inclusion in Clement's commentaries, the Bodmer Papyri and the Coptic and Atha-nasius' canons, whereas it was ignored in Rome.

[31] The Epistles of James, Peter and Jude (AB) (Garden City: Doubleday, 1964), pp. 148, 190Google Scholar; see also Green, M., The Second General Epistle of Peter and The General Epistle of Jude (Tyndale NT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), p. 53Google Scholar; Spicq, , Les Epîtres de saint Pierre (Paris: Gabalda, 1966), p. 197.Google Scholar

[32] ‘Those who separate Jesus from the Christ and say that the Christ remained impassibilis, but that Jesus suffered, prefer that Gospel which is according to Mark’ (Irenaeus, adv.haer. iii, 2.7). Mark 1. 10–15; 15. 34 were susceptible to a Cerinthian misinterpretation. Usually when Jesus is called the Christ or Son of God, it is on the lips of his persecutors (14. 61; 15. 32, 29) or the deranged (3. 11; 5. 7; cf. 1. 24); it could be claimed that Jesus did not admit he was the Christ (8. 29–30). Cerinthus has been located in Egypt by Hippolytus (Philos. vii.7 & 33; x.21), Theodoret (Haer.Fab. ii.3), W. Harvey, G. Bareille, Moffatt, K. Lake, A. H. McNeile, M. Shepherd, J. Bowman and F. F. Bruce.

[33] Carpocratians claimed ‘Jesus spoke in a mystery privately to his disciples’ (Irenaeus i,25.5; cf. Mark 4. 10–11). Clement admitted Carpocrates furtively obtained a copy of the secret Gospel of Mark from an Alexandrian presbyter (Letter to Theodore II,5–7). In Strom. iii,2.5 he relates that Epiphanes was a son of Carpocrates … On his father's side he was an Alexandrine. Theodoret (Haer.Fab. i,5) concurs.

[34] Werdermann, H., Die Irrelehrer des Judas- und 2 Petrusbriefes (Gutersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1913), pp. 14, 22–3, 25–6. Tines anthropoi (v. 4) and outoi (vv. 8, 10, 12, 16, 19; cf. 23) are actual individuals disrupting the church.Google Scholar

[35] Bibliogr. in Moffatt, , Introduction, pp. 353–4.Google Scholar See above, n. 2; Robson, : ‘possibly the Carpocratian heresy … in its early days’ (Studies in the Second Epistle of St. Peter [Cambridge: University, 1915], p. 65).Google Scholar

[36] The General Epistles, pp. 218–21.Google Scholar

[37] The ‘Secret’ Gospel of Mark (London: Athlone, 1974), p. 18Google Scholar; also F. Schleiermacher and G. Fronmüller.

[38] ‘The Epistle of Jude. Introduction and Exegesis’, IB 12 (1957), p. 331.Google Scholar

[39] See above, n. 11. The sect arose where Sophia was deemed an agent of the Absolute Sovereignty above (Irenaeus i,31.1) and was worshipped in the form of a serpent (cf. i,30.7 & 15), who seduced Eve, fathered Cain and led man to illumination (Gen. 2. 17; 3. 7). Egyptian teachers and ‘reborn sons of the good law’ were called ‘serpents of wisdom’; its powers in its head typified wisdom (Stewart, T. M., The Symbolism of the Gods of Egypt [London: Baskerville, 1927], pp. 38, 62). Like the Carpocratians, the Cainites sought to escape sin-causing angels and to be saved by experiencing all sins. The sect was known by Clement (Strom. vii,17,108) and Origen (Contra Celsum vi.28). Tertullian (On Baptism 1) knew of the arrival of the Cainite teacher, Quintilla.Google Scholar

[40] Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1973), p. 268.Google Scholar

[41] Gunther, , St. Paul's Opponents, pp. 196–8, 205–6Google Scholar; Szewc, E., ‘… “Les Gloires” dans les épîtres de Jude et deuxième de St. Pierre’, Collectanea Theologica 46 (1976), pp. 57–60. The traditional roles, evaluations and ranking of angels in general were overturned.Google Scholar

[42] Dölger, F. J., ‘Die Sphragis als religiöse Brandmerkung in Einweihungsakt der gnostischen Karpokratianer’, Antike und Christentum 1 (1929), pp. 73–5Google Scholar; Liboron, H., Die Karpocratianische Gnosis (Leipzig: Jordan & Gramberg, 1938), pp. 49–50Google Scholar; Smith, , Clement of Alexandria, p. 269.Google Scholar

[43] The difficult (δυσνόητος) Pauline teachings (2 Pet. 3. 16) which could appeal to the opponents include: Rom. 3. 7–8; 6. 1–7, 10; 8. 1–2, 21; 1 Cor. 2. 14–15; 3. 1; 6. 12; 2 Cor. 3. 17; 5. 16–19; Gal. 2. 16–21; 3. 10,13; 4. 21–5.1; 6.1–2; Eph. 1. 3, 20; 2. 6; Col. 1.12–13; 2.12–13; 3.1.

[44] Barnett, A., Paul Becomes A Literary Influence (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1941), pp. 197–8Google Scholar; Rowston, , ‘The Most Neglected Book’, p. 558.Google Scholar

[45] Zuntz, G., The Text of the Epistles. A Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum (London: Oxford Univ., 1953), p. 279. By the time Jude was written other parts of the NT canon were already in circulation. In spite of their perfectionist and apocalyptic Logia, the Synoptic tradition and Gospels are scarcely alluded to by Jude. Uprooted trees without fruit (Jd. 12) is closer to Jn. 15. 2, 6, 10 than to Mt. 3. 10; 13. 29–30; 15. 13–14a because only in Jn. is the figure applied to cast out (cf. 9. 34) apostates not keeping Jesus' commandments (cf. 1 Jn. 2.19; 3. 23; 5.16–17). John was the Gospel locally used to justify such excommunications.Google Scholar

[46] ‘Apocalyptic in Early Christianity’, Schneemelcher, E. Hennecke-W., New Testament Apocrypha (Philadelphia: Westminster) 2 (1965), p. 610.Google Scholar

[47] Rowston, , ‘The Most Neglected Book’, p. 560.Google Scholar

[48] Fornberg, , An Early Church, pp. 42–6, 61–2.Google Scholar

[49] Cranfield, C. E. B., I and II Peter and Jude. Introduction and Commentary (London: SCM, 1960), p. 180.Google Scholar

[50] Fornberg, , An Early Church, p. 73.Google Scholar

[51] Essays on New Testament Themes (London: SCM, 1964), p. 194Google Scholar (ZTK 49 [1952], p. 295).Google Scholar

[52] Fornberg, , An Early Church, p. 68.Google Scholar

[53] Gunther, , ‘The Epistle of Barnabas and the Final Rebuilding of the Temple’, JSJ 7 (1976), pp. 143–4.Google Scholar

[54] Transl. Barnes, W. E. in Texts and Studies (Cambridge: University) ii-2 (1892), Appendix, p. 143.Google Scholar

[55] The Coptic reads, ‘120th’ and the Ethiopic ‘150’; the defective Latin text has a word ending inta before ‘year’. On contemporary Syro-Palestinian expectations see Flusser, D., ‘Salvation Present and Future’, Numen 16 (1969), pp. 148–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[56] 2 Clement is best dated ca. 140 in Rome. During the episcopacy of Hyginus (136–140 A.D.) Valentinus arrived (Irenaeus, adv.haer. iii,4.3). ‘2 Clement was written in an environment of incipient gnosticism’ (Donfried, K. P., The Setting of Second Clement in Early Christianity [Leiden: Brill, 1974], p. 112CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. 166, 179, 190–1) which resembles Valentinianism (ibid., pp. 102–3, 111–12, 123–4, 136–41, 155–8, 164–6). A traditional dating of 120–170 A.D. (Albin, , Judasbrevet, p. 51, n. 176Google Scholar; Donfried, , pp. 16–18Google Scholar) is preferable to Donfried's of 100 A.D. (p. 1). Similarities to the Shepherd of Hernias are strong (ibid., p. 116, n. 4; 120, n. 1; 125, n. 1; 131–2,148,150,186, n. 1). Hermas, (Vis. ii,4.3)Google Scholar is instructed to send one of his two books to Clement, who ‘then shall send it to the citiesabroad, for that is his duty’. Would not this contemporary of Hermas be a Roman elder named Clement who was responsible for circulating abroad in a letter form a hortatory address such as 2 Clement (Donfried, , pp. 47–8)?Google Scholar The author distinguished between the Biblia and ‘the apostles’ (14. 2) (Donfried, , pp. 93–5). Canonical Gospel sayings are quoted as ‘scripture’ (2. 4) and as what ‘God says’ (13. 4), while uncanonical (Gospel) material appears (4. 5; 5. 2–4; 8. 5; 12. 1–2) as what ‘the Lord says (said)’.Google Scholar

[57] Gunther, , ‘The Epistle of Barnabas’, p. 143, n. 3Google Scholar; Kasher, H., Zion 41 (1976), pp. 127–38Google Scholar (summarized in NTA 21–3 [1977] #956).

[58] Osburn, C. D., ‘The Christological Use of 1 Enoch 1.9 in Jude 14, 15’, NTS 23 (1976), pp. 336–8, 340.Google ScholarKraft, R. A. (The Apostolic Fathers. A New Translation and Commentary. Volume 3. Barnabas and the Didache [Toronto/New York/London: Thos. Nelson, 1965], p. 55; cf. 48–9)Google Scholar finds that Ps.s-Barnabas was trained in a school ‘which was steeped in apocalyptic eschatology – a school which had access to a large stock of “ancient” Jewish sources … Perhaps it was a Christianized offspring of a Qumranlike Judaism in Greek dress … near Alexandria.’ The same could be said of the author of Jude, but he was not a Gentile, as was Ps.-Barnabas (Kraft, pp. 39, 44). He, too, believed the Lord was about to return as Judge (Kraft, pp. 27, 29). But it was by virtue of apocalyptic calculations (Barn. 4. 3–6, 9), not because of the appearance of impious men condemned to death (10. 5–8); such perverts did not threaten the church of Ps.-Barnabas. Did ‘Jude’ react as did ‘the elder’ (1–3 John) to the outbreak of heresy, by reverting to his apocalyptic schooling? ‘Therefore we know that it is the last hour’ (1 John 2. 18).

[59] Sidebottom, E. M., James, Jude and 2 Peter (London: Thos. Nelson, 1967), p. 86, 93, 106Google Scholar; Kelly, A Commentary p. 289Google Scholar; Grundmann, , Der Brief, p. 87, n. 72.Google Scholar Jude's thought is: corrupting animal lust, fornication and homosexuality soil the flesh; this defilement spots one's detestable garment (so that God sees him as guilty) and thereby threatens him with eternal hellfire. The spotting of the χιτών by the flesh causes some to fall away from the glory of God the Saviour. According to Philo (leg.all. ii,15.53–60), the mind or soul loving God the Saviour and the nakedness of the soul, disrobes and frees itself of the irrational χιτών: namely, its impious thoughts, its opinions and images, vain and mortal glory, the body, its passions and vices. The Gosp. Egypt. (Clement, Strom, iii.13.92) equated trampling ‘on the garment of shame’ with asexuality (cf. Cos. Thos. log. 37).

[60] The third bishop of Jerusalem is called ‘Ιουδαῖος by the name of Justus’ by Eusebius (hist, eccl. iii,35; iv,5.3), ‘Judas’ by Epiphanius (Haer. 66.20) and ‘Judas of James’ by the Apostolic Constitutions (vii.46). The list of the successors of James the Just included relatives of the Lord (Gunther, , ‘The Fate of the Jerusalem Church. The Flight to Pella’, TZ 29 [1973], pp. 91–4Google Scholar). Streeter, B. H. (The Primitive Church [London: Macmillan, 1929], p. 180)Google Scholar recognized a connection between the ‘third bishop of Jerusalem’ and Jude. The idea was first expounded by H. Grotius. Cf. Adam, A., ‘Erwägungen zur Herkunft der Didache’, ZKG 68 (1957), p. 68Google Scholar; Klein, G., Die Zwölf Apostel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961), p. 100.Google Scholar

[61] While the scheme of ten and twelve year reigns of Alexandrian bishops appears artificial, an average of eleven would leave Justus with similar dates. It is statistically probable that his real dates partly overlapped the same decade.

[62] Marcellina, who belonged to the Carpocratian school known as ‘Gnostics’, came to Rome under Hyginus (Irenaeus i,25.6) (154–65 A.D.). Hegesippus (ap. Eusebius, hist.eccl. iv,22.4) made the followers of Carpocrates contemporary with those of Menander, Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides and Saturninus. Eusebius (iv,7.9) discussed Carpocrates under Hadrian's reign. Clement, who dated the age of the heresiarchs during the reigns of Hadrian and Antoninus (Strom. vii,17.106), gave the marriage views of Carpocrates and his son Epiphanes between those of Basilides and Marcion. Carpocrates used the Secret Gospel of Mark (see above, n. 33). Oulton, J. and Chadwick, H. (Alexandrian Christianity [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1954], p. 28) think the deification of Epiphanes, who died at seventeen, was modelled after that of the youth, Antinous, Hadrian's favourite slave, who drowned himself in the Nile in 130. We might add that if Epiphanes died ca. 133, then his birth-date would correspond to the 115–117 civil war between Egyptian Jews and Gentiles. This would explain why the bitterly anti-Judaic Carpocrates (who ‘de-Judaized’ Jesus) gave his son the name of Antiochus IV, the notorious Hellenizing persecutor of Palestinian Jews in 168–67 B.C.Google Scholar

[63] The process is aptly described by Aland, K. in ‘The Problem of Anonymity and Pseudonymity in Christian Literature of the First Two Centuries’, JTS 12 (1961), pp. 44–5, 48–9Google Scholar; ‘Falsche Verfasserangaben? Zur Pseudonymität im frühchristlichen Schrifttum’, Theol. Rev. 75 (1979), p. 7.Google Scholar