No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
It is a commonplace of scholarship on the epistle of Jude to lament the neglect from which the letter has suffered. However, despite the relative obscurity of the subject, a substantial number of commentaries do exist, and the major problems surrounding the epistle are clear: the nature of the heretics against whom the letter was directed, the relationship between Jude and II Peter, and the identity of the author – along with the related question of chronology. There is no unanimity in the literature, but the solutions proposed by Douglas Rowston represent a convincing resolution of the available evidence. He defines the heresy which prompted the letter as an anti-nomian gnosticism, a ‘lively libertinism’, interprets Jude as a source for II Peter, and attributes the letter to a Hellenized individual, conversant with Jewish literature, who wrote under the pseudonym of the Lord's brother in order to give his message apostolic weight in the post-apostolic age. Rowston accepts Werderman's approximate date of A.D. 80.
1 I would like to thank Professor John Priest for reading this article and making several helpful suggestions, although he is in no way responsible for any errors which may remain. Although the number of commentaries appears substantial, they are of varying value, and many are highly derivative; the most important are probably those of Spitta, Biggs, Reicke and Kelly: Barnett, A. E. and Homrighausen, E. G., ‘The Epistle of Jude’ (Interpreter's Bible, vol. 12) (New York/Nashville, 1957), pp. 317–43Google Scholar; Biggs, C., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude (International Critical Commentaries) (2nd ednEdinburgh, 1902)Google Scholar; Boobyer, G. H., ‘II Peter’ and ’Jude’ (Peake's Commentary on the Bible) (London, 1962)Google Scholar; Case, S.J., Jude (Abingdon Bible Commentaries) (New York/Nashville, 1929)Google Scholar; Chaine, J., Les Épitres catholiques (Études Bibliques) (Paris, 1939)Google Scholar; Cranfield, C. E. B., I and II Peter and Jude (The Torch Bible Commentaries) (London, 1960)Google Scholar; Green, M., The Second Epistle of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude: An Introduction and Cimmentaty (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries) (Grand Rapids, 1968)Google Scholar; James, M. R., 2 Peter and Jude (Cambridge Greek Testament) (Cambridge, 1912)Google Scholar; Kelly, J. N. D., A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude (Harper's New Testament Commentaries) (New York, 1969)Google Scholar; Knopf, R., Die Briefe Petri und judä (Göttingen, 1912)Google Scholar; Leaney, A. R. C., The Letters of Peter and Jude (Cambridge Bible Commentaries) (Cambridge, 1967)Google Scholar; Mayor, J. B., The Second Epistle of St. Peter and the Epistle of St. Jude (London, 1907)Google Scholar; Moffatt, J., The General Epistles (Moffatt New Testament Commentaries) (New York/London, 1928)Google Scholar; Plummer, A., St. James and St. Jude (Expositor's Bible) (London, 1891)Google Scholar; Reicke, B., The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude (The Anchor Bible) (Garden City, 1964)Google Scholar; Schelkle, K. H., Die Petrusbriefe und der Judasbrief (Herder Kommentar) (2nd ednFreiburg, 1964)Google Scholar; Sidebottom, E. M., James, Jude, and 2 Peter (Century Bible) (London, 1967)Google Scholar; Spitta, F., Der zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas (Halle, 1885)Google Scholar; Summers, R., ‘Jude’, The Broadman Bible Commentary 12 (Nashville, 1972), pp. 232–9Google Scholar; Wand, J. W. C., The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude (Westminister Commentaries) (London, 1934)Google Scholar. Subsequent references will be to author's name only, except where confusion is possible. A short discussion accompanied by further bibliography can be found in Kümmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament (14th ednNew York/Nashville, 1966), pp. 299–302, 391, 398Google Scholar; there is also bibliography in Kelly, pp. 238–9. The Catholic view of the major problems concerning the letter is well represented by Robert, A. and Feuillet, A., Introduction to the New Testament (New York, 1965), pp. 593–600.Google Scholar
2 Rowston, D., ‘The Most Neglected Book in the New Testament’, N.T.S. 21 (1975), 554–63Google Scholar. The article is based on his unpublished dissertation, ‘The Setting of the Letter of Jude’, submitted to the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1971.
3 Biggs, pp. 305–10, collects the ancient testimonia on Jude; the dispute is most clearly summarized in Jerome, De vir. ill. iv; see also Schelkle, K. H., ‘Der Judasbrief bei den Kirchenvätern’, Wort und Schrift (1966), pp. 300–8Google Scholar. The influence of I Enoch on Jude is summarized in Charles, R. H. (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, ii: Pseudepigrapha (Oxford, 1913), pp. 180–1.Google Scholar
4 Rowston, pp. 557–9, and the commentaries in note I, esp. Biggs. The only special study dealing with these two verses – Magass, W., ‘Semiotik einer Ketzerpolemik am Beispiel von Judas 12 f.’, Lin-guistica Biblica 19 (1972), 36–47Google Scholar – concentrates on the semiotic construction of the verses and on their effect, without examining the background of the symbolism.
5 Biggs, pp. 310–11. Only πλανήτης is also found in the Septuagint (Hos. 9. 17).
6 Reicke, p. 107. Spitta, pp. 360–1 and Rowston, p. 558 n. 8 find the metaphors reminiscent of I Enoch 2. 2 – 5. 3, and the Assumption of Moses 10. 5 ff.
7 Biggs, p. 335.
8 For example: Barnett and Homrighausen, p. 334; Green, p. 176; Kelly, pp. 274–5, who cites also Wis. 14. 1; Rowston, p. 558 n. 6; and Spitta, p. 359.
9 Green, p. 115; see also Biggs, p. 284, who compares the style to the Homerism characteristic of second-century Christian authors.
10 The precedence of jude is now generally accepted: for a summary of the arguments see Kümmel, p. 303 and Rowston, pp. 562–3; also Leaney, p. 77; Kelly, pp. 226–7; Barnett and Homrighausen, p. 317. Biggs, p. 316, Spitta, pp. 381–470 and Summers, p. 234 argue that Jude is modelled on II Peter, while Green, pp. 54–5 and Reicke, p. 190 assume the existence of a common source.
11 Rowston, p. 559; Kümmel, p. 301.
12 The story is clearly considered to be scandalous by Plato in the Republic ii. 377E-378A and the Euthyphro 5E–6A; see also Cicero, , De natura deorum 2. 24Google Scholar. 63 ff. Summaries of the ancient sources on Aphrodite are presented by Dümmler in RE 1. 2 (1894), col. 2729–87, s.v. ‘Aphrodite’, and Röscher in Röscher 1 (1884–90), col. 390–406, s.v. ‘Aphrodite’. The extensive modern bibliography on the troublesome etymology of the goddess' name is summarized by Fauth, W. in Der Kleine Pauly 1 (1964)Google Scholar, col. 425 ff., s.v. ‘Aphrodite’.
13 It is curious that Theophilus of Antioch mentions only Kronos' cannibalism as an example of the grossness of the pagan gods and omits any mention of the castration of Uranos: ούχι Κρόνος μ⋯ν τεκνοφ⋯γος εὑρίσκεται καί τ⋯ έαυτο
τeacgr;κυτο ⋯ναλίσκων (Ad Autolycum 1. 9). Delicacy could be suggested as the motive, except that the next paragraph mentions “Αττιν ⋯ποκοπτ⋯μενον. But compare how carefully Plato avoids actual mention of the castration in his condemnation of the incident in Repub. II. 377E–378A.
14 The prefix έπι-, here governing an object in the accusative, suggests the driving of the foam towards the shore; see Smith, H. W., Greek Grammar (Cambridge, Mass., 1956), para. 1689. 3–4.Google Scholar
15 Stromata III. 2. 71–2: έπί τούτων οίμαι καί τν ⋯μοίων αίρέσεων προφητικ⋯ς 'ιοὑδαν έν τῇ έπιστολῇ είρηκένα….
16 See above, n. 3.
17 Biggs, p. 309; Charles (note 3), pp. 180–1.
18 There is an extensive discussion of Lyssa by Schmidt, J. in RE 14 (1928), col. 69–71Google Scholar, s.v. ‘Lyssa’. She should appear among the offspring of Night in Theog. 211 if. but is also related in character to the Erinyes, who were generated by the blood of the severed genitals of Uranos (Theog. 182–5). Euripides' reference to αίμα, although probably to be taken as ‘blood line’, may hint at a variant of the myth in which Lyssa appeared with the Erinyes.
19 Nauck, A., Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (2nd edn 1889; repr. Hildesheim, 1964), pp. 329–30Google Scholar, fr. 855 v. 4: έστιν δέ λὑσοα μανι⋯ς… The fragment, which Nauck and others feel may actually be from a play by Euripides, is part of a hymn to Aphrodite, addressed by the title Kmpic. The last two lines emphasize the goddess' great power:…π⋯ντα τοι συντέμνεται / Κὑπριδι τ⋯ θνητν καί θε⋯ν βουλεὑματα (vv. 16–17). Several verses in Euripides' Hippolytus (447–50), part of a passage which extols the role of Kypris/Aphrodite as the potent, universal engendering force of desire – present everywhere, including the waves of the sea – are strikingly appropriate to the context ofJude 13:
φοιτᾷ δ' ⋯ν' αίθέρ', έστι δ' έν θαλασσίῳ
κλὑδωνι Κὑπρις, π⋯ντα δ' έκ ταὑτης έφυ'
ήδ' έστίν ή σπεíρουσα καί διδοσ' έρον,
ο π⋯ντες έσμέν οί κατ⋯ χθ⋯ν' έγγονοι It is impossible, however, to affirm any direct connection. See the interesting discussion in W. S. Barrett's edition of the play (Oxford, 1964), p. 241. On the epithet κ⋯πρις see Höfer in Röscher 11 (1890–97), col. 1712–16, s.v. ‘Kypris’, and Bruchmann, C. F. H., Epitheta Deorum Quae apud Poetas Graecos Leguniur, Röscher supp. (Leipzig, 1893), pp. 61–5.Google Scholar
20 For the character of Herakles in pagan cults, and his relation to early Christian literature and art, see Knox, W. L., Some Hellenistic Elements in Primitive Christianity (London, 1944), 39–40Google Scholar; Simon, M., Hercule et le Christianisme (Paris, n.d.)Google Scholar; Daniélou, Jean, Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture (London/Philadelphia, 1973), pp. 85–6, 94.Google Scholar
21 The literature on the Areopagus speech cannot be summarized here, but note the comments of Bruce, F. F., ‘The New Testament and Classical Studies’, N.T.S. 22 (1976), 229–42Google Scholar; for full bibliography see JrMattill, A. J. and Mattill, M. B., A Classified Bibliography of Literature on the Acts of the Apostles (Leiden, 1966), pp. 430–9, items 6029–6179Google Scholar. The epistle to Titus was probably not written by Paul either, but the Hellenized character of Paul and of first-century Judaism is nevertheless clear; Gealy, F. D., Noyes, M. P., ‘The First and Second Epistles to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus’, Interpreter's Bible, 11 (New York/Nashville, 1955), 243–4, 367–70Google Scholar. On the relation of Paul to Hellenism see Bruce (above); Hengel, M., Judentum und Hellenismus (2nd ednTübingen, 1973)Google Scholar; Judge, E. A., ‘St. Paul and Classical Society’, Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum, 15 (1972), 19–36Google Scholar; and Koester, H. H., ‘Paul and Hellenism’, in Hyatt, J. P. (ed.), The Bible in Modem Scholarship (Nashville/New York, 1965), pp. 187–95.Google Scholar
22 Quoted from Epstein, I. (ed.), The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Nashim, 3 (London, 1936), 269Google Scholar. The same story is repeated in Baba Kamma 83 a. The editors of the Encyclopedia Judaica, vii (1971), col. 295–9, s.v. ‘Gamaliel, Rabban’, connect Paul with Rabban Gamaliel Ha-Zakem, who had close ties with the royal family, and the school with his grandson Rabban Gamaliel II; also Bacher, W. in The Jewish Encyclopedia 5 (1903), 558–62Google Scholar, s.v. ‘Gamaliel I’, ‘Gamaliel II’.
23 Lieberman, S., Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York, 1950), pp. 100–14Google Scholar. On the knowledge of Greek among first-century Palestinian Jews see Lieberman, S., Greek in Jewish Palestine (2nd ednNew York, 1965)Google Scholar and Gundry, R. H., ‘The Language Milieu of First-Century Palestine…’, J.B.L. 83 (1964), 404–8.Google Scholar
24 Knox (note 20), p. 15 expands on this theme; he cites Tacitus, Dialogus 19 as evidence. On early Christian rhetorical techniques note Norden, E., Die antike Kunstprosa, 11 (1909; repr. Stuttgart 1958), 479–511Google Scholar: ‘Die Literatur des Urchristentums’, and Kennedy, C., The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World, 300 B.C.-A.D. 300 (Princeton, 1972), pp. 607–13Google Scholar. For a suggestion that Jesus himself spoke Greek see Argyle, A. W., ‘Greek Among the Jews of Palestine in New Testament Times’, N.T.S. 20 (1973), 87–9.Google Scholar
25 Daniélou (note 20), p. 96; the topic is treated exhaustively in Part I, ‘Preparation for the Gospel’, pp. 7–135 passim.
26 There is some controversy surrounding the meaning of σπιλ⋯δες in Jude 12. RSV and most commentators translate the word as ‘blemishes’, a distinctly secondary meaning, since the usual rendering ‘reef’ or ‘dangerous rock’ seems to them out of place in the context of Christian love feasts. The derivative II Pet. 2.13 substitutes the unambiguous σπίλοι: ‘spots’. The best summation of the evidence is in Biggs, pp. 333–4; see also Spitta, pp. 357–8, 444–5. But in view of the sea imagery of Jude 13, and the type of veiled allusion to Homer exemplified by the quote from Clement's Protrep. xii, comparison of the verse with Odyssey 3. 298–9, and 5. 401 is appropriate and meaningful (pace Biggs). The tie with Od. 3. 298 is strengthened by the further echo of κ⋯ματ':…⋯τ⋯ρ νη⋯ς γε ποτί σπιλ⋯δεσσιν έαξαν / κὑματ'. The heretics are like dangerous shoals or rocks on which the rest of the community might run aground and be destroyed.
27 See note 20 above.
28 Biggs, p. 321, conjectures that the letter was addressed to Antioch on the Orontes, a major city in close connection with Cyprus; in Acts 13. 1–6 Paul and Barnabas depart from Antioch for Salamis and Paphos via the near-by port of Seleucia.
29 The literature dealing with the common Near Eastern background of Homer, Hesiod and the Bible can only be summarized here. Substantial discussions of the problem, with bibliography, can be found in Dietrich, B. C., The Origins of Greek Religion (Berlin/New York, 1947), pp. 46 ff.Google Scholar, and notes 213 and 224, and Walcot, P., Hesiod and the Near East (Cardiff, 1966)Google Scholar. See also Barnett, R. D., ‘The Epic of Kumarbi and the Theogony of Hesiod’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 65 (1945), 100–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brandon, S. G., Creation Legends of the Ancient Near East (London, 1963)Google Scholar; Gordon, C., ‘Homer and the Bible’, Hebrew Union College Annual 26 (1955), 43–108Google Scholar and The Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilization (New York, 1965)Google Scholar; Haag, H., Homer, Ugarit, und das Alte Testament (Einsiedeln/Zurich/Cologne, 1962)Google Scholar; Priest, J., ‘Ορκια in the Iliad and Consideration of a Recent Theory’, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 23 (1964), 48–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30 Simpson, C. A., Bowie, W. R., ‘The Book of Genesis’, Interpreter's Bible, 1 (Nashville/New York, 1962), 556Google Scholar suppose an indecent assault. The authors hint at an epic background for the story: ‘Noah is part of J1's adaptation of the popular story in which the drunken father had probably been nameless’. The process of editing Genesis is described by Driver, S. R., The Literature of the Old Testament (2nd ednNew York, 1948), pp. 20–1.Google Scholar
31 Ginsberg, L., Legends of the Jews, 1 (Philadelphia, 1913), 168–9Google Scholar; the full references to Rabbinical sources are given there in note 60. Note also the comments on Gen. 9. 20 ff. in Freeman, H. and Simon, M. (eds.), Midrash Rabbah, 1 (London, 1939), 289–93Google Scholar, esP. the statement that Moses was more beloved by God than Noah, ‘who ended life as a castrate’ (p. 290). There is an appropriate comment on the formation of Genesis in Frazer, J. G., Folk-lore in the Old Testament, 2 (London, 1919), 394Google Scholar: ‘For a comparison of early Hebrew traditions with their Babylonian counterparts enables us to appreciate how carefully the authors or editors of Genesis have pruned away the grotesque and extravagant elements of legend and myth.’
32 See the works in note 29 above (esp. Dietrich, pp. 53 ff.); also Güterbock, H. G., Kumarbi: Mythen vom churritischen Kronos (Zurich/New York, 1946)Google Scholar, American Journal of Archaeology 52 (1948), 123–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and The Song of Ullikummi (New Haven, 1952)Google Scholar; also Walcot, P., ‘Hesiod's Theogony and the Hittite Epic of Kumarbi’, Classical Quarterly 50 (1956), 198–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A handy source for this and related texts is Pritchard, J. B. (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (2nd ednPrinceton, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; the Song of Ullikummi is presented on pp. 120–1.
33 Walcot (note 29), pp. 1 ff., emphasizes the need to penetrate beyond superficial similarities in evaluating the relationship of the two poems.
34 Barnett (note 29), p. 101.
35 Walcot (note 29), pp. 104–30; on Ras Shamra see also Dietrich, pp. 45–6.
36 The substantial fragments of Philo's work are collected in Jacoby, F., Die Fragmente der grie-chischen Historiker, pt. 3c (Leiden, 1958), pp. 802 ff.Google Scholar, no. 790. There are long discussions of Philo and his significance in Dietrich, pp. 51 ff. and Walcot (note 29), pp. 17 ff.
37 Montgomery, J. A., ‘Ras Shamra Notes IV: The Conflict of Baal and the Waters’, Journal of the American Oriental Society 55 (1935), 268–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; note also Young, E. J., The Book of Isaiah, (Grand Rapids, 1972), 413–14.Google Scholar
38 Justin, Apologia 1. 54. The tantalizing possibility that Aeschylus made use of Isaiah 6. 9 in Prometheus Bound υ. 447 is an exception which proves the rule; see Ferguson, J., A Companion to Greek Tragedy (Austin, 1972), pp. 33, iii.Google Scholar