Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T23:53:41.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Showing Mercy to the Ungodly and the Inversion of Invective in Jude

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2018

Alexandra Robinson ,
Stephen Llewelyn  and
Blake Wassell
Alexandra Robinson
Affiliation:
School of Theology, Charles Sturt University, 27 Rhoda St, Goulburn, NSW 2580, Australia. Email: [email protected]
Stephen Llewelyn
Affiliation:
Ancient History, Macquarie University, 10 Bambara Crescent, Beecroft, NSW 2119, Australia. Email: [email protected]
Blake Wassell
Affiliation:
Theology and Religion, University of Otago, 5a Fife St, Prospect, NSW 2148, Australia. Email:[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present paper offers a new interpretation of the three-clause reading of Jude 22–23 and demonstrates how Jude carries on the Jesus tradition by inverting the norms of invective. It is demonstrated that this interpretation is especially surprising given that the epistle follows many conventions of Greco-Roman invective. Given the character of invective, one would expect the writer to instruct the beloved to expel the ungodly from the community. Instead, Jude commands the beloved to ‘show mercy’ to the very ones with whom they contend (Jude 22), a profound reflection of Jude's understanding of mercy and faith.

Keywords

Judeοὕς plus μέν and δέδιακρινομένουςinvectiveoral tradition
Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 64 , Issue 2 , April 2018 , pp. 194 - 212
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

1 Allen, J. S., ‘A New Possibility for the Three-Clause Format of Jude 22–3’, NTS 44 (1998) 133–43, at 133Google Scholar.

2 See section 2.

3 The three-clause reading, as it appears in NA28, is as follows: καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλεᾶτε διακρινομένους, οὓς δὲ σῴζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ μισοῦντες καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένον χιτῶνα. This varies from a shorter and smoother two-clause reading found in 72.

4 Birdsall, J. N., ‘The Text of Jude in P72’, JTS 14 (1963) 394–9Google Scholar; Osburn, C. D., ‘The Text of Jude 22–23’, ZNW 63 (1972) 139–44Google Scholar; Bauckham, R. J., Jude, 2 Peter (WBC 50; Waco: Word, 1983) 109–10Google Scholar; Neyrey, J. H., 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AC 37C; New York: Doubleday, 1993) 85–6Google Scholar; Winter, S. C., ‘Jude 22–23: A Note on the Text and Translation’, HTR 82 (1994) 215–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Landon, C., A Text-Critical Study of the Epistle of Jude (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996) 131–4Google Scholar. Osburn has now changed his position on this issue and is in favour of the three-clause reading. See Osburn, C. D., ‘Discourse Analysis and Jewish Apocalyptic in the Epistle of Jude’, Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed. Black, D. A.; Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1992) 292 Google Scholar. This position is particularly favourable as 72 has the earliest dating. However, 72 has a considerable number of flaws and thus is not overly reliable. See Comfort, P. W., The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992) 95–6Google Scholar.

5 There are several compelling studies in favour of this view. See Kubo, S., ‘Jude 22–23: Two-Division Form or Three?’, New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis (ed. Epp, E. G. and Fee, G. D.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1981) 239–53Google Scholar; Winter, ‘Jude 22–23’, 215–22; Allen, ‘A New Possibility’, 133–43; Schreiner, T. R., 1, 2 Peter, Jude (NAC 37; Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2003) 484–9Google Scholar; Wasserman, T., The Epistle of Jude: Its Text and Transmission (CBNTS 43; Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 2006) 320–31Google Scholar; Frey, J., Der Brief des Judas und der Zweite Brief des Petrus (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2015) 119–31Google Scholar.

6 There is one variant between א and A; א contains ἐλέγχετε in the initial clause, while A contains ἐλεᾶτε. As Schreiner (1, 2 Peter, Jude, 486) points out, ἐλεᾶτε is supported by the wider textual tradition, while ἐλέγχετε is more likely a scribal addition, used to create a progression of severity. There is another variant found in over 400 manuscripts which should be acknowledged. From 1000 ce to 1500 ce the reading και ους μεν ελεειτε διακρινομενοι is widely attested (Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude, 197). However, given that no early manuscripts reflect this variant, it has been widely disregarded.

7 Manton, T., An Exposition on the Epistle of Jude (GSC; London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1958)Google Scholar; Kistemaker, S. J., Peter and Jude (NTC; (Grand Rapids: Evangelical Press, 1987) 406–9Google Scholar; Charles, J. D. and Waltner, E., 1–2 Peter, Jude (BCBC; Scottdale & Waterloo: Herald, 1999) 274–340 Google Scholar; Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 484–9; Reese, R. A., 2 Peter and Jude (Grand Rapids & Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007)Google Scholar; Witherington, B., Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2007) 626 Google Scholar; Keating, D. A., First and Second Peter, Jude (CCSS; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011)Google Scholar; Greenlee, J. H., An Exegetical Summary of Jude (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2012 2) 72–4Google Scholar.

8 A problem also noticed by Greenlee, Jude, 73; Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 90–2.

9 Landon, Jude, 133.

10 Lockett, D. D., ‘Objects of Mercy in Jude: The Prophetic Background of Jude 22–23’, CBQ 77 (2015) 322–36, at 328Google Scholar. Similar examples can be found in 2 Macc 3.26; 11.18; 12.24; 15.12; 3 Macc 6.29; 4 Macc 4.12; 7.1.

11 See Allen, ‘A New Possibility’, 134; Harrington, D. J., 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003) 221 Google Scholar; Donelson, L. R., 1 & 2 Peter and Jude: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2010) 199–200 Google Scholar; Davids, P. H., 2 Peter and Jude: A Handbook on the Greek Text (BHGNT; Waco: Baylor University Press, 2011) 35 Google Scholar.

12 See also Harrington, 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter, 223; Davids, , The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude (ed. Carson, D. A.; PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006) 35 Google Scholar; Donelson, 1 & 2 Peter and Jude, 199.

13 Allen, ‘A New Possibility’, 136.

14 Birdsall, ‘The Text of Jude in P72’, 394–9.

15 Davids, P. H., The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude (ed. Carson, D. A.; PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006) 100 Google Scholar; Reese, R. A., 2 Peter and Jude (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007) 70 Google Scholar.

16 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 115; Watson, D. F., Invention, Arrangement and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter (SBL Dissertation Series 104; Atlanta: SBL, 1988) 75 Google Scholar; Spitaler, P., ‘Doubt or Dispute (Jude 9 and 22–23): Rereading a Special New Testament Meaning through the Lens of Internal Evidence’, Biblical Studies on the Web 87 (2006) 201–22Google Scholar; Green, G. L., Jude and 2 Peter (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008) 126 Google Scholar.

17 We construe the prepositional phrase as modifying the following participle just as in the previous clause, i.e. ‘snatching out of the fire’. For the pre-positioning of prepositional modifiers, see vv. 5, 12, 16, 18 and 20. Cf. also v. 12 (ἀφόβως ἑαυτοὺς ποιμαίνοντες) for the prepositioning of an adverbial modifier with the participle. In the case of vv. 22–3 and ἐν φόβῳ (perhaps better construed as ‘in awe/mysterium tremendum’) in particular, the prepositional phrase modifies the strongly negative emotion of hate placing it within the realm of pious response to defilement.

18 The concessive reading arises from the semantic contrast between the verb (positive tenor) and its associated participle (negative tenor), i.e. the expectation is that one will not show mercy to those with whom one contends or hates.

19 Relevant examples of the function of the three-part construction are: Herodotus, Hist. 1.46; Isocrates 3 (Nic.) 3.22; Antid. 18; Andocides 4 (Alcib.) 27; Xenophon, Hell. 6.1.6; 7.2.22; An. 4.8.15; Cyr. 1.1.3; and Cav. 8.13. On the principal use of the μέν clause to anticipate a related point or clause (i.e. possibility or option), see Runge, S., Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010) 53–61 Google Scholar. Runge only discusses the anticipation of one related point, i.e. the μέν … δέ type of construction, but we contend that at least a second related point or clause can be added.

20 The objection that Jude only names two groups, the audience and the intruders/impious, is of no consequence, as the enumeration concerns the intruders and the response enjoined on his audience.

21 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 115.

22 Lockett, ‘Objects of Mercy’, 325.

23 Peters, R. D., The Greek Article: A Functional Grammar of ὁ-Items in the Greek New Testament with Special Emphasis on the Greek Article (Leiden: Brill, 2014) 67 Google Scholar. On the μέν … δέ construction see pp. 151–78.

24 Peters, The Greek Article, 70.

25 Peters, The Greek Article, 150.

26 Peters, The Greek Article, 154–5 is mistaken in his analysis of Matt 13.23 when he states that in the expression ὃ μὲν ἑκατὸν ὃ δὲ ἑξήκοντα ὃ δὲ τριάκοντα the relative pronoun has no antecedent. As the verse is part of the parable's interpretation, it is best understood as a verbatim citation of v. 8.

27 The twenty texts are as follows, with antecedent indicated in brackets: (i) Thuc. 3.66.2 (us); (ii) Polybius, Hist. 1.7.3 (citizens); (iii) Hist. 2.8.2 (Italian traders); (iv) Diodorus Siculus, Bib. hist. 11.44.3 (other barbarians); (v) Bib. hist. 11.61.3 (other Persians); (vi) Bib. hist. 13.48.7 (partisans to the Lacedaemonians’ affairs); (vii) Bib. hist. 17.3.6 (Argives, Eleians et al.); (viii) Bib. hist. 19.95.3 (captives); (ix) Bib. hist. 33.28b.4 (those in dispute); (x) Dionysius of Halicarnassus 11.39.3 (other assembly in the forum); (xi) Philo, Decal. 18 (the laws); (xii) Josephus, J.W. 1.293 (people of the country); (xiii) J.W. 2.325 (rebels); (xiv) J.W. 4.78 (Jewish defenders of Gamala); (xv) Plutarch, Cat. Min. 43.4 (citizens); (xvi) Appian, Punic Wars 66 (leaders); (xvii) Cassius Dio from Ioannis Antiocheni fragmenta quae supersunt omnia 115 (those able to disclose); (xviii) Sextus Empiricus, Math. 1.147 (everyone); (xix) Athenaeus, Deipn. 271f ( Dindorf, W., Athenaeus (Leipzig 1827) p. 589 Google Scholar) (freed slaves); (xx) Diogenes Laertius, Vitae phil. 9.80–81 (humankind).

28 Radden, G. and Kövecses, Z., ‘Towards a Theory of Metonymy’, Metonymy in Language and Thought (ed. Panther, K.-U. and Radden, G.; Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1999) 17–59 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Littlemore, J., Metonymy: Hidden Shortcuts in Language, Thought and Communication (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 MM s. v. διακρίνω suggests that διακρίνω plus the dative means ‘have a case with someone decided’.

30 Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M., Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1980) 4–5 Google Scholar.

31 Corbeill, A., ‘Ciceronian Invective’, Brill's Companion to Cicero (ed. May, J. M.; Leiden: Brill, 2002) 197–218, at 200CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Invective is often used to attack prominent or influential figures. See also Barilli, R., Rhetoric (trans. Menozzi, G.; Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989) 3 Google Scholar. For a further discussion on invective and the categories of blame, censure and rebuke, see Demetrius, Eloc. 211.18–22; 288.4–19; 292.21–24; Pseudo-Demetrius, Epist. 3–9; cf. Seneca, Ep. 75.6–7; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 1.9.76.1–81.2. See also Stowers, S. K., Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986)Google Scholar; Malherbe, A. J., Ancient Epistolary Theorists (SBL Sources for Biblical Study 19; Atlanta: Scholars, 1988) 33–9Google Scholar.

32 For other studies which make a case for Jude as invective, see Knust, J. W., Abandoned to Lust (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006) 19, 122–6Google Scholar; Batten, A. J., ‘The Letter of Jude and Graeco-Roman Invective’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 70.1 (2014) 1–7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It might be more accurate, however, to identify Jude not simply as invective but more specifically as a ‘Jewish invective’ due to the overwhelmingly Jewish themes and references. See Robinson, A., Jude on the Attack: A Comparative Analysis of the Epistle of Jude, Jewish Judgment Oracles, and Greco-Roman Invective (LNTS 581; London/Oxford: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2018)Google Scholar.

33 Rhet. Her. 3.6.10. See also Süss, W., Ethos: Studien zur älteren Griechischen Rhetorik (Berlin: Teubner, 1910)Google Scholar; Craig, C. P., ‘Audience, Expectations, Invective, and Proof’, Cicero the Advocate (ed. Powell, J. G. F. and Paterson, J.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) 187–213 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Tatum, W. J., ‘Invective Identities in Pro Caelio ’, Praise and Blame in Roman Republican Rhetoric, (ed. Smith, C. and Covino, R.; Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales, 2011) 165–80, at 167Google Scholar.

35 Du Toit notices a similar pattern in Galatians, commenting that when a writer composes a text with the aim of influencing the audience, ‘introductory sections function on the pragmatic level to create a positive climate between sender and recipient’. See du Toit, A. B., ‘Alienation and Re-identification as Pragmatic Strategies in Galatians’, Neot 26.2 (1992) 279–96, at 282Google Scholar. Other examples of this include Apollonius’ letter to Artemas (P.Oxy. xxxvi.2783), Pathermuthis’ letter to Theon (P.Oxy. x.1348), Helene's letter to her brother Petechon (P.Oxy. vii.1067), Crates’ letter to Hipparchia (Crates, Ep. 32), a mother's letter to her son (SB iii.6264), described elsewhere as a ‘spontaneous outpouring of indignant phrases’. See Bagnall, R. S. and Cribiore, R., Women's Letters from Ancient Egypt, 300 bc–ad 800 (Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 2006) 282 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. There is also Seneca's letter to Lucilius (Ep. 99), in which he ‘turns traditional consolatory topics into rebukes’. See Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, 135.

36 Woolf, G., ‘Writing Poverty in Rome’, Poverty in the Roman World (ed. Atkins, M. and Osborne, R.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) 83–99 Google Scholar.

37 See Woolf, ‘Writing Poverty in Rome’, 94–7. For similar imagery, see Martial 1.92.

38 For a detailed discussion on the structure of Jude, see Robinson, A. M., ‘The Enoch Inclusio in Jude: A New Structural Possibility’, JGRChJ 9 (2013) 196–212 Google Scholar.

39 A. Chester and Martin, R. P., The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1994) 67 Google Scholar. Similarly, ‘[t]he writer's reaction to the menace is such that he felt moved to turn away from his originally intended project and address a warning with the rival, intruding teachers clearly in view’ (ibid., 75). Theirs seems to reflect the mainstream view. But see Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 29–31, who, though opting for the mainstream interpretation, cites some older literature that holds the view we argue here.

40 NA28 selects Ἰησοῦς from the manuscript tradition's several options. κύριος seems to be preferable. See Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 43.

41 See BDAG s.v. ἐπαγωνίζομαι and LSJ s.v. ἐπαγωνίζομαι.

42 Another example of this usage is where Diodorus contends with a particular argument in Libanius, Argumenta orationum Demosthenicarum 22.2–3: ἐπὶ τούτῳ παρανόμων κρίνεται κατηγορούντων αὐτοῦ δύο ἐχθρῶν Εὐκτήμονος καὶ Διοδώρου καὶ προείρηκε μὲν ὁ Εὐκτήμων δεύτερος δὲ ὁ Διόδωρος ἐπαγωνίζεται τούτῳ τῷ λόγῳ. φασὶ δὲ οἱ κατήγοροι … (‘with reference to this (issue) of unconstitutionality he was indicted, with two of his enemies bringing the charge, namely, Euktemus and Diodorus. Euktemus spoke first, and second Diodorus contended with this argument. The accusers said …’).

43 1 Macc 7.21; 2 Macc 8.16; 13.14; 15.27; 4 Macc 17.13; Sir 4.28; Luke 13.24; John 18.36; 1 Cor. 9.25; Col 1.29; 4.12; 1 Tim 4.10; 6.12; 2 Tim 4.7.

44 See MM s. v. ἀγωνίζομαι.

45 The verb ἁρπάζω (‘snatch’ or ‘seize’) has a negative tenor in the prophets (Hosea 2x, Amos 2x, Micah 2x, Isaiah 1x and Ezekiel 8x). In BDAG, too, both denotations of ἁρπάζω are dark, ‘make off with someone's property by attacking or seizing’ and ‘grab or seize suddenly so as to remove or gain control’.

46 Also, we might note the mention of Ιουδας (‘Judah’), the name of Jude's author, a few lines earlier (2.16, English 2.12).

47 We agree with much in Lockett, ‘Objects of Mercy’ concerning the influence of Zechariah on Jude.

48 See Foley, J. M., The Singer of Tales in Performance (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1995)Google Scholar and Homer's Traditional Art (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999)Google Scholar.

49 Foley, J. M., ‘Word-Power, Performance, and Tradition’, The Journal of American Folklore 105.417 (1992) 275–301, at 275CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Foley, ‘Word-Power, Performance, and Tradition’, 277.

51 To be clear, we are considering the significance of the attribution to Jude not the veracity of that attribution, and in so doing we circumvent the authorship debate.

52 Foley, ‘Word-Power, Performance, and Tradition’, 281.

53 Foley, J. M., ‘Signs, Texts, and Oral Tradition’, Journal of Folklore Research 33.1 (1996) 21–9, at 24Google Scholar.

54 Our choice to highlight Matt 18.33 is inevitably arbitrary. Of course, there is much more in the Jesus tradition on the topic of mercy. Cf. in Matthew alone 5.7; 9.13; 12.7. Consider also the emphasis on remembering the words of Jesus in 1 Clem. 13.1 and the ensuing call to ‘show mercy, so that you may receive mercy; forgive, so that you may be forgiven … As you judge, so shall you be judged’ in 13.2. 13.3 then concludes that by heeding these words the author and audience can strengthen themselves. See Holmes, M. W., ed., The Apostolic Fathers in English (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006) 48 Google Scholar. Note not only the presence of the theme of mercy, but more significantly its relation to the themes of remembering tradition (cf. Jude 17), judgement (cf. Jude 22 with James 2.4) and building up in the faith (cf. Jude 20). 1 Clement 13 uses Luke 6.37–8. See Allison, D. C., Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010) 325 Google Scholar. We might even hazard that 1 Clement and Jude are interpreting similar Jesus tradition along the same trajectory. Thanks to Francis Watson for pointing out to us the text in 1 Clement.

55 deSilva, D. A., The Jewish Teachers of Jesus, James, and Jude: What Earliest Christianity Learned from the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) 53 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 See also Batten, A. J., ‘The Jesus Tradition and the Letter of James’, Review and Expositor 108 (2011) 381–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Batten, A. J. and Kloppenborg, J. S., eds., James, 1 & 2 Peter, and Early Jesus Traditions (ed. Goodacre, M.; LNTS 478; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014)Google Scholar.

57 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 4 sees the theme of the letter as being ‘stated’ in v. 3 and ‘spelled out in detail’ in vv. 20–23.