The solitary monument and testimony of his apostolic labors, are found
in that brief, but strongly characterized and peculiar writing, which
bears his name, and forms the last portion, but one, of the modern
scriptural canon. Short as it is, and obscure too, by the numerous
references it contains, to local and temporary circumstances, there is
much expressed in this little portion of the apostolic writings, which
is highly interesting to the inquirer into the darker portions of the
earliest Christian history.
Several very remarkable circumstances in this epistle, have, from
the earliest ages of Christian theology, excited great inquiry among
writers, and in many cases have not only led commentators and critics
to pronounce the work very suspicious in its character, but even
absolutely to condemn it as unworthy of a place in the sacred canon.
One of these circumstances is, that the writer quotes apocryphal
books of a mystical and superstitious character, that have never been
received by Christians or Jews, as possessing any divine authority,
nor as entitled to any regard whatever in religious matters. At least
two distinct quotations from these confessedly fictitious writings,
are found in this brief epistle. The first is from the book of Enoch,
which has been preserved even to the present day, in the Ethiopic
translation; the original Hebrew having been irrecoverably lost. Some
of the highest authorities in orthodoxy and in learning have pronounced
the original to have been a very ancient writing;――a forgery, indeed,
since it professed to be the writing of Enoch himself,――but made up
in the earliest ages of Rabbinical literature, after the Old Testament
canon was completed, but before any portion of the New Testament was
written,――probably some years before the Christian era, though the
means of ascertaining its exact date are wanting. Another quotation,
equally remarkable, occurs in this epistle, without any mention being
made, however, of the exact source from which the passage has been
drawn; and the point is at present a subject of dispute,――as references
have been made by different authorities, ancient and modern, to
different apocryphal Jewish books, which contain similar passages. But
the most valuable authorities, both ancient and modern, decide it to
be a work now universally allowed to be apocryphal,――“the Ascension of
Moses,” which is directly quoted as authority on a subject altogether
removed from human knowledge, and on which no testimony could be of any
value, except it were derived directly and solely from the sources of
inspiration. The consequence of these references to these two doubtful
authorities, is, that many of the critical examiners of this epistle,
in all ages, have felt themselves justified in condemning it.
Tertullian (A. D. 200) is the earliest writer who has distinctly
quoted this epistle. He refers to it in connection with the
quotation from the book of Enoch. “Hence it is that Enoch is
quoted by the apostle Jude.” (De cultu feminarum, 3.) Clement
of Alexandria also repeatedly quotes the epistle of Jude as an
apostolic writing. Origen (A. D. 230,) very clearly expresses
his opinion in favor of this epistle as the production of Jude,
the brother of Jesus. In his commentary on Matthew xiii. 55,
where James, Simon and Jude are mentioned, he says, “Jude wrote
an epistle, of few lines indeed, but full of powerful words of
heavenly grace, who, at the beginning says, ‘Jude, the servant
of Jesus Christ, and the brother of James.’” Origen thought
everything connected with this epistle, of such high authority,
that he considered the apocryphal book of “the Ascension of
Moses,” a work of authority, because it had been quoted by
Jude, (verse 9.) He confesses however, that there were some who
doubted the authenticity of the epistle of Jude; and that this
was the fact, appears still more distinctly from the account
of the apostolic writings, given by Eusebius, (A. D. 320,) who
sets it down among the _disputed_ writings. The ancient Syriac
version (executed before A. D. 100,) rejects this as well as
the second of Peter, and the second and third of John. After the
fourth century all these became universally established in the
Greek and Latin churches. The great Michaelis however, utterly
condemns it as probably a forgery. (Introduction, IV. xxix. 5.)
The clearest statement of the character of this reference to
the book of Enoch, is given by Hug’s translator, Dr. Wait.
(Introduction. Vol. II. p. 618, note.)
“This manifestly appears to have been the reason why Jude cited
apocryphal works in his epistle, viz. for the sake of refuting
their own assertions from those productions, which, like the
rest of their nation, they most probably respected. For this
purpose the book of Enoch was peculiarly calculated, since in
the midst of all its _ineptiae_ and absurdities, this point,
and the orders of the spiritual world, are strongly urged and
discussed in it. It is irrelevant to the inquiry, how much of
the present book existed at this time, for that it was framed by
different writers, and at different periods, no critic can deny;
yet that this was the leading character of the work, and that
these were the prominent dogmata of those parts which were then
in existence, we have every presumptive evidence. The Hebrew
names of angels, &c., such as the Ophanim, plainly indicate
it to have been a translation from some lost Jewish original,
which was doubtless known both to Peter and to Jude; nor can
the unprejudiced examiner of these epistles well hesitate to
acknowledge Hug’s explanation of them to be the most correct and
the most reasonable.”
The whole defense of the epistle against these imputations, may be
grounded upon the supposition, that the apostle was writing against a
peculiar class of heretics, who did acknowledge these apocryphal books
to be of divine authority, and to whom he might quote these with a view
to show, that even by their own standards of truth, their errors of
doctrine and life must be condemned. The sect of the Gnostics has been
already mentioned in the life of John, as being the first ever known
to have perverted the purity of Christian doctrine, by heresy. These
heretics certainly are not very fully described in those few passages
of this short epistle that are directed at the errors of doctrine; but
the character of those errors which Jude denounces, is accordant with
what is known of some of the prominent peculiarities of the Gnostics.
But whatever may have been the particular character of these heretics,
it is evident that they must, like the great majority of the Jews in
those days, have acknowledged the divine authority of these ancient
apocryphal writings; and the apostle was therefore right in making use
of quotations from these works, to refute their very remarkable errors.
The evils which he denounced, however, were not merely of a speculative
character; but he more especially condemns their gross immoralities,
as a scandal and an outrage on the purity of the Christian assemblies
with which they still associated. In all those passages where these
vices are referred to, it will be observed that both immoralities
and doctrinal errors are included in one common condemnation, which
shows that both were inseparably connected in the conduct of those
heretics whom the writer condemns. This circumstance also does much to
identify them with some of the Gnostical sects before alluded to,――more
especially with the Nicolaitans, as they are called by John in the
beginning of the Apocalypse, where he is addressing the church of
Pergamos. In respect to this very remarkable peculiarity of a vicious
and abominable life, combined with speculative errors, the ancient
Christian writers very fully describe the Nicolaitans; and their
accounts are so unanimous, and their accusations so definite, that
it is just and reasonable to consider this epistle as directed
particularly against them.
_Nicolaitans._――An allusion has already been made to this sect
in the life of John, but they deserve a distinct reference
here also, as they are so distinctly mentioned in Jude’s
epistle. The explanation of the name which in the former passage
(page 343,) was crowded out by other matters prolonging that
part of the work beyond its due limits, may here be given
most satisfactorily, in the words of the learned Dr. Hug.
(Introduction, Vol. II. note, § 182, original, § 174,
translation.)
“The arguments of those who decide them to have been the
Nicolaitans, according to my opinion, are at present the
following:――John in the Apocalypse describes the Nicolaitans
nearly as the heretics are here represented to us, with the
same comparison, and with the same vices; persons who exercise
the arts of Balaam, who taught Balak to ensnare the children of
Israel, and to induce them to partake of idolatrous sacrifices,
and to fornicate, (Acts ii. 14: Jude 2: 2 Peter ii. 15.) Even
בלעם according to its derivation, is equivalent to Νίκολαος. They
also certainly denied the Lord’s creation and government of the
world. Alterum quidem fabricatorem, alium autem Patrem Domini ...
et eam conditionem, quae est secundum nos non a primo Deo factam,
sed a Virtute aliqua valde deorsum subjecta. (Irenaeus L. iii.
c. 11.) If now all corporeal and material existence has its
origin from the Creator of the world, who is a very imperfect
and gross spirit, it flows naturally from this notion, that
they could not admit a corporeal resuscitation by the agency
of the Supreme Being, or by the agency of Jesus, in a universal
day of judgment. With respect to the spiritual world, they
also actually taught such absurdities, that it must be said
of them δοξας βλασφημοῦσι; for they supposed, Aeones quosdam
turpitudinis natos; et complexus, et permixtiones execrabiles,
et obscaenas. (Tertullianus in append. ad Lib. de praescript. c.
46.) But, as to their excesses and abominable mode of life, the
accounts of the ancients are so unanimous, and the accusations
are so constituted, that the two apostolic epistles may have
most pertinently referred to them.”
The passage from Irenaeus relating to this sect, (quoted on
page 343,) contains a remarkable Latin word, “vulsio,” not found
in any other author, and not explained at all, in the common
dictionaries. That miserable, unsatisfactory mass of words,
Ainsworth’s Thesaurus, does not contain it, and I was left to
infer the meaning from the theme, _vello_, and it was therefore
translated “_fragment_,”――a meaning not inconsistent with its
true sense. Since that was printed, a learned friend, to whom
the difficulty was mentioned, on searching for the word in
better dictionaries, found it in Gesner’s Thesaurus, distinctly
quoted from the very passage, with a very satisfactory
explanation of its exact meaning. Gesner’s account of it is as
follows: “_Vulsio_, Irenaeus, iii. 11. Nicolaitae sunt vulsio
ejus. i. e. _surculus inde enatus, et revulsus, stolo_, ἀπὀρρώξ.
_Secta una ex altera velut pullulavit._” The meaning therefore
is a “sucker,” “a shoot or scion, springing out of the root
or side of the stock,” and the expression in this passage may
therefore be translated, “The Nicolaitans are a slip or sprig of
the old stock of the _Gnosis_.” And as Gesner happily explains
it, “One sect, as it were, sprouted up from another.”
The word “_scientia_” in this wretched Latin translation,
is quoted along with the adjacent words from Paul’s second
epistle to Timothy, (vi. 20.) where he is warning him against
the delusions of the Gnostics, and speaks of “the dogmas of
the GNOSIS,” (γνωσις,) translated “science,” but the word is
evidently technical in this passage. Irenaeus no doubt quoted
it in the Greek, but his ignorant translator, not perceiving
the peculiar force of the word, translated it “scientia,” losing
all the sense of the expression. The common translations of the
Bible have done the same, in the passage in 2 Timothy vi. 20.
Another circumstance in this epistle which has attracted a critical
notice, and which has occasioned its condemnation by some, is the
remarkable coincidence both of sense and words between it and the
second chapter of the second epistle of Peter. There are probably
few diligent readers of the New Testament to whom this has not been
a subject of curious remark, as several verses in one, seem a mere
transcript of corresponding passages in the other. Various conjectures
have been made to account for this resemblance in matter and in
words,――some supposing Jude to have written first, and concluding
that Peter, writing to the same persons, made references in this
manner to the substance of what they had already learned from another
apostle,――and others supposing that Peter wrote first, and that Jude
followed, and amplified a portion of the epistle which had already
lightly touched in some parts only upon the particular errors which
the latter writer wished more especially to refute and condemn. This
coincidence is nevertheless no more a ground for rejecting one or
the other of the two writings, than the far more perfect parallelisms
between the gospels are a reason for concluding that only one of
them can be an authorized document. Both the apostles were evidently
denouncing the same errors and condemning the same vices, and nothing
was more natural than that this similarity of purpose should produce a
proportional similarity of language. Either of the above suppositions
is consistent with the character of the writings;――Peter may have
written first, and Jude may have taken a portion of that epistle as
furnishing hints for a more protracted view of these particular points;
or, on the supposition that Jude wrote first, Peter may have thought it
worth while only to refer generally, and not to dwell very particularly
on those points which his fellow-apostle had already so fully and
powerfully treated.
The particular churches to which this epistle was addressed, are
utterly unknown; nor do modern writers pretend to find any means of
detecting the places to which it was addressed in any peculiar passage,
except so far as the chief seats of the heretics, against whom he wrote,
are supposed to be known. Asia Minor, Syria and the East, were the
regions to which the Gnostical errors were mostly confined; and in the
former country more especially they were objects of attention, to the
ministers of truth, during the apostolic age and in succeeding times.
It was probably intended for the same persons to whom Peter wrote;
and what has been said on the direction of his two epistles, will
illustrate the immediate design of this also.
Its date is involved in the same uncertainty that covers all points
in its own history and that of its author; the prominent difficulty
being its great brevity, in consequence of which it offers but few
characteristics of any kind, for the decision of doubtful points;
and the life and works of Juda must therefore be set down among
those matters, in which the indifference of those who could once have
preserved historical truth for the eyes of posterity, has left even the
research of modern criticism, not one hook to hang a guess upon.