Talk:Epistle of Jude

Misc.

From the "Content and comments" section:

How can we say that the prophecy of Enoch is found "no where else"? Is it not found in the book of Enoch 1:9? Maybe we can say that the information contained in Jude appears nowhere else in the protestant cannon, or alternately, to not say that the prophecy appears no where else.

Suggestion: "The book of Jude contains information from ancient times that is not found elsewhere in most bible cannons. The includes the dispute between Michael the Archangel and the devil about the body of Moses (Jude 1:7). It also includes the prophecy of Enoch, who pre-dates Noah (Jude 1:14-15)."

Alternate suggestion: "The book of Jude contains information from ancient times that is not found elsewhere. The includes the dispute between Michael the Archangel and the devil about the body of Moses (Jude 1:7). It also includes The prophecy of Enoch, who pre-dates Noah (Jude 1:14-15) appears no where else except in the book of Enoch which is not included in most bible cannons." (Drewdafis 03:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC))

I've just re-written the paragraph, without realising it's already been discussed here above. The issue of the two non-canonical quotes raises a lot of issues on canon and inspiration, so I've just said that, though no doubt it could be worded a lot better. (And a lot more could be said). Feel free to rewrite. One thing though: the reference to "apocryphal" writings I think is inaccurate because the 2 books are not even in the Apocrypha of most churches; so even if you throw the rest of my edit out, I think that change ("Apocryphal" to "non-canonical") should probably stay. Rocksong 11:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Revert by Codex Sinaiticus

To Codex Sinaiticus: by reverting back to the 28-Mar-2007 version, you have undone the good faith reverts of 5 different editors. If there's a part you don't like, change it. But don't revert the whole thing. And some of the comments on Enoch had to change, such as this unencyclopedic and unreferenced sentence: "is known to have been in regular use by Jewish and Christian groups alike, until c. 90, when the Pharisee Sanhedrin at Yavneh (which is disputed) declared it to be "no longer scriptural" and began its systematic suppression, practically erasing it from history". So please, edit constructively. I'm more than happy to discuss the content here. Rocksong 01:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see how calling Enoch "non-canonical" is not correct for all churches, and could be seen as POV, but that was an honest mistake. The comments on "suppression" still need to go, however, and I'll attend to that later, hopefully in a way that's acceptable to everyone. Anyway, I'm glad that you've allowed the edits since 28-Mar-2007 to stay. Rocksong 02:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The following two sentences keep getting put back by Codex Sinaiticus ("This latter book" refers to the Book of Enoch, italics added for purposes of this discussion)

"This latter book, purporting to be the first book ever written, is known to have been in regular use by Jewish and Christian groups alike, until c. 90, when the Pharisee Sanhedrin at Yavneh (which is disputed) declared it to be "no longer scriptural" and began its systematic suppression, practically erasing it from history. Were it not for the Epistle of Jude, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Ethiopian Bible (see Ethiopian Orthodox), never affected by Yavneh, the Book of Enoch would be unknown today."

I believe it needs to be removed for the following reasons:

• 1. It contains unencyclopedic language: "systematic suppression, practically erasing it from history".
• 2. (Most seriously) It is unreferenced - the claim of "systematic suppression", and everything else in these sentences, is offered with no supporting evidence.
• 3. (Second most seriously) Even if the above two concerns were fixed, I would still be uncomfortable with it being in this article because it is off-topic - discussion on the canonicity and preservation of Enoch belongs at Book of Enoch, not here.

That is why I am rewriting it. If you disagree, argue your case here, or do your own improvements. Please don't continually do blanket reverts. Rocksong 03:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, no discussion, so I'll try the rewrite again. Rocksong 04:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Citing Jude

Just out of curiosity, since I've seen this book referenced a couple times here of WP, what is the proper way to cite Jude? If I'm citing verse 3, should I say "Jude 3" or "Jude 1:3"? The more i think about it, the latter would be most clear (to avoid ambiguity in citing "Jude 1"), but are both forms acceptable? --Ybbor^Talk 00:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the former more often, at least in books. Like you, though, I prefer the latter. It makes all book citations the same format, which is helpful in the computer age. Peter Ballard 02:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Authorship

I have revised the section on authorship as it does not appear to have used the most recent scholarship. If anyone knows of more recent work please add it in. Thanks. Mercury543210 20:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please add a "Content" section

There's material about the author, date, style and references to other books, but no section about the content? Shinobu (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Jude 17 / 2 Peter 3:2

The article offers the following evidence in support of Jude being dependent on 2 Peter:

"However, Jude 1:17-18 denotes a possible quotation from “the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ” which has “no close parallel except in 2 Peter 3:3”"

To which I reply: So what? The phrase "remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold" cannot be a reference to 2 Peter, because 2 Peter 3:2 also says to "recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles". In other words, Jude is not quoting 2 Peter. Rather, Jude and 2 Peter are both quoting an earlier command which predates both epistles.

In other words, the sentence demonstrates nothing (other that there is similarity between Jude and 2 Peter, but the article already mentions that), and should be deleted. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW Baukham's Word Commentary is offered as a reference, but I doubt Baukham would be using it as evidence for the priority of 2 Peter, since he says in his introduction (browsable at Amazon)[1]: "The relationship between Jude and 2 Peter is discussed in the Introduction to 2 Peter, where the judgement of most modern scholars, that 2 Peter is dependent on Jude, not vice versa, is accepted." Peter Ballard (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If I may interject... I have Bauckman's book and I've done some digging:

Bauckman is actually a bit convoluted on this subject. The author shows 2 Peter 3:4 as probably having the same source as 1 Clement 23:3-4 and 2 Clement 11:2-4 on pages 283 and 284. He also says on page 102 that Jude's stated quotation of the apostles may be "his own words" in spite of the fact that he says he's quoting the apostles and it has a "close parallel" in 2 Peter 3:3!

Here’s my understanding of Bauckman:

1. Some unknown early Christian teaching gives Jude an idea for 1:17-18.
2. This or another unknown early Christian teaching gives the author of 2 Peter an idea for 3:4.
3. That same unknown second early Christian teaching gives the author(s) of the Clement letters an idea for 1 Clement 23:3-4 and 2 Clement 11:2-4.
4. Jude is not quoting Peter in spite of the fact that he says he's quoting apostles and that letter has an apostle's name on it.
5. The author of 2 Peter is quoting Jude (a single category source) in spite of the fact that he attributes it to both prophets and apostles (multiple category sources).
6. 1 and 2 Clement somehow end up along for the ride here...

To quote Scotty from Star Trek 3 “the more they overwork the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the drain.”

In my opinion, the article is already biased toward Jude primacy. We don't need Bauckman mucking up the section, because he doesn't present a credible argument. Jude says he is quoting a single category of sources (the apostles) but he isn't. The author of 2 Peter says he is quoting multiple categories of sources (prophets and apostles) but he isn't. Bauckman appears to be saying that we have to disbelieve BOTH Jude and 2 Peter's own claims and believe Bauckman's instead. And he bases his argument on the assumption that we have at least two undiscovered sources!

Occams Razor should at least consider the possibility that 2 Peter was the source for Jude, 1 Clement, and 2 Clement. We have three separate sources paralleling it, and two of them are unquestionably later. Such an idea is simpler, it doesn't contradict 2 Peter's statement, it doesn't contradict Jude's statement, and it doesn't invent multiple unnamed sources that no one's ever seen but in Bauckman's imagination.

I used to have no opinion on the matter, but after reading Bauckman just now, Bauckman's bad arguments actually convinced me to consider 2 Peter primacy here. My suggestion is to leave the existing caveat from the Jude/2 Peter parallel and kill the Bauckman citation. He's not a credible source to any impartial reader.

Finally, anyone familiar with textual criticism understands that cladistics works exactly opposite to the way Bauckman is operating. Differences increase with time rather than decrease. Although some textform synthesis does occur, the tendency is toward divergence. You have four related documents: Jude, 2 Peter, 1 Clement, and 2 Clement. You have only 1 that has parallels to all the others. That one, by cladistic analysis, is the most likely ancestor to the other three. That would give 2 Peter primacy. Although I understand that the scholarly bias is toward Jude primacy, it's best to state that there is a majority opinion (Jude primacy), a minority opinion (2 Peter primacy), and parallels. We should state the bias, delete the Bauckman citation because of its logical inconsistency, and leave the rest. Best not to reproduce the bias ourselves. We can state it and move on.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, the way to rewrite the paragraph to give the proper balance is in the "yes, but" format. The second half of "yes, but" always trumps the first half. "Yes, I tried to kiss Suzi, BUT she wouldn't let me." The "but" negates the first half. The paragraph should kill the Bauckman citation, start with the possible primacy of 2 Peter, BUT the consensus is toward Jude primacy. That way the paragraph only contains credible sources, gives all POVs, and gives proper emphasis to the dominant one.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That's an improvement. But I still think that the mention of Jude 1:17 adds nothing, and I'll delete it shortly.

Also,putting the minority opinion last does not negate the first half, in my opinion, so long as we don't use a pejorative "but"/"however". e.g. "The majority of scholars believe 2 Peter depends on Jude (add a cite). A minority believe that Jude uses 2 Peter,(cite) or that the two are independent.(cite)". Peter Ballard (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter -- not sure what your concern is here. The mention of Jude 1:17 seems very pertinent, and the paragraph would be meaningless without it. It's a very specific verse in which Jude claims to be citing the apostles. Jude is unusually interesting in his use of sources, with at least two verified and this as a possible third. The only problem I can see is the location. I think it belongs in the next section.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I made the move. I think it's much better located now.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that, whatever source Jude 17 is citing, it cannot possibly be 2 Peter, because 2 Peter cites the same source. So I have a concern with a wording (like the current wording) which suggests that 2 Peter might be the source. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've now modified the page, so that the 2 Peter / Jude question is in a completely different place to the "Jude 17 citing the apostles" question. (So my comment above to "current wording" no longer applies). Peter Ballard (talk) 06:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Virgin birth?

Under 'Identity' it reads:

This dispute over the true meaning of "brother" grew as the Doctrine of the Virgin Birth evolved.

How would the Virgin Birth doctrine have any impact on whether Jesus had brothers? Surely the controversy arose in connection with the Immaculate Conception/Perpetual Virginity of Mary doctrine, not the Virgin Birth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poglad (talk • contribs) 14:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The doctrine of Perpetual Virginity is dependant on and likely arose from the Virgin Birth idea (which was contested). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

A few points: The Immaculate Conception does not refer either to the Virgin Birth or any other putative children of Mary; it refers to Mary's conception without the stain of original sin.

I am not aware of the Virgin Birth ever being contested among Christians, except perhaps certain Adoptionists (major exponents of Adoptionism seem to have accepted it however), and Ebionites, who were at the very fringes of Christianity. So technically some denied it, but the phrasing "it was contested" tends to suggest a division into comparable parts rather than an overwhelming majority view and a small fringe. 128.194.250.122 (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

The page says "The Book of Enoch is not considered canonical by most churches, although it is by the Ethiopian Orthodox church." Is this the only church that does or are there others as well. It is ambiguous as is. Leefkrust22 (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Authorship: what does Bauckham actually say?

I've asked this at the page of the person who wrote the edit, but I'd be happy to hear from anyone...

The article currently says, "Others have drawn the opposite conclusion, i.e., that, as an apostle, he would not have made a claim of apostleship on his own behalf.(ref) Bauckham, R. J. (1986), Word Biblical Commentary, Vol.50, Word (UK) Ltd. p.14f ".

My questions are:

• What does actually Bauckham say?
• Does he present it as his own view, or as someone else's?

I'd be a little surprised if Bauckham thought the author was the apostle, and not the brother of Jesus (assuming they're different people). Adpete (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)