yivr.o-tToit iXtoc.
27** i* rix,7f ^ttipcttf rijf Mpia-ta/t atCraiii li/XvyriffOuffif kr IXtU, t»( IfAtpiffiw a-iroif.
. ir 6L,yeiX}jxru. iw* dci/TW.
27^ Tipi Trf So|rff etirou trxX^pot
63^ * Would that we had rest ... to confess our faith hefure His glorv.'
1023 • AH the angels . . . will seek to hide themselves from the presence of the Great Glory.'
IO4I "The angels are mind- ful of you for good before the glory of the Great One : your names are written before the glorj'- of the Great One.'
S9 TOE ir»i T^f xapit tturSt wXrfuvt/r.o'iTSj it etyoLWiO-ffti, * Wfa fAtfm\mwvf^ »pai9M s«) 64 xtcTet riji fAiya.X6<ru*rit ecurcu.
t|«vr<«. 12^ tCXoywv rai Jtupiai Tijr
fjtiya.\0(rOy%i.
14^^ ckoi [« eTx*!] iietfpipenv iv 8«J*j xai ly Ti/^ii xatt U fAtyxX* •ffCvri as^Ti fAr, iiivatrOxt fJ.t •IliTlJ* W;ui'* n-tpi T^f ic-r.s xett wtpi ryic /Miyet>-oa^>»rtf avtov.
(iii.) There is every reason to believe the assertion of Clement, Origen, and other Patristic writers (see the passages conveniently collected together In Charles, The Assumption ofMoses^ p. 105 ti*.), that the writer derived the legend referred to in v.® from a document called The Assiimption of Moses, This document was indeed, as Charles shows, part of a book whose true title was probably The Testa- ment of Moses, a fragment of which is known to us in a Latin translation under the title of The Assumption of Moses ; and this TestainentyO.?, Burkitt has shouTi [Guardian^ June 1, 1898), is probably the epilogue of the Book of Jubilees, which claims to be the record of a revelation made to Moses on Sinai by the Angel of the Presence. In view of Jude's use of this Mosaic literature the number of allusions in so short an Epistle to matters connected with Moses is notewortny : the deliverance and punishment of Israel (v.^), the murmuring (v.", cf. 1 Co 10^^), the episodes of Balaam and of Korah (v.»).
Between the Latin fragment of the As.ittmption {cf. Charles, p. 62) and Jude tliere are coincidences in thought and (to some extent) in language. With Jude' compare .^s«(/;(p. iv. 8, •permanelpunt in prsp.posita fide sua.' With Jude"cf. Ass^ump. ▼ii. 4, 'qui erunt homines dolosi, sibi placentes,
ficti in omuilius suis et omni hora diei amantei convivia, devoratores, guUe.' With Jude'* cf. Assuiiiji. vii. 9, ' et nianus eorum et nieutes im- muntlii tractantes, et os eorum loquetur ingentia' ; V. 5 'miiantes personas locupletura et accijiientes mvmera.' With Jude-* cf. Assump. i. 10, ' ut taciaa queniudmodum sine querellam sis Deo' [MS est ideo].
(iv. ) 'I here can be no doubt that the writer was acquainted witli and influenced in language and thouglit by St. Paul's Epistles. In the sjilutation to Tois iv Oef varpl riyairri/jiii'ot! we have parallels in 1 Th 1* 2Th 2" ; theKXTp-ois here is precisely similar to th(! kXip-ois of Ro 1', 1 Co 1'. In v.*" the words iTTOiKoSo/wmTes . . . iriffrei recall Col 2'. To different point!) in the closing doxology (v.'^'-) we have a roiuaikiible series of parallels in St. Paul— Ro 16^"- (ti^ 5.^ yivva^vf^ vfxa^ (mjpt^ac . . . fi6f(fi aotpt^ $f(^' did, 'I7,<7o0 XpiffToS), Epli S-*, 1 Th 5», 2 Th 3», 1 Co 1», Eph 1*. Col 1^. Besides these verbal coiiicidence.s thero is a close parallel to 1 Co 10''" in the promi- nence given (vv.'-"-") to the deliverance and punishment of Israel regarded as a warning tc the Christian body.
The investigation, then, under this head has shown that the writer was influenced in vocabulary, style, and thought by the OT (certainly by the LXX. probably also by the original Hebrew), by the HiHik of Enoch to a remarkable degree, by another apocryphal document embodying the his- tory of Moses, and la.stly by Ejiistles of St. Paul (including probably Col and Epli). His vocabul- aiy, moreover, proves him to have had at least some acquaintance with the literature of the ' common ' dialect, while at the same time his stiff- ness in the manipulation of sentences seems to st;\mp him as a man whose knowledge of tJreek was acquired in later rather than in earlier life.
4. The Relation of Jude to 2 Peter. — Tliat tliere is a close literary connexion between the two Epistles is clear when the following passages are compared : JuJe» || 2 P !»• '» ; * || 2'-» ; " || l'^'- 3' ;
12'- II 2"-'" ; i8||2'8; '""||3='-. The hyp'otl'iesis that both writers borrowed from a third document, tliough it has found stray advocates, may be put aside at once, as being destitute of any shred of external evidence, and as having no support in the peculiar phenomena of the two Epistles. The direct question therefore remains — whichofthe two writers is the borrotver?
The priority of 2 P has found within the last few years an intrepid and resourceful champion in r. Spitta {Der Zweite Brief des Petrus u. dcr Br. des Judas, 1S8.5).* The considerations are of three kinds : (i. ) The general alleged historical connexion. Spitta supposes that 2 P was written bv St. Peter shortly before his death ; that according to his promise {!") he made provision for his corre- spondents being reminded of his teaching ; and tliat St. Jude wrote his Ep. by way of carrying out St. Peter's undertaking. Accordingly, in Jude, Spitta finds direct references to 2 P. In v." Trdi/ra, and in \'v.*- "^ the article (ol), refer respectively to facts and persons well known to St. Jude's readers through 2 P t (but on the phrase oiroi el<nv oi see above). Lastly, he holds that in Jude '"• there is a specific reference to 2 P 3^. In regard to this last, the crucial, point, it is incredible that St. Jude,