• Spitta (Zur Geschichte u. Litteratur des Urchrigtetituins, ii. pp. 409-.411 (1896)) h.%s lately reaffirmed his positioo as to tlie relation of Jude and '2 P, and supported it by a fresli argument. He holds that the Shepherd of Hennas is a Christian recension of an older Jewish work. Of that Jewish work Jude and 2 P contain reminiscences. But he urgea that investigation shows that the echoes of it in Jude must be derived through the medium of 2 P. On Zahn's position see footnote to Literature.
t In v.is there is a similar article, but no reference to 2 P can be made out. Spitta therefore supposes that the allusion is to St. Paul's Epistles.
JUDE, EPISTLE OF
JDDE, EPISTLE OF
SO:i
writing with the special [larpose of reniiiiilin;; his readers of St. I'etur's Kiiisllu, should smother iiis reference to the words ot that Epistle in an apjieal to the habitual oral teaching {IXeyof) of the apostles generally (twx diroo-TuXui'), and that he should omit the chief count of his master's indictment.
(ii.) Connexion of thought. It must suffice to apply this test to two pairs of passages : —
(a) In 2 P 21* (iwtv iiyyiXii K.v.x.) we have an example of forbearance answering U> that adduced in Jude» from the Asgxnnptio. It has ottcn been iM)intfd out that the reference In 2 Pis 80 general that it haa no meaning until it is interjireted In the Ught of Jude. Spitta, however, maintains that Jude ha£ mistakeu the allusion in 2 P. Adopting the reading v«^k Kuf'tu, he iiuppoaes tliat 2 P refera to Enoch (lO^fl- 12-* 13i)i where Gofl is descrioed ai sending Raphael to the fallen angel Azazel, and Raphael and his fellows as executing the commission by ■ending Enoch to Azazel with a message of Judgment. The objections to this ingenious suggestion are many, and, it seeais. Insuperable. It necessitates the atlojition of the inferior read- ing ^etfiit Kv>><«t/.* A^n, the allusion could not have been surmised by the original readere of 2 P. Its discovery was reser^'ed for a scholar, who, studying 2 P with Jude, had Enoch brought prominently before him. Again, no stress is laid in Enoc-h on the mtssaj^'e being sent through the patriarch ; and Indeed there is sonu-ihing grotesque in linding an example of forbearance In the angels sending a man to do what, ex hypothesi, they stiraiilt from domg themselves. Lastly, a message of Judgment from God could not be described Slu pAAr- frr,pjic( xpistt. Tlie passages, therefore, remain decisive witnesses against the priority of 2 P. (6) An argument of a diiTcrent kind is supplied by Jude 10 | 2 P 2'2. The verse in Jude flla into the context (see v.^), and is itself well compacted, the u.\» . . . li marking a simple and forcible contrast (cf. v.8). The phrase ^nx^i iwirrKfUxi is a very natural phrase, t and the word ift^fix^t is necessary to limit tiie kind of knowledge. The clause ati Toe oiXcy» \^x (note art.) stands after fvfucaitt which It further defines. Lastly, fOtitetixi answers to fju»i>ove-ir in V.8, just as j3Xatff^fJu>ori¥ of v.'" to 0x.eirc^,u^Zeit in v.^. The Petnne verse, on the other hand, is but loosely connected with the previous context ; there is something artificial in the par&nomasia ^e^a», Qdtpi, ^ditf^.rtrztci (cf. \* 2*^), and the use of the adjective tvctnot is, to say the least, strange. All the expressions in Jude (except tirx . . . i^irTatTtu) have something corresponding to them in 2 P, and it is almost impossible to conceive that the ill-compacted and artificial sentence of the latter should have been the original of the terse, orderly, and natural sentence of the former. The investigation of other parallels would lead to the same conclusion ; see especiallv Jude IS I 2 P 2^7, the phrase bit i C'^«. «.t.x. in Jude referring to the stars, and being a reminiscence (see above) of passages in Enoch.
(iii.) Vocabulary and style, (a) Positive argu- ments. The verdict must be arrived at not by drawing up statistics as to words, but by estimating the naturEilness of the use of words and phrases in the parallel ptussages.
In 2 P we And elaborated expressions, containing sometimes favourite words of the author, corresponding to forcible, simitle expressions, sometimes echoes of Enoch, in Jude. Thus, for example, viirect «▼«; »«»r«(cf. Enoch), Jude^l x^iwip t^irett K. ir»^>.yiiJ..w (cf. 3" 2" S'S) i. rj i.^.v»ita») ii.i«i;« (2^), 2 P I'S; iwi {ef«« (cf. Enoch), vfiW flip*it C*^««, 2^ ; i» rttit «>itr«jf i/u^t r4-fA«dK(the meaning 'hidden rocks' being certified by the fact that It is followed by a scries of Images from the natural world), T.l»|t rwt3ui xai f^/j^i (cf. S^*) ifrpt/^^trtt (cf. T*)» . . . r^ufrr, just
above) i> rixtt etrurxtt etirit (the addition of Murmr conllrming iwirtui as against the reading aymwoif)* 2*3.
(6) Negative arguments. It must be r'-membered that, on the hyjiothesis of tlie priority oi 2 P, Jude had the whole of 2 P before him. St. Jude wrote, according to Spitta's theory, to S-. Peter'* corre- spondents to remind them of the apostle's teacliing in his letter. It is strange, therefore, that he does not refer explicitly to St. Peter or to his letter, especially aa St. Peter had in that letter referred explicitly to St. Paul's letters ; strange that, since he must have regarded the whole letter with peculiar reverence, there are large tracts of it which had no inlluence at all over him ; equally