Carpocrates, who lived at Alexandria in the first half of the 2nd cent, (perhaps about a.d. 130-150), taught that the world was made by angelg who had revolted from God. The soul of Jesus through its superior vigour remembered what it had seen when with God. He was, however, an ordinary man, but endowed with powers which enabled Him to outwit the world-angels. Similarly, any soul which could despise them would triumph over them and thus become the equal of Jesus. Great stress was laid on magic as a means of salvation. The immorahty of the sect rivalled that of the Cainites. It_ was defended by a curious doctrine of trans- migration, according to which it was necessary for the soul to go through various human bodies till it completed the cu'cle of human experience ; but if aU of this — including, of course, the full range of immoral conduct — could be crowded into one life- time, the necessity for such transmigration was obviated.
The language of the Epistle would quite well suit the Carpocratians, especially in its reference to the combination of error in teaching with lascivi- ousness in conduct. The railing at dignitaries with which the \\Titer charges the false teachers (v.^) would answer very well to the attitude of Carpocrates towards the angels. But we should probably reject any identification so definite. The characteristics mentioned by Jude were the mono- poly of no sect. The indications point to teaching of a much less developed type. It is not even certain that it was Gnostic in character, though the signs point strongly in that direction. The Gnostics were wont to describe themselves as
' spiritual, ' and the ordinary members of the Church as 'psychics.' If the false teachers were Gnostics, we imderstand why Jude should retort upon them the accusation that they were 'sensual' (fit. 'psychics'), 'not having the Spirit' (v.^''). They blaspheme that of which they are ignorant. The charge that they deny the only Master (v.'') may be an allusion to the duahsm of the Gnostics, which di-ew a distinction between the supreme God and the Creator. They are dreamers (v.*), i.e. false prophets, who speak sweUing words (v.^^). The statement that they have gone in the way of Cain (v.^^) reminds us very forcibly of the Ophite sect known as the Cainites (q.v.). But, while all these indications point to some rudimentary form of Gnosticism, it cannot be said that they definitely demand such a reference. Not only are they very vague and general; they could be accounted for without recourse to Gnosticism at all. The problem in some respects hangs together with that presented by other descriptions of false teaching which we find in the NT, especially in the Epistle to the Colossians, the Pastoral Epistles, the Letters to the Seven Churches, and the Epistles of John (q.v.). In the judgment of the present writer, the identification with a Gnostic tendency seems on the whole to be probable, but by no means so secure as to determine without more ado the question of date.
3. Date and authorship. — The determination of the date is closely connected with the problem of authorship. There can be no reasonable doubt that the clause 'the brother of James' (v.^) is meant to identify the author as Jude, the Lord's brother. If the conclusions^ reached in the pre- ceding article are correct, this Jude was probably dead at the latest by a.d. 80. The question whether the Epistle can have been written so early is not easy to decide. The author not only dis- tinguishes himself from the apostles, which the Lord's brother would naturally have done, but he looks back on their age as one which has already passed away (v.^"), and is conscious that he is hving in 'the last time,' when their prophecy of the coming of 'mockers' is being fulfilled (v.^^). The language has a striking parallel in 1 Jn 2^*, and it would be easier to understand in the closing decade of the 1st cent, than twenty years earher. Such phrases as 'the faith which was once for aU dehvered unto the saints' (v.^), or' your most holy faith' (v.-''), are also more easily intelligible when the fluid theology of the primitive age was harden- ing into a definite creed. The external evidence can be reconciled with either view. It is true that the earhest attestation of the Epistle is late. If the usual view is correct, Jude was emploj-ed by the author of 2 Peter ; but, since that work itself belongs in all probability^ to a date well on in the 2nd cent., its evidence is of Uttle value on this point. Jude is reckoned as canonical in the Muratorian Canon ; it is quoted by Tertullian (de Cultu Fern. i. 3), Clement of Alexandria (Peed. iii. 8. 44, Strom, iii, 2), and Origen (in Matth. x. 17, XV. 27, xvii.30) ; not, however, by Irenseus. Eusebius (HE iii. 25. 31 ; cf. ii. 23. 25) regards it as one of the disputed books, and Jerome (de Vir. illustr. iv.) tells us that in his time it was rejected by many. But the lateness of any quotation pi it and the suspicion entertained of it are of little moment. Its brevity would sufficiently account for the silence of earher waiters ; the fact that it was not written by an apostle, or its reference (vv.^- ^■'^•) to Jewish Apocalypses (The Assumption of Moses and The Book of Enoch), would explain its rejection by those to whom Eusebius and Jerome refer. These objections simply rest on a theoretical assumption of what a canonical work ought to be; no his- torical evidence hes behind them. ^