apparently emanated from Palestine, and (if the above date be correct) from Jerusalem, it may in some sort be regarded as an echo of Peter's admonitions uttered not long before at the Koman capital. This question wiU be more fully examined under Petek, second Epistle
OF.
VIIL Apocryphal Quotations. — This epistle presents one peculiarity, which, as we leam from Jerome, caused its authority to be impugned in very early times — the supposed citation of apocryphal writings (ver. 9, 14, 15).
1. The former of tliese passages, containing the refer- ence to the contest of the archangel Michael and the devil " about the body of Moses," was supposed by Ori- gen to have been founded on a Jewish work called the "Assumption of Moses" (Ava\i)-\^iQ Mwatiut), quoted also bj' (Ecumenius (ii, G29). Origen's words are ex- press, " Which little work the apostle Jude has made mention of in his epistle" {De I'rincip. ii, 2; vol. i, p. 138) ; and some have sought to identify the book with the n^^'a r'n''t2B, " The Demise of Moses" which is, however, proved by ISIichaelis (iv, 382) to be a modern composition. Attempts have also been made by Lard- ncr, Macknight, Yitringa, and others, to interpret the passage in a mystical sense, by reference to Zech. iii, 1, 2 ; but the similarity is too distant to afford any weight to the idea. There is, on the whole, little question that the writer is here making use of a Jewish tradition, based on Deut. xxxiv, fi, just as facts unrecorded in Scripture are referred to by Paul (2 Tim. iii, 8 ; Gal. iii, 19); by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews (ii, 2; xi, 24) ; by James (v, 17), and Stephen (Acts vii, 22, 23, 30). (See further, Zirkel, De Mosis ad Sujteros tra?islatio,\ViTceh. 1798.) See Moses, Assujiption of.
2. As regards the supposed quotation from the book of Enoch, the question is not so clear whether Jude is making a citation from a work already in the hands of his reatlers — which is the opinion of Jerome (/. c.) and TertuUian (who was, in consequence, inclined to receive the book of Enoch as canonical Scripture), and has been held by many modern critics — or is err.ploying a tradi- tionary prophecy not at that time committed to writing (a theory which the words used, "Enoch prophesied, saying," tTrpofijrevcrev . . . 'Evojx Xsywj', seem rather to favor), but aftenvards embodied in the apocrj-phal work already named. This is maintained by TregeUes (Home's Introd. 10th edit., iv, G21), and has been held by Cave, Hofmann {Schriftbeweis, i, 420), Lightfoot (ii, 117), Witsius, and Calvin (comp. Jerome, Comm, in Kph. c. V, p. 647, 8; in Tit. c. i, p. 708). The present book of Enoch actually contains (cb. ii of The Book of Enoch, in /Ethiopic and EngHsh, by Dr. Laurence, £d id. Lond. 1838) the very words cited by Jude; but some modern critics maintain that they were inserted in that book out of Jude's epistle. See Exocii, Book of.
But whj' should not an inspired author ajipropriate a piece of an apocryphal writing? If it contained ele- ments of truth, or was simply apposite to his jiurposc, why should he not use itV He does not (as some al- lege) attribute to it any inspired authority, nor ever vouch for its accuracy. It is never objected in deroga- tion of the apostle Paul that, both in speech and writing, he cited heathen authors, sometimes with a special ref- erence (Acts xvii, 28 ; 1 Cor. xv, 33 ; Gal. v, 23 ; Titus i, 12). It has also been asserted that in various parts of the New Testament there are allusions (il not formal citations) to several of the books commonly called apoc- rj'phal, and to other Jewish productions (see Gough's N.- Test. Quotation.% p. 276-296) . Common proverbs, we know, have been introduced into Scripture (1 Sam. xxiv, 13 ; 2 Pet. ii, 22, where the former part only of the prov- erb cited is from the Old Testament), i But there is no decisive proof that Jude could have seen the so-called book of Enoch. For, though this has been ascribed in part to the Maccabiean times, and is said to have assumed its present shape jirior to our Lord's advent (see Westcott, Introduct. p. 93, note), yet this is a theory on which critics are by no means agreed.
JUDE, EPISTLE OF
1068
JUDGE
One of the latest who has investigated the question, Prof. Volkmar, of Zurich {Zeitschrift der deutsch. mor- (jenl. Geselhchaft, 1860), maintains that it was composed by one of the 'disciples of Kabbi Akiba, in the time of the sedition of Barchochebas, about A.D. 132. Dr. Al- ford is convinced by Volkmar's arguments, and infers hence that '' the book of Enoch was not only of Jewish, but of distinctly antichristian origin" {Prole(j. to Jude, p. 19C). We are authorized, then, in believing that Jude merely incorporated into his epistle the tradition of Enoch's prophecy, which was afterwards embodied in the book as we now have it.— Smith; Kitto; Fairbairn, See Traditiox.