NOTE.--On the question as to which of the two Epistles is prior, the opinion of scholars has been greatly divided; but a comparison of the following lists will show that among more recent critics the decision is commonly in favour of the priority of our Epistle:--
_For the priority of 2 Peter_: Bauer, Beausobre, Benson, Bloomfield, Dahl, Dietlein, Dodwell, Estius, Fronmüller, Hänlein, Hengstenberg, Heydenreich, Hofmann, Lange, Lenfant, Lumby, Luthart, Luther, Mansel, Michaelis, Mill, Œcumenius, Pott, Schaff, Schmid, Schoff, Schulze, Semler, Steinfass, Stier, Stolz, Storr, Thiersch, Wetstein, Wolf, Wordsworth, Zachariæ, and others.
_For the priority of St. Jude_: Alford, Angus, Arnaud, Bleek, Brückner, Caffin, Credner, Davidson, De Wette, Eichhorn, Ewald, F. W. Farrar, Guerike, Hatch, Herder, Hilgenfeld, Hug, Huther, Kühl, Kurz, Mayerhoff, Neander, Plumptre, Reuss, Salmon, Schenkel, Sieffert, Thorold, Weiss, Wiesinger, and others. Plumptre makes the remarkable suggestion that St. Jude may have written _both_ letters. He first wrote his own Epistle, then was sent with it to St. Peter by St. James, and finally acted as St. Peter's amanuensis in writing 2 Peter (_Cambridge Bible for Schools, Epistle of St. Peter and St. Jude_, 1879, pp. 79, 80, 88, 89).
On this point also Dr. Döllinger changed his mind (see p. 31). In _The First Age of the Church_ (pp. 93, 108, Eng. Tr., 2nd ed.) he maintained the priority of 2 Peter. June 22nd, 1879, he wrote to me, "Its priority to the Epistle of Jude I _cannot_ believe" (_kann ich gar nicht glauben_).
[113] The insertion of the word "God" into the authorities followed in the Authorized Version is one of the few instances in which it is possible that the Greek text of the N.T. has been corrupted in the interests of orthodoxy.
[114] See the author's _Epistles of St. John_ in the _Cambridge Greek Testament_, pp. xx-xxix and 160-162.
[115] _N.T. Commentary for English Readers_, edited by Bishop Ellicott (Cassell and Co. 1879), iii., p. 506.