teaching. The pre-Abrahamic narrative shows many resemblances to the Babylonian records, but in general the motive has been changed and purified.'! Thus Driver says (p. Ixiii.): ‘‘It is impossible, if we compare the early narratives of Genesis with the Babylonian narratives, from which in some cases they seem plainly to have been ultimately derived . . . not to perceive the controlling operation of the Spirit of God, which has taught these Hebrew writers . . . to take the primitive traditions of the human race, to purify them from their grossness and their polytheism, and to make them at once the founda- tion and the explanation of the long history that is to follow.”’ Of the particular passage in question, however, Driver says (p. 83): “As a rule, the Hebrew narrators stripped off the mythological colouring of the piece of folklore which they record; but in the present instance it is still discernible ’’.?
1Tennant, 20, 21, 41.
2 For further information on this subject see Suicer’s Thesaurus under ἄγγελος, and ᾿Εγρήγορος, Hasting’s D. of B. under “‘ Angel,” ‘‘ Demon,” “ Fall,” “‘ Flood ”’ ; Encycl. of B. Lit. under ‘“ Angel,” ‘“‘Demon,”’ “ Deluge,” ‘‘ Nephilim,” “‘ Satan ” ; Maitland’s Eruvin (Essays iv.-vi.), where the literal interpretation is defended; Hagenbach, Hist. Doctr. § 52 and § 132.
Notes on the Text of the Epistle of fude.—The Epistle of Jude is
contained in the uncials NABCKLP. It is omitted in the Peshitto, but included in the later Syriac versions,! the Philoxenian and Hark- leian, here distinguished as 5712 and syr*. In citing the Egyptian versions | have used the notation Boh., now commonly employed, instead of the less distinctive Copt., employed by Tischendorf. The only other point which it may be well to mention is that, as in the Epistle of James, the symbol + is appended in the Critical Notes to signify that the reading in question is found in other authorities besides those previously mentioned. In discussing the readings | start with that of WH.
If we may judge from the number of “ primitive errors” suspected by WH in the short Epistle of Jude, it would seem that the text is in a less satisfactory condition than that of any other portion of the New Testament. There are no less than four such errors in these twenty-five verses, the same number as are found in the eight chapters of the two Petrine Epistles, and in the forty-four chapters of the first two Gospels. I notice below some passages where the text presents special difficulties.
Ver. 5. ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας ἅπαξ πάντα, ὅτι Κύριος λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν. I quote Tregelles’ notes with additions from Tischendorf in round brackets, only changing the notation of the Egyptian and Syriac versions to prevent confusion, and correcting the citations in ac- cordance with more recent collations.
εἰδότας add. “'ὑμᾶς SQKL. 31 syrr., om. ABC? 13 Vulg. Boh. Sah. Arm.,” and so Tisch.
In point of fact however B reads εἰδότας ὑμᾶς, as any one may convince himself by looking at Cozza-Luzi’s photographic reproduc- tion. Also Dr. Gwynn reports that / and all the MSS. of # give the same reading, though he adds that the pleonastic idiom of the Syriac would lead the translators to supply the pronoun even if wanting in the Greek. The preponderance of authority is therefore
1See Dr. Gwynn’s Lat» Syriac Versions, published in 1909, VOL, V. 16
~