« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
pretation. He supposes St. Jude to refer to 'the words of Moses. Gen. v. 22 and 24 ; ** and Enoch walked with God.” Cocceius, also, as ' cited by Witsius, argued not very differently, though Witsius did not fully approve of it. I shall add a thought or two confirming that method of interpretation. St. Peter, 2 ep. ii. 5, calls Noah, * a preacher of righteousness:'* referring, I suppose, to the history in Genesis, though it is not expressly said there. And at ver. 7, 8, he says of Lot, that ** he was vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked : and that dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, he vexed his righteous soul from day to day, with their unlawful deeds.* These things are not expressly said in the book of Genesis. Nevertheless, I make no question but the apostle refers to what is there said, and deduceth these things thence, and mot from an apocryphal, or any other writing whatever. There is no necessity therefore to suppose, that St. Jude quoted a book called Enoch, or * Enoch's prophecies.' 2. Allowing St. Jude to quote such a book, he gives it no authority. It was no canonical book of the Jews. That is certaim. Consequently, if there was such a book among theim, it was apocryphal. But though it was so, there might be in it some right things. These St. Jude might take, without approving the whole of it. To this purpose & Je
Cum igitur non potuerit non loqui de judicio Domini superventuro impiis, et ii, de quibus S. Judas loquitur, sint ultimi temporis, conficit, Emochum diu ante diluvium de iis prophetâsse—Porro quod formulam attinet prophetiæ, cujus fundamentum ita in Scripturis ostendimus, illam ex iis verbis contexuit Judas, in quorum virtute eam latere per συνεσιν ττνευματικην, '* intelligentiam spiritualem,' probe scivit. Heid. ubi supra, num. x. p. 277. * Celeberrimus Coccejus conjectat Judam ex historiâ Mosaïcâ collegisse. * Nam,' inquit, * prophetàsse Henochum, satis constat ex sacris literis. Am* bulavit enim cum Deo. Ergo cum Deo fecit, defectoribus se opposuit, ver* bis sine dubio in Spiritu Sancto dictis, et opere.—Porro Judas talia Heno* ehum prophetàsse testatur, quæ optime et pathetice ei attribuuntur in proso* popœià.' Quæ quidem non male mihi animadversa videntur ; attamen non validum satis firmamentum continere, cui Judæ allegatio commode inædificetur. Nam Judas formulam prophetiæ Henocho adscribit, quæ ex Mose disci non potest. Wits. ib. num. xli. p. 502, et 503. 8 Qui autem dicunt totum librum debere sequi eum qui hibri parte usus sit, videntur mihi et apocryphum Enochi, de quo apostolus Judas in epistolâ suâ testimonium posuit, inter ecclesiæ scripturas recipere, et multa alia, quæ apostolus Paulus de reconditis est loquutus. Possumus enim hoc argumento dicere: quia apud Athenienses ignotum Deum colere se dixit, quem illi in arâ annotaverant, debere Paulum etcætera, quæ in arâ scripta fuerant, sequi, et ea quæ Athenienses faciebant facere, quia cum Atheniensibus in culturâ ignoti Dei ex parte consenserat. Hieron. in Tit. T. IV. p. 421.
rom has argued largely, and very well, in his commentary upon the epistle to Titus, upon occasion of St. Paul’s quotation of Epimenides. Tit. i. 12. And Cave says, “It is “no more strange, that St. Jude should quote an apocryphal ‘ book, than that St. Paul should put down Jannes and Jam“bres for the two magicians of Pharaoh that opposed Moses. * Which he must either derive from tradition, or from some ‘ uncanonical author of those times, there being no mention * of their names in Moses’ relation of that matter.” As I have said so much about this text, I am induced to take notice of some other like things in this epistle. Says St. Jude, ver. 2 and 9, “Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. Yet Michael, the archangel, when contending with the devil, he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not [chose not] to bring against him a railing accusation, but said: The Lord rebuke thee.” Origen, in the third century, supposed that “ St. Jude might refer to a book, called the Assumption, or Ascension of Moses, though it was not a book of authority. But indeed, there is no good reason to think, that there was any such book extant in the time of St. Jude. It is more probable that it was forged afterwards. Some therefore have imagined, that St. Jude took this passage from some more valuable Hebrew author, of whom however we have no knowledge. But to me it is apparent, that St. Jude refers to the vision in Zech. iii. 1–3, “And he shewed me Joshua the highpriest, standing before the angel of the Lord,” and “Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the Lord” [that is, “the angel of the Lord,” before mentioned] “ said unto Satan : The Lord rebuke thee.” And what follows. The text of St. Jude is parallel with 2 Pet. ii. 11, “Whereas angels, which are greater in power, bring not railing accusation before the Lord.” Here also is a plain reference to the vision in Zechariah. The thing itself, and that circumstance, “ before the Lord,” answering to the expression in Zechariah, “standing before the Lord,” or “before the angel of the Lord,” put it, as seems to me, beyond question. Campegius Vitringa' has some curious observations upon * Life of St. Jude, in English, p. 205. * Michaël autem so eroNumas, non “sustinuit, non induxit animum, impingere illi notam maledicti, id est, ultionem maledicendo Sumere. Non quod timuerit diabolum, Sed quod ex decoro omnia agere voluerit. Wits. Comm. in Ep. Judae, ver. 9. p. 480. * See Vol. ii. ch. xxxviii. num. xiv. a citation from Origen's Books of Principles. * Probabile nobis videtur, Judam scripsisse Trept to Ings gouaroc, ethodierthis text of St. Jude. Instead of “the body of Moses,” he would read “ the body of Joshua.” That is ingenious. Nevertheless the common reading may be right, and may be explained very agreeably to the passage of Zechariah. For, according to an interpretation of that vision, formerly " taken from Ephrem the Syrian, Joshua, the high-priest, there denotes the Jewish people. Whom St. Jude might call “the body of Moses,” as christians are called “the body of Christ” by St. Paul, I Cor. xii. 20, 25, 27; Eph. i. 23, and iv. 12, 16; Col. i. 18. The same interpretation was proposed some while ago, and well supported in a Dissertation of a learned writer, who was not acquainted with Ephrem." Once more. St. Jude says, ver. 6, “And the angels, which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” To which there is a parallel place in 2 Pet. ii. 4. The learned writer, above quoted, observes, that " neither here have these apostles a reference to any Jewish apocryphal book, but to some text of sacred scripture, or of the Old Testament. But he then deferred showing the place. Nor do I know that these texts ever came in his way afterwards. I wish they had. For I also am much inclined to believe, that in all these places the apostles referred to passages of the Old Testament. This may assist us in forming a judgment concerning the opinion P of the bishop of London, that St. Jude in his epis
nam lectionem esse a manu imperitioris bibliographi, qui, cum nihil in Scripturis memorabile legisset de “corpore Josua, sed contra ex Historiá Sacrá intellexisset, quid circa ‘corpus Mosis' singulare accidisset, mec interea de loco Zachariae cogitaret, Josua nomen in illud Mosis commutavit. Sed quam certum est, Judam his verbis respexisse locum illum Zachariae, tam quoque certum est, non scripsisse, Michaëlem disputässe cum Diabolo de “corpore Mosis.” Imo ex eådem ratione liquidissime patet, Judam, quae hic habet ‘ de corpore Mosis,' non desumpsisse ex apocrypho aliquo Judaici ingenii, in quo hanc fabulam offendisset. Respexit Judas, ut jam dixi, ad locum Zachariae, et inde recte evicit, Satanae, potentissimiangeli, ab ipso principe angelorum Michaële in judicio in ipsum proferendo magnam habitam esse rationem : ac proin multo minus ‘potestates' et “glorias,' hoc est, potentissimos principes, licet malos, nobisque adversos, a nobis esse vilipendendos. Campeg. Vitring. Observ. Sacr. l. 4. cap. ix. n. 35. p. 1003, 1004. * See Vol. iv. ch. cii. num. vi. 6. * See Bib. Raisonnée, tom. XXXI. P. II. art. i. p. 243—269. * Quid Petrus et Judas per alterum illudexemplum “angelorum,' qui ‘peccaverunt, principio et domicilio suo derelicto,' intenderint, et ad quam partem Historiae Sacrae respexerint, (ad Historiam enim Sacram respexisse certum est,) nunc praetermitto, aliá forsitan occasione commodiore indicandum. Id. ib. num. 35. P See his Dissertation concerning the authority of the second epistle of St. Peter. And here in this Volume, p. 257.
tle, and St. Peter in the second chapter of his second epistle, copied or imitated some Hebrew writer, who had left behind him a description of the false prophets of his own or former times. Which indeed is ingenious, and plausible. Nevertheless I think, such conjectures ought not to be |. sently received as certain. St. Peter, and St. Jude, and all the christians in general of their time, had before them the scriptures of the Old Testament. Many of the cases referred to by these apostles are evidently found there, such as Cain, Korah, Balaam, the people of Sodom. And why should not the other instances be taken thence likewise? If they are, I presume, the argument would be more forcible with all, than otherwise it would have been. Nor does the resemblance of style in St. Peter and Jude afford a conclusive argument that they both borrowed from some one Jewish author. The similitude of the subject might produce a resemblance of style. The design of St. Peter and St. Jude was to condemn some loose and erroneous christians, and to caution others against them. When speaking of the same sort of persons, their style and figures of speech would have a great agreement. And certainly I think that the apostles needed not any other assistance in confuting and exposing corrupt christians, than their own inspiration, and an acquaintance with the ancient scriptures of the Jewish church. III. We are now to consider to whom this epistle was Sent. Witsius says, it's was written to all christians every where, but especially to christians converted from judaism : forasmuch as St. Jude refers to Jewish writings and traditions. Moreover he wrote to the same christians to whom Peter wrote, who were such as had been Jews. To the like purpose" Estius. Hammond * says, the epistle was written to the Jews scat* Epistola haec christianis quidem universim, et potissimum Hebraeis scripta est. Ii quibus scripta est epistola, illis designantur epithetis, quae sine Gentium distinctione christianis omnibus competunt; quainvis credibile sit, potissimum eos spectari, qui ex Israélitis in Christo crediderant. Iis enim saepiuscule argumentis utitur, quae ex Judaeorum libris, vel etiam traditionibus, desumpta sunt. Videnturque prorsus iidem esse cum illis, quos Petrus posteriore suá epistolà compellat. Wits. Comment. in ep. Jud. sect. viii. p. 460. * Porro verisimile est, ad eosdem scriptam esse, ad quos scripsit B. Petrus, id est, ad eos præcipue, qui ex circumcisione crediderant. Id ipsum indicant illa verba versiis 5. * Commonere autem vos volo, scientes semel omnia.’ Namid aptissime Judaeis dicitur, a primâ aetate imbutis cognitione historiae sacrae. Est. Argum. in Ep. Jud.
* Videtur autem, sicut epistolae Jacobi et Petri, scripta fuisse ad Judaeos dispersionis, christianam religionem amplexos, ut confirmarentur contra pravas
tered abroad, who believed the christian religion, to secure them against the errors of the Gnostics. Dr. Benson' thinks that St. Jude wrote to Jewish christians, as his brother James had done, and, most probably, to the Jews of the western dispersion. Let us now observe the inscription of the epistle in the writer's own words. “Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called,” ver. 1. And ver. 3, “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation : it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith, which was once delivered unto the saints.” These expressions, as seems to me, lead us to think, that the epistle was designed for the use of all in general who had embraced the christian religion. And if St. Jude writes to the same people to whom St. Peter wrote, that is a farther argument for this supposition. For that St. Peter wrote to all christians in general, in the countries named at the beginning of his first epistle, was shown " formerly. IV. We now come to the last point, the time of writing this epistle. Here I shall observe the opinions of several. Dr. Benson's opinion is, “that " this epistle was written ‘ before the destruction of Jerusalem, a few weeks, or ‘months, after the second epistle of St. Peter: forasmuch ‘as the state of things, as represented in both these epistles, “is very much the same.’ Mill's conjecture is, that " this epistle was written about the year of Christ 90. But, as he says, there are no clear evidences of the exact time when it was written. Dodwell,” whom Cave y follows, argues, that this epistle was written soon after the destruction of Jerusalem, in the year 71, or 72. But the reasonings of those learned men are far from being conclusive. L'Enfant and Beausobre were of opinion, that’ this epistle
doctrinas Gnosticorum, qui tune temporis exorti sunt. Hammond. Admonit. in ep. Judae. Ex versione Clerici. * Preface to this ep: sect. ii. p. 446. See also his paraphrase of ver, 1. * See before, p. 260, &c. " Preface to the epistle of St. Jude, sect. iii. p. 448. * Fortasse quidem circa annum vulgaris a rae xe. Verum de ipso praeciso tempore nihil habemus explorate. Proleg. num. 147. * Diss. Iren. i. num. xiv. J. H. L. in S. Juda. * On ne se trompera pas en plaçant cette épìtre entre les années 70 et 75 de l'ére chrétienne. Préf sur l'épitre de S. Jude.