Part 72

For some inscrutable reasons, however, all the ablest theologians seem to have declined this easy solution, by appeal to the memory of the Holy Ghost; and to have been convinced that some method, simply human, must be sought, to account for the accordance between these two epistles. Some have supposed, with Bishop Sherlock, that both authors drew their materials from a common source, the imagery and phraseology of which they freely used. But as Eichhorn has well observed, “Bare conjecture is an insufficient support for this supposition; in the absence of all trace of any document giving plausibility to the suggestion, by disclosing a source in common relation with the corresponding passages of the two epistles.”[588] If this explanation be untenable, nothing remains but to conclude that one of the writers copied from the other; and this, accordingly, has been the general opinion of theologians. This, however, is the only point on which critics are agreed: for when the question is proposed, whether St. Peter or St. Jude were the original writer, it is curious to observe the confidence with which each of the two answers may be returned, and the opposite views which may be taken of the considerations affecting the decision. In the absence of all external evidence, the intrinsic character of the two compositions must determine our reply: and the chief impression which results from a comparison of them is, that St. Jude has expressed his ideas with more succinctness and unity; St. Peter with more vagueness and amplification. Appealing to this circumstance, Dr. Hug says, “the critic cannot fail to perceive which was the original;” “it is evident that the passages of Peter are periphrases and amplifications;” “the _originality of Jude is clear_ from the comparison of both authors, and especially from the language;” “Peter had, therefore, the Epistle of Jude before him, and in his own manner applied it to his purposes.”[589] Michaelis, however,—who rejects the Epistle of Jude, and says that, “judging by its contents,” we “have no inducement to believe it a sacred and divine work,”—ventures on the following confident statements: “No doubt can be made, that the second Epistle of St. Peter was, in respect to the Epistle of St. Jude, the original and not the copy:” “with respect to the date of this (Jude’s) Epistle, _all that I am able to assert_ is, that it was written _after_ the second Epistle of St. Peter;” “this appears from a comparison of the two, which are so similar to each other both in sentiments and in expressions, as no two epistles could well be, unless the author of the one had read the epistle of the other. It is evident therefore that St. Jude borrowed from St. Peter both expressions and arguments, to which he himself has made some few additions.”[590]

After reading these positive statements on either side, we are struck with the justice of the following remark of Eichhorn’s: referring to the differences between the two epistles in respect to their style, he says: “These phenomena admit of a twofold explanation. Peter might be regarded as the original and Jude as the copy; inasmuch as, in the process of revision, a writing may become more perfect in the expression and disposition of the ideas: the superfluities will naturally be retrenched, the march of the thoughts become quicker, the diction more choice; the copyist having the matter all before him, and being able to direct his attention exclusively to the form which it shall assume. But with just as much truth we might turn round and say,—Jude was the original, whom Peter illustrated, amplified, and paraphrased. In the process, the style lost its unity, its compactness, its clear outline: the paraphrast interrupted the succession of thoughts with several foreign ideas; and the exposition of the subject thus became more obscure, prolix, and disorderly. Who can decide between these two possibilities?”

This acute author does not, however, consider the problem of impossible solution. The suspense in which its difficulty holds us, continues, he observes, “only so long as we confine ourselves merely to a mutual comparison of the parallel passages. If we look at them in their relation to the whole of St. Peter’s second epistle, we find a reason for concluding that Jude is original, Peter the copyist. The author of the _second chapter_ of Peter does not stand, as a writer, on his own ground: if he did, his mode of writing would be the same as in the _first and third chapters_, which, however, is not the case. It is clear that we cannot apply to Jude this test of originality, derived from consistency of style; for we possess no other composition of his, with which to compare his epistle. Yet there is a compactness and unity in his writing, from which its independent character may be inferred. Whoever is content to take up the thoughts of others, yet not without introducing something of his own, is easily drawn aside by accessory ideas; by which the definite outline of a composition is lost. This is by no means the case in the epistle of Jude.”[591]

It is generally admitted, then, that these two productions, as far as their topics coincide, constitute but one authority: and we shall follow, I think, the most judicious criticism, if we assign that authority, whatever it may be, to the epistle of Jude. Whence, then, did he derive his knowledge of such circumstances as those which are mentioned in the sixth and ninth verses, respecting “the angels which kept not their first estate,” and “Michael the archangel contending with the Devil” “about the body of Moses?” There are but three supposable sources; immediate personal inspiration; the Hebrew Scriptures; or some non-canonical and unauthoritative work.

The first of these suppositions I do not find to be maintained by any creditable theological writer; and it may be dismissed with the following remarks of Michaelis:—“The dispute between Michael and the Devil about the body of Moses, has by no means the appearance of a true history: and the author of our epistle has not even hinted that he knew it to be true by the aid of Divine inspiration, or that he distinguished it from other Jewish traditions. On the contrary, he has introduced it as part of a story, with which his readers were already acquainted: he does not appear to have had any other authority for it, than they themselves had: nor does the part which he has quoted at all imply, either that he himself doubted, or that he wished his readers should doubt, of the other parts of it.”[592]

The second supposition, that the writer makes no allusion, on these points of celestial history, to any thing beyond the Old Testament, is so universally regarded as untenable, that even Lardner’s great authority will hardly avail to procure it any further attention. In what part of the Hebrew Scriptures St. Jude obtained his information respecting the fallen angels, Lardner, while deploring a like omission on the part of his predecessors, has neglected to explain. And when, in order to connect the story of Michael and the Devil with Zach. iii. 1-3, he is obliged to construe “_the body of Moses_,” into _the Israelitish people_, it surely becomes evident that the consideration of this passage never fully engaged his incomparable judgment.[593] Happily, Lardner’s is a reputation of which there is no need to be economical: and even theological opponents cannot apply to him the description which, with some truth and more severity, they have given of Mr. Wakefield, as a “scholar, who was great among Unitarians, but not among scholars:”—

“Quem bis terque bonum cum risu miror; et idem Indignor, quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus?”

There remains, then, but the third supposition, that St. Jude derived these notices of the supernatural world from some apocryphal and traditional work. And we need the less scruple to admit this, as he himself intimates the fact, in the fourteenth verse, where he refers to the _Book of Enoch_. This work professes to be extant in the Æthiopic language; and the copies of it contain the passage cited by St. Jude: and whatever doubts may attach to Bishop Lawrance’s opinion, that we have it substantially as it was originally written shortly before the time of Christ, the citations from the “Book of Enoch,” by Syncellus, and the references to it by both Greek and Latin Fathers, are too numerous and ancient, to leave it questionable that such a work existed, and was in use not long after the Christian era, and probably before. Hug gives this account of it:—“The Book of Enoch, in fact, was full of Jewish, Theurgical, and Magical reveries, as indeed the character of the person, to whom this writing was ascribed, required it to be. According to Eupolemus, he is said to have been the inventor of Astrology, or rather a scholar of the Angels in this science, who initiated him into the mysteries of it; for he had at one time obtained a mission to the Angels, on which occasion he probably received their instruction. But it did not suffice, that he was acquainted with the course of the planets, the position of the Heavens, and their signification; but he likewise, as the Jews and other Easterns maintained, learned in addition from the heavenly natures, the art of prognostication, characters, offerings, purifications, lustrations, and other things of this description, which he imparted to mankind. According to these ideas, which were entertained of him far and wide among Jews, Arabians, and others, we can easily determine, to what sort of literature his writings must belong. The remains of it, which we find in the Church-Fathers also, do not deceive this expectation.”[594]

Though this is the only Apocryphal production to which St. Jude refers by name, Origen informs us, in a passage already cited, that the adventure between Michael and the Devil was taken from a work entitled Ἀνάληψις or Ἀνάβασις τοῦ Μωσέως. “From a comparison of the relation in this book with St. Jude’s quotation,” says Michaelis, “he was thoroughly persuaded, that it was the book from which St. Jude quoted. This he asserts without the least hesitation: and in consequence of this persuasion, he himself has quoted the Assumption of Moses, as a work of authority, in proof of the temptation of Adam and Eve by the Devil. But as he has quoted it merely for this purpose, he has given us only an imperfect account of what this book contained, relative to the dispute about the body of Moses. One circumstance, however, he has mentioned, which is not found in the epistle of St. Jude, namely, that Michael reproached the Devil with having possessed the serpent which seduced Eve. In what manner this circumstance is connected with the dispute about the body of Moses will appear from the following consideration. The Jews imagined the person of Moses was so holy, that God could find no reason for permitting him to die: and that nothing but the sin committed by Adam and Eve in paradise, which brought death into the world, was the cause why Moses did not live for ever. The same notions they entertained of some other very holy persons, for instance of Isai, who, they say, was delivered to the angel of death, merely on account of the sins of our first parents, though he himself did not deserve to die. Now in the dispute between Michael and the Devil about Moses, the Devil was the accuser, and demanded the death of Moses. Michael therefore replied to him, that he himself was the cause of that sin, which alone could occasion the death of Moses. How very little such notions as these agree, either with the Christian theology, or with Moses’ own writings, it is unnecessary for me to declare.”[595]

The direct testimony of Origen should be taken in connexion with the well-known fact, that this story of Michael and the Devil is one of the standing traditions of the Jewish people; the invention of a remote antiquity; and repeated ever since by a multitude of Rabbinical writers. A specimen of the legend may be found by the curious in the section of Michaelis, from which I have quoted the foregoing passage. With respect to the reception which we must give to such an alleged fact, the same author observes—“It lies without the circle of human experience; and therefore it cannot be attested by any man, unless he has either divine inspiration, or has intercourse with beings of a superior order. Consequently, whoever was the author of the apocryphal book, from which the quotation was made, his account cannot possibly command assent.”[596] This remark evidently applies, not only to the story of Michael, but to the tradition of the Fallen Angels; which, there is every reason to believe, must have been derived from a like apocryphal source; especially as we have the express assurance of Tertullian, that the Book of Enoch treated of the nature, offices, and fate of fallen Beings.[597]

This author, then, has unquestionably “made use of Jewish materials, which have no existence but in apocryphal books,”[598] and therefore no claim on our belief. “I know of no other method of vindicating the quotation,” says Michaelis, “than by supposing that St. Jude considered the whole story, not as a real fact, which either he himself believed, or which he required his readers to believe, but merely as an instructive fable, which served to illustrate the doctrine which he himself inculcated, that we ought not to speak evil of dignities.”[599] Hug resorts to an explanation of this kind; and conceives that St. Jude employs apocryphal weapons of persuasion, as best adapted to confound the Heretics whom he assailed.[600] It may be so: but if his illustrations and examples from the supernatural world be thus destitute of intrinsic authority and truth, and _we must be heretics before we can feel their force_, what becomes of the _orthodox doctrine_ of fallen Angels?

Footnotes for Lecture XI.

Footnote 542:

See Note A.

Footnote 543:

Genesis iii. 1.

Footnote 544:

Genesis iii. 14, 15.

Footnote 545:

Jos. Ant. lib. i. c. 1.

Footnote 546:

The first trace of this fiction presents itself in the Apocryphal book of the Wisdom of Solomon, ii. 24; “Nevertheless, through envy of the Devil, came death into the world.” How difficult it appeared, even to the learned and imaginative Origen, to establish this interpretation on any sound scriptural authority, may be seen in the fact, that he can quote in its behalf nothing better than an unknown Jewish work in the Greek language, entitled Ἀνάληψις τοῦ Μωσέως. In Rufinus’s version of Origen’s “Principles,” occurs the following passage: “In Genesi serpens Evam seduxisse describitur; de quo in Ascensione Möysi, cujus libelli meminit in epistolâ suâ Apostolus Judas, Michaël archangelus cum Diabolo disputans de corpore Möysi, ait, _a Diabolo inspiratum serpentem_, causam exstitisse prævaricationis Adæ et Evæ.”—De Princip. lib. iii. c. 2. Though the learned Father does not hesitate to cite this book, for a theological purpose, he does not inform us of the grounds on which he was satisfied to invest it with divine authority.

Footnote 547:

Genesis iii. 16-19.

Footnote 548:

Rom. v. 12-20; 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22; 1 Tim. ii. 14.

Footnote 549:

Paraphrase on Romans. Note on v. 12. See also Whitby in loc., to whom Mr. Locke refers.

Footnote 550:

See Rom. i. 16; ii. 29; and iii. 9-23.

Footnote 551:

Genesis iii. 15.

Footnote 552:

Dr. T. Sherlock’s Six Discourses on Prophecy, p. 80; as quoted in Mr. Wellbeloved’s excellent note on the passage.

Footnote 553:

See Note B.

Footnote 554:

1 Samuel xxix. 4.

Footnote 555:

1 Kings xi. 25.

Footnote 556:

Numb. xxii. 22.

Footnote 557:

1 Tim. i. 20.

Footnote 558:

‏שׁטן ‎(1.) _adversarius_; in antiquiori Hebraismo homo, ut in 1 Sam. xxix. 4; 2 Sam. xix. 23; 1 Reg. v. 4; xi. 14; xxiii. 25: in sequiori, post exilium Babylonicum, angelus malus sive _diabolus_, qui κατ’ ἐξοχὴν _Satan_ vocatur, Ps. cix. 6; Zach. iii. 1, 2; 1 Chron. xxi. 1. (2.) _circuitor_, qui civium motus observat; secundum quosdam, Hiob. i. 6, 8; ii. 1.”—_Joh. Simonis Lex. Hebr. in verb._

In Ps. cix. 6, and Zach. iii. 1, 2, there is, however, no reason to suppose that the word is used as a proper name. The former of the two passages is best rendered, “Let _an accuser_ stand at his right hand:” and in explanation of the latter, Archbishop Newcome cites the following note from Dr. Blayney; “It appears to me most probable, that by Satan, or the Adversary, is here meant the adversaries of the Jewish nation in a body, or perhaps some leading person among them, Sanballat for instance, who strenuously opposed the rebuilding of the temple, and of course the restoration of the service of the sanctuary, and the reestablishment of Joshua in the exercise of his sacerdotal ministry.”—_Newcome’s Minor Prophets, in loc._

Footnote 559:

1 Chron. xxi. 1.

Footnote 560:

2 Sam. xxiv. 1.

Footnote 561:

Wisd. ii. 24; Tobit iii. 8.

Footnote 562:

On entering the creed of the Jews, this doctrine underwent another change, of which many traces are to be found in all their subsequent writings, and which throws light on several passages of the New Testament. It is thus stated by Dr. D. F. Strauss: “When that Satan who appears in the Persian religion as a wicked being inimical to mankind, passed into the Jewish faith, his character was accommodated to the Hebrew peculiarity, which confined to the people of Israel all that is good and worthy of humanity; and he was regarded as at once the special enemy of their nation, and the Lord of their Gentile foes. The interests of the Jewish people becoming concentrated in the person of the Messiah, it was natural that the Satan should be conceived of as the personal opponent of the Messiah.” “Accordingly,” adds this writer, “in the New Testament the idea of Jesus as the Messiah everywhere involves that of Satan as the adversary of his person and work.”[b] We may well object to the unqualified generalization comprised in this last remark, and therefore to many of the author’s particular applications of it; and especially we must regard as unsuccessful his attempt to destroy the historical character of the narrative of our Lord’s temptation; but no judicious interpreter will wholly neglect the suggestion which the passage contains.

Footnote b:

Das Leben Jesu kritisch bearbeitet, § 55.

Footnote 563:

Jude 6; 2 Pet. ii. 4.

Footnote 564:

See Note C.

Footnote 565:

Mr. Stowell, in his Lecture on the Personality and Agency of Satan (pp. 703, 704), intimates that probably no visible form presented itself to Jesus: and though strongly, and as it appears to me reasonably, objecting to the interpretation which resolves the whole temptation into a _vision_, he supposes, with more latitude than consistency of explanation, that the Devil “showed” to our Lord all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them,—not really and objectively,—but by means of “a glowing though _scenical representation_.” The Lecturer does not state whether he conceives the solicitations of Satan to have been conveyed by the method of real and organic _talking_: but if, in the peculiar style of this narrative, the Tempter can be described as “_showing_” things without the presence of any visible objects, he may be described as “_saying_” things without the presence of any audible sounds. English orthodoxy, in conformity with the gross and hard materialism which pervades it, seems to have encouraged the idea, that all preternatural communications, whether diabolic or divine, with the human mind, must be made by articulate noises or sensible images; that the action of spirit on spirit is inconceivable; and a _revelation in silence and darkness a thing impossible_. Adverting to this prejudice, the admirable Barclay says, “We must not think his” (Abraham’s) “faith was built upon his outward senses, but proceeded from the secret persuasion of God’s spirit in his heart;”—“by which many times faith is begotten and strengthened without any of these outward and visible helps; as we may observe in many passages of the Holy Scriptures, where it is only mentioned, ‘_And God said_,’ &c., ‘_And the word of the Lord came_’ unto such and such, ‘_saying_,’ &c. But if any one should pertinaciously affirm, _that this did import an outward audible voice to the carnal ear_, I would gladly know, what other argument such an one could bring, for this his affirmation, saving his own simple conjecture. It is said indeed, ‘_The Spirit witnesseth with our spirit_;’ but not to our outward ears, Rom. viii. 16. And seeing the Spirit of God is within us, and not without us only, it speaks to our spiritual, and not to our bodily ear. Therefore I see no reason, where it’s so often said in Scripture, ‘_The Spirit said_,’ ‘_moved_,’ ‘_hindered_,’ ‘_called_,’ such or such a one, to _do_ or _forbear_ such or such a thing, that any have to conclude, that this was not an inward voice to the ear of the soul, rather than an outward voice to the bodily ear. If any be otherwise minded, let them, if they can, produce their arguments, and we may further consider of them.”—_Barclay’s Apology for the true Christian Divinity, Prop. II._

Footnote 566:

Mr. Stowell’s Lecture, p. 713.

Footnote 567:

Ibid. p. 695.

Footnote 568:

John viii. 42, 47.

Footnote 569:

John x. 14, 27.

Footnote 570:

John vi. 44.

Footnote 571:

Οἱ δὲ νομίζουσι Διὶ μὲν, ἐπὶ τὰ ὑψηλότατα τῶν οὐρέων ἀναβαίνοντες, θυσίας ἔρδειν, τὸν κύκλον πάντα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ Δία καλέοντες. i. 131.

Footnote 572:

De Iside et Osiride, § 46, 47.

Footnote 573:

See his Treatise, Über die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier: an abstract of which, with a translation of the portions relating to the dualistic system, will be found in Dr. Prichard’s Analysis of the Egyptian Mythology, Book III.

Footnote 574:

We allude to Ritter (Geschichte der Philosophie), who (i. p. 159-173) has weighed all the arguments which have been alleged in behalf of this opinion with an even hand.

Footnote 575:

Thirlwall’s History of Greece, Vol. II. pp. 130, 131.

Footnote 576:

Vol. II. pp. 134, 135.

Footnote 577:

Dr. Prichard’s Translation. Egyp. Myth. pp. 242, 243.

Footnote 578:

Bochart’s Hierozoicon. P. I. lib. ii. p. 640. seqq. Herod. II. 46.

Footnote 579:

Elleh Haddebarim rabba, fol. 302. 2. ap. D. L. Bertholdt’s Christologia Judæorum Jesu Apostolorumque ætate. § 36.

Footnote 580:

Vajikra rabba, fol. 151. col. 1. ap. Bertholdt. _loc. cit._

Footnote 581:

Targum in Eccles. i. 12. ap. Joh. Buxtorf. Lex. Chald. Talm. & Rabb. in v. אשמדי.

Footnote 582:

Aruch ex Rabboth. ap. Lightfoot’s Hebr. and Talmud. Exercitations on Matt. xii. 24. See also on Luke xi. 15.

Footnote 583:

Lex. Chald. _loc. cit._

Footnote 584:

Christologia, _loc. cit._

Footnote 585:

Credibility of the Gospel History. Supplement, ch. xxi.

Footnote 586:

“It seems very unlikely that St. Jude should write so similar an epistle, if he had seen St. Peter’s. In that case, St. Jude would not have thought it needful for him to write at all. If he had formed a design of writing, and had met with an epistle of one of the apostles, very suitable to his own thoughts and intentions, I think he would have forborne to write.”—Cred. _loc. cit._

Footnote 587:

Michaelis’ Introd. to the N. T. ch. xxix. sec. 2.

Footnote 588:

Eichhorn’s Einleitung in das neue Testament, viii. 3.

Footnote 589:

Dr. J. L. Hug’s Introduction to the New Testament: translated by Dr. Wait. Sec. 169, 170.

Footnote 590:

Marsh’s Michaelis, ch. xxviii. sec. 1; ch. xxix. sec. 2, 5.

Footnote 591:

Einleitung in d. N. T. viii. 3.

Footnote 592:

Marsh’s Michaelis, ch. xxix. sec. 4.

Footnote 593: