/ Subject: The Who & When of Jude-1 / Ng: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / 31July99 /

> From: 'An Introduction to the Book of Jude' by David Malik: Objections Raised do not overturn the conclusion
> that Jude was the brother of James of Jerusalem and thus the half-brother of the Lord Jesus
.
 textman say: In other words, the scribes do not wish to part company with the long and pious pre-critical tradition that ascribes the authorship of authoritative sacred writings to famous and impressive saints and heroes of impeccable honor and authority etc etc. Well and good. If the scribes wish to leave their brains behind when faced with the text of Jude, that is their decision to make. I cannot force them to do otherwise; nor can I convince them that those who suffer for their negligence are only the People of God ...
.
> 1. The writer introduces himself as "Jude, the bond-servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James" (verse 1).
.
 No. Actually, the author introduces himself as "Judas, slave of Jesus Christ, and brother of Jacob". Here 'slave of JC' means 'an apostle of the Lord', after the manner of the pauline tradition; which is to say that Judas is identifying himself as a Christian prophet. Within this context 'brother of James' does not indicate blood relationship, but
rather harmony and unity with the Christian prophetic tradition (as exemplified in the author of the book of James).
.
> a. This James was probably the well known James of Jerusalem -- the Lord Jesus Christ's brother18
.
 Really? And why is that? Is it because *that* James is the most famous and saintly James in all of early church history? Does his fame irrevocably demonstrate that he is the author of Jm, and the one referred to here?
.
> b. Jude is mentioned as among the brothers of the Lord in Mark 6:3 (cf. Matthew 13:55)
.
 Does it mention that he was a prophet and a writer (Greek)?
.
> c. This identification by Jude may have been an attempt to identify himself with his brother's reputation
.
 Correction: with Jacob's reputation. Since there is no proof of blood kinship implied in these Christian words here, there is no suggestion that Judas is laying claim to the authority to speak by virtue of his blood relationship to Jesus (ie. via their mutual blood-brother Jacob). Thus the source of all of this mess is a simple error arising from the word 'brother'. The scribes and priests and wise men from here to all eternity are very quite sure indeed that when Judas says 'brother' he is using it only in the straightforward sense of meaning 'he and I have the same mother'. In our view, however, there is nothing within the text to support this silly misreading.
.
 Thus while the use of the word is surely deliberate, it is also surely used to convey the *Christian* meaning of the word. ... This is not a difficult concept. When Paul addresses the new believers of the Thessalonian assembly as "my beloved brothers", is he thereby laying claim to blood kinship? No? Because he uses the word with its Christian
meaning, you say? Well then, why do you not extend the same courtesy to another brother-apostle in the Lord? ... Those who cannot (or will not) grasp the simple fact that Jude is a *Christian* epistle are supremely unfit to conduct exegesis on this most unfortunate letter!
.
> d. It is not inappropriate for Jude to identify himself as the brother of James rather than the half-brother
> of  Jesus--especially since he desires to emphasize himself as Jesus' servant.
.
 This claim is both false and absurd. It is based upon projecting into the author a kind of shy humility whereby he finds himself reliant on the authority of being related to Jesus by blood, but yet does not care to say so outright, but must needs run over to Jacob and say, "Yes, he is my brother. And my brother and I are blood-brothers of Jesus. See? See?" ... But this reading is ridiculous in the extreme! In point of fact, neither Jacob nor Judas make any claims to kinship with Jesus of Nazareth in order to establish their authority to speak the truth. No. They establish their humility, their identity, AND their authority to speak, by saying straight out that they are "slaves" of the Lord. They
do not need to say any more about this, because even this much is more than enough to show that they are prophets engaged in the prophetic ministry. Blood relationships to this, that, and the other guy are the furthest things from their minds.
.
> 2. Jude may well have been one of those mentioned in 1Corinthians 9:5 who engaged in itinerate preaching19
.
 No doubt this was some other Judas of Paul's generation. We are all agreed that Judas was a common name. Therefore our Judas (later dubbed 'Jude' so as not to confuse him with you-know-who) could be one of hundreds, if not thousands, of possible candidates who are not mentioned in the pages of the NT. Nuff said.
.
> 3. Objections to Jude as Author:20 While objections to Jude, the brother of the James of Jerusalem, as author
> of the epistle range from assumptions of a late date to reinterpretations of verse one, there is no reason to
> conclude that Jude was other than the Lord's brother
.
 Actually, there is every reason to conclude that our Judas was NOT the Lord's brother. Firstly, the evidence does not support the blood-brother view; despite the scribes absurd interpretative contortions. Secondly, the scribal method of ascertaining date by way of author's identity is fundamentally misapplied in this case. With Jude it is much better to ascertain the author's identity after we have a better handle on when it was written. Since the evidence within the text in this regard suggests an early-to-middle 2C date for Jude, I'd say that the possibility that our author was the Lord's brother is exactly zero,nil, zilch, nada, etc ...
.
 And you thought Bible scholars ought to know these things? ... Shame on you!
.
> a. The letter was written too late for Jude to have been its author.
.
 As we just said ...
.
> 1) But if the letter was written by the 90s Jude could still have been alive21.
.
 Yeah, but could he still be alive in the 130's?
.
> 2) Interpretative issues concerning the occasion of the epistle (e.g., the description of the heretics, the
> connection with Gnosticism, the references to the apostles) do not demand a late date since they could
> be understood in the first century
.
 The words and phrases could be understood sure, but the question is: Were they used with just this meaning?
... It takes some generations to newly establish a solid tradition. Judas' diction and language do not suggest that the pauline and gospel traditions are still young. On the contrary, they are simply assumed (by the author) such that Judas well knows that his audience has a long acquaintance with the Gospels and epistles. These traits are not very characteristic of most 1C churches and documents. How could they be, since these traditions were then still in formation. But in the second century, many of the larger urban churches would have an established tradition handed down from "the holy ones" (as Judas calls them) and spanning several generations.
.
> b. Verse one really reads so as to describe an unknown Jude as son of an unknown James22.
.
 Unknown to us, to be sure. But certainly not unknown to the churches in Egypt in the early to middle 2C.
.
> But such a view is unsupported by the textual evidence,
.
 Correction: ... unsupported by the text as it is *misread* and *misinterpreted* by these silly self-serving scribes!
.
> and is improbable since the letter would not have gained suitable circulation unless it was identified
> with James of Jerusalem and pseudonymity was identified with well known figures
.
 Later generations who did not known of the Egyptian prophets Jacob and Judas would simply assume that they were heroes of the first generation, and would seek for candidates, among the scrolls of the NT. Hence the "brothers of the Lord are the authors" tradition.
.
> c. Jude was actually Jude the apostle called "Judas of James" (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13)
.
 Maybe that's the same Judas whom Paul mentioned?
.
> 1) However it is most probable to understand the phrase in Luke and Acts (jIouvda" jIakwvbou) to mean
> "Jude, the son of James" rather than "Jude the brother of James" as Jude 1 reads.
.
 I tend to agree.
.
> 2) However, the author of Jude does not seem to identify himself with the apostles, and actually sees the
> apostles as being apart from himself (17,18)
.
 Exactly! Several generations apart, in fact.
.
> d. Jude is the second-century bishop of Jerusalem
.
 Unlikely; but a much better prospect than anyone contemporary with Paul.
.
> and the phrase "brother of James" is an episcopal title at Jerusalem.
.
 LOL ... Very unlikely! Our Judas is a prophet, not a bishop.
.
> However, there are no parallels to support this understanding
.
 Yup.
.
> 4. The identity of Jude as the Lord's brother would account for the authority with which he writes,
.
 No; actually His authority derives from the needs and necessities of his prophetic ministry. In the middle to late decades of the 2C, prophets were a vanishing breed; soon to be put out to pasture by the authority-grabbing clergy (who were out to establish their supremacy over the People of God). Judas must have been very aware of this nasty
situation, and this would account for the strange plea for authority of his oddly worded final blessing (see v.24-25). Now these last two verses are very badly translated in every popular or modern English Bible, but in the Greek it seems to be a kind of hopeful plea that the prophet's words should retain their authority through all the ages.
This long view of things itself suggests a late date. ... But what would Judas think of the shabby treatment that he and Jacob have received at the hands of our ignorant and arrogant generation?
.
> and the regard which the letter gained in the Christian church.
.
 This regard came mostly out of a clear recognition of the prophetic quality of the text, and the necesary truths that it reveals . . . Few will believe this, however, since it is all the rage today to find no value *whatsoever* in the despised epistle of Jude!
 

/ Subject: The Who & When of Jude-2 / Ng: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / 1Aug99 /

> In 'An Introduction To The Book Of Jude' David Malik writes: 5. The letter is colored by Jewish images and
> apocalypses which would match an historical first-century Jude.
.
 textman say: Hey, Malick. Why don't you try growing a brain instead? ... If Judas was 1C Jewish-Christian (as you imply), why does he not share the popular 1C certainty in the imminent Parousia? ... Yet all the evidence in the Epistle of Jude shows that our author is well past that point. But the scribes don't bother to explain such inconsistencies in their feeble exegesis because no one cares enough about the text to question them on these matters. Thus the scribal stupidity abides for no other reason than that no one is interested enough to consider *all* the evidence presented in the text!
.
 And that is all that Malik offers us about the author by way of placing Judas in his proper historical setting. First century Jewish apocalyptic environment, in association with Peter, the brother of Joshua and Jacob. Well and good. The scribes tell us who and when the author is; but they do not bother to tell us *what* he was. Presumably, he was one of the pillars of the Aramaic church in Jerusalem working with Peter and James. ... ??? ... But if this was the case, why does he not figure prominently in the testimonies of Paul's epistles and/or the 'Acts of Apostles'? It seems to me that if the Lord's half-brother was so concerned about the pauline churches as to send them all a general letter (sometime "between AD 65-80"), that this action would leave many traces behind ... But where are the first century witnesses that we should expect? ... T'ain't none!
.
 And why, if the letter was early on established (in the pauline churches that first began the initial collecting (and editing) of the Christian documents that would much later be canonized as the NT), is it not grouped with the pauline epistles, rather than merely tacked onto the end of the 27 books as if it were a mere afterthought? If the scribes were right, surely none could dare question its authority or authenticity. But the history of the formation of the canon does not support this charming scenario of the scribes. Rather, it suggests that Jude was a late-comer to the canon; and almost didn't make inclusion for that very reason. Now why should that be the case, Dear Reader? Could it be because both the internal and external evidence supports our contention that Jude was written in the 2C? And if that is so, is it not also apparent that the entire scribal interpretation of Jude is nothing more than a tottering house of moldy cards ready to collapse in a heap at any moment? ... Hey! Don't look too close now; lest you make it fall from the sheer force of your gaze!
.
> II DATE: Somewhere between AD 65-80 A. Dates have been assigned from AD 60-140 <snippage>
.
 I might even be persuaded to opt for c.150 or so ... Which would give us a nice round number - 100 - for the period in which all the canonical NT writings were conceived and composed and given unto the churches. This first century of early Christian literature begins with Paul and Silvanus at Athens round about 49CE, and ends with Jacob and Judas in Alexandria (c.130-50CE). Thus there is a darn good reason why the NT writings are all done in Greek; not only in mere language, but in thought and conception, and in form and execution, and even in literary style (ie. the 'epistle' and the 'Gospel' are both inventions and creations of the Holy Spirit and the early Greek churches of the Greco-Roman cities of the Empire).
.
 Alexandria was famous throughout the Empire for its public library. The best in the world. One of the eight wonders of the world. ... This is why the author of James [like his beloved and dedicated student Judas] was both a scholar and a prophet. How do we know this? Primarily from his book; which is a collection of prophetic homilies (or sermons)
carefully gathered and edited, showing a deep and wide knowledge of classical and Christian literature, and granted the form of an open public letter. Thus the very forms and structures of Jm reveal the author to have been a powerful public leader (in the early second century Greek-Egyptian churches). Thus the very language (ie. the careful and yet pungent diction and style), and the theology of Jm, demonstrates the author's wide knowledge of early Christian (and other religious) literature.
.
 Therefore, from all of this it is apparent that this Jacob (ie. the author of the canonical New Testament book called 'James') cannot be the Lord's brother. *That* James was also a powerful public leader; in the fledgling Aramaic church in Jerusalem (c.35-65). We know a lot about this early 'pillar' (as Paul calls him) from other sources; and none of this mostly reliable information suggests or reveals this James to have been prophet OR scholar. He had his hands full managing a conservative Jewish-Christian church (more like a Jewish sect, really) in a city that was ever- increasingly hostile to Rome, and would soon be ground into a greasy spot by the relentless legions of that mighty
pagan Empire. [Ouch! And you just know that's gotta hurt! So much for the Jewish-Christian church; although remnants remained and continued for a couple of centuries more, of course.]
.
 So then, those who foolishly claim that Joshua's brother Jacob is the author of the NT book of James MUST explain this discrepancy: how did this simple and pious administrator of a man find the time (a lifetime really) to secretly transform himself into a scholar and a prophet (without anybody noticing it, apparently)? No. It is much simpler (and
far more realistic) to accept that the Aramaic James did not lead a double life; and so is not the author of Jm. And when we examine the early Christian sources, without the necessity of first going through many theological filters, we find no evidence suggesting that Aramaic James wrote the book of James; only the pious tradition of assumption
(ie. the early churches loved to to ascribe authorship (erroneously, but respectfully) to other earlier famous heroes (to do them great honor and tribute, you see). It is NOT at all a difficult concept to grasp, dear reader!
.
> E. While it was true that verse three suggests that Christianity has been established enough to have an
> established body of doctrine25, it does not demand a late date for the letter:
.
 In and of itself, no; it does not "demand" anything. However, it is a highly suggestive clue in harmony with a large body of other suggestive clues within the body of the text (ie. the epistle of Jude as a whole). Moreover, subtle indicators or pointers to authoritative Christian documents are far more at home in the second century than in the first. Here, then, is how DM and I evaluate v.3: (1) For the scribes, verse three is not definitive and demanding enough (as chronological evidence, that is) to really challenge their preconceived conclusion regarding the early date of Jude (owing to Judas' *alleged* blood relation to Joshua, etc). Therefore they simply dismisses it from all considerations regarding the matter of dating this document ... Thereby in effect removing all value from a major stone in our meager pile of tangible high-quality evidence.
.
 (2) I do no such thing. Look here. In examining any book (sacred or profane), you have basically only two sorts of evidence; primary and secondary. The primary material is the bare text alone. In this case, this means the text of the epistle *without* the verse numbers and notes and headings and title and subtitles and punctuation and spacing
and lower casing and cross references and sundry commentaries and introductions and various groupings with other groupings of other books (eg. Catholic epistles -> NT -> Bible). All of this *STUFF!* is secondary to our source document as valuable evidence, and the importance of making this evaluative distinction cannot be over-stressed. When I study Jude, I give far more weight to Judas' words and ideas and message and historical hints and suggestive clues, etc, than I do to any outside facts (ie. "foreign" evidence, really).
.
 But look at how our silly scholarly scribes operate: Once they have finished watering down the Greek text to an acceptably smurfy English translation (ie. basically removing most of its prophetic power), they set out to find all signs able to support their notion of how Jude came to be, and so forth, and dismiss the remainder, and then - when they find themselves holding an empty bag - at once hurry to rush out and supplement their meager supply with outside sources. For the unfortunate epistle of Jude, that usually means making copious use of 2Peter.
.
 But in Jude's case, Jm and 1Peter are just as important in understanding the context of Jude (as regards the NT as a whole). When Judas mentions Jacob in the opening of the salutation, the reader should not be thinking: "Oh! The author's name is Judas, and he is identifying himself as the mortal blood-brother of the Lord Jesus Christ, but because he is too shy to just come out and say so directly, he humbly refers to their shared kinship with their mutual blood-brother Jacob (and that is the full extent of the meaning of the word 'Jacob' in the text)."
.
 Now consider the utter lack of historical plausibility of this absurd scenario. Consider the hatchet-job hermeneutics employed to arrival at these conclusions (and the fundamental disregard and disrespect for the text that all this indicates). There is nothing shy or humble about the author of this epistle; as the final verses (24-25) clearly demonstrate ... BUT the scribes conveniently cover-up this detail by deliberately mis-translating the intent and meaning of this long compound sentence, so as to completely obscure this subtle feature of the prophet's unique
and powerful rhetorical style.
.
 Thus we see that by watering down the text, the scribes not only wash away the author's intentions, but also wash away the author's personality and style. Bible scholars do not, cannot, and will not recognize that the epistle of Jude is prophetic Christian literature standing at the tail end of a long tradition of prophetic and apocalyptic literature going back through James to Paul to Enoch, and right back to the major and minor prophets of the Tanakh. Yes, the
scribes *much* prefer to ignore all that; and in doing so they crucify the very essence of the man's power and self-identity. They say, in effect: "No, Judas! You are NOT a prophet after the manner of your great teacher (ie. the Alexandrian-Christian prophet and scholar called Jacob; the author of the book of James). What you ARE is the youngest half-brother of Jesus of Nazareth. And it is THAT blood kinship that is the sole source of *all* your authority to speak to the churches, and of all your identity as well. You are who we say that you are; not who you foolishly suppose yourself to be!" ... This, then, is the Biblical Studies Foundation's much touted "sound scholarship".
.
 This is unbounded respect for a sacred and inerrant scripture?  . . .
Please excuse me for saying so, but: I don't think so!
 

/ Subject: The Who & When of Jude-3 / Ng: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / 2Aug99 /

> In 'An Introduction To The Book Of Jude' David Malik writes: 1. A common basis of belief existed from the
> first among all Christians.
.
 textman say: No. Actually, plurality and diversity in belief (and practice) existed among the very earliest 'Followers of the Way', and has been the norm ever since. Thus John's letters and Gospel refers to conflicting groups and unorthodox beliefs and ideas at the end of the first century. In the middle of the first century, Paul's letters also refer to opposing groups and gospels contending for supremacy over the hearts and minds of the new Greek People of God. In the 30's (of 1C) we have two clans of believers in Jerusalem: (1) the radical, and Greek speaking, Hellenistic-Jewish followers of Jesus. And (2) the conservative and traditional praying-in-the-Temple Aramaic believers. The differences between these two groups was so marked that the city authorities forcibly expelled the Hellenists (for their disruptive behaviors); thereby initiating the first Christian exodus of believers to the great cities outside of Palestine (ie. chiefly Antioch and Alexandria).
.
 One must also bear in mind that Paul was himself an eyewitness to these momentous and formative events that were not only so important for carving out the future course of the Jesus movement, but also led directly to his own conversion, and to his gradual realization of his own vocation as the 'Apostle to the Gentiles'. This is why the earliest
of Paul's authentic epistles (ie. the four Thessalonians letters) are so heavily steeped in what can only be called 'the persecution tradition'. Both Paulos and Silvanus were formed and nurtured on the persecution tradition of the outcast Hellenistic-Jewish believers. Indeed, for them it was the only tradition they knew. Their freedom was earned by blood and bruises; and they resented  the ongoing campaign of the "pillars" to have them conform and submit to their well-established authority. And in the end, Paulos and Silvanus split and went their separate ways because of irreconcilable differences (eg. regarding apocalyptic and eschatological matters).
.
 These are the historical realities which shaped and formed the Faith in its raw and tender youth. Diversity and conflict within and among the churches remains; just as the persecution tradition also abides ... Just as the prophetic tradition is, was, and always shall be essential to a vital and living Faith! It must be so, because this is who we are
as Christians ...
.
> 2. "Faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" is indefinite as to its timing.
.
 This is a false and very misleading assertion. In point of fact, Judas' statement is far more at home in a 2C context, than at any time prior. Indeed, such a set declaration simply could not have been formalized (as part of the established tradition) at such an early period as the dates given by Malik for Jude. ... When the scribes say things like 'Oh, this (or that) fact or piece of evidence need not be taken to mean we are wrong about the early date' that's fine. But when they repeat this sort of statement a dozen times in the course of their exposition, the Reader ought to stop and consider that maybe these scribes have a hidden agenda going here; and that they will tolerate no
clue, no fact, no suggestion, that they could be wrong about the early dating of Jude! For the scribes, being right is far far more important than any truth locked tightly away within the text of Jude ...
.
> 3. The Apostle Paul wrote about the standard of teaching to which the Roman Christians were committed
> (Rom. 16:17), therefore, one could have existed for a first-century Jude26
.
 Standards of teaching existed early on, to be sure, but for Judas these standards were to be found mostly within the scriptures. The thing about Judas is that his conception of what constituted Sacred Scripture was not hampered by later canonical restrictions; and so his prophetic vision allowed for a far more generous embrace of the early Christian and inter-testamental literature. I think it is important for the reader to fully appreciate the immense significance of Judas' testimony in this regard. The Word of God does not (in and of itself) tend to create absolute boundaries and demarcation lines. The canonical format - as rigid as steel, as hard as cast iron, as brittle as stone -
was something that was imposed upon the dynamic and ever-growing mass of early Christian literature (eg. the Gnostic Christians wrote many books, and appropriated many others). This was the action of a desperate, feuding, and already corrupt assembly of churches forced to radical measures by the will of a pagan emperor who desired of his church one thing above all others: unity. The fact was that the Empire could not make effective political use of this powerful spiritual movement without imposing conformity and adherence to freshly-minted "accepted standards". Thus we got bishops and cathedrals and the great codex Bibles which would carry the Faith through the decline and fall of the greatest ancient civilization, and on into Europe to form the basis of a new civilization, Christendom.
.
 Thus was the Word preserved and handed down through the generations. But this fossilized form of the scriptures is in no way natural to the Logos, or to the Spirit of Truth. Revelation did not cease when Judas put down his reed for the last time. The Holy Spirit continued to inspire saints and writers to greater efforts in transmitting the Gospel of Light & Life & Truth. In the same way, the need for prophets did not end with the death of Judas. But rather they continued to be called forth in every generation for the greater good of the People of God.
.
 Yes, the People need. God sees, and calls his slaves. So the prophets answer, and address the People in his name. But the People are stubborn and hard-hearted, and do not want to hear. They stop up their ears, and close their hearts, and run far away from the gospel that burns their tender ears. Thus they cling tightly to their own traditions; and go forth to mock and revile the Lord's worthless ones ...
.
 Has it not always been thus? ... Yes, it has! But the People know it not, because they have forgotten themselves; and the Lord as well. They have lost their way. They stumble about in the darkness (mistaking it for light), and seek out blind guides (ie. priests, bible scholars, and theologians) to steer them through the stygian darkness of their own devising!
.
> F. The reference to the Apostles in verse 17 does not have to mean that the apostolic age has passed:
.
 If v.17 is taken in isolation from all the other evidence contained in the rest the epistle, *then*, logically speaking, it does not prove that the apostolic age has passed. But in the author's mind, this is a given; and therefore simply assumed, and requiring no "proof". Thus for Judas, the apostles are the Holy Ones of the churches' early days, and only those who set out to deliberately obscure and distort the prophet's message will so blatantly contradict the obvious ...
.
> 1. Jude is referring to apostolic predictions of scoffers who will arise in the Church, and there does not
> need to be a long period between prediction and fulfillment.
.
 That's true enough. Indeed, since there were scoffers even in Paul's day, we might say that this particular fulfillment preceded the apostolic predictions. But look again at verses 17&18:
.
>> But you, dear friends-recall the predictions81 foretold by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.82 1:18
>> For they said to you, "In the end time there will come83 scoffers, propelled by their own ungodly desires."84
>> [Jude 1:17-18 / NET Bible]
.
 In the sn to footnote #84, Malik informs us that "Jude cites 2Pet 3:3". Yet according to 'The New Jerome Bible Handbook' 2Peter was composed in the 2C. How then could Judas cite from a book that wasn't even written yet?
.
 Furthermore, since Malik wishes us to believe that Judas is warning us about the so-called 'false teachers', we are, no doubt, supposed to equate these scoffers with Malik's imaginary false teachers. But since Judas describes his scoffers as being "propelled by ungodly desires" - rather than, say, 'pagan philosophies' - it is apparent that these
scoffers are something other than mere heretics (such as the scribes would have us believe).
.
 Indeed, the gross poverty of the entire 'false teachers' approach to Jude is made apparent in Malik's admission that "It is not possible to identify the exact heresy of the false teachers." And the reason for this is, of course, the fact that Jude is NOT warning us against a particular group of heretics (now long gone), but rather against a perennial enemy of the Faith; scoffers who have NOT gone away, but who, in fact, are with us even now!
 

/ Subject: Re: The Who & When of Jude/1 / 3Aug99 / Ng: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /

> On 1Aug99 Gerry Palo wrote: Tondaar,
.
 Tondaar answers: Dear Gerry, hello and good greetings to thee! Thx for your interest in the fascinating and troublesome epistle of Jude. And may Grace and the Spirit's generous guidance assist you in your wrestlings with the Sacred Text ...
.
> Without taking a position on the kinship of "Jude" and James,
.
 Don't give me this crap now at the very start of your query! Surely you *do* have an opinion on the matter; (especially in light of how important it is for a proper understanding of the epistle as a whole). Be not shy to share it with us ...
.
> I'd like to ask you for an example of the usage, "A is the brother of B" where it means, not blood
> kinship but kindred soulship or spiritual brotherhood.
.
 Consider the following examples from the post-pauline NT literature:
.
 (1) Tychicus, my37 dear brother and faithful servant in the Lord, will make everything known to you, so that you too may know about my circumstances,38 how I am doing. [Ephesians 6:21 / NET Bible]
.
 (2) From Paul,1 an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, and Timothy my brother. [Col 1:1 / NET Bible]
.
 (3) Tychicus, a dear brother, faithful minister, and fellow servant in the Lord, will tell you all the news about me.17 I sent him to you for this very purpose, that you may know how we are doing18 and that he may encourage your hearts. I sent him19 with Onesimus, the faithful and dear brother, who is one of you.20 [Col. 4:7-9 / NET Bible]
.
 I trust that these four examples meet your requirements regarding usage relating to particular individuals. Moreover, from what I have been able to gather from the various study-bibles and commentaries available online, it would appear that most exegetes forward the same non-kin interpretation, and indeed do so with an almost casual matter of factness. In these cases there is no question but that 'adelphos' is meant in its Christian (ie. non-kin) sense. Why then should the scholars and scribes find it so difficult to believe that Judas could use the word 'brother' in the same way?
.
> You gave the example of Paul speaking to the disciples as "brothers" and general usage of
> brotherhood in the soul-spiritual sense.
.
 Yes, I indicated that this was the uniquely Christian meaning of the Greek word 'adelphos'.
.
> But I didn't see and can't recall any positive use of the word brother between two specific individuals to
> confirm this usage, except the passages in question about Jude and James and also about the Lord's brothers.
.
 Actually, I don't think the 'brother' usage in Mark 6:3 can be properly understood as being anything other than in the blood-kin sense: "Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary3 and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. Then4 Jesus said to them, 'A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown, and among his relatives, and in his house.'" [Mark 6:3-4 / NET Bible] ... Please note the significance of this passage as regards the Lord's own understanding of his identity and mission; that is, he openly identifies himself as a prophet ...
.
> For example, did another disciple, John or Philip, for example, ever call himself the brother of the Lord?
.
 No, of course not; that would be exceedingly presumptuous (given the divine and exalted nature of the Risen Lord). ... But the Quakers claim to be the "friends" of the Lord -> "You are my friends if you obey my commands" (John 15:14). This even though they despise his commands, and would rather have their eyes gouged out with a rusty
spoon than to actually go ahead and obey his commands (ie. as they are set forth in the pages of the Sacred Text). Indeed, the words 'obey' and 'commands' are simply never admitted into their rootless and faithless theology; being, as it were, very unfriendly-like words)!
.
> Or did anyone call himself the brother of Peter or of Paul in this spiritual context?
.
 Well, no; because, again, that would be exceedingly presumptuous (given the legendary and heroic stature heaped upon these 'larger than life' saints; cf. Acts of Apostles). But the silly and worldly Romish Catholic synagogue fancies that their popes are the successors of Peter (whom they "honor" as the first Catholic pope); which certainly implies a 'brotherly' equality in terms of power and status and stature.
.
> Simon was clearly the blood brother of Andrew, and James of John. You make a strong assertion for the use of
> brother in a non-blood sense, but you don't give examples that are parallel to the examples under examination.
.
 I hope this article rectifies this oversight ...  :)
.
> Not that this undermines the rest of your argument.
.
 No, but it would surely be more effective if I had provided examples directly within the body of my article. Frankly, I just wasn't thinking of specific parallels from out of the NT. I just assumed that presenting specific examples of non-blood kinship usage would be unnecessary. ... errr, a minor oversight on my part, alas. Generally, I'm more interested to get to the main issues, and tend to bypass the usual scholarly grunt-work
... As they say: Where's the beef?  :)
.
> I just wanted to focus on this one question. Gerry Palo <palo@netcom.com> / Denver, Colorado
.
 And I'm very glad that you did, because now we all know that the NT is hardly barren of the concrete and specific 'spiritual-adelphos'. Indeed, I suspect that (many?) more examples could be added to my meager list, such that we may wonder why the scholarly consensus so resolutely refuses even to acknowledge the possibility that this common (and traditional!) Christian usage of the word 'brother' can be applied to the opening verse of Jude. ...
.
 I suspect that the usual (mundane and banal) interpretation of verse one is such a deeply ingrained and long-entrenched assumption-cum-conclusion that it seems (to the scribes and Pharisees) like a scholarly blasphemy to apply any common sense to this particular text.
.
 Again I want to emphasize for the Reader that when it comes to the epistle of Jude, *ALL* the commentaries (and other secondary literature) are woefully lacking in a basic (and I would add: very essential) respect for the text ... And therefore they simply cannot be trusted. In fact, in the case of Jude, the problem (that is to say: the traditional bias against a sensible *and* faithful reading) goes well beyond the secondary literature, but actually invades the
text itself ... Such that we do NOT have even one popular English translation that even remotely does any real justice to the Greek text and/or the author's intent. In other words, *ALL* the popular English translations (without exception!), and commentaries and study-bibles, distort and confuse the prophet's message to the end of making the Word of God safe and harmless and acceptable to the oh-so tender sensibilities of a truth-intolerant People of God!
.
  Yes, M.Manson (the wacked-out Alice Cooper clone) abuses the Scriptures by literally pissing on the pages of The Book; but is what the scholars and scribes insist on doing to Jude any better?
 

/ Subject: Re: The Who & When of Jude/1 / 4Aug99 / Ng: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
ON THE TRUE MEANING OF 'BROTHER'/1

>> tondaar wrote: Don't give me this crap now at the very start of your query! Surely you *do* have an
>> opinion on the matter; (especially in light of how important it is for a proper understanding of the
>> epistle as a whole). Be not shy to share it with us ...
.
> On 3Aug99 Gerry Palo replied: I really think you need to tone down, or rather tone up your rhetoric.
.
 Dear Gerry, now I'm confused! Which way shall I go: up or down?
.
> Your remarks about crap do not lend themselves to an intelligent discussion of the issues.
.
 Neither does making a big deal out of nothing ...
.
> Yes, I have my opinions about their kinship, and the question of Jesus's siblings.
.
 Yes? I can't wait to see them ...
.
> But you won't get it out of me by bullying.
.
 I wasn't aware that this is what I was doing.  Bullying? ... Nah
.
> Calm down.
.
 If I was any calmer, they'd bury me in the cold cold ground ...  :)
.
> We are talking about holy things.
.
 Oh yes, to be sure. But this doesn't mean that we can't speak plainly and openly, such that our Readers can easily know what we are saying.
.
> Clarity of thought, objectivity, and openness of heart and mind are essential, as well as patience and
> humility. These need to be continually renewed, as we often fall short in the course of our discussions.
.
 I tend to agree. Although I must say that I think that objectivity (as such) is highly over-rated.
.
] Gerry previously wrote: I'd like to ask you for an example of the usage, "A is the brother of B" where it means,
] not blood kinship but kindred soulship or spiritual brotherhood.
.
>> tondaar: Consider the following examples from the post-pauline NT literature: (1) Tychicus, my37 dear
>> brother and faithful servant in the Lord, will make everything known to you, so that you too may know
>> about my circumstances,38 how I am doing. [Ephesians 6:21 / NET Bible]
.
> GP: This is an example of what I meant. Paul makes it clear that he is talking about a spiritual brotherhood,
> by his words "in the Lord". While the word brother can be used in both the physical and spiritual sense, its
> spiritual-symbolic usage normally requires a contextual explanation.
.
 So then, if the words "in the Lord" were not present in v.21, you would 'logically' conclude that Tychicus was the pseudo-Paul's blood-brother, right? ... Do you seriously suppose that this is a rational approach to Scripture?
.
> The distinct difference between the above passage and Jude is the lack of any such contextual phrasing in Jude.
.
 It seems to me that your emphasis on the difference is unwarranted; and perhaps even invalid. The context of every verse in Jude is the 2C Greek churches, the book of James (along with the other early Christian scriptures), and the traditions lying behind Judas' ministry.  ... Wut? This is not context enough for you? ... Why not?
.
>> (2) From Paul,1 an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, and Timothy my brother. [Col 1:1 / NET Bible]
.
> Here there is no immediate context,
.
 As with Jude 1:1. Therefore, we have surely established the parallel you sought.
.
> but the whole relationship becomes clear between Timothy and Paul.
.
 Huh?
.
> Paul does not write, "Paul, the brother of Timothy".
.
 Paul did not write Ephesians OR Colossians; but this fact has little bearing on what we're after here (ie. the way the NT uses 'adelphos').
.
> Both men are well known from the larger context.
.
 You mean from Paul's authentic letters, right?
.
> Jude's statement does not have the same sense,
.
 Why not?
.
> and while the meaning may be open to interpretation,
.
 It is open to a faithful and sensible interpretation, as well as to a foolish and faithless interpretation. The one we choose depends as much on the quality of our faith, as it does on our knowledge of the biblical sciences.
.
> the straightforward reading is that he means to identify himself as James's physical sibling.
.
 No, this is a biased (ie. pagan) reading based on the false assumption that Judas does not use Christian words with the Christian meaning intended. Therefore, if you wish to convince me that your so-called "straight-forward reading" is the only correct one, you will first have to demonstrate that Jude is NOT a Christian document!
.
> His introduction is clearly self-identifying, rather than identifying himself as a kindred soul with his brother James.
.
 You're right to say that v.1 is self-identifying. "a slave of Jesus Christ" identifies Judas as a Christian prophet; and "brother of Jacob" identifies him as an associate and friend of the 2C Christian prophet Jacob (the author of Jm).  ...  What's the problem, then? There is nothing in the text itself that demonstrates that Judas' "Jacob" MUST refer to the Lord's blood-brother. Hey Gerry, what's the difference between 'eisegesis' and 'exegesis'?
.
>> (3) Tychicus, a dear brother, faithful minister, and fellow servant in the Lord, will tell you all the news about
>> me.17 I sent him to you for this very purpose, that you may know how we are doing18 and that he may
>> encourage your hearts. I sent him19 with Onesimus, the faithful and dear brother, who is one of you.20
>> [Col. 4:7-9 / NET Bible] I trust that these four examples meet your requirements regarding usage relating
>> to particular individuals. Moreover, from what I have been able to gather from the various study-bibles and
>> commentaries available online, it would appear that most exegetes forward the same non-kin interpretation,
>> and indeed do so with an almost casual matter of factness. In these cases there is no question but that
>> 'adelphos' is meant in its Christian (ie. non-kin) sense. Why then should the scholars and scribes find it so
>> difficult to believe that Judas could use the word 'brother' in the same way
.
> The examples you give convince me, on the contrary, of the opposite.
.
 Wut? You haven't been paying attention, then?
.
> They are all written in a context of affirmation of spiritual kinship,
.
 LOL ... Yew gotta be kidding!
.
> whereas Jude's reference to James is a parenthetical one aimed at identifying himself to his readership.
.
 Right. Just as "Onesimus, the faithful and dear brother" is a parenthetical reference aimed at identifying him to the Reader. ... You see differences where there are similarities, and attempt to introduce obscurities where there is no need for them.
.
] GP: You gave the example of Paul speaking to the disciples as "brothers" and general usage of
] brotherhood in the soul-spiritual sense.
.
>> tondaar: Yes, I indicated that this was the uniquely Christian meaning of the Greek word 'adelphos'.
.
> GP: I am not convinced that the Greeks had so supplanted the normal meaning of the word by its spiritual-
> symbolic one that its first implied meaning would be the symbolic one.
.
 For the early Greek-Christians, the first implied meaning *was* the spiritual-kinship one. For them, there was no problem regarding the Christian usage of 'adelphos'. It was simply a basic part of the living and dynamic Faith of the saints. But for later generations within a corrupted and paganized church, the loss of the sense of 'brotherhood' meant a corresponding confusion regarding the meaning of 'adelphos'. Hence the current confusion regarding the interpretation of Jude 1:1 is nothing so much as a clear demonstration of this same ongoing (spiritual) corruption.
.
 Please proceed to  On the True Meaning of 'Brother'/2  up next ...
 

/ Subject: Re: The Who & When of Jude/1 / 4Aug99 / Ng: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /

ON THE TRUE MEANING OF 'BROTHER'/2

> On 3Aug99 Gerry Palo wrote: Not in the case of Jude, who gives no indication that he wants to establish
> his spiritual sympathy with James but rather his blood relationship, by way of an introductory remark
> about his identity -- especially in view of his name and his well known fellow disciple.
.
 tondaar: "No indication", you say? Tell me, Gerry, are the similarities between these two verses sheer coincidence then? -> (1) "James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ ..." (Jm 1:1 / NASB). (2) "Jude, a bond- servant of Jesus Christ ..." (Jude 1:1 / NASB). ... This looks like a pretty strong indication to me! ... Yes, folks, the epistles of James and Jude go together like bacon and eggs. Isn't that simply amazing? Now you know more about this than the scribes and scholars do!
.
] GP: But I didn't see and can't recall any positive use of the word brother between two specific individuals to
] confirm this usage, except the passages in question about Jude and James and also about the Lord's brothers.
.
>> t: Actually, I don't think the 'brother' usage in Mark 6:3 can be properly understood as being anything other
>> than in the blood-kin sense: "Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary3 and brother of James, Joses, Judas,
>> and Simon? And aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. Then4 Jesus said to them, 'A
>> prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown, and among his relatives, and in his house.'" [Mark
>> 6:3-4 / NET Bible] ... Please note the significance of this passage as regards the Lord's own understanding
>> of his identity and mission; that is, he openly identifies himself as a *prophet* ...
.
> GP: So, Jesus does not address the statement of his relationship to James, Joses, Judas and Simon,
> although he does indicate that he has relatives.
.
 That is correct. Jesus' statement is in response to their taking offense at him. ...
In no way can his saying be taken as a denial of what they said.
.
> I don't see what this has to do with the Jude-James question, except to lend weight to their blood kinship.
.
 The significance of Mk 6:3 to the epistles of James and Jude is that it is *wrongly* used to determine the identities of the authors. In point of plain fact, there is nothing in the texts of Jm and Jude to even suggest that the authors are related to Jesus by blood. The traditional scholarly interpretation to the contrary is based solely on a fundamental inability to recognize Christian prophetic literature for what it is!
.
> Even if Jesus was not the brother of the four,
.
 Which, of course, he was.
.
> the passage does indicate that the four themselves were brothers.
.
 No. The passage indicates that the people of Nazareth knew very well indeed that Jesus was the son of Mary, and that he had both brothers and sisters. That anyone would even try to deny these facts just shows how foolish people are to place theology ahead of history. The Faith is NOT based on theology! It is based on real, actual, concrete historical people and events that preceded all theologizing about the meaning of those people and events. In the churches, however, theology always takes precedence over history; and even determines what did and did not happen!
.
> Jude finds it sufficient for self-identification to mention his kinship to James and leaves it at that.
.
 If our Judas was so determined to identify himself as Joshua's blood-brother, why didn't he just come out and say so directly; instead of dancing around the mulberry bush? ... I'll tell you why. Because Joshua's brothers and sisters were all long dead by the time that the epistle of Jude was written!
.
] GP: For example, did another disciple, John or Philip, for example, ever call himself the brother of the Lord?
.
>> t: No, of course not; that would be exceedingly presumptuous (given the divine and exalted nature of the
>> Risen Lord). ... But the Quakers claim to be the "friends" of the Lord -> "You are my friends if you obey my
>> commands" (John 15:14). This even though they despise his commands, and would rather have their eyes
>> gouged out with a rusty spoon than to actually go ahead and obey his commands (ie. as they are set forth
>> in the pages of the Sacred Text). Indeed, the words 'obey' and 'commands' are simply never admitted into
>> their rootless and faithless theology; (being, as it were, very unfriendly-like words)!
.
> I am very familiar with Quakers --
.
 I just knew you were going to say that ...  :)
.
> and they don't call themselves Friends of the Lord.
.
 Really? Then what, pray tell, does 'The Religious Society of Friends' mean?
.
> But I don't see what this has to do with anything.
.
 I was just using them to illustrate the pervasiveness of faulty hermeneutics. Thus bad faith inevitably leads to bad interpretations of the sacred text ...
.
] GP: Or did anyone call himself the brother of Peter or of Paul in this spiritual context?
.
>> t: Well, no; because, again, that would be exceedingly presumptuous (given the legendary and heroic
>> stature heaped upon these 'larger than life' saints; cf. Acts of Apostles). But the silly and worldly Romish
>> Catholic synagogue fancies that their popes are the successors of Peter (whom they "honor" as the
>> first Catholic pope); which certainly implies a 'brotherly' equality in terms of power and status and stature.
.
> Nice harangue, but what does it have to do with Jude and James?
.
 Just this: by spreading the lie that the authors of James and Jude were the blood-brothers of Jesus, the churches and their clever toadies (the scholars, scribes, and theologians) are able to force upon the People of God the illusion that these epistles are "primitive" and "Jewish", and therefore need not be taken seriously by Christians today.
.
] GP: Simon was clearly the blood brother of Andrew, and James of John. You make a strong assertion for the use
] of brother in a non-blood sense, but you don't give examples that are parallel to the examples under examination.
.
>> tondaar: I hope this article rectifies this oversight ...  :)
.
> GP: As indicated above, no it doesn't.
.
 As indicated above, yes it does. ... Nyah!
.
] Not that this undermines the rest of your argument.
.
>> t: No, but it would surely be more effective if I had provided examples directly within the body of my article.
>> Frankly, I just wasn't thinking of specific parallels from out of the NT. I just assumed that presenting specific
>> examples of non-blood kinship usage would be unnecessary. ... errr, a minor oversight on my part, alas.
>> Generally, I'm more interested to get to the main issues, and tend to bypass the usual scholarly grunt-work ...
>> As they say: Where's the beef?  :)
.
> GP: As I said, those examples do not quite suffice, in my mind.
.
 Hey Gerry, aren't you the one who said: "Clarity of thought, objectivity, and openness of heart and mind are essential, as well as patience and humility"? ... Maybe you should consider how far you fall short of your own directives ... Hey, if you've got the patience, I've got the clarity ...  :)
.
> Jude's remark still has the force of stating blood kinship, whatever their spiritual kinship might have been.
.
 And if I could somehow convince you that Jude is a 2C document, would you still misread the text in this way?
.
] I just wanted to focus on this one question. Gerry Palo <palo@netcom.com> / Denver, Colorado
.
>> t: And I'm very glad that you did, because now we all know that the NT is hardly barren of the concrete
>> and specific 'spiritual-adelphos'. Indeed, I suspect that (many?) more examples could be added to my
>> meager list, such that we may wonder why the scholarly consensus so resolutely refuses even to
>> acknowledge the possibility that this common (and traditional!) Christian usage of the word 'brother'
>> can be applied to the opening verse of Jude. ...
.
> GP: Context. Context. The passage is very straightforward.
.
 I agree. It *is* straight-forward. But this doesn't mean that it can only be read in one way. It can be read in a straight-forward pagan and faithless manner (you and the scribes). OR it can be read in a straight-forward prophetic and faithful manner (me and all True Believers).
.
 And what about you, Dear Reader? Will you open your heart, and let the Word of God have its say; or will you (like the scribes and Pharisees) force the text to serve your own whims, fancies, and desires?
 

textman
*