Footnotes
Footnotes
1."Obviously, the Epistle of Jude pretends to be written by this brother of Jesus”
(Kummel, p. 301).
2.Guthrie, p. 908. J. A. T. Robinson argues for a date before 62 (Redating the New Testament [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976], pp. 197-98).
3.Richard J. Bauckham, however, says of this letter, "Its character is such that it might very plausibly be dated in the 50s, and nothing requires a later date” (Jude, 2 Peter, WBC [Waco, Tex.: Word, 1983], p. 13). He is impressed by the absence of features of "early catholicism” and the lack of dependence on Paulinism.
4.Metzger says, "Critical principles seem to require” its acceptance, but the majority of his committee rejected it on the grounds that "the reading was difficult to the point of impossibility” (p. 726).
5.See the discussion in C. Bigg, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901), p. 14; Guthrie, p. 901.
6.Douglas J. Rowston, "The Most Neglected Book in the New Testament,” NTS 21
(1975): 554.
7.Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, Preface (no page number).
8.Childs, p. 492.
9.Rowston, "Most Neglected Book,” p. 561.
10.For more discussion, see the section Purpose in chap. 21 above.
11.Cf. Childs’s summary: "The letter offers a theological description of the phenomenon of heresy rather than attacking a specific historical form of error” (p. 493).