Jude 8-16
We’ve been reading Paul for so long that Peter seemed quite a change and Jude even more so! For example, Jude has two non-Biblical citations in today’s reading: But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses… (v. 9a) and It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied… (v. 14a). Jude is citing Jewish history here for which we have no Biblical account. There were a few occasions where Paul cited external sources of unknown origin, but (as I recall) not with a Biblical connection. So with Jude, since his letter was deemed inspired writing (canonical) by our Christian forefathers many years ago, we don’t dispute the truthfulness of his claims, but we also tend not to cite these two verses in building any theological arguments, as these verses do not stand up to the standard set long ago in the Pentateuch: …on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed. (Deuteronomy 19:15, NASB) Journalists and detectives today do not accept a story or a witness unless they can corroborate one person’s testimony with second sources. Jude, alone, makes these two claims.
Small item – I couldn’t help but notice the word “ungodly” used for times in one verse (15). Unusual!
Slava Bohu!
I got sidetracked on the Book of Enoch, which is what Jude used as his reference. There are some other NT references from Enoch but not this one. Reading about the book which didn’t get excluded until later, I went down a rabbit hole but found my way out. So, as Fred says, don’t use it for definitive.
Well, to say the Book of Enoch is non-Biblical reflects a very Protestant orientation. Until the Reformation, the books that we call the “Apocrypha” were included in the accepted canon of Scripture (and still are for Catholic and Orthodox). The Anglican Church may not hold these “apocryphal” books to be on the same canonical level as the 66 books of what we call the Bible, but it still regards them as useful. See this article on Anglican Compass.
And as for journalists or detectives not accepting a story without corroboration, ha! That’s laughable these days. Any such standard disappeared long ago. To think that our mainstream media now operates with that kind of and integrity and regard for truth is naïve, I’m sorry to say.