¹ Rowston, D. J., ‘The Most Neglected Book in the New Testament’, NTS 21 (1974/5) 555.Google Scholar

² Wisse, F., ‘The Epistle of Jude in the History of Heresiology’, Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts (ed. Krause, M.; Leiden: Brill, 1972) 135–6Google Scholar. Cf. also Reicke, B., The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude (AB 37; New York: Doubleday, 1964) 191–2.Google Scholar

³ So e.g. Watson, D. F., Invention, Arrangement, and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter (SBLD8 104; Atlanta: Scholars, 1988) 29.Google Scholar

⁴ Rowston, , ‘Most Neglected’, 555–6, 561–2.Google Scholar He however stays on a general level, Werdermann, whereas H., Die Irrlehrer der Judas- und 2. Petrusbriefes (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1913),Google Scholar who initiated the thesis, defined precisely the Gnostic opponents and their community.

⁵ Wisse, , ‘Heresiology’, esp. 135–6.Google Scholar

⁶ Bauckham, R. J., Jude, 2 Peter (WBC 50; Waco: Word, 1983) 11–13, 16.Google Scholar

⁷ Charles, J. D., Literary Strategy in the Epistle of Jude (Scranton: University of Scranton, 1993) 61–2, 65–90.Google Scholar

⁸ E.g. Reicke, , Epistles, 196Google Scholar; Kelly, J. N. D., A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude (BNTC; London: Black, 1969) 245–6Google Scholar; Grundmann, W., Der Brief des Judas und der zweite Brief des Petrus (ThNT 15; Berlin: Evangelische, 1974) 28Google Scholar; Frankemölle, H., 1. und 2. Petrusbrief, Judasbrief (Neue Echter Bibel; Würzburg: Echter, 1987) 123.Google Scholar

⁹ Reicke, , Epistles, 192.Google Scholar

¹⁰ For discussion, see Bauckham, , Jude, 8–10,Google Scholar and Charles, , Strategy, 52–61.Google Scholar

¹¹ Rowston, , ‘Most Neglected’, 562–3.Google Scholar

¹² Charles, , Strategy, 61.Google Scholar

¹³ Charles, , Strategy, 62.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Charles, , Strategy, 48–51, 167–8.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Kelly, , Epistles, 230Google Scholar; my italics.

¹⁶ Rowston, ‘Most Neglected’.

¹⁷ Watson, Invention, and Charles, Strategy.

¹⁸ According to Watson, Jude is a skilful orator. ‘As far as rhetorical conventions are concerned, Jude's rhetoric conforms to its best principles’ (Watson, , Invention, 78–9Google Scholar). Charles (Strategy, 48) likewise states: ‘Attention to the notable literary features in Jude provides the reader with an important basis on which to proceed with the letter's interpretation. — We become witnesses to a literary-rhetorical artist at work.’ Cf. also Charles, J. D., ‘Literary Artifice in the Epistle of Jude’, ZNW 82 (1991) 115, 124CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Wolthius, T. R., ‘Jude and the Rhetorician: A Dialogue on the Rhetorical Nature of the Epistle of Jude’, CTJ 24 (1989).Google Scholar

¹⁹ For statistics, see Martin, R. A., Syntax Criticism of Johannine Literature, the Catholic Epistles, and the Gospel Passion Accounts (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1989) 109–11.Google Scholar Bauckham (Jude, 6–7) provides a thorough investigation of the language of Jude.

²⁰ An exception is the parataxis in 11.

²¹ Watson (Invention, 194) enumerates several stylistic features in Jude.

²² This, like the use of metaphors, is typical of the middle style. Cf. Watson, , Invention, 79.Google Scholar

²³ So Watson, , Invention, 78.Google Scholar

²⁴ See below part four.

²⁵ Watson, Thus, Invention, 76.Google Scholar

²⁶ Watson (Invention, 79) discusses the lack of refutation as a sign of the deficiency of Jude's rhetoric. According to him, such a shortcoming can be explained by the length and eschatology of the Letter. A more fitting explanation is the genus of the text: counter-arguments do not belong to epideictic rhetoric.

²⁷ See Thurén, L., ‘Style Goes Never Out of Fashion – 2. Peter Reconsidered’, Rhetoric, Scripture and Theology (JSNTS 131; ed. Olbricht, T.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996).Google Scholar

²⁸ Charles, , Strategy, 48.Google Scholar

²⁹ Charles, , ‘Artifice’, 107.Google Scholar

³⁰ Charles, , Strategy, 171Google Scholar (his italics), 168, 170.

³¹ For the difference between the two modes of rhetorical criticism, see Porter, S. E., ‘The Theoretical Justification for Application of Rhetorical Categories to Pauline Epistolary Literature’, Rhetoric and the New Testament (JSNTS 90; ed. Porter, S. E. and Olbricht, T. H.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993).Google Scholar

³² See Kelly, , Epistles, 245–6Google Scholar; Bauckham, , Jude, 30–1Google Scholar; Charles, , Strategy, 61.Google Scholar The view is opposed by Rowston (‘Most Neglected’, 117) on the basis of the polished literary style of the text.

³³ Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des Griechischen Briefes bis 400 n.Chr. (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae B 102/2; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1956) 67–87, esp. p. 78.Google Scholar

³⁴ A letter is typically introduced with phrases concerning the author's and the addressee's σωτηρíα (78, using as examples P. Oxy. XVIII 2191.4–5 and P. bibl. Univ. Giss. 32.2f.). Since σωτηρíα in this connection means ‘das körperliche wie das geistige innere und äussere Wohlbefinden’ (Koskenniemi, , Idee, 71–3, 78Google Scholar), there is no reason to interpret it in a religious light as ‘salvation’, as most scholars do. However, Jude's ‘our common σωτηρíα might be an unusual combination.

³⁵ Koskenniemi studies the άνάγκη-expressions in ancient letters (Idee, 78–87). He concludes that the word is to be seen ‘als eine Art Stichwort’ (78), which does not indicate ‘ein zwingender Grund für einen Brief’ (86).

³⁶ This technique of opening a letter is not unfamiliar among modern letter-writers either.

³⁷ See e.g. Bauckham, , Jude, 11.Google Scholar

³⁸ See e.g. the sophisticated ideological structures presented by Rowston, , ‘Most Neglected’, 562.Google Scholar

³⁹ Watson (Inventio, 43–8). He rightly classifies the verse as the ‘insinuative’ type of narratio, although he does not reach any historical conclusions.

⁴⁰ For a thorough presentation of narratio as a shrewd rhetorical device, see O'Banion, J. D., ‘Narration and Argumentation: Quintilian on Narratio as the Heart of Rhetorical Thinking’, Rhetorica (1987).Google Scholar

⁴¹ E.g. the peroratio (Jude 17–25) is more straightforward and gives important, although implicit material. Elements in the exordium are also useful, when they correspond to the peroratio. The picture can be supplemented by information in the rest of the text. For the uses of these parts of speech, see Thurén, L., ‘Risky Rhetoric in James?’, NovT 37 (1995) 269–74.Google Scholar

⁴² See Toit, A. du, ‘Vilification as a Pragmatic Device in Early Christian Epistolography’, Biblica 75 (1994) 408–9.Google Scholar

⁴³ Watson (Invention, 64) refers to this regarding verses 12–13. He however connects this function with an assumed leadership of the opponents.

⁴⁴ Cf. Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., Janik, A., An Introduction to Reasoning (2nd ed.; New York: McMillan, 1984) 144–5.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Lausberg, H., Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik (2 vols.; München: Hueber 1960) §55, 131–8, 205–6, 546.Google Scholar For the custom in the Hellenistic world in general, see Johnson, L. T., ‘The New Testament's Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic’, JBL 108 (1989) 430–4Google Scholar, in the Freyne, Gospels S., ‘Vilifying the Other and Defining the Self: Matthew's and John's Anti-Jewish Polemic in Focus’, To See Ourselves as Others See Us (ed. Neusner, J. and Frerichs, E. S.; Chico: Scholars, 1985),Google Scholar in the NT Epistles du Toit, ‘Vilification’.

⁴⁶ See Toit, du, ‘Vilification’, 406–7.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See below.

⁴⁸ Toit, du, ‘Vilification’, 404.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Toit, du, ‘Vilification’, 411.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Johnson, , ‘Slander’, esp. 432–3Google Scholar; Toit, du, ‘Vilification’, 411.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Johnson, , ‘Slander’, 441.Google Scholar

⁵² Johnson, , ‘Slander’, 432–3.Google Scholar

⁵³ Johnson, , ‘Slander’, 432–3.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Toit, du, ‘Vilification’, 412–13Google Scholar; referring also (with some misprints) to Johnson, ‘Slander’.

⁵⁵ Cf. Toit, du, ‘Vilification’, 411Google Scholar. E.g. in order not to jeopardize the author's credibility, it was advisable to have some truth in the allegations.

⁵⁶ For the persuasive device of depicting the antagonists as obscure characters, smuggling, slipping, or infiltrating, see Toit, du, ‘Vilification’, 406.Google Scholar The metaphor was often used against heresies. Wisse, , ‘Heresiology’, 136, 141–2Google Scholar refers to Matt 7.15, Mark 13.22, John 10.12, Acts 20.29, Gal 2.4, 2 Tim 3.6, 1 John 4.1, 2 John 7, and 2 Pet 2.1. Whereas in Gal a theological deviation from the main stream is clearly meant, this is not necessarily the case in Jude and 2 Pet.

⁵⁷ According to Watson (Invention, 48–50), probatio.

⁵⁸ Watson (Invention, 48–50) sees 5–10, 11–13 and 14–16 as proofs of the author's case. His view follows the rhetorical manuals, being thus rather judicial, which does not correspond to the actual nature of the Letter.

⁵⁹ For these stereotypical charges, see Toit, du, ‘Vilification’, 407–8.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Toit, du, ‘Vilification’, 410.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Cf. Toit, du, ‘Vilification’, 404Google Scholar, who rightly sees the epideictic (demonstrative) as the normal genus when vituperatio is utilized. In this genus, the main goal is to maintain the addressees’ situation, to confirm values already held by them (according to the definition of Kennedy, G. A., New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism [Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1984]) 19Google Scholar; see also Thurén, L., The Rhetorical Strategy of 1 Peter (Åbo: Åbo Academy, 1990) 72.Google Scholar True, the author condemns the opponents in a judicial style, but the addressees are not told to do so. Actually, they are not advised to make any deliberation, and the Letter as a whole does not even call for any particular course of action, although single commands occur. Thus neither a judicial nor a deliberative genus properly describe the rhetorical situation of the text. Watson (Invention, 33–7) argues for a deliberative genus. However, he also defines the genera in a different way.

⁶² Wisse, , ‘Heresiology’ 133.Google Scholar According to him, the customary ideas about heresies were typically used for vilification instead of known facts or concrete examples, even if they were known.

⁶³ Wisse, , ‘Heresiology’, 137.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Wisse, , ‘Heresiology’, 142.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Thus e.g. Bauckham, , Jude, 11, 87Google Scholar; Frankemölle, , Petrusbrief, 138.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ The commentators derive the specific meaning of the metaphor, referring to Church leaders, from Ezek 34. However, the expression έανυτоὺζ φоιμαíνоντɛζ does not occur there. A more natural translation is ‘looking after themselves’; see Bauer, W., Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (6th ed. by K., and Aland, B.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988)Google Scholar s.v.; Liddell, H. G. and Scott, R., A Greek—English Lexicon (9th ed. by Jones, H. Stuart and McKenzie, R.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1966)Google Scholar s.v.; Reicke, , Epistles, 205Google Scholar, Grundmann, , Judas, 32Google Scholar, and even Kelly (Epistles, 260), who holds this interpretation as possible, but not probable (Epistles, 271).

⁶⁷ All this fits neatly even in the classical epideictic genus; see Kennedy, , Interpretation, 24, 74.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ The chronological disorder of the examples in 5–7 shows that for the author the rhetorical effect is more important than formal considerations. Watson (Invention, 60), notices a corresponding feature in 11.

⁶⁹ However, an alternative goal for the climactic 23 must also be considered: the excommunication of certain individuals may serve as a necessary shock for returning them to the community.

⁷⁰ Charles, , Strategy, 167–9.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Charles, , Strategy, 167–70.Google Scholar

⁷² See Thurén, , Strategy, 133, 137Google Scholar n. 38, where examples from 1 Peter are provided. See also Lausberg, , Handbuch, §281.Google Scholar

⁷³ The technique can be called ‘persuasive description’, see Thurén, , Strategy, 132–4.Google Scholar In a corresponding case in 1 Peter, Brox, N. speaks of an ‘indicative paraenesis’ (Der erste Petrus-brief [EKK 21; Zürich: Benziger, 1979; 2nd ed. 1986] 66).Google Scholar The author's humble, polite style (‘I remind you of what you already know’) serves also as a captatio benevolentiae.

⁷⁴ So also Wisse, , ‘Heresiology’, 141–2.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ The word ἀφоδιρíζоντες does not necessarily mean ‘cause division’ or refer to Gnostic ideas of classifying people (so also Wisse, ‘Heresiology’, 141–2). In the light of the criticism of speech, the division may mean labelling people into different parties.

⁷⁶ Cf. note 41 above.

⁷⁷ See Bauckham, , Jude, 40.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Bauckham, , Jude, 40.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ The Targum Onqelos to Deuteronomy (The Aramaic Bible 9; tr. B. Grossfeld; Edinburgh: Clark, 1988).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ For comprehensive arguments, see Charles, , Strategy, 65–81.Google Scholar This differs from 1 Peter, which clearly also takes a non-Jewish audience into account; see Thurén, , Argument and Theology in 1 Peter: The Origins of Christian Paraenesis (JSNTS 114; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995).Google Scholar

⁸¹ Hengel, M., Judaism and Hellenism. Studies in their Encounter during the Early Hellenistic Period (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980).Google Scholar

⁸² See Thurén, , Strategy, 70–1.Google Scholar

⁸³ Wisse, , ‘Heresiology’, 131.Google Scholar