¹ The following commentators prefer ⁷² and Clement: Bauckham, R. J., Jude, 2 Peter (Waco: Word, 1983) 108–11Google Scholar; Birdsall, J. N., ‘The Text of Jude in p⁷²’, JTS 14 (1963) 394–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Neyrey, J. H., 2 Peter, Jude (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 85–6Google Scholar; Osburn, C. D., ‘The Text of Jude 22–23’, ZNW 63 (1972) 139–44.Google Scholar Bigg prefers the Peshitto reading, which is similar to Clement and Þ⁷²: Bigg, C., St Peter and St Jude (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901) 342.Google Scholar

² For a more exhaustive list of variants, see Sakae, Kubo, ‘Jude 22–3: Two-division Form or Three?’, New Testament Criticism; Its Significance for Exegesis (ed. Epp, E. J. and Fee, G. D.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1981) 239–53.Google Scholar

³ S. Kubo has written an excellent defence of the three–clause format of ℵ (note 2). Also see Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (United Bible Societies, 1971) 726–7.Google Scholar

⁴ The following editions follow ℵ: NASV, NRSV, NIV, RV, Lutherbibel 1984 ed., TEV and GNB (1976). RSV, JB, NEB Margin, New American and Douay follow A.

⁵ Mayor, J. B., The Epistles of Jude and Second Peter (1907; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1965) cxc.Google Scholar

⁶ Bigg, 341.

⁷ Barnes, A., Notes on the NT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1951) 26.402–3Google Scholar; Blum, E. A., The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981) 12.395Google Scholar; Hillyer, N., 1 and 2 Peter, Jude (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1992) 265Google Scholar; Holmer, U. and Boor, W. de, Die Briefe des Petrus und Judas (Wuppertai: R. Brockhaus, 1976) 285–7Google Scholar; Mayor, cxci; Plummer, A., The General Epistles of St James and St Jude (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1891) 459–60Google Scholar; Stoger, A., Der Brief des Apostels Judas (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1962) 48–9Google Scholar; Weidner, R. F., in The Lutheran Commentary (The Christian Literature Co., 1897) 11.374—5.Google Scholar

⁸ It is the opinion of the writer that ‘doubters’ is intended, because previously Jude speaks of these heretics as if their damnation is sure (v. 4). They are compared to the sinners of Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 7), the devil (vv. 9–10), and Balaam and Korah (w. 11–12). It is difficult to see how Jude could now switch so drastically, and with so little explanation, to say that the heretics must be saved.

⁹ The μέν…δέ or μέν…δέ… δέ is in series with agreeing words, usually the article; for example, ὀ μέν…ὀ δέ…ὀ δέ.

¹⁰ Zerwick, M. and Grosvenor, M., A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico) 741.Google Scholar

¹¹ The following are similar NT references: Matt 13.4, 8, 23; 21.35; 22.5; 25.15; Mark 4.4; 12.5; Luke 8.5; 23.33; Acts 27.44; Rom 14.2, 5; 1 Cor 11.21; 12.8, 28; 2 Cor 2.16; 2 Tim 2.20.

¹² states, J. H. Thayer that μέν…δέ can ‘serve only to distribute a sentence into clauses’ (A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament [1889; reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983] 398)Google Scholar. Also, BAGD states that in some cases: ‘μέν…δέ does not emphasize a contrast, but separates one thought from another in a series, so that they may be easily distinguished’ (2nd ed., 502).

¹³ Watson, D. F., Invention, Arrangement, and Style. Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2Peter (Atlanta: Scholars, 1988) 55.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Dan 2.33; 12.2; 2 Mace 3.19; 4.41; 3 Mace 1.20; 4 Mace 1.32; 16.9.

¹⁵ Esther 8.14; 2 Mace 3.26; 11.18; 12.24; 15.12; 3 Mace 6.29; 4 Mace 4.12; 7.13. These examples are not in series, so are not analogous to Jude 22–3, but to Jude 8.

¹⁶ Brenton, L. C. L., The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (1851; reprint Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1986) 204.Google Scholar The LXX reads ὄσα μὲν οαν ἒδει ĸĸαì τῷ βασιλεῖ προσενεϰθῆναι διεσάφησα ἃ δὲ ἦν ἐνδεϰόμενα συνεϰώρησεν.

¹⁷ Fifteen hapax legomena are employed; three other words found only in 2 Peter and are dependent on Jude, and of these, only four can be found in some Greek translation of the OT.Another twenty-two words are found only rarely in the NT (Neyrey, 27).

¹⁸ Ibid.

¹⁹ Watson, 78.

²⁰ Chaine, J., Les Epitres Catholiques (2nd ed.; Paris: Gabalda, 1939) 274.Google Scholar Chaine goes on to say: ‘The expressions: σπουδὴν ποιεȋν, ĸοινὴ σωτηρία (v.3), δίĸην ύπέξειν are completely classical; of these three expressions only the first is found elsewhere in the Greek Bible and only one other time. The sentence from Jude is sometimes constructed with the very Greek usage of the particlesμέν…δέ Se (w. 8,10; 22–3) and other times coordinated with ὄτι (vv. 17–18), or almost always by means of participles. This almost continual usage of participles or subordinate participial clauses indicates the habit of expressing oneself in Greek. The doxology has a fullness which is not Semitic’ (ibid., 275. Translation by Professor Tom Life of the Modern Language Department of Asbury College).

²¹ Denniston, J. D., The Greek Particles (2nd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1934) 370.Google Scholar

²² I am indebted to Ross Scaife of the Classics Department at the University of Kentucky for his assistance here.

²³ All translations from the classical texts are taken from the Perseus Project of Tufts University on the World Wide Web. The text is as follows:ĸαì πρòς τοùς Άθηναίους πέτοίμων πέμπετε μὲν περì τῆς Ποτειδαίας, πέμπετε δὲ περì ὧν οί ξύμμαϰοί φασιν ἀδιĸεȋσθαι, ἄλλως τε ĸαì ἑτοίμων ὄντων αὑτῶν δίĸας δοῦναι · ὲπì δὲ τòν διδόντα οὐ πρότερον νόμιμον ὠς ἐπ’ ἀδιĸοῦντα ἰέναι

²⁴ “Av τι ĸαì αμιĸρòν πλέον ἐĸάστοτε ἡƳῶνται ἔσεσθαι σφισιν, ἀναστάτους μὲν πόλεις, ἀνάστατα δὲ ἔθνη φίλια πυρì ĸαταφθείραντες, ἐϰθρῶς τε ĸαì ἀνηλεήτως μισοῦντες μισοῦνταί

²⁵ Κροîος μὲν νῦν ἔθαΨε ὡς οἰĸòς ἦν τòν έωυτοῦ παȋδα· “Αδρηστος δὲ ὁ ορδίεω τοῦ Μίδεω, οὗτος δὴ ὁ φονεùς μὲν τοῦ ἑωυτοῦ ἀδελφεοῦ Ƴενόμενος φονεùς δὲ τοῦ ĸαθήραντος…ἐπιĸατασφάζει τῷ τύμβῳ ἑαυτόν

²⁶ Some have argued that the word should be understood as ‘to define, to make a distinction in order to classify’ (J. B. Mayor, 47; Kelly, J. N. D., The Epistles of Peter and of Jude [1969; reprint, Peabody, Mass., Hendrickson, 1988] 284.Google Scholar Also, see the NEB). But this flowed necessarily from the theory that the opponents of Jude were gnostics, a notion that the best recent scholarship has called into question (Bauckham, R., Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1990] 162–8Google Scholar; Heiligenthal, R., Zwischen Henoch und Paulus [Tubügen: Franke, 1992] 1–10).Google Scholar The more suitable meaning is that these opponents were causing schisms within the church (Bauckham, , Jude, 2 Peter, 105Google Scholar; Bigg, 338; Kistemaker, S., Peter and Jude [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987] 403–4Google Scholar; Hillyer, 261; Reicke, B., The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude [New York: Doubleday, 1964] 213Google Scholar; Holmer and de Boor, 280). Bauckham points out that this sense of the word is found elsewhere, as Corp.Herm. 3.2a uses it as part of a creation story to signify the separation of the upper and lower elements (Jude, 2 Peter, 105).

²⁷ Bauckham, , Jude, 2 Peter, 105.Google Scholar

²⁸ Mark 10.47, 48; par. Matt 9.27; 15.22; 17.15; Luke 16.24; 17.13.

²⁹ Esser, H., ‘ἔλεος’ in Dictionary of NT Theology (ed. Colin, Brown; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976) 2.595.Google Scholar

³⁰ Neyrey, 91.

³¹ Spicq, C., Theological Lexicon of the New Testament (trans, by Ernest, James D.; Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson) 1.476.Google Scholar

³² Loeb translation.

³³ Bauckham, , Jude, 2 Peter, 110–11.Google Scholar

³⁴ Ibid.