From: Gordon Coleman <>
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The Apocrypha
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 16:37:28 +1000

g, Graeme wrote:
> 
>  (Nigel B. Mitchell) wrote:
> 
> >I wrote:
> >>>Jude 1:9 is a reference to a work called the Assumption of Moses.
> 
> >On Thu, 06 Aug 1998 21:57:10 GMT, g, (Graeme)
> >wrote:
> 
> >>That is a ludicrous statement that claims that the Holy Spirit
> >>inspired Jude to use a spurious writing as a basis for truth. This is
> >>typical of liberal rationalistic unbelief.
> 
> >Hi, Graeme.
> 
> >Jude refers to the archangel Michael and Satan arguing over the
> >body of Moses. There is no such argument mentioned in the book of
> >Deuteronomy. The argument is described in detail in the
> >Assumption of Moses, including the specific words "The Lord
> >rebuke you".
> 
> >I suspect that "ludicrous", "spurious" and "unbelief" would be
> >more accurately directed at the suggestion that Jude was quoting
> >from any source other than the Assumption of Moses.
> 
> >>>This was written by a (probably Pharisee) Jewish author during
> >>>the 1st century,
> 
>  (Nigel B. Mitchell) wrote:
> 
> >I suspect that "ludicrous", "spurious" and "unbelief" would be
> >more accurately directed at the suggestion that Jude was quoting
> >from any source other than the Assumption of Moses.
> 
> >>>This was written by a (probably Pharisee) Jewish author during
> >>>the 1st century,
> 
> Nigel,
> 
> I have been doing a check on the so-called Assumption of Moses. I
> would be interested to know how you are so confident that Jude was
> quoting from it.
> 
> Apparently it was Origen who attributed Jude's reference to this book
> but there seems to be no evidence that has survived to back this up.
> Clement Aexlandrinas gives an account of the burial of Moses quoted
> from the same book, and while there are several references to the book
> up to the 6th century only a fragment of it has been found since. From
> what I have been able to dig up it is full of blunders, some due to
> transcription, proving that the last scribe had but an imperfect
> knowledge of the tongue in which he wrote. Some of the blunders seem
> to have gone even further back and seem to have been attributed to the
> scribe who translated it from the Greek. In the fragment which has
> been preserved the passage allegedly found found in Jude is not to be
> found.
> 
> So where do you get your "evidence" from?

Graeme,

I would have thought this was a moot point.  I suspect you're reacting
to Nigel because of his position on the infallibility of Scripture,
rather than on the basis of what he's saying here.  So what if Jude
_did_ quote an apocryphal book?  That need not undermine the authority
of Jude, nor give undue weight to the book in question.  Preachers
frequently refer to fictional events to illustrate a point - my minister
recently referred to the musical "Les Miserables" in a sermon.  He
didn't tell us that the musical was a fictional story - he didn't need
to.  His audience was familiar with the story he was referring to, and
didn't assume that his use of the illustration meant that he believed it
to be true.

Why do you see it as unusual that Jude might do the same - use a
literary illustration from a non-canonical book with which his readers
would have been familiar?  I recognise that there's a difference between
my pastor's sermon and Jude's letter - the latter is part of the Canon,
and the other an exposition - but I think the point is reasonable.

Remember, as Nigel pointed out previously, Paul had no qualms using an
illustration from Greek poets to illustrate his point about the
character of God and our dependence on him - even though he would not
have considered their works authoritative, nor agreed with their
emphasis.

On the topic of the apocrypha:  some of the books contained in the
apocrypha contain information about the Inter-Testamental period that is
only sketchily available elsewhere.  The Jews of Jesus' day do not
appear to have regarded the Apocryphal books as Scripture - but they
didn't on that basis reject them as a source of information about their
history (I'm thinking in particular of Macabees).  They simply placed
them in a different category.  Some were the works of pious Jews
reflecting upon the Scriptures (similar to some of the devotional
materials people write today).  Some were history, some were clearly
works of fiction.  I think the point is not to reject them as hopelessly
flawed garbage (any more than I would reject a modern work of fiction or
collection of poetry as garbage, because they lack historical or
Scriptural merit), but to recognise them for what they are.

Just my 2c worth, anyway.

Kind regards,

Gordon