__________________________________________________________________________________ BIBLIOTHECA SACRA 177 (April–June 2020): 193–204 THE MINORITY REPORT: A DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT FOR INTERPRETING JUDE, PART 2 Herbert W. Bateman IV ABSTRACT Part 1 surfaced problems with the majority report for the epistle of Jude—the common assumption that Jude was concerned with false teaching, whether Gnostic or antinomian, and unrestrained sexuality. Part 2 suggests instead that Jude wrote in response to a Zealot uprising against Rome shortly after the death of James in AD 62. Concerns shared between Jude and Josephus indicate that the “godless” in Jude are Zealot rebels who were seducing the church away from Jesus, while “salvation” refers to physical de- liverance or preservation. ART 1 LOOKED AT THE MAJORITY REPORT for the epistle of Jude, involving the common assumption that Jude was con- P cerned with false teaching, whether Gnostic or antinomian, and unrestrained sexuality. This survey showed that the majority report often contradicts itself and that nothing in the letter une- quivocally points to these issues. Part 2 therefore examines the minority report—the possibility that Jude was responding to a Zealot-led rebellion in Judea—and suggests that this historical oc- casion better accounts for the evidence in the epistle.1 THE MINORITY REPORT: ZEALOT-LED REBELLION Herbert W. Bateman IV is president of the Cyber-Center for Biblical Studies, Leesburg, Indiana, and Academic Editor for Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1 For a full exegesis of Jude based on the view taken in this article, see Herbert W. Bateman IV, Jude, Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lex- ham, 2017). 194 BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / April–June 2020 The minority report often agrees with the majority report. For in- stance, evidence presented within the minority report concurs with at least six Christian false-teacher commentators who have deter- mined that (1) James’s brother Jude wrote the letter (2) to Judean believers (3) during the mid-60s.2 Yet the minority report suggests that Jude’s distress (vv. 3–4) is over a zealot-led rebellion that was challenging the early church throughout all of Judea.3 This conclu- sion is based on what was happening in Judea during the mid-60s when Jude was alive and writing his letter. Although Witherington has a wider range for dating Jude (late 50s and 60s), his resolve is based on “the wave of rising tension and rebellion leading to the Jewish war in the 60s.”4 Furthermore, Weiss hypothesizes that “Jude would not have taken up the pen before the death of his renowned brother” and that the year 62 should be “regarded as the terminus a quo for the composition of the Epistle.”5 Weiss’s theory seems reasonable because while 2 Paton J. Gloag, Introduction to the Catholic Epistles (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1887), 360–65; S. D. F. Salmond, Jude, Pulpit Commentary (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1907), iv; Gary Holloway, James and Jude, College Press NIV Commen- tary (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996), 137; Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003), 404–9; Wil- liam F. Brosend II, James and Jude, New Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 3; John Painter and David A. deSilva, James and Jude, Paideia (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 179–83, 186. 3 With great tenacity, Zealots prompted, promoted, and pursued Judeans to join in the violent rebellion against Rome. Battles with Rome erupted in Galilee (e.g., Sepphoris, Jotapata, Gamala), in Samaria (e.g., Mount Gerizim, Shechem), along the coastal plains (e.g., Joppa, Jamnia, Azotus), in Perea (e.g., Bethennabris, Abila, Juias, Besimoth), in Judah (e.g., Jericho, Hebron, Jerusalem) and eventually at Masada. The revolt was cross-generational and cross-gender as evidenced in the suicides at Gamala and Masada. See Yohanan Aharoni and Michael Avi-Yonah, The Macmillan Bible Atlas, rev. ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1977), 157; Martin Hengel, The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I until 70 A.D., trans. David Smith (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989), 330–76; L. I. Levine, “Jewish War,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 3:839–45. 4 Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio- Rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude (Downers Grove, IL: Inter- Varsity, 2007), 564. 5 Bernhard Weiss, A Manual of Introduction to the New Testament, trans. A. J. K. Davidson, vol. 2 (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1889), 124. Mayor also appeals to Jude’s writing after the death of James, but for Mayor Jude writes much later (AD 70s–80s) to the same eastern Diaspora Jews as James had previously in AD 45. Joseph B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter (Lon- don: Macmillan, 1907; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), cxlvii–cxlviii. Yet Robin- son offers a rather weak contention that if Jude were written after the death of James, then Jude would have added an epithet to the name of James, like “blessed” (µακάρος) or “good” (ἀγαθός). John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament The Minority Report: A Different Assessment for Interpreting Jude 195 James was alive, he was the spokesperson and authority figure for Judean Jewish Christian believers (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; Gal 2:9, 12; 1 Cor 15:7). If difficulties arose within the Judean Jewish Christian community, James would have dealt with them. Finally, Josephus recalls how the high priest Ananius (ca. AD 62) had James stoned to death.6 Naturally, the death of James would have created a leadership void for the Judean churches. Jude’s letter may have been a means of filling that void (v. 3).7 Thus on the one hand, the death of James (ca. AD 62) provides the terminus a quo for dating Jude. On the other hand, the terminous ad quem would be the Judean war with Rome, a war that began in AD 66, since Eusebius notes that the Jewish believers fled to Pella due to the Zealot threat and conflicting messianic beliefs.8 Consequently, the minority report contends that Jude was written around the rising tension and rebellion of the Zealots lead- ing up to the Jewish war against Rome in AD 66. Furthermore, the minority report presumes that Jude wrote his letter shortly after James’s death in AD 62 and just prior to the total outbreak of the Judean war with Rome in AD 66. So whenever the “godless” (vv. 4, 15) and “these people” (vv. 8, 12, 16, 19) appear in Jude, Jude is speaking against those who have joined the Zealot-led rebellion just before the outbreak of war in AD 66. Yet what evidence does the minority report offer to validate this perspective? (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 197. 6 Ant. 20.9.1 §§200–204. Admittedly, no one knows exactly when James died or the circumstances surrounding his death. Eusebius tells of James being thrown from a pinnacle of the temple, stoned, then clubbed to death prior to the temple’s destruction in AD 70 (Hist. 2.23.4–25). See James C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 476–82; Her- bert W. Bateman, “High Priests of the Herodian Period (37 B.C.E.–70 C.E.),” in Charts on the Book of Hebrews, Kregel Charts of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2012), 89–91. 7 Along with the leadership vacuum, hostility against Rome and pressure to join the Zealot revolt were mounting. Jude was eager to recall “our common deliveranc- es” and “our shared safety” (τῆς κοινῆς ἡµῶν σωτηρίας) that the Jewish Christian community had experienced during the early beginnings of the church (v. 3a). Jude would have been an eyewitness to and even experienced the divine deliverances recorded in Acts (4:1–3, 19–23; 9:1–28; 12:1–17 [cf. Josephus, Ant. 19.8.2 §§343–52]; 21:17–19 [cf. 1 Cor 16:1–4; 2 Cor 9:1–5, 12–15]). Who was better qualified than Jude to write a letter putting things into a positive perspective? 8 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.5. Cf. Mark 13:14–18; Luke 21:20–24; Acts 11:28. “It is extremely unlikely that Jewish Christians could have participated in the uprising against Rome,” says Hengel, and adds that the two eschatological movements (Christianity and Zealotism) were “firmly opposed to each other” (Hengel, The Zealots, 301). 196 BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / April–June 2020 JUDE’S PROFILE OF THE GODLESS Like the Christian false-teacher report, the minority report derives its profile about the godless from the text of Jude and from Jewish literature of the Second Temple period (e.g., 1 Enoch, Assumption of Moses). What differs is the amount of interaction with the Jew- ish historian Josephus, because both Josephus and Jude lived through the Jewish uprising against Rome. While Jude wrote dur- ing the Judean revolt, Josephus wrote in retrospect. Consequently, they share terminology, echo similar concerns, and draw attention to some of the same Old Testament figures to describe those pro- moting and participating in the Zealot movement against Rome. First, they share similar terminology. While the majority re- port provides evidence to suggest that “our common salvation” (τῆς κοινῆς ἡµῶν σωτηρίας) reflects a spiritual salvation,9 others who con- tribute to the Christian false-teacher report provide evidence for a different understanding. Gene Green offers a wide range of evi- dence that suggests “our common salvation” (τῆς κοινῆς ἡµῶν σωτηρίας) references a “struggle against national enemies.” He ex- plains, “Concerns for the ‘common safety’ or ‘security’ of a people were paramount (similar to the contemporary idea of ‘national se- curity’).”10 The minority report concurs with Green’s assessment 9 From within the Gnostic false-teacher report: “Common salvation,” avers Kelly, means “(presumably) to prepare a general and positive presentation of the faith for their benefit.” J.