Replies

I have been following the back-and-forth between Kolo and papertyger with some amusement, I must admit. First to give Jude any such crucial importance is novel, as Kolo says, because this book was either soundly rejected or listed as questionable (too short) to be accepted as scripture well into the 3rd century. Most of the earlier Fathers (Polycarp, Igantius, Justin Martyr, etc.) do not quote from it and apparently seem unaware of its existence.

Even Irenaeus' repertoire of books does not include Philemon, II Peter, III John, or Jude! Origen includes it but then he also includes Gospel of Peter and Gospel of Hebrews, Acts of Paul (that's the one in which Paul revives a fried fish!), I Clement, Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas and Didache as 'divinely inspired,' while rejecting James, II Peter, II John and III John, so his inclusion o Jude cannot be taken seriously.

No early Father who acknowledged it used Jude to interpret verse 11 as papertyger does. Such interpretation is UNKNOWN to the Church.

According to Metzger (Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance, Clarendon Press. Oxford. 1987), Tertullian comments on Jude 14 but not 11.

As for Numbers 16, what can I say...when I read that Moses is telling God what not to do (v. 15) I bite my lip and move on...otherwise I would be on the floor laughing.