Book of Judah added to NT canon by NT Wright
Today's Daily Twitter Deal apparently includes NT Wright's commentary on the book of Judah.
Comments
-
Paul Caneparo said:
Today's Daily Twitter Deal apparently includes NT Wright's commentary on the book of Judah.
It does. Wright writes:
...I come to the letter of Judah.
(As so often, we are not absolutely sure who he is. He describes himself as ‘brother of James’, which probably means James the brother of Jesus. There is a ‘Judah’ who is mentioned among those brothers in Mark 6:3. But, since Jesus was taken from them perhaps three or more decades earlier, it may seem more natural to speak of himself as brother of the leader who is either still alive or else only recently dead. In any case, he calls himself ‘slave of Jesus’; even if he, too, was a son of Mary he would not presume to describe himself as Jesus’ brother. It’s interesting, isn’t it, that we tend to call him ‘Jude’, thereby distinguishing him from two others who had the same name: Judah the patriarch, the ancestor of Jesus, and Judas Iscariot. Why have we done that? He has a royal and ancient name, and I prefer that he should keep it.)
Tom Wright, Early Christian Letters for Everyone: James, Peter, John and Judah, For Everyone Bible Study Guides (London; Louisville, KY: SPCK; Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 194.
(EDIT: bold markup by me - and thanks for telling about the Twitter Deal! Today I saved money as I already owned it)
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
View
NB.Mick said:Paul Caneparo said:Today's Daily Twitter Deal apparently includes NT Wright's commentary on the book of Judah.
It does. Wright writes:
...I come to the letter of Judah.
(As so often, we are not absolutely sure who he is. He describes himself as ‘brother of James’, which probably means James the brother of Jesus. There is a ‘Judah’ who is mentioned among those brothers in Mark 6:3. But, since Jesus was taken from them perhaps three or more decades earlier, it may seem more natural to speak of himself as brother of the leader who is either still alive or else only recently dead. In any case, he calls himself ‘slave of Jesus’; even if he, too, was a son of Mary he would not presume to describe himself as Jesus’ brother. It’s interesting, isn’t it, that we tend to call him ‘Jude’, thereby distinguishing him from two others who had the same name: Judah the patriarch, the ancestor of Jesus, and Judas Iscariot. Why have we done that? He has a royal and ancient name, and I prefer that he should keep it.)
Tom Wright, Early Christian Letters for Everyone: James, Peter, John and Judah, For Everyone Bible Study Guides (London; Louisville, KY: SPCK; Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 194.
(EDIT: bold markup by me - and thanks for telling about the Twitter Deal! Today I saved money as I already owned it)
Thanks for that. Maybe the title of the book should have kept the traditional name. Maybe I'm too conservative!
0 -
NB.Mick said:
Wright writes:
...It’s interesting, isn’t it, that we tend to call him ‘Jude’, thereby distinguishing him from two others who had the same name: Judah the patriarch, the ancestor of Jesus, and Judas Iscariot. Why have we done that? He has a royal and ancient name, and I prefer that he should keep it.)
Tom Wright, Early Christian Letters for Everyone: James, Peter, John and Judah, For Everyone Bible Study Guides (London; Louisville, KY: SPCK; Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 194.
(EDIT: bold markup by me - and thanks for telling about the Twitter Deal! Today I saved money as I already owned it)
I find it interesting that Wright is so focused on "the same name" but uses two examples where the name is rendered slightly differently: "Judah" the patriarch and "Judas" Iscariot. That's what happens when you move between languages. It seems to me that "Jude" has kept that "royal and ancient name" of יְהוּדָה just as surely as my friend "Paul" shares his name with the apostle (Παῦλος).
It just seems like a really weird thing to make an issue of.
0
