^{page 334 note 1} Kam, J. vander, ‘The theophany of Enoch 1 3b–7, 9’, Vetus Testamentum XXIII (1973), 129–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 334 note 2} Black, Matthew, ‘The Christological Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament’, N.T.S. XVIII (1971), 1–14, esp. pp. 10–11Google Scholar; and ‘The Maranatha Invocation and Jude 14, 15 (I Enoch 1: 9)’, Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: Studies in Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule, ed. by Lindars, B. and Smalley, S. S. (London: Cambridge University Press, 1973), pp. 189–96.Google Scholar

^{page 334 note 3} Dillmann, August, Das Buch Henoch (Leipzig: Fr. Chr. Wilh. Vogel, 1853), p. xiv.Google Scholar

^{page 334 note 4} Adumbrations in Epistolam Judae.

^{page 334 note 5} de cultu fem. 1. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 334 note 6} It is assumed by several scholars that Jude was working from the Greek text of I Enoch. Cf. among others Chaine, Joseph, Les Épîtres Catholiques (2nd ed.Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1939), p. 322Google Scholar; Jean Cantinat in Robert, A. and Feuillet, A., Introduction to the New Testament (trans. by Skehan, P. et al. ; New York: Desclée Company, 1965), p. 594Google Scholar; and Kelly, J. N. D., The Epistles of Peter and of Jude (London: A. and C. Black, 1969), p. 276.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 1} Dillmann, A., Liber Henoch: Aethiopice (Lipsiae: Fr. Chr. Guil. Vogelii, 1851)Google Scholar; and Flemming, J. and Radermacher, L., Das Buch Henoch (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1901).CrossRefGoogle Scholar An English translation of the Ethiopic Enoch may be found in Charles, R. H., Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, II, Pseudepigrapha (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913)Google Scholar, pp. 188 ff. A new edition of the Ethiopic version is in preparation by Edward Ullendorf and Michael Knibb in London.

^{page 335 note 2} The most recent Greek text of I Enoch is that of Black, Matthew, ed., Apocalypses Henochi Graece (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970).Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 3} Cf. Milik, J. T., ‘Henoch au pays des Aromates (Ch. xxvii à xxxii): Fragments Araméens de la Grotte 4 de Qumrân’, Revue biblique LXV (1958), 70–7.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 4} Milik, J. T., ‘Problèmes de la Littérature à la Lumière des Fragments Araméens de Qumrân’, H.T.R. LXIV (1971), 335–7.Google Scholar While Aramaic palaeography is admittedly a difficult task and is not infallible, it does appear that 4Q Enoch i. 9 is pre-Christian, and is definitely to be datedprior to A.D. 70.

^{page 335 note 5} See now The Books of Enoch, ed. Milik, J. T. with the collaboration of M. Black, Oxford, 1976 (Ed.).Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 6} Black, , New Testament Studies (1971), p. 10Google Scholar n. 3; and Christ and Spirit in the New Testament, p. 194.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 7} Zwaan, J. de, II Petrus en judas (Leiden: S.C. van Doesburgh, 1909), p. 143.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 8} Albin, C. A., judasbrevit (Lund: Hakan Ohlssons Boktryckeri, 1962), pp. 611–15.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 9} Cf. Strack, H. L. and Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (2nd ed.; München: C. H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1954), III, 787Google Scholar; and Green, Michael, The Second Epistle General of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude (London: Tyndale Press, 1968), p. 177.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 10} The Greek text of the Gizeh fragment is published in Lods, A., Le Livre d'Hénoch (Paris: E. Leroux, 1892).Google Scholar The recurrent itacisms, misspellings, omissions, etc., are indicative of the haste and carelessness with which this manuscript was transcribed. Cf. Denis, A.-M. in M. Black, Apocalypsis Henochi Graece, p. 8.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 11} Charles, , Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, II, 189.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 12} Kam, Vander, Vetus Testamentum (1973), pp. 147–8.Google Scholar

^{page 336 note 1} apparently occurs only in biblical Aramaic (Dan. vii. 2, 5, 6, 7, 13). , usually regarded as a by-form of , occurs in Dan. ii. 31; iv. 7, 10; vii. 8. Both of these terms occur regularly in description of a vision. would seem to be unlikely here.

^{page 336 note 2} Ullendorf, Edward, ‘An Aramaic “Vorlage” of the Ethiopic Text of Enoch?’, Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi Etiopici in Problemi attuali di scienza e di cultura, quaderno 48 (1960), pp. 259–68, esp. p. 261.Google Scholar The earlier work of Schmidt, Nathaniel, ‘The Original Language of the Parables of Enoch’, Old Testament and Semitic Studies in Memory of William Rainey Harper, ed. by Harper, R. F., Brown, F., and Moore, G. F. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1908), II, 329–49Google Scholar, postulated that chapters 37–71 were translated into Ethiopic directly from Aramaic. Charles, , Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 11, lxv,Google Scholar and Flemming, J., Das Buch Henoch, p. viGoogle Scholar, assumed the Ethiopic Enoch to have been made from a Greek version, yet produced no solid evidence for this position. Subsequent scholars have accepted as Tatsache what should properly be viewed only as Theorie.

^{page 336 note 3} The reading in the versional and patristic tradition (cop^sa, syr^h, eth, arab, John Dam., Chron. Pasch.) is due to scribal alteration and has no serious claim to represent the original reading in Jude.

^{page 336 note 4} Wohlenberg, G., Der erste und zweite Petrusbrief and der Judasbrief in Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, ed. by Zahn, Theodor (Leipzig: A. Deichert'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1915), p. 318.Google Scholar Cf. also Kam, van der, Vetus Testamentum (1973), p. 148Google Scholar, as well as Jude 11 and John, xv. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 336 note 5} Schelkle, Karl H., Die Petrusbriefe, Der Judasbrief in Herder's Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (3rd ed.; Freiburg: Herder, 1970), p. 164Google Scholar; Black, , New Testament Studies (1971), pp. 10–11.Google Scholar Cf. also Kam, vander, Vetus Testamentum (1973), p. 148Google Scholar; Kelly, J. N. D., The Epistles of Peter and of Jude, p. 276Google Scholar; Knopf, R., Die Briefe Petri and Judd (7th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1912), p. 236.Google Scholar

^{page 336 note 6} Cf. Kautzsch, E., ed., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (rev. by Cowley, A. E.; 2nd Eng. ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), pp. 312–13.Google Scholar

^{page 336 note 7} Kuhn, K. G., ‘μαραναθά’, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, IV, 472.Google Scholar Cf. esp. n. 29 for Dalman's assertion that ‘eine futurische Bdtg des Perfekts ausgeschlossen ist’.

^{page 336 note 8} Cf. Strack, Hermann L., Abriβ des biblischen Aramäisch (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1896), p. 21.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 1} Black, , New Testament Studies (1971), pp. 10–11.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 2} Cf. among others Kelly, , The Epistles of Peter and of Jude, p. 276Google Scholar; Kam, vander, Vetus Testamentum (1973), p. 148Google Scholar; Wohlenberg, , Der erste und zweite Petrusbrief und der Judasbrief, p. 318Google Scholar; Schelkle, , Der Judasbrief, p. 164Google Scholar; and Black, , Christ and Spirit in the New Testament, p. 194.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 3} For an analysis of the textual complexity of Jude 5 cf. Black, Matthew, ‘Critical and Exegetical Notes on Three New Testament Texts: Hebrews xi. 11, Jude 5, James i. 27’, Apophoreta: Festschrift für Ernst Haenchen (ed. Eltester, W.; Berlin: A. Töpelmann, 1964), pp. 44–5Google Scholar; and Wikgren, Allen, ‘Some Problems in Jude 5’, Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament in Honor of Kenneth W. Clark, ed. by Daniels, B. and Suggs, J., in Studies and Documents, XXIX (Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press, 1967), 147–52.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 4} Cf. Albin, , Judasbrevit, pp. 611–12Google Scholar, for the minuscule support.

^{page 337 note 5} Cf. Weiss, Bernhard, Die katholischen Briefe in Texte und Untersuchungen, VIII (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1892), 3, p. 42.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 1} Such a conscious alteration tends to nullify the assumption that Jude quoted I Enoch i. 9 from memory. Cf. Kelly, , The Epistles of Peter and of Jude, p. 276Google Scholar, who suggests memory rather than dependence upon a text.

^{page 338 note 2} Black, , New Testament Studies (1971), p. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 3} Schelkle, , Der Judasbrief, p. 163.Google Scholar Cf. also his discussion of the views of the Church Fathers on Jude's use of I Enoch i. 9 on p. 164, and in his ‘Der Judasbrief bei den Kirchenvätern’, Abraham under Vater: Juden and Christen im Gespräch über die Bibel; Festschrift für Otto Michel, ed. by Betz, O., Hengel, M., and Schmidt, P. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1963), p. 415.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 1} Cf. assertions of incipient Gnosticism in Moffatt, James, The General Epistles: James, Peter, and Judas (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1928), pp. 216–22Google Scholar; Wand, J. W. C., The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude (London: Methuen, 1934), p. 210Google Scholar; Wilkenhauser, Alfred, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (6th ed. rev. by Josef Schmid; Freiburg: Herder, 1972), p. 581Google Scholar; Sidebottom, E. M., James, Jude, and 2 Peter (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1967)Google Scholar, pp. 75 f.; Kelly, , The Epistles of Peter and Jude, p. 231Google Scholar; Cranfield, C. E. B., l and II Peter and Jude (London: SCM Press, Ltd., 1960), p. 157Google Scholar; et al.

^{page 339 note 2} Kirsopp, and Lake, Silva, An Introduction to the New Testament (London: Christophers, 1938), p. 167Google Scholar, have aptly stated that it ‘is not sufficient to identify them with any known body of heretics, and to call them Gnostics is merely obscurum per obscurius’. Cf. also Weiss, Bernhard, A Manual of Introduction to the New Testament, trans. by Davidson, A. J. K. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1888), pp. 118–28, esp. p. 122Google Scholar n. 3.

^{page 339 note 3} Bo Reicke, , The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude in The Anchor Bible (2nd ed., Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Co. Inc., 1973), p. 191.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 4} Cf. Werdermann, Hermann, Die Irrlehrer des Judas und 2. Petrusbriefes (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1913), p. 20.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 5} Wisse, Frederik, ‘The Epistle of Jude in the History of Heresiology’, Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts in Honor of Alexander Böhlig, ed. by Krause, M. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972), pp. 133–43.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 6} Cf. p. 142.

^{page 339 note 7} Much has been written on whether τούτο refers back to v. 3 b or forward to v. 5. Zahn, , Introduction to the N.T., II, p. 249Google Scholar, asserted that judgement was brought on the church by the intrusion of the false teachers. Bigg, Charles, The Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude in ICC (2nd ed., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902), p. 326Google Scholar, supposed Jude to have been hastily quoting II Pet. ii. 3. Wand, J. W. C., St. Peter and St. Jude (London: Methuen and Co. Ltd, 1934), p. 199Google Scholar, assumed Jude to be hastily quoting I Enoch lxvii. 10. Is it not possible, however, to view τούτο with reference to I Enoch i. 3 b 7, 9?

^{page 339 note 8} The possibility of πάλαı meaning a recent past as in Mark xv.44 does make excellent sense, but ‘of old’ is preferable as Jude has the I Enoch i theophany very much in mind. Cf. Green, , 2 Peter and Jude, p. 161Google Scholar; and Mayor, J. B., The Epistles of Jude and II Peter (London: Macmillan, 1907), p. 24.Google Scholar

^{page 340 note 1} Cf. among others Isa, . xxvi. 21Google Scholar; Jer. xxv. 31 (LXX xxxii. 31); Mic. i. 2.

^{page 340 note 2} Cf. Burrows, Millar, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark's Monastery (New Haven, Conn.: American School of Oriental Research, 1951), 11Google Scholar, for plates and transcription of the Manual of Discipline.

^{page 340 note 3} Reicke, , Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude, p. 197Google Scholar, states that IQS iv. 9–14 suggests the existence of a certain tradition behind Jude's allusions. Cf. also Green, , 2 Peter and Jude, p. 161.Google Scholar

^{page 340 note 4} Note vander Kam's, , Vetus Testamentum (1973), p. 150Google Scholar, suggestion that άσέβεıα and cognate forms in I Enoch i. 9 may have been suggested to the author by Mic. i. 5 (LXX).

^{page 340 note 5} Cf. I Enoch vi–xii, esp. x. 4–6, 12–14. Fuller discussions are found in Windisch, Hans, Die katholischen Briefe in Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, ed. by Lietzmann, Hans (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1930)Google Scholar, pp. 41 f.; Bigg, C., The Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, pp. 328–9Google Scholar; Mayor, J. B., The Epistles of Jude and II Peter, pp. clviii–clxviGoogle Scholar; Strack, H. L. and Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, In, 780–5.Google Scholar

^{page 340 note 6} Cf. Irenaeus, , Adv. Haer. IV. 16. 2Google Scholar; and Leaney, A. R. C., The Letters of Peter and Jude (London: Cambridge University Press, 1967), p. 95.Google Scholar

^{page 340 note 7} Whether or not Jude viewed I Enoch as inspired is not the point. It is sufficient to note that a prophetic statement from a writing held in respect by Jude and his readers was introduced to emphasize and clinch his argument. For the wide use made of I Enoch in late Jewish and early Christian literature, cf. Charles, R. H., Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 11, 177–84.Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 1} Cf. Fitzmyer, Joseph A., ‘The use of explicit Old Testament quotations in Qumran literature and in the New Testament’, N.T.S. VII (1961), 297–333,Google Scholar especially pp. 316 ff. on accommodated and eschatological texts.