¹ Our intent is to take normal discussion of the use of Jewish pseudepigrapha in Jude one step further, analyzing the writer's use of sources, and offering reasonable justification for his selection without becoming over-speculative.

² Most commentators assume that Jude viewed the Book of Enoch as ‘inspired’. Normally adduced as evidence are several fathers who freely cite from Enoch as scripture, and patristic allusion from the first two centuries which would indeed appear remarkably uncritical. The work is equated with sacred scripture in Barn 4. 3 and 16. 5; by Clement in Adumbrationes in Epistola Judae Catholica (GCS 3.208); and by Tertullian in De cultu feminarum (CChr [Latin] 1.346–7) and De idolatria 15.6 (CChr [Latin] 2.1116). Generally speaking, apocryphal works were more readily received in the Western Church than in the East.

³ James, M. R. (The Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament – Their Titles and Fragments [London-New York: SPCK-Macmillan, 1920] 50Google Scholar) has argued that the Book of Jubilees and the Assumption of Moses circulated together in a volume containing several pseudepigraphical works. It would be worthy of note to consider the resemblance between 7 catchwords employed in Jude and those of another second century B.C. writing – the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: (1) allusion to Enoch (Jude 14; 9 times in the T. 12 Patr.), (2) τηρε´ω (Jude: 5 times; T. 12: 5 times) and φυλα´σσω (Jude 24; T. 12: 31 times), (3) άσε´βεια with cognates (Jude: 5 times; T. 12: 17 times), (4) πλανη´ (Jude 11, 13; T. 12: 25 times), (5) δο´ζαι (Jude 8; T. 12: twice), (6) πυὀαι`ωνιοου (Jude 7; T. 12: twice), (7) πρει´α (Jude 7; T. 12: once), and ὰσε´λγεια (Jude 4; T. 12: once).

⁴ The destination of the epistle has been variously held to be Syria, Egypt, Asia Minor, Corinth, Palestine and the Church at large. Internal evidence would seem to favour a Palestinian milieu: (1) the reputation of James, bishop of Jerusalem, (2) the use of Jewish pseudepigrapha (Hellenists would be less knowledgeable and appreciative of Jewish traditions), and (3) allusions in vv. 5 and 17 to ‘received’ apostolic teaching.

⁵ V. 1: self-designations of the writer ('lούδαζ, δολοζ, άδεφὀζ) and attributes ascribed to the readership (ὴγαπμένοιζ, τετηρημένοιζ, κλητοîζ); v. 2: elements in the greeting (ἔλεοζ, εἱρἡνη, ἀγἀάπη); v. 4: participles modifying the main verb (προγεγραµµε´νοι, οετατιΘε´ντεζ, α`ρνου´µενοι); vv. 5–7: paradigms of judgment (unbelieving Israel, the rebellious angels, Sodom and Gomorrah); v. 8: actions of the οτοι (βλασφηµει̂ν, α`Θετει̂ν, µιαι´νειν); v. 9: indicative actions of Michael (διελε´γετο, ου´κ ε`το´λµησεν, ειπεν); v. 11: examples of woe (Cain, Balaam, Korah); escalation of rebellious action (ε`πορευ´Θησαν, ε`ζεχυ´Θησαν, απω´λοντο); v. 12: traits of those at the love-feasts (σπιλα´δεζ, συνευωχου´μενοiota;, αφο´βωζ); characteristics of the trees (φΘινοπωρινα´, α`´καρπα, δι`ζ α’ποΘανο´ντα ε’κριζωΘντα); v. 13: characteristics of the waves (α`´γρια, ε`παφρι´ζοντα, αισχυ´ναι); vv. 14–15: actions of the Lord (λΘεν, ποιη̂σαι κρσιν, ε’λέγζαι); v. 16: characteristics of the οὗτοι (γογγυσται´, µεµψι´μοιροι, κατα` τα`ζ ε`πιΘυμαζ ε’αυτω̂ν πορευο´µενοι); v. 19: further characteristics (ἀποδιορι´ζοντεζ, ψυχικοι´, πνευ̂μα μη` ε`´χοντεζ); vv. 20–21: presence of the Trinity (Holy Spirit, God, Jesus Christ); participles relating to the writer's imperative (ἐποικδομου̂νεζ, προσευχο´μενοι, προσδεχο´μενοι); vv. 22–23: final imperatives (έλεᾶτε, σᾡζετε, ε´λεα̂τε); and v. 25: divine designations (Θεཀζ, σωτη´ρ, κυ´ριοζ); three-fold view of time (πρò παντò ζ καĺ ĸν και` νυ̂ν και ει´ζ πα´νταζ τουζ αιναζ).

⁶ Six are verbs, four are substantives, three are adjectives, and one is adverbial. Fuchs, E. and Reymond, P. (La deuxième Épitre de Saint Pierre. L'Épitre de Saint Jude [CNT 13b; Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1980] 138Google Scholar) have noted twenty-two terms in Jude which they consider rare.

⁷ See nn. 3, 28 and 29 as well as the discussion of Jude 6.

⁸ The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Book of Jubilees, traces of which are also noticeable in parts of Jude, make explicit and, in the case of the former, frequent reference to ‘the books of Enoch the Righteous’ (T. Lev. 10. 5; 14. 1; T. Jud. 18. 1; T. Sim. 5. 4; T. Dan 5. 6; T. Ben. 9. 1; Jub. 4. 23). Cf. also Sir. 44. 16 and 49. 14. Enoch literature is considered to have been the staple of the Essenes (see C. Daniel, ‘La mention des Esséniens dans le texte grec de l'épitre de Saint Jude’, Mus 81 [1968] 507). It has further been suggested by Grelot, P. (‘Hénoch et les écritures’, RB 82 [1975] 499–500Google Scholar) that two Enoch books, the Book of Astronomy and the Book of Watchers, along with a third work, the Book of Songs, constituted a triadic textbook upon which the Qumran Covenantors based their study of wisdom and science.

⁹ Cf. Hartman, L., Asking for a Meaning. A Study of 1 Enoch 1–5 (ConB 12; Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1979)Google Scholar, and Prophecy Interpreted. The Formation of Some Apocalyptic Texts and of the Eschatological Discourse (Con B 1; Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1966).Google Scholar

¹⁰ For a useful discussion of the apocalypse as an alternative view of history, see Frost, S. B., ‘Apocalyptic and History’, The Bible in Its Literary Milieu (ed. Maier, J. and Tollers, V.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) 134–47.Google Scholar

¹¹ Matt 24 = Mark 13 = Luke 21; prominence of ‘the Son of Man’ in the Gospel narratives; Rom 10. 6–7 (?); 1 Cor 15; 2 Cor 11. 13–15; 12. 1–4; 2 Thess 2; Heb 12. 18–29; 1 Pet 3. 19–20; 2 Pet 2 and 3; Jude; and Revelation.

¹² The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985) 399–400.Google Scholar

¹³ By the second century A.D., the vogue of the apocalypse began to wane.

¹⁴ Consider, for example, the elaborate descriptions found in 1 Enoch 6–23, 40, 64–69 and 100.

¹⁵ The seven archangels of intertestamental literature, according to Strugnell, J. (‘The Angelic Liturgy at Qumrân, 4Q Serek Šîrôt Olat Haššabat’, Congress Volume. Oxford – 1959 [SVT 7; Leiden: Brill, 1960] 329Google Scholar), would appear to be a combination of Ezek 9–10 or Tobit (exhibiting Persian influence) and the Semitic love for the number seven.

¹⁶ In 1 Enoch 72–82, the angelic hierarchy is described in terms of ἄ´ρχοντεζ, η´γου´μενοι, εζουσiota;´αι, δυνα´μειζ, κυριο´τητεζ, ε`ρχαι´, χιλι´αρχοι, ταζι´αρχοι. In 2 Enoch 20. 1, seven levels are given, and in T. Lev. 3. 1–8, a six-fold tier is delineated.

¹⁷ Virtually all commentary, past and present, has related Gen 6. 1–4 to Jude 6 and 2 Pet 2.4.

¹⁸ While theories on Gen 6 and the $$$ are intriguing, the present study concerns itself primarily with Jude's use of 1 Enoch, not 1 Enoch's use of Gen 6. To speculate as to how much Enochic theology Jude might have endorsed remains inconclusive. Stone, M. E. (‘The Book of Enoch and Judaism in the Third Century B.C.E.’, CBQ 40 [1978] 479–92Google Scholar) argues that material from 1 Enoch should not be construed as commentaries on Genesis, but rather as distinctly new articulations which are divorced from Genesis. Similarly, Delcor, M. (‘Le mythe de la chute des anges et de l'origine des géants comme explication du mal dans le monde dans l'apocalyptique juive. Histoire des traditions’, RHR 190 [1976] 51–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar) notes the two contrasting views of the world found in the OT and Jewish apocalyptic literature. The latter Delcor calls ‘remythological’, an approach characterized by syncretism and the assimilation of pagan mythology. The OT approach, on the other hand, an approach adopted by the NT writers, is viewed by Delcor as ‘demythological’.

¹⁹ ‘Rebellion in Heaven, Azazel, and Euhemeristic Heroes in 1 Enoch 6–11’, JBL 96 (1977) 202–3.Google Scholar

²⁰ Hanson, , 208.Google Scholar

²¹ This is probably a play on πλανἡ (‘error’) in v. 11. See also n. 3.

²² Cf. Luke 10. 18, where Satan is depicted as having fallen ω´ α´στραπη´ν also Rev 1. 16, 20;2. 1;3. 1;9. 1;12. 4.

²³ Although the OT offers no explicit background as to the fallen angels, two figures which might serve as types of ‘fallen stars’ are the king of Babylon (Isa 14. 3–20) and the king of Tyre (Ezek 28. 1–19). Both are described, in a form reminiscent of ancient Canaanite creation myths, as dethroned and cast down. In the prophetic taunt of Isa 14, the king, ‘fallen from heaven’, is called $$$, ‘shining one’ or ‘morning star’ (v. 12). Cf. 2 Cor 11. 14, where Satan is characterized as ἄγγελοζ φωτο´ζ.

²⁴ In intertestamental literature, the ‘watchers’ or ‘guardians’ of men are ωύλακεζ.

²⁵ Cf. Rev 18. 2 and 20. 7.

²⁶ E.g., 10.4; 18.11; 21. 7; 22. 1, 2; 54. 5; 56.3; 88.1, 3; 90. 24, 26. Cf. also Rev 20.3.

²⁷ And yet it is noteworthy that Jude, unlike 2 Pet (2. 4–5), omits explicit reference to the Flood and Noah in v. 6. Is it possible that its inclusion might have been wrongly construed as an endorsement of the common intertestamental speculative theology surrounding the ‘sons of God’ and ‘daughters of men’ in Gen 6. 1–4? Indeed, the Book of Enoch, the prime source which Jude is exploiting, contains the most elaborate and fanciful midrash of Gen 6 and the rebellious angels found in Jewish apocalyptic. 1 Enoch 64–67, specifically, offers great detail in linking Noah and the Flood with the fallen angels. To the apocalypticist, the veil which hindered man's perception was the Flood. The patriarchs who lived on the other side, e.g., Enoch, had greater access to divine secrets. Hence, the Flood represented to the apocalypticists what the Exodus had been to the prophets. Jude, had he included both Noah and the Flood (2 Peter alludes to both but contains no Enoch-citation), essentially would have left the impression that he was embracing the breadth of angelic mythology developed so fully in the Book of Enoch.

²⁸ Jude 6: κρι´σιζ οεγα´ληζ η´με´ραζ; Gr Enoch (10. 6; 84.4; 94.9; 98. 10; 99.15; 104. 5): η´ η´µε´ρατζ οεγα´λ τη̂ζ κρι´σεωζ.

²⁹ For a more detailed treatment of Jude 6 and 1 Enoch, see R. Rubinkiewicz, Die Eschatologie von Henoch 9–11 und das Neue Testament (ÖBS 6; Klosterneuburg: Österreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1984) 128–33.

³⁰ De prin. 3. 2: ‘The serpent in Genesis is represented as deceiving Eve, a propos of which, in the Ascension of Moses (a book mentioned by the Apostle Jude in his Epistle), Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, says that the serpent inspired by the devil, was the cause of the transgression of Adam and Eve.’ (reproduced in James, M. R., The Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament – Their Titles and Fragments [London-New York: SPCK-Macmillan, 1920] 44).Google Scholar

³¹ Clement, Origen and Didymus all speak of the ‘Assumption of Moses’. Charles, R. H. (The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament [2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1913], 2.414Google Scholar) describes this work as a ‘testament’ (διαΘη´κη) in the stricter sense, with which the now ost ‘Assumption’ was later combined. Presently, only part of the text is extant, and these fragments do not contain the allusion to Moses‘ burial. Wright, J. S., in ’The Canon of Scripture‘, EυQ 19 (1947) 102Google Scholar, suggested that because the first extant reference to the ’Assumption of Moses' comes to us from only the second century A.D., it is possible that it was compiled after Jude; hence, we may have here an oral tradition.

³² Antiquities 4.8.48.

³³ Vita Moysis 2.291.

³⁴ Stromata 6.132.

³⁵ The extension of this apocryphal legend even down to the sixth century is reflected by Severus of Antioch, quoted in the Catena of Nicephorus on Deut 34. He writes that a bodily image of Moses appeared at the time his body was being wrapped for burial. From the tenth century we learn from Ecumenius‘ commentary on Jude that Michael was to have administered Moses’ burial with Satan standing to contest the right to a sepulchre on the grounds that Moses had murdered an Egyptian, as described in Exod 2. 12 (see Migne, J. P., Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca [Paris: Migne, 1852] 119.713).Google Scholar

³⁶ In the intertestamental depiction of Michael, he is chief among seven archangels and mediator of the Law (cf. Gal 3. 19). He stands at the right hand of heaven's throne to mediate the prayers of the saints, offers the souls of the righteous who have died, and ushers them into Paradise (cf. Leuken, L., ‘Michael’, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart [6 vols.; ed. Schiele, F. M. and Harnack, L.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1913], 4.369–70).Google Scholar

³⁷ The concept of ἀρχα´γγελοζ (only in 1 Thess 4. 16 and Jude 9) would seem to be an intertestamental development. In As. Mos. 10. 2, Michael is ὀ ἀγγελοσ ο´ με´γαζ.

³⁸ The false teachers laid claim to ‘visionary’ experiences, perhaps not unlike that of Col 2. 18 (ἄ ἐο´ρακεν εμβατευ´ων) and could thus justify their actions.

³⁹ In keeping with Jude's – and the intertestamental – view of angels, κυριο´τητα and δο´ξαζ would appear to designate the exalted holy angels, as in Asc. Isa. 7. 21 (‘Worship neither κυριο´τητοζ nor angel which belongs to the six heavens…’) and T. Jud. 25. 2 (‘… οἰ δυνα´μειζτζ δο´ξηζ blessed Simeon …’). Cf. also 2 Enoch 21. 1, 3; T. Jud. 25. 2; 1QH 10. 8; and Philo (Spec. leg. 1.45).

⁴⁰ Jude is essentially restating this sarcastically in v. 19: ‘These are the ones who divide, they are natural (ψυχικοι´), void of the Spirit (πνεμα μη` ε¨χοντεζ). This picture is consistent with later gnostic anthropology. Cf. also 1 Cor 2, where the same dichotomy occurs (implied again in 12. 1–3, where Paul describes the true ‘spirituals’). The ungodly in Jude separate (ἀποδιορι´ξειν) because they feel themselves morally-ethically free from worldly obligations. On the other hand, the truly spiritual (v. 20) are for Jude characterized by prayer which indicates union with the Spirit, not esoteric knowledge.

⁴¹ It is worthy of note that in a more advanced development of gnostic angelology, the place of keeping of the rebellious spirits was moved up to a higher plane: to the sphere of planets.

⁴² Hengel, M., Judaism and Hellenism. Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 1.175.Google Scholar

⁴³ Ibid., 176.

⁴⁴ Consider Sir 44. 16 (‘Enoch pleased the Lord and was taken up as a warning to generations.’), a statement indicative of a growing tradition concerning Enoch in sectarian Judaism. Cf. also Jub. 4. 19; 10. 17; T. Reub. 10. 5; 14. 1; 16. 1; T. Jud. 18. 1; T. Sim. 5. 4; T. Dan 5. 6; T. Naph. 4. 1; and T. Benj. 9. 1. In 1 Enoch, the figure of Enoch functions in an intercessory – indeed almost soteriological – role (e.g., 12. 1; 19. 3; 37. 1; 60. 1; 90. 31).

⁴⁵ Significantly, in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, άσέβεια with cognate forms appears seventeen times (de Jonge, M., The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs [Leiden: Brill, 1978] 213).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Jude's language here resembles the cry developed in the Qumran War Scroll (note also Paul's language in Eph 6. 12). The term ἐπαγωνι´ξομαι may carry a sportive, moral or military sense. Finally, after Jude's readers have ‘fought’ (v. 3), they are able to ‘stand’ (ἴ¨στημι, v. 24), a motif also frequently appearing in Qumran literature (cf. Grundmann, W., ‘Stehen und Fallen im qumranischen und neutestamentlichen Schrifttum’, Qumran-Probleme [ed. Bardtke, H.; Schriften der Sektion für Altertumswissenschaft 42; Berlin: Akademie, 1963] 147–66).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Consider another touch-point between the Assumption of Moses, 1 Enoch and Jude: boasting of the godless. Jude 16 (‘… their mouths speak great things …’) is reminiscent of As. Mos. 7. 9 (‘… their mouths will speak enormous things …’), 1 Enoch 5. 4 and 101. 3 (‘… you utter bold and harsh words against his righteousness …’).

⁴⁸ Jude stresses the absoluteness and oneness of God (δεσπο´τηζ and κúριοζ) to challenge an incipient-gnostic view of deity which furnishes their basis for ethics (ἀσε´λγεια).

⁴⁹ Consider the use of ἀρνἐομαι in 1 John 2. 22, 23 where it virtually acquires a technical sense.

⁵⁰ This progression was suggested earlier this century by Knopf, R. (Die Briefe Petri und Judä [MeyerK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1912] 231).Google Scholar

⁵¹ Thus Boobyer, G. H., ‘The Verbs in Jude 11’, NTS 5 (1958/1959) 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵² Cited from Apocalypsis Henochi Graece. Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum Quae Supersunt Graeca (ed. M. Black and A.-M. Denis; Leiden: Brill, 1970) 19.Google Scholar

⁵³ E.g., Deut 33. 2; Judg 5. 4; Ps 18. 9; 46. 8–9; 68. 17; 76. 9; 96. 13; Isa 19. 1; 31. 4, 27; 40. 10; 66. 15; Jer 25. 31; Dan 7. 10; Amos 1. 2; Joel 3. 2; Mic 1. 3; Hab 3. 3; Zeph 1. 7–9, 12; Hag 2. 22; Zech 3. 8; 9. 14; Mal 3. 3–5.

⁵⁴ A like scenario is to be found in As Mos 7. 1–3.

⁵⁵ ‘The Christological Use of 1 Enoch 1. 9 in Jude 14, 15’, NTS 23 (1976/1977) 334–41.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Asking.

⁵⁷ A century ago, Keil, C. F. (Commentar über die Briefe des Petrus und Judas [Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1883] 322Google Scholar) suggested that Jude's style of quoting could just as easily point to Deut 33. 2 or Zech 14. 1–3 as 1 Enoch 1. 9.

⁵⁸ Though it remains inconclusive whether Jude was dependent on the transmission of an oral or a written tradition, evidence would favour a written text of Enoch being utilized (see the treatment of Jude 6 in particular). For contrasting arguments, see Felton, J., Die zwei Briefe des heiligen Petrus und der Judasbrief (Regensburg: Pustet, 1929) 213Google Scholar, and Schott, Th., Der zweite Brief des Petri und der Brief Judä (Erlangen: Deichert, 1863) 248.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ E.g., Isa 26. 21; 40. 10; Mic 1. 3.

⁶⁰ For a fuller treatment of the OT rîb-pattern, see Harvey, J., Le plaidoyer prophétique contra Israel après la rupture de l'Alliance (Paris-Montréal: Desclée Brouwer – Les Éditions Bellmarmin, 1967).Google Scholar

⁶¹ Note as well the parallel in As Mos 10. 1–10.

⁶² Cf. Gen 5. Tertullian, holding that the Book of Enoch was derived from the historical patriarch, maintained that either Noah had passed on the tradition of his great-grandfather or that the Enoch tradition could have been restored to Jude by the Spirit just as Ezra restored the ancient Hebrew scriptures after the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem. For pertinent commentary by Tertullian, see the English translation of his De cultu feminarum 2.3.1–3 in ANF 4.15–16.

⁶³ A rabbinic midrash cited in Sasson, J. M., ‘A Genealogical “Convention” in Biblical Chronology?’ JBL 98 (1978) 171Google Scholar. See also idem, , ‘Generation, Seventh’, Supplement to Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (ed. Buttrick, G. A.; Nashville-New York: Abingdon, 1962) 354–5.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ De posteritate Caini 173 (for a translation of the text, see Questions and Answers on Genesis [tr. R. Marcus; Cambridge, MA-London: Harvard U.-Heinemann, 1961] 1.58–81).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Strack, H. and Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (4 vols.; München: Beck, 1922–1928) 3.787.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ So Fuchs and Reymond, , 175.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Suggested by Huther, J., Kritisch-exegetisches Handbuch über den 1. Brief des Petrus, den Brief Judas und den 2. Brief des Petrus (MeyerK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1887) 305.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ So Keil, , 320.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Additionally, Jude is justified in utilizing the Enoch ‘prophecy’ based on the introductory statement of the writer of 1 Enoch concerning his heavenly vision: ‘I look not for this generation but for the distant one that is coming’ (1. 2).

⁷⁰ While pressing this argument would border on mere conjecture, it is sustained grammatically by the text and allows for a unity of argument throughout the epistle. Furthermore, it does not compromise Jude's view of an authoritative OT canon (e.g., vv. 5, 7, 11) or authoritative apostolic teaching (i.e., the ‘received’ traditions of vv. 3 and 17).