14
The surprising element to most readers is not the content of the prophecy but
its source. First Enoch is not
considered to be canonical Scripture by any religious group, whether we think
of Judaism, Roman Catholicism, the Greek or Russian Orthodox, or Protestantism.
It seems puzzling that Jude would cite 1
Enoch, for the quotation suggests to some that Jude believed 1 Enoch was part of inspired Scripture
and an inspired book. Some church fathers concluded from this that 1 Enoch itself was inspired (Clement of
Alexandria, Eccl. Proph. 3;
Tertullian, De cultu fem. 1:3),
though this judgment never became persuasive to the church at large. Others in
the history of the church drew the same conclusion but then reasoned that Jude
itself could not be part of the canon (cf. Jerome, De vir ill. 4). It was thought that any writing that considered 1 Enoch to be canonical Scripture could
not itself be canonical. Some have defended Jude’s citation by saying that Jude
cited an oral tradition from the original Enoch and that this tradition found
its way into the pseudepigraphical book.
The issue is not an easy one, but the following
observations may be useful. Taking the last view first, it is difficult to see
how Jude could have been citing an actual oral tradition from the historical
Enoch since the book of Enoch was in circulation in Jude’s day and was well
known in Jewish circles. Jude almost certainly derived the citation from the
book of 1 Enoch, and the latter is
clearly pseudepigraphical. We would be faced with having to say that Jude knew
that this specific quotation from 1 Enoch derived from the historical
Enoch. It is better to conclude that Jude quoted the pseudepigraphical 1 Enoch and that he also believed that
the portion he quoted represented God’s truth. Jude’s wording does not demand
that he thought we have an authentic oracle from the historical Enoch.
We do not need to conclude, however, that the entire book
is part of the canon of Scripture (rightly Augustine, City of God 15.23). Jude probably cited a part of 1 Enoch that he considered to be a
genuine prophecy. Perhaps he referred to Enoch because the adversaries
treasured the work, and thereby he used their own ammunition against them.104
Vögtle suggests that the opponents rejected Christian tradition about Christ’s
coming and hence Jude cited the prophecy from Enoch. Indeed, the content of the
prophecy is not remarkable, assuring the readers that the Lord will truly judge
the ungodly. Citing a quotation from another source does not indicate that the
entire work is inspired, even if the saying drawn upon is true. For instance,
Paul quoted Aratus (Phaenomena 5) in
Acts 17:28, and he surely did not intend to teach that the entire work was
inspired Scripture. Similarly, he quoted Epimenides in Titus 1:12, without any
notion that he accepted the truth of the whole work. Some might think the
citation here is different because Jude said Enoch “prophesied” (proephēteusen). The verb “prophesy” (propheteuō) sometimes is used to
designate canonical Scripture (Matt 15:7; 1 Pet 1:10). But the verb also is
used to say that a certain utterance or saying is from God. For example,
Caiaphas prophesied regarding the fate of Jesus even though he was an
unbeliever (John 11:51). Zechariah prophesied when the Spirit filled him at the
Baptist’s birth (Luke 1:67). Women prophesied when the believing church
gathered as well (1 Cor 11:4–5; cf. Acts 19:6; Rev 11:3). A prophecy may derive
from God and still not be a part of canonical Scripture. We cannot necessarily
draw the conclusion from the words “Enoch prophesied” that the work was
considered to be Scripture. It would have been more telling if Jude had used
the phrase “it is written” with reference to 1 Enoch. Jude simply drew from a part of the work that he
considered true. Bauckham rightly says, “It need not imply that he regarded the
book as canonical Scripture. At Qumran, for example, the Enoch literature and
other apocryphal works were evidently valued without being included in the
canon of Scripture.”
The word kai,
“also” (omitted by the NIV), could connect to either “prophesied” or “these
men.” If the latter, Jude said that Enoch prophesied to his own generation and
also to those of Jude’s day. More likely, however, the conjunction attaches to
the verb, and in that case the NIV’s omission is insignificant exegetically.
The term toutois could be rendered
“to these,” but the dative probably is a dative of reference, so that it means
“with reference to these,” or as the NIV renders it “about these men.”
When Jude said that Enoch was “the seventh from Adam,” he
counted inclusively and began with Adam: Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel,
Jared, Enoch. Perhaps the number “seven” also is symbolic, designating
completion and perfection. Does this indicate that Jude believed the quotation
came from the historical Enoch? Such a conclusion is possible but seems
unlikely. That Enoch was the seventh from Adam is stated explicitly only in the
book of 1 Enoch (60:8; 93:3; cf. Jub. 7:39). It had to be widely known
that the book itself was not written by the historical Enoch. Perhaps Jude
designated the book he cited by calling Enoch the seventh from Adam. The
historical Enoch was very interesting to Jews during the second temple period,
since he did not die but was translated into God’s presence (Gen 5:23–24).
Hebrews confirms that this text was interpreted as saying that Enoch did not
die (Heb 11:5; cf. Sir 44:16; 49:14).
Jewish writers concluded from this that heavenly secrets were conveyed to
Enoch, and it is not surprising that he is an agent of revelation in Jewish
literature.
Scholars have attempted to discern the text Jude used in
his citation of 1 Enoch, and it is
clear that he quoted from 1 Enoch
1:9. For this verse we have the original Aramaic and a Greek, Ethiopic, and
Latin version. Bauckham carefully compares Jude’s citation with the texts we
have. Some believe that Jude cited the Greek version from memory.
Dehandschutter suggests that Jude used “a third form of the Greek text of
Enoch.” Others think Jude was aware of the Greek version but supplied his own
translation from the Aramaic. Certainty on this matter eludes us. English
readers can compare and contrast the differences by noting Isaac’s translation
of 1 Enoch 1:9: “Behold, he will
arrive with ten million of the holy ones in order to execute judgment upon all.
He will destroy the wicked ones and censure all flesh on account of everything
that they have done, that which the sinners and wicked ones committed against
him.” The most interesting divergence in Jude’s quotation is the insertion of kyrios (“Lord”). The term “Lord” is not
in any of the other versions, representing Jude’s Christological interpretation
of the judgment. In applying a text that referred to God’s judgment to Christ,
Jude followed the precedent of other New Testament writers (cf. 1 Thess 3:13; 2
Thess 1:7; Rev 19:13, 15; 22:12). The verb ēlthen
is aorist but is rightly translated by the NIV as a future (“is coming”) and is
equivalent to a “prophetic perfect.” Jude spoke here of the second coming of
Christ. The “holy ones” with whom he will come are his angels. The coming of
Christ is patterned after God’s theophany on Sinai, where he “came with myriads
of holy ones” (Deut 33:2). Zechariah looked forward to the day when “the Lord my God will come, and all the holy
ones with him” (Zech 14:5). That angels will accompany Jesus at his coming is
clearly taught in the New Testament as well (Matt 16:27; 25:31; Mark 8:38; Luke
9:26; 1 Thess 3:13; 2 Thess 1:7). The attendance of the angels at his coming
indicates the event will be stunning and majestic. (Thomas R. Schreiner, 1,
2 Peter, Jude [The New American Commentary 37; Nashville: Broadman &
Holman Publishers, 2003], 468-72)
To Support this Blog: