Monday, July 29, 2024

Thomas R. Schreiner on Jude 14 and the use of 1 Enoch 1:9

  

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:

 

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Blog Archive