A Structural Commentary on the So-Called Antilegomena: Volume 2. The Letter of Jude: Expecting Mercy [1 ed.] 9783666573385, 9783525573389, 9783525573303

Citation preview

Format: BEZ 155x230, Aufriss: HuCo

EASTERN AND CENTRAL EUROPEAN VOICES

41 mm

VOL. 3.2

3.2 Kalina Wojciechowska / Mariusz Rosik

The Authors Kalina Wojciechowska, a Lutheran biblical scholar, is professor in the Department of New Testament Studies and Greek Language of the Christian Theological Academy in Warsaw, lecturer at the Evangelical School of Theology (EWST) in Wrocław and at the University of Warsaw and vice-president of the Theological Sciences Committee at the Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN).

A Structural Commentary on the So-Called Antilegomena

Mariusz Rosik teaches New Testament exegesis, biblical environment and Jewish history at the Pontifical Faculty of Theology and at the University of Wrocław. He is a member of Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas (Cambridge), Polish Biblical Society (Warszawa) and Associazzione degli Ex-alunni del Pontificio Istituto Biblico (Rome). Prof. Dr habil. Mariusz Rosik has published over sixty books and many articles in fourteen languages.

A Structural Commentary on the So-Called Antilegomena Wojciechowska / Rosik

This ecumenical (Roman Catholic—Lutheran) commentary “Expecting for the Mercy” is devoted exclusively to the Epistle of Jude. The analysis takes Jude 14–15 at its centre and develops the chiastic structure of the text, drawing on a hermeneutic perspective applied to interpret apocalyptic texts and giving account of the Jewish tradition. This commentary emphasizes the letter’s soteriological message and Christology.

Volume 2: The Letter of Jude: Expecting Mercy

ISBN 978-3-525-57338-9

9 783525 573389

ECEV

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Eastern and Central European Voices Studies in Theology and Religion

Edited by Rajmund Pietkiewicz and Krzysztof Pilarczyk

In co-operation with Piotr Burgon´ski (Poland), Wojciech Gajewski (Poland), Cyril Hisˇem (Slovakia), Mirosław Kiwka (Poland), Mihály Laurinyecz (Hungary), Piotr Lorek (Poland), Dominik Opatrný (Czech Republic), Adrian Podaru (Romania), Kristina Rutkovska (Lithuania), Oleg Salamon (Ukraine), Sławomir Stasiak (Poland), Jose M. Vegas (Russia)

Volume 3.2

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Kalina Wojciechowska / Mariusz Rosik

A Structural Commentary on the So-Called Antilegomena Volume 2

The Letter of Jude: Expecting Mercy

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

The book was financed from the subsidy granted by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek: The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: https://dnb.de. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek listsTheaterstraße this publication the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; © 2021 by Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 13,in37073 Göttingen, Germany, an imprint of the detailed bibliographic dataBrill available online: https://dnb.de. Brill-Group (Koninklijke NV, Leiden, The Netherlands; Brill USA Inc., Boston MA, USA; Brill Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore; Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn, Germany; © 2021 by Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Theaterstraße 13, 37073 Göttingen, Germany, an imprint of the Brill Österreich GmbH, Vienna, Austria) Brill-Group Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands; Brill USA Inc., Boston USA; Brill Koninklijke (Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, BrillMA, Schöningh, Asia Ltd, Singapore; Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn, Germany; GmbH, Brill Pte Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau, Verlag AntikeBrill andÖsterreich V&R unipress. Vienna, Austria) Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brillreserved. mentis, Vandenhoeck Ruprecht, Böhlau, Verlagor Antike andinV&R unipress. All rights No part of this&work may be reproduced utilized any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, photocopying, recording, or any information storage This publication is licensedincluding under a Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial – Noand retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Derivatives 4.0 International license, at https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385. For a copy of this license go to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Any use in cases other Coverthose design: SchwabScantechnik, than permitted by this license Göttingen requires the prior written permission from the publisher. Publishing reviews: Prof. Marek Jerzy Uglorz (Christian Theological Academy in Warsaw) and Prof. Mirosław Wróbel (The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin) Cover design: SchwabScantechnik, Göttingen Translation:reviews: Magdalena Wrocław Publishing Prof. Konopko, Dariusz Kotecki (Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń) and Indexes: Anna S. Kryza, Wrocław Prof. Mirosław Wróbel (The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin) Typesetting:Monika le-tex publishing services, Leipzig Translation: and Jacek Szela, Wrocław Indexes: Anna Kryza, Wrocław Printed and le-tex bound: Hubert &services, Co. BuchPartner, Typesetting: publishing Leipzig Göttingen Printed in the EU

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISSN 2749-6279 ISBN 978-3-666-57338-5 ISSN 2749–6260 ISBN 978–3–525–57330–3

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Table of Contents

List of abbreviations ............................................................................. Bibliographical abbreviations .................................................................. Apocrypha ............................................................................................ Dead Sea Scrolls .................................................................................... Ancient Writings ................................................................................... Grammar abbreviations ..........................................................................

7 7 7 8 8 9

Preface ................................................................................................ 11 1. Introduction ..................................................................................... 1.1 Textual testimonies and canonicity ................................................ 1.2 Author....................................................................................... 1.3 Time of origin ............................................................................ 1.3.1 Authorship ........................................................................ 1.3.2 Doctrine and institutionalization of the Church...................... 1.3.3 Ideas of false teachers .......................................................... 1.3.4 Relationship to Paul ............................................................ 1.3.5 Interpretation of the term ‘apostle’ ........................................ 1.3.6 Relation to 2 Peter .............................................................. 1.4 Recipients .................................................................................. 1.5 Vocabulary and style ................................................................... 1.6 Genre ........................................................................................ 1.7 Structure....................................................................................

17 17 25 38 39 39 43 46 47 48 50 54 60 68

2. Structural commentary..................................................................... 2.1 A. Salvation (Jude 1–3) ................................................................ 2.2 B. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 4).......................................... 2.3 A’. Salvation (Jude 5a–b) ............................................................... 2.4 B’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 5c) ........................................ 2.5 B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19).................................... 2.5.1 Part a. Judgement rooted in the beginnings of salvation history (Jude 6–7) ................................................. 2.5.2 Part b. Reference to the situation of the recipients (Jude 8–13) ........................................................................ 2.5.2.1 Triplet part 1 ...........................................................

75 75 97 110 124 131

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

135 161 161

6

Table of Contents

2.5.2.2 Triplet part 2 ........................................................... 190 2.5.2.3 Triplet part 3 ........................................................... 218 2.5.3 Part c. Eschatological judgment foretold from the beginning of salvation history (Jude 14–15) ........................... 257 2.5.4 Part b’. Reference to the situation of the recipients (Jude 16)............................................................................ 301 2.5.5 Part a’. End times (Jude 17–18) ............................................. 322 2.5.6 Part b’’. Reference to the situation of the recipients (Jude 19)............................................................................ 341 2.6 A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25) ............................................................ 352 2.6.1 Part a. Syncrisis (Jude 20–23) ............................................... 353 2.6.2 Part b. The soteriological thesis (Jude 24–25a) ........................ 388 2.6.3 Part c. Doxology (Jude 25b) ................................................. 405 3. Conclusions..................................................................................... 417 Bibliography ......................................................................................... Biblical texts.......................................................................................... Apocryphal literature ............................................................................. Ancient Christian writers........................................................................ Other ancient writers ............................................................................. Dictionaries, synopses and concordances .................................................. Commentaries....................................................................................... Studies .................................................................................................

421 421 422 424 427 432 432 434

Index of persons ................................................................................... 441 Index of references ............................................................................... Bible .................................................................................................... Apocrypha............................................................................................ Others ..................................................................................................

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

449 449 475 485

List of abbreviations

Bibliographical abbreviations APOTEn Charles, Robert Henry, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, vol. 2, Oxford 1913 ANF Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1–8, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, Arthur Cleveland Coxe, New York/Buffalo 1885–1886, revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight JSNT “Journal for the Study of the New Testament” JSNTSup “Journal for the Study of the New Testament” (Supplement Series) LCL Loeb Classical Library LXX Septuagint NTS “New Testament Studies” SBL Society of Biblical Literature HT Hebrew Text

Apocrypha 1 En 2 En 4 Ba ActsTmSir ApAbr ApBaSyr/2 Ba AscIsa InfGTh Jub SibOr ProtEvJ PssSol TAsh TBenj TDan TIss TJud TLev

First Book of Enoch (Etiopian) Second Book of Enoch (Slavonic) 4 Baruch The Acts of the Apostle Jude Thomas (Syrian) Apocalypse of Abraham Apocalypse of Baruch (Syrian) Ascension of Isaiah Infancy Gospel of Thomas Book of Jubilees Sibylline Oracles Protoevangelium of James Psalms of Solomon Testament of Asher Testament of Benjamin Testament of Dan Testament of Issachar Testament of Judah Testament of Levi

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

8

List of abbreviations

TMos TNaph TZeb

Testament of Moses Testament of Naphtali Testament of Zebulun

Dead Sea Scrolls 1QpHab 1QpMic 1QapGen 1QS 1QSa 1QM 1QH 4Q176 4Q177 4Q183 4Q182 4Q227 4Q280 4Q286 4Q287 4Q369 4Q544 4QpIsa 4QpIsb 4QpNah 4QFlor 4Q204 11QMelch CD

Pesher on Habakkuk Pesher on Micah (1Q14) Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20 ar) Community Rule Rule of the Congregation (1Q28a) War Scroll Hymns (11Q5/11QPsa ) Tanhumim (4QTanh) Eschatological commentary (4Q Catena a) Eschatological commentary e (4QHistorical Work) Eschatological commentary Book of Jubilees c (4QpsJub c) Blessings f (4QBer f) Blessings a (4QBer a) Berakhot (4Q Ber b) Player of Enosh (4QPEnosh) Visions of Amram b (4QAmram b ar) Pesher on Isaiah a (4Q161) Pesher on Isaiah b (4Q162) Pesher on Nahum (4Q169) Midrash on Eschatology a (4Q174/4QMidrEschata ) Enoch c (4QEnc ar) Melchizedek document (11Q13) Damascus Rule/Damascus Covenant/Cairo Damascus Document

Ancient Writings 1 Clem. First Epistle by Clement of Rome 2 Clem. Second Epistle by Clement of Rome Adv. Haer. Adversus Haereses by Irenaeus of Lyon Ant. Antiquitates Iudaicae by Titus Flavius Josephus Bell. Iud. De Bello Iudaico by Titus Flavius Josephus

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Grammar abbreviations

Barn. Did. HE Mos.

The Epistle of Barnabas Didache Historia ecclesiastica by Eusebius of Caesarea De vita Mosis by Philo of Alexandria

Grammar abbreviations acc. ACI act. aor. con. dat. fut. gen. imp. ind. masc. med. nom. part. pass. perf. pl. praes. sg.

accusativus accusativus cum infinitivo activum aoristus coniunctivus dativus futurum genetivus imperativus indicativus masculinum medium nominativus participium passivum perfectum pluralis praeses singularis

Manuscript designations after Novum Testamentum graece, ed. Erwin Nestle, Barbara Aland, edn 28, Stuttgart 2012.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

9

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Preface

“The Letter of Jude is the most neglected book in the New Testament”, proclaimed Douglas J. Rowston in 1975 in an article with that title (The Most Neglected Book in The New Testament) published in “New Testament Studies” 21. Most contemporary commentaries on the Letter of Jude written after 1975 begin with this sentence. In 1983, Richard Bauckham referred to it. Lamenting that in writing his commentary (Jude, 2 Pet, Waco 1983) he could not take into account the rich and varied literature because it simply does not exist, he in fact echoed the diagnosis of Douglas J. Rowston. Indeed, against the background of commentaries and contributions to theology of the other books of the New Testament, the bibliography relating to the Letter of Jude until the 1980s was far less impressive. Among the more significant commentaries one should mention the works from the beginning of the twentieth century by Charles Bigg, Joseph Bickersteth Mayor and Montagure Rhodes James, as well as commentaries written in the second half of the twentieth century by John Norman Davidson Kelly, Bo Reicke, Walter Grundmann, Karl Hermann Schelkle, or the basic research on the establishment of the original wording of Jude by Carroll D. Osburn. The situation began to change in the 1990s, when the following issues came to be addressed: rhetoric (Duane F. Watson; Stephan J. Joubert), literary structure (Ernst R. Wendland, Kevin Cassidy, Carroll D. Osburn), textual criticism (Charles Landon, Jarl Fossum,), the literature genre used in Jude and how it was applied and interpreted (Walter M. Dunnett, J. Daryl Charles). In addition, classical commentaries kept appearing, usually covering the Second Letter of Peter, alongside the Letter of Jude (J. Daryl Charles, Jerome H. Neyrey, Michael Green, Norman Hillyer, Jonathan Knight), the First and Second Letter of Peter (Fred Craddock, Levis R. Doneson, Rebecca Skaggs) or the Catholic letters (Andrew Chester, Ralph Philip Martin, Simon J. Kistemaker, Otto Knoch, William Brosend, Richard Ch. H. Lenski, Wayne F. MacLeod, David R. Nienhuis and Robert W. Wall). Another turn could be seen in the early twenty-first century, especially in the years immediately preceding and in the period immediately following the conference entitled Methodological Reassessments of the Letters of James, Peter and Jude organised in 2007 by the Society of Biblical Literature. The aftermath of the conference is a paper published in 2008, edited by Robert L. Webb and Peter H. Davids, Reading Jude with New Eyes. Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of Jude (London 2008), which brings together essays on a new look at the Letter of Jude, i.e. the use of literary, rhetorical, socio-historical, sociological methods and various hermeneutics and

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

12

Preface

even ideologies in the analysis of this neglected book. In doing so, it is shown how methodology affects the extraction and presentation of the message of the text. Nowadays, Biblical literature is increasingly concerned with issues related to the Letter of Jude, its construction, sources, ideology, theology, the methodology used by the hagiographer based on midrash and pesher, etc. Gene L. Green, in his commentary (Jude and 2 Peter, Grand Rapids 2013), has somewhat overstated this renaissance of interest in the Letter of Jude, since the text has never been the object of vigorous scholarly study and there is still a perceived disproportion between texts devoted to the Letter of Jude (and the Second Epistle of Peter) and the other books of the New Testament. This lack of interest is reflected not only in the literature but also, as Peter H. Davids notes (The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, Grand Rapids 2006), in academic reflection and church teaching, for one rarely hears sermons based on this text and there are rarely lectures or seminars devoted exclusively to the Letter of Jude. Usually academics – probably following the pattern of most commentaries – combine it with the Second Epistle of Peter and/or other Catholic epistles. The best evidence for this is a collection of essays edited by Eric Farrel Mason and Troy W. Martin and published by SBL in 2014 as Resources for Students, which covers issues specific to the First and Second Epistles of Peter in addition to those of the Letter of Jude (Reading 1–2 Peter and Jude, Atlanta 2014). The Polish biblical literature on the Letter of Jude is not much different. There are not many studies, they are mostly introductory (Roman Bartnicki, Bogusław Seremet), and the commentaries, even the latest ones, connect the Letter of Jude with the Second Epistle of Peter (Franciszek Mickiewicz), while slightly older ones with other universal letters (Feliks Gryglewicz, Hugolin Langkammer, Mariusz Rosik, Mirosław S. Wróbel). Formerly, distrust towards the Letter of Jude was connected primarily with the fact that the author refers to non-canonical writings – Enochean literature (expressis verbis he quotes 1 En 1:9) and the Testament of Moses, or rather its last fragment, the Assumption of Moses, to which he refers not only in a motific way as in verse 9 and 23, but also lexically in verse 16. Already in antiquity, the authorship of the letter was questioned, and the text itself even in the fourth century was included in the socalled antilegomena (together with 2 Pet and 2–3 John). It does not appear in Syriac translations of the New Testament until the sixth century. In late antiquity and the Middle Ages, disputes about canonicity and apostolicity quieted down, but were revived in the sixteenth century during the Reformation. Since the Enlightenment, the content of the letter, subordinated, as it was believed, to the call to defend the faith and concentrated on the ethical parenesis – warning not to act as immorally as the false teachers, so as not to share their fate at the final judgment – has aroused resentment. Theological value of the text was overlooked, so discussions on the subject were generally not undertaken. The popularity of Jude could not grow because of its mysteriousness: data on the sender and recipients are very vague, it

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Preface

is difficult to reconstruct the environment in which the letter was written and to which it was addressed. Moreover, it is impossible on the basis of the content to identify the false teachers and their teaching, which was initially associated with Gnosticism. Here it is not only the limited data that stand in the way, but also the vituperative, mocking and discrediting convention that exaggerates the existing vices and attributes to opponents those non-existent ones and resulting behaviour. However, this was not always the case. In early Christianity, the Letter of Jude must have had great authority, since the author of the Second Letter of Peter decided to include almost the entire text of Jude in his writing. The Alexandrian fathers – Tertullian, Origen and Clement of Alexandria – were not distrustful; moreover, they themselves used arguments based on the same sources as Jude, namely the Enochean tradition. They emphasised the inspiration and theological qualities of the letter; Origen, not coincidentally, calls it “full of heavenly grace”. (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 10:17) The authors of Expecting mercy. A Structural Commentary on the Letter of Jude, hope that it will restore Jude’s letter to its rightful place also in contemporary biblical reflection. That is why they offer the Readers a commentary devoted exclusively to the Letter of Jude, which is rare in the literature on the subject. The commentary consists of two parts. The first one, introductory, covers issues connected with the oldest testimonies of the text, its canonicity, authorship, time of writing and recipients. Hypotheses of authenticity and pseudepigraphy are quoted and commented on, as well as arguments pointing to early dating (60s of the first century) and late (turn from the first to the second century) dating of the letter. Much attention has been paid to the style and lexis of the letter, and consequently to its literary sources and the way they were used. These elements are developed in the commentary section, in which the identification of the materials used by Jude, coming from the Judaic and Hellenistic traditions, plays a significant role. This is because it indicates not only the hagiographer’s familiarity with both traditions and his readership, but also presents the way in which they were used, subordinated on the one hand to literary conventions and Jewish methods of interpreting the text, and on the other to Jude’s clearly Christocentric hermeneutics. Literary genre is closely related to issues of style, lexis, sources and methodology, while text structure is closely related to genre. Research on structure can be observed as early as the 1950s. They were superimposed by genological studies – the subordination of the text to the requirements of ancient epistolography (assuming that Jude was primarily conceived as a letter) or to the requirements of rhetoric (assuming that Jude was to be a sermon). In addition to elements typical of both epistolography and classical rhetoric, the principles of Hebrew rhetoric prove helpful in examining the structure of Jude which highlights the main theme of the letter. It is not always fully revealed in the opening sentences, especially when reading the text in a linear fashion; in Jude it is announced in verse 3 and 5,

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

13

14

Preface

but a structural analysis, which reveals the chiastic structure of the letter, makes it possible to show that verses 14–15 constitute the centre of the text, its main theological idea, which combines elements of Jude’s soteriology, Christology and hermeneutics. These verses also represent the climax of the warning argument and begin the turn to the mercy argument. The second – commentary – part of the study is organised around this chiastic structure. For this reason, the commentary can be called “structural”. In the commentary section each of the analysed fragments is preceded by a philological translation with translator’s variants (marked with a slash). Elements absent from the source text, but helpful in its understanding have been placed in square brackets. An attempt has also been made to indicate the structure of individual passages, which makes it possible to expose the essential theological message and rhetorical principles. Thus, one may notice the hagiographer’s tendency to use triplets and explicative parallelisms. In theological layer, elements of pre-existential Christology appear in the first part, while in the second they find an eschatological solution. Quotations from extra-biblical literature, both Jewish and Greek, as well as from the early Christian and patristic tradition, have been introduced for the convenience of the reader, so that the reader will not need to search for the source texts and comparative material. When pointing out analogies with the biblical canonical literature, the authors generally confine themselves to giving sigla unless the differences between the Hebrew text and the LXX text are explained in more detail, in which case the biblical texts are quoted at length also in the original version. As already mentioned, the commentary aims to restore the autonomy of the Letter of Jude and its rightful place in contemporary theological reflection. The Letter has much to offer theologians, especially those interested in Judeo- and early Christian theology, the formation of Christology, the process of canonization of Jewish and Christian writings, the development of canonical consciousness, and finally apocalyptic-eschatological oriented methods of interpreting texts considered inspired. It is no coincidence that a quotation from Jude 21: “expecting mercy”, which summarises theological message of the letter, is used as the title of this commentary. Jude writes about “our common salvation” from a non-obvious, judicial perspective. He emphasises that from the beginning, judgement is inscribed in the history of salvation, it concerns both the righteous and the ungodly, and it in no way denies a soteriology conceived in a liberatory way as liberation from sin and death, since it is at the judgement that “the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life” will be fully revealed. The images of punishment for the ungodly are of a warning nature; Jude suggests them to his recipients as arguments in their “contend[ing] for the faith/over the faith once for all delivered/handed down/entrusted to the saints”. At the same time, he urges the recipients to show

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Preface

mercy to false teachers by proclaiming the whole doctrine of salvation based on the true revelation handed down by the patriarchs, prophets and apostles, exhorting and converting apostates so that they too may eventually experience God’s mercy and abide in God’s presence. Expecting mercy is a study of the second text belonging to the antilegomena as seen by Eusebius of Caesarea. Both the structural approach of the commentary and the title taken directly from the biblical text refer to the previous work by both authors, Mądrość zstępująca z góry. Komentarz strukturalny do Listu św. Jakuba, Warszawa 2018/A Structural Commentary on the Antilegomena, vol. 1: The Letter of James: Wisdom that Comes from Above (ECEV 3.1), Göttingen 2021. Similarly to the study of the Letter of James, this publication is also ecumenical in nature, involving the presentation of an accepted commentary rather than a CatholicLutheran discrepancy protocol. At this point, thanks are also due to the Orthodox theologian, Dr Vsevolod Konach of the Christian Theological Academy, with whom some theological issues (mainly Christological) referring to the Eastern patristic tradition were consulted. The monograph on the Letter of James was published one year after the fivehundredth anniversary of the publishing of 95 theses by Martin Luther, which testified to the ecumenical rapprochement between Catholic and Lutheran theology; the present commentary was written on the twentieth anniversary of the Joint Declaration on Justification signed in 1999 by the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation. In a joint statement on the conclusion of the year of the common commemoration of the Reformation, the Lutheran World Federation and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity stressed that “while the past cannot be changed, its influence upon us today can be transformed to become a stimulus for growing communion, and a sign of hope for the world to overcome division and fragmentation”.1 It is to be hoped that the ecumenical structural commentary on the Letter of Jude fits into this ecumenical activity.

1 Joint Statement by the Lutheran World Federation and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity on the Conclusion of the Year of the Common Commemoration of the Reformation, 31st October 2017.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

15

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

1.

Introduction

1.1

Textual testimonies and canonicity

The oldest copy of the Letter of Jude that has survived to modern times is found in P72 . The manuscript dates back to the third/fourth century, consists of 72 pages and, apart from the Letter of Jude, it also contains: 1–2 Peter; the Old Testament texts (LXX): Ps 33:3–34:16; the eleventh Ode of Solomon; the apocryphal Life of Mary and the correspondence between the Apostle Paul and the Corinthians; and early Christian writings – the Paschal homily of Melito of Sardis and the Apology of Phileas.1 The copy of Jude belongs to an Alexandrian family, is well preserved, although the carelessness and perhaps the bias of its copyists makes it impossible to reconstruct the original text. More than thirty differences between P72 and other textual testimonies are usually enumerated.2 The copyist, most likely accustomed to the itacistic pronunciation, had a problem distinguishing ι and ει, hence the error in the title of the letter: Ιουδα επειστολη; iotacism or itacism is also the cause of errors in verse 4, where instead of παλαι there is παλε, and in verse 5, where instead of Αιγυπτου one finds Εγυπτου. The spelling of ζοη instead of ζωη in Jude 213 is also striking. The genetivus of Ιησου Χριστου ‘of Jesus Christ’ is always abbreviated to ιηυ χρυ, the name Ενωχ in Jude 14 as non-Greek is marked with a horizontal dash above νω. Instead of the name Βαλααμ there appears what at first sight looks like a hybrid word – Βαλαακ. Such a spelling may result from the carelessness of the copyist, but it may also be a deliberate device on Christological grounds. The intention was to absolve Balaam, a prophet predicting Christ (cf. 2 Pet 1:19–21), of the blame and place it on Balak.4 One of the most significant features of Jude in P72 is the occurrence of the term θεος Χριστος ‘God Christ’ in Jude 5b, where most manuscripts read κυριος, only some Ιησους (e.g. A B 33. 81. 2344), and others θεος (C2 5 vgmss ).5 The copyist very clearly identifies Christ as God, which may stem from a desire to use the text in anti-Adoptionist polemics6 and from an interest in the deity and pre-existence of Christ in the circles for which the codex of P72 was intended. The latter explanation is supported by the inclusion of the homilies of Melito and the Apology of Phileas in 1 2 3 4 5 6

T. Wassermann, Papyrus 72 and the Bodmer Miscellaneous Codex, NTS 51 (2005), no. 1, p. 140. J.R. Royse, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri, Leiden–Boston 2008, p. 556, 561–563. T. Wassermann, Papyrus 72, p. 150–151. T.S. Coulley, ΒΑΛΑΑΚ in the P72 Text of Jude 11: A Proposal, NTS 55 (2009), p. 81. These issues will be discussed in detail when analysing Jude 5 in the commentary section. T. Wassermann, Papyrus 72, p. 153.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

18

Introduction

the collection 3 Corinthians.7 There are also harmonisations in P72 . This applies, for example, to Jude’s doxology (Jude 24–25). The text in Jude 24 is harmonised with Rom 16:25, so στηριξαι is used instead of φυλαξαι, while in Jude 25 the formula αυτῳ δοξα κρατος τιμη,8 typical of doxology or inspired by Rev 5:13, is added. This oldest known copy of Jude was made in Egypt, probably for monks living according to the rule of Pachomius; however, it is impossible to determine whether it was a text used only privately or whether it was used in the liturgy.9 Nevertheless, P72 testifies that Jude was known among Egyptian Christians in the third/fourth century. Its inclusion in the codex together with the apocrypha confirms that the Church of Alexandria tended to maximise the list of Christian normative books, from which some writings were later deleted after the canon had been constituted.10 From third/fourth-century Egypt comes also one fragmentarily preserved card – most probably representing Alexandrian family P78 – which contains Jude 4–5, 7–8. It was once probably a whole miniature codex, which due to its small size (approximately 10 × 2.5 cm) and rather inelegant handwriting could serve as an amulet.11 In the surviving fragment there are no substantial differences from the contemporary textus receptus (NA 28). Of the more significant ones, three may be mentioned: in verse 5, the transitive αδελφοι is added after the verb βουλομαι; in verse 7, instead of υπεχουσαι (‘to bear’, ‘to suffer’, ‘to experience [punishment]’), επεχουσαι (‘to keep’, ‘to pay attention’) appears; in verse 8, instead of δοξας (‘glories’), there is δοξαν (‘glory’). As in P72 , here too the name of Jesus Christ in gen. is abbreviated. It is difficult to deduce what the earlier reception of the text was. Some parallels can be noticed between Jude and The Didache, The First Epistle by Clement of Rome, The Epistle of Barnabas, The Martyrdom of Polycarp, the texts of Justin Martyr, Athenagoras or Theophilus, but it is not possible to prove unequivocally that these texts quote Jude. It is more likely that they draw on the same sources. This means that today we have no first/second-century copies that could confirm that Christian circles knew Jude. The only clear and reliable witness to the existence and knowledge of Jude’s text in the first century is 2 Peter, which, as is generally accepted today, not only revelas a dependence on Jude, but even incorporates the entire Letter of Jude into its structure, though obviously not in extenso. This testifies

7 8 9 10

T.S. Coulley, ΒΑΛΑΑΚ, p. 80. T. Wassermann, Papyrus 72, p. 154. Ibid. G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), Grand Rapids 2013, p. 65. 11 P.W. Comfort, D.P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts, Wheaton 2001, p. 612.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Textual testimonies and canonicity

to the authority of Jude in the early post-apostolic period,12 and by the end of the second century the letter seems to have gained even wider acceptance.13 This early authority and wide acceptance, however, did not protect the letter from later debates about its canonicity and normativity. It should be noted that the canonicity of Jude is to be considered on two levels. The first concerns the recognition of the letter itself as a normative writing for the Church; the second pertains to the references to non-canonical writings present in the letter, i.e the quotation from 1 En 1:9 in Jude 14–15 treated as an excerpt from the prophetic writings, but also more discreet references to intertestamental literature, including the Testament of Moses (cf. Jude 9). The latter became increasingly problematic in the third/fourth centuries14 and affected the reception of Jude in the Christian world. This may be regarded as a regression in the treatment of the letter, since it was already given the attention due to canonical writings by the African fathers from the second/third century: Tertullian, Origen and Clement of Alexandria,15 and earlier even by the authors of the Muratorian Canon from the end of the second century.16 It should be noted, however, that neither Irenaeus of Lyons nor Cyprian of Carthage seem to have used it.17 Origen in his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (10:17) describes the Letter of Jude as “filled with the healthful words of heavenly grace”, but in the same work (17:30) he also mentions that some people reject18 the letter. Tertullian in 202 AD19 even invokes the authority of Jude to justify references to 1 En in his treatise De cultu feminarum 1:3. In doing so, he argued that Christians should not reject, on the contrary, they should treat as inspired even those extra-biblical writings that speak of Christ and for this reason have been questioned by the Jews. He thus refers to the Christocentric hermeneutic applied by the narrator in Jude 14–15 to the interpretation of 1 Enoch. A similar argumentation is later put forward by Augustine, who in The City of God states that Jude’s quotation of a non-canonical though inspired book does not threaten the

12 P.H. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude (The Pillar New Testament Commentary), Grand Rapids 2006, p. 83. 13 D.A. Carson, D.J. Moo, L. Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament, Manila 1992, p. 461. 14 R. Dutcher, An Unorthodox Argument and Jude’s Non-Canonical Sources, “Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies” 11 (2008), no. 1–2, p. 33. 15 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude (Black’s New Testament Commentaries), London 1982, p. 223. 16 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (World Biblical Commentary 50), Waco 1983, p. 17. 17 T. Skibiński, Listy katolickie w starożytności chrześcijańskiej, “Vox Patrum” 28 (2008), p. 941. 18 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 223. 19 N.J. Moore, Is Enoch also among the Prophets? The Impact of Jude’s Citation of 1 Enoch on the Reception of Both Texts in the Early Church, “The Journal of Theological Studies. New Series” 64 (2013), no. 2, p. 499.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

19

20

Introduction

canonicity of the letter; on the contrary, rather, the canonicity of the Letter of Jude ennobles the apocryphal text: We cannot deny that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, left some divine writings, for this is asserted by the Apostle Jude in his canonical epistle. But it is not without reason that these writings have no place in that canon of Scripture which was preserved in the temple of the Hebrew people by the diligence of successive priests […]: heir antiquity brought them under suspicion, and it was impossible to ascertain whether these were his genuine writings […]. the writings which are produced under his name, and which contain these fables about the giants […], are properly judged by prudent men to be not genuine (The City of God XV 23).

Tertullian’s (and later Augustine’s) argumentation did not convince everyone, especially as canonical awareness among Christians increased significantly in the third century, although the process of forming the canon itself was not yet complete. There were doubts not only about the Book of Enoch, but also about Jude itself, which quotes Enoch. Therefore, in the fourth century, Eusebius includes Jude among the antilegomena, disputed writings, but points out that it is recognized by many: Among the disputed writings (τῶν δ’ἀντιλεγομένων), which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude (ἡ λεγομένη Ἰούδα), also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John (HE III 25:3, cf. HE VI 13:6, 14:1).

Earlier, he stated that, although few early Christian writers mention and/or quote from this letter, it came into common ecclesiastical use: not many of the ancients have mentioned it [the Letter of Jude], as is the case likewise with the epistle that bears the name of Jude, which is also one of the seven so-called catholic epistles. Nevertheless we know that these also, with the rest, have been read publicly in very many churches (HE II 23:25).

Eusebius does not explain what the nature of those doubts about Jude is. This is done a little later (in 392 AD)20 by Jerome in his treatise De Viris Illustribus 4: Jude the brother of James, left a short epistle which is reckoned among the seven catholic epistles, and because in it he quotes from the apocryphal Book of Enoch it is rejected by

20 N.J. Moore, Is Enoch, p. 500.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Textual testimonies and canonicity

many. Nevertheless by age and use it has gained authority and is reckoned among the Holy Scriptures.

According to Jerome, the authority of the Letter of Jude is based not so much on its content as on its antiquity (which can be largely identified with its apostolic origin) and on the use of the letter in and by the Church (which can be understood primarily as parenetic and disciplinary use). Despite these doubts, the Letter of Jude appears in most of the canonical lists of the Church developing in the Mediterranean basin in the fourth and fifth centuries (e.g. in the Easter letter of Athanasius of 367, in the decisions of the synod Laodicea of 363 and in the decisions of the synod of Carthage of 397).21 Syria is an exception: there the canonicity of the letter of Jude was not recognised until the sixth century,22 so the letter was not included in the Peshitta (fourth/fifth century), but only in the translation of 507–508 called the Philoxenian after the translator, Philoxenus.23 Doubts about the canonicity and normativity of the letter were revived at the time of the Reformation, although its canonicity was supported by the Council of Florence in 1441, which published a catalogue of normative writings for the Church in the document Decretum pro Iacobitis.24 Luther, citing ancient objections and hesitations, placed Jude in the collection of New Testament antilegomena along with James, Hebrews and Revelation. In his 1522 Preface to the Epistles of Saint James and Saint Jude, he wrote: no one can deny that it is an extract or copy from St Peter’s second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles as a disciple coming long after them, and quotes sayings and stories that are found nowhere in the Scriptures. This moved the ancient Fathers to throw this Epistle out of the main body of the Scriptures. Moreover, Jude, the Apostle, did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I praise the book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books, which are to lay the foundation of faith.

As can be seen, Luther’s distrust is aroused by four issues: first, Jude is secondary to 2 Peter. Second, the narrator’s invocation of extra-biblical stories (the plural indicates that the reformer does not mean only the quotation from 1 En in Jude 14–15, but also other allusions to Enochean literature and the tradition related to Moses in Jude 9). Third, the ancient controversies. Fourth and finally, the uncertainty

21 22 23 24

P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 83. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 17. G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 66. T. Skibiński, Listy, p. 938.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

21

22

Introduction

about the apostolic authorship of the text arising from the belief in the late dating of the letter and from the confrontation of the Greek language with the tradition linking Judah to the mission in Persia, where – as Luther believed – Judah must have spoken Aramaic rather than Greek. Luther’s opinion on the secondary canonicity of Jude was also shared by the Swiss reformer John Oecolampadius and Roman Catholic theologian Cardinal Cajetan (Tomas de Vio).25 In contrast, John Calvin did not doubt the canonicity of the Letter of Jude; he referred to the decision of the Church (Institutio Christianae Religionis I 7,2). In the preface to his commentary on the Letter of Jude (Commentarii in Epistolas Canonicas) published in Geneva in 1551, he, like Luther, recalled the ancient disputes, but did not draw canonical consequences from them.26 Ancient disputes about Jude were also mentioned in the introductions to Protestant translations of individual books or the entire New Testament, such as in the Dutch translation of the Bible called Statenvertaling published in Leiden in 1637: As for the books of the New Testament which are in the Bible, there were, however, formerly certain teachers who doubted whether the Letter to the Hebrews, the Letter of James, the Second Letter of Peter, the Second and Third Letter of John, the Letter of Jude, and the Revelation of John, were canonical books. But the ancient Christian Churches in general did not doubt this, nor did they doubt the message contained in them; the letters were recognized and venerated as books of God and canonical.27

It seems that the apostolic authority of Jude and its canonical status suffered most because of the apocryphal sources used in the writing (especially in Jude 9 and 14–15). Attempts have been made to find references to Jude 9 in biblical literature – in Zech 3:2 (Erasmus, Jean Calvin, among others), in Dan 10:13 and Rev 12:7 (e.g. Jaques Lefèvre or Faber Stapulensis, Lancelot Ridley), in Deut 34 (Martin Luther, Jean Calvin, Heinrich Bullinger, Lancelot Ridley, and Cajetan on the Catholic side) – but no texts were found which could replace the narrative of the Testament of Moses and at least partially support the authority of Jude. Thus, it was admitted that Jude refers to an episode which is not recorded in Scripture and most probably comes either from oral tradition (Jean Calvin), or from “some book belonging to the Hebrews” (Jaques Lefèvre), or, to put it simply, “from the Hebrew apocrypha”

25 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 223. 26 B. Langstaff, The Book of Enoch and the Ascension of Moses in Reformation Europe: Early SixteenthCentury Interpretations of Jude 9 and Jude 14–15, “Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha” 23 (2013), no. 2, p. 134. 27 M. Koktysz, Elementy parenetyczne Listów Piotra i Judy. Studium egzegetyczno-porównawcze (MS), Warszawa 2016, p. 19 (own translation).

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Textual testimonies and canonicity

(Erasmus, Heinrich Bullinger).28 Even more difficult was the interpretation of Jude 14–15 with a direct quotation from the Book of Enoch, the knowledge of which until the mid-sixteenth century was basically limited to the story of the rebellion of angels, their relationship with earthly women and the appearance of giants in the world. The discrediting of the Letter of Jude and above all of the source Book of Enoch was fostered by Augustine’s definition of the apocrypha. This definition is referred to, among others, by Andreas Karlstadt in De canonicis of 1520, when he states that apocryphal writings are marked by unclear and/or doubtful origins and by a mixture of truth and falsehood – criteria which the Book of Enoch supposedly meets.29 Jude’s use of the Book of Enoch makes his letter fall very low in the hierarchy of the New Testament writings, becoming only a tertiary30 New Testament writing. Erasmus also claims that Jude’s use of apocryphal sources undermines the apostolic authority of the letter. He addresses this problem relatively extensively in his Letter of Dedication of 1520, which precedes his paraphrases of the apostolic letters. He bases his argument on the opinion of Bede the Venerable, who maintains that the book: appears not to have been really written by him but published by someone else under his name. For if it were really his, it would not be contrary to sound truth. But now because it contains many incredible things, such as the statement that the giants […] it is deservedly evident to the learned that writings tainted by a lie are not those of a truthful man. Hence this very Letter of Jude, because it contains a witness from an apocryphal book, was rejected by a number of people from the earliest times (Commentary on the Seven Catholic Epistles, p. 250).

Following Bede, Erasmus therefore criticises Jude’s use of the Book of Enoch because of doubts about the authorship and authenticity of this source and because of its unreliable content. This is why the Letter of Jude cannot gain the same recognition and authority as the letters of the Apostle Paul. The same opinion held, as mentioned, Catholic Cardinal Cajetan, who was convinced of the lesser apostolic authority and lower canonical status of Jude – not only because of the use of apocryphal sources, but also because they were called a prophecy (Jude 14) (Commentario in Judae of 1529).31 On the other hand, there were also voices recognising the prophetic authority of the Book of Enoch and invoking Tertullian’s assertions in De cultu feminarum about

28 29 30 31

B. Langstaff, The Book, p. 145–146. Ibid., p. 150. Ibid., p. 156. Ibid., The Book, p. 161.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

23

24

Introduction

the inspiration of extra-canonical writings if they speak of Christ. This claim fitted well with Reformation Christocentric hermeneutics and the principle that only this writing that proclaims Christ (was Christum treiben) is apostolic, regardless of who the author is.32 Not surprisingly, Luther distances himself from his harsh assessment of Jude from 1522 and a year later, in his commentary on Jude 14–15, states that the non-existence of Enoch’s words quoted by Jude is not sufficient reason to reject the letter. Furthermore, even “before the birth of Christ, God took to Himself for this purpose only a single line, from Adam to Abraham, and thence to David, down to Mary the mother of Christ, who possessed His word. Thus the Gospel has always been preached in the world”.33 One can guess that one of those who “possessed His word” is, in Luther’s view, Enoch. Bullinger in one of his sermons of 1549 (Sermonum decades duae) notes that although there are no writings prior to those of Moses, this does not mean that no prophecies were being written down earlier, as exemplified by the very words of Enoch “quoted by St Jude, the apostle, brother of the blessed James”.34 In his commentary on this letter, he adds that this prophecy, like the story of the dispute over the body of Moses in Jude 9, may have been regarded by the recipients as deserving great respect, and were therefore used by the apostle. Nor is there anything in them that is not in accordance with the biblical testimonies.35 In turn, Jaques Lefèvre bases his defence of the Book of Enoch in Jude on the meaning of the term ‘apocrypha’ – something secret, hidden. He opposes the pejorative value that is put on this word and argues that what is hidden from people today could once have been perfectly known to them in the time of Judah.36 In the end, both the Protestant and Catholic sides retained the Letter of Jude among the writings of the New Testament. The Council of Trent in 1546, in the document Decretum de libris sacris et de traditionibus recipiendis, approved its canonicity. Nowadays, mainly because of doubts about the authorship of the text and thus its dating, and not because of the use of non-canonical sources, the Letter of Jude is included among the deuterocanonical writings of the New Testament.

32 “What does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even though St Peter or Paul taught it; again, what preaches Christ would be apostolic, even though Judas, Annas, Pilate and Herod did it,” wrote Martin Luther in his Preface to the Epistles of Saint James and Saint Jude. 33 M. Luther, The Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude Preached and Explained, transl. E.H. Gillet, New York, 1859, p. 210. 34 After B. Langstaff, The Book, p. 152, fn. 89. 35 Ibid., p. 162–163. 36 Ibid., p. 159–160.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Author

1.2

Author

In the prescript, the narrator of the letter presents himself very modestly as “Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ and brother of James”. The sparsity of these data makes it difficult for contemporary recipients to identify the sender, especially since at the time of the letter’s composition the name Judah gr. Ἰούδας was highly popular in Jewish circles.37 On the basis of ancient literature and inscriptions it can be assumed that the name was only given to Jews,38 which is most probably connected with its semantic and historical characteristics. This name in the Hebrew version ‫ ְיהוּ ָדה‬is clearly theophoric; it means ‘to give thanks’ or ‘to give praise’, ‘to worship’ YHWH. Gen 29:35 explains that after giving birth to Jacob’s fourth son, Lea cried out: “This time I will give thanks to the Lord” and so she named the child Judah. Judah, Jacob’s son, is primarily linked to three events: first, the proposal that the brothers should not kill the hated Joseph but sell him; second, the offering of himself as a slave in exchange for Benjamin allegedly accused of theft; and third, the deception of his daughter-in-law Tamar to become pregnant by him. From his union with Tamar, Judah had two sons, Zerah and Perez; the latter is regarded as an ancestor of King David and Jesus (cf. Matt 1:2–3, Luke 3:33–34). Judah is also one of the leaders of the Maccabean uprising against the Seleucids (167–160 B.C.),39 which was sparked off in defence of the faith and Jewish temple worship (1 Macc 1:41–9:22). Already at the time the Israelite tribes settled in Canaan, the name Judah became an eponym from which not only a whole generation, but also the territory, which was incorporated into the kingdom of Saul and, after the breakup of the United Kingdom, functioned independently as a southern kingdom with its capital in Jerusalem until the Babylonian captivity. Later it became a Persian province and then, with its name changed to Judea, a Greek province. In Roman times it was incorporated into the province of Syria. If the Letter of Jude is a pseudonymous writing, then these historical, royal and leadership connotations may be significant. They influence the perception of the sender as a leader who comes from a royal family (which is confirmed by the addition of “brother of James”40 ), who – like Judah Maccabaeus – encourages the

37 T. Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity. Part 1: Palestine 330 BCE–200 CE (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 91), Tübingen 2002, p. 112–125. 38 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 55. 39 M. Rosik, List św. Judy, [in:] H. Langkammer, M. Rosik, M. Wróbel, Komentarz do Listu św. Jakuba Apostoła, 1–2 Listu św. Piotra Apostoła, 1–3 Listu św. Jana Apostoła, Listu św. Judy i Apokalipsy (Komentarz teologiczno-pastoralny do Biblii Tysiąclecia. Nowy Testament 5), Poznań 2015, p. 129. 40 See below.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

25

26

Introduction

recipients to contend for “the faith once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 3), and who at the same time – like Judah, the son of Jacob – is characterised by sensitivity, mercy (Jude 22–23) and humility (which is to be indicated by the complementary phrase “a slave of Jesus Christ”41 ). On the other hand, the sender’s choice of a name so popular in the intertestamental times, which has become synonymous with ‘Jew’ in general,42 may be an expression of modesty and a desire to emphasise Christian egalitarianism, the community of the sender with his addressees and a certain universality of the letter: here Jude, an ordinary Jew, although of royal descent, writes first and foremost to other Jews who, like him, belong both to the old (by origin) and to the new (by faith in Christ) Israel. The Jude prescript contains two more significant elements: the sender’s relationship to Jesus (“a slave of Jesus Christ” Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος) and the specification of family relationships (“brother of James” ἀδελφὸς δὲ Ἰακώβου). The first element is primarily of theological interest, while the second may be helpful in identifying the sender. However, this is where the data on the author’s identity end. The generality and lack of details may indicate that the recipients of the letter knew the sender very well and did not need any further clarifications.43 The ones provided in the prescript were enough for them not only to identify the sender, but also to properly interpret his self-description. The recipients later than the first historical addressees of the letter based the identification of the sender primarily on New Testament data connected with the name of Judah/Judas, although this identification is neither easy nor certain. The New Testament mentions several persons bearing this name – among others, two apostles (Judas, the son of James, and Judas, son of Simon Iscariot – Luke 6:16; John 6:71), a companion of Silas, Barnabas and Paul on their mission to the inhabitants of Antioch (Acts 15:22–32), the owner of a house in Damascus where Paul stayed (Acts 9:11), and finally one of Jesus’ brothers (Mark 6:3, Matt 13:55). By making a negative selection, modelled on John 14:22, it is easier to determine who the sender of the letter was not than who he was.44 Certainly, it was not Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, since this Judas committed suicide shortly after Jesus’ crucifixion (Matt 27:3–10, Acts 1:16–20). It is unlikely that this is Judas, son of James, because of the patronymic identification in Luke 6:16, which would have had to be changed to a fratronymic identification in Jude 1. It appears, however, that this is not impossible, since already in antiquity the sender of Jude began to be identified as an apostle.45 The author of the letter could possibly be Judas, called Barsabbas, 41 42 43 44 45

See below for an analysis of verses 1–3. T. Wolthuis, Jude and Jewish Traditions, “Calvin Theological Journal” 22 (1987), p. 25, 39. P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 85. Ibid. See below.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Author

who, together with Silas, Barnabas and Paul, was sent by the apostles to convey to the inhabitants of Antioch the resolutions of the so-called Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:22.27).46 Acts 15:32 mentions that Judas Barsabbas was a prophet who in speeches encouraged and strengthened the brethren. One of these prophetic speeches may have been written down as the Letter of Jude, which indeed contains elements encouraging them to contend for the faith, to abide in love of/for God and in prayer, to show mercy (Jude 3.20–23) and strengthening Christians in faith, love of/for God and hope to experience mercy during the eschatological judgment (Jude 20–21). This identification is weakened, however, by the fact that nowhere does the narrator of the Acts identify Judas Barsabbas as the brother of James, which is surprising for such a close kinship. Some biblical scholars maintain, however, that the words “brother of James” in Jude are a later gloss;47 without this gloss, the prescript limited only to Jude, “a slave of Jesus Christ”, could indeed point to Judas Barsabbas. Whether the author of the letter could have been Judas of Damascus is difficult to say, since there is only one laconic mention of him in the New Testament (Acts 9:11). Yet, according to the apocryphal Acts of Paul (2:388) of the second/third century, it is this Judas of Damascus, with whom Paul was befriended, who is the brother of James and the author of the letter.48 St Jude, the author of the letter, has sometimes been called an apostle since ancient times, e.g. Tertullian (De cultu feminarum/On the attunement of women 1:3); Augustine (The City of God XV 23; cf. XVIII 38), who wrote about “the Apostle Jude in his canonical epistle”; Origen (De Principiis 2:1), who refers to “The Ascension of Moses (a little treatise, of which the Apostle Jude makes mention in his Epistle)”. It is impossible to say clearly how the term ‘apostle’ is understood here, whether narrowly – as one of the Twelve, or more broadly – as one who preaches the Gospel and establishes local churches (this is how Paul understands the term and – it seems – Jude himself in Jude 1749 ). The first possibility seems more likely, since in the second/ third century and even at the end of the first century the term ‘apostle’ was treated as an honorific title of Jesus’ closest disciples and messengers described in Acts, rather than a function. It is not without significance that the evangelist Luke mentions Judas of James Ἰούδας Ἰακώβου among the Twelve (Luke 6:16). As mentioned, usually at this point the genetivus Ἰακώβου is interpreted patronymically as “the son of James”. In the Gospel catalogues most of the apostles were presented in

46 P.J. du Plessis, The Authorship of the Epistle of Jude, [in:] Biblical Essays: Proceedings of the Ninth Meeting of “Die Ou-Testamentise Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika” and Proceeding of the Second Meeting of “Die Nuwe-Testamentise Werkgemeenskap van Suid-Afrika”, Potchefstroom 1966, p. 194–197. 47 Cf. e.g., A. von Harnack, after D. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, London 1970, p. 907; P.J. du Plessis, The Authorship, p. 197. 48 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 13. 49 See below for dating and the analysis of verse 17.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

27

28

Introduction

precisely this typically Semitic way (e.g. Ἰάκοβος [ὁ τοῦ] Ἀλφαίου “James [son of] Alphaeus”; Ἰάκοβος [ὁ τοῦ] Ζεβαδαίου “James [son of] Zebedee)”. This, however, does not completely rule out a fratronymic interpretation (cf. Πέτρος καὶ Ἀνδρέας ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ “Peter and his brother Andrew” (Matt 4:18, 10:2); Ἰάκοβος [ὁ τοῦ] Ζεβαδαίου καὶ Ἰωάννης ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ “James, the son of Zebedee , and his brother John” (Matt 4:21, 10:2), where, however, the kinship is marked by the literal ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ). Perhaps, as Peter H. Davids speculates,50 Judas was originally in the gospels referred to similarly as the brother of James, but the noun ἀδελφός eventually dropped out of the text. However, there is no evidence for this other than the analogy with the Letter of Jude. The author of the Gospel of Mark calls the apostle Θαδδααῖος ‘Thaddaeus’ (Mark 3:18), most likely to distinguish him from Jude/Judas Iscariot; the author of the Gospel of Matthew does the same (Matt 4:3); it is worth noting that the Codex Bezae (D) in both gospels adds Λεββαιος. In the case of Matt 10:3, explanatory variants appear: Λεββαιος ο επικληθεις Θαδδαιος (e.g., C2 K L N W Γ Δ Θ) and, in the reverse order, Θαδδαιος ο επικληθεις Λεββαιος (Minuscule Codex 13 of the thirteenth century); in C* there is an ambiguous identification of Λεββαιος ο και Θαδδαιος, while Old Latin manuscripts specify Judas as Zealot: Judas Zelotes. The unambiguous identification of the Apostle Thaddeus with Jude, the author of the letter, was made by Bede the Venerable: “The Apostle Jude, whom Matthew and Mark in the Gospels call Thaddeus, writes against the same perverters of the faith whom both Peter and Paul condemn in their Letters”.51 This identification was confirmed by the Council of Trent and persisted, especially in Roman Catholic circles, until the nineteenth century, when it was ruled out that Jude, the brother of Jesus,52 the author of the letter, and Jude the apostle could be the same person.53 Even in antiquity, Jude, son of James, or Thaddaeus were not the only apostles with whom the author of the letter was identified. In the Syriac Church, Jude was associated with Thomas, the apostle, on the basis of the opening sentence of the second century Gospel of Thomas: “These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down”. This Syriac identification of Juda with Thomas is known, among others, to Eusebius of Caesarea: “After the ascension of Jesus, Judas, who was also called Thomas, sent to him Thaddeus, an apostle, one of the Seventy” (HE I 13:10). It is clear from the Syriac note quoted by Eusebius that Judas (Thomas) and the apostle Thaddeus were different people – the latter was not among Jesus’ closest disciples, but among the Seventy apostles/ 50 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 86. 51 Bede the Venerable, The Commentary on the Seven Catholic Epistles, transl. D.D. Hurst, Kalamzoo 1985, p. 241. 52 B. Witherington III, Jude, Another Brother of Jesus, “Bible Review” 21 (2005), no. 4, p. 14–15. 53 R. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church, London–New York 2004, p. 172.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Author

messengers who, after the ascension, preached the Gospel in various regions of then oecumene. The fact that Judas is called Thomas solves at least two problems. The first is that Judas belongs to the Twelve: the name Thomas is included in this group by all the evangelists. Ephrem the Syrian very clearly distinguishes Judas Thomas both from Judas Iscariot and from Judas, the son of James.54 The second is Judas’ kinship with Jesus. It is assumed that the term Θωμᾶς is a transliteration of the Aramaic term meaning ‘twin’ (hence the Greek term δίδυμος). However, questions arise: should the term ‘twin’ be taken as a biological term or rather as a metaphor indicating the spiritual similarity between Jesus and Thomas, possibly a similar modus operandi or similarity of fate?55 The Acts of Thomas, a gnosticising Syriac text from the third century, translated into Greek and Latin in the fourth century, does not give a clear answer at all and confirms both variants. ActsTmSir 11 suggests that a physical likeness is involved: And he saw the Lord Jesus bearing the likeness of Judas Thomas and speaking with the bride; even of him that but now had blessed them and gone out from them, the apostle; and he saith unto him: Wentest thou not out in the sight of all? how then art thou found here? But the Lord said to him: I am not Judas which is also called Thomas but I am his brother.

This also clearly identifies Judas as the brother of Jesus, which raises further questions: if Judas is the brother of Jesus, why the apocrypha fail to at least mention James, perhaps the best-known brother of the Lord. Moreover, in the Greek version of the ActsTmSir, “Christ’s twin” δίδυμος τοῦ Χριστοῦ is mentioned in 31:2 and 39:2, but the Syriac version here uses the noun thwn’, which means depth. So the Syriac metaphorical term for “the depth of Christ” in the Greek version was replaced by the literal one – “the twin of Christ”. Furthermore, the whole text of ActsTmSir seems to confirm that the primary intention is to show the similarity of the fortunes and attitudes of Judas Thomas and Jesus: Thomas is a slave (ActsTmSir 2) – Christ became a slave (Phil 2:7); Thomas is a carpenter (ActsTmSir 12) – like Jesus (Mark 6:4); Thomas is slapped (ActsTmSir 5) – like Christ (Matt 27:29); […]; Thomas is a confidant of the mysteries of Christ (ActsTmSir 10; 39; 78). Exposing this resemblance serves a theological purpose – Judas Thomas becomes a model of Christian self-understanding, while knowing oneself is the way to knowing the

54 Ibid., p. 34. 55 As R. Bauckham notes in Jude and the Relatives, p. 35, it is difficult to decide unequivocally whether the tradition of Judas Thomas’s physical resemblance to Jesus was used theologically or the other way round, the interpretation of the name Thomas/Didymus suggesting spiritual bonds between Jesus and Judas was later transposed into the idea of physical resemblance.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

29

30

Introduction

divine element in man.56 The same motif appears in the Nag Hammadi Gnostic Book of Thomas (the Contender), which begins like the Gospel of Thomas: “The secret sayings that the savior spoke to Judas Thomas” (Book of Thomas 138:1–2). It is worth noting here that from the literature dedicated to Judas Thomas emerges the image of an apostle who was given the opportunity to know the mysteries of Jesus. This translates quite well into the text of the Letter of Jude, where the motif of the revelation of the eternal mysteries appears not only to prophets such as Enoch, but also to the narrator, who is able to interpret ancient events (Jude 5–7.11.14–15) and apostolic words (Jude 17–18) in an appropriate – apocalyptical and eschatological – way, in which he is in turn similar to the Qumran Teacher of Righteousness. Moreover, the elements of Christ’s pre-existence present in the letter, the link between protology and eschatology, may be the source of this Syriac tradition of Jude’s special initiation. The identification of the author of the letter with Judas, the brother of Jesus and James mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55, seems the most probable and most often confirmed in ancient literature: “Is he not […] the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon?” (Matthew gives the names of the brothers in a different order: James, Joses, Simon, Judas). James, in turn, is identified with James the Just, leader of the Jerusalem Church (Acts 15:13; Gal 2:9.12) and author of the Letter of James. This identification is confirmed by Origen in the Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 10:17, when he explains the text of Matt 13:55: They thought, then, that He [Jesus] was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or “The Book of James” [Protoevangelium of James], that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary […] And James is he whom Paul says in the Epistle to the Galatians that he saw, “But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother” [Galatians 1:19] […] And Jude, who wrote a letter of few lines, it is true, but filled with the healthful words of heavenly grace, said in the preface, “Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and the brother of James”. [Jude 1] With regard to Joseph and Simon we have nothing to tell.

It seems that at the time and in the environment in which the Letter of Jude was written, it was James who was the well-known and more significant figure than his brother, so Jude bases his identity on his relationship with the universally respected leader of the Jerusalem Church. This raises a question, however, why he did not base it on his kinship with Jesus. The most popular answer in antiquity is given by Clement of Alexandria in his Comments on the Catholic Letters: “Jude, who

56 Ibid., p. 34.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Author

wrote the Catholic Epistle, the brother of the sons of Joseph, and very religious, while knowing the near relationship of the Lord, yet did not say that he himself was His brother” (Comments on the Epistle of Jude). In this way, the image of Jude was perpetuated, who, out of modesty and humility, omitted in the preface the fact of his relationship with Jesus; moreover, he called himself his slave. In pointing out the kinship with James, however, one can see a certain strategy that Jude uses repeatedly in the letter. The idea is to evoke – usually with one or two words – multidimensional associations and/or images. Since the sender of the letter introduces himself as the brother of James, and James was commonly known as the “Lord’s brother”, he expected the recipients to read this elliptical syllogism without difficulty and also recognise the “Lord’s brother” in Jude. By appealing to a dual authority – that of Jesus, the Lord, and that of James, the leader – Jude legitimises his right to instruct the addressees.57 It is in this context that the dynastic hypothesis is mentioned, i.e. the so-called δεσπόσυνοι (literally: typical of lords, rulers) play the leadership functions in the early Church of Jewish provenance by virtue of their kinship to Jesus himself, but also to James, the first bishop of Jerusalem.58 The authority of the δεσπόσυνοι lasted until the second century.59 It is therefore no coincidence that the name Judas appears in the lists of the bishops of Jerusalem. In the list of Jerusalem bishops cited by Eusebius, Jude is listed fifteenth. The list includes those bishops who are said to have been of Hebrew descent, and to have received the knowledge of Christ in purity […] For their whole church consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued from the days of the apostles until the siege [in the times of Hadrian] […] But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time, it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Simeon; the third, Justus; […] the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas (HE IV 5:2–3).

It is unlikely that Jude (Judas), the fifteenth bishop of Jerusalem, was the brother of James – the first bishop of Jerusalem – who was the Lord’s brother. On the basis of the list and Eusebius’ historical commentary, it is possible to conclude that Jude (Judas) held his office already in the second century, during the reign of Emperor Hadrian (76–138), or even at the end of his reign, since “the siege” probably means the siege of Jerusalem during the Bar Kokhba revolt of 135. Neither are ancient 57 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 179–180. 58 Cf. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 13; Id., Jude and the Relatives, p. 125–127; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 179. 59 S.J. Joseph, Seventh from Adam (Jude 1,14–14): Re-Examining Enochean Traditions and Christology of Jude, “The Journal of Theological Studies” 64 (2013) no. 2, p. 469.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

31

32

Introduction

writings left which would assign the authorship of the Letter of Jude to the fifteenth bishop of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the modern tendency to date Jude late, precisely to the first/second century, could support this identification.60 A different chronology and order in the list of Jerusalem bishops is given by Epiphanius in Panarion (66:20:1–2). This fits much better with the dynastic hypothesis. According to Epiphanius, Jude (Judas) was the third bishop of Jerusalem, after James and Simeon/Simon: “James, who was martyred in Jerusalem by beating with a cudgel. [He lived] until the time of Nero. Simeon, was crucified under Trajan. Judah […]”. Unfortunately, Epiphanius does not state under what circumstances and when the third bishop of Jerusalem died. It should be noted here that Simeon was not the native brother of James, but the son of Cleophas, brother of Joseph (66:19:8). This is confirmed by the Apostolic Constitutions (7:4:46), according to which the function of bishops of Jerusalem was held successively by “James […] the brother of our Lord; upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James”. The patronymic identification of Jude is in line with Luke’s account analysed above (Luke 6:16, Acts 1:13), which suggests, on the one hand, that the bishop Judas belongs to the Twelve, but on the other, removes the likelihood of a relationship with James, and thus with Jesus. As Gene L. Green notes, in antiquity little importance was attached to precise identification, hence the chaos and inconsistency, but it can be assumed that the majority of sources want to emphasize in a more or less direct way the relationship of Jude with Jesus – either through blood ties or by belonging to the circle of the closest disciples.61 Since the time of Jerome, theory of more distant kinship between Jesus and Jude has become widespread, the roots of which can be found in the Apostolic Constitutions. Since Simeon, identified with Simeon/Simon in Mark 6:3 and Matt 13:55, was known in the fourth century, and possibly even earlier, as the son of Cleopas,62 this would mean that the Evangelists also treat distant relatives of Jesus as brothers. The question of the kinship of James, Jude and Jesus was widely debated in antiquity. Three main theories can be distinguished in these discussions, which are named after their main representatives. The first (Helvidian) theory is based on the views of Helvidius (fourth/fifth century), who claimed that Mary had other children with Joseph after the birth of Jesus, including the sons mentioned in Mark 6:3 (Matt 13:55). The brothers of the Lord would therefore be the natural brothers of Jesus, the sons of Mary and Joseph who were born after Jesus. This theory is closest to the Protestant tradition. Helvidius’ views were refuted by Jerome, who argued for 60 Various interpretations of the bishops’ list are presented by R. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives, p. 70–72. 61 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 60. 62 Ibid., p. 59.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Author

the eternal, also post partum virginity of Mary; therefore, the second theory, called Jerome’s theory, spread mainly in the Latin Church and later in the Roman Catholic Church, interpreted the term “Lord’s brothers” as distant relatives of Jesus. In the Greek patristic tradition and in Orthodoxy, the most widespread theory was that of Epiphanius, who, on the basis of, among other things, Protoevangelium of James, argued that the brothers of Jesus were the sons of Joseph from his first marriage.63 Jerome’s theory, which, unlike Epiphanius’, does not require extra-biblical texts and is based on the broad semantic field of the noun ἀδελφός, has become most popular over time. In addition to children of the same parent(s), the term includes adoptive siblings (adoption) and distant relatives (cousins of various degrees). The noun also referred to members of the same community or association unrelated to each other. In the case of the Jerome thought, however, this metaphorical usage would not apply. On the basis of the data from the Gospels, it is possible, following Jerome, to try to establish the relationship between Jesus and his brothers. The little James and Joseph (Josetos/Joses) are identified as James and Joseph, the sons of Mary mentioned among the women who watched the crucifixion of Jesus from afar (Mark 15:40). This Mary would have been the sister of Mary, Jesus’ mother, the wife of Cleopas (John 19:25). Since it is unlikely that two sisters would bear the same name of Mary, with time John’s phrase ἡ ἀδελφὴ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ ‘his mother’s sister’ came to be understood to mean sister-in-law. Thus, the sister-in-law of Mary, the mother of Jesus – also bearing the name Mary – was the wife of Cleopas and the mother of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas. Over the centuries this basic theory was supplemented and had many derivations.64 One of the derivations is based, among others, on Hegesippus’ differentiation, according to which Simon in Mark 6:3 is Simon, the second bishop of the Church in Jerusalem, the son of Cleopas, brother of Joseph. Hegesippus never called Simon a brother, but “a cousin of the Lord” – ἀνεψιὸς τοῦ κυρίου: “And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom […] Symeon, the son of the Lord’s uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord” (HE IV 22:4). On the other hand, the name of the Lord’s brothers is reserved for James and Judah: “James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles” (HE II 23:4); “Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord’s brother according to the flesh” (HE III 20:1). This would imply that James and Judas were not the brothers of Simon and Joseph. Sometimes – to strengthen the persuasiveness of Jerome’s argument – the expression ὄντα ἀνεψιὸν τοῦ κυρίου δεύτερον from HE IV 22:4

63 R. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives, p. 19. 64 Ibid., p. 21–23.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

33

34

Introduction

is translated as “being the Lord’s second cousin”.65 Thus, the first cousin would be James the Just, mentioned earlier in this passage (without further specification), while the second cousin would be Judas. However, it is more legitimate to relate the numeral δεύτερος to the noun ἐπίσκοπος – second bishop. Eastern tradition tends more towards the views of Epiphanius and the account of Joseph’s sons, already known in the second century from the Protoevangelium of James: “I have children, and I am an old man”, says Joseph, on whom fell the fate and obligation to care for the virgin Mary (ProtEvJ 9). ProtEvJ mentions by name only one son, Simeon/Simon (ProtEvJ 17).66 Similarly, the Latin Infancy Gospels, dating perhaps from before the fifth century, in which Simeon, son of Joseph, is one of the main characters (62–76, 89, 92). From these accounts barely differs the text referred to by the Irish monk and poet Sedulius Scottus in the early Middle Ages (ninth century). Sedulius identifies the text as the Gospel of the Hebrews, but, in reality, it is most likely a compilation and/or paraphrase of ProtEvJ and Latin Infancy Gospels.67 On the other hand, InfGTh 16:1 of the second/third century calls the son of Joseph (one of the sons?) James. Epiphanius himself, in the Panarion, lists all four of Jesus’ brothers in the order known both from the account of Mark 6:3: James, Joseph, Judas, Simeon/Simon (28:7:6) and from Matt 13:55: James, Joseph, Simeon/Simon and Judas (78:8:1). He claims that they were all sons of Joseph, by another wife [than Mary]. Joseph had no relations with the Virgin, heaven forbid […] Joseph begot James when he was somewhere around forty years old. After him he had a son named Joses – then Simeon after him, then Judah, and two daughters, one named Mary and one, Salome; and his wife died. And many years later, as a widower of over eighty, he took Mary (Panarion 28:7:6, 78:8:1–2).

Unfortunately, apart from James the Just, Epiphanius is silent about the fate of Joseph’s children. Attempts are made to reconstruct these personal fates on the basis of New Testament and early Christian data, although this information is very incomplete and incompatible. It is not possible, for example, to state unequivocally on the basis of the sequence from the Gospel that Jude was the youngest of Jesus’ brothers/ cousins.68 However, it can be inferred that he was younger than James.

65 Translated by the authors. 66 The name James appears in some manuscripts, see Protoewangelia Jakuba, transl. M. Starowieyski, [in:] Apokryfy Nowego Testamentu, vol. 1, Ewangelie, part 1, p. 282, fn. 190. 67 R. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives, p. 29; cf. M.R. James, Latin Infancy Gospels: A New Text, with a Parallel Version from Irish, Cambridge 1927. 68 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 87; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 56.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Author

It is not known how old Jude was when Jesus died on the cross. If we accept Epiphanius’ theory, he must have been much older than Jesus. However, theory of Jerome and Helvidius suggests that he was younger, perhaps about twenty years old.69 Initially, like James, he was not one of Jesus’ followers (John 7:3.5); he must have believed in him only after the Easter events, since he was present in the Upper Room on Pentecost (Acts 1:14). Since the hagiographers often speak of Jesus’ mother and brothers (and sisters), but do not mention the father, we can assume that the father(s) of Jesus’ brothers was (were) already dead. If we assume that this Jude is the author of the letter, the self-description in the prescriptive text testifies to the radical transformation he had undergone from unbelief and scorn of Jesus (Matt 13:57, Mark 3:21, John 7:5) to calling himself his slave and engaging in missionary and evangelistic activity (1 Cor 9:5).70 Together with Joseph and Simon, the other brothers of the Lord, he carried out this activity mainly among the Jews. This does not mean, however, that the territory of his mission was limited to Palestine. On the contrary, it seems that he was also active in the Diaspora, as Julius Africanus, quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea in the third century, testifies: Among these are those already mentioned, called Desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. Coming from Nazara and Cochaba, villages of Judea, into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory and from the book of daily records as faithfully as possible (HE I 7:14).

Hegesippus quoted by Eusebius (HE III 19:1–20:8) knows the story of the grandsons of Judah who were to be put to death by the Emperor Domitian because of their royal Davidic ancestry. They were denounced by heretics who accused the descendants of Jude (said to have been a brother of the Saviour according to the flesh), on the ground that they were of the lineage of David and were related to Christ himself. […] they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by Evocatus. For Domitian feared the coming of Christ (HE III 19:1, 20:2).

The story goes on to resemble Matthew’s infancy gospel: Domitian, like Herod before him, felt threatened by the announcement of Christ’s coming in glory; he questioned the defendants not only about their origins, but also about property, possessions, and in this context, Christ’s kingdom. Jude’s (Judas’) grandsons admitted that they owned a small piece of land, which they cultivated, and that showed callousness on

69 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 87. 70 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 175.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

35

36

Introduction

their hands from hard work. Of the kingdom of God, on the other hand, they said that: it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he [Christ] should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works. Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church (HE III 20:6–7).

Hegesippus further adds that the accused later became leaders of local churches/communities (δεσπόσυνοι), which they led until the time of Emperor Trajan (98–117). Although Hegesippus’ testimony raises reasonable doubts about the historicity and authenticity of the episodes described, several important elements can be discerned in it. First, Jude was married, since he had grandchildren (cf. 1 Cor 9:5). Second, the leadership of his grandchildren in the local churches indicates that this function was most likely based on authority derived from kinship with Jesus himself and descent from the lineage of David. Third, since Hegesippus describes the incident involving his grandsons and not Jude himself, it can be assumed that by the time of Domitian’s reign (81–96) Jude was already dead; he must have died in the eighties or nineties, or earlier. If he was to be the author of Jude, this means that he had written it earlier. The content of the teaching of Jude’s descendants is also important: it is an eschatological message that emphasises Christ’s coming to pass judgement. This content in general resembles the main idea of the Letter of Jude. The chronology reconstructed on the basis of Hegesippus’ account seems to be confirmed by the already mentioned accounts of Epiphanius and the Apostolic Constitutions pointing to Jude as the third Bishop of Jerusalem. Jude would have held the office of bishop after the death of James (in 62 or 67) and after the death of Simon/Simeon. The date of Simon’s death is not known, but it must have occurred in the late sixties or early seventies, which makes it possible to narrow down the time of Jude’s episcopal ministry to the seventies and perhaps the early eighties of the first century. Before that, as mentioned, Jude was probably active as a missionary in Judea, Idumea, Syria, and perhaps Asia Minor. In identifying the author of the letter as Jude, brother of James, it is the language that poses some difficulty.71 Obviously, the imagery, Midrashic and Haggadah style, and lexis are often drawn from Semitic sources, from the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and from Aramaic most likely Enochean texts. The eschatological and apocalyptic orientation and the methods of text interpretation (pesher) known,

71 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 90; M. Rosik, List św. Judy, 129–130.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Author

among others, at Qumran are also a factor, all of which would point to the authorship of Jude, a Jew. On the other hand, a good knowledge of Greek language and literature is also evident. Though modern studies on Hellenism show that both the Greek language and Greek literature and culture penetrated into Jewish Palestine to a much greater extent than was formerly supposed, the fact that a villager from Galilee mastered Greek so well and was adept at evoking images and associations based on Greek poetry and philosophy is – at least at first glance – surprising.72 If we consider James’ equally good knowledge of Greek and Greek literature,73 as reflected in the Letter of James, it is possible that the brothers – for at least some time – acquired linguistic, literary and rhetorical competence together. In the case of Jude, his missionary journeys to the strongly Hellenized Jewish diaspora undoubtedly developed these competences. Moreover, according to Bauckham, the main component of the imagery in Jude’s letter is the rich lexis, to a lesser extent its stylistic qualities; it is much easier to expand the vocabulary than to improve the style, which is not a particularly sophisticated.74 The knowledge of rhetoric is more impressive, which can be seen in the construction of homiletical statements. In this case, it may have been due to the help of a secretary (cf. Rom 16:22, 1 Pet 5:12), who would have given Jude’s letter a final form adapted to the principles of ancient rhetoric.75 Moreover, the author’s knowledge of good literary Greek and of idiomatics and imagery based mostly on literature belonging to Hellenistic topoi may have resulted from a good memory and from having heard Jewish and Hellenistic-Christian sermons.76 While, as can be seen, it is possible to reconstruct Jude’s biography in very general terms, it is more difficult to answer the question whether this Jude, the Lord’s brother and possibly third bishop of Jerusalem is in fact the author of the New Testament letter signed with his name. At the turn of the twentieth century this was denied by Protestant biblical scholars Adolf von Harnack and James Moffatt,77 who regarded Jude, the sender of the letter, as an unknown author of this name (the mention of his relationship with James would be, according to Harnack, a later gloss adding authority to the narrator). From the nineteenth century onwards, it also became common to regard the Letter of Jude as a pseudonymous letter. Perhaps the author belonged to the circle of distant relatives of Jesus, descendants of Judas (cf. the episode with the grandsons of Judas accused before Domitian in HE III 19:1–3),

72 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 15; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 90. 73 K. Wojciechowska, M. Rosik, Mądrość zstępująca z góry. Strukturalny komentarz do Listu św. Jakuba, Warszawa 2018, p. 60–65. 74 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 15. 75 J.L. White, Light from Ancient Letters, Philadelphia 1986, p. 216. 76 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 15–16; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 73. 77 D. Guthrie, New Testament, p. 907.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

37

38

Introduction

or to the circle of Judas’s disciples.78 The adoption of the name Jude, the brother of James (the Lord’s brother) as a pseudonym may thus have been dictated by family considerations, discipleship, but also by pragmatics and the socio-historical context, which means that Jude (Judas), the brother of James, must have been a well-known and important figure in Judeo-Christian circles in the second half of the first century.

1.3

Time of origin

Determining the time the Letter of Jude was written is fraught with difficulties; much depends on what assumptions are made about authorship, identification of opponents (false teachers), the stage at which the doctrine was formed, knowledge of Paul’s teaching, and the relation to 2 Peter. A list of these major relations is given by Gene Green79 ; it can be presented in a tabular form which takes into account the elements used to argue for an early (even mid-first century) or late (even mid-second century) dating:80 Early dating

Late dating

Authorship

Authentic authorship by Jude

Pseudonymity of the letter

Doctrine and institutionalization of the Church

Lack of stability and institutionalisation

Stabilisation and formulaic form of doctrine; institutionalisation of the Church

Ideas of false teachers

Antinomianism

Gnosticism

Relation to Paul

No direct relation

Knowledge of Pauline theology and terminology

Meaning of the term ‘apostle’

Broad – including missionaries

Narrow – limited to the Twelve, Paul, Silas and Barnabas

Relation between Jude and 2 Pet

Use of Jude by the author of 2 Pet

Summary of 2 Pet by the narrator of Jude

78 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 79–81. 79 Ibid., p. 98–99; Green gives this list in a slightly different order. 80 A list of the names of commentators and their hypotheses concerning the dating of Jude is given by R. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives, p. 168–169, fn. 237; the years 60–80 of the first century are indicated by C. Kühl, F.H. Chase, D. Guthrie, J. Symes, I.H. Eybers, while the years 140–160 by A. Loisy, O. Pfleiderer, T. Barns, among others. Bauckham himself advocates early dating and attributes the letter actually to Judas, James’s brother.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Time of origin

1.3.1

Authorship

As most commentators note, on the determination of the date the Letter of Jude was written the assumptions about Jude’s authorship will have the greatest influence. If Jude is a pseudonymous letter, it was most likely written after the death of Jude, the brother of James, the Lord’s brother. If the authorship is authentic, then obviously the letter was written earlier. The problem is that it is impossible, as indicated above, to determine when precisely Jude died. Usually the latest possible date, terminus ad quem, is taken to be the nineties of the first century, although e.g. Gene L. Green proposes the seventies.81 It seems that the caesura, common in approximating the time of writing New Testament documents, related with the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple (70 AD), does not apply here because the letter nowhere refers to those events in any way.82 For scholars, the absence of these references may be an argument both for and against the late dating.83 An interesting, though not entirely convincing argument for early dating is given by John Arthur Thomas Robinson.84 He assumes that the sender’s self-description in the prescript is authentic. Since the sender presents himself as brother of James, but fails to specify James, this may indicate that James is still alive. For if James, who enjoyed universal authority in Judeo-Christian circles, had died earlier, he would have been called μακάριος ‘blessed’ or ἀγαθός ‘good, righteous’. The nickname ‘Just’, by which he was also widely recognized in Jewish circles, was probably given to him while he was still alive (cf. Eusebius, HE II 23:4). This means that the Letter of Jude was written either before 62 (according to Hegesippus) or before 67 (according to Flavius), when James the Just died a martyr’s death.85 1.3.2

Doctrine and institutionalization of the Church

A second criterion for dating the Letter of Jude is the conviction that then established Christian doctrine could be described as (proto)orthodoxy. It would serve as a point of reference for the emerging “heterodox” teachings preached by false teachers/ apostles. In the 1970s, criteria were debated to classify a text or phenomenon as early or late in the development of Christianity (sometimes referred to as early Catholicism, Frühkatholismus). To this end, the following were examined: 1. the existence of fervent hope for the parousia (early stage) or its abandonment (late

81 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 100. 82 R. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives, p. 169. 83 F. Mickiewicz, List św. Judy. Drugi List św. Piotra (Nowy Komentarz Bibliny. Nowy Testament 18), Czestochowa 2018, p. 43. 84 J.A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament, London 1976, p. 197. 85 K. Wojciechowska, M. Rosik, Mądrość zstępująca, p. 50–55.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

39

40

Introduction

stage); 2. the degree of the institutionalization of the Church; 3. the stability of doctrine and its presentation in established formulas.86 In the Letter of Jude the hope of the parousia is fervent (cf. verses 1.14.21.24). The whole argumentation in the body of the letter (verses 5–19) is based on the belief that the false teachers will be judged when the Lord soon comes to pass judgement (verses 14–15). Moreover, the very appearance and actions of the apostates are read as a sign of the end times (verses 17–19). The clear eschatological and apocalyptic orientation reflected in the letter corresponds to the messianic expectations that are characteristic of Jewish circles (e.g. Qumran) and the expectation of the second coming of Jesus characteristic of Judeo-Christian circles in the fifties-seventies of the first century.87 Little can be said about the institutionalization of the Church; there is no mention of ecclesiastical ministries in the letter, even the functions of apostles, shepherds, itinerant teachers and prophets are barely mentioned there. The false teachers themselves probably belonged to the latter group (cf. verse 8); they were received into the community as prophets and teachers (cf. verse 12).88 In the prescript, Jude addresses the whole community of “beloved, preserved and called” (verse 1) without mentioning any ministry/function responsible for disciplining false teachers. In the body of the letter, he mentioned neither bishops, nor presbyters/elders, nor even deacons. He wrote generally of the authorities (glories) whom the false teachers blaspheme (verse 8), and of the saints (verse 3) to whom the faith was handed down once for all. Faith here means the whole revelation, the content once proclaimed by the patriarchs and prophets and later by the apostles and evangelists. Moreover, the descriptions in verses 20–23 depict the whole egalitarian community, praying in the Holy Spirit, awaiting mercy at the eschatological judgement, and abiding in love of/for God. All are called to contend for the faith (verse 3) and to show mercy to the erring (verses 20–23), just as all are obliged to be vigilant (verses 12 and 23). The equality of the members of the community was clearly suggested by the description of the agape feasts in verse 12, reminiscent of Greek symposia. Uninvited guests were also allowed to attend and to exercise their right to vote. Divisions and hierarchies, the elitist structure of the community would have rather been the work of false teachers wishing to satisfy their ambitions. Although early Christian letters are often quoted as comparative material to Jude (e.g. the letters of Clement of Rome, who died in 101 AD, or Ignatius of Antioch, who died in 107 AD), it is difficult to regard them as describing the same stage in the development and institutionalisation of the Church. The differences concern precisely the egalitarian 86 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 8; C. Landon, A Text-Critical Study of Epistle of Jude (JSNTSup 135), Sheffield 1996, p. 35. 87 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 99. 88 See below.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Time of origin

image of the community of recipients in Jude and the hierarchical nature of the communities at the turn of the second century. In The Epistle to the Magnesians 6, Ignatius recommends the submission of the faithful to the bishop, priests and deacons: “I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ”. At the end he repeats once more: Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever you do, may prosper […] with your most admirable bishop, and the well-compacted spiritual crown of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to God. Be subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union both fleshly and spiritual (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians 13).

A similar idea of obedience and unity is conveyed by Ignatius in The Epistle to the Trallians (1–4, 13), in The Epistle to the Philadelphians (1, 4, 8, 10) or in The Epistle to the Smyrnaeans (8–9). In the Letter of Jude the unity of the community is not (yet) based on submission to the authority of the bishop, but on submission to the authority of inspired revelation – “the faith […] handed down to the saints” (Jude 3.20) and the Holy Spirit (Jude 19.20). It seems, therefore, that Jude’s community represents an earlier stage of development than the communities addressed in Ignatius’ letters. It is also difficult to speak of any doctrinal stability and any formulae of faith in the life of the community. However, verse 3 (“the faith handed down to the saints”) and verse 5 (reference to all that the recipients already learnt) and partly verse 20 (building on the most holy faith), which are usually given as an argument for the existence of some early orthodoxy, are not convincing and sufficient evidence89 to insist on an established set of rules of faith (regula fidei)90 which must be defended against error. The rhetoric most likely employed here is similar to that used in 2 Thess 2:15, where Paul calls for adherence to the tradition about which the people of Thessalonica were instructed.91 The narrator of Jude also urges the audience to be faithful to the revelation that was handed down through the patriarchs, prophets and apostles (cf. Gal 1:6–9, Rom 16:17). As it seems, the dispute between Jude

89 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 9. 90 D.J. Harrington, The Early Catholic Writings of New Testament, [in:] R.J Clifford, G.W. MacRae, The Word in the World: Essays in Honor of Frederick L. Moriarty, Cambridge 1973, p. 107. 91 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 78.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

41

42

Introduction

and the false teachers was not about orthodoxy and heresy (it would be downright anachronistic to use these categories), but primarily about the inspiration of revelation, of which the Church, including the community of the recipients, is the depositary, and the lack of inspiration of the private revelations that justified and warranted the apostates’ immoral behaviour. The data from the Letter of Jude, however, are too scanty to learn more about the content of these revelations, and thus to attempt to situate them temporally. From the very beginning, Christianity, especially of Jewish provenance, was exposed to ideas and teachings, usually of Hellenistic origin, which led to ungodliness within the meaning of the Mosaic law. Apostle Paul already drew attention to it (Rom 1:24, 6:12–13, 13:13, 2 Cor 12:21, Eph 4:17–19); the motif also appears in later New Testament literature (Titus 1:15, 1 Pet 4:3–4, 1 John 2:16–17) and, because of its frequent occurrence, has almost become a topos of early Christian teaching, whether delivered in the 50s, 80s–90s of the first century or even later.92 We can try to point to certain elements that make up the teaching or rather the tradition perfectly familiar to the recipients of the Letter of Jude, to which the narrator refers (cf. Jude 5.17): the idea of pre-existence, the perception of Jesus Christ as the eschatological Judge, Lord, Ruler, and thus the transfer into his hands of powers and titles belonging to God in Old Testament, the transformation and angelization of the righteous dead who will accompany the Lord coming to judgement. These elements are deeply rooted in the apocalyptic Judaic tradition93 from before the establishment of the rabbinical school at Jabneh, where, around 90, work was undertaken to define the collection of hand-defiling writings that later made up the Hebrew Bible. There was no place among them for the Enochean literature or the Testament of Moses, the texts that Jude had used. The pesher94 as a method of interpreting 1 En 1:9 in Jude 14–16 is also of particular importance. This confirms the status of the Book of Enoch as inspired writing, for pesher was the predominant method of interpreting scripture at Qumran, among others, where several Aramaic fragments of the Book of Enoch have been found95 before its final editing in the first century. The use of the same texts, the similarity of methods of their interpretation, and above all the conviction about the end times as well as the dominant eschatological and apocalyptic hermeneutics may point to a similar time of composition of the early Qumran peshers and the Letter of Jude, i.e. the years 50–70 of the first century.

92 93 94 95

Ibid., p. 78. M. Hengel, Acts and the History of Early Christianity, London 1979, p. 122. See below for the genre and the analysis of verses 14–15 and 16 in the commentary section. G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 337; L.T. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Enoch: Its Reception in Second Temple Jewish and in Christian Tradition, “Early Christianity” 4 (2013), no. 1, p. 9.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Time of origin

On the other hand, it should be noted that although the Jewish apocalyptic tradition from the very beginning had a great influence on Christianity, it was particularly strong at the turn from the first to second centuries in Asia Minor (it was not by chance that the Apocalypse of John was written there). Referring not only to the idea, but also to the literary apocalyptic convention, an attempt was made in the second and third generation of Christians to recreate the earlier eschatological mood and to raise the dimming hope for Christ’s soon second coming. Thus, the pseudonymity – the adoption of the name of Jude, the brother of James (and of Jesus), and the evocation of an eschatological and apocalyptic hermeneutic characteristic of the time when Jude lived could be intended by an author, writing at the end of the first century, to reconstruct the atmosphere of the first years, or possibly the first decades, of Christianity.96 1.3.3

Ideas of false teachers

In the past, attempts were made to date the Letter of Jude on the basis of hypotheses concerning the opponents. However, it has proved difficult to determine who the false teachers were and to present systematically the doctrine which they preached and lived by. On the one hand, the Letter of Jude contains only general information; on the other hand, as has been mentioned, the author describes universal phenomena which occurred – sometimes repeatedly – in every generation of Christians and in almost every community, and presents them in a biased way, using a vituperative style97 which makes it impossible to reconstruct the actual teaching and behaviour of the apostates. The descriptions given in Jude allow us to assume that the opponents/false teachers/false prophets belonged to itinerant charismatic teachers who – separately or in groups – came to the community of the recipients of the letter, sneaked into it (cf. Jude 4) and most probably spread their teachings during the agape feasts (Jude 12).98 The fact that they attended the agape feasts, even without invitation, indicates that both they and the community of recipients of Jude regarded them as Christians.99 New Testament and early Christian literature describe the phenomenon of teaching wanderers quite well (cf. Matt 7:15, 2 Cor 10–11, 1 John 4:1, 2 John 10, Did. 11–12). In general, Christian communities would welcome such teachers (Did. 12 appeals: “But let every one that comes in the name of the Lord be received”), listen to their teachings and/or prophecies, and give short-term hospitality and material support, 96 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 11. 97 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 103–104. 98 S.J. Joubert, Language and the Social Context of the Letter of Jude, “Neotestamentica” 24 (1990), no. 2, p. 341. 99 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 104.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

43

44

Introduction

so Jude’s mention of deception can be seen as part of a vituperative style rather than a description of actual actions. Some Christian teachers turned an itinerant lifestyle and a semblance of piety into a source of income (1 Tim 6:5, Titus 1:11, Did. 11–12). The pastoral epistles and Did. warn against such teachers and prophets; Did. 11 and 12 even give criteria to help distinguish between a true and a false prophet. These can be traced back to Did. 11: But not every one that speaks in the Spirit is a prophet; but only if he hold the ways of the Lord. Therefore from their ways shall the false prophet and the prophet be known. […] every prophet who teaches the truth, if he do not what he teaches, is a false prophet.

The similarity of the problems may indicate that the pastoral epistles, the Letter of Jude and Did., were written at the same time – at the end of the first century, possibly between 80 and 100 AD. This dating obviously implies that the epistle was considered a pseudonymous writing. On the other hand, Jude’s presentation of the teaching and behaviour of the false teachers allows parallels to be drawn with phenomena described in the letters of Apostle Paul as early as in the fifties. Charismatic, itinerant teachers are characterised by Jude as those who have rejected all authority of Jesus Christ, including His judicial powers (Jude 4.25);100 they also rejected or reduced the revelation “handed down once for all to the saints” (verse 3), replacing it with their own visions based on the wish to satisfy their own desires and ambitions (Jude 8.16). This involves the rejection of previous authorities, of the God-established community leaders and tradents of the revelation, which the narrator interprets as blasphemy caused by ignorance of the true content of this revelation (Jude 10). On the basis of their conviction that their own visions are inspired (cf. 2 Cor 12:1–3, Col 2:18), they promote behaviour commonly classified as ungodliness (cf. 1 Cor 5:1–6, 6:12–20, 10:23) – for example, they regard grace as liberation from all restrictions imposed by the law of Moses (Jude 4, cf. Rom 3:8, 6:1.15, Gal 5:13) and are thus typical antinomians. Even less data is provided by a characterisation based on the juxtaposition of the behaviour of the false teachers with the actions and fate of protagonists known from Jewish tradition. The narrator of Jude uses common literary topoi from the time of the Second Temple.101 The false teachers, by indulging in ungodliness in the broadest sense of the term, transgress the boundaries and order established by God,

100 Ibid., p. 105. 101 T.R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (New American Commentary 37), Neshville 2003, p. 441–443; J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 254–256; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 42–44; R. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives, p. 181, 186–188.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Time of origin

which makes them similar to the rebellious angels and the inhabitants of Sodom (Jude 6–7), and by acting according to their own desires and ambitions, they not only undermine God’s will (murmuring and complaining against God, uttering arrogant words – verse 16), but actually replace it with their own concepts and initiatives (Jude 16.19), which in turn makes them act like the three Old Testament anti-heroes well-known to the recipients: Cain, Balaam and Korah. Sometimes attempts are made to identify false teachers from passages describing their purported pneumatology and spirituality. Itinerant charismatics claim to possess the Spirit, to be unique, chosen individuals who are therefore not subject to judgment. Instead, they claim the right to replace previous authorities – patriarchs, prophets, apostles – held in high esteem in the community of the recipients of Jude and establish new moral standards and rules for the community. Perhaps the ecstatic visions they experience (Jude 8) are for them a sign that they possess the Spirit and spiritual competence, while in reality their teaching has nothing to do with the Spirit or a developed spirituality. On the contrary, the narrator of the epistle refers to the apostates as ψυχικοί and adds that they are “devoid of/having not the spirit/Spirit” πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες (Jude 19), and the proof they lack the spirit/Spirit is the divisions in the community caused by their teaching (Jude 12.19). In order to gain support and a higher status in the community they use not only their teaching, which, although dangerous, does not bring the expected benefits and effects (Jude 12–13), but also certain psycho-manipulation techniques – they flatter some (Jude 16), discredit others and behave arrogantly towards them (Jude 16). This indicates a desire to establish themselves in the community in order to reshape it, which, according to Did. 11, is characteristic of false prophets: “Let every apostle that comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain except one day; but if there be need, also the next; but if he remain three days, he is a false prophet”. Still, the similarity, or even the correspondence with Did., as already indicated, is not sufficient evidence to date Jude to the end of the first century. Formerly, false teachers were identified with the Gnostics,102 which is also related with the conviction that the letter was written later, even in the second century, when the Gnostic movement actually developed. The Gnostic provenance of the apostates would be supported by, among other things, their rejection of God (Christ) as the only ruler because of the belief in the existence of God, the demiurge and the archons (verse 4; cf. also the emphasis on the only God in verse 25 supposedly in opposition to the Gnostic teaching), the division of people into ψυχικοί and πνευματικοί (verse 19). At present this thesis is untenable,103 since the teaching of

102 Cf. J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 231–233; E.M. Sidebottom, James, 2 Peter, Jude (New Century Bible Commentary), Grand Rapids 1980, p. 75. 103 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 12.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

45

46

Introduction

Jude’s opponents lacks the elements most characteristic of the Gnostic doctrines, above all – cosmological dualism. It is undeniable that the false teachers themselves are convinced of their superiority due to the possession of spirit/Spirit. However, there is nothing to indicate that this conviction was equated with their belief in the possession of a spiritual nature. The breaking of moral precepts is rather associated with a rejection of the Mosaic law (as, for example, the Carpocratians did according to Clement of Alexandria – Stromata 3:2)104 than with a Gnostic consciousness (described, among others, by Irenaeus of Lyons in relation to the Valentinians – Adv. Haer. I 6:3). Therefore, it is safer to call the false teachers simply antinomians.105 1.3.4

Relationship to Paul

It is sometimes thought that the antinomians whom Jude criticises are well aware of Paul’s teaching on Christian freedom, grace and law (cf. Rom. 6:14), although they interpret it falsely (cf. Rom. 7:12).106 This would mean that their activity occurred in the sixties of the first century, after the writing and dissemination of the Letter to the Romans. Jude would react to their activity around 65 AD. However, apart from general statements about impiety and perverting grace into licentiousness, there is no indication that the apostates were familiar with Pauline theology. Nor does the author of Jude argue with them on the grounds of this theology. It is more probable that both Paul and Jude refer independently to the same phenomenon – antinomianism, which can be observed from the end of the forties. The dominant feature of all antinomian tendencies was the conviction that the Law of Moses no longer applied to Christians, therefore they did not have to observe any commandments or moral norms. This conviction is criticised by Paul in Rom 6:15–16 from a theological position; 1 Cor 6:12, 10:23–24 present criticism – carried out from an ethical and communitarian perspective – of an ill-conceived freedom which neither builds the community nor serves the good of others. Jude, unlike Paul, combines these two aspects; this is particularly clear in Jude 4, where false teachers are accused of perverting the “grace of our God” (theological aspect) “into licentiousness” (moral aspect). It is not possible to show a direct dependence of Jude on Paul also in other matters, both motivic and phraseological,107 e.g. in the use of the self-description formula Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος “a slave of Jesus Christ” (Jude 1, cf. Rom 1:1, Gal 1:10, Phil 1:1, Col 4:12), with the exhortation to keep and abide in the apostolic teaching (Jude 3, 104 Cf. the criticism of the view that Jude’s opponents are Carpocratians in G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 116–123. 105 Cf. for example, R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, passim. 106 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 180. 107 These are indicated and explained in the commentary section.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Time of origin

cf. 1 Cor 15:1–3, cf. 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, 3:6, 2 Tim 2:2),108 with the use of a reminder formula (Jude 5a.17, cf. Rom 1:13, 11:25, 1 Cor 8:1, 10:1, 12:1, 2 Cor 1:8, Gal 1:11, Phil 1:12, 1 Thess 4:13), using elements of Adamic Christology (Jude 14–15, cf. 1 Cor 15:45, Rom 5:12–19, Phil 2:6–11), and even with the distinction between ψυχικοί and πνεῦμα ἔχοντες (Jude 19, cf. 1 Cor 2:14, 15:44.46) and the recommendations to pray in the Spirit (Jude 20, cf. Eph 6:18, 1 Cor 14:15) and to build one another (Jude 20, cf. 1 Thess 5:11). These similarities most likely result from the same source teaching and customs of early Christianity,109 as well as a specific, easily recognisable sociolect used by both hagiographers. This would mean that Jude and Corpus Protopaulinum were written at a similar time – between 55–65 of the first century.110 1.3.5

Interpretation of the term ‘apostle’

The fact that the hagiographers independently drew on a common early Christian tradition could be also confirmed by a similar understanding of the term ‘apostle’ in the letters of Paul and Jude. The text of Jude 17 is often given as confirmation of the late dating of the epistle because it suggests that the apostles and their earlier teaching belong to the past,111 and that the circle of apostles is already closed (therefore the narrator of the epistle does not pretend to define himself as an apostle). This would have been the case if the term ‘apostle’ was regarded as an honorary title belonging to the Twelve, Paul, Silas and Barnabas, and not as a function. However, this assumption cannot be confirmed on the basis of Jude. It can be contrasted with a broad and functional understanding of the term ‘apostle’, consistent with the etymology of the word (ἀποστέλλω – “send, send out”). In this sense, apostles are all those sent to preach the gospel and establish local churches (e.g. 1 Cor 15:1–3, Gal 1:9).112 Jude does not apply this title to himself because he was not the founder or the first teacher of the community to which he addresses his writing. Moreover, the phrase “recall the words spoken earlier by the apostles of Jesus Christ, that they told you”, may indicate, firstly, the oral teaching of the missionaries, and secondly, that it cannot have been very distant, since the narrator evokes the memory of his audience, who were the direct hearers of the apostolic speeches.113

108 M. Green, 2 Peter, Jude. An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), Grand Rapids 1987, p. 238. 109 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 8. 110 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 100–101. 111 R. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives, p. 168. 112 See below for an analysis of verses 17–18. 113 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 76–77.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

47

48

Introduction

1.3.6

Relation to 2 Peter

The dating of Jude is influenced by the relation to 2 Peter. The striking similarity between the two texts, both theologically and lexically, suggests that they are interdependent. The most important similarities are presented in the following table:114 Letter of Jude verse 4 verse 6 verse 7 verse 8 verse 9 verse 10 verse 11 verse 12 verse 16 verse 17 verse 18

Motif Ungodly false teachers Angels kept under darkness Sodom and Gomorrah Rejecting authority and blaspheming the glories Refraining from bringing the judgement Perceiving like animals and blasphemies Balaam Nature metaphors Arrogance in words Words of the apostles mergence of scoffers in last time

2 Peter 2:1 2:4 2:6 2:10 2:11 2:12 2:15 2:17 2:18 3:2 3:3

There are three main hypotheses regarding the interdependence of the two texts: (a) The Letter of Jude is dependent on the Second Letter of Peter; (b) the Second Letter of Peter is dependent on the Letter of Jude; (c) both hagiographers draw from a common source independently of each other.115 A less probable fourth hypothesis about the common authorship of the two texts is rarely added.116 The first hypothesis was for a long time based on the hierarchy of apostolic authority (similarly e.g. Martin Luther did in the already quoted Preface to the Epistles of Saint James and Saint Jude) and the conviction, commonly shared until the nineteenth/twentieth century, that both letters are authentic (cf. Friedrich Spitta and Charles Bigg). Today it has far fewer supporters than the second hypothesis. The defenders of the priority of 2 Peter include Mark D. Mathews117 , Daniel B. Wallace118 , who gives four main arguments in support of this thesis. First, Jude’s style is better than that of 2 Peter, which may indicate that Jude corrected errors and imperfections in the source text. Second, 2 Peter claims that false teachers

114 After S.J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary: James, Epistles of John, Peter and Jude, Grand Rapids 1996, p. 357. 115 A. Robinson, Jude on the Attack. A Comparative Analysis of the Epistle of Jude, Jewish Judgement Oracles and Greco-Roman Invective, London–New York 2018, p. 10–11. 116 J.A.T. Robinson, Redating, p. 192–195. 117 M.D. Mathews, The Literary Relationship of 2 Peter and Jude. Does the Synoptic Tradition Resolve this Synoptic Problem?, “Neotestamentica” 44 (2010), p. 47–66. 118 D.B. Wallace, Jude: Introduction, Argument, and Outline (New Testament: Introductions and Outlines) https://bible.org/seriespage/26–jude-introduction-argument-and-outline [accessed: 12.10.2019].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Time of origin

are yet to appear, whereas Jude presents them as intruders who already infiltrated the community of recipients. If both letters are addressed to the same community, then the order 2 Peter (announcement) – Jude (fulfilment) is natural. The third and fourth arguments are based on the assumptions that both letters are authentic: Jude 17 refers to the already closed apostolic times, and the term ‘apostle’ is understood reductively. This means (argument three) that the Letter of Jude was written after the death of the Apostle Peter, i.e. after 64 AD; 2 Peter must have been written earlier. Argument four is a more detailed comparative analysis of Jude 17 and 2 Peter 3:2. Jude 17, in calling the hearers to remember the apostles’ words about the appearance of false teachers in the last days, indirectly points to 2 Peter, since 2 Peter 3:2 foretold this possibility. Although Jude 17 and 2 Peter 3:2 seem very similar, there are minute differences between them from which the priority of 2 Peter can be inferred. 2 Peter speaks of “prophets” and “your” apostles. The phrase “your apostles” is supposed to refer to Paul and his companions, and the mention of the “prophets” indicates the compatibility of Paul’s teaching with what the Old Testament prophets preached. In Jude, only the apostles are mentioned, which implies a reference to Paul’s and Peter’s messages, which were already verified for consistency with the Old Testament message. For the dating of Jude, this means that the letter must have been written in post-apostolic times, most likely in the seventies of the first century (Wallace proposes a range between 65 and 80 AD).119 Mark D. Mathews and Daniel B. Wallace, however, seem quite detached in their defence of the priority of 2 Peter, for since the beginning of the twentieth century it has been widely believed that it is 2 Peter that is dependent on Jude. This hypothesis is based on editorial criticism and assumes that the two texts were not necessarily addressed to the same community, did not necessarily share theological ideas, and were not written in the same environment, under the same circumstances, and obviously at the same time. The use of Jude by the author of 2 Peter would therefore have been subordinated to Peter’s theology. One can also see attempts to adapt the text of Jude to the receptive competence of the addressees of 2 Peter, who differ noticeably from those of Jude.120 Richard Bauckham points out that the body of the Letter of Jude was composed with great care, while the structure of 2 Peter 2:1–3:3 is much less elaborate, as if individual elements taken from Jude were incorporated into the text quite freely, without the features of midrash and pesher so typical of Jude.121 Moreover, the commentaries indicate completely different circumstances in which the letter was written and completely different expectations of the recipients. This observation, however, can be interpreted conversely: the disordered material

119 Ibid. 120 R. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives, p. 146–147. 121 Id., Jude, 2 Peter, p. 142.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

49

50

Introduction

in 2 Peter is edited by the author of Jude, who introduced stylistic changes and created a careful literary composition. For the hypothesis of interdependence between 2 Peter and Jude, it seems crucial that some elements from Enochean literature and from the Testament of Moses are eliminated: respectively, the quotation from 1 En 1:9, which occupies the central position in Jude, and the narrative – important for Jude – of the dispute over Moses’ body, without the mention of the archangel Michael in the rather enigmatic mention of the angels’ refraining from condemning the false prophets. In the Hellenistic environment in which 2 Peter was written, these references to Judaic tradition and intertestamental literature would most likely have been incomprehensible. This may also indicate the progressive Hellenization and de-Judaization of Christianity at the time of 2 Peter’s composition, characteristic of the late first century. Regardless of the argument based on internal criteria, the recognition of 2 Peter as an authentic or pseudonymous letter is of great significance for the dating of Jude. If the author of 2 Peter is indeed the apostle Peter, then his letter must have been written before 64 AD.122 This means that the Letter of Jude is earlier and can be dated to 55–60; if, on the other hand, 2 Peter is a pseudonymous letter, then the timeframe of Jude’s composition is broader: from 55–60 to the end of the first century. The third hypothesis about the use of a common source is the least important for the dating of Jude. It is impossible to establish unequivocally what material it contained, in what language it was written and what its literary genre was. The common source could also have been an oral tradition, some model sermons based on the topoi known in various Christian settings,123 or the very arrangement of material reproduced in both Jude 4–18 and 2 Pet 2:1–3:3, which is a paradigm for polemics against false teachers and prophets.

1.4

Recipients

Determining, or rather guessing124 who the recipients of the letter are, is one of the most difficult introductory issues related with Jude. References to the Judaic tradition contained in the text are usually interpreted as an argument for the JudeoChristian and Palestinian provenance of the community to which the letter is addressed. On the other hand, it must be taken into account that HellenoChristians often came from a group of so-called God-fearers, pagans sympathetic to Judaism,

122 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 99. 123 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 141–142. 124 R.A. Reese, 2 Peter and Jude, Grand Rapids 2007, p. 7.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Recipients

who were perfectly familiar with the Jewish tradition and constantly – with the zeal of proselytes – deepened this knowledge. It is not known where the community described in the letter was located. Sometimes Syria is indicated, the area around Antioch (this opinion is supported by Charles Bigg125 , partly Walter Grundmann126 , Karl Hermann Schelkle127 , John Norman Davidson Kelly128 , Michael Green129 ). This would be evidenced by the high degree of Hellenization of Jewish communities in that region (and thus at least a basic knowledge of the topoi derived from Greek literature), multiculturalism, and finally the affinity of lexis, themes and motifs present in Did. (ecclesiastical discipline, catechetical tradition, recognition of false prophets), among others. This hypothesis is more probable under the assumption that the recipients were familiar with Paul’s teaching and Paul is believed to be mentioned among the apostles in verses 17–18. However, it is difficult to explain the fact that precisely in these areas the Letter of Jude was not recognised as a canonical writing until the sixth century.130 According to another hypothesis, the letter was intended for Judeo-Christians living among the pagans in Asia Minor (cf. Rev 2:14.20). This would be evidenced, among other things, by the tradition of the mission carried out by Jude (1 Cor 9:5),131 familiarity with Greek literature, antinomianism common in those lands,132 and a certain similarity of Jude with the tradition of John. The lack of direct influence of Pauline theology can be explained by the division of influence and activities. Paul’s missionary activity is mainly among the Helleno-Christian communities and he addresses his correspondence to them, while Jude’s focus is on Christians of Jewish origin.133 Sometimes, referring to the authority enjoyed by the Letter of Jude, it is Egypt or even Alexandria itself that are indicated as the place to which the letter was

125 Ch. Bigg, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St Peter and St Jude (International Critical Commentary: on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments 41), Edinburgh 1901, p. 321. 126 W. Grundmann, Der Brief des Judas und der Zweiten Brief des Petrus (Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament 15), Berlin 1974, p. 19–20. 127 K.H. Schelkle, Die Petrusbriefe. Der Judasbrief, Göttingen 1988, p. 78. 128 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 234. 129 M. Green, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 56. 130 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 16. 131 D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude (The NIV Application Commentary), Grand Rapids 1996, p. 42. 132 N. Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, Grand Rapids 1992, p. 51. 133 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 16.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

51

52

Introduction

sent (this opinion is upheld by John J. Gunther134 , Henning Paulsen135 , Jerome H. Neyrey136 ). In Egypt, Jude was recognized as a canonical text already at the time of Tertullian, Origen and Clement of Alexandria (second/third century). Besides, the Alexandrian fathers, especially Clement, use arguments, like Jude, based on the Enochean tradition, which proves the popularity of this literature and later also of Jude among Egyptian Christians (cf. the copy of Jude in Peter72 ). John J. Gunther argues that an Alexandrian origin would be supported by references in the letter itself to the Exodus from Egypt (verse 5), mentions of the rocky port of Alexandria (a nautical metaphor in verses 12.13) and to the coastal climate (verse 12), and a quotation from a possibly Greek version of the Book of Enoch and the Testament of Moses from the Library of Alexandria.137 John J. Gunther’s argument weakens when one considers that references to the Exodus were a regular feature of Jewish tradition, the background to the natural metaphors could be imagery from the Book of Enoch and/or Greek literature or observations made in any other port on the Mediterranean, and the Enochean writings were also known outside Alexandrian circles, as evidenced by their Aramaic copies at Qumran. Furthermore, it is not known whether Jude actually used the Greek or rather the Aramaic version of the Book of Enoch. As mentioned, it is the Palestinian hypothesis that has the most supporters (among others Richard Bauckham138 , J. Daryl Charles139 ; Gene L. Green140 , also Walter Grundmann141 and John Norman Davidson Kelly142 ). This hypothesis is confirmed already in Jude 1, when the author introduces himself as James’s brother. James was a well-known, recognizable and influential figure primarily in the Jerusalem Church. This would mean that Jesus’ relatives had an authority among the Judeo-Christians of Palestine, which is also confirmed by the dynastic hypothesis cited earlier.143 The links with Palestinian Christianity would be testified by extraordinarily strong apocalyptic and eschatological overtones and the use of pesher and midrash, the interpretation methods similar to those used at Qum-

134 J.J. Gunther, The Alexandrian Epistle of Jude, NTS 30 (1984), p. 550. 135 H. Paulsen, Der Zweite Petrusbrief und der Judasbrief (Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 12/2), Göttingen 1992, p. 45. 136 J.H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible 37c), New York 1993, p. 29. 137 J.J. Gunther, The Alexandrian Epistle, p. 552. 138 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 16–17. 139 J.D. Charles, Literary Strategy in the Epistle of Jude, Scranton 1993, p. 65–81. 140 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 87–97. 141 W. Grundmann, Der Brief des Judas, p. 19–20. 142 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 234. 143 See above – author.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Recipients

ran, in texts regarded as inspired and prophetic (the Book of Enoch and apostolic teaching). The fact that Jude was written in Greek and not Aramaic does not significantly weaken this hypothesis. It is known that in Palestine, even in Jerusalem itself, there lived so-called Hellenists, Jews raised in the diaspora, who spoke Greek (Acts 2:5–11, 6:1.9). This could indicate that Jude is directing his writing to Hellenists living in heavily Hellenised cities of Palestine, such as Caesarea Maritima, Caesarea Philippi, Sepphoris, Sebaste, Ptolemais or Greek cities such as Tiberias and the Decapolis.144 If John J. Gunther’s argument about the littoral realities, illustrated in Jude 12–13 and familiar to the audience, is transferred to the Palestinian cities, one might even narrow their list down to Caesarea Maritima and Ptolemais. The Hellenists inhabiting the cities were familiar not only with the Greek language and literature to which Jude refers, but also with Hebrew, at least to the extent that they could read the Hebrew Bible. The narrator could therefore afford to refer to images that occur in the original texts but are not found in the LXX.145 The circle of recipients of Jude can be broadened to include God-fearing pagans sympathetic to Judaism (cf. Acts 10). There were definitely more of them in cities than in the countryside, which further strengthens the hypothesis of addressees coming from urban communities. Ethnically diverse, multicultural environments were easier to infiltrate, of which the false teachers were probably aware, and antinomian ideas were easier to inculcate and more attractive to Hellenic Christians. The letter itself also paints a picture of the community of recipients as an open and egalitarian community that does not clearly separate itself from the outside world.146 Therefore, false teachers were not only able to slip into it, but also to teach during the agape feasts, which, as mentioned, show an affinity to Greek symposia (Jude 12). The openness and pluralism of the community makes it possible for its members to miss the threat posed by the teaching of the incoming prophets. Therefore, the narrator uses all the means at his disposal to point out this danger, to discredit the erroneous teaching, and to expose its preachers as destroyers of the existing order of the community, predicted by the apostles, who behave just like the rebels known to the Jewish tradition used to behave. To this end, he reminds the recipients of the doctrine (faith) which they had received earlier and knew very well (Jude 5). Most likely, the author refers to both the Christian teaching they received from the missionaries who had founded local communities (the apostles – Jude 17) and the knowledge gained in the synagogues. It is significant that this is not a teaching that the addressees had previously received from Jude himself, which may imply an

144 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 92. 145 See below for vocabulary and style. 146 S.J. Joubert, Language, p. 347.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

53

54

Introduction

overestimation or underestimation of the competence of the recipients in reading allusions, suggestions, identifying sources, etc. However, Jude assumes that the addressees are well acquainted with the Jewish tradition, especially the apocalyptic one, so he mentions the motifs present in it (judgment on angels, judgment on the ungodly, messianism, angelisation of the righteous and the possibility of being in the presence of God). At the same time, he refers mainly to the Enochean literature, complementing it with references to biblical stories (rebellion of angels, Sodom and Gomorrah, Cain, Balaam, Korah) and the Testament of Moses. Since the Testament of Moses is the apotheosis of the patriarch and lawgiver, one can assume that the recipients of Jude treated Moses with respect and reverence. This would indicate, on the one hand, that they were indeed of Jewish origin, or even, as Stephan J. Joubert notes, that they belonged to a specific group within Judeo-Christianity.147 On the other hand, it could have been a deliberate effort by the narrator to remind the community (or part of it) threatened by antinomianism of the merits of Moses and to restore his rightful position. In summary, the addressees of Jude are most likely an egalitarian community composed predominantly of Judeo-Christians (Hellenists), but open also to HellenoChristians, living in a Palestinian urban environment, perhaps in some coastal city.

1.5

Vocabulary and style

Juda has an exceptionally good command of the Greek language; he uses a rich lexis, puns on words based on homonymy, paronomasia, polyptoton and contextualisation. By means of these devices he combines texts and images that are often distant from each other in order to draw the recipients’ attention to their common or, on the contrary, radically different features, which are not always noticeable at first glance. The juxtapositions ἀσεβεῖς – ἀσεβέω – ἀσέβεια (‘the ungodly’ – ‘to act in an ungodly manner’ – ‘ungodliness’) in Jude 4.15.19; σάρξ ‘flesh’ in Jude 7–8 and 23; βλασφημέω – βλασφημία (‘to blaspheme’ – ‘blasphemy’) in Jude 8–10; πλάνη – πλανῆται (‘deception’ – ‘wandering/erring/deviating’) in Jude 11.13; λαλέω ‘speak/speak out’ in Jude 15–16; κατὰ τῆς ἐπιθυμίας πορευόμενοι ‘following one’s desires/lusts’ in Jude 16.18; ζόφος τηρεῖν ‘keep in darkness’ – in Jude 6 and 13 and τηρέω ‘keep’ in Jude 1.6.16.21.148 The relatively large number of hapax legomena149 – for a text that short (227 words used) – also draws attention. Fourteen of the terms used in Jude are not found

147 Ibid., p. 340. 148 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 5; Id., Jude and the Relatives, p. 149. 149 H.J. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 27; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 116.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Vocabulary and style

anywhere in the New Testament (ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι ‘to contend’ in verse 3; παρεισέδυσαν ‘crept/sneaked’ in verse 4; δεῖγμα ‘example’ in verse 7; ἐκπορνεύσασαι ‘gave themselves over the fornication’ verse 7; ὑπέχουσαι ‘endured’ in 7; φυσικῶς ‘naturally/instinctively’ in verse 10; σπιλάδες ‘sea rocks/reefs’ in verse 12; φθινοπωρινά ‘late autumn’ in verse 12; πλανῆται ‘wandering’ in verse 13; ἐπαφρίζοντα ‘spitting out [like foam]’ in verse 13; γογγυσταί ‘murmuring’ in verse 16; μεμψίμοιροι ‘complaining’ in verse 16; ἀποδιορίζοντες ‘causing divisions’ in verse 19; ἀπταίστους ‘not stumbling’ in verse 24;). Moreover, four of these terms appear only in the LXX – ἄπταιστος – 3 Macc 6:39; ἐκπορνεύειν, πλανήτης Hos 9:17; ὑπεχεῖν. Another three words from Jude are only found in 2 Peter, which is generally agreed to be dependent on Jude: ἐμπαίκτης ‘scoffers’ in verse 18 and 2 Peter 3:3; συνευωχέομαι ‘feasting together’in verse 12 and 2 Peter 2:13; ὑπέρογκος ‘haughty/arrogant’ in verse 16 and 2 Pet 2:18. Obviously, some caution is necessary in assessing the meaning of Jude’s list of hapax legomena. Some of the terms (e.g. δεῖγμα ‘example’, φυσικῶς ‘naturally’ or ὑπεχεῖν ‘undergo/suffer’) are well known, though other hagiographers do not use them. Some are very specialised (σπιλάδες ‘sea/(sub)water rocks’, φθινοπωρινός ‘late autumn’), others are terms synonymous or even cognates to those used by other Old and New Testament writers (γογγυστής ‘murmuring’, ἐμπαίκτης ‘scoffers’ cf. γογγύζω, γογγυσμός, ἐμπαίζω, ἐμπαιγμός); there are also particularly rare terms (ἀποδιορίζω ‘cause division’, ἐπαφρίζω ‘spit out with foam’). More important than statistics is Jude’s ability to enrich his vocabulary and his almost incredible ability to choose those terms that serve to build images and multi-layered associations, including theological ones. In this light, the use of a unique vocabulary is not surprising. Usually, the narrator achieves an effect by using a single word, sometimes a single expression.150 In contrast, the elaborate metaphors in Jude 12–13 clearly stand out. These imaginative and vivid metaphors, referring to the apocalyptic tradition, serve the vituperative presentation of the teaching of the false teachers. In search of associative lexis, Jude draws not only on the Koine Greek, the LXX Greek, but also on Greek literature, Greek poetry (e.g. ὑπὸ ζόφον ‘under darkness’ verse 6; κύματα ἄγρια ‘wild sea waves’ verse 13). A good knowledge of Greek idioms is also evident – e.g. πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμενος ‘especially carefully’, verse 3; πρόκεινται δεῖγμα δίκην ὑπέχουσαι ‘serve as an example of punishment’, verse 7; κρίσιν ἐπενεγκεῖν ‘bring the judgment’, verse 9; τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα ‘unreasoning animals’, verse 10). While the lexis of Jude is rich and varied, sentence structure seems relatively simple. The narrator generally avoids parataxis; he uses it in the prescript – verses 1–2 and the doxology – verse 5, which results from the use of conventionalized

150 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 116.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

55

56

Introduction

formulas; he also introduces it in verses 11 and 12–13, but here the simple ‘enumeration’ is extended with associative and/or imaginative complements to each element. The text features Semitisms (e.g. ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου ‘from the land of Egypt’, verse 5; οὐαι αὐτοῖς ‘woe to them’, verse 11; τῇ ὁδῷ τοῦ Κάιν ‘the way of Cain’, verse 11; θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα ‘flattering’, verse 16; ὀπίσω with gen, verse 7; perhaps also the omission of the article before κρίσιν ‘verdict, judgment’ in verse 6 and before ἀγᾶπαις ‘agape feasts’ in verse 12 – as a result of the status constructus151 ), which give the letter the characteristics of authenticity. Those in verses 14–15 probably result from the quotation of Enoch’s prophecy from the Aramaic text. Following the pattern of Old Testament prophetic texts, Jude uses aorists in the sense of the future tense in verses 11 and 14 (aoristus propheticum). He reaches for vivid parallelisms – e.g. in verse 6 (synthetic parallelism) and verse 10 (antithetical parallelism) and chiasmus – e.g. in verses 1–2: A. ‘beloved’ ἠγαπημένοι B. ‘preserved’ τετηρημένοι C. ‘called’ κλητοί C’. ‘mercy’ ἔλεος B’. ‘peace’ εἰρήνη A’. ‘love’ ἀγάπη. The chiasmus is also visible in the whole structure of the letter, which can be presented as: A. Salvation – 1–3 B. Ungodliness and judgment – 4 A’. Salvation – 5ab B’. Ungodliness and judgement – 5c B’’. Ungodliness and judgement – 6–19 A’’. Salvation – 20–25.152 Most noticeable, however, is the narrator’s penchant for using triplets, which may or may not be a characteristic of the Semitic style. It may also be a personal stylistic preference.153 Triplets can be detected at various levels: at the compositional level (e.g. triple examples from the Jewish tradition: exodus from Egypt – fallen angels –

151 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 6. 152 See below for suggestions of other structures that also consider the chiastic or concentric structure of the text. 153 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 6.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Vocabulary and style

Sodom and Gomorrah in verses 5–7; Cain – Balaam – Korah in verse 11) and at the stylistic and semantic level (e.g. “beloved” – “preserved” – “called” in verse 1; “mercy” – “peace” – “love” in verse 2; the polyptotic use of terminology referring to ‘ungodliness’: ἀσεβεία “ungodly deeds” – ἠσέβησαν “they have ungodly committed/ committed ungodliness” – ἀσεβεῖς “ungodly” in verse 15; “causing divisions” – “sensual” – “devoid of the spirit/Spirit” in verse 19). It sometimes happens that Jude’s syntax leads to ambiguity. This is the case, for example, in verse 7, where the construction δεῖγμα πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκην can be understood as both ‘an example of eternal fire’ and ‘a punishment of eternal fire’ depending on where the attributive πυρὸς αἰωνίου is assigned, to the noun δεῖγμα or to the noun δίκη. All the aforementioned elements make Jude’s style vivid, colourful, imaginative, although not necessarily overly sophisticated. This corresponds to the style described in classical rhetoric (e.g. in Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria/Institutes of Oratory and in Cicero’s Oratorio/Speakers) as intermediate,154 i.e. ideal for the art of good speaking, but requiring particular effort and tact.155 The careful and thoughtful composition of both the whole letter and its individual parts testifies to the literary talent of the narrator.156 This talent was already noticed by Origen, who in the above-mentioned Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (10:17) called the Letter of Jude a writing “filled with the healthful words of heavenly grace”.157 The sources of Jude’s imagery are to be found in biblical, intertestamental and Greek literature. It is usually assumed that Jude – like most New Testament writers – used the LXX version of the Old Testament. Meanwhile, he often drew on the Hebrew text, which he probably translated himself into Greek. This is particularly evident in places where there are clear references to the Old Testament and differences between the HT and LXX, e.g. verse 11, which refers to Num 26:9, verse 12, which refers to Ezek 34:2 and Prov 25:14, verse 13, which refers to Isa 57:20, and verse 23, which goes back to Amos 4:11 and Zech 3:3.158 Of course, Jude is well aware of the LXX text as a translation of the HT; he knows how the Greek expressions render the Hebrew source phrases; moreover, he also knows the characteristic or unusual expressions from LXX and uses them himself (e.g. ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι, verse 8; θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα and γογγυσταί, verse 16).159 References to the Hebrew text allow for the assumption that both the narrator, and

154 D.F. Watson, Invention, Arrangement, and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter (SBL Dissertation Series 104), Atlanta 1988, p. 25. 155 M. Korolko, Sztuka retoryki. Przewodnik encyklopedyczny, Warszawa 1990, p. 49. 156 J.D. Charles, Literary strategy, p. 37. 157 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 72. 158 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 116–117. 159 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 7.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

57

58

Introduction

the recipients of the Letter of Jude belonged to a society that made use of Hebrew, Arameic and Greek writings, having a good command of these three languages, at least with regard to texts considered inspired. In the Hellenistic world, however, this was not an exception, rather the norm.160 Since ancient times the greatest controversy has been excited by Jude’s use of the intertestamental apocalyptic literature on a par with prophetic sources. Jude 14–15 mentions Enoch’s prophecy and a quotation from 1 En 1:9 (it is not possible to establish unambiguously whether this was taken from the Aramaic or the Greek text). This is not the only reference to the Enochean tradition. Motifs from Corpus Henochicum appear, among others, in verses 4.6.12–13.14–16.161 Such frequent references to Enoch, especially assuming that this is the Aramaic version of the book, may prove that Jude and his recipients belonged to the circle of Palestinian apocalyptic Judeo-Christians162 among whom Enochean texts had a particular authority. This would confirm the hypothesis of the early dating of the letter. On the other hand, it must be remembered that the Enochean tradition gained considerable popularity in Christianity, especially in the Alexandrian communities in the second century, and Jude may have used not the Aramaic but the Greek text of the Book of Enoch. This, in turn, would be an argument in favour of a late dating of the letter. An important source of imagery and references is the Testament of Moses, which is invoked in Jude 9, but also in Jude 23 and 24 (the garment and transfiguration motif). It is impossible to determine whether, in describing the dispute over the body of Moses, Jude used some form of (crypto)quotation or whether he merely summerised the text because the final passage of The Testament of Moses, called The Assumption of Moses, is lost. Only a sixth-century Latin translation has survived to this day, without the ending, that tells about the death of the patriarch. On the basis of this manuscript, however, it may be concluded that the source text was probably written in Palestine, at the latest in the middle of the first century.163 The Assumption of Moses in the Greek version was well known to the Alexandrian fathers. These early Christian sources were used by Richard Bauckham to reconstruct the content of The Assumption and its Christian reception.164 Among the Jewish sources, we should also mention oral transmission: the Jewish midrashic, haggadic and parenetic tradition (verses 5–7, 11), also to be found in the

160 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 118. 161 The references to the Enochean tradition will be further described in the commentary section when analysing individual poems. 162 R. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives, p. 140. 163 M. Parchem, Testament Mojżesza. Wprowadzenie oraz przekład z objaśnieniami, “Collectanea Theologica” 76 (2006), no. 2, p. 79. 164 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 65–76; a reconstruction will be presented in the commentary section, when analysing verses 8–9.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Vocabulary and style

writings of Philo and Josephus Flavius. In contrast, there are no explicit allusions to Christian writing, including New Testament writing. The question of the relation of Jude to Paul’s letters was discussed earlier, when trying to establish the time of Jude’s composition. It was concluded then that most probably both hagiographers refer to the same all-Christian sources, hence the similarity of motifs, forms and terminology. However, there are no direct relationships between them. The same can be said of Jude’s relations with other New Testament writings – apart from 2 Peter, of course165 – although earlier some efforts have been made to prove, among other things, the dependencies between Jude and the Letter to the Hebrews. The mention in Jude 3 that the narrator intended to write “about our common salvation”, but that circumstances forced him, at least partially, to change his plans, has been interpreted as pointing to Hebrews, which would be the fulfilment of those original intentions.166 Jude is familiar with the apostolic (Jude 17–18), catechetical and disciplinary (Jude 20–23), and liturgical (Jude 24–25) tradition, in its broad sense, so parallels can be noted with, among others, Did. or the letters of Ignatius of Antioch; however, it is not legitimate to infer some mutual dependence. The narrator of Jude is also familiar with Greek literature. In Hellenized multicultural environments this was nowhere near unusual,167 especially as the references to these sources are quite superficial. There are no direct quotations, only motifs that belong to literary topoi are used (e.g. the motif of being bound and imprisoned in darkness; maritime motifs; cf. Jude 6.12), or formulations that may have penetrated the vernacular often as decontextualized sayings and phrases.168 It may be noted that Greek literature most often appears as a background for vituperative statements; this is particularly evident in the passages that question the ability of false teachers to be guided by reason and contrast it with being guided by lust (Jude 10.12–13.16.18). Most noticeable, however, is Jude’s dependence on Greek literature at the rhetorical and generic level. Judah uses elements characteristic of syncrisis, such as laudatio and vituperatio for persuasion.169 The entire letter is structured according to the principles of Hellenistic rhetoric. In the body of the letter one can easily identify exordium narratio, probatio, peroration;170 these elements are in turn overlaid with a chiastic and/or concentric structure typical of Hebrew texts.

165 See above. 166 Cf. A.M. Dubarle, Rédacteur et destinataires de L’Épître aux Hébreux, “Revue Biblique” 48 (1939), p. 509–529, after R. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives, p. 148. 167 D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 360. 168 Cf. M. Głowiński, Mowa: cytaty i aluzje, [in:] M. Głowiński, Narracje literackie i nieliterackie, Kraków 1997, p. 283. 169 S.J. Joubert, Persuasion in the Letter of Jude, JNST 58 (1995), p. 80; see below for genre. 170 D.F. Watson, Invention, p. 46; D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 360; see also below for structure.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

59

60

Introduction

1.6

Genre

At first glance, the letter Jude resembles a typical Hellenistic letter, written according to the rules of epistolographic art laid out in the textbook Τύποι ἐπιστόλικοι (Epistolary Types) by Pseudo-Demetrius (first century BC – first century AD).171 This would be evidenced by epistolary markers, of which – contrary to appearances – there are not so many. Every classical letter, both Greek and Hebrew, contained a prescript in which the sender introduced himself (superscriptio), identified and/or characterised the recipients (adscriptio) and sent greetings or good wishes (salutatio). Greek greetings were most often expressed with the verb χαίρειν, Hebrew greetings with the verb ‫ ברך‬or the noun ‫שלום‬. They could, of course, be more elaborate (e.g. “King Antioch sends greetings to King Ptolomeus and his brother Alexander. If you stay healthy, it would be as we wish. We ourselves are also healthy and remember you with love”,172 sometimes even passing into prayer.173 The body of the letter, as already noted above, consisted of elements that are also typical of speech – exordium, narratio, partitio, probatio, peroratio (cf. Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria IV 5:1–VI 1:1). The final part of the letter contains – again – wishes and greetings to the recipients and the sender’s signature. Typically, letters were characterised by simplicity combined, however, with carefulness of style (the so-called intermediate style according to Quintilian’s rules from Institutio oratoria XII 10:58), conciseness, clarity and expressiveness, and a personal tone.174 While the beginning of the Letter of Jude corresponds to the rules of ancient epistolography – (Jude 1–2 is a prescript with typical components, although without a locative note specifying the addressees;175 in Jude 3–4, as in exordium the circumstances in which the letter is written, the reason for writing it and the subject of the letter are given), doubts were raised about the ending which is without greetings and without a signature,176 but with an extensive doxology (Jude 24–25), which would rather indicate the liturgical roots of the text. These doubts, together with a rhetorical analysis of the corpus of Jude and the emphasis on the persuasive function of the writing, led to hypotheses about the primary and secondary genres

171 H.W. Bateman, Interpreting the General Letters: An Exegetical Handbook, Grand Rapids 2013, p. 38–40. 172 Seleukia wolnym miastem po wsze czasy, transl. J. Schnayder, [in:] List antyczny. Antologia, ed. J. Schnayder, Wrocław 2006, p. 25. 173 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 157. 174 H.W. Bateman, Interpreting the General Letters, p. 37. 175 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 113. 176 J.A.D Weima, Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings (JSNTSup 101), Sheffield 1994, p. 55.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Genre

of the text.177 Initially, the text did not belong to any of the known epistolary genres or types; it was a sermon intended to be preached during the liturgy. Thus, the homiletic form (Jude 3–25), to which the prescriptive form typical of letters was later added, would have been primary.178 The main argument in favour of the rhetorical nature and against the priority of the epistolary form is the clear ancient distinction between letter and speech. Jude’s text is too carefully written to be classified as a typical representative of the genre. The letter replaces direct communication, it is the equivalent of conversation – especially the private letter. Artemon of Cassandrea, the editor of Aristotle’s letters, quoted by Pseudo-Demetrius in De elocutione/On style 223, clearly considers the letter a form of a dialogue: “A letter ought to be written in the same manner as a dialogue”.179 In one of his letters to Lucilius, Seneca explains the lack of care in language that he is accused of precisely because he wants his letter to give the impression of a conversation: You have been complaining that my letters to you are rather carelessly written. Now who talks carefully unless he also desires to talk affectedly? I prefer that my letters should be just what my conversation would be if you and I were sitting in one another’s company or taking walks together, – spontaneous and easy; for my letters have nothing strained or artificial about them (Moral Letters to Lucilius 75:1).

Also, Cicero compares his letters to conversations with close people, even on trivial and/or personal topics. In one of his Letters to Atticus (9:10) he states that although he actually has nothing to write, nor does he have important news to share, yet, unable to sleep from worry, he writes as if he were simply talking to a friend. In other writings (8:14) he adds that a letter is like a conversation with a friend that brings comfort, or like a remedy for separation from someone close (5:10). Jude’s letter, devoid at first sight of these personal elements, formal in its expression, written – as mentioned above – in a demanding intermediate style, is not an equivalent of a dialogue; it lacks “a certain degree of freedom”, as Demetrius pointed out in reference to letters (De elocutione 228–229.231.234).180 The body of the Letter of Jude, composed according to the principles of classical rhetoric (exordium – Jude 3; narratio – Jude 4; probatio – Jude 5–16; peroratio – Jude 17–23),181 contains many structured intertextual and intergeneric refer177 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 148; B. Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter and Jude (The Anchor Bible 37), New York 1964, p. 190. 178 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 112. 179 After G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 157. 180 After Ibid., p. 157. 181 D.F. Watson, Invention, p. 33.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

61

62

Introduction

ences. Among other things, the narrator draws on the Midrashic practice, the images taken from the Bible and the extra-biblical literature (verses 5–19), parenesis (verses 20–23), and finally doxology (verses 24–25), which would be typical of a sermon rather than a letter, while doxology itself would indicate very clearly the liturgical purpose of the text. On the other hand, the final greetings, characteristic of Hellenistic epistolography, are completely omitted. The majority of ancient and New Testament letters contain more or less elaborate salutation elements. They can be found not only in private letters, which is obvious, but also in official and literary ones. Ovid poetically addresses his wife at the end of a letter: “I would like to write you more, but my voice is hoarse, mute, / I have no strength to dictate. The words are drying on my tongue. / So perhaps I send you my last wishes: What I lack today: Be well”182 ; “Be well” – ended his letter on the riots the military commander of Thebaid.183

The closing doxology in the Letter of Jude is not to be found in ancient Greek or Jewish letters. However, it can be observed in early Christian letters from various periods (e.g. Rom 16:25–27, 2 Pet 3:18, 1 Clem. 65:2; The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus 12), which means that it became a typical element of Christian epistolography quite early.184 Therefore, it is difficult to consider the doxology a decisive element for the genre of Jude. On the one hand, it indeed indicates the liturgical purpose of the text; on the other hand, it could have been taken from the general Christian epistolographical practice. That are ambiguous markers, which some scholars interpret as homiletical, others as epistolographical. They include, among others, salutations like “beloved” (Jude 3.17.20). It seems that they appear less frequently in letters than in sermons. However, if a letter is long, they organise its content and, as in speech, serve the purpose of transition. Another type of markers, in Jude 3, describes the circumstances in which the letter was written. It seems relevant to epistolography and is also very personal. The sender originally intended to focus on “our common salvation” and describe it in detail, probably with positive overtones. However, circumstances – the appearance of false teachers in the community of recipients – forced him to verify his intentions, change his tone and call his addressees to “contend for the faith”. Cicero, for example, engages in remarkably similar deliberations:

182 Owidiusz pisze z wygnania do żony, transl. A. Świderkówna, [in:] List antyczny, p. 201. 183 W sprawie zamieszek w Tebaidzie, transl. J. Schnayder, [in:] List antyczny, p. 17. 184 See below for an analysis of verse 25b.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Genre

The reason why I haue not written to you of long time, is first because I had no certaine subiect whereof to write; and secondly, because I could not vse those kinde of letters, which are ordinarie. […] There remaines a kinde of writing, that’s miserable and lamentable, and comformable to these times: this I want also […] (Epistulae ad Familiares libri 4:13).

The same verse, Jude 3, as mentioned above, can be treated as the exordium, an introduction that defines the purpose of the speech and prepares the listener for the proper reception of the subject. Because of the personal element, revealing the emotional state of the sender, this type of exordium can also be qualified as ex abruptio, an extraordinary introduction, surprising, used for topics of great interest to the recipients, associated with the uniqueness of the moment185 . The difficulty in defining unequivocally the primary genre of Jude as a sermon or as a letter means that the text should be treated as borderland literature. This is how contemporary epistolographical theories situate the letter in general. They place it not only on the borderland of literary genres, which the letter may co-create or use, but also on the borderland of e.g. literary fiction and functional literature. Due to the variety of forms and functions, the letter cannot be easily classified into a specific category.186 This can be observed in the attempts to systematise and categorise letters, which were made already in antiquity. Pseudo-Demetrius in his samples of letters enumerates 21 types of letters, Pseudo-Libanius in his Manual of Correspondence from the Byzantine times already 41.187 Cicero, among others, is sceptical about such detailed classifications, admitting that “You know, there are diuers sorts of letters in vse but the chiefest is that by which the cōueniencie was brought vs of writing, to giue notice vnto our friends, far off, about needfull matters, to vs, or them appertaining” (Epistulae ad Familiares libri 2:4). Nevertheless, since ancient times, the term ‘letter’ has often been accompanied by its differentia specifica. This is also the case in modern studies on the Letter of Jude, which regards its epistolary form as primary, intended from the very beginning. J. Daryl Charles188 views the Letter of Jude as the so-called λόγος παρακλήσεως ‘word of encouragement’, a genre that was rooted in the synagogue sermon, but incorporated elements of Greco-Roman rhetoric. In the intertestamental times it was already readily used by Hellenistic Jewish writers and was later adopted by early Christian writings.

185 M. Korolko, Sztuka, p. 80. 186 A. Całek, Nowa teoria listu, Kraków 2019, p. 10. 187 J. Schnayder, Antyczne teorie epistolograficznex, [in:] List antyczny, p. LV–LVI; this elaborate typology is synthesized by S.K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, Philadelphia 1986, p. 49–51; he distinguishes six basic types of ancient letters: friend, family, praising or chastising, exhorting, recommending, apologetic. 188 J.D. Charles, Literary strategy, p. 25–27.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

63

64

Introduction

The classic example of λόγος παρακλήσεως is Paul’s speech in Antioch of Pisidia (Acts 13:16–41), which uses – as in Jude – examples from Jewish history to outline the current situation of the hearers. In the New Testament, in addition to Jude, this genre was also represented by Hebrews and 1–2 Peter. J. Daryl Charles points out that although λόγος παρακλήσεως is the generic dominant in Jude, the word has been given an epistolary form from the beginning. Such a form (Latin epistule, Greek ἐπιστολή) with the characteristic στελ- ‘sending’ was imposed by the communicative situation: the preacher could not spread the teaching in person, so he gave it the structure of a letter and intended it to be sent and then read publicly during the liturgical assembly (cf. Col 4:16, 1 Thess 5:27).189 Gene L. Green revised the claims of J. Daryl Charles and postulated that Jude, which was planned as an epistle, should not be called λόγος παρακλήσεως because this could be misleading, suggesting the oral provenance of the text, but rather ἐπιστολὴ παρακλήσεως ‘encouraging letter’,190 intended from the beginning to be sent and read. A similar position is taken by Richard Bauckham, who, because of the integrity of sermonic and epistolographical form, calls the Letter of Jude “an epistolary sermon”.191 He defines it as a work whose We might therefore regard the work as an “epistolary sermon”, i.e. a work whose main content could have been delivered as a homily if Jude and his readers had been able to meet, but which has been cast in letter form so that it can be communicated to readers whom Jude could not visit in person.192

The practice of “preaching from a distance”, i.e. inserting the sermon in the body of a letter, was characteristic of the intertestamental period, although traces of it may be found as early as the time of the Babylonian exile; suffice it to mention the genre known as “letters to the diaspora”,193 whose sample is the Letter of Baruch to the exiles in ApBaSyr/2 Ba 78–86, or the Letter of Jeremiah (Jer 29, cf. 2 Macc 1–2, Bar 6:1–73). The distinguishing feature of the letter to the diaspora was its wide reach: much wider than letters addressed to specific communities. Perhaps it is this feature that made the author of Jude resign from providing the data that would identify the recipients. Moreover, the problems he raises, the struggle with false teachings and antinomianism were, as mentioned, typical of many early Christian communities. On the other hand, some biblical scholars try to individualize the 189 Id., Literary Artifice in the Epistle of Jude, “Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentlische Wissenschaft” 82 (1991), p. 115. 190 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 156–158. 191 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 3. 192 Ibid., p. 3. 193 K. Wojciechowska, M. Rosik, Mądrość zstępująca, p. 74–76.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Genre

circumstances of the letter’s composition. They point to the fact that the author refers to the concrete situation of the recipients, who faced the penetration of false teachings into their community,194 which leads to the assumption that the writing of Jude was not only conceived as a letter from the beginning, but also as a letter addressed to aconcrete community with specific pastoral and disciplinary solutions. This concrete approach makes Jude different from other so-called Catholic (universal) letters, in which a more universal and less particularistic treatment of theological and parenetic issues prevails. Another feature typical of sermons delivered from a distance was also their pseudonymity resulting not only from the genre convention, but also by pragmatics. A letter coming from a person enjoying widespread respect and authority had amuch stronger effect on its recipients than a letter from an unknown person. If the Letter of Jude is a pseudonymous letter, then, as already mentioned, the choice of Jude as the author was not accidental. For the name is theologically and historically significant, and at the same time it has references to times not so distant for then recipients as the leadership of Judah the Maccabee struggling for the faith. Above all the name refers to the institution of δεσπόσυνοι based on kinship with James, the Lord’s brother, and with Jesus himself.195 Of course, adopting the convention of a sermon preached from a distance does not exclude authentic authorship of Jude. On the contrary, the authenticity is evidenced by the modesty of the self-description in the superscriptio, which indicates that the author was then very well known and respected. While Richard Bauckham’s generic term (epistolary sermon) denotes only the form, the terminology of J. Daryl Charles (word of encouragement) and especially that of Gene L. Green (letter of encouragement) refer to content, purpose, and ancient classifications. The purpose of the letter would thus be to encourage the defence of the faith (Jude 3), to build on its foundation (Jude 20), to pray in the Holy Spirit, to abide in love of/for God (Jude 20) and expect mercy (Jude 20), showing at the same time mercy to those who err (Jude 22–23). Encouraging (parenetic) letters are mentioned by both Pseudo-Demetrius and Pseudo-Libanius. The indication of the generic dominant, which appears mainly at the beginning and end of the epistles, does not however exhaust the wealth of particular genres that can be found throughout Jude. What strikes the eye, above all, are the vituperative elements (cf. vituperative letters in the Patterns of Letters). Vituperatio “reprimand” was a kind of evaluative statement, aimed at discrediting opponents, whose shameful behaviour, system of values, teachings were juxtaposed with laudatio ‘praise’ of values and attitudes considered noble and desirable by the sender (cf. Jude 1–3.20–23). Such

194 S.J. Joubert, Language, p. 339; J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 245. 195 See above – author.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

65

66

Introduction

a comparative juxtaposition – the so-called syncrisis – was supposed to lead to the formation of character, reflection on what is good and bad, recognition of vices and virtues (cf. Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria II 4:20–21); it was used in classical rhetoric and in polemics by Jewish authors.196 Often the vituperatio took the form of a mocking invective attributing to opponents such traits as greed (Jude 11), promiscuity (cf. Jude 4.7.8), stupidity/lack of reason (Jude 10.12–13), lack of knowledge (Jude 10), drunkenness (Jude 12), gluttony (Jude 12); Jude adds vices specific only to false teachers – ungodliness (Jude 4.15), discontent (Jude 16), causing divisions (Jude 19), fruitlessness and harmfulness of teaching (Jude 12–13) and lack of the Spirit (Jude 19). As Roger Dutcher notes, quoting William F. Brosend, in a letter of only 25 verses, Jude collected 25 charges against erring believers.197 In doing so, he used topoi from the Jewish tradition customarily denoting sinners (rebellion of angels, Sodom and Gomorrah, Cain, Balaam, Korah, those murmuring and rebelling in the desert during the Exodus) and associations with Greek literature that condemned, among other things, flattery, arrogance, excessive ambition and irrational behaviour, giving in to instincts and emotions. Although the vituperative motifs are far more numerous than the laudatory ones, the letter is not perceived as hateful, on the contrary – the author skilfully uses elements characteristic of friendship letters.198 All instructions and encouragements are maintained in a warm, friendly and even parental/fatherly tone, strengthened by the threefold (Jude 3.17.20) use of the salutation ἀγαπητοί ‘beloved’. Apart from genres characteristic mainly of classical rhetoric, the Letter of Jude contains genres typical of Jewish writing, above all, the already mentioned Midrashic form of the body of the letter (Jude 5–19). Its characteristic feature, according to Edward Earle Ellis199 , is the alternate use of texts and images drawn from Jewish tradition to refer to the current situation of the recipients. As we can see, Edward Earle Ellis treats Midrash as eschatological actualisation of the sacred writings, which is to convince the recipients that the most ancient prophecies and the apostles’ later predictions about the appearance and deceptive actions of false teachers on the last day are being fulfilled before their eyes,200 and that the narratives about the punishment of former sinners are a guarantee of judgment on present-day ungodly sinners. This broad view is rather reminiscent of the rabbinic understanding of midrash as a free interpretation of the biblical text using parables, proverbs, leg-

196 L.T. Johnson, The New Testament’s Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic, “Journal of Biblical Literature” 108 (1989), p. 434–436. 197 R. Dutcher, An Unorthodox Argument, p. 37. 198 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 157. 199 E.E. Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity, Tübingen 1978, p. 225. 200 Ibid., p. 226; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 4.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Genre

ends, and references to tradition.201 In Jude each reference to Jewish and Christian tradition (Jude 4. 5–7. 11. 14–15. 17–18) is indeed accompanied by a characteristic explanatory formula beginning with the pronoun οὗτοι ‘these’ or the expression οὗτοί εἰναι ‘these are/they are’ (Jude 8–10. 12–13. 16. 19). This is rather reminiscent of the pesher method of explaining texts used at Qumran (cf. 4QFlor, 11QMelch, 4Q 176, 177, 182, 183). Richard Bauckham points out an important difference between the midrash used by Jude and the ‘classical’ Qumran pesher.202 Jude’s midrash does not describe specific texts, it is not even a paraphrase of them (like the Qumran midrash); rather, it is a construction of images and associations on the basis of many texts, often impossible to identify and point to precisely.203 Only in verses 14–15 does Jude use a quotation from 1 En, which he explains according to the rules of pesher.204 It is possible that he also applies this method in a “non-canonical” way to oral apostolic teaching (verses 17–18), rather than written one. Jude’s use of typology, not to be found in Qumran texts, is also specific. For Jude treats the prophecies not only as a foreshadowing of the end times, but also as a typology in which historical events are an exemplification of what and how will happen in eschatological times.205 In the latter approach the letter does not break with the practice of Jewish intertestamental apocalypticism or the early Christian tradition. On the contrary, it fits in well with them. In summary, it can be said that the Letter of Jude is a syncretic writing, combining genres known in Greek and Jewish literature. Often these genres overlap, as can be well seen in the body of the letter, where, for example, the classical vituperatio harmonically resonates with the Jewish pesher and Midrashic method, while the whole is subordinated to the form characteristic of Greek speeches. It seems that the text intended to be read during assemblies as a sermon/teaching was also conceived as a letter from the beginning. The epistolary form was from the beginning taken by “sermons preached from a distance”, i.e. sent by the preacher as letters which were read in his absence.

201 M. Rosik, I. Rapoport, Wprowadzenie do literatury i egzegezy żydowskiej okresu biblijnego i rabinicznego, Wrocław 2009, p. 139. 202 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 4–5; Id., Jude and the Relatives, p. 149. 203 Id., Jude and the Relatives, p. 151 sees the characteristics of a thematic pesher and concludes that due to his skilful use of slogans and biblical allusions, Jude can be regarded as an outstanding practitioner of pesher. 204 For a more extensive discussion of the pesher interpretation in Jude see below for an analysis of verses 14–15.16. 205 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 5; Id., Jude and the Relatives, p. 150.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

67

68

Introduction

1.7

Structure

The identification of the structure of the Letter of Jude is probably one of the most progressive elements in the study of this text.206 It is related with discovering theological message of the letter, which for a long time was perceived primarily as a parenetical-disciplinary writing. In the study of the structure of Jude two dominant trends can be distinguished – the reconstruction of the structure according to the principles of classical rhetoric and the reconstruction of the structure using the principles of Hebrew rhetoric. While the proposals for classical rhetorical structure are similar to each other, there is a greater divergence with the proposals based on Hebrew rhetoric. The simplest structure of the text is based on the observation that the body of the letter, which could have been an independent homily, was complemented with a prescriptive note, typical of epistolography, and a less typical ending in the form of a doxology, without wishes and greetings.207 1. Epistolary introduction/prescript – Jude 1–2; 2. Content (body) of the letter – Jude 3–23; A. Introduction: purpose and circumstances of writing the letter – Jude 3–4; B. A warning against false teachers – Jude 5–16; C. Conclusion: admonitions to recipients – Jude 17–23; 3. Conclusion: doxology – Jude 24–25. A similar structure is also proposed by Gene L. Green,208 who adds, however, numerous details. Green takes into account Jude’s favoured triplets and the pesher form of commentaries on examples taken from traditions well known to the recipients:

206 Id., Jude and the Relatives, p. 152. 207 Id., Jude, 2 Peter, p. 149; J.A.D Weima, Neglected Endings, p. 55. 208 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 168–170.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Structure

I. Epistolary introduction/prescript – Jude 1–2: A. Author – Jude 1a; B. Recipients – Jude 1b; C. Prayerful wishes for mercy, peace and love – Jude 2. II. The body of the letter: A call to contend for the faith – Jude 3–23: A. Purpose of the letter: exhortation to beloved recipients – Jude 3–4; 1. Original purpose of Jude: to write about common salvation – Jude 3a; 2. New purpose: to encourage the struggle for the faith – Jude 3b; 3. Reason for change: infiltration of the community of recipients by the ungodly – Jude 4; B. Calls to remember: Past examples and their update – Jude 5–19; 1. “I want you to remember”: example and commentary – Jude 5–8; a. Example: Exodus, angels, and Sodom and Gomorrah – Jude 5–7; b. Commentary: it is the dreamers who defile the flesh, reject authority and blaspheme the glories – Jude 8; 2. Second example and commentary – Jude 9–10; a. Example: Michael who refrained from blasphemy – Jude 9; b. Commentary: false teachers blaspheme what they do not understand – Jude 10; 3. Third example and commentary – Jude 11–13; a. Example: Cain’s way, Balaam’s deception, Korah’s rebellion – Jude 11; b. Commentary: these are stains on the agape feasts, clouds without rain, trees without fruit, wild sea waves and wandering stars – Jude 12–13; 4. Fourth example and commentary – Jude 14–16; a. Example: The prophecy of Enoch – Jude 14–15; b. Commentary: They are murmuring, complaining and boastful flatterers – Jude 16; 5. “Remember”: example and commentary – Jude 17–19; a. Example: Apostolic Prophecy – Jude 17–18; b. Commentary: These are the people who cause divisions – Jude 19; C. Encouragement to the beloved recipients – Jude 20–23; 1. Abide in God’s love – Jude 20–21; 2. Snatch them out of the fire; have mercy on those who contend – Jude 22–23. III. Final doxology – Jude 24–25. A structure based on classical rhetoric allows for the exposition of elements typical of both speeches and Hellenistic epistolography. It is one of the arguments for the

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

69

70

Introduction

primitive epistolary form of the text. A model example of such a structure is the proposal of Duane F. Watson:209 1. Praescriptio (letterhead; quasi-exordium) – Jude 1–2; 2. Exordium (introduction) – Jude 3; 3. Narratio (explanation, description of the topic) – Jude 4; 4. Probatio (argumentation) – Jude 5–16: A. First argument – Jude 5–10; B. Second argument – Jude 11–13; C. Third argument – Jude 14–16; 5. Peroratio (closing) – Jude 17–23; 6. Doxologia (quasi-peroratio) – Jude 24–25. Already in the 1950s, a chiastic structure, which also included a concentric structure, was noticed in Jude. One of the pioneers of structural research on Jude, S.M. Coder210 , outlined the structure as follows: Assertions for Christians – Jude 1–2; Believers and faith – Jude 3; Description of the conduct and teaching of the apostates – Jude 4; Apostasy in Old Testament stories – Jude 5–8; Apostasy in supernatural reality – Jude 9–10; The Old Testament trio of apostates – Jude 11; Apostasy in nature – Jude 12.13; Apostasy in the prophecies of the Old Testament – Jude 14–16; Description of the conduct of the apostates – Jude 17–19; Believers and faith – Jude 20–23; Assertions for Christians – Jude 24–25. This structure proved so convincing that subsequent scholars – making slight modifications and taking into account the rhetorical devices used by the narrator – saw the centre of the letter also in verse 11 with the prophetic “woe” and with examples of Old Testament apostasy. This caused the letter to be interpreted primarily as a warning against false teachers and for false teachers, a warning that takes a form close to prophetic statements. This can be seen, for example, in the proposal of E.R. Wendland211 , which, in addition to emphasising this prophetic aspect, also takes into consideration most of Jude’s triplets:

209 D.F. Watson, Invention, p. 77–78. 210 S.M. Coder, Jude. The Acts of the Apostates, Chicago 1958, p. 6. 211 After T.R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, p. 425.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Structure

Epistolary introduction and three-level characterisation of recipients – Jude 1; A greeting with a three-element blessing – Jude 2; Purpose of the letter – Jude 3; Motivation for writing the letter; first mention of apostates – Jude 4; Warnings using examples from Old Testament – Jude 5–7; Description of apostates (three characteristics) – Jude 8; Extra-canonical example (Michael) – Jude 9; Description of apostates (three traits) – Jude 10; Prophetic “woe” and three examples from the Old Testament – Jude 11; Description of apostates (six traits) – Jude 12; Extra-canonical example (Enoch) – Jude 13–15; Description of apostates (three characteristics) – Jude 16; Apostolic warnings – Jude 17–18; Motivation for writing the letter; last mention of apostates – Jude 19; Purpose of the letter – Jude 20–21; A three-part appeal for mercy – Jude 22–23; Conclusion (doxology) – Jude 24–25. These proposals assume that the structure of the letter is very regular. This belief was questioned, among others, by Carroll D. Osburn212 , who proposed a chiastic structure with the centre shifted to verses 17–19: A. Greeting – Jude 1–2; B. Introduction – Jude 3–4; C. Warnings: examples of rebellion and punishment – Jude 5–7; C’ Warnings: eschatological judgment on apostates – Jude 8–16; D. Apostolic warnings – Jude 17–19; B’. An appeal for mercy – Jude 20–23; A’. Doxology – Jude 24–25.

212 Ibid.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

71

72

Introduction

Osburn’s structure does not significantly alter the reading of the letter as a warning against false teachers but shifts the emphasis from historical elements to elements contemporary to the recipients who are eyewitnesses to the fulfilment of apostolic prophecy. A tendency to simplify rather than expand structures is also evident here. This tendency is also visible in the proposal of Bauckham213 , who excluded epistolary elements from the structure and concentrated on the construction of the body of the letter: Introductory elements: address and greetings – Jude 1–2. Reason behind writing the letter and the topic: A. Call – Jude 3; B. Context of the call – Jude 4; B’. Context of the call: midrash – prophecy of the destruction of the ungodly – Jude 5–19; Three Old Testament examples – Jude 5–7; Interpretation of examples – Jude 8–10; b. Three Old Testament examples – Jude 11; Interpretation of examples – Jude 12–13; c. The prophecy of Enoch – Jude 14–15; Interpretation of the prophecy – Jude 16; d. Prophecies of the apostles – Jude 17–18; Interpretation of the prophecy – Jude 19; A’. Call – Jude 20–23; Closing doxology – 24–25. Bauckham’s structure does not resolve which passages should be regarded as crucial to the letter. Most probably, the midrash, which constitutes the main part of the letter, should be read linearly and climactically – then the emphasis rests, as in Osburn’s work, on Jude 17–19. These verses at the same time justify the call to struggle for faith in Jude 3 and the call to show mercy and be careful in Jude 20–23. As mentioned above, it seems that in the Letter of Jude the chiastic structure characteristic of Hebrew rhetoric overlaps with the Hellenistic rhetorical structure. The combination of the two systems makes it possible to look at the text more

213 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 5–6.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Structure

Division according to the principles of classical rhetoric

Chiastic structure according to Hebrew rhetorical principles

1. Prescript – Jude 1–2

A. Salvation – Jude 1–3

2. Exordium/prooimion – Jude 3–4

      B. Ungodliness and judgment – Jude 4

3 Narratio – Jude 5

A’. Salvation – Jude 5ab       B’. Ungodliness and judgment – Jude 5c

4 Probatio/argumentatio – Jude 6–19

      B’’. Ungodliness and judgment – Jude 6–19

5. Peroratio/epilogos – Jude 20–25

A’’. Salvation – Jude 20–25

holistically and to bring out not only the alarmist and parenetic (protreptic) aspects, but also theological ones. As can be seen from this juxtaposition, elements of the doctrine of salvation would already be contained in the prescript. These are primarily hidden in the naming of the addressees as “beloved”, “preserved by/for Jesus Christ” and “called”. The exordium (introduction) would include an introduction to Jude’s soteriology, which is based on the presentation of the liberating aspects of salvation (verse 3, which in the chiastic structure is assigned to theme of Salvation) and its judicial aspects (verse 4, which in the chiastic structure is assigned to theme of Ungodliness and Judgment). In the narratio (thesis), which covers the whole of verse 5, this is presented by means of a typology: Jesus is the one who saves (Salvation – verse 5ab) and the one who destroys the ungodly (Ungodliness and judgment – verse 5c). The body of the letter (Jude 6–19) – probatio/argumentatio – focuses on illuminating those judicial aspects of salvation that are rejected by false teachers preaching antinomian ideas; here probatio overlaps with Ungodliness and Judgment in a chiastic structure. The epistle ends with an elaborate conclusion (Jude 20–25) – peroratio – in which the narrator returns to the liberating aspects of salvation, which one might guess he originally intended to write about (cf. Jude 3). The peroratio overlapping with Salvation in the chiastic structure is intended to deepen the image of a merciful and saving God who loves, preserves, calls (Jude 1), grants mercy, peace and love (Jude 2). The detailed chiastic structure is as follows:

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

73

74

Introduction

A. SALVATION – Jude 1–3; B. UNGODLINESS AND JUDGEMENT – Jude 4; A’. SALVATION – Jude 5ab; B’. UNGODLINESS AND JUDGEMENT – Jude 5c; B’’. UNGODLINESS AND JUDGEMENT – Jude 6–19; a. The beginning of salvation history – Jude 6–7; b. Reference to the situation of recipients – Jude 8–13: α – Behaviour of intruders – Jude 8; β – Reference to Jewish tradition – Jude 9; α’ – Behaviour of intruders – Jude 10; β’ – Reference to Jewish tradition – Jude 11; α’’ – Behaviour of intruders – Jude 12ac; β’’ – A reference to Jewish tradition – Jude 12d–13; c. Eschatological judgment foretold from the beginning of the world – Jude 14–15: α Announcement – Jude 14a; β Description – Jude 14b–15; b’. Reference to the situation of recipients – Jude 16; a’. End times – Jude 17–18; b’’. Reference to the situation of recipients – Jude 19; A’’. SALVATION – Jude 20–25: a. Syncrisis – Jude 20–23; b. Soteriological thesis – Jude 24–25a; a’. Doxology 25b. This detailed structure makes it possible to highlight the idea, which often escapes us, that judgement is an indispensable element of salvation, since it includes not only the ungodly but also the righteous – πᾶσα ψυχή (Jude 15a), and it is during the judgement that mercy, peace and love will be revealed (Jude 2). This last thought is taken up by the soteriological thesis (Jude 14–25a) standing at the centre of the section that speaks of salvation. The God who performs salvific acts through Jesus Christ is the one who shows love and mercy, keeps from falling and allows the faithful (the righteous) and the converted (the ungodly) to stand joyful, undefiled and in a clean robe before Him (cf. Jude 23) at the time of the eschatological judgement foretold from the beginning of the world. The above structure organizes the commentary section of this study.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

2.

Structural commentary

2.1

A. Salvation (Jude 1–3)

1

Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ and brother of James, to those [who are] beloved in God the Father and (for/for the sake of) Jesus Christ/(in) Jesus Christ preserved/kept safe [and] called: 2 mercy and peace, and love/charity may be multiplied for you/stay with you in abundance/be multiplied to you/may you be filled with. 3 Beloved, although I felt obliged to write to you especially conscientiously about our common salvation/the salvation we share, I had an inner compulsion to write to you [about that salvation], exhorting you to/appealing to you to/demanding that you contend for the faith/over the faith once for all delivered/handed down/entrusted to the saints.

As noted in the Introduction, thematic structure of the Letter of Jude follows to a great extent a rhetorical structure based on classical Greek models1 used both in Jewish and early Christian epistolography.2 Typical are then both the prescript in Jude 1–3, which lists the sender and recipients (verse 1), wishes (verse 2) and the exordium (verse 3), which indicates the issues to be (supposed to be) discussed later in the letter.3 In most ancient letters, the introduction of sender and recipient is followed by a greeting, usually some form of the verb χαίρειν or more elaborate phrases,4 which is missing in Jude. After the prescript, the sender immediately goes on to use triple wishes. Duane F. Watson claims that verses 1–2 make a quasi-exordium,5 which introduces the issues raised in the letter the way a classical exordium does. It is hard to disagree with this observation, especially when one analyses the Letter of Jude from the perspective of its thematic structure: both verses 1–2 and verse 3 point, albeit in a slightly different way, to salvation and its components as the main themes of the letter “woven into its fabric”.6 Verses 1–2 enumerate five components which in verse 3 are summarised as ‘our common salvation’ σωτηρία: ‘love’ ἀγάπη, ‘preservation by/for Jesus Christ’ τήρησις, ‘calling’ κλησις, ‘mercy’ ἔλεος and ‘peace’ εἰρήνη.7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

D.F. Watson, Invention, p. 46. J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 241. D.F. Watson, Invention, p. 46; cf. Introduction above. J.L. White, Light, p. 200. D.F. Watson, Invention, p. 46. G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 188. R.A. Reese, 2 Peter and Jude, Grand Rapids 2007, p. 29, enumerates various themes and ties them together: first, the preservation of the beloved by Jesus Christ; second, the love of God; and third, the

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

76

Structural commentary

As can be seen, the most frequently recurring concept in this passage is love ἀγάπη, which occurs both as a noun ἀγάπη (verse 2), an adjective ἀγαπητοί (verse

3), and part. perf. act. ἠγαπημένοι (verse 1). The frequency allows for the tentative hypothesis that, for the sender of the Letter of Jude, salvation and its manifestations stem primarily from the love of God. This would also be confirmed by the primary position of the participium ἠγαπημένοι among the terms of recipients in verse 1 and the final position of the noun ἀγάπη among the manifestations of salvation in verse 2. Thus, ‘love’ forms the framework for the soteriological reflection in verses 1–2: Beloved Preserved Called Mercy Peace Love. In this context, verse 3 should be regarded as a transition,8 which sums up these preliminary considerations. It is no coincidence, then, that in the conclusion and the transitional phrase to subsequent issues, the sender once again emphasises love by calling the recipients ἀγαπητοί ‘beloved’, although this term no longer has salvific connotations.9 The arrangement of all the elements related to salvation is also structured by the use of chiasmus, one of the favourite rhetorical figures of the sender of Jude, and by his favourite triplets. Each of the terms in verse 1 corresponds in reverse order to the noun phrases in verse 2:

mercy, peace, and love that characterize the lives of those previously identified as beloved, preserved, and called. 8 Transition in the rhetorical context is understood as “various techniques of passing to subsequent elements of speech”. Its essential function is “to highlight the individual stages of composition, the flow of thought, its organisation or arrangement, by means of appropriate linguistic markers. They create the framework of a text that is easily grasped by listeners or readers. […] In thematically justified cases, transitions function as a concise recapitulation of an important thought, creating a bridge to the next link. The technique of transition […] allows the sender and the recipient to exercise more effective self-control, to maintain the proper direction of thoughts and not to deviate from the subject”, after M. Korolko, Sztuka, p. 96 (own translation). 9 See below.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A. Salvation (Jude 1–3)

A. ‘Beloved’ ἠγαπημένοι B. ‘Preserved’ τετηρημένοι C. ‘Called’ κλητοί

A’. ‘Love’ ἀγάπη B’. ‘Peace’ εἰρήνη C’. ‘Mercy’ ἔλεος10 .

Theme of salvation is already marked in the sender’s self-description as Ἰούδας Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος, ἀδελφὸς δὲ Ἰακώβου Jude “a slave of Jesus Christ and brother

of James”. Some of the issues linked with this presentation, such as the relationship of Jude and James and the type and degree of kinship with Jesus, have already been discussed;11 in the soteriological context, however, it will be important to use the term “slave of Jesus Christ”, which points to two aspects of salvation: first, salvation construed individually, existentially; second, by referring to tradition, when it primes the recipients for considerations of the inclusive and communal nature of salvation, which will be developed towards the end of the letter. The formula Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος “slave of Jesus Christ” is reminiscent of Apostle Paul’s self-description (cf. Rom 1:1, Gal 1:10, Phil 1:1, Col 4:12), the sender of the Letter of James (Jas 1:1) and the sender of the Second Letter of Peter (2 Pet 1:1). As John Norman Davidson Kelly notes, the inversion of the terms “Jesus Christ” in relation to Paul’s formula “Christ Jesus” may indicate a later time of composition of Jude, similarly to Jas and 2 Pet.12 However, it can also be partly justified by the family and biographical background and theological reasons. The sender thus wants to emphasise his ties with the earthly Jesus – and it is no coincidence that in his further self-description he alludes to his kinship with James (cf. δεσπόσυνοι).13 Moreover, the pre-Easter teaching of the earthly Jesus is just as important to him as the post-Easter teaching of the exalted Christ and the Christological perspective in the reading of the Old Testament message, to which he refers in verse 3 when writing about the “faith once for all handed down to the saints”.14 Thus, he creates another framework, of a theological nature, for his initial soteriological reflections (Jude 1–3). The term δοῦλος ‘slave’ is of great significance here; it is woven centrally into the triad of the sender’s self-description: 1. Jude; 2. “slave” of Jesus Christ; 3. brother of James. Perhaps this way of introducing oneself refers to the Roman custom of tria nomina. The Roman tria nomina consisted of praenomen, nomen and cognomen. In this case, the name “Jude” would be a praenomen, an original personal name; the term “brother of James” would correspond to the function of nomen – an indication of family affiliation – while the phrase “a slave of Jesus Christ” should be treated as

10 11 12 13 14

See below for a description of the relationships. See above – Introduction. J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 241. See above – Introduction. See below.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

77

78

Structural commentary

a cognomen. Unlike the previous two terms, which rarely changed, the cognomen was the most variable and contextual component of the tria nomina. It could name a function, emphasise merits, position or family ties resulting, for example, from the adoption of the person presenting himself or being presented with it.15 In official correspondence it was the cognomen that constituted the most significant element identifying the sender16 from the perspective of both the recipients and the sender himself. As can be seen, this self-identification is also important for Jude, who in this way points primarily to the personal and existential dimension of salvation, which he will discuss later in the communitarian context. By calling himself “a slave of Jesus Christ” and referring to the social status of slaves, the sender emphasises that he became the property of Jesus Christ, who now has the exclusive right to decide his life, death and actions, because, as Aristotle writes in the Nicomachean Ethics (8:11), “a slave is a living tool”.17 The whole expression implies that it was Jesus Christ who purchased Jude as a slave, who redeemed him from slavery to sin and death by his death and resurrection (cf. 1 Pet 1:18–19). This implication emphasises the existential and personal dimension of salvation. But the expression “a slave of Jesus Christ” also indicates that Jesus Christ made Jude his living tool, which legitimises and authorises Jude’s ministry and teaching. The sender of Jude therefore addresses his audience as one who has a mandate to teach and be heard.18 In addition to references to the ancient social structure, the expression “a slave of Jesus Christ” reveals a Christological reflection. It is no coincidence that in defining his status as “a slave” and legitimizing his own service, Jude decides to reach for an expression that evokes Old Testament associations. Moses (2 Kings 18:12; 21:8), Joshua (Judg 2:8), the prophets (Jer 25:4) are called “servants of God/servants of the Lord” (δοῦλος τοῦ θεοῦ/κυρίου). For the recipients of Jude, this is intended as an additional argument that there is a higher authority behind the sender’s actions. Thus, the expression “slave of Jesus Christ” becomes not so much (or not only) evidence of the author’s humility, as Clement of Alexandria argued,19 but also his pride in being included among those chosen by God and enjoying universal respect from their audience, a kind of title of honour.20 Douglas J. Moo additionally draws attention to the Christological significance of using these Old Testament connotations. The idea is to transfer the Old Testament

15 Cf. B. Salway, What’s in a Name? A Survey of Roman Onomastic Practice from c. 700 B.C. to A.D. 700, “Journal of Roman Studies” 84 (1994), p. 124–145. 16 J.L. White, Light, p. 200. 17 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 177. 18 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 242; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 178. 19 See above – Introduction. 20 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 177–178.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A. Salvation (Jude 1–3)

expressions referring to God – δοῦλος τοῦ θεοῦ/κύριου to Jesus Christ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος.21 This means that “the slave of Jesus Christ” has the same status as “the slave of God” and the same authority behind him. In this way, the narrator prepares the audience already at the beginning of the letter to accept thesis of the identity of the salvific acts of God (the Father) and Jesus Christ and of the salvific act of God through Jesus Christ (cf. Jude 25a). The reference to the Old Testament communal tradition familiar to the recipients is at the same time a subtle indication of the transition to treat salvation as a communal aspect, as evidenced by the recipients’ expressions also taken from the Old Testament. The recipients are referred to in three ways as ἠγαπημένοι, τετηρημένοι, κλητοί “beloved”, “preserved” and “called”. Most commentators recognise that this is the first of numerous triplets typical of Jude (e.g. in 2.8.11.19.22–23.25).22 However, as indicated above, the triple term already appears in the sender’s self-description. This symmetry in the representation of the sender and recipients is motivated primarily by rhetorical considerations of the prescript. A fuller identification of the recipients and the genre of the text as a whole is prevented by the absence in the surviving copies of the place to which the sender addresses his letter.23 The representation of the recipients is subordinated to theological considerations. The sender moves seamlessly from implying personal aspects of salvation to expounding its communal dimension, which is also emphasised by the plural forms. The fluency and naturalness of the transition is also emphasised by the continuation of the Old Testament references related to the person(s) “of God’s slaves”. It is generally believed, following Richard Bauckham, that it is the lexis of Isaiah’s Servant Songs that became the source of the appellatives used for the recipients of Jude; in the Servant Song the protagonist is characterised as one whom God “loved” (e.g. Isa 43:4 κάγώ σε ἠγάπησα), “called/summoned” (e.g. Isa 41:9 ἐκάλεσά σε; cf. 42:6, 43:1, 48:15, 49:1, 44:6), and the imagery and comparison to God’s “establishment” of an everlasting covenant brings to mind “preservation” for eternity (Isa 42:6, 49:8).24 Such a relationship would mean that Jude moves from the comprehension of “God’s slaves” as individuals to the imagery that exploits one possibility of a collective interpretation of “the Lord’s servant” as the chosen people, Israel (Isa 44:2). Gene L. Green also points to Isa 51:2 as a direct inspiration for Jude (ὄτι εἷς ἦν καὶ ἐκάλεσα αὐτὸν καὶ εὐλόγησα αὐτὸν καὶ ἠγαπήσα αὐτὸν καὶ ἐπλήθυνα αὐτόν);25 this would emphasise even more strongly – starting from the

21 D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 349–350. 22 J. Painter, D.A. de Silva, James and Jude (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), Grand Rapids 2012, p. 352. 23 See above – Introduction. 24 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 25; D. Keating, First, Second Peter, Jude, Grand Rapids 2011, p. 295. 25 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 184.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

79

80

Structural commentary

lexical level – the shift from an individual perspective (Abraham as one “called”, blessed and “beloved”) to a communal perspective (πληθύνω ‘multiply’) and show the close links between “love”, “vocation” and “behaviour”. It seems, therefore, that Jude reinterprets “the multiplication” of Abraham and the consequent whole history of the chosen people brought to the end times in Isa 51:3 as “preservation”. In describing the recipients as “beloved in God the Father”, Jude uses the unusual phrase ἐν θεῷ πατρὶ ἠγαπημένοις, found only here in the New Testament. In some manuscripts (P 307. 642. 1175. 1448. 1735 Byz) the first designation of the recipients is ἡγιασμενοι ‘sanctified’, which could refer to 1 Cor 1:2; then the construction “sanctified in God the Father” could be regarded as parallel to Paul’s construction “sanctified in Jesus Christ”.26 Most commentators, however, favour the interpretation “beloved” (cf. Col 3:12, where “holy” and “beloved” ἅγιοι καὶ ἠγαπημένοι occur together) with the surprising complement “in God the Father” instead of the expected “in Christ/Jesus Christ”. This seems to be a reversal of the situation already described, where the recipients instead of the Old Testament phrase “slave/ servant of God/the Lord” were given the Christian, strongly theologically charged expression “slave of Jesus Christ”. Theological implications of such a transfer are similar – a close connection between the salvific action of God the Father and Jesus Christ rooted in and experienced in love (cf. also verse 5). Douglas J. Moo separates the rooting and the experiencing of love, arguing that ἐν θεῷ πατρί should be understood as suggested by the preposition ἐν acting here as an exponent of location. Thus, love was to be created and experienced in/inside the community with God the Father.27 From the point of view of soteriological reflection, this suggestion seems partly correct: indeed, God’s love can be experienced fully in the community with God re-established by Jesus Christ, which includes vertical and horizontal dimensions and is therefore both personal and communal. However, the form of the term “beloved” ἀπημένοι part. perf. pass. with passivum theologicum points to God as the active/acting source of love. The salvific acts of God resulting from this love had already taken place in the past (hence the references to the past in the later parts of Jude), and the ongoing community with God, whose basis and sign is also love in the vertical and horizontal dimensions, may be regarded as their effect. An interesting extra-theological suggestion concerning the phrase ἐν θεῷ πατρὶ ἠγαπημένοις is given by Norman Hillyer. Referring to the genre of Jude as a universal letter addressed to various Christian communities living in different cities, he argues that in drafting the text, space was left after the preposition ἐν to write the name(s) of the town(s) to which the letter was to be sent (cf. Eph 1:1, where the

26 M. Green, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 233. 27 D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 345.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A. Salvation (Jude 1–3)

name of the town was also written later). The unusual prescriptive phrase should therefore be read as follows: “beloved in [a missing city name] by God the Father”.28 The second expression used to address the recipients – τετηρημένοι – is one of the key terms in Jude; indeed, the verb τηρέω appears five times in the letter: in Jude 6 (here twice), 13 and 21. Like the “beloved”, τηρέω in verse 1 occurs in part. perf. activi, indicating that the one who “preserves” is God. Together with this term, a rather surprising construction with dativus occurs which can be interpreted differently. Usually, the phrase Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ τετηρημένοι is translated as dativus auctoris: “preserved by Jesus Christ”, which draws attention to the historical perspective of Jude’s soteriology, or as dativus commodi: “preserved for Jesus Christ”, which in turn draws attention to its eschatological perspective. Both in the context of Jude’s further reflections on judgement and the aforementioned source of imagery taken from Isa 51:2–3, the second interpretation of dativus is more likely. However, since we lack explicit resolution and guidance in the text, these two perspectives may be combined as an implication of Jude’s holistic approach to “preservation”, with the eschatological aspect obviously dominant in verse 1. The “preservation for Jesus Christ” is usually understood temporally as “being preserved until Jesus comes again” (John 6:39, 1 Thess 5:23, 1 Pet 1:4–5), but the way the question of “preserving” is developed in verse 21 indicates that an element of the present is also implicit here.29 This confirms Jude’s previously suggested holistic approach to “preservation” involving the past, the present and the future, further emphasised by the use of perfectum τετηρημένοι referring to “preservation” in the past and to the effects continuing in the present. The overall view is completed by yet another variant of a possible interpretation of the dative case Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ, namely the locative variant: “preserved” in Jesus Christ, which because of its ecclesial connotations (cf. John 15:4–6, Rom 12:5, 1 Cor 10:16–17, 1 John 3:24) emphasises more clearly than the others the communal aspect of “preservation”. We need to add here the already mentioned reinterpretation of Isa 51:2 and “multiplication” as “preservation”. This would mean that the “preservation” does not only refer to the contemporaries of the author of Jude, but also includes future members of the community, that is the Church, which, as the narrator seems to assume, will grow. Norman Hillyer draws attention to the exclusively positive meaning of the reflection on “preservation”. The narrator indicates “by/for/with” whom the recipients of the letter are “preserved”; however, he fails to specify “what” they are to be “preserved from”. Perhaps this thought should be supplemented by drawing on 1 John 5:18, which mentions that “the one begotten by God [Jesus Christ] protects” and “the evil one cannot touch begotten by God” [the believer] (πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος

28 N. Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, p. 413. 29 Cf. D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 346.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

81

82

Structural commentary

ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τηρεῖ ἑαυτὸν καὶ ὁ πονηρὸς οὐχ ἅπτεται αὐτοῦ)? The further context

of the letter is also often referred to: the narrator could be concerned with “preservation” from succumbing to the influence and teachings of false teachers. However, it seems more likely that Jude’s message regarding salvation is universalised and faithful to its positive meaning: all those whom God “loved” and “called” to become his property are to be “preserved”, and none of these “loved” and “called” ones he intends to lose regardless of the circumstances.30 In this “preservation”, God’s love is manifested both as the cause of the “preservation” and as an ongoing principle of the “preservation”. It is no coincidence that the terms “beloved” and “preserved” share the same perfective form with passivum theologicum. By emphasising the very act of “preservation” performed by God, Jude also builds two bridges: one with the noun δοῦλος and its socio-economic connotations concerning the status of a slave as the property of their master; the other with the subsequent designation of the recipients as “called” κλητοί and its theological connotations.31 The category of the “called” often appears in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. By calling the recipients “called”, Jude alludes not only to the historical but also to theological tradition of Israel, in which God’s “call/calling” is one of the fundamental principles.32 In the most general sense behind the idea of calling, the Hebrew verb ‫קרא‬, which occurs 730 times in the Old Testament, means to make contact, to call by name, to give a name, to call and invite to oneself. In the Old Testament it refers to God’s call to a particular person or group of persons or the calling of God’s people (Isa 43:1–2, 48:15). In the New Testament, God also elects and calls (Rom 9:11, 65:8, 1 Thess 2:12, 4:24, 1 Pet 1:15, 2:9, 5:10, 2 Pet 1:3). The word etymon associates this term with the people of God, the sacred assembly and the Church (Greek ἐκκλησία and ἐκ-καλέω). This confirms the earlier communal, ecclesial intuitions associated with “preservation”. It is also usual to treat the adjective “called” as a standard synonym for “believers in Christ”, “Christians” forming the new people of God (cf. Rom 1:1.6–7, 8:28, 1 Cor 1:1–2.24, 1 Pet 2:9). But “vocation”, apart from its communal aspect, also has an individual dimension, which is less often highlighted in this context. This leads to associations related to the noun δοῦλος and the “vocation” of individuals to be God’s property (cf. Isa 43:1), to serve God (cf. 1 Sam 3:4.6.10), and thus to an existential experience. In Jude and in the context of Jude’s soteriology, the term “called” probably encompasses both aspects and denotes those who have existentially experienced God’s call, i.e. God’s grace liberating them from the law of sin and death, who have become God’s property and have been incorporated into a relationship with God33 and into the service of 30 31 32 33

N. Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, p. 413; cf. G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 186. See below. N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, London 1992, p. 260. D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 344.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A. Salvation (Jude 1–3)

God, forming a community of the “called”, having a relationship with the Lord and “being” His “slaves”. The image of “vocation” also refers to the Old Testament and Greek tradition related to the invitation to a religious community, the community of the elect. In the Old Testament such a call does not only mean an “invitation” to participate in a gathering, but also the participation itself, which is an active engagement of the invited person34 (cf. Exod 12:21, Deut 5:1, 2 Sam 11:13, 1 Kings 1:9.19.25, 12:20). In Greek literature, e.g. Pausanias in his Description of Greece 10:32:13 describes a community of the elect, called in a dream to enter the tabernacle of the deity: About forty stades distant from Asclepius is a precinct and shrine sacred to Isis, the holiest of all those made by the Greeks for the Egyptian goddess. For the Tithoreans think it wrong to dwell round about it, and no one may enter the shrine except those whom Isis herself has honoured by inviting them in dreams. The same rule is observed in the cities above the Maeander by the gods of the lower world; for to all whom they wish to enter their shrines they send visions seen in dreams.

In both traditions, an invitation/call from a god/deity (also a king or a chief) assumes not only a positive response to the “invitation”, but also the performative character of the “invitation” or “call”. Controversy is, however, aroused by the concept of “vocation” connected with an invitation to a feast, which can be found in the New Testament parables (Luke 14:7–14 and 15–24, cf. Matt 22:1–14);35 it should be emphasised here that the Greek κλητός is a technical term meaning also a guest.36 Douglas J. Moo, rejecting the concept of “calling” as “an invitation to a feast”, refers to the possibility of accepting or rejecting this invitation. He insists that “calling” implies a sovereign act of God and not a choice made by man.37 Indeed, while Jude could invoke the Old Testament tradition and the performative character of an invitation, it is difficult to suppose that he assumed the possibility of rejecting the “invitation/vocation”. On the other hand, the concept of “calling” as an invitation to a feast should not be completely rejected, especially when its eschatological implications are taken into consideration. It has already been noted when discussing “preservation” that Jude includes past/historical, present and future eschatological aspects. Perceiving the “calling” as an “invitation” of the elect to the feast of the Lamb, as in Rev 19:9, would fit into this eschatological dimension of the narrator’s reflection. The association 34 R. Rumianek, Idea powołania indywidualnego w księgach prorockich, “Warszawskie Studia Teologiczne” 13 (2000), p. 49–59, here 50. 35 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 181. 36 N. Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, p. 413. 37 D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 344.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

83

84

Structural commentary

of the “calling/vocation” with a court summons to give an account of one’s actions and/or teaching (Acts 4:18, 24:2, cf. 2 Cor 5:10).38 Confirmation of the connotations of “invitation” associated with feasting can also be seen in the juxtaposition of imagery in verse 1 and in verse 12, with a description of agape feasts, community symposium feasts. The members of the community as κλητοί are contrasted with ἀκλητοί, the uninvited, false teachers who crept into the community and, using the rights of invited guests, preach their erroneous teachings.39 However, the dominant element of Jude’s concept of “vocation” in verse 1 seems to be the vocation of the Old Testament heroes (especially the already mentioned Abraham in Isa 51:2 and the collectively understood “servant/slave” of the Lord in Isa 42:6, 43:1, 45:3–5, 48:12, 49:1).40 This also corresponds with the concept of the term δοῦλος “slave” discussed earlier. But alongside the dominant element, there are the less obvious but equally relevant implications of “calling” as an “invitation” to join the religious assembly in the communal agape or, more broadly, in the church, of vocation as an eschatological “invitation” to the feast of the Lamb and as an eschatological summons. The basis of this “calling/vocation” is God’s love, not human merit (cf. Eph 1:4, Col 3:12, 1 Thess 1:4). Just as in the case of “preservation” there is no specification of “from” or “for what”, so in the case of “vocation” there is no specification of “for what”. Nor is there any indication of the “calling” entity as clearly as before by means of passivum theologicum.41 However, one may assume by analogy that this entity is God as well. The preceding considerations of “ministry”, “love” and “preservation” invoke a picture of the reality to which God is calling: it is a “call” to the service of God, to communion and relationship with Him and to abide in His love,42 followed by a summons to give account of that service and an invitation to the eschatological feast.

38 39 40 41

N. Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, p. 413. See below for analysis of verse 12. R. Bauckam, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 25. A.G. Fruchtenbaum argues that this phrase should be read as “called by the Holy Spirit” by analogy with verse 20–21, where the triad appears: Holy Spirit, God [Father] and Jesus Christ – see A.G. Fruchtenbaum, The Messianic Jewish Epistles. Hebrew, James, I Peter, II Peter, Jude (Ariel’s Bible Commentary), San Antonio 2005, p. 429. On the difference between the diad of Jesus Christ and God the Father in v. 1 and the triad. While the diad may indicate relatively early dating (cf. Rom. 4:24, 1 Cor. 8:6), the triad, on the other hand, is better attested in later Christian writings (first/second and second/third centuries, e.g., Ignatius of Antioch in Epistle to the Magnesians 8:2 or Irenaeus in Adv. Haer. III 1:2, 4:2). It is therefore impossible to decide the time of Jude by the absence or presence of Trinitarian-like formulas 42 Cf. G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 185.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A. Salvation (Jude 1–3)

As can be seen, the order of the recipient designations is important, although the sequence beginning with the “called” is often found in translations. The primary position of the participle “beloved” is at the same time a reference point for the other terms and indicates that God’s love is at the basis of “preservation” and “vocation”. Love is also the principle of “preservation” and the essence of “vocation”. All three terms refer to salvation understood by Jude as God’s love, which manifests itself in the believer’s “preservation” and “vocation” to a relationship with God and to the service of God. By emphasising the beginning (God’s love) and the end (preservation up to the times of parousia and the call/summons to judgment/ invitation to the eschatological feast), Jude already indicates in the prescript that his letter belongs to the genre of apocalyptic literature. He confirms this with later imagery and examples drawn from Jewish apocalypticism. And the implications of the past, present and future associated with each of the three recipient designations lead to the conclusion that for the narrator the salvation is a long process starting in the past, taking place in the present and ending in the end times (cf. 1 Pet 1:5, Phil 1:6). He will consistently develop this motif by referring to episodes that describe various aspects of God’s salvific action through Jesus Christ from as early as the imprisonment of the rebellious angels (Jude 6) until Jesus comes to judge (Jude 15) and shows mercy at the eschatological judgment (Jude 24). In verse 2 the narrator continues his soteriological reflection. When directing his wishes to the recipients, he again uses the triplet, this time with a noun ἔλεος ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ ἀγάπη πληθυνθείη. The wish formula used is typical of Hellenistic letters, but the wish for peace also reveals Semitic traits. It should also be noted that the wishes here have a prayerful character, as in other Christian letters, but in Jude it is marked even more clearly by the use of optativus aor. pass. πληθυνθείη. From the other New Testament epistles, it differs in replacing the typical term χάρις ‘grace’ (cf. Rom 1:7, 1 Cor 1:3, 2 Cor 1:2, Gal 1:3, Eph 1:2, Phil 1:2, 1 Thess 1:1, 2 Thess 1:2, Titus 1:4, Phlm 3, 1 Pet 1:2, 2 Pet 1:2) with ἔλεος “mercy”.43 The mention of mercy and its juxtaposition with peace and love may have served as a model for later triple formulas used in early Christian writings, since such a phrase appears, among others, in the introduction to the Martyrdom of Polycarp (0:1), bishop of Smyrna from about 155/156 or 166 AD:44 “[…] ‘Mercy, peace and love’ of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ be multiplied”. The replacement of “grace” with “mercy” should not be treated as a stylistic but theological and persuasive device. The fact that “grace” and “mercy” are not merely synonymous is evidenced by, among other things, the juxtaposition of 43 Ibid., p. 189. 44 Sometimes the juxtaposition of these formulas from Jude and Martyrdom of Polycarp is used as one piece of evidence for the late dating of Jude, which may have been written at a similar time to Martyrdom of Polycarp.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

85

86

Structural commentary

these concepts together in the Deutero-Pauline letters: 1 Tim 1:2 and 2 Tim 1:2 and 2 John 3.45 Moreover, in verse 4 Jude mentions a distorted understanding of “grace”, so it is difficult to suppose that he is referring at the outset to a concept that may be misunderstood by his audience. This does not mean, however, that there is no indirect allusion46 , reminiscence47 or Jude’s quasi-definition of grace hidden in verse 2. The sender, realizing that his wish deviates from the formulas most commonly found in the recipients’ circles, wants to make the recipients discover this element, which he did not use in the text. The prayerful wish of the sender is for the three gifts mentioned to be given in full. The use of passivum theologicum πληθυνθείη, as in the previous verse, indicates that the donor is God. The verb πληθυνέω means ‘to enlarge’, ‘to multiply’, ‘to fill’; the aorist form emphasises this meaning even more strongly, since it indicates completeness, wholeness, the absolute. The recipients would thus be fully, completely, totally, absolutely endowed by God with mercy, peace and love, which they could not acquire by their own efforts. The emphasis on the gifts can be interpreted as an idea of grace: since these three values cannot be acquired or earned, their reception depends solely on the grace of God. Mercy, peace and love given in abundance, permeating and coordinated with one another,48 would thus be the equivalent of grace and of salvation (see Eph 2:8). Using the triplet, Jude, as before, wants to draw attention to salvation as a process; however, he reverses the order of presenting the three aspects of salvation. He begins this time with eschatology, which is most clearly indicated by “mercy”; he then moves on to “peace” that combines aspects of the present and the future; and he concludes by pointing to “love” that is behind all of God’s salvific acts. As already mentioned, mercy, peace and love are to be seen in connection with the expressions describing the recipients in verse 1. The inversion of the values in verse 2 in relation to the expressions in verse 1 further emphasises this holistic and essentially timeless (see verse 21–24) account of soteriology in Jude. Mercy is associated above all with judgment, and thus highlights the understanding of the call also as a summons

45 Differently, D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 347, who believes that grace and mercy mean essentially the same thing. 46 Allusion is understood here as a conscious reference to another text by means of signals legible to the recipient. Indirect allusion means placing in the text a weaker signal of reference than the title, quotation, stylisation, etc.; its correct reading therefore depends on the competence of the recipients; cf. S. Jaworski, Podręczny słownik terminów literackich, Kraków 2001, p. 16–17. 47 Reminiscence is understood as a noticeable resonance of another work in a work, manifested by similarity of composition, stylistics, phraseology, imagery. Unlike allusion, this reference is not fully conscious by the author and results from the influence of works that are highly valued and considered exemplary; M. Głowiński, T. Kostkiewczowa, A. Okopień-Sławińska, J. Sławiński, Podręczny słownik terminów literackich, Warszawa 1994, p. 210. 48 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 244.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A. Salvation (Jude 1–3)

to court and an invitation to the eschatological banquet (see also mercy in Jude 21). Peace here means ‘peace with God’ and not the emotions of the recipients; it refers to abiding in God and thus ‘preserving’ of the recipients in relationship and fellowship with God and with Jesus Christ. Love, in turn, is linked to being “beloved”; love, being inclusive points to the general principle conditioning all the other elements. In these three values of verse 2, especially “mercy” and “peace”, we recognise of course references to the rich Jewish tradition and literature, especially intertestamental. 2 Macc 7:23 describes the effect of mercy in the end times – the giving of life. A similar thought, only à rebours, is found in PssSol 14:6(9): “Therefore their inheritance is Sheol and darkness and destruction, And they shall not be found in the day when the righteous obtain mercy” (see 1 En 5:5–6, 27:4, TZeb 8:1–2, Isa 60:10 [LXX], Wis 12:22, Sir 2:9, 5:6, 16:12).49 In contrast, TJud 23–24 similarly to Jude links mercy with peace: “whenever ye will return to the Lord […] then will the Lord visit you in mercy and in love, bringing you from out of the bondage of your enemies. And after these things shall a Star arise to you from Jacob in peace”. In the light of the relationships described above between verse 1 and 2, one may venture to conclude that ἔλεος ‘mercy’ means in Jude, among other things, the “calling” to life that will occur at the judgment (verse 21 seems to confirm this). In addition to the overlaid eschatological associations, mercy also includes the present (see verse 21), especially in intercessions (e.g. PssSol 8:33(27)–34(28), Bar 2:19, Gen 24:12 [LXX], Num 14:19 [LXX], Dan 3:35, Tob 8:16–17), and the past (e.g. TNaph 4, Gen 39:21 [LXX], Jer 49:12 [LXX], Jdt 7:20). The descriptions of these three aspects differ somewhat from each other – while the one who acts and shows mercy in the end times is exclusively God, the texts pertaining to mercy in the present and past point to both God and man as the agent (e.g. TNaph 4: “and the Lord shall scatter them upon the face of all the earth, until the compassion of the Lord shall come, a Man working righteousness and showing mercy unto all them that are afar off, and them that are near”; see Josh 2:12 [LXX], Hos 4:1, 12:7 [LXX], Mic 6:8 [LXX], Zech 7:9 [LXX], 1 Macc 13:46, Sir 29:1, Matt 5:7, Jas 2:13). These connotations make it possible to emphasise once again that “mercy” in Jude is understood both individually (then the dominant dimension is eschatological – “mercy” at the final judgement; “the mercy of Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life”, Jude 21), and collectively (then the dominant dimension is the present and relations between members of the community; a call to show mercy to those who err in Jude 22). Special attention should be paid to the term εἰρήνη ‘peace’, which, unlike ‘mercy’ and ‘love’, it only occurs once in Jude. As already mentioned, the narrator here

49 R.L. Webb, The Eschatology of the Epistle of Jude, “Bulletin for Biblical Research” 6 (1996), p. 141.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

87

88

Structural commentary

makes use of a tradition of Semitic epistolography in which a wish for peace appears instead of or alongside wishes for health and joy (e.g. Dan 4:1, 6:26, ApBaSyr/ 2 Ba 78:2: “Mercy and peace”). The combination of mercy and peace is striking in texts belonging to the intertestamental apocalyptic literature, such as the Testament of Jude and the Apocalypse of Baruch. Certain reminiscences may be found here – apocalyptic literature so strongly influences the hagiographer that, rather unconsciously, he uses the same lexis and phraseology in its letter. The assumption of these dependencies makes it possible to narrow the understanding of the term ‘peace’, which has an extremely rich semantic field,50 to such an eschatological and apocalyptic reflection in which ‘peace’ is one of the elements describing salvation, sometimes even a synonym of salvation (see Sir 38:8, Zech 9:10 [LXX], Isa 26:3, 27:5, 32:17, 57:2 [LXX] , Bar 3:13.14, 5:4, Ps 85[84]:9, Mal 2:5, and especially Acts 10:36, Rom 5:1, 8:6, 14:17, Eph 6:15).51 Already in some Old Testament texts, the concept of ‘peace’ takes on an existential character as well – it is an inner consolation, a hope resulting from a personal bond and relationship with God (see Eph 2:14). In the New Testament texts ‘peace’ understood relationally in this way is even defined as “peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” εἰρήνην ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Rom 5:1); thus it is synonymous with the new status of people, the status of reconciliation.52 Referring to eschatology and to a relationship with God, Jude, in his customary way, outlines two aspects of ‘peace’ – the future and the present, already available through the saving work of Jesus Christ. Norman Hillyer draws attention to the etymology of the noun εἰρήνη, which comes from the verb εἰρηνεύω ‘to reconcile’.53 This confirms previous suggestions that the narrator has in mind ‘reconciliation with God’, i.e. the establishment of a relationship with Him, made fully possible by Jesus Christ. Moreover, these individual and collective aspects can be found here: the wish for peace concerns every believer and his relationship with God, but it also concerns relations within the community between its members (see 1 Cor 7:15). In the context of the threat to unity and the concern of the community about false teachings, both aspects are of vital importance: succumbing to false teachings destroys the relationship with God and introduces hostility within the community of believers. Here, too, the relationship between ‘peace’ and ‘preservation’ is visibly revealed: it is a matter of

50 See for example J.P. Healey, Peace in OT; W. Klassen, Peace in NT, [in:] The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D.N. Freedman, New York 1992, vol. 5, p. 206–212; H. Beck, C. Brown, Peace, [in:] The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. C. Brown, vol. 2, Grand Rapids 1976, p. 776–783. 51 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 192. 52 D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 347. 53 N. Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, p. 419.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A. Salvation (Jude 1–3)

keeping the recipients in ‘peace’, that is, in maintaining their relationship with God and with each other. So far, Jude’s soteriological reflections have been concluded with the notion of ἀγάπη ‘love’, which manifests itself in all of God’s salvific actions and unveiling of salvation mentioned in verse 1–2: ‘preserving’, ‘calling/summoning/invitating’, ‘showing mercy’, and ‘granting peace’ (see Rom 5:8, 1 John 3:1). In other words, ‘love’ that frames this whole passage is to be construed here as ‘God’s love in Christ’.54 The narrator of Jude also returns to ‘love’ in verse 3, but gives the term ‘beloved’ a slightly different meaning than before. This difference is noticeable already on the grammatical level: in verse 1 the part. perf. passivi ἠγαπημένοι is used, while in verse 3 it is the adjective ἀγαπητοί. The former points to God as the agent, the latter contains no such marker, and since the subject of verse 3 is primarily the sender of the letter, it is to him that these warm feelings towards the recipients must be attributed. The term ἀγαπητοί belongs to the familiar variety of language, which is characterised by a certain confidentiality, emphasising intimacy and emotional bonds; this is how a father addressed his beloved children55 (see Matt 3:17, 17:5, Mark 1:11, Luke 3:22). In Christian communities, members of communities most likely addressed each other in this way; later the phrase found its way into correspondence (e.g. Rom 12:19, 1 Cor 10:14, 2 Cor 7:1, Phil 2:12, Heb 6:9, 1 Pet 2:11, 4:12, 2 Pet 3:1.8.14.17, 1 John 2:7, 3:2.21, 4:1.7.11). Jude refers to both contexts. Using formulas common in Christianity, he indicates that the members of the community to which he is writing should be distinguished by mutual love (see Jude 21). And by using familiar expressions, he indicates that he is preaching/writing to the community from the position of a father who loves his children.56 From a rhetorical point of view, the term ἀγαπητοί should be regarded as an introductory formula of transition,57 which summarises earlier considerations (verse 3a πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμενος γράφειν ὑμῖν περὶ τῆς κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας “I felt obliged to write to you particularly carefully about our common salvation”) and announces a change of perspective in looking at salvation (verse 3b ἀνάγκεν ἔσχον γράψαι ὑμῖν παρακαλῶν ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι τῇ ἅπαξ παραδοθείςῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστει

54 55 56 57

J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 244; D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 347. G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 195. See J.L. White, Light, p. 196–197. Transition, Latin transitus. The term is used to describe various ways and techniques of moving on to a next part of speech (or text). The main function of transitions is to highlight the different stages of the composition, its organisation and layout, usually by means of appropriate linguistic markers, e.g. I am moving on to the next issue/point. Transitions can be used at the beginning of a given thematic unit or at its end, in which case they can serve as a short recapitulation of an important thought, which creates a bridge to the next link. Transitions allow both the sender and the receiver to maintain the right direction of thought and not to deviate from the topic; after M. Korolko, Sztuka, p. 96.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

89

90

Structural commentary

“I had an inner compulsion to write to you [about this salvation], exhorting you to/appealing to you to/demanding that you contend for the faith/over the faith once for all handed down to the saints”). The phrase in verse 3a πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμενος γράφειν ὑμῖν περὶ τῆς κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας seems to refer to verses 1–2 containing an opening reflection on salvation viewed from various perspectives. It is likely that the original intention of the sender was to develop in the second part of the letter the issues generally outlined in the introduction. This intention, as it appears at first glance, has failed, and most of the connotations, concepts and images used in the introduction the recipients have to discover on their own. However, the narrator gives them a clear hint not to content themselves with the surface meaning of these introductory considerations, since he himself has described these issues with “particularly carefully” – πᾶσαν σπουδήν. The phrase πᾶσαν σπουδήν, often used in formal, official language to mark a special commitment to civic and religious duties,58 here it may mean that the sender felt obliged to describe in detail and in depth the issues concerning “our common salvation”. As an analysis of verses 1–2 has shown, he indeed used carefully selected concepts, images and constructions with strong theological overtones, referring to both the Greco-Roman and Jewish traditions, making use of the popular and cogent literary models of that time. In the same careful manner, he edited the rest of his text, allowing himself to make detailed explications rather than mere implications. Seemingly, Jude failed to realise his original intention – he wrote nothing about “our common salvation”. He only hastily summarised the preliminary considerations as περὶ τῆς κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας, so that the recipients may have no doubt what they refer to. This direct reference in verse 3a to the soteriological implications of verses 1–2 is evidenced by the use of the preposition περί with the dative. Such a construction was usually used to signal that the present text recalls either the preceding correspondence or at least refers back to previously discussed issues.59 In the case of Jude, the latter possibility is true. Some biblical scholars, however, suppose that the narrator may have begun a letter about salvation, but failing to complete it, he proceeded to write the present parenetical letter, encouraging the defence of the faith60 (see verse 3b). In doing so they often invoke the participium ποιούμενος after the formula πᾶσαν σπουδήν; therefore, this part of verse 3 can be translated: “when I feel obliged to write to you particularly carefully about our common salvation” or “although I feel obliged to write to you particularly carefully about our common salvation”.61 The first variant would imply that the author started writing a letter but abandoned it, the second variant only implies the intention to 58 59 60 61

G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 196. Ibid., p. 199. See, for example, Ibid., p. 199; D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 354. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 29.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A. Salvation (Jude 1–3)

write. It is difficult to agree with these suggestions, bearing in mind the careful and sophisticated style of verse 1–2. What is certain is that the narrator’s original intention – at least theoretically, since he literally returns to the topic of salvation in verse 20 and the following62 – was not fully realised, as evidenced by the use of the infinitiv γράφειν ‘write’ in praes. act. Jude therefore was to begin his letter with soteriological issues, but because of the circumstances he devoted the rest of the letter to the “struggle for faith” and to warnings against false teachings. Summarising, then, the original theme of the letter, Jude uses the phrase περὶ τῆς κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας “about our common salvation”. Although the term σωτηρία ‘salvation’ has a very broad semantic field (it can mean ‘rescue’, ‘liberation’, ‘salvation’, ‘safety’, etc.), the context of verse 1–2 allows us to narrow it down to God’s liberating, saving and caring actions towards his people in the past, present and future. The most significant salvific action in the past is the leading of the Israelites out of Egypt (Exod 14:13, 15:2). Typologically, it corresponds to Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection which liberate from the bondage of sin, grant man the status of the justified, and save man from judgment (Acts 4:12, Rom 10:10). For the recipients of Jude, the very death and resurrection of Jesus are historical events, but the effects of this act endure, are a present individual and collective experience (Rom 13:11, 1 Cor 1:10.21) and give hope for the future (Rom 5:10, 1 Thess 5:9, 1 Pet 1:5). These three temporal aspects are also accentuated by the term ‘common’, which means that salvation can be obtained both by those who lived and acted (were servants/slaves of God) before Jesus appeared on earth and by those who will be born after his death and resurrection. Such an inclusive view allows the term ‘common’ to be understood also horizontally as ‘salvation’ independent of social status and ethnicity or even gender (see Gal 3:26.28). It is also possible to relate the term to the situation of the sender and the recipient – ‘common’ would then mean ‘salvation’ shared by the narrator and the recipients, which is further emphasised by the pronoun ‘our’.63 But ‘common’ can also be understood more exclusively as a concept of collective salvation, characteristic of Jewish thought, alien to Greek piety, in which salvation was an individual experience (e.g. in mystery cults).64 It is rare to find an interpretation of the term κοινή as including Jewish and non-Jewish members of the community to which Jude is addressed. Emphasis is then placed on the predominance of imagery and references to Judaic culture as evidence of the homogeneity of this community. However, the Jude draws not only on the Jewish world, but also on Greco-Roman culture, as evidenced by, for example, the use of the tria nomina in the sender’s self-presentation, the reference to the social status of

62 Ibid., p. 4. 63 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 246. 64 Ibid., p. 246.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

91

92

Structural commentary

slaves in Rome, or reminiscences or allusions to the Hellenistic concept of ‘vocation’ as an invitation to a religious community. An interesting interpretation of κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας, also referring to the realities of the Greco-Roman world, is provided by Gene L. Green. The Greek term σωτηρία need not have a (purely) theological meaning here; it may refer to ‘common security’, as in the Greek writers Diodorus Siculus, Xenophon, Isocrates and even Philo, who use the similar phrase κοινὴ σωτηρία.65 The original theme of Jude would therefore have been the ‘common security’ of the young Church, especially if we assume that the text was written during the period of increased persecution of Christians under Domitian at the end of the first century. This hypothesis would also be attractive because of the ethical instructions in Jude and the warnings against immoral practices of false teachers. For it must be remembered that Christians were accused of immorality. However, assuming that already in verse 1–2 the narrator of Jude refers to various aspects of salvation, theory of a non-theological understanding of κοινὴ σωτηρία as ‘common security’ seems very unlikely. In the second part of the transition, verse 3b, the narrator states why he seems to have abandoned his original intention and what purpose he had in writing the letter as it is. Although he had previously “felt obliged to write particularly carefully” about salvation, there emerged a more pressing need to write. Attention is drawn to the variation in the forms of the verb γράφω ‘I write’ in both parts of verse 3. In 3a the inf. praes. γράγειν is used, which suggests an action was initiated but not completed; in 3b the infinitivus aor. γράψαι suggests that this time the letter has been completed. The expression ἀνάγκην ἔσχον γράψαι ὑμῖν can be translated “I had a compulsion to write to you”. The whole construction ἀνάγκην ἔσχον followed by an infinitive is often used to indicate action on command, coercion (see Luke 23:17 in ‫ א‬W Γ f 1.13 565. 700. 2542; 1 Cor 7:37, 9:16, 2 Cor 9:7, Heb 2:27), where this command or coercion need not come from a particular person, it may result, as in Jude, from external circumstances (e.g. Luke 14:18),66 which cause inner compulsion. The part. praes. activi παρακαλῶν, derived from the verb παρακαλέω ‘to call for’, ‘to demand’, emphasises this compulsion and necessity of action,67 which is now to be conveyed to the recipients of the letter. The verb παρακαλέω is used in the New Testament, among others, to express a request (Rom 12:1), sometimes a very insistent one (1 Thess 4:1), admonition (1 Cor 1:10), encouragement (Eph 4:1, 1 Thess 5:11), exhortation (Phil 4:2), which usually concern matters of faith and/or morals.68

65 66 67 68

G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 200. Ibid., p. 200. N. Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, p. 421. G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 200.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A. Salvation (Jude 1–3)

The accumulation of coercive vocabulary makes the exhortation/encouragement perceived as a strong pressure, even a demand, for the recipients to take energetic action in defence of the faith.69 The dynamics of the text noticeably changes, as well as its tone and character. Whereas verses 1–2 and 3a were characterised by a composure typical of situations when a positive massage is conveyed, verse 3b expresses anxiety, urgency, violent persuasion and heralds generally negative content. Here we can see the caesura that makes the body of the letter seen as an example of parenetic style, understood as it is later characterised by the Greek rhetor Libanius of Antioch: “the paraenetic style is that in which we give someone paraenesis, persuading him to pursue something or to avoid something. Paraenesis is divided into two parts, i.e., persuasion and dissuasion. Parenesis differs from advice in that it does not allow any counter-arguments”.70 Indeed, the passion, dynamism and coercion of Jude 3b leave no room for discussion. In urging and even commanding the struggle for the faith, the narrator of Jude uses the verb ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι occurring in the New Testament only here. It is a derivative of the verb ἀγονίζομαι that describes heroic martial struggles and/ or athletic contests, wrestling. In a more general sense it can be used to describe any conflict, debate, discussion, opposition or lawsuit.71 In the intertestamental and New Testament literature it was used in a literal sense (e.g. 2 Macc 13:14, 1 Cor 9:25) or in a metaphorical sense, associated with struggles to keep faith or to remain obedient to God and/or the Law (Wis 4:2, Sir 4:28, Col 1:29, 1 Tim 6:12). Every use of this verb presupposes an emphasis on great effort, perseverance, determination, commitment and activity, and stamina. Such qualities also seem to be required by Jude of his recipients, especially since the struggle is to be endless, as evidenced by the use of the present tense of the verb ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι. What draws attention here, however, is the positive, not the negative, message. The war is to be waged not with or against someone, but for something. Jude has already used a similar strategy when describing “preservation” in verse 1, but here the positive message is clearer, strengthened by the additional expression in the dativus (commodi) – τῇ πίστει “for faith/over the faith”. John Norman Davidson Kelly points out that the dativus in such constructions is sometimes treated as the dativus instrumentalis.72 Then, in Jude 3b, it would be about the struggle by means of faith, but the goal – what the struggle is about – would remain unspecified, while from the context of the next verse it could be inferred that it is a struggle against

69 D.E. Hiebert, Selected Studies from Jude, Part 1: An Exposition of Jude 3–4, “Bibliotheca Sacra” 142 (1985), p. 145. 70 After A.J. Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists, Atlanta 1988, p. 68–69 71 D.E. Hiebert, Selected Studies, p. 144; D. Keating, First, Second Peter, p. 298; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 201. 72 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 247.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

93

94

Structural commentary

false teachers. In the light of what has been said about Jude’s tendency to use positive messages, however, this is unlikely, especially since in verse 22–23 there is a call to show mercy to all who err.73 Central to understanding this passage will be the expression describing faith: ἡ ἅπαξ παραδοθείςῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστις “the faith that was once for all handed down to the saints”. The dominant meaning here is not faith as trust in God, especially on a personal level (fides qua creditur) – although such implications cannot be excluded since salvation is presented both as an individual and collective aspect – but faith as the content of revelation (fides quae creditur), the fundamentally, unchanging content concerning God’s salvific action in the past, present and future, received, heard and transmitted (see Gal 1:23, Acts 6:7, Eph 4:5).74 It can therefore be assumed that “the faith” in verse 3b and “our common salvation” in verse 3a are complementary to each other, and not – as it would seem at first sight – contradictory.75 The whole passage would then have to be understood as follows: although I felt obliged to write to you particularly carefully about our common salvation, I had an inner compulsion to write to you [about this salvation], exhorting you to/appealing to you to/demanding that you contend for the faith/over the faith once for all handed down to the saints.

It seems obvious that Jude never abandoned the subject of salvation, but changed the way he wrote about it. If any opposition is to be found in the whole argument, it is to be sought in the juxtaposition of the terms “particularly carefully” πᾶσα σπουδή and the order to fight παρακαλῶν ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι, rather than in the juxtaposition of our “our common salvation” and “the faith once for all delivered to the saints”. This is confirmed by the noted change in dynamics, tone and perspective characteristic of the transition. Theme of the letter remains unchanged. Thus, it becomes pointless to inquire whether Jude wrote two or one epistle. The content of faith is the revelation of God’s salvific acts. It is communicated παραδοθείςῃ “to the saints”. The use of part. aor. pass. (passivum theologicum), indicates that the subject here is God/Jesus Christ who has conveyed the revelation in a complete/final manner (aorist).76 The completeness, perfection and finality

73 74 75 76

See below for an analysis of verse 20–23. D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 355; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 202. J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 245. A slightly different view is taken by J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 248, who argues that in the New Testament those responsible for communicating the παραδίδομι of Christian doctrine/evangelism/ doctrine are the people – see Luke 1:2, Acts 16:4, Rom 6:17, 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, 3:6, 2 Tim 2:1–2.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A. Salvation (Jude 1–3)

of the faith that has been handed down is further evidenced by the adverb ἅπαξ, usually translated as “once for all”.77 Passivum theologicum in παραδοθείςῃ makes it possible to understand why in verse 1 Jude changed some fixed expressions: instead of the formula “servant of God”, well known from the Old Testament, he used the formula “servant/slave of Jesus Christ”, and instead of the Christian expression “beloved in Jesus Christ” – the expression “beloved in God the Father”. As already mentioned, the change of specifications indicates that the narrator equates the salvific act of God with the saving deeds of Jesus Christ. This translates into his understanding of revelation, the content of which is not only the earthly mission of Jesus Christ, but also God’s action known from the Old Testament writings and intertestamental tradition. Later in the letter he makes this clearer by referring to pre-existence (e.g. verses 5, 6, 7) and to God’s salvific act through Jesus Christ (verse 24b). This also corresponds well with the inclusive and timeless understanding of “beloved”, “preserved” and “called” in times past, present and future, and of “our common salvation”. Thus, “the faith handed down to the saints” is the revelation concerning salvation handed down in the past by God to the prophets and writers of the Old and Testament and the intertestamental period, while in times closer to Jude by Jesus himself to his apostles and disciples, and then treated as a deposit of faith and handed down without distortion to future generations of believers (thanks to the Holy Spirit; see Gal 3:2.5). The inclusiveness of Jude’s “faith handed down to the saints”, which also includes the Judaic tradition, confirms the respect and affection to what was handed down by ancient authorities.78 “[T]he ancients, who were our betters and nearer the gods than we are, handed down the tradition” (Philebus)79 as Socrates claims, criticising the tendency of the young to reject old traditions and thoughts. Earlier, the philosopher affirms the progressiveness of ideas (in this case, concerning unity and plurality): “[it] will never cease, and is not now beginning, but is, as I believe, an everlasting quality of thought itself, which never grows old” (Philebus). Even Octavian Augustus, in his reforming activity, did not want to go against tradition, that is “the customs of the ancestors”.80 Tradition was particularly highly valued by the Jews (Wis 14:15), who built their identity on attachment to it, especially in the diaspora. Christians acted in a similar way – Paul writes about accepting, preserving and abiding in the Gospel handed down by the Apostle, who himself accepted it (1 Cor 15:1–3, see 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, 3:6, 2 Tim 2:2).81 77 78 79 80 81

D.E. Hiebert, Selected Studies, p. 146. J.H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 54. See G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 202. Octavian Augustus, The Deeds of the Divine Augustus 6; see G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 202. M. Green, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 238.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

95

96

Structural commentary

The fact of handing down the faith at different times and by different means (see Heb 1:1–2) also reveals the dynamism and progressiveness characteristic of Jude’s soteriology. Revelation was communicated differently by hagiographers in the Old Testament, differently by New Testament writers, differently by later Christians, while of course its content regarding the saving acts of God/Jesus Christ remained constant and unchanged. This means that revelation can and should be constantly and responsibly reinterpreted according to changing historical and socio-cultural conditions.82 All those to whom the revelation has been given and all those who guard it and hand it down unchanged, as well as those who are its recipients, have been called “saints”. Usually the term ‘saints’ is considered synonymous with Christians, followers of Jesus Christ and members of the Church (see 1 Pet 1:15, Acts 9:32, Rom 8:27, 15:26), a technical term that is a common “marker of Christian identity”.83 It should be recalled, however, that in the Old Testament the concept of ‘saints’ also functions and is used as a synonym for ‘God’s people’ (Exod 20:30, Lev 11:44.45, 19:2, 20:7, 21:6, Num 15:40, 16:3) and all those who keep God’s commandments (Ps 34[33]:10). Already in the Old Testament there are eschatological connotations: the saints are those who accompany God in the last days (Prov 14:5), those “inscribed for life” (Isa 4:3), the heirs of the Kingdom of God (Dan 7:18.22). The inclusive interpretation of Jude 3b leads us to see in the saints both the righteous Old Testament and New Testament heroes, the contemporaries of Jesus and the later followers of Christ and members of the Church – the new ‘people of God’. This corresponds with the three aspects of salvation characteristic of this passage and references to the meanings of concepts rooted in the Old Testament. Taking this inclusive and timeless perspective, it is difficult to agree with the most common suggestions that “faith once for all handed down to the saints” means revelation reduced to the New Testament message, especially that later in the letter the narrator readily uses examples from the Old and intertestamental literature. It is also difficult to find here evidence that Jude was composed later, around the second century84 when the dogmatic face of Christianity and confession of faith (e.g. Apostles’ Creed) was beginning to take shape.

82 D.E. Hiebert, Selected Studies, p. 146. 83 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 221. 84 See D. Keating, First, Second Peter, p. 299; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 202; see above – Introduction.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 4)

2.2

B. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 4)

4

For certain men have crept in/sneaked in [among you], long ago/of old designated [as predestined/foreordained] for this judgment, ungodly, perverting the grace of our God into licentiousness/immorality/sensuality and denying the only Ruler our and Lord.

The contents of verse 4 seems to diverge from verses 1–2 that dealt with salvation; this time the narrator focuses on judgement. The change was signalled in verse 3 that functions as a transition. As already stated, in verse 3b the tone of the narrative changes to a more abrupt and dynamic one. The dynamism is also evident in verse 4, linked formally to the previous one by the particle γάρ. This cohesion makes the reader to consider verses 3–4 together, as a narratio and an explanation of the reasons for Jude’s alleged abandonment of his original intention to write about “our common salvation”. Meanwhile, it turns out that the narrator’s rhetorical strategy of presenting the positives and negatives85 makes it possible to illuminate the question of salvation from a different perspective.86 Jude’s soteriology includes not only the positive, liberating aspects of salvation, but also closely related reflections on judgment. What is highlighted is the judgement on those who are not “slaves of God/Jesus Christ”, who are not “beloved”, “preserved” or “called”, who do not “contend for the faith once for all handed down to the saints”, but, on the contrary, pervert it by their teaching and behaviour and deny Jesus Christ as the Lord and Ruler. The narrator therefore moves from describing the positive effects of salvation in verse 1–2 to presenting those who should fear the eschatological judgment. In doing so, as before, he takes into account the past (“long ago designated” οἱ πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι, where the part. perf. med. et pass. indicates a past action whose effects last), the present (“the ungodly” ἀσεβεῖς “perverting the grace of God into licentiousness τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν χάριτα μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέγειαν and “denying the only Ruler and our Lord” τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι, where the part. praes. indicates ongoing actions) and the future (“for this judgment” εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα). Verses 1–2 are presented as introductory considerations, prepared “particularly carefully”; verse 4 should be read in the same manner as a carefully prepared signalling of the issues that are developed further in the letter (verses 5c–19): the inevitability of judgment that is an element of soteriology. The narrator, however, has not abandoned theme of salvation, which is evidenced by the relationship between verses 1–3 and verse 4. Syncrisis is used here, a rhetorical figure that consists in juxtaposing two elements and describing them in an

85 S.J. Joubert, Persuasion, p. 80. 86 A different view is held R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 35.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

97

98

Structural commentary

evaluative way. When syncrisis refers to people, it is usually their morality manifested in their behaviour that is subjected to evaluation.87 The three attributes of the recipients of Jude from verse 1 (“beloved”, “preserved”, “called”) are juxtaposed here with the expressions of those who cause unrest in the community: “certain men”, “long ago designated for this judgment, ungodly, turning grace into licentiousness” and “denying the only Ruler/Ruler and our Lord”. The description of the former corresponds to the criteria of laudatio, praise; the description of the latter is a typical vituperatio, rebuke, which is not only aimed at discrediting their views or alienating them, separating them from the community, but is also a motivation and encouragement to defend the faith against the views they proclaim (verse 3b) and to avoid the behaviour attributed to them.88 The descriptions in the vituperatio may be derisive and/or considered an invective, as in the Greek and Roman satires that may have inspired Jude.89 Indeed, mockery may be found in the term “certain men” τινες ἄνθρωποι, in the suggestion of cowardice expressed by the verb παρεισδύω ‘slip/creep/sneak in’, and in the references to immoral conduct and sexuality typical of Hellenistic satire in the mention of “licentiousness” ἀσέλγεια.90 It is difficult to answer unequivocally whether or not this introductory syncrisis is symmetrical. Some scholars try to identify symmetrical triplets in verse 1 and 4,91 but then they usually reduce the terms used to describe the opponents of the true faith to the “ungodly, turning grace into licentiousness and denying the only Ruler and our Lord”.92 So it seems that the symmetry is not preserved here, there are more negative expressions, and they will appear later in the letter, but each of the negative features can be correlated with the previous positive ones.93 One can see a certain similarity in the juxtaposition of the three expressions just mentioned in verse 4 with the expressions of the recipients in verse 1 in the use of hyperonymy. For verse 1 the term “beloved” turned out to be crucial, and the form of expressions of God’s love towards the recipients of Jude are the terms “preserved” and “called”;94 for verse 4 the key term is “ungodly”, and “ungodliness” manifests itself in “turning grace into licentiousness” and “in denying our only Ruler and Lord”.

87 J.H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 24; see also above – Introduction. 88 S.J. Joubert, Persuasion, p. 80, 82. 89 A.J. Batten, The Letter of Jude and Graeco-Roman Invective, “HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies” 70 (2014), no. 1, p. 3. 90 See below. 91 Cf., for example, D.F. Watson, Invention, p. 42; A.J. Batten, The Letter, p. 5. 92 A different view is held by J.D. Charles, Literary Artifice, p. 122, who sees the triplet at the grammatical level, in the three participial terms προγεγραμμένοι, μετατιθέντες, ἀρνούμενοι. 93 See below. 94 See above.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 4)

Jude’s description of the activities of the “ungodly” begins by indicating how they got into the community of recipients. Here he uses the verb παρεισέδυσαν, a New Testament hapax legomenon. Generally, it can be translated as ‘to enter’ and ‘to be near’, but the similarity to παρεισάγω used in 2 Peter 2:1 (‘to introduce stealthily’, ‘to smuggle’) and παρεισέρχομαι used in Galatians 2:4 (‘to slip/creep in’, ‘to sneak’) allows us to see here elements of secret acts. which introduces an atmosphere of mystery, deceit, even terror,95 similar to the Hellenistic literature, e.g. Diogenes Laertius, Plutarch and Josephus Flavius.96 In this way Jude makes his recipients sensitive to the danger of the insidious appearance of “certain men” in the community. In the context of syncrisis, a clear contrast is evident between those “called/invited” into the community by God and those who arbitrarily sneaked into the community to stay unnoticed among its members. This means that outwardly they cannot be distinguished by anything special, they even seem to accept the rules of community life, to participate in religious life (see verse 12) though they are not members of the community understood soteriologically as in verse 1 (see verse 19). Their erroneous teachings therefore do not come from within the community, but from outside. It is likely that the newcomers belonged to a numerous group of itinerant teachers in early Christianity, perhaps charismatics; the plural may indicate that either there are more of them, or that they came to the community of Jude’s recipients together with a group of disciples.97 2 John 10 and Did. 11 expressly warn against such teachers: “Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turn and teach another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not”, and Ignatius of Antioch in The Epistle of Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians 9 praises the attitude of his recipients who resisted false teaching: “Nevertheless, I have heard of some who have passed on from this to you, having false doctrine, whom you did not allow to sow among you, but stopped your ears, that you might not receive those things which were sown by them”. The designation of the newcomers as “certain men” τινες ἄνθρωποι is also contrasted with the “called”. The act of calling implies using the name, establishing a personal relationship with God who calls and invites. Meanwhile, the newcomers remain anonymous, their identity remains undefined, as the pronoun clearly indicates, and they cannot therefore be called by name. Jude seems to suggest, before describing them as ungodly, that they have no relationship with God. The phrase τινες ἄνθρωποι also conceals the mockery typical of the uses of this expression or of the pronoun itself in relation to opponents in vituperatio (see Rom 3:8,

95 D.E. Hiebert, Selected Studies, p. 147. 96 M. Green, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 239; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 214. 97 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 35.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

99

100

Structural commentary

1 Cor 4:18, 15:34, 2 Cor 3:1, 10:12, Gal 1:7, 1 Tim 1:3.19, 2 Pet 3:9 and The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians 7 and 9).98 They could often be found in denunciatory texts with elements of condemnation of the behaviour of certain men.99 This does not mean, of course, that they remain anonymous to the narrator. It seems that both the narrator and the recipients know perfectly well who they are referring to, they can even point to these people. Here, however, this carefully planned lack of precision in naming the dangerous strangers has been subordinated to rhetorical considerations.100 Another term for the newcomers, who, as the previous analyses suggest, should be treated as intruders, correlates in the syncrisis with the “preserved”.101 The very expression οἱ πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι ἐις τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα presents a number of translational and interpretative difficulties. The problems concern first of all the indication of the sources to which Jude refers, since this indication determines both the understanding of the first (πάλαι) and the last (κρίμα) concept of the phrase under discussion. The use of the verb προγράφω “write down/designated earlier” in part. perf. med. et pass. undoubtedly indicates that the narrator has written sources in mind. In the Greco-Roman world, the verb most often appeared in a legal context for marriage contracts, commercial contracts, public notices (the nouns πρόγραμμα and προγραφή denote official decrees or announcements).102 In a similar sense including public and official announcement it is used in 1 Macc 10:36 or Gal 3:1. Some commentators, referring to Roman practices, insist that προγργραμμένοι should be understood like Roman proscription lists by means of which the names of political opponents were made public, who were consequently deprived of citizenship, property and sentenced to exile.103 Such an understanding would be in line with the apocalyptic tradition and the image of a list/book, with the names and deeds of people, read in the end times (the so-called books of deeds) are written. In ApBaSyr/2 Ba 24:1 we read “For behold! the days come and the books shall be opened in which are written the sins of all those who have sinned”. The First Book of Enoch, which Jude refers to frequently later in the letter, gives details of how the deeds were written down:

98 99 100 101 102

Ibid., p. 35. G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 215. S.J. Joubert, Persuasion, p. 82. See below. G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 217; D. Lucas, The Message of 2 Peter and Jude. The Promise of His Coming, Leicester 1995, p. 134. 103 D.E. Hiebert, Selected Studies, p. 148; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 35.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 4)

Observe and mark everything that the shepherds will do to those sheep […] And every excess and the destruction which will be wrought through the shepherds, record […] And read out before me by number how many they destroy, and how many they deliver over for destruction, that I may have this as a testimony against them, and know every deed of the shepherds, that I may comprehend and see what they do […] record against each individual […] and lay it all before me. […] And thus in the vision I saw that one who wrote, how he wrote down every one that was destroyed by those shepherds, day by day, and carried up and laid down and showed actually the whole book to the Lord of the sheep […] And the book was read before the Lord of the sheep, and He took the book from his hand and read it and sealed it and laid it down (1 En 89:61–71).

and refers to the knowledge of the existence of such a book: “And do not think in your spirit nor say in your heart that ye do not know and that ye do not see that every sin is every day recorded in heaven in the presence of the Most High” (1 En 98:7–8). The weakness of this hypothesis linking the Roman and apocalyptic background is that the deeds were not written down beforehand, as the adverb πάλαι in verse 4 would suggest, but their recording takes place either when they were committed or after the fact. If the Book of Enoch is indicated as a source, we should quote the passages where it mentions the heavenly tablets104 on which everything that is to happen is written: Observe, Enoch, these heavenly tablets, And read what is written thereon, And mark every individual fact. And I observed the heavenly tablets, and read everything which was written (thereon) and understood everything, and read the book of all the deeds of mankind, and of all the children of flesh that shall be upon the earth to the remotest generations (1 En 81:1–3; see 1 En 103:2; 106:19).

A certain determinism is noticeable here,105 even more evident in TAsh, which also mentions the heavenly tablets with the future – ungodly – deeds written on them: “For I have read in the Heavenly Tablets that in very deed ye will disobey Him, and act ungodly against Him, not giving heed to the law of God, but to the commandments of men” (TAsh 7). The hypothesis of the heavenly tablets as a source for this passage in Jude is supported by the fact that the Roman proscription notices were placed on stone tablets. However, Richard Bauckham points out a difficulty that arises here: if the part. προγεγραμμένοι implies references to the heavenly tablets, then one would have to assume that Jude is a visionary like Enoch and had insight into the contents of the heavenly tablets regarding “certain men”, their

104 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 250. 105 The determinism professed by the Pharisees is mentioned by Josephus Flavius in Bell. Iud. II 8:14.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

101

102

Structural commentary

conduct and/or teaching.106 However, there is no direct indication in the epistle that Jude is an apocalyptist like the protagonist of 1 Enoch. Undoubtedly, however, the narrator of the Letter of Jude links the situation described in 1 En with that in the community of his recipients, thus pesherising the Book as was popular in Jewish circles of the time (e.g. in Qumran).107 It seems, therefore, that we should abandon the interpretation of προγεγραμμένοι as a list of persons and deeds, subject to judgment and punishment, proscribed by the narrator; conversely, we need to emphasise the temporal meaning of this verb as ‘recorded before’. The temporal meaning is marked by the preposition προ- and the perfective form, which indicates a fact that took place in the past but affects the present. In this sense προγράφω occurs in Rom 15:4 and refers to prophecies (see also Eph 3:3, without prophetic connotations). In Jude 4, the reference to the past is reinforced, since the adverb πάλαι is used alongside the preposition προ- in προγράφω. However, this is not an isolated case where Jude reinforces the meaning of a verb with an adverb. Similarly, in verse 2 the aorist παραδοθείσῃ, indicating the completeness and perfection in transmitting the faith, was reinforced with the adverb ἅπαξ. Thus, the whole expression οἱ πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι means that the arrival of people now acting in the community of Jude’s recipients had already been designated/foreordained. However, we should not discard the connotation with proscriptions, since the normative Jewish and Christian writings in Jude’s time were read publicly, e.g. during prayer services, and commented on, so the prophecies they contained were also public.108 The identification of the source and content of the prophecy is closely related to the interpretation of the adverb πάλαι, which is usually translated as ‘long ago’ or ‘of old’, but also ‘before’, ‘previously’ or ‘recently’: e.g. in 2 Cor 12:19 it can mean ‘a few days’ or ‘a few weeks’, while in Mark 15:44 it means ‘about an hour ago’.109 If we assume that πάλαι does indeed refer to the relatively recent past, the source of the prophecy could be sought in the utterances of Jesus himself and the apostles (see Matt 7:15, 13:24–25, Mark 13:22, Acts 20:29–30). Some guidance in interpreting Jude’s πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι may also come from Heb 1:1, where the adverb πάλαι refers to the Old Testament prophecies. It seems that in Jude 4 it may designate the same, especially due to the fact that the narrator in verse 3 refers to revelations from the Old Testament writings and intertestamental literature, while in verse 1 and 2 the author uses theological concepts based on this literature. Jude returns to this literature and clarifies the problem of salvation from a different angle, but also announces the scriptural argumentation. As already 106 107 108 109

R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 36. See below for an analysis of verse 14–15 and their references to verse 4. See G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 217. D.E. Hiebert, Selected Studies, p. 148.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 4)

stated, in 3b the “faith handed down once for all to the saints” meant the revelation of God’s salvific acts to the patriarchs, the prophets, the apostles and the church as the new people of God. The narrator then focused on the positive aspects of salvation. He pointed out that salvation is inextricably related to judgment, and that the deeds that are subject to judgment were foreordained/designated in the past. Later in the letter he refers typologically to these descriptions taken from the Old Testament and from intertestamental apocryphal literature. It can therefore be assumed that πάλαι in Jude refers primarily to those texts that were written in the rather distant past. An additional argument may be the temporal marker – πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι translated as “long ago designated/foreordained”. This is also confirmed by Jude 14–15, which is a direct motivic and lexical (verse 15cd) reference to and clarification of verse 4. The quotation from 1 En 1:9 used there is preceded by the formula: “Enoch, the seventh from Adam prophesied”, which indicates the antiquity of the source. However, given the inclusivism characteristic of Jude, the respect for tradition, and above all the fact that salvation and revelation as processes, it seems that πάλαι can be applied to everything that was written before,110 both to the Old Testament and Intertestamental literature,111 and to the New Testament literature, from Enoch “the seventh from Adam” to the apostles (we need to bear in mind that in the first century no normative canon of the Old Testament and New Testament for Christians and Jews was available). Richard Bauckham also points out that the expression πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι is durative and can therefore be translated as “for a long time”.112 The assumption that verse 4 contains an introduction to the typology in verses 5c–7.9.11.14–15, which correspond to the reality described by Jude, now allows us to better understand the meaning of the noun κρίμα in this context as ‘assessment’, ‘judgment’, ‘court case’, rather than as ‘condemnation’. It may be assumed that what is meant here is primarily the ‘pronouncement of judgment’, ‘finding somebody guilty of something’, and it cannot be associated with any type of punishment.113 Since the deeds of a person found guilty may be different, various types of punishment may be imposed, as the examples that follow prove (see verse 6 and 15, where the expression εἰς κρίσιν appears, suggesting that εἰς τὸ κρίμα and εἰς κρίσιν are to be treated synonymously).

110 Thus, for example, D. J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 357 or D. Lucas, The Message, p. 136, propose πάλαι to be translated here as already. 111 D. J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 357; D. Keating, First, Second Peter, p. 301; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 36. 112 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 36. 113 D.E. Hiebert, Selected Studies, p. 149.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

103

104

Structural commentary

The difficulty, however, is the interpretation of the demonstrative pronoun τοῦτο preceding the noun κρίμα. It is not possible to clearly identify the text to which the pronoun would refer; it is not clear whether these are the preceding verses, 3b or 4a, or rather the subsequent ones. The strategy employed by Jude would rather have us consider verses 5c–15 as a reference, with their typology referring primarily to the relationship between ungodliness and the judgement for it.114 This leads to the conclusion that also false teachers will be judged/found guilty by God, even if this is to happen in the end times. There is thus a clear eschatological connotation of the term κρίμα, which is further strengthened by the conviction that the apostolic prophecies will be fulfilled in the end times. The expression τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα can also be related to verse 1. As noted earlier, the correlation of the vituperative οἱ πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα with the laudative expression τετηρημένοι ‘preserved’ results from syncrisis. The grammatical basis for this correlation can be considered to be the use of part. perf. in both cases. Of greater importance, however, is the semantic basis, namely the eschatological focus of τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα and the eschatological perspective of preservation. In the end times at the judgment, God preserves those whom he has loved and called as his property but accuses the ungodly (see verse 15). As a result of this accusation the ungodly are excluded from those preserved. Here we can clearly see the strong relation between Jude’s soteriology and the judgment; on the one hand, it is at the judgment that the ungodly will be accused, on the other hand, at the same judgment the preservation of the faithful will be fully revealed. In the second part of verse 4, Jude explains what leads to the prosecution of false teachers. He begins, however, by generally describing the intruders as ‘ungodly’ ἀσεβεῖς. The term ‘ungodliness’ frequently appears in Jude, much more frequently than in other New Testament writings. This lexeme occurs as a noun ἀσέβεια in verses 15 and 18 and as an adjective ἀσεβεῖς in verses 4 and 15. This may prove the dependence of Jude on 1 En (especially in verse 15), in which the frequency of this lexeme is also above average.115 As already mentioned, this lexeme seems crucial in stigmatizing the behaviour and attitudes that the narrator condemns and against which he wants to warn and protect his recipients. In general, ἀσέβεια belongs to religious language, for in Hellenistic literature it was used to designate a lack of respect and gratitude to the deities, and consequently a lack of any relationship with them.116 In general language its synonym was primarily ἀδικία ‘injustice’ or more precisely ‘a lack of justice’. In the LXX both these terms are synonymous, they serve religious purposes, but it seems that ἀσέβεια is a hyperonym, an expression

114 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 37; D.E. Hiebert, Selected Studies, p. 148. 115 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 218; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 37. 116 D.E. Hiebert, Selected Studies, p. 149.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 4)

superior to ἀδικία, both in the LXX and in the intertestamental and New Testament literature,117 because “ungodliness” manifests itself, among other things, in injustice and a lack of justice, which is equivalent to transgressing God’s commandments. This transgression implies disrespect for both the law and the Lawgiver; it is a sin, which is why ἁμαρτωλός ‘sinful’ and ἀνομος ‘unrighteous’, ‘law-breaking’118 are considered synonyms of ‘ungodly’ and ‘unrighteous’. In his letter Jude clarifies the meaning of ‘ungodliness’ as ‘lawbreaking’. This is in line with trends found in intertestamental literature, in New Testament, as well as early Christian writings, in which the lexeme ἀσέβ- frequently occurs in the context of divine wrath and judgment (e.g. 1 En 10:20, TZeb 10:3, Rom 1:18, 1 Pet 4:18, 2 Pet 2:6, 3:7, 1 Clem. 14:15, 57:7–8).119 It is no coincidence that in Jude 4 the phrases εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα and ἀσεβεῖς, which will ultimately be interpreted in Jude 15, are close to one another. The next two phrases explain the ungodliness of the people creeping into the community. First, it is τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν χάριτα μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν “perverting the grace of our God into licentiousness”. In this passage it is crucial, of course, to understand what χάρις ‘grace’ is. The analysis of verses 1–3 showed that verse 2 contains a quasi-definition of grace which consists of interpenetrating mercy, peace and love that are offered in abundance. So it seems that “the ungodly” misunderstand all these concepts, and certainly ‘mercy’ and ‘peace’. ‘Mercy’ would be God’s unlimited leniency towards sinning man, and peace would be the internal appeasement of Christians’ conscience, since persistence in sin would intensify the action of grace. Most probably, then, the narrator of Jude has in mind here the same false interpretation of grace that the apostle Paul mockingly describes in Rom 6:1. For many, this could mean an anomie, total freedom from all kinds of regulations, above all religious rules and therefore from the observance of the Law, but also moral rules, since all sins will eventually be forgiven anyway. This results in a free surrender to natural instincts and lusts and, as Jude ironically and vituperatively notes, the exclusion of reason (see verse 10). This is indicated by the noun ἀλέλγεια, which contains a clear sexual connotation (licentiousness), but also refers to lack of self-control and self-command like gluttony, drunkenness, etc.120 It must be made clear that Jude’s concept of grace does not refer to some abstract doctrine, but to the experience of grace and the response to it. The hagiographer presented this in verses 1–2, describing salvation as liberation and invoking the position and attitude of a redeemed slave who remains obedient and serves the new owner (he will return to this image in the last phrase of verse 4). Grace, therefore, should not only be properly understood, but also properly received. 117 118 119 120

See G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 219. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 38. Ibid., p. 38. D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 358.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

105

106

Structural commentary

The reception of grace and the fundamental meaning of the noun χάρις as ‘gift’ is explained by John Painter and David Arthur de Silva who, to this end, make use of the Greco-Roman ethos of reciprocity. The acceptance of a gift implied a commitment to repay the gift and honour the giver. When the social and material status of the donor far exceeded that of the recipient, the beneficiary could fulfil his obligation by loyal and faithful service to the donor. Conversely, the use of a gift contrary to the donor’s intention implied contempt for the donor and for the gift.121 “The ungodly”, therefore, blatantly violate this ethos of reciprocity and thus the ancient world’s concept of justice by using God’s gift contrary to its meaning and purpose, thus showing contempt for God as giver and not even attempting to reciprocate with loyal service to Him. Grace falsely understood as liberation from all enslaving rules would thus be a justification for incessant (as indicated by the part. praes. μετατιθέντες) licentiousness and lack of self-control and for breaking previous religious and social rules. The disorderly and licentious behaviour would also be a constant disrespect for God expressed in actions.122 The second phrase describing ‘ungodliness’ is τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι “denying the only Ruler and our Lord Jesus Christ”. The basic difficulty here is to decide whether the term ‘only Master’ and the title ‘Lord’ refer to one person, or whether they should be separated: ‘only Master’ identified with God the Father and ‘Lord’ with Jesus Christ.123 The Greek construction does not allow for a clear-cut solution.124 Occasionally, on the syntactic level an attempt is made to justify thesis that these two terms refer to one person by pointing to the use of the preceding article which refers to both the noun δεσπότης and the noun κύριος, and the use of the pronoun ἡμῶν determining both nouns. The article and pronoun are claimed to integrate these two nouns and thus refer to one person specified by the apposition “Jesus Christ”.125 Such an argumentation, however, is not convincing to all exegetes, since titles such as κύριος or θεός often lack articles (see e.g. 2 Thess 1:12, where, although only the first of the nouns is preceded by an article, each refers to a different person: ὁ θεός to God the Father, κύριος to Jesus Christ).126 Justifications for the different variants must therefore be sought at the semantic level, in the textual strategies of the narrator and in comparisons with other texts containing the same or similar phrases.

121 J. Painter, D.A. de Silva, James and Jude, p. 356. 122 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 221. 123 M. Luther translates this phrase interestingly, adding God, but referring the title of Ruler to Jesus Christ: “und verleugnen Gott und unsern Herrn Jesum Christum, den einigen Herrscher [And they deny God and our Lord Jesus Christ, the only Master]”. 124 D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 358. J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 252. 125 D.E. Hiebert, Selected Studies, p. 150. 126 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 252.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 4)

One of the supporters of the claim that the persons to whom the various elements of the phrase τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν refer should be separated is John Norman Davidson Kelly.127 The main argument is that in the New Testament the term δεσπότης always refers – with the exception of 2 Pet 2:1 – to God the Father, especially in liturgical texts or standard formulas (e.g. Luke 2:29, Acts 4:24, Rev 6:10). This is how the noun was used in the LXX (Rom 15:2.8, Josh 5:14, Isa 3:1, 10:33, Jer 4:10, Tob 8:17, 2 Macc 5:17.20, 15:22, Wis 8:3)128 and in early Christian texts: 1 Clem. 7:5, 8:2, 9:4, 11:1, 20:8.11, 24:1.5, 33:1.2, 36:2.4, 40:1, 48:1; 52:1, 56:16, 59:4, Did. 10, Barn. 1:7). In Jewish, New Testament and early Christian literature, even in the Letter of Jude itself in verse 25, one also finds the adjective μόνος, which refers to God (the Father) and emphasizes monotheism often in opposition to pagan polytheism or Roman worship of emperors (e.g. John 5:44, 17:3, Rom 16:27, 1 Tim 1:7, Bell. Iud. VII 10:1, Ant. VIII 13:5).129 The titles ‘Ruler’ and ‘Lord’, having similar meanings and referring to the same person, would be an unnecessary tautology.130 Moreover, intertestamental literature, including 1 Enoch, to which Jude readily alludes in terms of lexis, phraseology, and motives, contains similar expressions that point to two different persons, e.g., “For they have denied the Lord of Spirits and His Anointed” (1 En 48:10).131 Most researchers, however, argue that the titles δεσπότης and κύριος only refer to Jesus Christ.132 They usually support their thesis invoking the strategy, noted in verse 1, of applying to Jesus Christ the formulas associated in the Jewish tradition with God the Father (δοῦλος τοῦ θεοῦ → δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ), and to God the Father the formulas associated in the Christian tradition with Jesus Christ (ἠγαπημένοι ἐν Χριστῷ → ἐν θεῷ/πατρὶ ἠγαπημένοι). They insist the same applies to this verse: the title of God the Father – δεσπότης would be attributed to Jesus Christ.133 This also establishes, based on the slave-owner relationship, a close link between the elements of the syncrisis: the laudatory “slave of Jesus Christ” δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in verse 1 and the vituperative “denying the only Ruler Jesus Christ” τὸν μόνον δεσπότην Ἰεσοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι. The noun δεσπότης in common usage meant the owner of slaves (e.g. 1 Tim 6:1–2, 2 Tim 2:21, Titus 2:9); as a title it was used

127 Ibid., p. 253; however, he allows for an interpretation that treats both titles as designations of one person – Jesus Christ. 128 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 221. 129 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 252; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 39. 130 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 252. 131 Ibid., p. 252. 132 See D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 358; D. Keating, First, Second Peter, p. 302; R, Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 39; J. Painer, D.A. de Silva, James and Jude, p. 357; D. Lucas, The Message, p. 136; M. Rosik, List św. Judy, p. 135; W. Barclay, The Letters of John and Jude, Edinburgh 1960, p. 230. 133 D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 358.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

107

108

Structural commentary

in reference to a ruler, emphasizing his legal authority and absolute power.134 Calling (and professing) Jesus a master, even the ‘only master’ μόνος δεσπότης in the Roman empire, where unquestionable absolute power was exercised by the emperor, must be considered an act of courage that had not only religious, but also political consequences.135 In the context of this syncrisis, reproaching “the ungodly” for denying Jesus Christ as a master seems to be equivalent to mocking and rebuking them for their cowardice and opportunism towards the Roman authority. The phrase μόνος δεσπότης is also associated with another vituperative insinuation. Rejection of the only Ruler suggests a service to another master: sin, pagan deities, corruption, etc. (Matt 7:24, Rom 6:12–20, Gal 4:3.8, 2 Pet 2:19), and thus excludes the ungodly from being Christians, servants of Jesus Christ. That the title δεσπότης refers to Jesus is also evidenced by the New Testament texts. We have already mentioned 2 Pet 2:1. This passage may, of course, be dependent on Jude 4, but it proves that the author of 2 Peter and his recipients referred precisely to Jesus. Furthermore, many parables feature οἰκοδεσπότης, a slave owner (e.g. Matt 10:25, Luke 13:25), who can be identified with Jesus; and the term οἰκοδεσπότης itself may be used interchangeably with δεσπότης, as evidenced by one variant of Luke 13:25 (P75 ), which reads δεσπότης.136 To justify the use of the noun δεσπότης in relation to Jesus, Richard Bauckham137 provides etymological arguments referring to the dynastic hypothesis.138 Namely, he refers to the Letter to Aristides, known to Eusebius, On the genealogy in the Holy Gospels by Sextus Julius Africanus (d. c. 240), where the relatives of Jesus were called δεσπόσυνοι: “Among these are those already mentioned, called Desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour” (HE I 7:14). Since the adjective δεσπόσυνοι ‘Desposyni, from the Lord’s family’ was intended to emphasise the relationship with Jesus, it seems natural that the noun δεσπότης ‘lord, master’, from which it was derived, should also refer to Jesus. There is no doubt whatsoever that the title κύριος should be applied to Jesus Christ. At the grammatical level, the apposition allows for this interpretation: κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. Moreover, Jude uses this typical Christian formula (see e.g. Acts 11:17, 15:26, 28:31, Rom 1:4.7, 5:1.11.21, 1 Thess 1:3.5.9, 1 Pet 1:3, 2 Pet 1:8) also in other places: verses 17. 21. 25 (in the latter with the inversion: “Jesus Christ our Lord” Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν). Christianity commonly accepted the title used in the LXX for God (and in the Greco-Roman world for deity and emperor) as a Christological title. The titles ‘Master’ and ‘Lord’ are not a tautology, since they 134 135 136 137 138

G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 221. J. Painter, D.A. de Silva, James and Jude, p. 357. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 39. Ibid., p. 39. See above – Introduction.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 4)

deal with slightly different aspects of authority. As already mentioned δεσπότης indicates such power of Jesus Christ over the followers as the owner had over the slaves. It implies at the same time the idea of acquiring/redeeming a slave and making him “a living tool”. The title κύριος, on the other hand, emphasizes Christ’s divine authority, His lordship, absolute power, and especially the power to judge.139 The use of two titles similar in meaning is also typical of the Semitic manner of writing, but here it evokes the Israelite confession of faith, the Shema, which in the LXX version also seems tautological, even more than Jude 4, since it uses the noun κύριος twice – ἄκουε Ἰσραηλ, κύριος ὁ θεός ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν (Deut 6:4).140 The formula of confession contrasts with the verb ἀρνέομαι ‘reject’, which originally referred to a verbal refusal, denial. It is thus, on the one hand, a situation opposite to that described in Rom 10:9 and Matt 10:32, and on the other hand, an active denial (denial by deeds) of the content of the confession, as suggested by the implication of serving another master and the earlier references to licentiousness ἀσέλγεια (see Titus 1:16).141 The relationship between the abandonment of the obligation to keep the commandments and the denial of God as lawgiver is confirmed by 1 En 38:2, 41:2, 45:2, 46:7, 48:10, 67:8.10 and later rabbinic literature;142 additionally, 2 Clem. 17:7 mentions the punishments that will be meted out on the day of judgment to those who have denied Christ in word and deed: “But the righteous […] shall behold them that have done amiss and denied Jesus by their words or by their deeds, how that they are punished with grievous torments in unquenchable fire”. It is sometimes attempted to link the moral and doctrinal issues described in verse 4, i.e. moral liberty and “denying the only Ruler and Lord Jesus Christ”, with a particular religious group, most often (pre)Gnostic, which denied Christ’s divinity and thus absolute power and right to judge. If one assumes that δεσπότης refers only to God, then it may be implied that “denying the one Master” is tantamount to the conviction that creation and the ruling of the world belongs to the demiurge, not to God. Conversely, based on the analogy with 2 John 7 (see also 1 John 2:22–23)

139 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 39. 140 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 222. 141 See D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 358–359. M. Luther puts it in a similar way, although he claims – on the basis of the analogy of 2 Peter – that the denial is not tantamount to confession: “they deny […] It is not done by their mouth, for with this they confess that God is one Lord, but they deny that Christ is Lord in fact, and by their works; they hold, not Him, but themselves as their Lord”; M. Luther, The Epistles. 142 One may wonder whether the author of Jude knew exactly these examples from the Book of Enoch. It should be noted that they are not found in the Qumran copies, which suggests they were written at a later time, perhaps at the end of the first or the turn of the second century; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 40.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

109

110

Structural commentary

the denial of Jesus Christ can be interpreted as Docetic tendencies.143 However, they are not explicit, so this claim is not indisputable.144 The moral liberty as a false interpretation of Christian freedom was quite common; therefore, we cannot assign “the ungodly” mentioned by Jude to any of the Gnostic groups (see Rom 3:8, 6:1.15, Gal 5:13, 1 Pet 2:16 and of course 1 Cor 5:1–6, 6:12–20, 10:23, Rev 2:14.20). Summing up these considerations, it is worth returning to syncrisis. The correlation between δοῦλος in verse 1 and the denial of Jesus as a Master has already been mentioned. On a more general level, however, it can be said that both the general ἀσέβεια and its specific manifestations: the turning of grace into licentiousness and the denial of Jesus as a Master and Lord through denial of faith and by deeds, are manifestations of a lack of respect and love for God. This lack of love to God, of which the ungodly will be accused at the judgment, is in vituperatio a reversal of the situation in laudatio, where God’s love to people was the basis of salvation. It is evident that at this general level the syncrisis of verse 1 and 4 is arranged chiastically, though asymmetrically: Laudatio (verse 1)

Vituperatio (verse 4)

Beloved

The ungodly: – turning grace into licentiousness, – rejecting the only Lord and Master, Jesus Christ

Preserved

Long ago/of old designated [as foreordained] for judgment

Called

Creeping in/sneaking in stealthily [into the community]; certain (unnamed) men

2.3

A’. Salvation (Jude 5a–b)

5

I wish that you remember/I desire to remind you of everything [that] you have learnt once for all, and you know that Jesus, having delivered/saved the people from the land of Egypt […]

Most exegetes insist there is a relation between verse 5 and verses 6 and 7 (sometimes even with verses 6–16), emphasising the narrator’s favourite triplet of examples and referring them all to “certain men” described in verse 4, “long ago designated for this judgment, perverting the grace into licentiousness and denying the only Ruler and

143 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 253. 144 See R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 38, 40; D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 358.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’. Salvation (Jude 5a–b)

our Lord”.145 However, it seems more appropriate to separate these examples; the first example from the first triplet (verses 5–7) should be applied to the community of the beloved, preserved and called, into which the intruders have sneaked.146 Verse 5 would be thus a transition147 which, on the one hand, synthesises what has already been said in a more elaborate way in verses 1–4, and, on the other hand, uses the analogy between Israel and the Christian community as the first link in a typological chain. The initial three examples in Jude 5–7 seem very conventional. As Thomas R. Schreiner supposes, the narrator did not even consult the source texts, but drew on the circulating Jewish tradition of148 the Second Temple period,149 in which reference to Sodom predominates as the leading example of punishment (so, e.g., in Sir 16:8, TNaph 3, 3 Macc 2:5, Jub 20:5.6, 2 Pet 2:6). A second almost equally frequent reference is the story of the giants.150 It is associated with the rebellion of the angels (Sir 16:7, TNaph 3, 3 Macc 2:4, Jub 20:5) and/or the story of the flood (3 Macc 2:4). The rebellion of angels, the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah are used in the text of 2 Pet 2:4–10, which contains parallel material with Jude 6–7. The repetition of these examples allows us to assume that they indeed belonged to loci communes of the Jewish narrative of judgment and punishment.151 They are also linked by the motif of promiscuity as a cause (or one of the causes) of punishment. If the recipients, as we assume, knew these stories perfectly well, the motif of promiscuity is only implied, as in Sir 16:7–8. Sometimes it is presented euphemistically, as in 3 Macc 2:4–5, where the giants are described as the perpetrators of “injustice” and the inhabitants of Sodom as those who “acted arrogantly”; TNaph 3, on the other hand, mentions that Sodom “changed the order of […] nature”. But it is Jub 20:5–6 that explicitly revealed that the giants and the inhabitants of Sodom had been on account of their wickedness, and had died on account of their fornication, and uncleanness, and mutual corruption through fornication. And guard yourselves from all

145 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 230–232; T.R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, p. 441–443; J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 254–256; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 42–44; R. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives, p. 181, 186–188; similarly P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 46–48, D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 369–371 all examples from verse 5 to verse 16 end, refer to false teachers. 146 See also below for a description of reasons for the judgement: lack of faith in 5b it is, immorality in 6–7. 147 T.R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, p. 443; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 156; D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 371. 148 Ibid., p. 442. 149 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 158. 150 More detailed examples from Jude 6–7 will be presented below, when discussing Part B’. 151 See also Luke 17:26–29, where theme of the flood and of Lot and Sodom appears, but in a slightly different context.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

111

112

Structural commentary

fornication and uncleanness […] And ye become accursed like Sodom, And all your remnant as the sons of Gomorrah.

The author of 2 Pet 2:7 laments Lot, who was “oppressed by the licentious conduct of unprincipled people”. The reference to the rebellion of the angels, the giants (and the flood) and Sodom and Gomorrah therefore seems typical. This is why many texts that use this topos only provide two examples: TNaph, Jub, 2 Pet. A third example appears in 3 Macc 2:6–7 and indirectly in Sir 16:9–10. Both 3 Macc and Sir recollect the story of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt, but in different ways. 3 Macc 2:6–7 invokes the very beginning of the exodus: You made known your mighty power by inflicting many and varied punishments on the audacious Pharaoh who had enslaved your holy people Israel. And when he pursued them with chariots and a mass of troops, you overwhelmed him in the depths of the sea, but carried through safely those who had put their confidence in you.

Thus, it can be seen that this example is not directly related to the previous two, for it concerns the demonstration of God’s power and emphasises not the punishment but the rescue of the Israelites who trust in God. Sirach, on the other hand, nowhere mentions directly the Israelites who did not enter the promised land and were doomed to perish in the desert, but the context indicates this very event: “He did not spare the doomed people […] Nor152 the six hundred thousand153 foot soldiers, sent to their graves for the arrogance of their hearts”. Here, indeed, the motif of punishment is present, and the coherence of all three of Sirachian examples is based on the condemnation of arrogance and rebellion. Examples from 3 Maccabees and the Syrian verse prove that in the Jewish tradition the topos of the Israelites’ wandering through the desert varied both in terms of specific events from this forty-year history (the beginning of the Exodus or entering the promised land), and in terms of the context in which the topos is placed (the illustration of the power and might of God and His saving works – 3 Macc, or the image of punishment – Sir with reference to Num 14:20–23). The narrator of Jude most probably treated the exodus as a whole, hence the reference both to the beginning of the exodus (verse 5b), and to the destruction in the desert (verse 5c). In 5b, like the author of 3 Macc, he emphasizes the “liberation” from Egypt, which for him is a prefiguration of the “salvation” brought by Jesus Christ. In verse 5c, like

152 Earlier, Sirach probably referred to the inhabitants of Canaan killed by the Israelites under Joshua. 153 See Exod 12:37, where the number of “men alone” coming out of Egypt is given.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’. Salvation (Jude 5a–b)

Sir 16:10 he refers to the punishment that falls on the Israelites for their unbelief.154 Thus, it is evident that the punishment that befalls Israel has a different basis in Jude 5c than the punishments meted out to angels and Sodom described in Jude 6–7 and in other texts that use these topoi. For lack of faith cannot be taken as the equivalent of promiscuity, fornication or “changed order of nature”. Already this differentiation makes it possible to separate the example of verse 5 from subsequent examples. This is overlaid by the aforementioned variability in the history of Israel – it is possible to accentuate either the positive or the negative aspects, or both, as the narrator of the Letter of Jude did. There is no such possibility with the story of the fall of the angels or with that of Sodom and Gomorrah – both are always valued negatively as examples of punishment and as a warning for posterity. This disconnect between the examples in verse 5 and verse 6–7 is also confirmed by Jude’s typology that dominates the chronology. If all three examples are descriptions of the actions of ungodly intruders, the chronology of events turns out to be surprising: first the exodus from Egypt is mentioned, and only then the times of the rebellion of the angels and the times of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. This appears to be an exception, since in Sir 16:7–10 and 3 Macc 2:4–7 the proper chronology is preserved: giants – Sodom and Gomorrah – the exodus from Egypt. It seems, therefore, that the primordial position of Israel’s exodus from Egypt in Jude is due to the typological connection of verse 5 with the preceding verses, which describe the community of the Christian recipients of the letter. The other two examples in verses 6–7, in which – in accordance with the prevailing topos – the correct chronology is preserved, are related with the following typological and metaphorical descriptions of the behaviour of intruders disturbing the peace in the community of the letter’s recipients. Verse 5 can be seen as a redundancy, a repetition of the main purpose of the letter, i.e. to show salvation which also involves judgement. That is why the narrator temporarily abandons the syncrisis, to which he returns only in verse 7. The typology in verse 5 is clear: the type of the community of the “beloved, preserved and called”, which the sender of Jude addresses, is Israel, the people of God – also “beloved, preserved and called”, who experienced both God’s salvific (liberating) action and God’s judgment. In verse 1–3, the narrator first focuses on the positive aspects of God’s liberating action. He begins verse 5a by invoking the knowledge of the recipients: ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι “I wish that you remember”. Such a reminder was common in ancient epistolography.155 Its rather elaborate variants are used, among others, by 154 See below for analysis in verse 5c. 155 J.L. White, Light, p. 207; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 230, 367; D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 371. It is worth noting that the reminding formula is used twice in the Epistle of Jude; alongside Jude 5a it also appears in Jude 17a – seem below for an analysis of verses 17–18.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

113

114

Structural commentary

the Roman philosopher and rhetor Dion Chrysostom, a contemporary of the author of the Letter of Jude (40 – after 112), who mentions how important it is to remind people of what they already know perfectly well, especially if they do not abide by this knowledge: The majority of men think […] regarding what is well known and patent to all alike they think it superfluous to instruct. Yet for my own part, if I saw that we were holding to what we believe to be right and were doing nothing out of harmony with the view we already have,1 I should not myself hold it necessary to insist on matters that are perfectly clear. However, since I observe that it is not our ignorance of the difference between good and evil that hurts us, so much as it is our failure to heed the dictates of reason […] and to be true to our personal opinions, I consider it most salutary to remind men of this without ceasing, and to appeal to their reason to give heed and in their acts to observe what is right and proper (Oratoria 17:1–2).

Such formulas, though more rarely, are also found in the letters of the apostle Paul: Rom 1:13, 11:25, 1 Cor 8:1, 10:1, 12:1, 2 Cor 1:8, Gal 1:11, Phil 1:12, 1 Thess 4:13. Sometimes, they appear not at the beginning but in the middle of the letter, as in 1 Clem. 53:1: “For ye know, and know well, the sacred scriptures, dearly beloved, and ye have searched into the oracles of God. We write these things therefore to put you in remembrance”, or in the The Epistle of Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians 3: For now I begin to be a disciple, and I speak to you as fellow-disciples with me. For it was needful for me to have been stirred up by you in faith, exhortation, patience, and long-suffering. But inasmuch as love suffers me not to be silent in regard to you, I have therefore taken upon me first to exhort you that you would all run together in accordance with the will of God.

Using the well-known reminder, the narrator emphasizes once again that the entire revelation was given to the Christian community. This time, however, he emphasizes not only its progressiveness, but also the fact that the whole revelation includes not only positive aspects (verse 5b), but also negative elements and warnings embedded in the history of salvation (verse 5c). The use of infinitivus aor. passivi ὑπομνῆσαι, the pronoun πάντα and the adverb ἅπαξ seem to be crucial here. The aorist phrase should be translated literally: “that you may be reminded/that it was reminded to you”. The aorist would indicate that a total, complete reminder is meant, while its passive form would refer to the “faith handed down [here also part. aor. is used] to the saints” in verse 3. In verse 3 pass. was interpreted as passivum theologicum, so a similar use of this form is to be seen here as well. The act of “reminding of everything” is therefore the work of

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’. Salvation (Jude 5a–b)

God. This means that the narrator has in mind the same comprehensive divine revelation of which he spoke earlier, that is, the fundamental, unchanging content concerning God’s salvific act in the past, present and future.156 But the pronoun πάντα announces that not only the positive – liberating – effects of God’s salvific action will be shown, because these are only part of the revelation. Those salvific actions of God that are tantamount to judgment will also be recalled. At the same time, as is evident from the conventions of reminder formulas, the sender assumes that knowledge of revelation will enable recipients to distinguish between “the faith once for all handed down to the saints” in verse 3 and the teaching brought into the community by ungodly intruders.157 The essential content of this stigmatized teaching has already been laid out in verse 4: “turning of the grace of our God into licentiousness” and “denying the only Ruler and our Lord Jesus Christ”. The placement of the adverb ἅπαξ “once for all” is uncertain. Some testimonies place it after the name ‘Jesus’ or the noun ‘Lord’, possibly ‘God’158 (see, among others ‫ א‬Ψ 88. 442. 1243. 1611. 1739txt . 2492); therefore, the text can be understood temporally, especially when the parallelism of elements 5b and 5c and the connection between ἅπαξ and δεύτερον are emphasized: “Jesus (Lord/God) first – ἅπαξ – delivered the people from the land of Egypt, and then – δεύτερον – destroyed those who did not believe”. This means that God’s salvific act cannot be interpreted as a possible resignation from judgment.159 However, if we insist the meaning of ἅπαξ is as in verse 3, the phrase “Jesus (Lord/God) delivered the people from the land of Egypt once for all” can be understood as emphasizing the one-time and definitive nature of the salvific act towards the people.160 In the historical context this interpretation is valid. It seems also plausible in the context of Jude’s purpose, but then one would have to assume a somewhat ironic use of the adverb ἅπαξ. For the narrator would first ostensibly affirm the recipients’ conviction that salvation has been given to them once for all and judgment does not concern them, and then (verse 5c) would violently destroy this conviction by recalling the judgment on Israel liberated once for all. Most testimonies place ἅπαξ after the pronoun ὑμᾶς: ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι εἱδότας ὑμᾶς ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι Ἰησοῦς λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σῶσας. This highlights the connections between the phrase “faith once for all handed down to the saints” in verse 3 and verse 5 and the phrase “everything you have learnt once for all and you know”.161 The use of the part. perf. εἰδότας reinforces the meaning

156 157 158 159 160 161

See above. T.R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, p. 443. See below. T.R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, p. 443. So, for example, G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 236; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 50. See D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 371.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

115

116

Structural commentary

of the adverb ἅπαξ and suggests that knowledge once for all gained now should be used to “contend for the faith”. As has already been said, the content of faith and of all that the recipients have learnt and come to know is the entire revelation. The reminder begins by presenting the positive aspects of salvation, just as in verses 1–3. The narrator uses an ellipsis here; although he refers to Israel, he does not state it explicitly, but chooses the general term ‘people’ λαός, assuming, of course, that the recipients will unerringly reconstruct which people he is referring to. The reconstruction may be historically oriented, in which case “the people” will be replaced by “Israel”, but the interpretation may be more universal and soteriologically oriented, in which case the people will be specified by a possessive pronoun: “delivered/saved his people”. This second variant emphasises the relationship between God and the liberated people; thus, the parallel between the people liberated from Egypt by Jesus/the Lord in the past and the community liberated – also by Jesus/the Lord – from the slavery of sin becomes clearer. It is impossible to determine clearly which of the events liberating “the people from the land of Egypt” the hagiographer is referring to. The lexis is of no help, because, as Gene L. Green162 notes, where the LXX describes the exodus as a historical event, there are phrases that only describe how the people was led out of Egypt with various forms of the verb ἐξάγω, rather than σώζω (e.g. Exod 3:10, 7:4, 12:51, 13:3, 32:7.11, 33:1, Deut 9:12.26.29, 1 Kings 8:51). The verb σώζω appears in texts that interpret the exodus in soteriological terms (e.g. Ps 106[105]:8.10.21, Hos 13:4) and emphasise the power and might of God, as in 3 Macc 2:6. One can assume that this type of implications is also found in Jude 5c. The high degree of generality, moreover, favours treating this text symbolically and linking it with Jude 1–3. Jude 5b would thus firstly refer to the noun δοῦλος from verse 1: liberation from the bondage of sin and death makes the slave a faithful servant of his liberator; Israel’s liberation from Egyptian slavery gave the chosen people a new status – a community liberated from the previous oppression in Egypt and a community liberated to serve God. The typology is now very clear: Israel liberated from Egypt is the prefiguration of the Christian community (the Church) liberated by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to serve God. This service can be specified using verse 3: since the Christian community is the depositary of the whole revelation, it is its duty to guard this revelation and not to allow it to be distorted; in other words, “to contend for “the faith once for all handed down to the saints”. Secondly, the collectiveness of salvation is strongly emphasised here, which allows us to assume that the exodus from Egypt was symbolically treated as the moment when Israel as a community began to experience the election and salvific acts of God, which

162 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 232.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’. Salvation (Jude 5a–b)

were the fulfilment of the promise made to the patriarchs. Then the closest Old Testament parallel seems to be Deut 7:6–8 (LXX): For thou art a holy people to the Lord thy God; and the Lord thy God chose thee to be to him a peculiar people beyond all nations that are upon the face of the earth. It was not because ye are more numerous than all other nations that the Lord preferred you, and the Lord made choice of you: for ye are fewer in number than all other nations. But because the Lord loved you, and as keeping the oath which he sware to your fathers, the Lord brought you out with a strong hand, and the Lord redeemed thee from the house of bondage (δουλεία), out of the hand of Pharao king of Egypt.

The text shows that Israel, brought out of Egypt, became a “beloved” community (παρὰ τὸ ἀγαπᾶν), “preserved” – in the same sense as referred to the “preservation/ making [Abraham’s seed] many” in Isa 51:2–3, which inspired Jude 1163 (ἐστε ὀλιγοστοὶ παρὰ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη), and “called” (here ‘vocation’ may be considered synonymous with ‘calling’: προείλατο κύριος ὑμᾶς). Similarly, the community of the beloved, the preserved and the called is the community of the recipients of the Letter of Jude, delivered out of the slavery of sin. The analysis of verses 1–3 showed the interdependencies between being beloved, preserved and called and mercy, peace and love. The interdependencies made Jude’s quasi-definition and concept of grace, which does not refer to an abstract doctrine but to human experience.164 Here the experience of grace is concrete not only in existential terms, as before, but – through typology – in historical and communal terms as the delivery/salvation of the people from the land of Egypt. These soteriological typological relationships are reinforced by the indication of the agent that “delivered/saved the people from the land of Egypt”, although serious textological and theological difficulties arise here. In textus receptus (Nestle–Aland, edn 28), the subject of verse 5c is Jesus; earlier editions placed this name in the critical apparatus, with the more ambiguous title ‘Lord’ κύριος appearing in the main text.165 The analyses carried out by Philipp F. Bartholomä have shown that the variant κύριος is confirmed primarily by testimonies belonging to the Byzantine family; the Alexandrian family is represented by the Codex Sinaiticus ‫ א‬and a few secondary testimonies (C*, Ψ – ninth/tenth century; 1175 – eleventh century; 1292 – thirteenth century; 1409 – fourteenth century; 1852 – 1306). The variant Ιησοῦς is confirmed mainly by primary (B; 81; 1241) and secondary (A; 33. 322. 323. 1739.

163 See above. 164 See above. 165 R.A. Reese, Writing Jude: The Reader, the Text, and the Author in constructs of Power and Desire, Leiden–Boston–Köln 2000, p. 41.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

117

118

Structural commentary

1881. 2344) testimonies representing the Alexandrian family and one Byzantine manuscript (424).166 The variant θεός (C2 5. 442. 1845. 2492), θεὸς Χριστός (P72 ) or κύριος Ἰησοῦς (1735) also appears in some manuscripts. There are various explanations for these variations; some researchers claim the changes were accidental, others insist on intentional changes. An accidental change would occur if the copyist used a text with abbreviations and read KC as IC (or vice versa), though this seems unlikely. There are, of course, places in the New Testament where the original, primary κύριος is replaced in some manuscripts by the name Ιησοῦς (Luke 7:13, 10:41, 13:15, 22:61) or θεός (Acts 12:11, Rom 14:4, 1 Cor 7:17, 2 Thess 3:3, Jude 9). The latter change – κύριος to θεός – occurs even in the Letter of Jude, in verse 9.167 But in most, if not all, of these cases, this type of change is intentional, not accidental.168 If it is an intentional change, the question remains, what was the original variant? Was the name Ιησοῦς replaced by the title κύριος, or conversely was the title κύριος replaced by the name Ιησοῦς? Philipp F. Bartholomä argues that the variant with Ιησοῦς seems to be original, and since it caused many difficulties, mainly theological ones related to the preexistence and preincarnation of Jesus, it was changed to the more neutral version with κύριος (this title can of course refer to Jesus Christ169 ) or the completely “orthodox” one with θεός.170 Theological difficulties are solved only by the latter version, for θεός is clearly identified with God the Father, who acts in the Old Testament. If κύριος is regarded as equivalent to θεός thus understood, theological difficulties are also removed. But if we refer the title κύριος to Jesus, as Jude does elsewhere in his epistle (verse 4. 17. 21. 25), the difficulty disappears only partially. The problem remains unsolved: how we should construe the phrase that Jesus or the Lord, i.e. Jesus Christ delivered the people from the land of Egypt. The name Jesus is primarily associated with the earthly life of the Messiah and it is difficult to associate it directly with pre-existence, like the title Christ or Lord. In fact, this would be the only time in the New Testament that the name Jesus is used without any specification in terms of pre-existence (see 2 Cor 8:9, Phil 2:5).171 One may attempt to explain that the name Jesus was left in the text because of the typology that will ultimately lead to Christ.172 The hagiographer would primarily

166 P.F. Bartholomä, Did Jesus Save the People out of Egypt? A Re-exmination of Textual Problem in Jude 5, “Novum Testamentum” 50 (2008), p. 143–146. 167 See below. 168 P.F. Bartholomä, Did Jesus save, p. 150. 169 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 159. 170 P.F. Bartholomä, Did Jesus save, p. 150–152; similarly T. Flink, Reconsidering the Text of Jude 5,13,15 and 18, “Filologia Neotestamentaria” 20 (2007), p. 95–97. 171 R. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives, p. 309. 172 Ibid., p. 309.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’. Salvation (Jude 5a–b)

use the meaning of the name Jesus (Hebrew ‫יהושע‬/‫יהושוע‬: ‘YHWH saves’. This is the name of Joshua, son of Nun (see LXX: ΙΗΣΟΥΣ as the title of the Book of Joshua, Acts 7:45, Heb 4:8). It appears that the Joshua – Jesus typology was popular in early Christian literature in the second century.173 As one of the main examples of this typology the Dialogue with Trypho 120 is usually provided, where Justin Martyr expressly states like Jude that “Jesus, who led your fathers out of Egypt”. Earlier he develops a typology based primarily on the meaning of the name Joshua/Jesus. He argues that Jesus is one of the names of God that was revealed to the people as they wandered through the desert: “Now understand that He who led your fathers into the land is called by this name Jesus, and first called Auses (Oshea)” (Dialogue with Trypho 75). He goes on to explain what the Joshua – Jesus typology is all about and emphasizes that in order for this analogy to occur, God changed the name: Oshea the son of Nave (Nun), which his father gave him, was changed to Jesus (Joshua)? But since not only was his name altered, but he was also appointed successor to Moses […] he led the surviving people into the Holy Land; […] and as he distributed it by lot to those who entered along with him, so also Jesus the Christ will turn again the dispersion of the people, and will distribute the good land to each one, though not in the same manner. For the former gave them a temporary inheritance, seeing he was neither Christ who is God, nor the Son of God; but the latter, after the holy resurrection, shall give us the eternal possession. The former, after he had been named Jesus (Joshua), and after he had received strength from His [God’s] Spirit, caused the sun to stand still. […] it was Jesus who appeared to and conversed with Moses, and Abraham, and all the other patriarchs without exception, ministering to the will of the Father; who also, I say, came to be born man by the Virgin Mary, and lives forever. For the latter is He after whom and by whom the Father will renew both the heaven and the earth […] The former is said to have circumcised the people a second time with knives of stone […] and to have collected together those who were circumcised from the uncircumcision, i.e., from the error of the world, in every place by the knives of stone, to wit, the words of our Lord Jesus. For I have shown that Christ was proclaimed by the prophets in parables a Stone and a Rock. Accordingly the knives of stone we shall take to mean His words, by means of which so many who were in error have been circumcised from uncircumcision with the circumcision of the heart, with which God by Jesus commanded those from that time to

173 R. Rauckham, Jude and the Relatives, p. 309 and C. Landon, A Text-Critical Study, p. 72–73 even claim that the copyist, influenced by this literature, replaced the original title κύριος in Jude 5 with the name Jesus. This is disputed by P.F. Bartholomä, Did Jesus save, p. 150, who supports theses that the original text included the name Jesus and argues that it is unlikely that an orthodox scribe, who undoubtedly associated the title κύριος with Jesus Christ, introduced the name Jesus into the text as a conjectural emendation and thus invoked a typology that was perhaps popular in his community.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

119

120

Structural commentary

be circumcised who derived their circumcision from Abraham, saying that Jesus (Joshua) would circumcise a second time with knives of stone those who entered into that holy land (Dialogue with Trypho 113).

The Epistle of Barnabas, while explaining the Joshua – Jesus typology less clearly than in Justin, also contains an expression similar to that in Jude; it mentions the salvation of the Israelites through Joshua and the punishment of Israel’s enemies: What again saith Moses unto Jesus (Joshua) the son of Nun, when he giveth him this name, as being a prophet, that all the people might give ear to him alone, because the Father revealeth all things concerning His Son Jesus? Moses therefore saith to Jesus the son of Nun, giving him this name, when he sent him as a spy on the land; “Take a book in thy hands, and write what the Lord saith, how the Son of God shall cut up by the roots all the house of Amalek in the last days”. Behold again it is Jesus, not a son of man, but the Son of God (Barn. 12:8–10) .

If the narrator of Jude had indeed used this typology, the moment to which he refers in 5c would have to be verified. It has already been said that here he is most likely referring to the beginning of the exodus and the great salvific acts of God that accompanied the chosen people’s departure from Egypt. The Joshua – Jesus typology, however, would indicate that it refers to later events, which were less frequently referred to in Jewish tradition. It would also distort the overall view of the Exodus story: from the delivery from tha land of Egypt in 5b to the arrival in the promised land in 5c. On the other hand, the invoking of Joshua in 5b would correspond with verse 5c, which refers to the destruction in the desert of the generation of the unfaithful174 and in which the Joshua – Jesus typology is clearer and better justified.175 Although the typology described in verse 5 could be approved in terms of its contents and grammar, it is difficult to explain it in view of verses 6 and 7 which have the same subject (and the same agent) as verse 5. The Joshua – Jesus typology can be applied neither to the punishment of the rebellious angels nor to the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah.176 However, its use in verse 5 and its omission in verse 6–7 may indicate an intention to separate the three examples also on the level of interpretation. There is no denying that if the Joshua – Jesus typology overlaid the soteriological typology of liberation from Egyptian slavery as a liberation from the slavery of sin, the latter would become less clear. Recipients could lose the main idea

174 P.F. Bartholomä, Did Jesus save, p. 153. 175 See below. 176 R. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives, p. 309.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’. Salvation (Jude 5a–b)

concerning the positive and negative aspects of God’s salvific deeds. Nevertheless, the Joshua – Jesus typology from verse 5b makes it possible to draw attention to the meaning of the name Jesus. Perhaps the hagiographer only used this layer in order to make the recipients sensitive to the fact that Jesus/Joshua means ‘God/JHWH saves’ and once again at this level to emphasise the soteriological identity of God’s past deeds and Jesus’ salvific act. It seems that the narrator of Jude makes use of the same strategy here that he used in verses 1–2 and verse 4. The idea is to assign the Old Testament expressions that point to God to Jesus Christ. This is particularly clear with the term δεσπότης in verse 4, which in the Old Testament referred to God and was combined with the typically Christian phrase κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός.177 Now the narrator attributes God’s action in the Old Testament to Jesus, and where the recipients expects an Old Testament theological formula “God (possibly the ‘Lord’, but in reference to God) delivered/saved the people from the land of Egypt”, they receive a syncretic Christological formula composed of an Old Testament element probably inspired by Ps 106[105]:8.10.21: “He saved the people from the land of Egypt”, and a Christian element “Jesus” (possibly the ‘Lord’, but this time in reference to Christ). The use of the same strategy in verses 4 and 5 makes them closely related in terms of their contents: “denying our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ” is at the same time a rejection of the claim that it was “Jesus who delivered the people from the land of Egypt”.178 This is confirmed by verse 5c that described the punishment for unbelief,179 which pertains to, among other things, the claim in verse 5b about salvation/delivery. This is most likely overlaid with the idea of the pre-existence of Christ, mentioned several times. However, it is most fully described in the second-century Ascension of Isaiah 9–10: the Beloved descents from the seventh heaven through subsequent heavens, taking the form of their inhabitants until “[He has] been made in your form, and they will think that He is flesh and is a man” (AscIsa 9:13). The text calls the Beloved the Lord “who will be called Christ” (AscIsa 9:12) and the Lord “who will be called ‘Jesus’ in the world” (AscIsa 9:5); however, as long as man is in the flesh, he cannot know His name. The idea of pre-existence was of course already known to the New Testament writers: 1 Cor 10:1–11, 2 Cor 8:9, Phil 2:5, John 8:58, 12:41 and Heb 11:26.180 In the context of Jude 5b–c, the New Testament connection of this idea with the Exodus story seems interesting. The author of the fourth gospel attributes to Jesus an epiphanic formula that is commonly associated with God who reveals his name to Moses (John 8:58 and Exod 3:14). Similarly, 1 Cor 10:1–11, where the 177 178 179 180

See above. See P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 160. See below. J.H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 62.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

121

122

Structural commentary

events in the desert are mentioned, and Heb 11:26, where there are references to the sufferings that Moses endured for Christ. This may indicate that initially the idea of pre-existence was readily illustrated with references to the Exodus. It seems that the closest scriptural parallels to Jude 5 are found in 1 Cor 10:1–11, where, incidentally, similar textological problems arise. In 1 Cor 10:4 Paul expresses the conviction that Christ was spiritually – as a spiritual rock – present during the Israelites’ wandering through the desert. In 1 Cor 10:9, the apostle writes about Christ as God whom the people put to the test. Some manuscripts (‫ א‬B C P 33. 104. 326. 365. 1175. 2464) use the variant κύριος instead of Christ, which may indicate Christ, but may also refer to God (in A 81 even the reading θεός appears). This resembles the situation with the variants in Jude 5b. Since most of the testimonies for 1 Cor 10:9 contain the variant Χριστός, it is reasonable to assume that even where the text read κύριος, the title referred to Christ. There is no reason to treat the text of Jude 5b differently – both the variant Ιησοῦς and the variant κύριος must refer to the person of the pre-existent Christ. In the first/second century, the idea of pre-existence gained more and more popularity and it became common to interweave the person of Christ into Old Testament events.181 But some difficulties arose in connection with the so-called Christo-angelology (angelomorphic Christology), which Jarl Fossum mentions182 in his explanation of Jude 5b. As has been said, it is not possible to clearly identify the text to which the narrator of Jude refers, but in early Christian writings, especially among proponents of the Joshua – Jesus typology, there are suggestions to see here a reference to Exod 23:20–21 (LXX): “And, behold, I send my angel before thy face, that he may keep thee in the way, that he may bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee. Take heed to thyself and hearken to him, and disobey him not; for he will not give way to thee, for my name is on him”. The angel upon whom is God’s name is identified with Jesus. This text is quoted by Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho (75) and explains how to understand the concept of ‘angel’: For Isaiah says in a certain place, “Send me”. And that the prophet whose name was changed, Jesus [Joshua], was strong and great, is manifest to all. If, then, we know that God revealed Himself in so many forms to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, how are we at a loss, and do not believe that, according to the will of the Father of all things, it was possible for Him to be born man of the Virgin.

Particularly noteworthy is the mention that God appears to the patriarchs in many forms and reveals himself through his messengers/angels. The influence of Philo

181 C.D. Osburn, The Text Jude 5, “Biblica” 62 (1981), no. 1, p. 112. 182 J. Fossum, Kurios Jesus as the Angel of the Lord in Jude 5–7, NTS 33 (1987), no. 2, p. 226–243.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’. Salvation (Jude 5a–b)

of Alexandria, who in De confusione linguarum [On the Confusion of Tongues] (28:146–147) calls the Logos “the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God’s image, and he who sees Israel […] for the image of God is his most ancient word”. God uses angels, who are pure souls, when He wants to appear to souls in bodies (to people). In doing so, God does not change His nature, but by appearing as an angel, He reveals to people through grace that His form is different. Through the angelomorphic theophany, people can gain true knowledge. God does this for their sake, because people are incapable of seeing and knowing God in any other way (cf. De somniis 41:1:238). However, there are those who are given the grace of seeing God’s image, that is, God’s messenger (angel), the Logos as God himself (cf. De somniis 41:1:239). The function of the angel-Logos is that through him God himself is revealed. Philo also describes the Logos as an archangel who is “above bodies, and above souls, and above all creatures [words, angels], and above the earth, and above the air, and above the heaven, and above all the powers of the outward senses, and above the invisible natures, in short, above all things whether visible or invisible” (De somniis 25:1:157). This description is reminiscent of the New Testament texts that refer to Jesus in this way: 1 Pet 3:22, 1 Cor 15:24, Eph 1:19–21 and Col 2:15. On the basis of De somniis 25:1:157 one can even formulate thesis that for Philo the archangel sensu stricto is the God of Israel. This is why Philo calls the Logos “the archangel, namely the Lord himself ”. Similarly, he also calls God the Logos; however, the true God is always designated by the singular (ὁ θεός), and wherever this word designates the Logos or someone else, the singular is not used. Thus the title “the archangel” does not serve to designate the place of the Logos in relation to the other angels (as a “super-angel” having over them the authority ἀρχή), but points to God, the one, supreme ruler of all spirits. As (arch)angel-Logos, Jesus would also have participated in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, whose obliteration the biblical texts attribute interchangeably to God and his messengers (Gen 18:17–33, 19:13–14.25.29).183 Traces of angelomorphic christology, which is considered one of the oldest forms of Judeo-Christian, especially heterodox, christology, can also be found in The Shepherd by Hermas184 and The Epistle of the Apostles. In the latter text, which

183 See below. 184 Hermas calls Christ (as is clear from the context) “the most holy angel” who has done the work of justification (Mandate 5, 1[33]:7). This “most holy angel” sends a shepherd to the hero, who is also described as “the angel of repentance” (Vision 5, 5[25]:7), suggesting that angels are his messengers, just as they are messengers of God/Lord. “The holy angel”, “the glorious angel” and simply “the angel of the Lord” are identified with “the most holy angel”. The wrath of “the glorious angel” because of sins causes sinners to be afflicted by “the angel of punishment”, who seems to be under the authority of “the glorious angel” (Parable 7, 1[66]:1–5).

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

123

124

Structural commentary

probably dates from the second century, Jesus, referring to his pre-existence, tells himself how he took the form of the angel Gabriel and announced himself to Mary: It came to pass when I was about (minded) to come hither from the Father of all things, and passed through the heavens, then did I put on the wisdom of the Father, and I put on the power of his might […] and I passed by the archangels and the angels in their likeness […] I took the form of the angel Gabriel, I appeared unto Mary and spake with her. Her heart accepted me, and she believed […], and I [Logos] formed myself and entered into her body. I became flesh, for I alone was a minister unto myself […] in the appearance of the shape of an angel […] Thereafter did I return to my Father (The Epistle of the Apostles 13–14).

With time, angelomorphic Christology began to resemble gnosticism. In the mainstream Christianity, it disappeared in the fourth century, after the Council of Nicea (325).185 Perhaps the copyist, in order to avoid associations with this type of angelomorphic Christology, and thus undermining the co-existence of the Father and the Son, decided to introduce the safe title κύριος, instead of the name Ιησους which is ambiguous in this context. According to the lectio difficilior potior principle, this would confirm the use of the name Ιησοῦς. Regardless of the textual variant we adopt, the typology based on emphasising God’s salvific/delivering acts in the past, present and future is evident here. So is the conviction that the God/Jesus the Saviour described in verses 1–3 and 5b is at the same time God/Jesus the Judge186 (5c).

2.4 5c

B’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 5c) Afterwards destroyed those who disbelieved/who did not believe […]

Verse 5c ends the transition that started in verse 5a. The announcement that Jude’s description of salvation will also include the negative aspect of a judgement is even clearer here. It is also a warning to those who accept only the liberating elements of the doctrine of salvation and do not believe that the community of the “beloved”, the “called”, and especially the “preserved for/for the sake of Jesus Christ” (see verse 1) can await judgment. Yet, by typologically juxtaposing the Christian community and its Old Testament prefiguration, the chosen people, Jude argues that members

185 J. Daniélou, Theology of Jewish Christianity: A History of Early Christian Doctrine Before The Council of Nicaea, London 1977, p. 175; P.F. Bartholomä, Did Jesus save, p. 150–152. 186 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 236.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 5c)

of these communities may already be experiencing the positive, liberating aspects of salvation, but they must also be mindful of the judgment-related aspects. This holistic soteriology is the basis for the doctrine of “our common salvation” and “the faith once for all handed down to the saints”, both of which, as noted when analysing verse 3, are complementary to each other.187 It seems, therefore, that the key term for verse 5c will be the expression “those who did not believe” μὴ πιστεύσαντες (here in part. aor. act.), which lexically refers to the faith in verse 3 understood as the revelation handed down by the prophets, patriarchs and apostles, and, through typology and reference to Israel’s history, to the trust that God fulfils all his saving promises. The second key term is the verb ἀπώλεσεν (here in ind. aor. act.) as the result of unbelief and at the same time an accusation in the court. These implications are influenced by the identification of the event that the narrator recalls. Both in verse 5b and in verse 5c, it is uncertain which events the hagiographer is exactly invoking. Some clues are given by the adverb δεύτερον, and later in verse 5c we can find lexical relations between Jude and the Old Testament source text. The adverb δεύτερον ‘then, later’188 indicates that the events took place after those described in verse 5b. On the basis of traditional Jewish topoi about Israel’s unfaithfulness and rebellion in the wilderness and the punishment for it (see Sir 16:10), two episodes are usually typified189 as sources for Jude 5c: the first is the casting of the golden calf described in Exod 32; the second is the spies’ report on the peoples inhabiting Canaan, which undermined the Israelites’ confidence in God’s ability to fulfil his promise to enter the promised land (Num 14).190 In the first case the unbelief of the Israelites would be understood as apostasy and idolatry;191 as a form of punishment, first, about 3,000 people were killed by the Levites (Exod 32:28), and second, an announcement was made that all those who had participated in idolatry would be punished (Exod 32:33–35).192 In describing God’s intention to punish those who disbelieved, the LXX uses the verb ἐκτρίβω in Exod 32:10: καὶ νῦν ἔασόν με καὶ θυμωθεὶς ὀργῇ εἰς αὐτοὺς ἐκτρίψω αὐτοὺς καὶ ποιήσω σὲ εἰς ἔθνος μέγα; in Exod 32:12 its synonyms are used: ἀποκτείνω ‘to die, kill, murder’, and ἐξαναλίσκω ‘to destroy’. However, the verb ἀπόλλυμι found in Jude 5c does not appear. Already in classical literature, and even more so in the LXX, ἀπόλλυμι designates absolute

187 See above. 188 J.P. Louw, E.A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domain, New York 1988, p. 50, 67. 189 See above. 190 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 158. 191 C.D. Osburn, The Text Jude 5, p. 111. 192 See D. Kotecki, “On Bogiem wiernym a nie zwodniczym” (Pwt 32,4). Refleksja biblijno-teologiczna nad wiernością Boga w Starym Testamencie, “Collectanea Theologica” 75 (2005), no. 2, p. 15, fn. 7.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

125

126

Structural commentary

destruction, total annihilation.193 It could not be used in this narrative because there was no absolute destruction of the unbelievers: at Moses’ request, God shows mercy to the people and the covenant is re-established (Exod 34:10–12). In terms of the lexis, the description of the episode in Numbers 14 would fit better with Jude 5c, which would mean that the hagiographer had even later events in mind than Exod 32. In Num 14:11–12, the LXX notes the use of the same verbs as in Jude 5c: the negated verb πιστεύω – οὐ πιστεύουσιν ‘[they] do not believe’ (cf. ‘those unbelieving/those who disbelived’ μὴ μιστεύσαντας in Jude 5c) and the verb ἀπόλλυμι – ἀπολῶ ‘destroy, exterminate’ (cf. ἀπώλεσεν ‘distroyed’ in Jude 5c): καὶ εἴπεν κύριος πρὸς Μωυςῆν ἕως τίνος παροξύνει με ὁ λαὸς οὗτος καὶ ἕως τίνος οὐ πιστεύουσίν μοι ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς σημεῖοις οἷς ἐποίησα ἐν αὐτοῖς πατάξω αὐτοὺς θανάτῳ καὶ ποιήσω σὲ καὶ οἶκον τοῦ πατρός σου εἰς ἔθνος μέγα καὶ πολὺ μᾶλλον ἣ τοῦτο. In verse 11, the LXX clearly emphasizes, that the Israelites “refuse

to believe”, even though God had sent them many signs. This would correspond to the inverted structure of verse 5 in Jude: 5b – describes liberation, which, as shown earlier, involves great, powerful salvific acts (signs); 5c – evokes associations with unbelief (despite these signs) and the destruction foretold in Num 14:12. Unbelief here would be not so much a spectacular and visible apostasy with devotion to a foreign cult, as in Exod 32, but an internal loss of trust in the ultimate fulfilment of God’s promises. For when Moses sent spies to Canaan and they returned forty days later, telling them that, although the promised land was wonderful, it was inhabited by powerful and threatening peoples (Num 13), Israel doubted the fulfilment of God’s promise and wanted to return to Egypt. Only Joshua and Caleb still trusted God. God, seeing the unbelief among the Israelites, decided to exterminate the rebellious generation with forty years of wandering in the desert, and to introduce the next generation, not affected by the lack of trust, to the promised land.194 The understanding of faith as trust that God will fulfil his promises is confirmed by the verb used in the Hebrew text ‫ָאַמן‬, which designates the idea of permanence, constancy, immutability, reliability, certainty and describes both the faithfulness of God (Deut 7:9; 32:4) and the faithfulness of people (Num 12:7). It is most often used in the context of being faithful to covenants, e.g. in 1 Sam 22:14, Prov 25:13 it means conscientious, reliable performance of functions or entrusted tasks, and in Isa 8:22 it means someone trustworthy, reliable and loyal. In Num 14:11, the Hebrew ‫ לא יאמינו‬and the Greek οὐ πιστεύσουσιν, further strengthened by the use of the personal pronoun in reference to God, are thus to be understood as: they did not trust that God is unchangeable and faithful to His promises, and they proved themselves untrustworthy and unfaithful to the calling.

193 See below. 194 T.R. Schreiner, 1,2 Peter, p. 446.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 5c)

For understanding the reference and Jude’s typology in verse 5c the verb ἀπόλλυμι, meaning ‘destruction, doom, death and annihilation’, is equally crucial. The

definitive nature of destruction/annihilation is emphasized here by the aorist. Already in the Pentateuch its dramatic, violent content, carrying various images of death, is revealed (see Deut 28:20.22.24, 30:18). In the wisdom literature, the idea of absolute annihilation and death can be seen even more clearly by juxtaposing the noun ἀπώλεια with Hades, abyss, Sheol, where there is no manifestation of life (Prov 15:11, 27:20). A similar orientation is adopted by the intertestamental literature, which gives the verb ἀπόλλυμι an eschatological meaning and links it with final annihilation (perdition/destruction), as is also evident in the New Testament. Texts such as e.g. 1 Cor 1:18, 2 Cor 2:15, 4:3, 2 Thess 2:10, John 3:16, 10:28, 17:12 (see John 4:12),195 Jude 5, contrast the idea of ‘salvation’ linked to faith and acceptance of the Gospel and ‘perdition/destruction/annihilation’, which is the result of unbelief in the broadest sense.196 Due to the lexis and semantics, therefore, it seems that verse 5c refers precisely to the Book of Numbers. However, it cannot be ruled out that the narrator of Jude wished to summarise the entire history of the Exodus, from the events implied by 5b with the emphasis on the process of Israel’s becoming the “beloved, preserved and called” people of God, to the most spectacular examples of its unfaithfulness in the desert and the announcement of the punishment for it (Exod 32:34–35), to the extermination of the unfaithful rebels just before entering the promised land (Num 14). The essential framework of Jude’s typology, however, is formed by events from the beginning and end of the Exodus story. The dominant role of Num 14 in Jude 5c is also evidenced by the similarity between the situation described in the Old Testament and that outlined in Jude 4. Unbelief is first instigated in the community of Israelites by the ten spies who extol the quantitative and military superiority of the peoples from Canaan (Num 13:27–29.31–33) and thus dissuade the Israelites from fighting for the promised land (Num 13:31). In the community of the recipients of Jude’s letter, this is done by the “ungodly” intruders who “sneaked”, “perverting the grace of God into licentiousness” and “denying the only Ruler and Lord Jesus Christ”. In both cases, it can be seen that the false words of a few people instigate the unbelief among the entire community and ultimately incur God’s judgment and destruction on the community. The fate of those who let themselves be deceived seems as inevitable as that of those who deceive (Num 14:36–37; see Jude 6–19). This reminiscence is thus a prelude to the reflection on those who deceive the community.

195 H.C. Hahn, Destroy, [in:] The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 1, ed. C. Brown, Grand Rapids 1975, p. 463–464; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 238. 196 See below.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

127

128

Structural commentary

Identifying the events from verse 5c as a reference to the story of the spies and Israel’s rebellion allows us to typologically specify Jude’s encouragement to “contend for the faith” in verse 3 and confirms the close connection of verse 5 with verses 3 and 4. Just as Joshua and Caleb called upon the Israelites to take up arms against the inhabitants of Canaan and, on the basis of God’s promise, assured them of victory and entry into the promised land (Num 13:30; 14:7–9), so the narrator of Jude’s letter calls upon the recipients to take up the fight, a promise of victory, for faith (see Jude 20–25). The hagiographer makes it clear in verse 5 that no one in the community of recipients can assume that the salvation offered by Jesus, which consists of love, preservation and vocation, or the decision to become a servant/slave of Christ (see verse 1), are a guarantee of preservation from judgment, especially when one abandons the “faith once for all handed down to the saints” (verse 3) and the contending for it, and gives heed to the teachings of intruders (verse 4).197 The conviction of the inevitability of judgment, typical of intertestamental Judaism, is revealed here: “The day of judgment is decisive and displays unto all the seal of truth. […] for then every one shall bear his own righteousness and unrighteousness” proclaims the Fourth Book of Ezra 7:104–106 a little later than Jude. Through typology, which allows the transposition of events from Israel’s past to the current situation in the community of the recipients, the sender clarifies in a somewhat Midrashic way – by referring to the narrative of the exodus from Egypt and the (non-)entry into the promised land – his main thesis of salvation that includes not only the liberating aspect, but also a judgment. The conviction that belonging to a chosen community that experienced the liberating, salvific action of God protects one from judgment, even those “perverting the grace of God into licentiousness and denying the only Ruler and Lord Jesus Christ”, is in fact a lack of trust in the promise of salvation, which will ultimately take place in the future and involves eschatological judgment. One can now see not only this fundamental typology based on allegory: Israel as the prefiguration of the Christian community, but also its anagogical sense. The liberation from Egypt is a prefiguration of the liberation from sin and death that took place on the cross. The whole journey through the desert with its crises (if we include here references to Exod 32) is a prefiguration of the present-day community of those who have already been liberated by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but who have not yet entered the promised land and experienced the fullness of eternal happiness (the kingdom of God), and on their way to it they happen to fall. In turn, the events taking place on the threshold of the promised land are a prefiguration of entering the kingdom as a fulfilment of individual eschatology (death) and/or final,

197 T.R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, p. 446; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 233.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 5c)

communal eschatology (the coming of Jesus for judgment). At the same time, it is a warning that not all the liberated will attain eternal happiness. An anagogical (eschatological) interpretation of verse 5bc also allows us to better understand why the narrator has made Jesus the subject and the agent of the exodus story understood literally: it is Jesus who liberates from sin, and it is Jesus who comes as Judge to show mercy to the faithful and bring them finally into his kingdom (see Jude 21.24), and to accuse the unfaithful and condemn them to destruction (see Jude 14–15). Eschatological judgement is presented here elliptically. The narrator concentrated on its negative aspects: the extermination of those who proved unfaithful. The positive aspects are hidden in the associations evoked by the reference to Num 14, especially verse 38, which contains the information that Caleb and Joshua were left alive. Joshua is the one who finally leads the Israelites into the promised land (see Deut 31:3–8). The Joshua – Jesus typology is evident here. The apprehensions have already been mentioned when analysing verse 5b.198 The analysis of positive aspects of Jude’s soteriology directs the attention primarily to the meaning of the name Joshua/Jesus (‘God saves’). It was pointed out that, with the reference to the beginning of the Exodus in verse 5b, other elements of this typology would be difficult to apply. It is different in verse 5c, where the soteriological reflection aims to show salvation from the perspective of judgment and – mainly through reminiscences of the Israelites’ entry into the promised land under Joshua – is eschatologically oriented. This eschatological profiling of the Joshua – Jesus typology is also evident in The Dialogue with Trypho by Justin Martyr (113): and as [Joshua] […] led the people into the Holy Land, and as he distributed it by lot to those who entered along with him, so also Jesus the Christ will turn again the dispersion of the people, and will distribute the good land to each one […] For the former gave them a temporary inheritance […] but the latter […] shall give us the eternal possession.

On the other hand, the author of The Epistle of Barnabas also using this typology, refers to the text of Exod 17:14, which he interprets as the announcement of the final judgment: “Moses therefore saith to Jesus the son of Nun, giving him this name, when he sent him as a spy on the land; ‘Take a book in thy hands, and write what the Lord saith, how the Son of God shall cut up by the roots all the house of Amalek in the last days’” (Barn. 12:9). Most likely, the author of the Letter of Jude is familiar with both traditions of reading the Joshua – Jesus typology and uses both in verse 5b, doubly emphasizing, as it were, its eschatological-judicial

198 See above.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

129

130

Structural commentary

significance. Although, at first glance, the reminiscence of entering the promised land as a prefiguration of entering the kingdom of God is clearer, the priority seems to belong to the image of Jesus-Judge, based on Exod 17:14, reaching for the book in which all human deeds are written down. Jude had already evoked this image in verse 4.199 Then he emphasised mainly the very act of writing down all human deeds, now – as the verb ἀπόλλυμι suggests – he emphasises the accusation and the utter destruction (see ἐξαλείψω τὸ μνημόσυνον Αμαληκ ἐκ τῆς ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν “I will completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under the heavens” in Exod 17:14) not only the ungodly intruders but also those who succumbed to their teachings. As in Jude 5b, also in Jude 5c one can find elements of pre-existence and traces of angelomorphic Christology. Since, for the sake of the people, God cannot appear to them directly (see Exod 33:5.20–23), he appears as an angel. The oldest and most perfect angel/archangel is, according to Philo of Alexandria, the Logos, through whom people can gain true knowledge of God (De somniis 41:1:238–239).200 It is no coincidence that in the texts that Jude most likely quotes in 5bc, there are relatively frequent references to an angel walking at the head of the people, which is the manifestation of God’s presence among the Israelites (Exod 32:34, 33:2, see Num 14:9.14.42), and its action is the action of God. If God reveals himself to man in and through the Logos, and if the actions of God and the Logos are identical, then the evocative narratives testify that the Logos, identified by Christians with Christ, accompanies Israel on its journey through the desert, leads it into the promised land, but also visits, that is punishes. In verse 5b this identity was linked primarily to the saving name (see De confusione linguarum 28:146) and the liberating acts, in verse 5c it is manifest in the punishment. This strong eschatological and judicial emphasis in 5c is combined with the denial of the Lord and our Lord Jesus Christ described in verse 4. So it is not only about the already repeatedly emphasised questioning of the judicial dimension of salvation and the affirmation of only its positive aspects, but also about the rejection of the fundamental Christian belief in the exaltation of the risen Christ, with which the titles δεσπότης ‘Master’ and κύριος ‘Lord’ and the function of judge201 are inseparably related. In the Old Testament they were attributed to God, Jude – according to the strategy adopted – attributes them to Jesus. One can see here, therefore, a suggestion of the absolute equality between God (the Father) and Jesus Christ, as in verse 5b, where the typology used makes it possible to see the soteriological identity of God’s liberating acts in the past and Jesus’ liberating death.

199 See above. 200 See above for a more detailed discussion of the idea of pre-existence and angelomorphic Christology. 201 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 236.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

Summarizing the whole verse 5 of the Letter of Jude, it should be emphasized once again that as far as its contents and structure is concerned, it is more closely related to verse 1–4 than to verses 6–8, for it mentions the liberating and judicial aspects of salvation. The typology used here can be interpreted from several perspectives: historical, soteriological-eschatological and Christological. It is also evident that not all typological perspectives are in the same extent present and/or legible in both parts of verse 5b–c. In verse 5b describing the liberating aspects of salvation, the Christological approach dominated, with elements of the idea of Christ’s pre-existence and Christo-angelology. In verse 5c, describing the judicial aspects of salvation, the idea of pre-existence and angelomorphic Christology was not so strongly emphasised, but the image of Jesus as Judge was much more clearly presented. The Joshua – Jesus typology is also distributed differently in 5b and 5c. While in verse 5b the emphasis is primarily on the meaning of the name Joshua/Jesus ‘God saves’, in verse 5c the dominant feature is the extermination of the rebellious generation in the desert which is strongly related with the reminiscence of Joshua’s leading the new generation of the chosen people to the promised land, which invokes associations with the eschatological judgment and the entrance of the faithful into the kingdom of God. Since the recipients of the letter were most likely inclined, under the influence of the teachings of the ungodly intruders, to affirm only the positive aspects of salvation, the narrator felt obliged to remind them that the content of “the faith once for all handed down to the saints” concerning salvation also includes judgment. In verse 5c, this judgment mainly concerns those who, having succumbed to false teachings, have lost confidence that God will fulfil all his promises, especially those concerning judgment. The rest of the letter (6–19) deals with those who preach false doctrines, “perverting the grace into licentiousness, denying the only Ruler and our Lord Jesus Christ”, and – importantly in light of the typology used in Jude – “long ago/of old designated [foreordained] for this judgment” (see verse 4).

2.5

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

After the transition in verse 5, the narrator of Jude’s letter returns to the problem outlined in general terms in verse 4, where he describes in vituperative convention “those people who have sneaked” into the community of the letter’s recipients and preach a false understanding of the grace and authority and lordship of Jesus Christ. This convention continues in the detailed description in verse 6–19, with the aim not only of discrediting the teaching of the intruders, but also of drawing attention to those elements of doctrine and behaviour which should heighten the vigilance of the recipients so that they may “contend for the faith once for all handed down to the saints” (verse 3).

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

131

132

Structural commentary

As has already been said, the narrator’s main concern is to illuminate salvation from two perspectives – the liberation perspective, which in Christian preaching is emphasized more often and also resounds in false teachings, and the judicial perspective, which is sometimes forgotten, marginalized and misunderstood This judicial aspect has already been strongly emphasized in verse 4 and 5c; now it is developed through generally known examples. It is no coincidence, then, that the motif of judgement recurs repeatedly in verse 6–19 (Jude 6.7.9.11.14–15; with implications also in verse 18) and appears literally in historical and future terms as a paradigm of divine judgement in general, which also requires reference to the present.202 This can be seen very clearly in a linear reading of verse 6–19, which begins with a reference to the judgement that took place at the beginning of history (the revolt of the angels in verse 6) and ends with a reminder of the signs announcing the coming of Jesus Christ for judgement in the end times (verse 17–18). References to the doctrine and behaviour of the intruders are inserted into this framework, and the description of the eschatological judgement announced already at the beginning of salvation history by Enoch takes centre stage. Because of this recurring and prominent motif of judgement, it is possible to discern in verse 6–19 a concentric structure, the overall pattern of which is as follows: a. The beginning of salvation history (verse 6–7); b. References to the situation of the recipients of the letter (verse 8–13); c. The eschatological judgement foretold from the beginning of salvation history (verse 14–15); b’. References to the situation of the recipients of the letter (verse 16); a’. The end times (verse 17–18); b’’. Reference to the situation of the recipients of the letter (verse 19). As can be seen, the exposition of judgement in the past and in the future (strongly linked to the present)203 culminates in verses 14–15, which combine past (protological) and eschatological aspects. In this way, the main element of the teaching of the Letter of Jude is accentuated: the soteriological judicial perspective, which from beginning to end is inscribed in the history of salvation and from beginning to end must be linked to the person of Jesus Christ. The use of references to the past and the invocation of the teaching of the apostles confirm the earlier observation regarding the “faith once for all handed down to the saints”. This is a comprehensive account of the revelation given by both Old and intertestamental authors and by writers and preachers associated with the emerging Christianity.204 Now we can also see 202 R.L. Webb, The Eschatology, p. 148–150. 203 Ibid., p. 148. 204 See above.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

the validity of introducing the name Jesus as a subject not only in verse 5, but also verse 6. Already in 5c there were implications of the eschatological judgement and the judicial authority of Jesus. Now they are expressed in literal terms: Jesus is the one who punished the rebellious angels – kept them bound in eternal chains in darkness “for the judgement of the great day”. This is confirmed in verses 14–15, where admittedly the name Jesus does not appear, but the title “Lord” (“Behold, the Lord is come […] to make judgement upon all”), and in verses 17–18, where the narrator refers to the apostles’ teaching on the end times and the title Lord clearly refers to Jesus Christ (cf. also verse 4). With such a broadly outlined pattern, one can also see the commentators’ commonly emphasised predilection of the narrator of the Letter of Jude for the use of triplets – three times there is a historiographical view of judgement and three times there are references to the situation of the recipients of the letter, which allow us to identify the actions and teachings subject to judicial indictment. Since this general scheme is not symmetrical, one can also notice the internal structures of its individual elements. Thus, for example, in describing in verses 8–13 the particular actions of the intruders, the narrator makes use of references to literature (he uses Old Testament and intertestamental examples and extensive metaphors rooted primarily in Jewish literature205 ). He uses parallel structures, which form a triplet: 1. a. behaviour of intruders (verse 8); b. reference to Jewish tradition (verse 9); 2. a’. behaviour of intruders (verse 10); b’. reference to Jewish tradition (verse 11); 3. a’’. behaviour of intruders (verse 12 a–c); b’’. reference to traditional metaphors (verses 12d–13). Triplets of a lexical nature have, among other things, a rhetorical function – they serve to rhythmise the whole passage of Jude 6–19, such as the anaphoric phrase οὗτοί εἰσιν in verses 12, 16 and 19.206 On the other hand, the threefold reference to ungodliness in verse 15 from a rhetorical point of view should be regarded as a polyptoton introducing a group of words (noun, verb and adjective) derived from the same stem. In this way, the narrator draws attention to the totality of ungodli-

205 Cf. J.D. Charles, Literary Artifice, p. 109. 206 Other functions of ουτοι will be mentioned below; por. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 45–47; M.A. Kruger, ΤΟΥΤΟΙΣ in Jude 7, “Neotestamentica” 27 (1993), no. 1, p. 119–132; B.A. Jurgens, Is It Pesher? Readdressing the Relationship Between the Epistle of Jude and the Qumran Pesharim, “Journal of Biblical Literature” 136 (2017), no. 2, p. 494–496.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

133

134

Structural commentary

ness, which consists in violating God’s order, transgressing God’s commandments, disrespecting the law and the Lawgiver, and deserving God’s wrath. In addition to recalling the juridical dimension of salvation, the aim of the narrator of the Letter of Jude is also to identify those behaviours that will become the basis for accusations at the judgement. This is why the emphasis on judgement from the beginning present in the history of salvation through the events “serving as an example” (verse 7) is accompanied by references to the teachings and behaviour of the intruders who have broken into the community of the recipients of the letter. Their views and behaviour had already been outlined in verse 4; now the hagiographer brings in specifics. In a somewhat ironic way, he shows that there is nothing new in the teachings and behaviour of the false teachers; they are successive versions of the ungodliness and rebellion known from the past. Thus, the concentric structure of verses 6–19 described above is superimposed on a composition based on the development of elements from verse 4: Verse 4

Verses 6–19 (expansion)

Long ago designated for judgement

6.7.9.11.14–15b. 17–18b

Ungodly

12–13.15c–d.16a.18c.19

Perverting grace into licentiousness

8a–b.10.16b

Denying the Lord and Ruler

8c.15e.16 c–d

For the sake of clarity, further commentary will be based on a concentric structure, but where necessary there will also be references to the composition based on the development of motifs from verse 4. This composition fits perfectly with the concept of Jude 6–19 as midrash207 and the rhetoric of the letter: we can see here both argumentatio, and, perhaps above all, a continuation of vituperatio. The exposure of the vituperative element makes it easier for the recipients to identify (and classify) the behaviour and teachings of the intruders, and to become aware of their repetition and even a certain predictability. This means that they fit into the eternal paradigm of guilt and punishment, and although it may seem that judgement is delayed, it will ultimately be carried out because that is how it was and is written, and that is what the stories evoked testify to. Doubting the consistency of God’s action is in fact unbelief, the lack of trust in God described in 5c, which also deserves to be accused. Theological statement resulting from the composition based on the development of verse 4 thus coincides with that resulting from the concentric structure: a judicial aspect was inscribed in soteriology from the beginning, which must not be excluded from the revelation/deposition of faith; on the contrary, it must be intensely and heroically defended.

207 See above – Introduction.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

2.5.1

Part a. Judgement rooted in the beginnings of salvation history (Jude 6–7)

6

The angels who did not keep their office/preserve their realm/dignity/authority/descent, but abandoned their own dwelling/habitation, He kept until/for the judgment of the great day with everlasting chains under darkness, 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them/and the surrounding cities, having likewise given themselves over to fornication/indulged in sexual immorality and followed/going after/pursuing strange flesh, serve as an example, suffering/undergoing a/the punishment of eternal fire, enduring the punishment.

Verses 6 and 7, as already noted, contain examples supporting theses of verse 5c: Jesus Christ is not only the liberator but also the eschatological Judge who will deliver those who did not believe. While, however, verse 5 in its entirety typologically referred to a community of recipients comparable to Israel, which at the time of the exodus was constituted as God’s people – “beloved, preserved and called”, the narrator’s subsequent reflections concern those who, in the community of the “beloved, preserved and called”, by their teachings and conduct lead others to unbelief. This is why the reminiscences in 5c dealt with the return of the scouts who, frightened by the numerical and military superiority of the inhabitants of Canaan, urged the others to return to Egypt, thus undermining the trust of God’s promise to lead the chosen people into the Promised Land and condemning the generation of “ungodly” to “destruction” (Lev 13:27–29.31–33 and 14:1–4.11–12.27–37). The same role once played by the scouts is now played by those who, as intruders, break into the community of the recipients of the letter and question the content of the “faith once for all handed down to the saints”, especially the juridical aspects of salvation. In this way, they undermine confidence in the entirety of the revelation, which proclaims that from the beginning Jesus is the one who saves and the one who judges. To illustrate thesis that Jesus has been acting as judge from the beginning of salvation history, the narrator refers to two examples which, as shown, belonged to the loci communes of the narrative of divine judgement and punishment208 in the Jewish tradition of the Second Temple period. The first concerns the revolt of the angels (Gen 6:1–4, cf. Sir 16:7, TNaph 3, 3 Macc 2:4, Jub 20:5); the second, the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:1–25, cf. Sir 16:8, TNaph 3, 3 Macc 2:5, Jub 20:6).209 Formally the agent/subject in verse 6 is not marked, but verse 6 is syntactically

208 See above. 209 See also below – using only the example of Sodom (and Gomorrah) in the Old and New Testament writings.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

135

136

Structural commentary

related to the typology in verse 5, where the subject is Jesus. So Jesus is also the one who kept the rebellious angels in darkness “until/for the judgement of the great day”. In verse 7 the agens is also not formally indicated. However, three parallels can be noted which allow us to conclude that the perpetrator of the destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah and the surrounding cities is Jesus: – the first parallel points out the guilt of the rebellious angels and the inhabitants of cities famous for their immorality; – the second parallel concerns the description of punishment; – the third – elliptical – parallel concerns the person of the judge: since in verse 6 Jesus is the judge, the destruction of the cities must also be attributed to Jesus.210 The conviction that the Logos participated in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah appears in Philo of Alexandria, who identifies the “sun” in Gen 19:23 with the “divine Word” and then with God himself: But according to the third signification, when he speaks of the sun, he means the divine word […] with respect to which it is said, “The sun went forth upon the earth, and Lot entered into Segor,211 and the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire”. For the word of God, when it reaches to our earthly constitution, assists and protects those who are akin to virtue, or whose inclinations lead them to virtue; so that it provides them with a complete refuge and salvation, but upon their enemies it sends irremediable overthrow and destruction. And in the fourth signification, what is meant by the sun is the God and ruler of the universe himself (De somniis 25:1:85–87).

The same biblical text is referred to by Justin Martyr, partly dependent on Philo, but he explains who the “Lord” indicated as the one who rains down sulfur and fire is. He distinguishes him both from the angels who came to Lot and from God the Father (Creator), “who remains ever in the supercelestial places, invisible to all men, holding personal intercourse with none, whom we believe to be Maker and Father of all things” (Dialogue with Trypho 56). He identifies instead with the One who appeared to Abraham, James and Moses and who (also) is called God: Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things […] The Scripture just quoted by me will make this plain to you. It is thus: “The sun was risen on the earth, and Lot entered into Segor (Zoar); and the Lord rained on Sodom sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven, and overthrew these

210 Cf. J. Fossum, Kurios Jesus, p. 228–230. 211 Philo repeats after LXX, in which Zoar is named Segor.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

cities and all the neighbourhood”. […] It must therefore necessarily be said that one of the two angels who went to Sodom, and is named by Moses in the Scripture Lord, is different from Him who also is God and appeared to Abraham (Dialogue with Trypho 56).

Justin then quotes the entire story from Genesis 18:1–19:22, emphasizing those places where the text clearly distinguishes between the Lord and the men/angels. When he comes again to Gen 19:23–24, he explains: And now have you not perceived […] that one of the three, who is both God and Lord, and ministers to Him who is in the heavens, is Lord of the two angels? For when [the angels] proceeded to Sodom, He remained behind, and communed with Abraham […] And when he came [to Sodom], the two angels no longer conversed with Lot, but Himself, as the Scripture makes evident; and He is the Lord who received commission from the Lord who [remains] in the heavens, i.e., the Maker of all things, to inflict upon Sodom and Gomorrha the [judgments] which the Scripture describes in these terms: “The Lord rained down upon Sodom and Gomorrha sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven” (Dialogue with Trypho 56).

Although Justin does not mention here the name Jesus or the title Christ, and uses only the title Lord – κύριος – it is clear that he means the Lord – Jesus Christ, whom he distinguishes from the Lord from heaven – God the Father. It can therefore be assumed that the narrator of Jude draws on the same tradition that Justin later drew on, in which the pre-existent Christ is regarded as the executor of the judgement on Sodom and Gomorrah, just as in verse 6 he is indicated as preserving the rebellious angels for the judgement he is to carry out in the end times.212 Both Jude’s examples thus emphasise the same thesis about Jesus’ judicial authority. The first expresses it explicitly, while the second expresses it by referring to a Christological tradition close to the sender and well known to the recipients. The hint that the narrator will refer to this and other well-known traditions is already found at the beginning of verse 5 in the reminder formula: “I desire that you remember”.213 This is at the same time a suggestion that these traditions will be mentioned very generally, often allusively, and that their full reconstruction is left to the recipients, who have known and know everything “once and for all”. Verse 6 refers in just such a perfunctory way to the narrative of the angels’ rebellion, who abandoned their kingdom/office/dignity and dwelling place. The generality makes it possible to find the sources of this narration in apocalyptic

212 The relationships of Jude 6–7 to the intertestamental tradition will be presented when these verses are discussed in detail. 213 M.A. Kruger, ΤΟΥΤΟΙΣ, p. 124.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

137

138

Structural commentary

texts developing the motif from Genesis 6:1–4 or in texts referring to the angels’ revolt even before the creation of man, using the motif from Isaiah 14:12, where the casting down of the proud son of Dawn from the heavens was interpreted from the perspective of satanology (e.g. patristic tradition).214 Perhaps, as Norman Hillyer, the narrator of Jude combines both traditions;215 it is more likely, however, that the main source of imagery here was the tradition based on Genesis 6:1–4. The biblical narrative is very sparing. It speaks only of “the sons of God” who were attracted to human daughters, and from these unions giants were born. It does not clearly identify the sons of God, nor does it mention whether they suffered any punishment for their act. These themes are taken up in apocryphal literature, especially that related to the figure of Enoch (1 En 6–19, 21, 86–88, 106:13–17), but not only, for they also appear in ApBaSyr/2 Ba 56:10–14, Jub 4:15.22, 5:1, Testament of Reuben 5, TNaph 3 and in Qumran literature: CD 2:17–19, 1QapGen 2:1).216 Jude, the narrator, calls the protagonists in this episode “angels”. If he refers to the narrative of Gen 6:1–4, it is evident that he is here dependent on the LXX (Codex A) and the early Judeo-Christian tradition. From the middle of the second century after Christ, in Judaism the identification of the Hebrew ‫בני האלהים‬. with angels begins to give way to the belief that the expression ‫ בני האלהים‬refers to people who then lived long lives without suffering or anguish. In Christianity this identification persisted longer; with certainty until the fifth century, although critical voices appeared as early as the third century.217 Intertestamental literature shares the belief that the sons of God, also called the “sons of heaven”, are angels (1 En 6:2, 10:7, 14:4), though it more often calls them “watchers” οἱ ἐγρήγοροι (1 En 1:5, 10:9.15, 12:4, 13:10, 14:1.3, 16:2 see also TNaph 3, Jub 10:5, CD 2:18, 4Q227:4 , 1QapGen 2:1)218 because of their function, which was to take care – to watch over – natural phenomena and nations. The belief that each nation has its own guardian angel is based on Deut 32:8 in the LXX version, where ‫“ בני ישראל‬the sons of Israel” are described as “divine sons”: “When the Most High was apportioning nations, as He scattered Adam’s sons, He fixed boundaries of nations according to the number of divine sons”. On the other hand, the attribution to angels of the care of natural phenomena, humans, animals, plants, and even abstract concepts is linked to intertestamental Midrashic elaborations of the creation story. The Book of Jubilees 2:2 mentions

214 M. Rosik, List św. Judy, p. 135. 215 N. Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, p. 428. 216 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 160; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 50; see more extensive discussion of these themes below. 217 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 50. 218 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 239.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

the angels of the presence, and the angels of sanctification, and the angels [of the spirit of fire and the angels] of the spirit of the winds, and the angels of the spirit of the clouds, and of darkness, and of snow and of hail and of hoar frost, and the angels of the voices and of the thunder and of the lightning, and the angels of the spirits of cold and of heat, and of winter and of spring and of autumn and of summer and of all the spirits of his creatures which are in the heavens and on the earth.

Also, 1 En 82:10–20 extensively describes not only the powers of angels, but also mentions the names of angels responsible for the functioning of the changing seasons and the accompanying phenomena (cf. also 1 En 20:1–7, where even Paradise, those “who sin in the spirit”, and those “those who rise” are subject to the power and care of angels). The fact that the belief in such an understanding of the protective functions of angels was also widespread in early Christianity as early as the second century, is evidenced, among other things, by the statements of Justin Martyr (Second Apology 5): “God, when He had made the whole world […] committed the care of men and of all things under heaven to angels whom He appointed over them”. It is generally accepted that the narrator of Jude refers to these tutelary functions when he mentions that “the angels did not keep their power/office” ἀγγέλους τε τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχήν.219 In doing so, he uses the noun ἀρχή in the singular preceded by the genitive, which can mean ‘authority, position, dignity, power, office, kingdom/duchy’, but also ‘origin’ or ‘descent’.220 It is safest to translate ἀρχή here as ‘kingdom’, and to treat the following phrase – ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον “they abandoned their own dwelling/habitation” – as an apposition, a parallel addition, rather than as an additive term for another fault.221 This would mean that failure to keep the kingdom is tantamount to leaving one’s dwelling place. It is easier to start the interpretation of the image drawn by these parallel expressions with the second segment referring to the angels’ dwelling place. In Jude’s phrase ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον one can see the dependencies on 1 En 12:4–5: go, declare to the Watchers of the heaven who have left the high heaven, the holy eternal place, and have defiled themselves with women, and have done as the children of earth do, and have taken unto themselves wives [and] […] have wrought great destruction on the earth.

219 D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 327; J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 256. 220 F. Mickiewicz, List św. Judy, p. 90. 221 M.A. Kruger, ΤΟΥΤΟΙΣ, p. 125.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

139

140

Structural commentary

Despite the lexical similarities, it must be noted that the narrator of Jude does not directly quote the Book of Enoch;222 rather, he summarises some of its contents in a specific way. In Jude 6a and in 1 En 12:4 the verb ἀπολείπω ‘to leave’ appears. As Gene L. Green notes, this verb used in the aorist suggests not only abandonment or departure, but also desertion, final, irreversible abandonment (cf. Isa 55:7, Prov 2:17, 19:27).223 As a complement, Jude merely states that he means “abandoning their own dwelling”. He probably assumes that the recipients, on the basis of the cited Enochean text and/or other apocryphal literature (1 En 14:5, 15:3.7, cf. also CD 2:18, 2 Bar 5:12)224 will reconstruct for themselves this “dwelling place of angels” – oἰκητήριον – as the “the high heaven, the holy eternal place”, or simply “heaven” (1 En 12:3, 14:5). Heaven is not only the dwelling place of angels, but also of God Himself. The task of the angels dwelling in heaven is the aforementioned care of creation and the glorification of God, giving Him praise and worship (cf. Isa 6:3, 1 En 40:1–10, 71:7–9). Thus, the angels left not only their dwelling place but also God, abandoned their heavenly tasks and violated the order established by God. In this light it is easier to understand the first part of the parallelism, the phrase μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχήν. Since the “dwelling place” oἰκητήριον of angels is heaven, the noun ἀρχή would have to be taken as a synonym for heaven (hence, as suggested, the best and most capacious translation would be “kingdom” – cf. Rom 8:38, Eph 1:21, 3:10, 6:12, Col 1:16, 2:15). In turn, “kingdom” would also be synonymous with synecdotical elements associated with heaven, as best shown in the table: Dwelling place oἰκητήριον

Kingdom ἀρχή

Heaven God Spiritual sphere Angels’ functions of prayer and guardianship the order established by God

Heaven God Spiritual sphere Angels’ functions of prayer and guardianship the order established by God

Now it can be seen that the failure to keep the kingdom is first of all the failure to keep the order established by God, the failure to keep the duties of orancy and guardianship, the failure to keep the spiritual realm and the material realm separate, the failure to keep the allegiance to God, that is, the irreversible, absolute abandonment of heaven.

222 N.J. Moore, Is Enoch, p. 502; C.D. Osburn, The Christological Use of 1 Enoch 1,9 in Jude 14–15, NTS 23 (1977), no. 3, p. 340. 223 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 240. 224 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 51; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 164.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

It is possible that in the whole picture of angels abandoning the heavens there are also present implications of the heavenly pre-existence of Christ.225 This involves referring the noun ἡ ἀρχή (with an article) to God, or rather to Christ, and applying one of its basic meanings – “the beginning”. “The beginning” as a term for Christ was quite common in the Judeo-Christian tradition of the first-second centuries. This is evidenced by Rev 3:14 and 22:13, where Christ is explicitly called “the Beginning”. Justin Martyr, quoted many times, speaks in a similar way: God begot before all creatures a Beginning [ἀρχή], [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos […] But this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with Him; even as the Scripture by Solomon has made clear, that He whom Solomon calls Wisdom, was begotten as a Beginning before all His creatures and as Offspring by God (Dialogue with Trypho 61–62).

The same motif also appears in Theophilus of Antioch (second century) in the apologia To the Autolycus (2:10): God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things. He is called “governing principle” [ἀρχή], because He rules, and is Lord of all things fashioned by Him. […] First [Moses] named the “beginning”, and “creation”, then he thus introduced God; […] he said, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. Then having spoken of their creation, he explains to us: “And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God moved upon the water”. This, sacred Scripture teaches at the outset, to show that matter, from which God made and fashioned the world, was in some manner created, being produced by God.

This tradition is most probably known to the author of the Kerygma Petrou, which was written in 80–140226 and which is quoted by Clement of Alexandria in Stromata (6:7): “pointing out the ‘first-begotten Son’, Peter writes, accurately comprehending the statement, ‘In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth’”. One of the Christological titles recognised in the noun ἀρχή fits well with the Christocentric soteriology of the Letter of Jude. In this context, the verb τηρέω in

225 Cf. this theme very strongly emphasised, among others, in the Ascension of Isaiah 9:12–18. 226 M. Starowieyski, Nauka Piotra (Petrou Kerygma). Materiały do poznania legendy i kultu Apostołów (6), “Warszawskie Studia Teologiczne” 19 (2006), p. 206 [205–210].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

141

142

Structural commentary

6a should be translated primarily in relation to the function of angels: to watch over and exercise care, to guard: μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἀρχήν the angels did not guard the Beginning (Christ). The form of the participium aoristi suggests that they have completely abandoned their function in the past.227 Ascension of Isaiah, referring to Isa 6:3, links this basic angelic function to worship (AscIsa 9–10). The angels thus guard the gates of successive heavens and direct their worship to the Beloved One, that is, the pre-existent Christ. The narrator of Jude does not explicitly state the reasons why “the angels did not keep their realm/Christ and abandoned their own dwelling”. It seems that for him the most significant thing is the abandonment itself, i.e. the attempt to deviate from God’s established order, an act of transgression. Whatever the reasons, he regards such transgression as a crime that requires judgement and punishment. The crime was punished. This is not just a play on words associated with the verb τηρέω, but above all the symmetry between the crime and the punishment inflicted, on which the ius/lex talionis228 is based. This is most likely related to the transfer of the image of Roman social relations at the time of the writing of the Letter of Jude to the image of an extra-terrestrial reality. The hagiographer had already smuggled in references to the contemporary situation of slaves (cf. verse 1);229 now he makes use of associations with a strictly established, law-based order in which belonging to a particular social stratum was not only a fixed element but also a determining factor in the way one dressed or the place one could occupy at feasts and/or in theatre.230 In the case of angels, the violation of the order established by God is related with the arbitrary abandonment of their spiritual sphere and the adoption of behaviours typical of humans. Despite the lack of indication of a direct cause for the angels’ revolt, one can attempt to reconstruct it. The texts which refer to the same topos as Jude, however, are not in agreement here. It should be noted that they do not refer to the revolt of the angels separately but treat it as an integral part of the summary and paradigmatic motif of the punishment of the giants; perhaps this was due to the fact that in part of Jewish apocalyptic literature the giants were themselves identified with the fallen angels (e.g. ApBaSyr/2 Ba 56:10–15). TNaph 3 seems to be the closest to the transgressive concept of the angels’ rebellion referred to in the Letter of Jude, and it warns against the behaviour of watchmen (watchers), who “changed the order of their nature, whom also the Lord cursed at the flood”. It is worth noting that what for humans is a blessing – reproduction – for angels becomes a curse precisely because it does not belong to their spiritual nature, 227 228 229 230

On other uses of the verb τηρεω in v.6 – see below. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 53. See above. G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 241.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

but to human carnality. Sir 16:7 sees the cause of the revolt in the arrogance of the angels (although the text speaks here of giants), who “who rebelled long ago in their might”. Similarly, 3 Macc 2:5, which speaks of complacency in strength and audacity. On this conviction of pride and arrogance (hybris)231 as the direct source of the angels’ rebellion was most probably superimposed the wise biblical satanic tradition232 later adopted by Christianity, which sees in the prophecy of Isa 14:12–15 a proctological description of Satan being thrown down from heaven.233 On the other hand, Jub 20:5, which together sees the guilt of the giants and the inhabitants of Sodom dying “on account of their fornication, and uncleanness, and mutual corruption through fornication”, fits best with the assumption that lust was the immediate cause of the angels’ rebellion. This supposition, as already stated, is based on the narrative of Gen 6:1–4 as developed by intertestamental apocalyptic literature, especially Enochean. According to 1 En 6–19 (which is part of the so-called Book of the Watchers), two hundred angels (the book mentions the names of their leaders), who liked human daughters, decided to take them as wives and beget children with them. In this way giants appeared in the world who shall be evil spirits on earth, and evil spirits shall they be called. […] And the spirits of the giants afflict, oppress, destroy, attack, do battle, and work destruction on the earth, and cause trouble […] And these spirits shall rise up against the children of men and against the women, because they have proceeded from them (1 En 15:10–12).

It is worth noting here that the implied theme of giants is the connecting element between verse 6 with verse 5c, where there are reminiscences of Num 13:13 – the Promised Land inhabited by giants threatening the Israelites. In the land the angels taught the people to make militaria, to seduce with make-up and jewellery, to use spells and astrology. In this way they introduced wickedness and great mischief. The people perished, killing each other, and “the voice of their cryingst up to the gates of heaven” (1 En 9:2). Thus judgement was passed on the rebellious angels, to which Jude 6b directly alludes: they were bound and driven into darkness to a place at the end of heaven and earth. Themes present in 1 En are also taken up by other writings belonging to the intertestamental apocalyptic: ApBaSyr/2 Ba 56:10–15 (angels’ relationships with women and the punishment for this act); Jub 5:1–11 (lusting after the daughters of men, giants and the reign of wickedness on earth, angels’ punishment); Testament of Reuben 5 (cohabitation of angels, who took the 231 J.D. Charles, The Use of Tradition-Material in the Epistle of Jude, “Bulletin for Biblical Research” 4 (1994), p. 8. 232 K. Wojciechowska, Grzech – zemsta szatana?, “Gdański Rocznik Ewangelicki” 9 (2015), p. 174–180. 233 So, among others, Tertullian and Gregory the Great, as well as Jerome, who translates the Hebrew term for “morning star” in Is 14:12 as “Lucifer”; see M. Rosik, List św. Judy, p. 135.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

143

144

Structural commentary

form of men, with seductive women), but they do so in an abbreviated manner. However, as Gene L. Green notes, compared to the intertestamental literature, it is the narrator of the Letter of Jude who most restricts the details and motives accompanying the description of the angels’ rebellion in order to expose the essence of their guilt.234 Thus, there are no seducing women, no figure of Enoch (although it is mentioned later – in verse 14), and no elements of theodicy. Instead, there is a description of the manifestations of the rebellion – the failure to preserve the realm, i.e. the abandonment of their own dwelling – which clearly indicates that the essence of the rebellion is the transgression of the order established by God as a result of an assumed, by association, pursuit of lust (cf. Jude 16.18). It seems that the narrator wants to evoke associations based primarily on the already quoted 1 En 12:4–5: “[The watchers of heaven] […] have left the high heaven, the holy eternal place, and have defiled themselves with women, and have done as the children of earth do, and have taken unto themselves wives [and] […] have wrought great destruction on the earth”, and the text of 1 En 15:3–7: Wherefore have ye left the high, holy, and eternal heaven, and lain with women, and defiled yourselves with the daughters of men and taken to yourselves wives, and done like the children of earth, and begotten giants (as your) sons? And though ye were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those also do who die and perish. Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them […] But you were formerly spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling.

It is clear from this narrative that both the author of 1 En and the narrator of the Letter of Jude see the guilt of the angels as conduct incompatible with the spiritual angelic nature characteristic of entities living eternal life in heaven and the adoption of human behaviour not envisaged by God for angels and therefore unnatural for them. The first step towards transgressing the divine order turned out to be lust, which had a clearly sexual overtones. These à rebours associations will also appear in verse 7 when adjudicating the guilt of the inhabitants of Sodom, Gomorrah and the surrounding cities.235 Despite the allusive reference to the angels’ guilt, the description of their immediate punishment is surprisingly specific: Jesus εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας δεσμοῖς

234 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 242. 235 See below.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

ἀϊδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον τετήρηκεν “kept [the angels] for the judgement of the great day [bound] with everlasting chains under darkness”. Some see here a reference to Greek classical literature. Undoubtedly, the vision of rebels bound with δεσμοί chains and dwelling in darkness ζόφος is close to the image of the punishment of the Titans in Hellenistic literature. One can discern a motivic and even lexical affinity between Jude 6b and Hesiod (Theogony 716–741)236 and Greek poetry. The dark underworld is mentioned e.g. by Aeschylus (Persians 839: “Now I must leave and go back to the dark world beneath the earth”), Euripides (Hippolytus: “neath earth’s blackest depth, to dwell in darkness with the dead”), Homer (Odyssey 10:510–514 “dank house of Hades”, Iliad VI: “the house of Hades”), but these are not sufficient evidence – as Richard Bauckham claims – of a direct dependence of Jude 6b on classical literature.237 The terminological coincidences are derived from similarities of motifs common to most mythologies238 (punishment for those who rebel against the gods), and the vocabulary used by the narrator of Jude and that of the ancient writers belongs to a common lexis. Many more elements, of course, connect verse 6b with intertestamental Jewish apocalypticism, and in relation to it even the neutral lexemes just mentioned acquire significance. It is not just a matter of evoking a particular image – here angels bound in heavy iron chains (cf. 1 En 10:4–6, 13:1, 14:5, 54:3–5, 56:1–4, 88:1, ApBaSyr/ 2 Ba 56:13) and placed in darkness – but of theological emphasis on certain concepts. This is well illustrated by the noun ‘darkness, gloom’ ζόφος, which only apparently has a locative meaning and indicates the place where the rebellious angels would be placed. Besides, the apocalyptic tradition itself and even the Enochean literature is ambiguous and inconsistent in its description of this location. 1 En 14:5 speaks of the angels being “in bonds on the earth”; 1 En 10:12 of their being placed “in the valleys of the earth”; 1 En 54:5 of them being “cast them into the abyss of complete condemnation” where “they shall cover their jaws with rough stones”, 1 En 56:3 of the abyss of “the valley”, 1 En 88:1 of the abyss that was “narrow and deep, and horrible and dark”, and Jub 5:6 of “the depths of the earth”. The matter is further complicated by 2 En 7:1–3, according to which the rebels are in the second heaven:

and there I saw prisoners hanging, watched, awaiting the great and boundless judgment, and these angels were dark-looking, more than earthly darkness, and incessantly making weeping through all hours. And I said to the men who were with me: Wherefore are these

236 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 52. 237 Ibid., p. 52. 238 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 258.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

145

146

Structural commentary

incessantly tortured? They answered me: These are God’s apostates, who obeyed not God’s commands, but took counsel with their own will (cf. 2 En 18:4; 1 Pet 3:19–20).239

Meanwhile, Jude, like the other apocalyptic writers, is rather concerned to mark the contrast between the brightness of the place the angels left and the darkness, also understood symbolically, in which they found themselves. The same applies to the δεσμοί chains, which depict captivity and contrast with the freedom experienced by the angels in heaven. As an exaggeration typical not only of the Semitic style of speaking, but also of the apocalyptic convention, one should consider the “eternity” in the expression eternal chains as well as all the references in the Enochean literature emphasising even more strongly the “eternity” of the present situation of the rebellious angels, e.g. 1 En 14:5–6 “from henceforth you shall not ascend into heaven unto all eternity, and in bonds of the earth the decree has gone forth to bind you for all the days of the world”. In all such examples, “eternity” is limited by the existence of the world (cf. “the eternal chains” in Joseph Flavius’ De Bello Iudaico VI 9:4 and “eternity” in 4 Macc 10:15) and the coming of judgement. So it is not a question of specifying the exact time of binding, although some apocalyptic texts seem very precise in this – e.g. 1 En 10:12–13: “bind them fast for seventy generations in the valleys of the earth, till the day of their judgement and of their consummation, till the judgement that is for ever and ever is consummated”. Even here there is a limit to eternity with the coming of the judgement which will usher in a new – indeed already eternal – order (cf. also the descriptions in 1 En 10:12–14, 21:1–10, 22:10–11), where a clear distinction is made between the present situation of the rebels and the final judgement). One may therefore venture to conclude that eternity in the view of Jude and the Enochean literature means the broadly understood present continuing until the final judgement, which in Jude 6b is also manifested by the close proximity of the phrase εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας “until the judgement of the great day” and the phrase δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις “everlasting chains”. The present situation of the rebellious angels is thus a transitional state, a detention in which the rebels are kept for a future eschatological judgement. It is no accident that the verb τηρέω is used here in the perfectum – τετήρηκεν – which suggests that although the angels were shackled and cast into darkness long ago, their situation has not changed and will not change until the day of judgement when they will be finally punished. The recipients’ confidence that this is the case is to be reinforced by Jude’s association of

239 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 166; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 52. Bauckham notes a surprising convergence of lexis between Jude 6b and 2 En 7:2, 18:4.6, but explains this by the dependence of both texts on 1 Enoch.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

the indefinite δεσμοί with iron and/or bronze shackles (cf. 1 En 54:3, 56:1), which effectively restrain movement and prevent escape. The key phrase for verse 6 is “kept until the judgement of the great day/for the judgement of the great day”. The phrase judgement of the great day is relatively rare, even in Enochean literature it is more common to find “the day of the great judgement” καὶ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς μεγάλης τῆς κρίσεως (1 En 10:6, 22:11), in biblical literature simply “the great day”, possibly “the Lord’s day” and “great is the day of the Lord” (e.g. Joel 2:11, Zeph 1:14, Mal 3:22, Acts 2:20, Rev 6:17, 16:14). The meaning seems clear: it refers to the judgement that will take place in the end times. The preposition εἰς allows the whole expression εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας to be interpreted as intentional: “for the judgement of the great day or temporal: ‘[until] the judgement of the great day’”. Both are equally legitimate, although Jude’s soteriology seems to give precedence to the intentional variant. The narrator does not mention expressis verbis the person of the judge, but behind his wording there is an image from 1 En 69:26–29,240 which reflects well theology of the whole letter with the two perspectives of salvation: And there was great joy amongst them, and they blessed and glorified and extolled Because the name of that Son of Man had been revealed unto them. And he sat on the throne of his glory, And the sum of judgement was given unto the Son of Man, and he caused the sinners to pass away and be destroyed from off the face of the earth, and those who have led the world astray. With chains shall they be bound, and in their assemblage-place of destruction shall they be imprisoned, and all their works vanish from the face of the earth.

In Enochean literature, the son of man is most often identified with Enoch himself (e.g. 1 En 71:4–17), but Jude identifies him with Jesus (cf. Jude 14–15). An additional clue to identify the figure of the judge as Jesus can be found in the noun ἡμέρα ‘day’. Apocalyptic literature often applies non-obvious and mysterious titles to divine persons. In 1 En 46:1–2, 47:3, for example, God is called “the Head of Days”, and in the canonical Apocalypse of John Jesus is titled “The Amen” (3:14), “the Alpha” “the Omega” and “the end” (22:13), among others. In early Christian theology, “Day” was one of the Christological titles, as was the aforementioned title of “Beginning”. “Day” is also found among the many different allegorical terms for Christ mentioned by Justin Martyr: “for He is addressed in the writings of the prophets in one way or another as Wisdom, and the Day, and the East, and a Sword, and a Stone, and a Rod, and Jacob, and Israel” (Dialogue with Trypho 100). And when he refers to the second coming of Christ, he states that “Elijah shall come

240 C.D. Osburn, The Text of Jude 5, p. 112.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

147

148

Structural commentary

before the great and terrible day of the Lord” (Dialogue with Trypho 49).241 One can understand this phrase literally, temporally or allegorically: Elijah will precede the coming of the Day, that is, the glorious Christ as Judge of all. Also Clement of Alexandria mentions that “Christ is often called Day” (Eclogae Propheticae 53,1)242 and cites in Stromata an allegorical interpretation of Gen 2:4: For the expression “when they were created” intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the “expression in the day that God made” [John 1:3], that is, in and by which God made “all things”, and “without which not even one thing was made”, points out the activity exerted by the Son. As David says, “This is the day which the Lord hath made; let us be glad and rejoice in it”; [Ps 117:24]; that is, in consequence of the knowledge imparted by Him, let us celebrate the divine festival; for the Word that throws light on things hidden, and by whom each created thing came into life and being, is called day. And, in fine, the Decalogue, by the letter Iota, signifies the blessed name, presenting Jesus, who is the Word (Stromata 6:16).243

As can be seen, the roots of Day as a Christological title can be sought either in the history of beginnings, as Clement, or in the prophecy of eschatological times, as Justin. The convergence and/or similarity of the sources and theological traditions in Justin’s writings with the sources and traditions of Judeo-Christian theology represented by the Letter of Jude has already been emphasized many times. It seems that, here too, a closer affinity connects Jude 6b with The Dialogue with the Trypho than with The Stromata. This is also indicated by the eschatological context of Jude 6b. However, it cannot be ruled out that texts by Philo of Alexandria, close to both Jude and later Clement, also played a role. In the Legum allegoriae (I 8:19–21) Philo, referring to Gen 2:4, argues that the day God made the heavens and the earth is in fact “the book of the generation of heaven and earth”. Moses, in turn, called this book the Word of God, “the word of God a book, in which it is come to pass that the formations of other things are written down and engraved”.244 So the Word (λόγος), the Book (βιβλίον) and the Day (ἡμέρα) pertain, according to Philo, to one and the same being. The supposition that in verse 6b ἡμέρα refers to Christ the Judge fits perfectly with the soteriology and Christology of the Letter of Jude. The formula εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας – now understood as “for the judgement of the exalted Jesus Christ” – clearly emphasises the action of Jesus as Judge, not just the one who

241 242 243 244

See also J. Daniélou, Theology, p. 169. After Ibid., p. 169. Cf. Ibid., p. 171. Cf. Ibid., p. 174.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

keeps the angels for judgement. The gen. ἡμέρας (i.e. Χριστοῦ) should therefore be interpreted primarily as gen. subiectivus. The reference to the beginning (verse 6a) and to the end of salvation history (verse 6b) reproduces the structure of the entire passage 6–19 based on a Christology that could already be observed in verse 5: the pre-existent Jesus (cf. also the designation of Jesus as ἀρχή) is also the eschatological Judge (Day), and thus judgement is inscribed in salvation history from the beginning. Now also the subtle and at the same time sophisticated polyptotic play with the verb τηρέω in verse 6 is fully revealed. So far, its use and meaning in the immediate context has been shown. In line 6a it referred to the function assigned to the angels and signified a ‘failure to observe’ the order established by God, which consisted in abandoning duty, Christ, heaven as a dwelling place and the realm belonging to spiritual entities. In verse 6b, the hagiographer used the verb in its basic sense – ‘to guard, to watch over, to keep vigil’ – and thus outlined the prison context (cf. similar context in Matt 27:54, Acts 12:5, 16:23). In juxtaposing verse 6a as a description of the crime and verse 6b as a description of punishment, the verb τηρέω expressed the appropriateness of punishment to guilt, which is characteristic of the ius talionis. The use of a single verb emphasised, on the one hand, the juridical symmetry, on the other, the polarity of the actions described: “not keeping” was punished “with keeping”. The hagiographer allowed himself to be ironic here. The angels’ rebellion was supposed to lead to freedom, which allows one to cross all boundaries, but in reality it led to enslavement and limitation, figuratively presented as being shackled and thrown into darkness. Chains and darkness thus illustrate here and concretize the content of the verb τηρέω. The Τετήρηκεν of verse 6b also enters into a relationship with the τετηρημένοι in verse 1, where the recipients of the letter are described as “beloved, kept safe/ preserved and called”. The similarity of forms is immediately apparent – both use the perfectum, which can be given the same meaning – a description of a present situation that is rooted in the past. As the recipients are “kept safe” now, so the rebellious angels are “kept” now. The one who preserves/keeps, in both cases, is Jesus. In verse 6b this is expressed by the judgement referring to the subject mentioned in verse 5, and in verse 1 by the passivum theologicum, which allows Jesus to be considered an agent. The context behind and associations with the verb τηρέω in verse 1 also affect the meaning of this verb in verse 6b and vice versa. In analysing verse 1 it has been pointed out that the hagiographer does not specify from what or to what the recipients of the letter are to be kept/preserved; instead, he strongly emphasises that they are “kept safe/preserved” for/within Jesus Christ. The juridic context of verse 6a now makes it possible to clarify the preservation in verse 1 as preservation from accusation at the time of judgement, in contrast to the angels, who are preserved “until the judgement of the great day”, when they will be accused and the final punishment will be meted out. In turn, the reference to Jesus Christ

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

149

150

Structural commentary

as a complement to the fact of being “preserved” in verse 1 confirms the suggestion that “the judgement of the great day” in verse 6 should be read as “the judgement of the exalted Jesus Christ”. Verse 7 continues the main idea from verse 6 – the inevitability of the judgement Jesus carries out – and illustrates it with the example of the punishment that fell on Sodom and Gomorrah. The connection between verse 6 and 7 is revealed on several levels: both in the syntactic layer (comparison) and in the semantic and compositional layers. The latter is illustrated by the threefold parallelism, already mentioned at the beginning of the analysis of verse 6–7, which includes the determination of guilt, the announcement of punishment/judgement and, importantly for Jude’s soteriology, the indication of Jesus as judge: Jude 6 – angels

Jude 7 – Sodom, Gomorrah and surrounding towns

Guilt

Have not guarded their realm/office and have left their own abode/dwelling/habitation

Indulge in licentiousness and follow/pursue strange flesh

Penalty

In chains under darkness kept for judgement

Eternal fire

Judge

Jesus (cf. verse 5b)

Jesus

It follows from the triple parallelism that the images of verse 7 develop and/or flesh out the images of verse 6; they cannot therefore be considered in isolation from the guilt of the rebellious angels who violated God’s order, from the announcement of judgement, and above all from the person of the Judge. It has already been said that the philosophy of Philo of Alexandria, which is close to the author of the Letter of Jude, and early Judeo-Christian theology, provide grounds for claiming that the Logos/pre-existent Christ participated in the destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah and the surrounding cities.245 Thus, despite the lack of syntactic exponents (such as the formal subject being Σόδομα καὶ Γόμορρα καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις “Sodom, Gomorrah and the cities around them”), Jesus must be regarded as the agens carrying out the judgement described in verse 7, as in verse 6. In order to maintain not only coherence, but also cohesion between the examples in verse 6–7, the expression τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις is used to refer to the comparison between the nature of the guilt of Pentapolis and the guilt of angels. The comparison, though it has much in common with typology, is nevertheless a different rhetorical figure. And its use alongside typology provides another argument for treating the examples in verse 5 and the examples in verse 6–7 separately. The phrase τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον is not the only exponent of comparison in verse 7, for the pronoun ως appears earlier. The comparisons introduced by these expres245 See above.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

sions organize the text not only in verse 7, but allow it to be related with verse 6 and verse 8.246 The first comparison, introduced by the pronoun ὡς, can be regarded as external and open. It juxtaposes the situation described in verse 7 with the situation in the community of the recipients of the letter described only in Jude 8–10. The second comparison concerns the guilt of the angels and the guilt of the inhabitants of Pentapolis. It is inside verse 7, so it can be called internal, and also because it has all the components – comparandum (the guilt of Pentapolis), comparans (the guilt of the angels marked here by the pronoun τούτοις) and tertium comparationis reconstructed on the basis of verse 6 – the comparison can also be called closed. In biblical and extra-biblical literature, the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah is considered a paradigm of God’s punishment sent upon sinners described in detail in Gen 19:24–25.28–29. Apart from texts where this example occurs together with the mention of the rebellion of angels (Sir 16:8, Jub 20:5, TNaph 3, 3 Macc 2:5), it also often appears on its own, with some texts mentioning – like Jude 7 – Sodom, Gomorrah and the surrounding cities; others – only Sodom and Gomorrah, and still others – elliptically only Sodom (Deut 29:22–23, Isa 1:9, 13:19, Jer 49:18, 50:40, Lam 4:6, Amos 4:11, Zeph 2:9, 4 Ezra latin 2:8, Jub 16:6.9, 22:22, 36:10, TAsh 7, Matt 10:15, 11:24, Luke 10:12, 17:29–30, Rom 9:29, 2 Pet 2:6).247 In mentioning the surrounding towns of αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις, the narrator uses a certain abbreviation, as, moreover, is the case in the narrative in Gen 19:25.28.29. For Admah and Zeboiim (cf. the precise statement in Deut 29:22), and Zoar (Gen 14:8) were neighbours of Sodom and Gomorrah. It was in the last of the three mentioned above that Lot took refuge after leaving Sodom (Gen 19:21–23), which is why the town was spared for Lot’s sake. However, as already said, this is only a very general outline of the story, which the recipients know very well (cf. the reminder formula of verse 5). In the texts that cite the example of Sodom and Gomorrah, the guilt of the city dwellers is variously described. Sir 16:8, as mentioned, defines it as pridefulness and arrogance, as does 3 Macc 2:5, and especially Ezek 16:49–50, which besides pridefulness and haughtiness also mentions carelessness, insensitivity to the needs of the poor and the general perpetration of wickedness (in the LXX – ἀνομηματα lawlessness, wickedness). The same trend is represented by Josephus Flavius (Ant. I 11) and Philo of Alexandria (De Abrahamo 26:133–136),248 though they also mention in general terms impiety, hatred towards strangers, profanity and the pursuit of pleasure.249 From the general naming of the guilt of Sodom

246 247 248 249

Cf. M.A. Kruger, ΤΟΥΤΟΙΣ, p. 126. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 54; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 250. P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 168. For a detailed list of all references to Sodom and Gomorrah in the writings of Philo and Flavius, see J.A. Loader, A Tale of Two Cities: Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament, Early Jewish and Early Christian Traditions, Kampen 1990, p. 96–98.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

151

152

Structural commentary

as “shocking” (LXX φρικτά), Jer 23:14 begins to enumerate their manifestations: adultery (LXX μοιχώμενοι), deception, strengthening the power of the wicked; Wis 10:6–9 marks the lack of wisdom in the inhabitants of Pentapolis and ignorance of goodness, and Wis 19:14 (cf. Matt 10:14–15) completes this catalogue of faults with an accusation of lack of hospitality. The narrator of Jude, however, seems closer to another tradition, more strongly represented in intertestamental apocalyptic literature, which much more clearly links the sin of Sodom (and Gomorrah) to sexuality and promiscuity. Jub 16:5 insists that the inhabitants of Sodom “defile themselves and commit fornication in their flesh”; similarly in 20:5 : “had died on account of their fornication, and uncleanness, and mutual corruption through fornication”. TBenj 9, citing the words of Enoch, passes the following judgement: “ye will commit fornication with the fornication of Sodom, and shall perish all save a few, and will multiply inordinate lusts with women; and the kingdom of the Lord shall not be among you”. As William John Lyons rightly observes, the variety of sins attributed to the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah serves to make the recipients of the texts aware that iniquity, ungodliness or wickedness are not reduced to a single act of sin, but are a permanent state, manifested on many levels, in many situations and by many acts.250 It is, therefore, a question of exhibiting total corruption. The different emphasis on guilt and punishment serves specific purposes, depending on the intentions of the authors and the expectations of the recipients.251 In a similar way, the narrator of the Letter of Jude acts in relation to the source text. Against the background of the aforementioned references to the descriptions of the guilt of Pentapolis, he seems quite specific, especially when the description in verse 7 is juxtaposed with verse 6.252 It is generally accepted that the source narrative for the second (internal) Jude comparison is Gen 19:4–11, although Jude draws neither on the Hebrew Old Testament text nor the LXX in terms of lexis.253 He also pays attention to the sexual connotations associated with the story: the inhabitants of Sodom demanded that Lot hand over his guests to them so that they could have fun with them. The Hebrew text uses in Gen 19:5 the verb ‫ידע‬, while LXX – σιγγίνομαι, which mean, among 250 W.J. Lyons, Canon and Exegesis. Canonical Praxis and the Sodom Narrative (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series 352), London–New York 2002, p. 235. 251 F. Opoku-Giamfi, The Use of Scripture in the Letter of Jude, “Ilorin Journal of Religious Studies” 5 (2015), no. 1, p. 82; J.A. Loader, A Tale of Two Cities, p. 116–117, notes that in most of the texts describing the guilt of Sodom and Gomorrah, despite the frequent appearance of the general term impiety, ‘iniquity’ or ‘wickedness’, the social character of the sin is accentuated – the attitude of fellow residents (insensitivity, pride, contempt for the poor, hedonism) and strangers (lack of hospitality). References of a sexual nature also serve this purpose. 252 See G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 50, who argues that the nature of the sin of the inhabitants of Pentapolis was not concretized. 253 F. Opoku-Giamfi, The Use of Scripture, p. 81.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

other things, sexual intercourse. These sexual connotations, combined with the belief in the (undefined) impiety and lawlessness of the inhabitants of Sodom, meant that their sin was interpreted not only as homosexual rape of the newcomers, but also as general promiscuity, which included homogenital intercourse. The inhabitants of Sodom are accused of such practices, in addition to the pridefulness and arrogance already mentioned, among others, by Philo: [The inhabitants of Sodom] discard the laws of nature, pursuing a great and intemperate indulgence of gluttony, and drinking, and unlawful connections; for not only did they go mad after women, and defile the marriage bed of others, but also those who were men lusted after one another, doing unseemly things, and not regarding or respecting their common nature […] and so, by degrees, the men became accustomed to be treated like women, and in this way engendered among themselves the disease of females, and intolerable evil; for they not only, as to effeminacy and delicacy, became like women in their persons, but they made also their souls most ignoble, corrupting in this way the whole race of man (De Abrahamo 26:135–136).254

The phrase about discarding the laws of nature, which also appears in TNaph 3, is noteworthy here. TNaph further links the nature of the conduct of the angels and the inhabitants of Sodom: “But ye shall not be so […] that ye become not as Sodom, which changed the order of its nature. in like manner also the Watchers changed the order of their nature”, just as Jude 6–7 does. Since, as said, the narrator of Jude is probably closest to TNaph when he describes the transgression of the angels, it can be assumed that this text is also behind the imagery in Jude 7.255 In Jude 7 the guilt of the inhabitants of Pentapolis is defined by metonymic expressions (replacing the indication of the inhabitants of the cities by the names of the cities themselves) using the participi aor.: έκπορνεύσασαι and άπελθουσαι οπίσω σαρκός έτερος. The former belongs to Jude’s hapax legomena, for the verb πορνεύω is frequently encountered in the New Testament; έκπορνεύω, on the other hand, appears repeatedly in the LXX. While πορνεύω denotes mainly the practice of fornication, έκπορνεύω may refer not only to any sexual intercourse outside marriage,256 but may also be understood as an incitement to fornication or licentiousness, thus leading and promoting a promiscuous lifestyle257 (cf. Gen 38:24, Lev 19:29, Hos 2:7, 4:13). Perhaps the priority of the figurative meaning given to this verb by the Old Testament is to be seen here: fornication/adultery as apostasy 254 See also other explanations by Philo and Josephus Flavius in: J.A. Loader, A Tale of Two Cities, p. 96–98. 255 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 47. 256 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 168. 257 Cf. F. Opoku-Giamfi, The Use of Scripture, p. 82.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

153

154

Structural commentary

(Exod 34:15, Deut 31:16, Ezek 20:30, Hos 1:2, 4:12, 5:3). Then έκπορνεύω would generally mean living and acting in a manner contrary to God and encouraging others to do the same. Hence the already close association with total (marked in Jude 7 by the aorist form) abandonment of God, i.e. rebellion against God. A similar understanding of the ungodliness of Sodom and Gomorrah is presented, among others, in TLev 14: our union shall be like unto Sodom and Gomorrah in ungodliness. And ye will be puffed up because of the priesthood lifting yourselves up against men. And not only so, but being puffed up also against the commands of God, ye will scoff at the holy things, mocking in despitefulness.

This general assertion of guilt is completed by the expression άπελθουσαι ὀπίσω σαρκός ἑτέρος “pursuing strange flesh”. This phrase confirms the sexual nature of the sin of Sodom, but it does not seem to point unambiguously to homosexual relations.258 A little more light is shed on the understanding of the nature of the guilt of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah by the adjective ἑτέρος, the construction used here resembling that of verse 6, and especially the comparative formula τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις ‘in a similar way’. In the New Testament, the adjective ἑτέρος is used, among other things, to designate persons of different (Acts 17:34) and the same sex (Luke 23:32), so it is impossible to judge from this whether the “strange/other flesh” followed by the inhabitants of Pentapolis was that of men or women. But ἑτέρος relatively often expresses qualitative differences, e.g. when describing the “otherness” of the transfigured Jesus (Luke 9:29), the “otherness” of the Law of God and the law of sin (Rom 7:23), the “otherness” of the beauty of heavenly bodies and earthly bodies (1 Cor 15:40), the “otherness” of the priesthood after the model of Melchizedek and after that of Aaron (Heb 7:11), the “otherness” of the gospel of grace from the other gospels (Gal 1:6, cf. also the proclamation of a “different/other” Jesus in 2 Cor 11:4 and the non-existence of a “different/other” salvation apart from salvation in Christ in Acts 4:12).259 This meaning seems to be dominant also in Jude’s expression “strange/other flesh”. This is confirmed by juxtaposing the description of the guilt of the angels in verse 6 with that of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah.260 As mentioned, the hagiographer used here the same construction, which makes it possible to treat the double expression of guilt as a parallel rather than an additive 258 Cf. M. Green, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 251; D. Keating, First, Second Peter, p. 305; D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 374. 259 Cf. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. G. Kittel, G. Friedrich, transl. G.W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids 1985, p. 347. 260 M.A. Kruger, ΤΟΥΤΟΙΣ, p. 126.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

expression: as “not keeping the realm” meant “leaving their dwelling”, so now indulging in fornication means “going after/pursuing strange flesh. The use of the same construction makes it necessary to juxtapose the guilt of the angels and the guilt of Sodom and Gomorrah, which is suggested by the addition τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις in a similar way, and by the similarity of the grammatical forms in the two members of the parallelisms – the participium aoristi activi, which suggests completeness, and complete devotion to sinful conduct: Jude 6

Jude 7

First part of parallelism

μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχὴν –

῾Εκπορνεύσασαι – part. aor. act.

part. aor. act. have not kept/preserved their realm

given themselves over to fornication/indulged in sexual immorality

The second part of parallelism

ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον –

ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκός ἑτέρος –

part. aor. act. abandoned their own dwelling/habitation

part. aor. act. have gone after/pursue strange flesh

If the angels’ guilt consisted in violating God’s order by transgressing from the spiritual to the material sphere and abandoning angelic duties, then, in this light, the guilt of Sodom and Gomorrah also consists in transgressing the human sphere and desiring intercourse with Lot’s guests. Lot’s guests, it must be stressed, were angels,261 that is, beings other than human beings, appearing, admittedly, in human shape, but with a qualitatively different/other/strange body,262 which is emphasized, as has been shown, by the adjective ἑτέρος. The situation described in verse 7 would thus be the inversion of that described in verse 6: the angels desired a “strange/other body”, that is, a human body; the inhabitants of Sodom desired “strange/other body/strange flesh”, that is, an angelic body.263 One may, as Dick Lucas suggests,264 have some doubt as to whether the inhabitants of Sodom knew that Lot was hosting angels with him. The warning in TAsh 7: “Become not, my children, as Sodom, which knew not the angels of the Lord, and perished for ever” seems to contradict this. It must be remembered, however, that

261 R. Bauckham, Jesus and the Relatives, p. 187; Idem, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 54. J.D.N., Kelly, A Commentary, p. 258. 262 K.H. Schelkle, Die Petrusbriefe, p. 155; there have also been suggestions that a qualitatively different body means the body of animals, and that the sin of the inhabitants of Sodom would consist in intercourse with animals – see M.A. Kruger, ΤΟΥΤΟΙΣ, p. 126. 263 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 54; J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 259; J. Painter, D.A. de Silva, James and Jude, p. 371; D.R. Nienhuis, Not by Paul Alone: The Formation of the Catholic Epistle Collection and the Christian Canon, Waco 2007, p. 340. 264 D. Lucas, The Message, p. 139–140.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

155

156

Structural commentary

the narrator of Jude does not reconstruct the state of consciousness of the inhabitants of Pentapolis, but appeals to the knowledge of the whole tradition, including the angelic motif. Thus, he assumes that the recipients of the letter know perfectly well (cf. verse 5a) that angels came to Lot and that they became the object of desire for the inhabitants of Sodom. Jude, similarly to the other biblical and extra-biblical writers mentioned above, obviously adapts this tradition for his own theological and parenetic purposes,265 so he uses certain abbreviations and/or extensions. In analysing verse 6, it has already been stated that the transgression of the angels is seen through the prism of the social order of the time, the maintenance of which and the observance of the obligations arising from it constituted one of the highest values. The same background can also be seen here: the inhabitants of Sodom wanted to violate the divine order, which had to be met with severe consequences. The more so because the act of transgression was related both to the angels and with the inhabitants of Sodom with the abandonment of duties related to belonging to a certain sphere. The angels abandoned the prayer and guardianship functions which they performed in heaven; the inhabitants of Sodom ignored the basic commandment related to the earthly sphere: “Be fertile and multiply” (cf. Gen 1:28, 9:1.17), they turned their backs on God as lawgiver, they trampled on “the holy things, mocking in despitefulness” (TLev 14), which the narrator of Jude, as stated, put in the metaphorically used verb έκπορνεύω. It is no coincidence that at the pronouncement of the guilt of the inhabitants of Sodom there is a more explicit sexual component than in verse 6, present both in the verb έκπορνεύω and in the expression άπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκός ἑτέρος “pursuing strange flesh”. Not only does it cast doubt on the possibility of identifying the immediate cause of the rebellion of the inhabitants of Sodom – unrestricted lust transcending the earthly realm – but it also confirms the earlier implication of lust as the immediate cause of the angels’ rebellion. The similarities described above between the angels and the inhabitants of Pentapolis, which are part of the internal similarity in verse 7, are synthesized in the following table:

265 F. Opoku-Giamfi, The Use of Scripture, p. 82.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

Angels

Pentapolis

Failure to keep the realm, [i.e.] abandoning the dwelling place

The promotion of promiscuity/fornication understood as turning away from God, [i.e.] going after other/strange bodies/flesh

Failure to follow God’s order – sexual intercourse with earthly women – unnatural for spiritual beings

Disobeying God’s order – desire of sexual intercourse with spiritual beings – unnatural for humans

Abandonment of prayers and guarding obligations

Abandonment of obligations under the command to reproduce

Lust as a direct cause of rebellion

Lust as a direct cause of rebellion

This juxtaposition shows that the indicative pronoun τούτοις in the expression τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις “in a similar way/similarly” refers to the angels of verse 6. However, grammar makes it possible to refer it also to verse 4 and “certain men” τινες ἄνθρωποι, as does the pronoun οὗτοι in verse 8.10.12.14.16 and 19.266 This would mean that the images in verse 6 and 7 illustrate the rebellious, punishable conduct of intruders who have sneaked into the community, which of course is confirmed in verse 8, but the formal – pronominal – connection between verse 4 and 8 would already appear in verse 7. By attributing the sins of the angels and the inhabitants of Pentapolis to the false teachers, the narrator of Jude would be continuing here the vituperative convention already begun in verse 4. It is also possible to have a more limited treatment of the references associated with the pronoun τούτοις – to narrow the illustration of the conduct of “certain men” only to the image of verse 7: the inhabitants of Pentapolis would practise and promote fornication, i.e. pursue strange flesh in much the same way as intruders practise and promote fornication, i.e. pursue strange flesh (here perhaps understood metaphorically). What lies behind practicing fornication and pursuing strange flesh in relation to intruders can be determined by lexical parallels to Old Testament literature and Jude 4. Here, then, is a close connection between verse 7 with verse 4. The narrator of Jude, as shown, employs the characteristic procedure of using terminology in the Old Testament traditionally referring to God the Father in relation to Jesus. In verse 7 he also reaches for Old Testament phrases describing apostasy as practicing fornication – ἐκπορνεύω, or going after foreign/other gods – ὀπίσω τῶν θεῶν ἑτερῶν (cf. Exod 34:15–16, Lev 17:7, 20:6, Deut 4:3, 6:14, 8:19, 28:14, Hos 2:7.15). On the basis of verse 4 we can conclude that an element of the apostasy of the false teachers consists in “denying of the Ruler and our Lord Jesus Christ”. The apostasy thus described is further clarified on the basis of the illustration in verse 7 as “going after/pursuing strange flesh”, i.e. an unhealthy fascination with angels. It seems that although the hagiographer himself uses elements of the Judeo-Christian

266 M.A. Kruger, ΤΟΥΤΟΙΣ, p. 127–129.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

157

158

Structural commentary

angelomorphic Christology, he opposes such approaches to Christo-angelology, which have subordinationist tendencies and suggest that Christ as Logos/angel was subordinate to God the Father267 (thus he was not, like the Father, Ruler and Lord). He, therefore, consistently and in various ways shows the equality of Father and Son and the divine identity of Jesus Christ. This was particularly evident in verse 5. Verse 6 emphasized that the abandonment of heaven and the turning away from God by the rebellious angels is in essence an abandonment of the pre-existent Christ and a self-condemnation to His judgement at the end of time. Now, in verse 7, the narrator suggests that it was Jesus who inflicted the punishment on Sodom and Gomorrah and warns that this punishment is only an example and/or a small sample of what awaits the rebels at the eschatological judgement. The last part of verse 7 is a return to the first – external – comparison: the cities of Pentapolis “suffering the punishment of eternal fire” serve as an example of πρόκεινται δεῖγμα πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκην ὑπέχουσαι. Our attention is drawn here to the change of tense to the present (πρόκεινται and ὑπέχουσαι) in relation to previous descriptions maintained in the aorist. This primarily signifies the timeliness of the example (πρόκεινται), but it may also signify the timeliness and permanence of the punishment suffered by the debauched cities (ὑπέχουσαι). The narrator of the Letter of Jude uses the motif of Sodom and Gomorrah not only as a comparison, but also as an “example” – δεῖγμα – that is, a particular literary convention well attested in biblical and extra-biblical texts, especially when giving instructions or warnings. In the same way, the motif of punishment is used, among others, in 3 Macc 2:5: “You consumed with fire and sulphur the men of Sodom who acted arrogantly, who were notorious for their vices; and you made them an example to those who should come afterward”. The point of this use of “example” is that the descriptions of negative behaviour should not only lead the recipients to avoid such behaviour, but should also mobilise them to act in a positive way (cf. also 1 Cor 10:1–13; 2 Tim 3:8–9). This is said, among others, by Plutarch: “we also shall be more eager to observe and imitate the better lives if we are not left without narratives of the blameworthy and the bad” (Demetrius 1:6),268 and Flavius, using formulations reminiscent of Jude’s phrases, argues that such examples serve the good (Bell. Iud. VI 2:1: Καλόν ὑπόδειγμα πρόκειται).269 The convention used thus makes it possible to refer not only to the explicated but also to the implicated behaviour. In the case of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the implied example to follow will obviously be the behaviour of the righteous Lot, saved by God. In the Letter of Jude, the juxtaposition of the figures of Lot

267 See J. Daniélou, Theology, p. 119. 268 Cf. G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 258. 269 Ibid., p. 258.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

and the inhabitants of Pentapolis, however, serves not only ethical purposes. It has a much deeper theological meaning, since it shows, besides the punishment, also the liberating action of God/Jesus: although Sodom was destroyed, Lot was saved (Gen 19:12–23). The pattern already used in verse 5 (God/Jesus saves and judges, destroys) is repeated here, although the repetition is more elliptical – lacking the liberating element, which, however, is easily reconstructed on the basis of knowledge of the narrative and literary convention. Thus, Jude’s main soteriological idea of two perspectives of salvation is also accentuated at the level of literary convention. Despite the use of exemplum, the narrator of Jude does not explicate what the example actually refers to, or for whom it is to be an example: πρόκεινται δεῖγμα πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκην ὑπέχουσαι. The grammatical construction does not settle this, since the complement πυρὸς αἰωνίου can be referred both to the noun δεῖγμα – “example of eternal fire”,270 and to the noun δίκη – “punishment of eternal fire”. Most interpreters favour the second variant,271 which seems more natural and open to the possibility of an addition based on Jude 8–10. It therefore overlaps with the open outer comparison: “As Sodom, Gomorrah and the cities around them suffering the punishment of eternal fire are an example”. However, if the noun δεῖγμα is understood not as an example meaning a pattern or illustration, but as a small sample, a foreshadowing of what will happen in the future – as Richard Bauckham points out272 – then variant two is also justified: “As Sodom, Gomorrah and the cities around them suffering punishment constitute a sample of eternal fire”. This means that the punishment suffered by Pentapolis is merely a sample of the eternal fire, i.e. the punishment that will be meted out to sinners at the final judgement. This is not a multiplication or intensification of the eternal fire in the end times, but an expression of the belief that the punishing action of God/Jesus in the past, which only affected Pentapolis (the sample), is a foreshadowing and guarantee of the punishing action of God/Jesus which in the future will affect all creation (including angels, as mentioned in verse 6). It is clear that the phrase “eternal fire” is here simply a synonym for judgement and/or punishment,273 rather than a detailed description of it. In mentioning the punishment meted out to Pentapolis, Jude does not accidentally reach for judicial language. He uses the expression δίκην ὑπέχουσαι, which means both ‘to inflict the punishment’ and ‘to incur the punishment’ (possibly ‘to pay the penalty’).274 Attention has already been drawn to the present tense of the participium ὑπέχουσαι. This probably marks the fact that the punishment is still in 270 271 272 273 274

J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 259. F. Mickiewicz, List św. Judy, p. 92. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 55. See below. G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 259.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

159

160

Structural commentary

progress, so it has neither been mitigated nor revoked, but “is still being inflicted”, and as such is meant to remind the recipient of the final punishment. In writing about the ongoing “punishment” or even “the punishment of eternal fire”, the hagiographer refers to tradition on two levels: first, he refers to texts in which “eternal fire” appears as an element of punishment and/or final judgement, and is thus treated – as has been said – as a synecdoche to judgement/punishment. This reveals a long chain of prophetic, apocalyptic and apostolic traditions using such an image of judgement/punishment (cf. e.g. Deut 32:22, Isa 29:6, 30:27.30, 33:14, 66:15–16.24, Joel 2:3, Nah 1:6, Soph 1:18, 3:8, 4 Macc 12:12, TZeb 10:3, Matt 18:8, 25:41, 2 Thess 1:8, 2 Pet 3:7.10, Rev 9:17–18, 16:8, 20:9), which proves thesis posed in verse 4 that sinners/intruders/apostates were formerly kept for judgement. Secondly, Jude makes an allusion to the common belief at the time that the smoking debris of Pentapolis, which lay south of the Dead Sea, could still be seen. Wis 10:7 tells us that there is still “Where as a testimony to its wickedness, even yet there remain a smoking desert, Plants bearing fruit that never ripens, and the tomb of a disbelieving soul, a standing pillar of salt”. Philo’s description (Mos. II 10:56) is more precise: Therefore on this occasion, as the holy scriptures tell us, thunderbolts fell from heaven, and burnt up those wicked men and their cities; and even to this day there are seen in Syria monuments of the unprecedented destruction that fell upon them, in the ruins, and ashes, and sulphur, and smoke, and dusky flame which still is sent up from the ground as of a fire smouldering beneath (cf. also De Abrahamo 27:141 and Josephus Flavius, Bell. Iud. IV 8:4).275

The actuality of this view, and at the same time the example and reminder of the final judgement, is reinforced by the verb πρόκεινται in ind. praes. med./pass. On this image can be superimposed the Enochean tradition, which is close to Jude, according to which the prison of rebellious angels is located in that place where smoke can be seen and where the smell of sulphur rises. 1 En 21:7.10 presents the hero’s account: “I saw a horrible thing: a great fire there which burnt and blazed, and the place was cleft as far as the abyss, being full of great descending columns of fire. […] This place is the prison of the angels, and here they will be imprisoned for ever”, which is developed in 1 En 67:4–8: And He will imprison those angels, who have shown unrighteousness, in that burning valley […] I saw that valley in which there was a great convulsion and a convulsion of the waters. […] there was produced a smell of sulphur, and it was connected with those

275 Ibid., p. 258.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

waters, and that valley of the angels who had led astray (mankind) burned beneath that land. And through its valleys proceed streams of fire, where these angels are punished who had led astray those who dwell upon the earth. […] their spirit is full of lust, that they may be punished in their body, for they have denied the Lord of Spirits (cf. also Origen, Contra Celsum 5:52).276

The reference to the tradition of the fire still persisting after the destruction of Pentapolis and the fire burning in the present prison of the angels allows us to think that the “eternity” of the fire in verse 7 has a similar – limited – meaning as “eternity” in verse 6. In essence, eternity thus means permanence, the persistence in the present of a state created in the past. This state is meant to be a foreshadowing of future judgement, so the angels are preserved “for judgement”, and the “punishment of eternal fire” is an “example” (and/or sample, foreshadowing) of what (judgement/ punishment) will happen in the end times. In these examples, the narrator of Jude combines three aspects of salvation history: the past, by referring to events that took place at the beginning of salvation history; the present,277 by describing the present situation of the angels and the still lingering reminder of the punishment that befell Pentapolis; and finally, the future, by showing the eschatological judgement as the goal of the lingering present situation. He thus develops what is expressed briefly in verse 4 as “long ago designated for this judgement”. This “long ago designated” is at the same time proof that a judicial aspect is inscribed in the revelation of God’s salvific acts from the beginning, and that judgement was, is, and ultimately will be realized through Jesus Christ. 2.5.2

Part b. Reference to the situation of the recipients (Jude 8–13)

2.5.2.1 Triplet part 1 α. Behaviour of intruders (verse 8) β. Reference to Jewish tradition (verse 9) 8

Nevertheless, likewise, these dreamers/dreaming defile the flesh, are unfaithful to/reject authority, and blaspheme/slander the glories/speak evil of dignities, 9 and the archangel Michael, when contending/arguing with the devil [bringing a case] about the body of

276 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 55. 277 R.L. Webb, The Eschatology, p. 149 argues that although Jude refers both to the past and to the future, his main emphasis is on the present – he is not so much concerned with punishment as with accusation, with exposing the intruders as rebels against God, with showing their guilt – hence the extended examples in verse 6 and 7.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

161

162

Structural commentary

Moses, dared not bring the judgment of blasphemy/over blasphemy, but said, May the Lord rebuke/punish you.

After describing the guilt of the angels, of the inhabitants of Pentapolis, and emphasizing that the announcement of the judgement that Jesus Christ will make at the end of time is already inscribed in the beginning of salvation history, the narrator of Jude moves on to the current situation of the recipients in order to show the analogies between the behaviour of the intruders and the conduct that had already led to judgement. More clearly than in verse 7 he returns to the vituperatio begun in verse 4 – this time expressis verbis he accuses the false teachers of reprehensible behaviour – verse 8.10.12a–c. He regularly intertwines these accusations with references to Old Testament and intertestamental literature, thus creating a triplet based on a parallel structure: 1. α. behaviour of intruders (verse 8), β. reference to Jewish tradition (verse 9), 2. α’. behaviour of intruders (verse 10), β’. reference to Jewish tradition (verse 11), 3. α’’. behaviour of intruders (verses 12a–c), β’’. reference to the traditional metaphor (verses 12d–13). Verse 8 stands between two sets of examples – between verses 6–7, which formed the first set, and between verse 9, which begins another set.278 Thus, on the one hand, Jude 8 is a complement to verse 6–7; on the other, it is explained and interpreted by verse 9. As noted in the analysis of verse 7, Jude 8 is a formal completion of the open-ended, external comparison begun with the comparative pronoun/paraphrase ὡς: “As Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them… serve as an example… likewise these dreamers/having visions in their sleep”. The connection between Jude 7 and Jude 8 is strengthened by the adverb ὁμοίως ‘likewise’.279 The question remains, what is this similarity about? Usually, the similarity between the immoral behaviour of the inhabitants of Pentapolis and the false teachers is pointed out: both would engage in licentiousness and defile their bodies. However, the description of the behaviour of the false teachers in verse 8 is richer than the indication of the guilt of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah in verse 7. Would this mean that the inhabitants of Pentapolis are also to be blamed for their dreamlike visions, rejection of authorities and blasphemy of the glories, and the

278 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 172. 279 M.A. Kruger, ΤΟΥΤΟΙΣ, p. 127; cf. also the possible connection between οὗτοι of verse 8 and τούτοις of verse 7, described above.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

false teachers for the sins of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. This is of course not out of the question,280 but it seems that the narrator of Jude distributes the emphasis differently. It is primarily to emphasize the inevitability of punishment. The similarity between Jude 7 and Jude 8 should therefore be read as follows: “As Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them are an example” that transgressing God’s order means being condemned to judgement, “Likewise, these dreaming, defiling the flesh, rejecting authority/rule, blaspheming/slandering glories” will surely be judged. The same thesis is, moreover, put forward in verse 6. Thus, it may be said that verse 8 refers to both these examples. A certain problem may arise from the fact that verse 8 lacks a formal addition concerning the court. However, it is found in verse 9, which shows the validity of the assumption that verse 8 shows cohesion and coherence with verse 7, while with verse 9 it is linked primarily by typological coherence. Jude 8 can therefore be regarded as a kind of transition, a shift from examples which emphasised the historical element (verses 6–7) to examples in which the current situation of the community is commented on and interpreted by elements drawn from tradition.281 Formally, Jude 8 also connects in a referential way with verse 4. While verse 4 described “certain men” τινες ἄνθρωποι, verse 8 refers to them by means of the indicative pronoun οὗτοι and specifies their conduct and teaching by retaining a similar triple arrangement of accusations: Verse 4

Verse 8

Ungodly

Body defilement

Perverting the grace into licentiousness

Rejection of authorities

Denying the only Master and Lord

Blaspheming glories

Before specific accusations are made, Jude points out the substrate of the false teachers’ behaviour – dreams. He calls false teachers “having dream visions” ἐνυ-

280 See D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 376, who notes parallels between the triad of sins of the false teachers in verse 8 and the sins of the inhabitants of Pentapolis, which he also arranges into a triad, although the text does not explicate this. The impurity of the flesh in verse 8 would thus correspond to the sexual perversions at Pentapolis, the rejection of authority to the implicit rejection of God’s commandments, the blasphemies against glories to the implied lack of respect towards the angels who came to Lot. 281 See G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 261, who argues that it is examples taken from tradition that are commented on by means of references to the present; thus he assumes a sequence: example from tradition – actualization, while R.L. Webb links three verses, 8, 9 and 10, showing that they form a concentric structure with the mention of God’s judgement in verse 9. In the centre; R.L. Webb, Use of “Story” in the Letter of Jude: Rhetorical Strategies of Jude’s Narrative Episodes, JSNT 31 (2008), no. 1, p. 58, fn. 14.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

163

164

Structural commentary

πνιαζόμενοι. This part. has sometimes been translated as “those who have sinful

erotic dreams” (thus, e.g., verse 8a was interpreted by John Calvin in connection with 8b and defiling the flesh)282 perhaps – in connection with verse 7 – referring to angels as undergoing hypnosis,283 or simply as “dreamers”. The source of the meaning of ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι, however, must be sought primarily in the Old Testament, since even in Acts 2:17, the only place outside Jude 8 in the New Testament where this part. occurs, a text from Joel 2:28 is quoted (LXX – Joel 3:1). The verb ἐνυπνιάζομαι itself is neutral; it acquires a positive or negative meaning only in context. Valued positively, it denotes in the Old Testament and intertestamental literature a prophetic vision, a warning sent by God during a dream, in other words, a form of communication from God to man and/or revelation284 (Gen 37:5, 40:5, Num 12:6, 1 Sam 28:6, 1 Kings 3:5, Dan 2:1, Joel 2:28 [LXX – Joel 3:1], Acts 2:17, 1 En 85:1). Just as often in the LXX, however, it is valued negatively (Deut 13:1.3.5, Jer 23:25.28, 29:8, cf. Jer 23:32, Zech 10:2). The same negative valuation is found in 1 En 99:8: “And they shall become godless by reason of the folly of their hearts […] and through visions in their dreams”. In New Testament narrative texts, visions during sleep generally have a positive meaning (Matt 1:20, 2:12–13.19–22, Acts 16:9–10, 18:9). It seems, therefore, that the author of Jude, in negatively judging “certain men” as “having dream visions”, was drawing on the Enochean and Old Testament tradition rather than that of the New Testament.285 The ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι themselves viewed their dreams quite differently. For them it was an individual, personal revelation given to them in a dream by God, which is of greater value than “the faith once all handed down to the saints” (Jude 3; cf. 2 Thess 2:2.5.15, 2 Cor 12:1–3, Col 2:18). This revelation became, first, the basis for their practices and teachings described in Jude 8b and 8c and the justification for the full superiority of attitude resulting from the supposed election, which even led to exaltation above the angels, as the conclusion of verse 8 implies. Superiority also results in a certain authoritarianism and an attempt to impose one’s own point of view on others (cf. Jude 11–13).286 The incompatibility of individual revelation with the revelation deposited by the community of saints leads the false teachers to question the latter rather than to correct the former. It is likely that this attitude of the false teachers was based on the belief that dreams are a form of divine revelation and communication between God/gods and humans that was accepted universally both in Judaism, especially in its apocalyptic current, and in early Christianity

282 283 284 285 286

P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 172. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 55. P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 172; N. Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, p. 437. P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 172. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 56; D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 377.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

and even in pagan cults.287 The fundamental error of the teachers relying on their own oneiric visions was not even so much false teaching as the rejection of the possibility of correcting it on the basis of “the faith handed down to the saints” (cf. Sir 34:1–7),288 of which the community was the depositary. In this way, the narrator sensitizes the recipients to verify every teaching proclaimed by false teachers as coming from God with accepted revelation. This would be one of the basic elements of the struggle for faith. Not so much a struggle against false teachers, but a struggle for the purity and completeness of the “faith once for all handed down to the saints” (cf. Jude 5a). Jude therefore accuses false teachers of actions based on their private revelation, incompatible with “the faith once for all handed down to the saints”. This is, in his conception, a transgression of the divine order contained in true revelation, and therefore a transgression – just as the transgression of the divine order by the angels and the inhabitants of Pentapolis earlier. Hence already at the beginning of this verse the introduction of an additional exponent of comparison: ὁμοίως ‘likewise’. The hagiographer then enumerates in what this false revelation leading to transgression would manifest itself. It should be noted that the part. praes. ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι is the subject for all three of the following judgements, which are also used in the present tense: σάρκα μὲν μιαίνουσιν ‘defile the flesh’, κυριότητα δὲ ἀθετοῦσιν ‘reject authority’, and δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν ‘blaspheme the glories’. Each of the judgements is preceded by a participle; the verb they defile is preceded by the participle μέν, while the verb ἀθετοῦσιν they reject and the verb βλασφημοῦσιν they blaspheme are preceded by the particles δὲ… δέ. This may mean that the first of the verbs, referring to carnality, is somehow balanced by the next two describing the attitude of false teachers to universally recognised authorities.289 This division is slightly different when the structure of the entire poem is considered. The falsity of the revelations, the dream visions (8a), is considered by the narrator of Jude, as it seems at first glance, from a doctrinal perspective (“unfaithfulness to the authority” – 8b) and from a conduct perspective (“defiling the flesh” – 8c). The formulation δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν (8d) would be synthetic – it would cover both aspects: normative and moral. Thus, one sees the same parallel construction that was already employed in verse 6 and 7, where “failure to preserve the realm” meant “leaving one’s dwelling”, while “giving themselves over to fornication”

287 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 56; Bauckham argues that there is no indication that the false teachers should be regarded as any Gnostic group. J.D.N Kelly, A Commentary, p. 261, however, cites the testimony of Epiphanius of Salamina, who claims that this was the practice of some Gnostics (Panarion 26:3). 288 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 173. 289 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 261; F. Opoku-Giamfi, The Use of Scripture, p. 91; H. Paulsen, Der Zweite Petrusbrief, p. 65.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

165

166

Structural commentary

meant “pursuing strange flesh”. Here, “having dream visions” translates into arrogant “blaspheming the glories”.290 This interpretation also allows us to see in verse 8 a certain framework and even chiastic structure: A. ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι “having dream visions” (8a); B. σάρκα μὲν μιαίνουσιν “defile the flesh” (8b); C (B.’) κυριότητα δὲ ἀθετοῦσιν “reject authority” (8c); D (A.’) δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν “blaspheme the glories” (8d). As already mentioned, the details of the main accusations (8a and 8d) are presented using finite verbs. They form a triplet – one of the favourite stylistic devices of the narrator of the Letter of Jude. The triplet begins with the accusation of defiling/ befouling/polluting the body – σάρκα μὲν μιαίνουσιν, in which the moral aspect seems to dominate. A similar expression in The Shepherd of Hermas (Mandate 4.1.9 and Parable 5, 7[60].2) means adultery; in the Sibylline Oracles 2:290, and also in TAsh 4–5, it indicates promiscuity in general. Helpful for the understanding of Jude’s defilement of the flesh may be the Enochean291 literature, where the sin of the angels 1 En 7:1, 9:8, 10:11, 12:4, 15:3.4, cf. also 69:5 is specified in this way.292 In the Book of Jubilees the expression refers both to the sin of angels (Jub 7:20–21) and to the sin of sodomites (Jub 16:5–6); it is also strongly emphasised that it was these two that gave rise to all uncleanness. It seems that Jude treats the examples cited in verse 6–7 in the same way as the source and as the archetype of the sin of false teachers who, like angels and sodomites, succumb to a desire that leads them to transgress God’s established order, including its moral order,293 and consequently to a rejection of God’s authority and will as communicated in revelation (faith). The intruders who appeared in the community of the recipients of Jude’s Letter probably behaved quite freely in terms of morality (cf. Jude 16 and 17).294 They justified this by referring to their own understanding of “grace”, probably received in “a dream vision”, as already indicated in verse 4: “they perverted the grace into licentiousness”. This is further reinforced by the social conditions associated with chastity and impurity. As David de Silva notes, in the ancient world chastity/or impurity also determined belonging to a community, drew boundaries between

290 See below for a summary of verse 8. 291 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 265 argues that Jude’s understanding of “the defilement of bodies” is also related to ritual impurity described in the LXX by the same verb μιαίνω (cf. Exod 20:25, Lev 5:3, 11:24, 13:3, Num 5:3, 1 Macc 7:6), which can lead to moral impurity (Gen 34:5). 292 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 57; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 174. 293 Cf. J. Painter, D.A. de Silva, James and Jude, p. 267; D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 377. 294 N. Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, p. 437.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

particular groups, i.e. organised communities.295 Disregard of purity understood in such a way led to blurring of boundaries between groups, violation of the established order. The dissolute behaviour of the intruders is thus perceived transgressively by the narrator of Jude, just like the behaviour of the angels and the inhabitants of Pentapolis.296 The second accusation concerns κυριότητα δὲ ἀθετοῦσιν “rebellion against authority”. What seems crucial here is the understanding of the noun κυριότης, which can lead to extremely different interpretations. Several possibilities are given by Richard Bauckham297 , followed – with more extensive commentary – by Peter H. Davids298 . The reformers, Martin Luther and John Calvin, translating κυριότης as “authority”, interpreted this fragment as rejecting the state authority.299 This would be the only place in the Letter of Jude where a reference to civil authority would appear. However, this seems unlikely, because – as John Norman Davidson Kelly points out – it was not until early Byzantine times that the noun κυριότης acquired such an institutional meaning.300 Jude, therefore, must see authority and dominion in theological and Christological terms, as in verse 4. In antiquity, the reference of κυριότης to the principalities, or angels, was most popular and as such similarly referred to in Col 1:16, Eph 1:21, 1 En 61:10, 2 En 20:1, AscIsa 2:2 and in Stromata (5:11) of Clement of Alexandria, who here refers to the Apocalypse of Zephaniah:301 “And the Spirit of the Lord took me, and brought me up to the fifth heaven, and I beheld angels called Lords”. In these texts, angels are referred to as Lords in the plural. A certain difficulty would therefore be to justify the use of the noun κυριότης in Jude 8c in the singular, although the critical apparatus states that the plural κυριότηται appears in ‫ א‬and Ψ and the Syriac translations, among others. If the plural is used here, then the expression κυριότητας δὲ ἀθετοῦσιν would be synonymous with δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν in the following accusation.302 It seems most reasonable, however, to refer κυριότης to the reign of Jesus Christ, who is called Lord in verse 4. The expression κυριότητα δὲ ἀθετοῦσιν would thus 295 296 297 298 299

J. Painter, D.A. de Silva, James and Jude, p. 243. G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 265. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 57–58. P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 175–177. “Their [false teachers’] third characteristic is, that they will not be subject to civil authority. Yet we have been taught, while we live on earth, that we are all under obligation; that we are to be subject and obedient to the sovereignty; for the Christian faith does not do away with civil rule, therefore no one can except himself from it”, writes M. Luther in his The Epistles, p. 10. 300 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 262. 301 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 57; P. H. Davids, The Letters, p. 175, G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 268. 302 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 57.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

167

168

Structural commentary

be synonymous with the rejection of the lordship of Jesus in verse 4 (τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι). This is confirmed in

early Christian literature. The Didache 4 indicates that the proclamation of the word of God actually means the proclamation of the lordship of Jesus, which can even be regarded as a criterion for the truthfulness of doctrine about “him that speaks to you the word of God remember night and day; and you shall honour him as the Lord; for in the place whence lordly rule is uttered, there is the Lord”. Hermas in Shepherd (Parable 5, 6[59]:1.3) emphasizes that “the Son of God is not represented in the guise of a servant, but is represented in great power and lordship […] He is Himself Lord of the people, having received all power from His Father”. Jude therefore condemns those who oppose the lordship of Christ. This could already be seen in verse 7, which implied opposition to subordinationist tendencies and metaphorically called them fornication, or apostasy. Now the thought is formulated more clearly.303 In fact, this is how this passage from the Letter of Jude was understood by some fathers, including Andrew (seventh/eighth century), who, seeing in the intruders from Jude the precursors of the heresies of Manes and Arius, writes in Catena that, the false teachers “[accept] the Father as the eternal and uncreated One but [reduce] the Son and the Holy Spirit to the status of creatures made in time. [This] […] explains why the apostle express himself so sharply against them”.304 The very idea of creating commentaries of the catena type leads one to suppose that the identification of doctrinal elements in Jude’s criticism of the false teachers comes from earlier times, perhaps even from the fourth to fifth century. As the noun κυριότης connects Jude 8c with Jude 4, so the verb ἀθετοῦσιν connects this verse with Jude 6–7. The lexeme ἀθετέω in the LXX occurs as many as 60 times,305 and in many places is equivalent to Hebrew – ‫‘ פשע‬to rebel’ or – ‫‘ בגד‬to cheat, betray, be unfaithful’.306 Rebellion is obviously associated with angels, betrayal and unfaithfulness with the inhabitants of Pentapolis, but, as noted, unfaithfulness also has connotations of apostasy (cf. ἐκπορνεύω in verse 7). A doctrinal factor is thus evident in the term: rebellion against the recognition of the lordship of Jesus Christ is interpreted as apostasy, as evidenced by the similarity of lexis with e.g. Jer 3:20 in the LXX:307 “Indeed, as a woman is faithless [ἀθετεί] toward her mate, so the house of Israel was faithless [ἠθέτησεν] toward me, says the Lord”.

303 Cf. Ibid., p. 57, who argues that there is no doctrinal (Christological) element here. 304 Andrew, Catena, [in:] Catena in Epistolas Catholicas, ed. J.A. Cramer, Oxford 1840, p. 158 as cited in: James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude, ed. G. Bray (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture 11), Downers Grove 2019, p. 251–252. 305 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 268. 306 Ibid., p. 268. 307 Ibid., p. 268.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

As in Old Testament apostasy or turning away from God manifests itself in breaking His commandments. The same idea also appears in Jude 8 b–c, where, as has been said, the active element (action), that is, leading a debauched life, is combined with the doctrinal element, the failure to acknowledge the authority of Jesus.308 And since the lordship of Jesus also implies his judicial authority,309 the apostasy of the false teachers consists in denying the existence of a juridical element in soteriology. Emphasizing only grace and living as if there were no judgement thus corresponds to what was said about intruders already in verse 4: “perverting the grace of God for licentiousness and denying our only Ruler and Lord Jesus Christ”. The final accusation in verse 8 is that of “blaspheming the glories” δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν (8d). The verb βλασφημέω in Hellenistic ancient literature and in Jewish and early Christian literature usually meant slander, defamation of a deity (cf. Matt 9:3, 26:65, Acts 19:37, Rom 2:24), but it can also be applied to slander against humans (1 Pet 4:4, Rom 3:8, Titus 3:2) or against supernatural beings (2 Pet 2:10–12, dependent on Jude 8–9). Such verbal defamation, especially in public, directed both against divine beings and against human beings, was seen as a crime and often led to legal proceedings310 (cf. this aspect of blasphemy is emphasized in verse 9). The directions of interpretation of Jude 8d are determined by the semantic field of the plural noun ‘glory’ δόξαι.311 Most commonly, based on the analogy of 2 Pet 2:10–11, it is assumed that “glories” means angels312 (cf. the rare angelological use of δόξαι ‘glories’ in Exod 15:11 [LXX]). This designation of angels seems characteristic of intertestamental apocalyptic literature, as it appears in 2 En 22:7.10 and AscIsa 9:32–33 (cf. also 1QH 18[10]:8; 11Q5[11QPsa ] 22:13).313 Also, Philo explains that by the “glories” he means “the powers which attend thee as thy guards” (Special Laws I 8:45).314 Δόξαι would in this case have to be regarded as a synecdoche rooted in the belief that angels are the bearers and reflectors of God’s glory315 (cf. TJud 25 with the phrase “the powers of glory”; TLev 18 where the phrase “the angels of the glory of the presence of the Lord” appears; and Heb 9:5; Rev 18:1). This conviction is of course rooted in the Old Testament, e.g. Ezek 9:3, 10:4.18, which describes 308 Slightly different is R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 57, who argues that there is no doctrinal (Christological) element here. 309 See above. 310 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 186. 311 F. Mickiewicz, List św. Judy, p. 95–96. 312 So, among others, M. Green, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 182; J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 263, R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 37; K.H. Schelkle, Die Petrusbriefe, p. 157; D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 378; see also. E. Szewc, Chwały w listach Judy i Piotra, “Collectanea Theologica” 46 (1976), no. 3, p. 53–54. 313 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 207. 314 Cf. J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 263. 315 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 57.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

169

170

Structural commentary

cherubim above which the glory of the Lord hovers (cf. Exod 24:26, 33:18–23, Ps 19:1).316 This passage is also interpreted in angelological terms by Clement of Alexandria in his commentary on the Letter of Jude: “They speak evil of majesty, that is, of the angels” (Comments on the Epistle of Jude).317 With the angelological interpretation of “glories”, several interpretations are usually accepted to clarify the expression “blaspheming the glories”. One of the most popular explanations simply refers to the denial of the existence of angels. This explanation is usually rejected as unlikely primarily for lexical reasons.318 The verb βλασφημέω means ‘to offend’, ‘to say offensive things’, ‘to embarrass’, even ‘to mock’, but not ‘to deny the existence’ or negate’.319 However, this is a possible explanation on theological grounds. Since the narrator of Jude often refers to angelological motifs, including angelomorphic Christology, from his perspective, ridiculing, mocking the angels as God’s messengers leading to the negation of their role in revelation, and thus to the questioning of the sense of their existence would be one of the most offensive forms of humiliation and disgrace. Moreover, hidden here may be a conviction not so much or not only of blasphemy against the angels, but above all a negation of the role of the Logos/Christ as archangel, i.e. exercising God-like authority over the angels.320 This would connect with Jude 4 and 8c and the broad understanding of Jesus’ authority/reign. Another interpretation is based on exposing the antinomianism of false teachers, and thus rejecting the role of angels in the transmission of the law to men.321 According to Jewish tradition, the law of Moses was transmitted through angels: And [God] said to the angel of the presence: Write for Moses from the beginning of creation till My sanctuary has been built among them for all eternity. And the Lord will appear to the eyes of all […] And the angel of the presence who went before the camp of Israel took the tables of the divisions of the years – from the time of the creation – of the law […] from the day of the [new] creation when the heavens and the earth shall be renewed and all their creation according to the powers of the heaven, and according to all the creation of the earth, until the sanctuary of the Lord shall be made in Jerusalem on Mount Zion (Jub 1:26–28, cf. Acts 7:38.53, Gal 3:19; Heb 2:2).

316 317 318 319 320 321

G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 268; J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 263. Cf. G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 269. Ibid., p. 269. P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 179. See above. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 58–59; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 180; D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 378.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

The early Christian tradition even identifies this law with the Son of God; and the angel Michael watches over its knowledge and observance:322 […] the law of God which was given to the whole world; and this law is the Son of God preached unto the ends of the earth. […] the great and glorious angel is Michael, who hath the power over this people and is their captain. For this is he that putteth the law into the hearts of the believers (The Shepherd, Parable 8, 3[69]:2–3).

Two elements are worth noting here. First, in the intertestamental apocalyptic tradition, the law given to Moses is understood more broadly than the Torah. The Book of Jubilees just quoted suggests that it covered the whole of revelation: from the time of creation to the end times. Secondly, in the early Christian apocalyptic tradition, it is Jesus, the Son of God, who is identified with the law-revelation and thus stands at the centre of that revelation. To blaspheme the angels in this context would be to mock not only the angels as mediators of the law, but also the law as the revelation speaking of Christ himself. The derision of revelation would manifest itself in transgressing God’s commandments and thus God’s order, i.e. in leading a promiscuous lifestyle (Jude 8b), and furthermore in rejecting the important judgement aspect of this revelation and focusing only on the liberating aspect of revelation (Jude 8c, cf. Rom 8:33–39, Col 2:14–23).323 It can thus be seen that verse 8d, suggesting the interpretation of “blaspheming the glories” as “blaspheming the angels” who communicate the law, i.e. Christ, actually synthesizes the previously mentioned moral elements in verse 8b and the doctrinal elements in verse 8c. It is also possible to see a connection between Jude’s “blaspheming the glories” and the situation described in verse 9, where βλασφημία ‘blasphemy’ is mentioned, but the recipient of this blasphemy – at least at first glance – is the devil.324 It is unlikely that the narrator in verse 8d has the same recipients in mind, primarily because in no Jewish or early Christian writings does the term δόξα ‘glory’ refer to

322 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 58, sees here connections with 1 Cor 11:10 and Paul’s recommendation to behave decently in the assembly for the sake of the angels. Indecent behaviour (according to Jude 8 – fornication, defiling of the flesh) would offend the angels (according to Jude 8 it would blaspheme the angels) as those who watch over the moral order. 323 Ibid., p. 58 points out that such an interpretation would presuppose a false understanding of Christian freedom mentioned by the apostle Paul. It would mean that the false teachers described in Jude know but misrepresent Paul’s theology, which in fact declares the law to be holy, just and good (Rom 7:12). Commenting on Bauckham’s views, P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 180–182 insists, however, that the narrator of Jude nowhere explicitly refers to the law and does not use phrases typical of Paul, so it is difficult to establish definitely any relationship between Pauline theology and the Epistle of Jude. 324 See G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 269; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 57; J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 263; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 177; see below for an analysis in verse 9.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

171

172

Structural commentary

demonic beings or forces. The only explanation would be to regard the term ‘glory’ as ironic and to understand the whole expression as sarcasm: “they blaspheme [their] glories”, that is, they “scorn, they despise [even] demonic forces [which should be an authority for them]”.325 In other words, there is nothing sacred for them. It would then also be possible to link verse 8d with verse 6, although this seems rather convoluted and risky. The fallen angels (and their offspring), who have become demons, are for the false teachers a model of conduct, an authority to be revered and respected. Blasphemy against them presupposes that their conduct becomes an object of derision, and the cause of this derision could be that the false teachers themselves act even worse than the fallen angels. The fallen angels thus cease to be an authority for them.326 On the other hand, the humiliation of demonic beings/forces should meet with the approval of the narrator of the Letter of Jude rather than with criticism and condemnation.327 An interesting suggestion is made by Douglas J. Moo, who in the context of verse 8d recalls the text of Acts 19:13–16. False teachers would perhaps be making the same mistake as the Jewish exorcists who did not believe in the power of Jesus but invoked him when they tried to free people from the influence of demons. To reject the power of Jesus while practising exorcism would in fact be to mock the demons who know Jesus well and experience his power. In this way, Jude 8d would stand in contrast to the scene in Jude 9, which actually resembles an exorcism: the devil, with whom Michael is arguing, relents when the archangel invokes the name of the Lord having authority to punish the devil.328 The commonly accepted angelological understanding of “glory” and criticism of blasphemy have sometimes been linked to (pre)Gnostic ideas. According to the Adversus Haereses (I 23:2–3.5; 24; 25:1) of Irenaeus of Lyons, certain groups of Gnostics (mainly followers of Simon Magus, Saturninus and Basilides) despised angels, seeing them as creatures of one of the archons and/or demiurges who shaped and rule the ailing universe.329 However, there is insufficient indication to identify the false teachers with any Gnostic group, since one of the basic Gnostic elements, dualism,330 is absent from their teaching as characterised by Jude.

325 Cf. 4Q280, 286, 287, which are curses directed against fallen angels, and quotations from these texts in the analysis of verse 9. 326 Cf. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 57. 327 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 179. 328 D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 380, 382. 329 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 263; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 57; see J. Daniélou, Theology, p. 87–90. 330 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 57; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 180.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

The most general331 but also the most convincing, assuming that the “glories” refer to angels, seems to be the explanation of the blasphemy by the false teachers’ arrogance implied already in verse 8a: the conviction of their own uniqueness and election by God, which is supposed to be confirmed by the dream visions, causes people to exalt themselves even above the angelic beings. Richard Bauckham332 further elaborates that this contempt for angels could be based on the conviction of false teachers that, unlike angels, they have the right and the competence to cross the boundaries between the material world and the spiritual world. As liberated from the dominion of sin, they consider themselves “holy”, who not only are not subject to judgement, but even have the right to judge angels themselves (1 Cor 6:3). It should be added, however, that other New Testament texts suggest the existence of the opposite tendency in early Christianity – an excessive veneration for angelic beings (Col 2:18, Rev 19:10, 22:8) rather than discrediting them. In addition to angelological interpretations of the noun “glory”, there are also arguments that allow us to relate the term to people. In the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, chosen people, famous people, dignitaries, authorities are referred to as ‫( נכבד‬cf. Gen 34:19, Num 22:15, Ps 149:8, Isa 3:5, 23:8, 43:4, 49:5, Nah 3:10, similarly in the Qumran literature – 1QM 14:11, 1QpHab 4:2, 4QpNah 2:9, 3:9, 4:4333 ). This form is not coincidentally associated with ‫“ יהוה כבוד‬glory of the Lord”, since both terms are derivations of the verb ‫ כבד‬to be momentous, honoured. In verse 8d Jude could have gone directly to the Hebrew text and translated the term ‫ נכבד‬as δόξα, giving it the same meaning it had in the source text. This would not be unusual. Jude does likewise in verse 11.12.13 or 23, when he refers to imagery present only in the Hebrew Old Testament,334 which the LXX does not reconstruct. Perhaps the translation of ‫ נכבד‬as ἐντιμος or ἐνδοξος – present in the LXX335 – seemed too weak to be used in conjunction with the verb βλασφημέω, which implies mockery of divine authority and order. It should be added that in Hellenistic literature one can also find texts in which dignitaries or superiors are referred to as “glories” (e.g. Diodorus of Sicily in his Bibliotheka Historica XV 58:1, calls eminent citizens in this way:336 “certain demagogues instigated the populace against the outstanding citizens” [glories]). The Greeks further believed that both noble birth and the

331 332 333 334 335

See G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 271. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 58. Ibid., p. 57. See Above – Introduction and below for a detailed analysis of the poems mentioned. The LXX does not use the term δόξα in relation to people; see R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 57; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 179; JDN Kelly, A Commentary, p. 262. 336 After G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 269. This way of interpretation is also followed by M. Luther, The Epistles, who semantically links “glory” with “dominion” and both refer to civil authority, translating Jude 8c–d: “Who despise government, and speak evil of dignities”.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

173

174

Structural commentary

exercise of power were by the will of the deity. Contempt for the chosen of the gods would therefore be a violation not only of social norms but also of the divine order.337 Both premises – the reference to the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek tradition – allow us to assume that Jude’s “glories” in verse 8d refer to persons enjoying special respect and authority in the community of the letter’s recipients. This is reinforced by the confrontation with the content expressed in verse 8a: false teachers who, because of private revelations, consider themselves God’s chosen ones, despise those who enjoy universal respect and through whom the faith, the true, comprehensive revelation, has been handed down to the community once and for all (cf. Jude 3). This would mean that the “glories” in Jude 8d are synonymous with the saints in Jude 3, and thus the term refers to the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and all who guard the truthfulness and completeness of revelation in the Church and, perhaps, the angels who also transmitted and guarded the law/revelation. Since the saints have been chosen by God to transmit and guard the revelation, to mock them is tantamount to opposing God’s will and violating God’s order, replacing God-given authority with one’s own pseudo-authority,338 will and order. In this respect the conduct of the false teachers is similar – ὁμοίως – to that of the rebellious angels and the inhabitants of Pentapolis. The resemblance, as indicated, concerns a certain most general scheme, here technically called violation of the divine order or transgression. The fulfilment of the scheme may vary, although, as it turns out, some elements of fulfilment may be identical or very close to each other. As already noted, verse 8 formally lacks any mention of the judgement that awaits recreants. This judgement is an element reconstructed on the basis of verse 6 and 7 and on the basis of verse 9. The hagiographer devotes the whole of verse 9 in order to emphasise it even more strongly and, more importantly, to show once again the judicial power of Jesus. The main idea here is that the behaviour of the false teachers described in verse 8 deserves to be judged, that goes without saying. But this judgement belongs exclusively to Jesus. Anyone who passes judgement about false teachers will become like those who have violated God’s order in the past and present. Jude illustrates this thesis by pointing to the well-known story of the dispute between the Archangel Michael and the devil over the body of Moses, which becomes the basis for another typology (the first was used in verse 5). The hagiographer again uses the strategy employed in verse 5 – a very delicate marking of the most important points of the story mentioned. To reconstruct the full meaning of the typology, the source narrative must be reconstructed.

337 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 270; J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 263, however, believes that Diodorus, when writing about “glories”, does not mean citizens or dignitaries, but simply a glorious, good public reputation. 338 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 271.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

In Jude 9 the narrator uses characteristic and significant terminology to describe the main characters in a scene taken out of the story of the dispute over the body of Moses. Both the term “devil” διάβολος and the term “archangel” ἀρχάγγελος are relatively late. The former occurs 22 times in the LXX, but only in translations of texts produced after the Babylonian exile, usually as an equivalent of the Hebrew ‫שטן‬, such as in Zech 3:1–5. The latter does not appear in the LXX at all.339 In the Greek text of Dan 10:13 Michael is referred to as “one of the chief rulers” (εἷς τῶν ἀρχόντων τῶν πρωτων), in Dan 12:1 as “the great angel” (ὁ ἄγγελος ὁ μέγας); in Dan 12:1 in Theodotian as “the great ruler” (ὁ ἄρχων ὁ μέγας).340 In the Hebrew text it is “prince” or “great prince” (‫)השר הגדול ;שר‬. In the New Testament, the noun ἀρχάγγελος occurs only here and in 1 Thess 4:16. The very identification of Michael as ἀρχάγγελος thus points to a source that originated in intertestamental times. On the basis of, inter alia, Dan 10:13.21, 1 En 9:1, 20:2–8, 40:9, 54:6, 71:3.8–9.13, 2 En 22:6, Jub 10:7, Testament of Abraham 1:4.6, 10:1, 4 Ba 9:5, 1QM 9:14–15, 17:6–8 and Rev 12:7 it is possible to reconstruct Michael’s functions and tasks, which form the background for Jude 9. In the texts mentioned above, the Archangel Michael appears in the company of other significant angels/archangels – Gabriel, Raphael Phanuel, Uriel, Raguel, Saraqael, Remiel and/or stands at the head of the angels (Latin version AscIsa 3:16, 9:23), rules over humanity and over chaos, over sickness and wounds and as the archangel of justice opens the gates of heaven for the righteous.341 He is distinguished by mercy and patience, which in the context of Jude 9 seems very significant and explains in part his restraint in dealing with Satan. Furthermore, he is the protector and defender of Israel and the adversary of Satan. These last two functions – defender of Israel (Dan 10:13.21) and antagonist of the devil, who executes the judgement of “the Lord of Spirits” on “that great day”, the day of judgement (1 En 54:6) – are strongly accentuated by the narrator of Jude in depicting the (judicial) dispute over the body of Moses. The story of the dispute has no source directly in the Old Testament, but it is possible to identify the texts on which the narrative to which Jude refers was most likely based. The biblical story of the death and burial of Moses is contained in Deut 34:1–9, and the most important information for the references in Jude 9 is found in verse 1–6:342 Moses from Mount Nebo sees the promised land, but does not enter it. He dies in the land of Moabites and is buried there, in some place opposite BethPeor, but no one knows exactly where his grave is. There is no mention either of who buried Moses, or of the devil, or of the Archangel Michael. Although it should be noted that the LXX in Deut 34:6 uses the plural verb θάπτω (καὶ ἔθαψαν αὐτόν 339 340 341 342

P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 183. After G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 282. Ibid., p. 283. P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 183; F. Opoku-Giamfi, The Use of Scripture, p. 88.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

175

176

Structural commentary

“and they buried him”), which may imply that the burial was done by the angels at God’s command.343 This suggestion is confirmed by Philo of Alexandria, who in On the Life of Moses (II 51:291) reproduces the circumstances under which Moses prophesies about his death and burial. Since no one was present at the patriarch’s death, “he was entombed not by mortal hands, but by immortal powers, so that he was not placed in the tomb of his forefathers, having met with particular grace which no man ever saw”. The development in intertestamental literature and explanation of the motif of the burial of Moses described in the LXX therefore seems natural. Since it was done by angels, the next step would be to identify them.344 Moses, despite his falls, is regarded as one of the righteous who had a unique relationship with God: he could see Him face to face. According to 4Ba 9:5, the one who opens the gates of heaven to the righteous is the Archangel Michael, so we can assume that he is also one of the angels present at the death and burial of Moses. It is more difficult to identify the others, although the presence of Samael, who in the Jewish tradition was considered the angel of death, is rather obvious.345 This would mean a broad understanding of the term ‘angel’, including not only spiritual beings faithful to God, but also those who acted against God (cf. Jude 6). In the intertestamental period, the idea of an angel of light, who can be identified with Michael, and an angel of darkness, who has different names, became widespread. They dispute about a person’s belonging to the children of light or to the children of darkness not only after his death but also during his life (cf. TAsh 6, 4Q544:10–11, CD 5:17–18, 1QS 3:18–25, Shepherd, Mandate 6, 2[36]:1).346 From this it can be inferred that the angels present at Moses’ death and burial were in such a dispute as to whether the patriarch was a man of God (a son of light) or rather a sinner and a son of darkness. These depictions and developments in Jude 9 are also overlaid by the content of Zech 3:1–5. It depicts a judicial dispute between Satan and the angel of the Lord.347 It concerns the high priest Joshua, who, although he initially stands before God in filthy garments and looks like a firebrand pulled out of the fire, is given new, clean, festive clothing that symbolises spiritual cleansing, release from guilt.

343 According to the Hebrew text, Moses was buried by God himself. The LXX, avoiding anthropomorphising, describes God’s actions as those of His angels; see R. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives, p. 239–240. 344 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 185. 345 See below for a reconstruction of the Testament of Moses according to R. Bauckham. 346 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 65. 347 Ibid., p. 65; F. Opoku-Giamfi, The Use of Scripture, p. 89; the similarities between Jude 7 and Za 3:1–5 have already been noted by Bede the Venerable in his commentary On Jude; see Bede, In epistulam Iudae, [in:] Patrologiae cursus completes. Series Latina, ed. J.P. Migne, vol. 93, Paris 1860, 93:126, as cited in: James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude, ed. G. Bray, p. 252–253.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

Traditionally, Satan is treated in this judicial setting as an accuser, but modern studies also take into account his function as an enforcer. When an impure person stands before God, he should suffer the supreme penalty, the death penalty (cf. Isa 6:1–13 and Exod 28:43). Satan is supposed to be its executor. However, an angel of the Lord intervenes, a protector, who cleanses and thus saves Joshua.348 This image was most probably transposed into the story of Moses in intertestamental times. It should be added that this transposition coincides with a period when the person of Moses enjoyed great veneration, and the absence of the patriarch’s tomb fostered the development of the tradition of his ascension (cf. Sir 45:2 and Matt 17:1–5, Ant. IV 8:48). The main actors remain the same – Satan, who accuses and wants to enforce the punishment for the guilt presented, and the defender – Michael. Only the person of the defendant changes. In Zech 3, it was the high priest Joshua, who stood before God in disgrace – because he wore a dirty robe; in the tradition related to Moses, it is of course the patriarch himself. Satan believes that after the murder of the Egyptian (Exod 2:12–14), Moses is not worthy to stand before God face to face,349 much less to be in God’s glory. So he does not intend to allow Moses to ascend; he is even prepared to bury him and make the body’s resting place or even the patriarch’s body itself an object of worship.350 In this context, Jude’s “contending about the body of Moses” would pertain to where it was to be: in the glory of God in heaven or in a tomb on earth. Since the Alexandrian Fathers (Origen, Clement of Alexandria and Didymus the Blind) it has been generally accepted that the direct source for Jude 9 is the Assumption of Moses Ἀνάληψις Μωϋσέως (Latin Ascensio or Assumptio Mosis).351 Clement, citing this source, does not, however, cite details, and in his Comments on the Epistle of Jude he is almost as laconic as Jude: “Here he confirms the assumption of Moses. He is here called Michael, who through an angel near to us debated with the devil”. The text of the Assumption of Moses has not survived. However, a sixth-century Latin manuscript from Milan, entitled Testament of Moses Διαθήκη Μωϋσέως (Testamentum Mosis), which is a translation of a text of Palestinian

348 R.E. Stokes, Not over Moses’ Dead Body: Jude 9, 22–24 and the Assumption of Moses in their Early Jewish Context, JSNT 40 (2017), no. 2, p. 203. 349 Ibid., p. 202–203. 350 R. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives, p. 240; the motif of the danger of the cult of Moses is also known to M. Luther: “his body was left concealed, so that the Jews might not regard it with idolatrous veneration, and for this reason the angel Michael must needs oppose the devil, who wished that the body should be discovered, that the Jews might pray to it” (M. Luther, The Epistles). 351 F. Opoku-Giamfi, The Use of Scripture, p. 89; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 277; M. Parchem, Testament Mojżesza, p. 79; J. Muddiman, The Assumption of Moses and the Epistle of Jude, [in:] Moses in Biblical and Extra-Biblical Traditions, ed. A. Graupner, M. Wolter, Berlin–New York 2007, p. 169–180.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

177

178

Structural commentary

provenance from the first half of the first century, has survived, although incompletely (the ending is missing).352 It is from this apocalyptic text, specifically the lost ending, that the narrator of Jude would have drawn the story of the dispute over the body of Moses.353 It is possible that at some point the ending of The Testament of Moses began to function independently under the title of The Assumption of Moses, because it contained slightly different themes than the main part of the work: instead of continuing the Deuteronomistic and apocalyptic vision of history, it told of the death and burial of Moses.354 Such tension, however, seems to be inherent in the genre of intertestamental Testaments. It is enough to mention the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Testament of Abraham, the Testament of Job or, finally, the Testament of Moses itself, which already in 11:5–8 introduces the motif of burial and the unknown grave of the title character: (But now) what place shall receive you Or what shall be the sign that marks (your) sepulcher Or who shall dare to move your body from there as that of a mere man from place to place For all men when they die have according to their age their sepulchers on earth; but your sepulcher is from the rising to the setting sun, and from the south to the confines of the north: all the world is your sepulcher.

The reconstruction of the lost ending of the Testament of Moses on the basis of references to the Assumption of Moses and Mosaic motifs in intertestamental and Christian literature was undertaken by Richard Bauckham.355 On the one hand, he analysed such testimonies as Palaea Historica – a Byzantine collection of narratives based on Old Testament stories, Slavonic Life of Moses, commentaries of Pseudo-Oecumenius, Severus of Antioch, various catenae, on the other hand, he took into account the explanations and commentaries of Clement of Alexandria, Didymus the Blind, On the First Principles by Origen, the Ecclesiastical History by Gelasius of Cyzicus, and the scholia and glosses appearing in the margins of various manuscripts. This allowed him to reconstruct not only the content of The

352 353 354 355

P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 183; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 277. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 67. Id., Jude and the Relatives, p. 237. Id., Jude, 2 Peter, p. 65–76.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

Assumption, but also the early Christian reception of the story of the dispute between Michael and the devil.356 Bauckham begins his reconstruction of the source narrative for Jude 9 by recalling the story of the struggle for power over Moses between an angel and Satan (Mastema). This story appears, among others, in the Book of Jubilees 48. According to the Book of Jubilees, Mastema tries to thwart, or at least hinder, Moses’ mission: he attacks him during his return from the land of the Midian to Egypt (Jub 48:3, cf. Exod 4:24, where, according to the Hebrew text, it is the Lord who “sought to put [Moses] to death” and, according to the LXX, “the angel of the Lord”), helps Egyptian sorcerers discredit Moses’ miracles (Jub 48:9, cf. Exod 7–11), urges the Egyptians to pursue Moses and Israel, which had already left Egypt (Jub 48:12.16–18, cf. Exod 12–14). Mastema’s actions against Moses and Israel are described as “accusation”, which undoubtedly alludes to Satan’s judicial function as accuser (less so as executor, although the desire to kill Moses returning to Egypt may be indicative of execution). ‘Accusing’ thus becomes synonymous with ‘harming’, which corresponds to intertestamental ideas about the role of Satan and his influence on human life. In turn, Mastema’s failures are supposed to cause him to be “put to shame”, but “notwithstanding all (these) signs and wonders the prince Mastêmâ was not put to shame” (cf. Jub 48:12). It is worth mentioning that in Jub 48:15.18 there appears a motif close to the narrator of the Letter of Jude of binding and confining Mastema so that “he might not accuse them he could not accuse the children of Israel”. After the death of Moses, Mastema made a last attempt to take control over the patriarch. And this, according to Richard Bauckham, is what the lost ending of the Testament of Moses deals with. In TMos 10, Moses announces that he will go to where the resting place of his fathers is, which in biblical and peribiblical tradition 356 Id., Jude and the Relatives, p. 243; a reconstruction of the early Christian reception of the dispute allows a narrative that deviates from the one accepted as the source for Jude 9, but takes into account, as it were, two traditions – that of Moses’ burial by angels and that of his ascension. The body of Moses becomes only a pretext for the argument about who is in fact the ruler of the world: Satan or God, which may be an element of Christian anti-Gnostic polemics: “When Moses died on the mountain, God sent the archangel Michael to remove his body to another place and to bury it. But the devil resisted him, and, wishing to deceive, said, ‘The body is mine, for I am the Master of matter’. Michael replied that God is the Master of matter, ‘for from his holy spirit we were created […] The devil is not the rightful lord of the material world, but a rebel who gained his power over humanity when he inspired the serpent to tempt Adam and Eve to sin’. Finally, Michael said, ‘May the Lord rebuke you!,’ thereby appealing to the judgement of the Lord, who is ‘the Lord of the spirits and of all flesh’ (cf. Num 16:22, 27:16 LXX), and therefore Lord of the devil himself and of the material world. [Probably the text went on to tell how] Joshua and Caleb, lifted up by the Spirit into the air, were able to witness the burial and assumption of Moses. Caleb, descending more quickly than Joshua, saw less of this. They saw the angels taking up Moses in two forms: the dead body was honourably buried in a mountain valley, while the spiritual Moses ascended to heaven accompanied by angels”.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

179

180

Structural commentary

means death and/or the burial place between the ancestors. This announcement is met with a violent reaction from Joshua, who has been appointed as Moses’ successor but does not feel prepared to do so. So he multiplies the reasons why Moses should still remain alive. He invokes the authority and reverence widely held by the patriarch. When this does not help, he brings in heavier arguments. He argues that there is no one among the people worthy enough to carry Moses’ body from the place where he will die to the burial place, “the land of their forefathers” (TMos 11). This is a reference to the tradition about Moses being buried by angels as the only ones worthy to bury the body of the great leader. There is also the suggestion that there is no tomb on earth magnificent and magnificent enough to bury the body of Moses. This motif is most likely taken from the Peloponnesian War 2:43 by Thucydides. This is indicated not only by the imagery, but also by phraseology similar to that of Pericles’ speech. Heroes who gave their lives for their homeland receive a fame that will never grow old, and a tomb more magnificent than the one in which their bones are laid; for the tomb of heroes is the whole world, and the memory of them and their achievements crosses territorial borders and is written not on epitaph plates, but in people’s hearts.357 Following the pattern of eulogies, Joshua in the Testament of Moses lists the qualities and merits of the patriarch. He calls him an undefiled and holy spirit, a man of merit before the Lord, shrewd and impenetrable, trustworthy in all things, a divine prophet to the world and an excellent teacher to the earth, a great messenger ready to pray on his knees at any time of day or night, and finally one who could see the face of God and intercede for his people, reminding God of his covenant (TMos 11). The text of the Latin Testament of Moses ends with the patriarch’s speech to Joshua, testifying to the modesty and humility of Moses, who attributes the merits mentioned earlier to the mercy and patience of God, and then goes on to predict Joshua’s leadership and victories (TMos 12). The passage reconstructed by Bauckham speaks of events after Moses’ death. God sends the archangel Michael to move the body of Moses from Mount Nebo to another place and to bury it there with dignity. The burial with honours is opposed by the angel of death – Samael. The text may also have mentioned or suggested that the devil wanted to make the body of Moses an object of worship. A discussion begins over the body of Moses between Samael and Michael. Samael accuses Moses of murdering an Egyptian and burying him in the sand (cf. Exod 2:12–14). This accusation was interpreted as blasphemy against Moses. Although Michael did not tolerate blasphemy, he did not rebuke the slanderer, but said, “May the Lord rebuke

357 See M. Parchem, Testament Mojżesza, p. 99, fn. 135.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

you!” When the devil fled,358 the archangel took the body of Moses and laid it in the place indicated by God. So no one knew where the patriarch was buried.359 Such a funerary reconstruction of the ending of the Testament of Moses, as already mentioned, is not the only variant interpretation of the “dispute over Moses’ body”. If we take into account the widespread tradition about the angelization and/ or ascension of Moses, the dispute about the body concerns not only the present location of the patriarch’s body (in an unknown tomb on earth or in heaven, in the presence of the glory of God), but also the nature of this body – whether it is an ordinary human, earthly body or perhaps a transformed body, as described in the apocalyptic literature and, indirectly, also Zech 3:4–5. This non-funerary, but transformational interpretation of the dispute is advocated, among others, by Ryan E. Stokes.360 He refers to 2 En 22:6–9, which describes the transformation that Enoch had to undergo in order to “stand before […] [face of the Lord] into eternity”, and the role of the Archangel Michael in this transformation: And the archistratege Michael lifted me up, and led me to before the Lord’s face. And the Lord said to his servants tempting them: Let Enoch stand before my face into eternity, and the glorious ones bowed down to the Lord, and said: Let Enochgo according to Your word. And the Lord said to Michael: Go and take Enoch from out of his earthly garments, and anoint him with my sweet ointment, and put him into the garments of My glory. And Michael did thus, as the Lord told him. He anointed me, […]. I looked at myself, and I was like one of his glorious ones.

The transformation is depicted here with the image of a change of garment, as in Zech 3:4–5, the role of the Archangel Michael and the nameless angel of the Lord in the Zechariah text is also comparable. The transformation is necessary so that the hero can “stand before the Lord for eternity”. The robe undoubtedly

358 D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 380 points out that the devil did not flee because he was forced to flee by Michael, but because Michael invoked God’s name, as in exorcism. 359 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 72–73; the same, Id., Jude and Relatives, p. 238–239; F. Opoku-Giamfi, The Use of Scripture, p. 90 stresses that Bauckham’s reconstruction concerns only a general outline of the content, but that no direct correlations, e.g. lexical, can be indicated on its basis. Furthermore, Bauckham relies on texts commenting on and based on Jude 9 and not on sources for Jude 9. 360 R.E. Stokes, Not over Moses’ Dead Body, p. 205–206 does not specify when the dispute over Moses’ body took place, but questions the tradition that it took place after the patriarch’s death. Various scenarios are possible, including one based on Jub 48 – the dispute over Moses’ body takes place when Moses returns from the land of the Midianites to Egypt and is attacked by Mastema. Mastema wants to kill Moses, who murdered an Egyptian and then experienced theophany on Horeb. As a sinner (murderer) he should die immediately. It is also possible that the dispute took place while Moses was on Mount Nebo. According to this scenario, Moses did not die, as the devil would have liked, but was taken up to heaven.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

181

182

Structural commentary

symbolizes the body (cf. also Eph 4:22–24, Col 3:9–10 and the clothing of the new man; AscIsa 9:1–2 and the permission to enter the seventh heaven thanks to the “robe” – transfigured body); the sensual (σῶμα ψυχικόν), earthly, human body must be transformed into a spiritual (σῶμα πνευματικόν) body, the same as that of the Glorious Ones, or angels (cf. 1 Cor 15:44–49). While Michael is willing to help with this transformation, the devil fiercely opposes it. A similar motif is found in the Apocalypse of Abraham 13:3–14. The fallen angel Azazel, in the form of an unclean bird, warns Abraham that if the patriarch ascends to heaven, he will be destroyed by fire. To Abraham’s aid comes the angel Iaoel, who rebukes and shames Azazel and then states that the angelic/ glorious garments that were once forsaken by Azazel will now fall to Abraham, while the sin inscribed in Abraham’s carnality will pass to Azazel.361 God will not allow the bodies of the righteous, whom Abraham represents, to fall into the power of Azazel. This can be read as a promise of angelisation (cf. AscIsa 9:6–9, where “the holy Abel and all the righteous” are deprived of the “garments of the flesh”, but have instead “garments of the upper world”, which make them like angels standing in great glory; such garments according to AscIsa 9:24–26 are also set aside in heaven for those who will keep the word of God and believe in the cross of Christ). This somatic and transformational motif seems interesting also in the context of other passages in the Letter of Jude. It was already outlined in verse 6–7, where the rebellion of the angels was presented, among other things, as the abandonment of nature and the spiritual body by angels who wished to have carnal intercourse with the daughters of men; the sin of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, in turn, was the desire for sexual intercourse with angels possessing a spiritual body. This was part of an arbitrary transgression of God’s established order and boundaries and a partial transformation involving the mingling of natures/bodies. In Jude 9, the devil, by opposing Moses’ being in a sensual body in the presence of God, theoretically upholds God’s order. At the same time, however, he rejects the will of God, who wants the righteous man’s body to be transformed. This, among other things, is where his blasphemy lies: in questioning God’s will for the righteous, whom Moses represents. Satan’s pointing out the guilt(s) of Moses does not allow this righteousness to be seen as sinlessness; rather, it must be understood as faithfulness to God and to one’s calling. God’s will for the righteous is indicated by the narrator of the Letter of Jude already in verse 1, when he calls his recipients “preserved” τετηρεμένοι. Thanks to the reference to the tradition about the body of Moses, the concept of “preservation” acquires a further meaning: in the light of verse 9 the “preservation” in verse 1 implies the possibility of being in the presence of God and the promise of the transformation of the sensual body into a spiritual body. This

361 R.E. Stokes, Not over Moses’ Dead Body, p. 206.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

fits well with the soteriology of Jude. It emphasises the liberating aspect of salvation (transformation; cf. also Jude 23–24), which is highlighted by the juxtaposition with the judicial aspect. The final decision of “preservation”, i.e. the transformation (of the body) of Moses so that he can be in the presence of God, takes place during the court hearing. The judicial/legal rooting of the whole scene is emphasised by the implications of the procedural functions of the accuser, the defender and the judge, and by the lexis appearing in all three segments in. 9: – 9a. ὅτε τῷ διαβόλῳ διακρινόμενος διελέγετο περὶ τοῦ Μωϋσέως σώματος “when arguing with the devil [bringing a case] about the body of Moses”; – 9b. οὐκ ἐτόλμησεν κρίσιν ἐπενεγκεῖν βλασφημίας “did not bring the judgement of blasphemy/over blasphemy”; – 9c. ἀλλὰ εἶπεν, Ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι κύριος “but said, May the Lord rebuke/punish you”. In Jude 9a the judicial atmosphere is created by the verbs διακρίνω and διαλέγομαι. The former in part. praes. m/pass. means not only ‘to dispute’, but – as the example in Polybius The Histories II 22:11 shows – also to deal with someone militarily or to bring a case (before a court), which suggests a much more serious clash between antagonists than a simple quarrel or an ordinary dispute. The sharpness of the dispute is further emphasised by the dative διαβόλῳ ‘devil’, which can be taken as dativus inimicus (dativus of the opponent as a special kind of dativus ethicus). The main verb διαλέγομαι occurring in ind. imperf. – διελέγετο – means to present an argument or evidence, to consider rather than to argue, as in Mark 9:34.362 In Jude 9b this atmosphere is built primarily by the noun κρίσις ‘judgement/ court of law’, partly by the noun βλασφημία ‘blasphemy’, which when uttered in public was considered a crime, and by the verb ἐπιφέρω ‘to bring (a case)’. The latter, although formally it does not belong to the legal-judicial lexis, in the company of other juridical lexemes forms a procedural phraseology (cf. Acts 25:18, where an accusation is brought, similarly in Ant. II 6:7:130; IV 8:23:248; XI 4:9:117 of Josephus Flavius or in The Histories of Polybius V 41:3, XXXVIII 18:2).363 Central to verse 9b is the phrase κρίσις βλασφημίας ‘judgement of blasphemy’, which includes the noun βλασφημία alluding to the verb βλασφημέω used in verse 8d. It seems that, as with e.g. the verb τηρέω, Jude uses this lexeme in different meanings conditioned by different contexts. His play on meanings is sometimes

362 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 284. 363 Ibid., p. 286.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

183

184

Structural commentary

very sophisticated. From the reconstruction of the source narrative for verse 9 shows that ‘blasphemy’ can here be synonymous with ‘slander’ and/or ‘accusation’. The phrase κρίσις βλασφημίας ‘judgement of blasphemy’ – occurs in the New Testament only here and in 2 Pet 2:11, which is most likely dependent on Jude 9. There are two variant translations of this phrase that have their grammatical and semantic justifications. The first treats the genetivus βλασφημίας as genetivus qualitatis or explicativus: “[the archangel Michael] dared not bring [against the devil] the judgement of blasphemy” – that is, a blasphemous judgement364 or a judgement that is blasphemy. Its understanding depends largely on how one interprets the recipient of blasphemy. At first glance, it seems that the recipient of unspeakable blasphemy is the devil, the adversary of Archangel Michael. Such an interpretation fits with the somewhat traditional explanation of this passage. Archangel Michael, despite his function and dignity, did not dare to blaspheme/ accuse another spiritual being – the devil. This would contrast with the conduct of the false teachers who “blaspheme the glories” (verse 8d). Such a translation assumes that the glories mean spiritual beings, whereas, as established above, this is not obvious, and they may also refer to any authority recognised by the community of recipients of the Letter of James, primarily the people identified in verse 3 as “saints”. Although it is difficult to imagine what blasphemy against the devil would consist of,365 on the basis of the Qumran literature we can assume that it would most probably have the character of a curse, the opposite of a blessing: [and they will say: Accur]sed are you, Melki-resha‘, in all the pla[ns of your guilty inclination. May] God [make you] an object of dread at the hand of those exacting vengeance. May God not favour you when you call on him. [May he lift his angry face] upon you for a curse. May there be no peace for you […] [Be cursed,] without a remnant; and be damned, without salvation (4Q280, 2–5).366

In this type of curses there are also elements of accusation because the curse is justified by the intentions and actions of Satan: “Accursed be Belial in his plan of hostility, and may he be damned in his guilty service. And cursed be all the spirits of his lot in their wicked plans, and may they be damned in their plans of foul impurity. For (they are the lot) of darkness, and his visitation will be for the everlasting pit […] damned be all the sons of Belial in all the sins of their

364 Such a translation is advocated by J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 264–265. 365 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 187. 366 F.G. Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. The Qumran Texts in English, transl. W.G.E. Watson, Leiden 1994, p. 286; see also 4Q286, frag. 2. col. 2.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

functions […] And [cursed be … an]gel of the pit and the sp[irit of destruction in all the designs of your [guilty] inclination […] and in your wicked counsel” (4Q286 frag. 7, col. 2:1–8);367 “[And cursed be] all who carry out [their ev]il [designs,] and those who implant wickedness [in their hearts, to plot] [against the covenant of] God and to […] and to alter the precepts [of the law]” (4Q286 frag. 7, col. 2:11–12).368

The “Lord”, referred to in verse 9c, may also be considered the recipient of blasphemy. In this context, the very act of “bringing judgement” would be “blasphemy” against God,369 since the Archangel Michael would have exceeded his authority and entered into the competence of the judge – God. This interpretation seems closer to the intentions of the narrator of the Letter of Jude, who repeatedly emphasizes the judicial authority of the “Lord”, that is, Jesus Christ.370 It is also supported by the perspective of the course of the judicial process, during which each of the participants has strictly defined tasks. In the judicial dispute over the body of Moses, the devil, i.e. Satan (in the reconstructed narrative – Samael) acts as an accuser. Moses stands before the court as the accused. Archangel Michael, according to Jewish tradition, is the defender. Judgement, on the other hand, is passed by the Lord as Judge. By pronouncing/imposing judgement, Archangel Michael would challenge God’s established scope of procedural authority and abandon his defensive function, i.e. he would rebel against God, like the angels described in verse 6. By thus blaspheming God, he would also become similar to the false teachers described in verse 8, who “reject authority” and “blaspheme the glories”. It is worth recalling at this point that the archangel’s name, Michael, is a theophoric name. The rhetorical question contained in it, “Who like God”, implies an unequivocal answer: Nobody. There is no doubt, therefore, that Michael does not want to enter into the competences of the Judge-God. This is confirmed by the verb τολμάω ‘to dare’. It appears 16 times in the New Testament, primarily in the context of the risk of being embarrassed, of losing respect (so, for example, in Matt 22:46, cf. Mark 12:34, Luke 20:40, likewise in Mark 15:43, Phil 1:14). It is very often associated with transgression of established social norms, competence, scope of action (cf. Rom 15:18).371 The verb τολμάω also has a similar meaning here. If Michael dared to make a blasphemous judgement, and the recipient of the blasphemy was the devil – as suggested by the first variant of the translation and its first interpretation – he would not only act as a judge, but also as an accuser, and this function, after all, fell to the devil. From an accuser, the devil would 367 368 369 370 371

Ibid., p. 287. Ibid. F. Mickiewicz, List św. Judy, p. 98. See below for an analysis in 9c. P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 186.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

185

186

Structural commentary

become an accused, deprived of a defender, as Michael could not perform all the judicial functions: accuser, judge and defender. It seems unlikely, therefore, that the narrator of the Letter of Jude, sensitive to the preservation of established order in every sphere, would choose to suggest to his recipients a vision of such great chaos by suggesting that the archangel Michael could assume not only the powers of judge, but also those of accuser. The implication of chaos would also weaken the exposition of the main message of the entire court scene – judgement remains solely in the hands of God. Moreover, if Jude really wanted to strongly emphasize the accusatory element instead of the not entirely harsh expression κρίσις βλασφημίας, he would most likely have used the noun αἰτία ‘accusation, guilt’ (cf. Matt 27:37, Acts 25:18).372 And central to the scene remains the notion of κρίσις ‘judgement, verdict’ as God’s exclusive prerogative. But another translation of the phrase κρίσις βλασφημίας is also possible, in which the genetivus βλασφημίας is treated as a gen. obiectivus “[Archangel Michael] he did not dare to bring a condemnation [against the devil] of slander”.373 This translation assumes, to a greater extent than the previous one, knowledge of the source narrative concerning the dispute over the body of Moses. It also seems simpler and more logical, since it is easy to point out what the blasphemy/accusation consists in – the reminder of the murder committed by Moses, and who is its exponent – the devil.374 Archangel Michael, therefore, did not dare to judge the blasphemy/accusation that the devil directed towards Moses, that is, as already shown, he did not dare to assume the judicial power belonging to the Lord. The translation κρίσις βλασφημίας as “judgement for blasphemy/accusation” also fits well into the context outlined in verse 8. The false teachers blaspheme against the glories, mock and undermine the authorities recognised in the community of the recipients of the Letter of James. They want to take their place and, instead of “the faith once for all handed down to the saints”, introduce teachings based on their dreamlike visions. So it seems natural to want to judge them for this blasphemy. The example of the Archangel Michael becomes an instruction to the faithful not to give in to the temptation to judge intruders and thus to transgress their competence and the order established by God, but to leave judgement precisely in His hand. This thought will be developed further in Jude 22. The whole judgement scene is summed up by the call of the Archangel Michael in verse 9c: ἀλλὰ εἶπεν, Ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι κύριος, which, even more than the narrative, emphasises the fact that Michael does not overstep his authority, does not step out of his role as protector and gives the court back to God. The judicial lexis here may 372 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 287. 373 See The Holy Bible. New Revised Standard Version, New York 1990. 374 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 188; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 63; D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 380; N. Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, p. 439.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

include the verb ἐπιτιμάω ‘to give an order, to give a command, to impose a penalty, to punish, to make accusations, to criticise, to chastise’. In Hellenistic literature – in the Bibliotheka Historica of Diodorus Siculus (Diodorus of Sicily) (III 67:2) and in Josephus Flavius’ Antiquitates (XVIII 4:6:107) it means to impose/mete out punishment; similarly in 3 Macc 2:24 and 1 En 98:5,375 with the context in the latter case even indicating a curse. This meaning confirms the accuracy of the translation of verse 9b with the gen. obiectivus: “he did not dare to pass judgement for blasphemy”, that is, “he did not dare to punish” Satan for blasphemy, but left the imposition of the punishment for blasphemy to God. This clearly indicates the guilt – blasphemy – and the punishment that must be imposed for this guilt. The variant with gen. explicativus: “he did not dare to pass judgement, which is blasphemy”, does not specify what the fault is, for which the devil is to be punished. In both cases, of course, the one who imposes the punishment is the Lord who has the power to judge. It is not known exactly where the narrator of the Letter of Jude took Michael’s words, whether it is a quotation directly from the source text (The Testament of Moses)376 or rather a kind of conventional call that appears in Jewish tradition during court scenes where an angel of light and an angel of darkness are in dispute with each other. The latter assumption seems more likely. Such a tradition would have its origin in Zech 3:2 (LXX),377 where the following words occur: καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρὸς τὸν διάβολον Ἐπιτιμήσαι κύριος ἐν σοί, διάβολε, καὶ ἐπιτιμήσαι κύριος ἐν σοὶ ὁ ἐκλεξάμενος τὴν Ιερουσαλημ “And the Lord said to the slanderer, ‘The

Lord rebuke you, O slanderer! And the Lord who has chosen Ierousalem rebuke you’”. Although uttered by God, this wish for punishment is formulated in the third person singular. A similar phrase, “Shame on you, Azazel”, is also found in ApAbr 13:7–8 from the end of the first century. Here, the context is even more reminiscent of Jude 9, since the dispute is over Abraham’s body, which must be changed before the patriarch can stand before God. It is difficult to suppose that the author of ApAbr also relies on TMos in introducing this scene into his narrative. Rather, he adapts a tradition prevalent in the intertestamental period and tries to meet the apocalyptic convention of the time, to which the description of such a dispute belonged. It seems that the narrator of the Letter of Jude does the same, who does not need to refer directly to TMos in order to quote a phrase typical of apocalyptic court scenes, which is present in the popular consciousness. Of particular importance for Jude’s soteriology and eschatology is the person who will impose punishment on the devil. In the Letter of Jude, the title “Lord”

375 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 288. 376 So, for example, Ibid., p. 287. 377 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 189; D.R. Nienhuis, Not by Paul, p. 363.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

187

188

Structural commentary

refers to Jesus Christ, implying that it is Jesus who will carry out the judgement. The apocalyptic and eschatological rooting of the whole scene allows us to assume that this is about the final judgement. Once again, therefore, the narrator shows the power of Jesus as an eschatological Judge in order to discredit the teaching of those who reject the judicial aspect of salvation. And once again he employs the already tried and tested strategy of transposing images and traditions referring in Judaism to God onto the person of Jesus Christ. It is no accident that the final element of verse 9 appears in optativus aor.: Ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι κύριος: “may the Lord rebuke/punish you”. The wishful form shows the humility of the Archangel Michael and the recognition of the sovereignty of God’s will also towards Satan. The imperative would imply that Michael can command God anything, thus placing the archangel above God (and this would be blasphemy, taking away God’s power to judge, and at the same time denying the identity of Michael, whose name means “Who like God?”). The aorist indicates the conviction that if it is God’s will to inflict punishment on Satan, such punishment will be one-off, but complete. Perhaps it also includes the conviction that such a complete punishment concerns not only the one fault mentioned in the text, i.e. the arrogant blasphemies – accusations against Moses for murder, but it also includes Satan’s earlier actions against the patriarch, which, as shown on the example of the Book of Jubilees, are also called “accusations”. The final wish formula can be seen as an instruction to the recipients of the letter. This is one new element that has not been present in previous presentations of historical examples of guilt and the inevitability of future judgement. With the introduction of descriptions of current behaviour of false teachers into the argumentation, the necessity arose to instruct the recipients how to react to them. Here, the model for the recipients should be the attitude of the Archangel Michael: refraining from judgement even in the face of obvious evidence of the false teachers’ guilt (cf. Jude 22–23, Jas 4:11).378 Helpful in restraining judicial inclinations and human impatience should be the humble principle “May the Lord rebuke/punish you”, which leaves judgement and the imposition of punishment on the guilty solely to Jesus Christ. Reading Michael’s attitude as a guideline in dealing with false teachers allows us to interpret the whole scene outlined in verse 9 typologically. It is worth noting that typology appears where the narrator of Jude wants to refer directly to his recipients and where he invokes figures and events archetypally associated with the constitution of God’s people, i.e. those associated with the exodus (cf. verse 5 with

378 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 190.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

typology: the community of the recipients – Israel),379 emphasizing the liberating aspect of salvation. One such archetypal figure is, of course, Moses. The typology of verse 5b links the narrative of verse 9 with its positive overtones, which can be qualified as an element of laudatio: acting in the way postulated by the typology should be characteristic of the community of the letter’s recipients, upholding the “faith once for all handed down to the saints”. It can also be said that typology appears where the recipients of the image can be evoked by using the second person pronoun pl – ye. Where the images refer to false teachers, who are referred to by the third-person plural pronoun “they, those”, the narrator uses other rhetorical figures. According to the typological interpretation, the Archangel Michael would thus symbolise the recipients of the Letter of Jude. The Devil would represent the false teachers, because like them he commits blasphemy. An important element of typology also turns out to be the body of Moses,380 which has been almost ignored in the analysis so far and about which there is a dispute. Using standard metonymy, Moses’ body can be understood as his law,381 which not only forms part of the revelation, “the faith handed down to the saints”, but is in the apocalyptic tradition even synonymous with the entire revelation. The functions played by Michael and the devil during the trial correspond to the tasks and attitudes of the members of the community and the false teachers. The false teachers accuse the law of killing ill-conceived Christian freedom; the members of the community are obliged to defend it, i.e. “to contend for the faith” (cf. verse 3). This translates into the conduct of one and others. The accusation of the law as a limitation of Christian freedom leads to its rejection and claims that it is not obligatory for Christians, and consequently to the behaviour described in verse 8: defilement of the flesh, rejection of authority (especially the judicial authority of Jesus Christ), blaspheming the glories, that is, slanders hurled against the saints: the authorities (patriarchs, prophets and apostles, evangelists, teachers) who transmit revelation and uphold it. It results from a false reading of the law/revelation, perceiving it through the prism of one’s own ideas, in other words, from ignorance of it (this is what the statement in verse 10a refers 379 A different view of typology in Jude is held by, among others, J.D. Charles, who includes in it all the examples occurring in Jude 5.6.7.11, while he calls the scene with Michael (Jude 9) a paradigm – see J.D. Charles, Use of Tradition-Material, p. 6–14; similarly G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 300. 380 An attempt to apply typology to verse 9 was made, among others, by Bede the Venerable in his commentary on the Letter of Jude. He argues that the body of Moses here symbolises the people of God: “the same people of God have been called the body of Moses from the fact that Moses himself was part of that people, and therefore that Jude was properly able to say that what he had read had been done to the people had been done to the body of Moses” (Commentary on the Seven Catholic Epistles, p. 245). 381 Cf. the most typical example of metonymy – “I read/apply Moses” instead of “I read, I apply the law of Moses”.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

189

190

Structural commentary

to: “they blaspheme what they do not know”). The defence of the law (faith) consists in its Christological reinterpretation, which Jude himself successfully applies, transposing the powers and prerogatives hitherto ascribed to God (the Father) to the person of Jesus Christ. In this way, the image of the pre-existent Christ and of the eschatological Christ the Judge, that is, the liberating and judging Christ, is exposed (cf. Jude 5bc). The defence of the law, however, is not to judge those who accuse and reject it. That belongs to God’s competence. Even if it seems that God delays in imposing punishments on false teachers, one must refrain from wanting to take the initiative and God’s competence. In the light of this typology, the connections between verse 8 and 9 are clearer. They consist primarily in contrasting the attitudes of the false teachers and the main character in verse 9 – the archangel Michael,382 who is the representative and model of behaviour for the community defending the faith: Verse 8 – false teachers

Verse 9 – Michael – a community defending the faith

Defilement of the flesh = a reference to the rebellion of the angels (verse 6), the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah (verse 7), and thus to the violation of the order established by God.

Acting only within the limits of the (defensive) function assigned by God.

Rejection of authority/rule (Jesus Christ).

Blaspheming the glories = arrogance towards the authorities communicating and defending revelation; replacing true revelation with one’s own false visions.

Recognising the judicial authority of Jesus Christ and leaving it to Him to judge/impose punishment on the blasphemer/s. Humility manifested in the recognition of God’s sovereign will regarding the punishment of the blasphemer/s.

2.5.2.2 Triplet part 2 α’. Behaviour of intruders (verse 10) β’. Reference to Jewish tradition (verse 11) 10

And these blaspheme/speak evil of that which they do not know/understand, that which they perceive naturally/instinctively like unreasoning/irrational animals, for their [cause]/ because of them, they corrupt themselves/are destroyed. 11 Woe to them, for they followed/walked in the way of Cain, gave themselves over/ abandoned themselves to the error of Balaam for (the sake of) reward/benefit/gain, and destroyed themselves/perished [by means of/because of] the rebellion of Korah.

382 D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 378.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

After giving the recipients a positive suggestion of how to act (to refrain from judgement like the Archangel Michael and to stand up for the faith, as the typology used in verse 9 suggests), the narrator in verse 10–11 returns to the interrupted theme of blasphemy begun in verse 8. Jude 10 is linked to verse 8 by the indicative pronoun οὖτοι referring in both to “these/certain people” of verse 4. Like the expression “those men”, the use of only the pronominal term against them (also in verse 12, 14, 16 and 19) is contemptuous. Such a formula is sometimes used in apocalyptic literature to emphasise the narrator’s negative attitude towards the people he mentions (cf. 2 En 7:1–3, 18:3, Rev 9:4).383 The second element connecting directly with verse 8 is the verb βλασφημοῦσιν ‘blaspheme’ occurring in verse 10b of the same form – ind. praes. act. Now the narrator is no longer trying to explain what this blasphemy consists in, but what is its cause: ignorance, lack of understanding and superficial (sensual/instinctive) perception of the elements mentioned in verse 8: dreams, the body, the lordship/authority of Jesus Christ, authorities.384 The phrases ὅσα μὲν οὐκ ὄιδασιν “this they do not understand”, and ὅσα δὲ φυσικῶς ὡς τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα ἐπίστανται “this they perceive sensually/instinctively/superficially like the unreasoning animals”, are used, typically of the narrator, in a parallel rather than additive manner as evidenced by the use of the pronoun ὅσα referring to the same content in both expressions. This parallel explanation takes the form of irony and is in keeping with the classic form of vituperatio, which uses both accusations of ignorance and accusations of yielding to instincts, of animalism, which was seen as the opposite of the rationality highly valued in the Hellenistic world. In the Letter of Jude, rationality is represented by “the faith handed down to the saints”, its absence by the teaching of false teachers, which, according to the narrator, has nothing to do with science and reason (λόγος) and belongs to the realm of animals rather than human reason. This is evidenced by the elliptical wordplay (annomination) between the implied nouns λόγος and ἀλογία (lack of reason, unreason, absurdity, confusion) and the adjective ἄλογος (unintelligent, irrational, invalid) used in 10d to refer to animals. As has been said, the accusation of ignorance is a typical element of vituperative statements. It is used frequently by Josephus Flavius, who, for example, in Contra Apionem accuses his opponent of insolence, of astonishing ignorance (2:2), warns against imitating his ignorance (2:12), and calls his reason blind (2:14). Similarly with the charge of blasphemy (cf. Contra Apionem 1:1, 2:8), which, as already mentioned when analysing verse 8 and 9 – could have been the cause of a lawsuit.385 Jude’s vituperative utterances are also accompanied by this judicial background,

383 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 265. 384 Cf. Ibid., p. 265. 385 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 291.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

191

192

Structural commentary

which is meant to reinforce in the recipients the conviction that guilt – here blasphemy in the broadest sense – will certainly live to see judgement. It is clear from Jude 9 that this judgement will belong neither to men nor to angels, but to the Lord – Jesus Christ. Thus, once again, this juridical aspect of salvation is highlighted which is undervalued and even ignored by false teachers. The blasphemies concern those elements which the false teachers do not understand. At first glance, the closeness and similarity of the wording of verse 8d and 10 seems to point only to the “glories” as the object of ignorance and blasphemy in 8d: “they blaspheme the glories”; in 10ab: “But those that do not understand, [to it] they blaspheme”. If we considered the angelological explanation as the most accurate, it would mean that the false teachers did not understand the role of angels as intermediaries and guardians of the Law/Revelation,386 although their teachings and behaviour were probably based on the conviction of a proper and deep understanding of the structures and laws governing the spiritual world.387 Richard Bauckham388 sees an additional connection here with verse 7 and the warning based on TAsh 7: “Become not, my children, as Sodom, which knew not the angels of the Lord, and perished for ever”. This seems, however, to be too far-fetched a conclusion, all the more so since, as the analysis of verse 7 – the essence of the guilt of the inhabitants of Pentapolis was the violation of the order established by God, manifested in the desire for sexual intercourse with angels. It seems that the restriction of ignorance as a cause of blasphemy to glories understood as angels is doubly reductionist. First – the analysis of verse 8 shows that the narrator of the Letter of Jude uses the term “glories” broadly as a synonym for the “saints” of verse 3. He thus calls the authorities involved in the transmission and preservation of revelation. Their functions thus correspond to those attributed to angels in Jewish tradition, which means that the “saints” could possibly include angels alongside the prophets, apostles, evangelists and teachers, but the hagiographer nevertheless places emphasis primarily on humans. Secondly, verse 10 serves as a summary of the accusations against the false teachers. The verb βλασφημέω used therein should therefore be understood more broadly, as referring to all the elements mentioned in verse 8. Blasphemy is indeed both defilement of the flesh (8b), and rejection of the lordship/authority of Jesus Christ (8c), and slander hurled against authorities (8d), and finally arrogance and exaltation based on the belief of having a special relationship with God and receiving special revelation from Him in dreams (8a) contradicting “the faith once for all handed down to the saints”.

386 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 190. 387 Ibid., p. 190. 388 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 62.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

An element characteristic of the vituperatio is also the likening of false teachers to animals. This is done in two ways: first, by calling animals mindless beings ἄλογα, and second, by describing the false teachers’ behaviour as sensual/instinctive, characteristic of animals φυσικῶς. It is sometimes attempted to differentiate between the ignorance of verse 10a and the lack of reason and sensuality of verse 10c.389 This disconnection is justified by references to verse 8: since ignorance refers to “blaspheming the glories”, perceiving in a sensual way “like unreasoning animals”, ὡς τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα would refer to “defiling the flesh”. In this way, the element of sexual promiscuity that would characterise the conduct of the false teachers is exposed. The irony is then also easy to grasp: although the false teachers claim to be guided by spiritual considerations and based on revelations received in a dream, they actually give in to the most mundane needs and promiscuity – like animals.390 Undeveloped in such an attribution, however, remains 8c – the rejection of authority/lordship. It should be noted, however, that since ancient times sexual practices have most often been identified with animal behaviour (so, for example, Andrew in Catena claims that “they are so caught up in lust that they are no different from dumb animals”391 ), less often it is extended to other life activities (so e.g. Clement of Alexandria in his Comments on the Epistle of Jude: “Jude here refers to those who eat, drink, indulge in sexual activity and do other things which are common to animals who lack the faculty of reason”.392 It seems that it is more reasonable than separating the phrases 10a ὅσα μὲν οὐκ ὄιδασιν “what they do not know” and 10c ὅσα δὲ φυσικῶς ὡς τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα ἐπίστανται “what unreasonable/irrational mindless animals perceive”, to see them together as a parallelism in which the first term is interpreted by the second. As mentioned, a similar construction is used in verse 6 when describing the guilt of the angels, in verse 7 when describing the guilt of the inhabitants of Pentapolis, and also in verse 8. This means that the ignorance of 10a is to be understood as the lack of reason and submission to instincts of 10c. This corresponds not only to general vituperative convention, but also to the standard phraseology found in Hellenistic vituperationes. The phrase τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα in a similar offensive context, which contrasts reason and rationality with animal lack of reason and irrationality, can be found in Josephus Flavius in Contra Apionem 2:29 (“admits all those that have a mind to observe our laws so to do, and this after a friendly manner, as

389 So, among others, Ibid., p. 63. 390 Ibid., p. 63. 391 Andrew, Catena, [in:] Catena in Epistolas Catholicas, ed. J.A. Cramer, Oxford 1840, p. 136, as cited in: James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude, ed. G. Bray, p. 253. 392 Cf. Clement of Alexandria, Adumbrationes in epistulas catholicas, [in:] Forschungen zur Geschichtedes Neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur, ed. T. Zahn, vol. 3, Erlangen 1884, 3:84, as cited in: James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude, ed. G. Bray, p. 253.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

193

194

Structural commentary

esteeming that a true union, which not only extends to our own stock”) and in Antiquitates X 11:6 (“that wickedness might, by even those irrational creatures, be esteemed a plain foundation for their punishment”), in Philo in Allegorical Interpretation III 9:30 (At all events it is affirmed by many people […] that the human mind, by its own single power, has invented arts and pursuits, and laws and customs, and all the principles of political and individual, and common justice, with reference both to men and to irrational animals).

or in Plutarch in Moralia (De amore prolis/On Affection for Offspring 493D).393 This imagery, together with its pejorative meaning, also penetrated late biblical literature (LXX) – Wis 11:15 (“You sent on them a multitude of irrational creatures to take vengeance”); 4 Macc 14:14.18 (“Even unreasoning animals, like mankind, have a sympathy and parental love for their offspring […] why is it necessary to demonstrate sympathy for children by the example of unreasoning animals”) and extra-biblical – 4 Ezra 8:29–30 (“Will not to destroy those that have lived like cattle […] Be not wroth with those that are deemed worse than the beasts”). That this is not (exclusively) about giving in to sexual urges is argued in verse 11, in which the narrator of Jude alludes to the irrational – that is, animal – behaviour of Cain, Balaam and Korah, which includes not only the satisfaction of sexual needs.394 The Judaic use of the phrase τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα comes closest to its use in 4 Ezra, where the point is not only to mark the lack of reason, stupidity and irrationality of behaviour, but also to morally evaluate such behaviour and to classify it in religious terms as sinful395 and – importantly – deserving of judgement. Gene L. Green sees in the term ἄλογος connections with the narrative of Jude 9: there rationality is represented by the Archangel Michael, the devil accusing Moses would symbolise irrationality. The comparison of the behaviour of the false teachers to that of the devil would in turn be another vituperative element.396 That the point is to show that the false teachers are guided not by reason but by instinct is also evidenced by the use of the adverb φυσικῶς, which occurs only here in the New Testament (cf. Rom 1:26–27, 2 Pet 2:12). In Hellenistic literature it means ‘instinctively’ or ‘sensually’ and is often contrasted with the highly valued rationality (so, e.g. Diogenes Laertius in Lives of Eminent Philosophers 10:137: “pleasure is the end […] living things […] are well content with pleasure and are at enmity 393 See G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 340; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 63; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 190. 394 Cf. P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 191. 395 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 63. 396 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 292.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

with pain, by the prompting of nature and apart from reason”; Plutarch On Moral Virtue 6:397 “animal, […] obedient and submissive to the reins and masters over their desires”, and even the author of The Letter of Aristeas 222, who writes that “the highest form of government […] [is to] rule oneself and not to be carried away by impulses. For all men possess a certain natural bent of mind”. The narrator of the Letter of Jude does likewise: in describing the instinctive behaviour of false teachers, he not only expresses his disapproval of such behaviour, but also his contempt for it, and in 10d reminds us that based on ignorance, lack of reason and instinct, teachings and behaviour deserve the accusation and destruction resulting from judgement. The last phrase in. 10 ἐν τούτοις φθείρονται thus contains not only an element of disapproval and contempt, but also a moral evaluation of the conduct of the false teachers, as suggested by the verb φθείρονται ‘to destroy, spoil, corrupt’ (cf. Gen 6:11 [LXX], Ezek 16:52 [LXX], and 1 Cor 15:33, 2 Cor 7:2, 11:3, Eph 4:22, Rev 19:2).398 However, there is an additional foreshadowing of judgement and punishment (2 Pet 2:12, cf. 1 Cor 3:17b, Jer 13:9, Dan 2:44, 7:14).399 The verb φθείρονται is used in the ind. praes. med. et pass. If the reflexive is stressed, then the aspect of moral corruption is stressed: “they corrupt themselves/they are destroyed”. If the passive is emphasised, then this form can be treated as passivum theologicum and understood that false teachers will be judged and destroyed by God for their wide blasphemies resulting from ignorance and false, not rational, but sensual, instinctive perception. In the context of verse 11 and Jude’s soteriology, this second option seems more reasonable. The narrator thus once again announces a judgement that will belong to Jesus Christ. This judgement has already been announced in verse 9, where it is emphasised who the Judge is – the Lord – and in Jude this title belongs to Jesus. Verse 11, on the other hand, contains examples of conduct similar in essence (i.e. ignorant, unintelligent) to that of the false teachers judged here. In the expression ἐν τούτοις, Jude uses the dativus causae – the dative of cause (literally, “because of them”). As with the verb φθείρονται, the specification of cause contains two overlapping suggestions. The first concerns the cause of corruption, of indulging in self-deception. In this case, the – broadly understood – blasphemies described in verse 8 are caused by ignorance, lack of reason and superficial perception (cf. 1 En 98:9: “Woe to you, ye fools, for through your folly shall ye perish”). In analysing verse 8, attention is drawn to the framework of the accusations, in which the general “blasphemy of the glories” (8d) is an expression of arrogance based on dreamy visions (8a). Defilement of the flesh (8b) and rejection of lordship/authority 397 After Ibid., p. 293. 398 Ibid., p. 294; F. Mickiewicz, List św. Judy, p. 100. 399 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 266; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 64; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 192; D. Keating, First, Second Peter, p. 310.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

195

196

Structural commentary

(8c) were seen as particularisations relating to both conduct and teaching. Verse 10a.c shows that false teachers take a very superficial (sensual, instinctive) view of the possibility of receiving revelation in a dream (8a) because they do not confront the content of their visions with the content of “the faith once for all handed down to the saints”, nor do they understand the role of tradents, authorities (glories) in the transmission of that faith (8d), which translates into defiling the flesh (8b) and rejecting the authority of Jesus Christ (8c): 10a.c. they do not understand […], they perceive it instinctively (the cause of blasphemous teachings and behaviour): 8a. dreaming (basis for blasphemous teachings and behaviour); 8b. defile the flesh (display of blasphemous behaviour); 8c. reject the authority (of Jesus Christ) (manifestation of blasphemous teaching); 8d. blaspheme the glories (the basis of blasphemous teachings and behaviour). The second suggestion concerns blasphemies in the broadest sense, which will become the cause of future judgement and punishment of false teachers by God/ Jesus Christ. Such ambiguous constructions seem to have been used deliberately. They combine elements of vituperatio with a theological message: A

B

Ignorance Lack of reason Sensory/instinctive perception

Blasphemies described in verse 8

a Self-destruction Self-deception

b Destruction by God as a result of judgement

The lack of reason (A) leads to conduct (B) that is both a cause of self-destruction in the moral sense (a) and a cause/guilt that must await judgement and punishment (b). In this juxtaposition, the dominant of elements A and a is vituperatio, the dominant of elements B and b is theological message. Verse 11400 confirms and illustrates the main theses of verse 10: ignorance and a sensual, instinctive, irrational (and therefore animal) perception of revelation (faith) leads to blasphemous conduct, and this ultimately merits judgement and punishment, i.e. destruction. The examples cited by the hagiographer thus illustrate both the irrational behaviour of the characters and the indispensability of punishment/judgement. This means that in verse 11, too, vituperative elements (the recipients’ reconstruction of detailed narratives and traditions concerning the characters cited) and theological elements (the inevitability of judgement and 400 Most commentators on verse 11 considers not in connection with verse 10, but with the following verses: 11–13.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

punishment of blasphemous behaviour emphasised by the narrator Jude) will be combined. The concreteness of the analogies between the behaviour of Cain, Balaam, Korah and the actions of the false teachers are of secondary importance here,401 but can be seen clearly when juxtaposing verse 11 with verse 8 (and verse 10). The narrator of Jude once again uses the triplet to support thesis of verse 10 with examples.402 The triplet is particularly useful here because the examples have a corroborative function and thus fit into the court-procedural entourage already outlined in verse 9 and continued in verse 10. According to Jewish tradition, the testimony of a single witness is not much reliable; it should be corroborated by at least two or three witnesses (Deut 17:6, 19:15, Matt 18:16, 2 Cor 13:1, 1 Tim 5:19, Heb 10:28), especially when it concerns an accusation. Examples are introduced by Jude with the exclamation οὐαὶ αὐτοῖς “Woe to them!” He thus adds a typically Semitic element to an argument based primarily on Hellenistic vituperative convention, for it must be stressed that the οὐαί exclamation does not appear in classical Greek literature.403 The οὐαί itself may originally have been an expression of pain or terror (Prov 23:29).404 Secondarily, οὐαί expresses sorrow and grief at the loss of a loved one (1 Kings 13:30, Jer 22:18),405 so it has a lamentative function. In biblical literature, however, it most often appears at prophetic (and not only) announcements of judgement (not necessarily eschatological) on sinners and/or pagans (Isa 5:1–30, Jer 22:13–17, 23:1–4, Amos 6:1–3, Hab 2:6–20, Jdt 16:17, Sir 41:8–9). It heralds misfortune, the doom that awaits accused sinners, and in apocalyptic texts – even the whole earth (cf. Rev 8:13, 12:12, 18:10.16.19). Sometimes it can be ironic – as in Jer 6:4. In the intertestamental literature, 1 En uses this exclamation in a similar context particularly often (mainly in chapters 92–105): Woe to those who build unrighteousness and oppression and lay deceit as a foundation; For they shall be suddenly overthrown, and they shall have no peace. Woe to those who build their houses with sin; […]. Woe to you, ye rich, for ye have trusted in your riches […]. Ye have committed blasphemy and unrighteousness, and have become ready for the day of slaughter, And the day of darkness and the day of the great judgement! (1 En 94:6–9).

401 So, e.g., R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 64; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 296. 402 J.D. Charles, “Those” and “These”: The Use of Old Testament in the Epistle of Jude, JSNT 38 (1990), p. 116; cf. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 79, who identifies as a leitmotif in Jude 11–13 the guiding role of false teachers in leading others to sin. 403 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 301. 404 Ibid, p. 301. 405 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 77.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

197

198

Structural commentary

This form is used by New Testament writers (Matt 23:13–36, Luke 6:24–26, 11:42–44) and early Christian writers (Barn. 6:2). Thus, it is not possible to determine clearly whether the narrator of Jude was referring directly to the prophetic books or to the readily used 1 Enoch. There is even talk of a reproduction in Jude 11a of statements condemning hypocrisy and lack of inner commitment to church practices in early Christian communities (Matt 23:13–36, Luke 11:42–52).406 The latter, however, seems unlikely primarily because of the examples cited later. Jude therefore uses the exclamation οὐαί to reinforce the announcement of judgement on false teachers in verse 10d ἐν τούτοις φθείρονται. The connection with the previous verses is also preserved by the personal pronoun αὐτοῖς, which fits into the long referential sequence begun in verse 4 with the term “certain men”. “Certain men”, by acting without understanding and teaching contrary to “the faith handed down to the saints”, have committed a fault for which punishment awaits them. Their situation is like that of Cain, Balaam or Korah, who also acted in a manner contrary to God’s will and were punished for it. The use of the personal pronoun for the third person is quite unusual here. As can be seen, in Old Testament and intertestamental statements, the recipients are referred to by a second person singular or plural pronoun, or an indicative pronoun: “Woe to those who”. Perhaps the form with the personal pronoun for the third person refers to Hos 7:13, where this pronoun was used in the LXX.407 The identification of the recipients in oracles beginning with the exclamation οὐαί is usually followed by an enumeration of the recipients’ faults and sins, introduced by the conjunction ὅτι. This is also the case in Jude 11, where the guilt is stated very laconically as: “following in the way of Cain”, indulging “giving themselves over to the error of Balaam/for the sake of gain”, and “the rebellion of Korah”. Once again, the narrator appeals to the knowledge of the recipients who, taking into account biblical and extra-biblical tradition, will be able to reconstruct what the guilt of the characters mentioned consists of. Most often the list of faults (occasionally instead of this list, e.g. 1 En 103:8: “Woe to you, for ye shall have no peace”) is followed by an announcement of punishment with a more or less detailed description. Often it takes on the character of an inversion in relation to guilt408 (e.g. Luke 6:25, 1 En 94:7: “Woe to those who build their houses with sin; for from all their foundations shall they be overthrown, and by the sword shall they fall”; 1 En 96:6: “Woe to you who drink water from every fountain, for suddenly shall ye be consumed and wither away, because ye have forsaken the fountain of life”). More often, however, the announcement is more 406 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 301; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 193. 407 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 78; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 194. 408 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 77–78; J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 266; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 194.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

conventional and simply refers to destruction (e.g. 1 En 95:6: “Woe to you […], For suddenly shall ye perish”; 1 En 96:8: “Woe to you […], for the day of your destruction is coming”; 1 En 98:14–15: “Woe to you […], for ye shall have no hope of life. Woe to you […] [ye] shall have no peace but die a sudden death”). The disturbed chronology of the examples cited in Jude 11 is puzzling. Cain’s primacy is not in doubt, but they appear with Balaam and Korah, for Korah rebelled against Moses when Aaron was alive (Num 16), while Balaam’s actions fall after Aaron’s death (Num 20:29; 22–24). This may be a matter of gradation of examples, especially with regard to punishment. Jude would then apply the rhetorical principles expounded, among others, by Quintilian409 , who in Institutio oratoria (IX 4:23.25), quoting Cicero, recommends that weaker terms or examples should not follow stronger ones, even if this were to disrupt the natural chronological order of events: we must take care that our style does not diminish in force through the fact that a weaker word is made to follow a stronger […] Another piece of extravagant pedantry is to insist that the first place should always be occupied by what is first in order of time: such an order is no doubt often the best, but merely because previous events are often the most important and should consequently be placed before matters of more trivial import.

This would mean that for the narrator of the Letter of Jude the example of Korah is the most significant, perhaps because it relates directly to the law of Moses and is the only one to contain an explication of punishment. This practice was used with oracles in apocalyptic writings. It can be found, for example, in 1 En 96:4–8, where only after the five instances of “Woe” does a clearly formulated announcement of judgement410 appear, which can be applied not only to the acts described in the fifth “Woe”, but also to those mentioned earlier: “For the day of your destruction is coming. In those days many and good days shall come to the righteous-in the day of your judgement” (1 En 96:8). Sometimes in this climactic context attention is drawn to the order of the verbs: πορεύομαι ‘to go, to follow’, έκχέω ‘to devote oneself to’, and άπόλλυμι ‘to destroy’, which describe the levels and development of ungodliness: at first it is imitation of the way of life of other sinners, then devotion to false teaching and ungodly, debauched conduct, which inevitably leads to annihilation, the destruction of the ungodly.411 The detailing of the references is also gradual: from the most general 409 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 302. 410 At the first (verse 4) and fourth (verse 7) “Woe” there are only announcements of “reminders” of evil deeds, at the third (verse 6) “Woe” an inverse punishment is mentioned, which can also only be regarded as an allusion to judgement. 411 J.D. Charles, “Those” and “These”, p. 109.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

199

200

Structural commentary

and ambiguous formulation of “the way of Cain”, through the ambiguous “error of Balaam”, to the most precise indication of “Korah’s rebellion” in this triplet.412 The gradation and certain formality of the references – “the way of Cain”, “the error of Balaam”, and “the rebellion of Korah” – may suggest that, in the milieu of the sender and recipients of Jude’s letter, the use of these three examples in this order was already standardized413 and part of the topos characteristic of Jewish literature of the Second Temple period, as was the connection of the rebellion of the angels and the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah. However, while evidence for the common connection of the rebellion of the angels and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (and sometimes the story of the exodus) is relatively abundant in biblical and extra-biblical literature (Sir 16:8, TNaph 3, 3 Macc 2:5, Jub 20:5–6), evidence for the linking of the examples of Cain, Balaam, and Korah or at least two of them is lacking, especially in the form of oracles (a form the narrator of the Letter of Jude might have given to possible traditional material). Perhaps Jude should be regarded as a pioneer, an initiator of a tradition linking the characters of the three biblical antiheroes. The earliest testimony, apart from the Letter of Jude, which appears to feature Cain and Korah side by side probably dates from the 70s. Describing Korah’s rebellion in the Book of Biblical Antiquities (16:1–2), Pseudo-Philo quotes an angry God recalling the murder of Abel by Cain. Because then “the earth hasted and swallowed his [Abel’s] blood”, God commanded that “Thou shalt not any more swallow up blood”. But when Korah rebelled and punishment had to be meted out to him, God commanded that the earth “shall swallow up body and soul [of the rebel and his followers] together” (16:3). Another testimony, where Esau appears in addition to Cain and Korah, comes from the second century, from the account contained in Adversus Haereses (I 31:1) by Irenaeus of Lyon: “Others again declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to themselves”. From the juxtaposition of Cain and Korah, figures important according to Irenaeus for the Cainites, it cannot, however, be inferred that by using a similar juxtaposition the narrator of the Letter of Jude is referring to this group of Gnostics or their immediate predecessors.414 The testimony cited by Richard Bauckham is even later. It is taken from the rabbinic tradition, from the treatise Sotta (4,9) of the Tosefta, in which Cain, Korah and Balaam are presented as sinister sinners.415 It must be remembered, however, that the Tosefta was written at the earliest in the third/fourth century,

412 413 414 415

Cf. F. Opoku-Giamfi, The Use of Scripture, p. 86. J.D. Charles, “Those” and “These”, p. 109. J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 267. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 78.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

and probably as late as the fifth century,416 so there is no certainty that it conveys a tradition, be it oral, already known at the end of the first century. This does not mean that the figures of Cain, Balaam or Korah were not used individually in first century Jewish and Christian circles. In the Old Testament, Cain is mentioned 16 times,417 and in the New Testament, in 1 John 3:12, he is presented as the murderer of his brother, and thus illustrates a lack of love for his neighbour. In 1 Clem. 4:1–7, using the example of this fratricide, the author shows the fatal consequences of jealousy and envy. Balaam appears in Rev 2:14 as the one whose teachings suggested to Balak provoked the Israelites to sin – idolatry (eating sacrifices offered to pagan gods) and licentiousness. The figure of Korah is referred to indirectly in 2 Tim 2:19, where a quotation from Num 16:5 appears, and similarly in 1 Clem. 51:3–4, where the punishment that befell Korah and his followers is described: For it is good for a man to make confession of his trespasses rather than to harden his heart, as the heart of those was hardened who made sedition against Moses the servant of God; whose condemnation was clearly manifest, for they went down to hades alive, and Death shall be their shepherd.

Early Christian writers, as we can see, when referring to Cain, Balaam or Korah, relied above all on traditions taken from the Old Testament. Jude in his reference also draws on the intertestamental tradition, developing biblical motifs in a Midrashic way.418 It is also possible to interpret the climactic arrangement of the examples in Jude 11 in relation to the accusations in verse 8. As shown earlier, Jude 8d – “blaspheming the glories” would synthesise Jude 8b – “defiling the flesh” and Jude 8c – “rejecting authority”. Similarly, the punishment formally attributed to Korah’s rebellion (11d) also applies to the example pointing to Cain’s way (11b) and Balaam’s error (11c). Furthermore, as 8a (dreaming) was interpreted by 8d (blaspheming the glories), so now 11a (woe to them) is made more specific by 11d (destruction). Thus, it can be seen that the structure of both verses is the same: Line 8 8a – dreams       8b – defiling the flesh       8c – rejection of power/reign 8d – blaspheming glories/authorities

Line 11 11a – woe to them       11b – way of Cain       11c – error of Balaam 11d – rebellion and destruction of Korah

416 M. Rosik, I. Rapoport, Wprowadzenie, Wrocław 2009, p. 127–128. 417 F. Opoku-Giamfi, The Use of Scripture, p. 83. 418 See below for a description of the traditions concerning Cain, Balaam and Korach.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

201

202

Structural commentary

It is not difficult now to see the correspondences between the accusations in verse 8 and the examples in verse 11.419 It also confirms the connecting and summarizing function of verse 10, this time in relation both to verse 8 and 11: just as Jude 10 vituperatively indicated the cause of the conduct of the false teachers described in verse 8, so it vituperatively names the cause of the conduct of Cain, Balaam and Korah described in verse 11. Each time it is ignorance, lack of reason, superficial, instinctive, and sensual perception. This would mean that on a vituperative level Cain, Balaam and Korah are the epitome of stupidity (the use of their names can even be regarded as invectives); on a theological level they illustrate behaviour for which there is punishment (cf. the already cited 1 En 98:10). The first of the illustrative and evidential examples at the same time – the example of Cain – is introduced by the phrase πορεύομαι τῇ ὁδῷ ‘go the way’. When combined with some kind of specifier – e.g., the straight way, the good way, the undefiled way, the wrong way, the dark way, someone else’s way or one’s own way, a way like … the phrase in the LXX refers to life or conduct and its moral or religious evaluation420 (e.g. 1 Kings 15:26.34, 16:2.19.26, 2 Kings 8:18.27, 16:3, Ps 32[31]:8, 81[80]:14, 101[100]:6, Prov 1:15, 2:13, 28:18, Isa 2:3, Ezek 23:31 similarly in Acts 14:16, 2 Pet 2:15). Here, “to follow the way of Cain” would primarily mean to imitate Cain’s morally reprehensible behaviour.421 In the light of what has been said about the structure of verse 11 comparable to the structure of verse 8 and the most typical constructions of οὐαὶ ὅτι followed by the enumeration of guilt, it is difficult to agree with George H. Boobyer’s suggestion, sometimes quoted, that “to follow the way of Cain” means “to follow, like Cain, the way to destruction”.422 For the emphasis would fall on Cain’s fate and the relatively mild punishment to which he was condemned: exile, hard, fruitless work, and a visible stigma that was also a protection should anyone attempt to kill Cain (cf. Gen 4:13–15). The intertestamental literature exacerbates these punishments. According to Jub 4:31: At the close of this jubilee Cain was killed after him in the same year; for his house fell upon him and he died in the midst of his house, and he was killed by its stones; for with a stone he had killed Abel, and by a stone was he killed in righteous judgment,

419 See below for detailed descriptions of the examples of Cain, Balaam and Korah. 420 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 80; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 304; J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 266. 421 According to M. Luther, The Epistles: “the way of Cain is, to rely on one’s own works, and scoff at those works which are good and true, and circumvent and slay those who go in the right way”. 422 G.H. Boobyer, The Verbs in Jude 11, NTS 5 (1958–1959), p. 45–47; cf. J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 269; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 81.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

whereas TBenj 7:5 considers his punishment as complete, therefore it says that “Cain is delivered over to seven vengeances” and extends it over time: “for in every hundred years the Lord brought one plague upon him […] In seven hundred years was Cain judged”. Ultimately, however, Cain was freed from punishment “for Abel his righteous brother’s sake”, which means that destruction or total destruction did not happen to him.423 When the narrator of the Letter of Jude uses the phrase “go the way of Cain”, he thus has in mind behaviour that mimics Cain’s behaviour. The source narrative for “the way of Cain” is found in Genesis 4:1–16. Genesis 4:8 and the murder of Abel is usually considered the key passage. If only this narrative were taken into account, it would mean that the false teachers in typical vituperatio fashion are accused of the same crime as Cain. However, it is difficult to suppose that they committed murder, unless the reference to manslaughter/murder is taken metaphorically as a lack of love and anger towards a brother (as in 1 John 3:12, cf. Matt. 5:21–22). Such a metaphorical interpretation, which relates Cain’s crime to the murder of the soul, appears, among others, in Andrew’s Catena: “[False teachers] are even fratricides, because what they teach kills the souls of those who are deceived by them”.424 More likely, Cain’s guilt (and journey) should be approached comprehensively, as does the narrative in Genesis 4:6–7, which indicates that Cain’s sin is not limited to murder; moreover, it is present in the life of Adam’s firstborn son before the crime was committed and manifests itself in sadness and a grim expression on his face. It is this theme that later Jewish and Christian literature develops. As mentioned, 1 Clem. 4:7 searches for the source of Abel’s murder in sinful envy and jealousy.425 TBenj 7 spoke of seven punishments imposed on Cain. The number is obviously not accidental. Not only does it signify completeness, but it also corresponds to the seven instances of wickedness committed by Cain: “First the mind conceiveth through Beliar, and first there is envy; secondly, desperation; thirdly, tribulation; fourthly, captivity; fifthly, neediness; sixthly, trouble; seventhly, desolation. Therefore also Cain is delivered over to seven vengeances by God”. Giving in to these sinful sentiments is an expression of stupidity, while mastering them is an expression of being guided by reason. Thus, following the way of Cain should be understood as giving in to envy and considering one’s own situation in terms of doom, oppression, bondage, privation, confusion, abandonment, which can be described as a sense of injustice. The false sense of wrongness is not difficult to 423 See below for an analysis in verses 22–23. 424 Andrew, Catena, [in:] Catena in Epistolas catholicas, ed. J.A. Cramer, Oxford 1840, p. 164, as cited in: James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude, ed. G. Bray, p. 253. 425 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 194; F. Opoku-Giamfi, The Use of Scripture, p. 84; J.D.N. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 266.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

203

204

Structural commentary

equate, as Philo of Alexandria does, with relating everything to oneself and with self-love. Thus Cain, with his selfish thinking and perceptions, would personify stupidity, while Abel, who refers everything to God, would represent wisdom (cf. Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat X 32; XXI 78). Cain’s self-love is also manifested in those behaviours which Jude 8b describes as defiling the flesh. Underlying this relationship is most likely a tradition familiar to Josephus Flavius, among others, and, it seems, to the recipients of the Letter of Jude. Flavius in Antiquitates (I 2:2) vividly describes how Cain: “[…] became a great leader of men into wicked courses” and “he did not accept of his punishment in order to amendment, but to increase his wickedness: for he only aimed to procure every thing that was for his own bodily pleasure, though it obliged him to be injurious to his neighbours. He augmented his household substance with much wealth, by rapine and violence: he excited his acquaintance to procure pleasure and spoils by robbery”.

Indulging the body with pleasures, disregard for others, plundering and raping are in turn part of what Jude 10 describes as belonging to sensual, instinctive and superficial perception. In this reconstruction of the tradition, Philo’s summary in De posteritati Caini (11:38–39)426 also fits perfectly as a point of conclusion. Philo repeats his idea that Cain and Abel represent two attitudes to life and two different philosophies: the philosophy of ungodliness and the philosophy of godliness. And although Cain’s teaching seems more attractive, closer to people, and above all more powerful – because it was Cain who killed Abel – it should be more valuable for a rational man to die among the pious, the disciples of Abel, than to live in the way preferred by Cain, the teacher and guide of the impious: “death in the company of the pious would be preferable to life with the impious; for those who die in the company of the pious everlasting life will receive, but everlasting death will be the portion of those who live in the other way”. By using the verb πορεύομαι in the ind. aor. – ἐπορεύθησαν – the narrator of Jude is not referring to the past. Rather, he wants to emphasize the fact that “these people” imitate Cain in everything that the biblical and extra-biblical tradition ascribes to him, i.e. in reasserting themselves in a sense of injustice, in hatred and anger towards others, in questioning God’s justice,427 in licentiousness, in living a deceitful life (cf. Ant. I 2:2: “He also introduced a change in that way of simplicity wherein men lived before; and was the author of measures and weights.

426 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 194. 427 This motif is developed in a haggadic manner in the later targumic tradition – see R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 78–79.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

And whereas they lived innocently and generously while they knew nothing of such arts, he changed the world into cunning craftiness”), rape and theft, both literally and metaphorically. These behaviours are judged by the narrator of Jude as a lack of reason and surrender to instincts, and acts that defile the body in various ways, not just sexual. The lack of a clearly exposed element of punishment means that the vituperative element remains dominant in this example. The second example attesting thesis of verse 10 should also be treated comprehensively. The false teachers τῇ πλάνῃ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ μισθοῦ ἐξεχύθησαν “[they surrendered] to the error/deception of Balaam for the sake of gain”. The most famous account of Balaam’s story is found in Num 22–24. Balak, king of Moab, concerned about Israel’s expansion (Num 22:1–4) tried to persuade the soothsayer Balaam to curse Israel. At first Balaam refused, citing the prohibition of God himself. But when the king offered a hefty price for the curse on Israel,428 Balaam decided to speak to Balak personally and set out on a journey. The journey was against the will of God, who sent his angel to stop Balaam because “this rash journey [was] against [God’s] will” (Num 22:32). At first, the angel was seen only by the donkey on which the soothsayer was travelling. The animal moved out of the way when it saw the angel and was beaten for the behaviour that was incomprehensible to Balaam. When there was no more room to get out of the way of the angel, the donkey fell under Balaam, and he beat it once again. Then the animal spoke back to the soothsayer in a human voice and reminded him of his faithfulness. It was then that Balaam saw an angel with a sword standing in the way and realised his mistake. God allowed him to continue his journey but stipulated that he would only tell Balak what the Lord would command him. When Balaam arrived at Balak, instead of a curse he pronounced a blessing on Israel three times. The angry king sent Balaam away without payment: “Now flee to your home. I promised to reward you richly, but the Lord has withheld the reward from you!” (Num 24:11). Balaam repeated what he had been adhering to from the beginning: “Even if Balak gave me his house full of silver and gold, I could not of my own accord do anything, good or evil, contrary to the command of the Lord? Whatever the Lord says I must say” (Num 24:13). This narrative, which comes from the oldest sources, does not mention that Balaam would somehow later succumb to Balak’s bribery.429 On the contrary, in Numbers 22–24 the soothsayer is presented in a positive way. His only mistake, which he admits, is his desire to meet Balak personally and his cruel treatment of the faithful donkey who, unlike Balaam, had seen an angel of the Lord on the road.

428 F. Opoku-Giamfi, The Use of Scripture, p. 85 points out that the noun μαντεία used in Lb 22:7 in the LXX does not mean gifts, but divination and/or divination paraphernalia. King Balak’s envoys may thus have brought Balaam the things necessary for divination the first time. 429 See T.S. Coulley, ΒΑΛΑΑΚ, p. 78–81, who, on the basis of P72 with the spelling ΒΑΛΑΑΚ, sees a tendency to rehabilitate Balaam and assign blame to Balak.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

205

206

Structural commentary

A different picture of Balaam is presented by later sources that most likely provide a reference for the narrator of the Letter of Jude. In Deut 23:5–6 there is a reference which suggests that Balaam was prepared to curse Israel against God’s will for a fee (cf. Josh 24:9–10); similarly in Neh 13:2. Both texts emphasise that it was God who turned the bard’s curse into a blessing. On the other hand, in Num 31:16, Moses makes an excuse to the soldiers for leaving alive the women who, on the advice of Balaam, seduced the Israelites and led them into apostasy, and thus brought the wrath of God upon Israel (cf. Num 25:1–3). The author of Rev 2:14 refers to these episodes, which may mean that they constituted a certain topos related to the figure of Balaam used in apocalyptic literature, which is also partly represented by Jude. The problem is that, unlike the previous texts, Num 31:16 mentions nothing about the fee that Balaam might take for his perfidious advice. Josephus Flavius (Ant. IV 6–7) embellishes the narrative of Num 22–24 and 31:16 and mentions Balaam’s great kindness towards Balak’s envoys and the king himself. This is why the soothsayer tried so insistently to get God to change his decision and acquiesce to the curse on the Israelites. When he was about to go home, he still wanted to “gratify” the Midianites, “even without the will of God”. He then gives a piece of advice that will enable the Midianites to gain a temporary victory over Israel: Do you therefore set out the comeliness of such of your daughters as are most eminent for beauty, and proper to force and conquer the modesty of those that behold them; and these decked and trimmed to the highest degree you are able. Then do you send them to be near the Israelites camp; and give them in charge, that when the young men of the Hebrews desire their company, they allow it them. And when they see they are enamoured of them, let them take their leaves; and if they intreat them to stay, let them not give their consent, till they have persuaded them to leave off their obedience to their own laws, and the worship of that God who established them; and to worship the Gods of the Midianites and Moabites: for by this means God will be angry at them (Ant. IV 6:6).

The Midianites took this advice, and the Israelite […] young men were induced by the fondness they had for these women […] So they gave themselves up to what they persuaded them, and transgressed their own laws: and supposing there were many gods, and resolving that they would sacrifice to them according to the laws of that country which ordained them, they both were delighted with their strange food, and went on to do every thing that the women would have them do, though in contradiction to their own laws (Ant. IV 6:9).

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

Interestingly, Flavius does not emphasise Balaam’s greed at all; he focuses more on the perfidy of his advice, which was intended – at least temporarily – to weaken God’s goodwill towards Israel. He repeatedly mentions that as a result of this advice, the Israelites went against their law. It seems, therefore, that Balaam is for Flavius one who contributes to lawlessness and apostasy. Much more strongly the greed of Balaam,430 his lust for honour, his conviction of his own exceptionality and his insincerity and even lack of understanding of the prophetic function he performed, is accentuated by Philo. The soothsayer, when he received Balak’s messengers for the second time, “And Balaam, being allured by the gifts which were already proffered to him, and also by the hopes for the future which they held out to him, and being influenced also by the rank of those who invited him” (Mos. I 48:268). During the journey to Balak it became apparent that although Balaam considered himself an exceptional soothsayer who boasted “that he could see, not only the whole world, but also the Creator of the world” (Mos. I 46:272), consequently he was “shown to be inferior to a brute beast in the power of sight” (Mos. I 46:272). He could not put a curse on the Israelites, but “As he knew that the only way by which the Hebrews could be subdued was by leading them to violate the law, he endeavoured to seduce them by means of debauchery and intemperance, that mighty evil, to the still greater crime of impiety, putting pleasure before them as a bait” (Mos. I 54:295). Not wishing to return home as “most foolish of men” (Mos. I 53:293) who, by blessing Israel, had deprived himself of gifts, fame and glory and exposed himself to disgrace, ridicule and contempt, he gave the Midianites advice on how to seduce the Israelites and lead them to apostasy. The advice indeed proved fatal to the Israelites. Those who yielded to the Midianite women, rejected the law and began to worship foreign deities were put to death. The tradition represented by Philo is usually indicated as the closest to Jude 11c, especially in the context of the vituperative statement. Balaam would epitomize lack of understanding and superficial perception, self-deception; the latter is also indicated by the noun πλάνη, which means not only error but also lying, deceit, deception. The narrator of Jude combines in this concept references to Balaam’s counsel, which included a plan to deceive the Israelites and lead them down a wrong path, and references to the exaltation and arrogance of the soothsayer, which resulted from self-deception about his own uniqueness based on the possibility of direct contact with God. It is not difficult to find a parallel here between Balaam’s attitude and the behaviour of the false teachers described in verse 8.

430 This feature of Balaam is emphasised even more by the later rabbinic tradition – see the testimonies cited by R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 81–82.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

207

208

Structural commentary

A vituperative element would also be the suggestion that the false teachers preached for gain μισθοῦ. The mention of gain may be an allusion to the tradition represented primarily by Philo and the Hellenistic axiology in which teaching and preaching for money was universally condemned (cf., Dion Chrysostom, Oratoria 32:11, 35:1, 17:10–16, Plutarch, Moralia [De tuenda sanitate praecepta/Advice about Keeping Well] 131A), cf. also 2 Pet 2:2–3.14, 1 Thess 2:5, 1 Tim 6:5, Titus 1:11),431 but this material aspect is secondary here. The primary meaning of the noun μισθός is, of course, ‘payment’, ‘remuneration’, ‘profit’, ‘pay’, or even ‘bribe’. Sometimes, however, in the LXX – especially in the wisdom and prophetic texts – the term is used in an immaterial sense to denote a reward promised by God (Gen 15:1, Isa 40:10, 62:11, Jer 38:16, Prov 11:18, Wis 2:22, 5:15, 10:17, Sir 2:8, 11:22, 36:15, 51:30); a similar meaning is also sometimes given to it by Josephus Flavius.432 In the New Testament μισθός has both a material meaning as payment for work done (e.g. Luke 10:7) and an intangible (e.g. Matt 5:47), eschatological meaning, arising primarily from the context and convention of the utterance (e.g. Matt 5:12, 10:41–42, Luke 6:23.35, John 4:36, 1 Cor 3:14, 2 John 8, Rev 11:18). It is most likely that Jude 11c exposes this intangible aspect of the noun μισθός, also including honours, an excellent soothsayer’s reputation and associated fame and universal respect (as in Matt 6:2.5.16). Not out of his own conviction, but precisely for this reputation, fame and respect, Balaam did not initially dare to defy God. In order not to lose them completely, he later decided to give the Midianites advice on how to weaken the Israelites. This is also confirmed by the reference to Num 24:11 in the LXX, where Balak’s statement regarding Balaam’s reward: τιμήσω σε καὶ νῦν ἐστέρησέν σε κύριος τῆς δόξης can be translated as follows: “I said I would honour you, and now the Lord has stripped you of your glory/fame”. This means that in the narrative of Balaam taken from the LXX the synonymous expressions for μισθός in Jude 11c are τιμάω ‘to honour, to give respect’, and δόξα ‘fame, glory’. Given the parallels between Jude 11c and Jude 8c, one might also be tempted to interpret the reconstructed narrative of Balaam as a rejection of God’s power/ authority. The soothsayer, coerced by God, blesses the Israelites, but on his own initiative goes against God’s will and, by giving the Midianites perfidious advice, contributes to the violation of God’s laws and the Israelites’ rejection of God’s rule. Nor can sexual connotations, and thus references to verse 8b and defiling the flesh, be ruled out, especially if the phrase τῇ πλάνῃ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ ἐκχέω were to be read as devotion to the “erroneous way [indicated by] Balaam” (with τοῦ Βαλαάμ as a subiectiv genetic).433 In this variant, the emphasis shifts from the figure of Balaam 431 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 83; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 358. 432 Μισθός, [in:] Theological Dictionary of The New Testament, ed. G. Kittel, G. Friedrich, p. 818. 433 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 309; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 82, although he admits that the verb ἐκχέω can be applied to sexual promiscuity, he excludes this possibility because of the

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

to the Israelites, deceived by his advice, who indulged “in licentiousness” with Madianic women and service to foreign deities. The profit for which they did this would obviously have to be considered in immaterial terms. For this they were punished with death (Num 25:4–8). Perhaps the narrator, in relating the example of Balaam to “these people”, the false teachers who deceive the members of the community of the recipients of the letter, assumed both perspectives434 of which one puts Balaam at the centre and the other puts the Israelites who succumb to the lie at the centre. The former, however, seems to be the dominant one. This is also confirmed by the early Christian tradition, in which Balaam is presented as a false prophet preaching deceptive teachings. Irenaeus of Lyon states that this man (Balaam), when he speaks no longer in the Spirit of God, but contrary to God’s law, by setting up a different law with regard to fornication, is certainly not then to be counted as a prophet, but as a soothsayer. For he who did not keep to the commandment of God, received the just recompense of his own evil devices (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus 25).

It is worth noting that Irenaeus uses the expression “worthy reward” in an ironic and metaphorical sense, referring to the rather violent death of Balaam. Perhaps the narrator of Jude also made a similar ironic allusion to Balaam’s tragic end (cf. 2 Macc 8:33, where the payment μισθός is burning alive; 2 Pet 2:13, where the “payment for wrongdoing” to those doing injustice is mentioned). The narrator of the Letter of Jude does not mention Balaam’s death expressis verbis, but it can be assumed that he presumes knowledge of its circumstances by the recipients of the text. Related to this assumption is another variant of the interpretation of Jude 11c that takes into account the additional ironic meaning of μισθός as punishment and judgement. This meaning fits well with the prophetic convention of verse 11 as a whole. It is clear from Josh 13:22 that Balaam was killed by the Israelites with the sword. It is likely that these circumstances allude to the oldest source narrative of the angel of the Lord who stood with a sword in the way, warning the soothsayer not to take the road leading to perdition (Lev 22:32). To “this rash journey”, as mentioned, refers the noun πλάνη used in Jude 11c, which here even more than with previous variants of source tradition reconstruction and interpretation reveals its ambiguity: πλάνη – Balaam’s error would consist in walking πλάνη – “this rash journey” contrary to the angel’s warning. Balaam embarked

presence of the complement μισθοῦ, which he understands in material terms; indeed, it is difficult to suppose that false teachers would indulge in licentious sexual practices for material gain. 434 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 268.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

209

210

Structural commentary

on “this rash journey” driven by the desire for profit understood also in this case rather immaterially (cf. Num 22:18, 24:12–13). “Deception” – here another meaning of the noun πλάνη appears – would be the recognition of “error” (πλάνη)435 and the declared readiness to turn back (Num 22:34). Balaam’s insincerity is very strongly emphasised by Philo (Mos. I 46:274): the soothsayer, to whom the angel finally appeared, begged for mercy and argued that he had set out because he did not know that God was against it, but had not after all sinned on purpose. He expressed his willingness to return, but in doing so he asked for a vision to reassure him that he was doing the right thing. […] angel beholding his insincerity, and being indignant at it […], said, “Go on in the journey in which you have set out, for you shall do no good to those who have sent for you, and you must say what I prompt you […] though you yourself understand nothing of it”.

So Balaam went to Balak, blessed the Israelites instead of cursing them, and in order, as shown earlier, to preserve the benefits/profits of fame, advised the Midianites on how to deceive the Israelites and weaken them. Death by the sword would have been a reward worthy of perverse designs. It must be added here that such an end is very often predicted by apocalyptic literature for sinners: “unrightousness […] shall be cut off from the blasphemers in every place, and those who plan violence and those who commit blasphemy shall perish by the sword” (1 En 91:10). Not infrequently such an announcement is written into the formula of “Woe”: “Woe to those who build their houses with sin, for […] by the sword shall they fall” (1 En 94:7); “Woe to you who love the deeds of unrighteousness ye shall be delivered into the hands of the righteous, and they shall cut off your necks” (1 En 98:12–13); “Woe to them who work unrighteousness […] for […] And shall arouse His fierce indignation and destroy you all with the sword” (1 En 99:15–16). The sword, therefore, should be considered a symbol of justice and judicial power. This seems particularly relevant given the connections of verses 11c and 8c and the accusations of the false teachers of rejecting the judicial authority of Jesus. Thus, the evocation of the circumstances of Balaam’s death and the image of the angel with the sword would indirectly interpret the equally ambiguous term μισθός as πλάνη in a manner characteristic of apocalyptic literature. Consideration of these connotations allows for the interpretation of the phrase τῇ πλάνῃ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ μιστοῦ ἐξεχύθησαν as having “given/abandoned to the error of Balaam for reward [i.e. the punishment that Balaam ultimately received for his actions]”. Moreover, in the evocation of the imagery of Num 22:31 and Jos 13:22 in Jude 11c, one can see

435 F. Mickiewicz, List św. Judy, p. 102.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

the characteristic Jude connections with the angelomorphic Christology familiar to Irenaeus of Lyons, among others: The angel “who appeared to Balaam was the Word Himself; and in His hand He held a sword, to indicate the power which He had from above” (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus 23). These interpretative variants allow a broader and more comprehensive view of Jude 11c as a second testimony confirming the vituperative and theological theses of verse 10. The ignorance and unintelligent conduct of the false teachers, to which they gave themselves completely and utterly, as ind. aor. ἐξεχύθησαν suggests, would consist in their exaltation, arrogance, and conviction of their uniqueness because of the dreams they receive. They, however, fail to interpret these dreams correctly, and sometimes they even act contrary to the divine will conveyed in them – like Balaam setting out on a journey and trying by sacrificial bribery to influence a change in God’s will for Israel. The teachings they propagate testify to their superficial perception of revelation and faith, especially soteriological issues. Their preaching, like the invocation of dreams and visions, is intended to ensure the false teachers’ fame and reputation as God’s special chosen ones. This is what they particularly care about and consider it a profit. Despite the superficiality and the associated attractiveness, the doctrines of false teachers can be dangerous and lead to apostasy (like the application of Balaam’s counsel), which is represented here above all by the rejection of Jesus’ authority as judge and a false conception of freedom. This generates behaviours commonly considered debauched and immoral, which are characteristic of people lacking reason and the ability to think rationally and, especially, to foresee consequences (self-delusion, self-destruction and God’s punishment). Although God sends many warning signs and reminders of the judgement and reign of Jesus Christ (represented by an angel with a sword), false teachers do not know how to read them properly. In their ability to perceive these signs they stand even lower than the mindless animals (the donkey). Ultimately, judgement and punishment await them for all this (the ironic meaning of the noun μισθός as payment for iniquity). The third example illustrating theses in verse 10 concerns the rebellion of Korah. The name Korah was quite popular; in Old Testament tradition it is associated primarily with the incipits of psalms – as, for example, in Ps 42[41]:1 (in this context it appears 11 times). The term “sons of Korah” refers here to the so-called Korahites (Exod 6:24), Levites who were mainly responsible for the music of the temple, but also performed guarding functions as doorkeepers in the temple (1 Kings 9:19, 26:19).436 The name has a less neutral meaning when it points to one of Esau’s descendants (Gen 36:5.14.16.18). As already mentioned, Esau and Korah are associated in early Christian tradition with preaching false doctrine (so Irenaeus, Adv.

436 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 197.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

211

212

Structural commentary

Haer. I 31:1). It may be that Jude 11d also takes account of these connotations with false teachings,437 but the dominant one – through the mention of punishment – seems to be the association of Korah with the narrative of Lev 16 and 26:10. Belonging to the tribe of Levi, Korah made a covenant with Datan and Abiram and led 250 people who decided to challenge the leadership of Moses and Aaron, claiming that it was the whole people who were holy and that the whole congregation should have power. The text goes on to specify that Korah, as the representative of the Levite generation, was mainly concerned with opposing the priesthood reserved exclusively for the sons of Aaron (Num 16:10–11); on the other hand, Datan and Abiram rebelled against Moses as the guide of Israel (Num 16:13–14). Moses left the resolution of both issues to God. The next day, Korah and his followers, along with Aaron and Moses, each carrying incense and a censer, appeared before the Tent of Meeting/the Tent of the Congregation. Korah tried to incite the whole congregation to rebellion, which angered God even more. The confirmation of Moses and Aaron’s leadership was to be a cruel punishment for Korah, Dathan, Abiram and their followers: “the ground opens its mouth and swallows them with all belonging to them, and they go down alive to Sheol, then you will know that these men have spurned the Lord” (Num 16:30). This is what happened: the ground beneath them split open, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and their families and all of Korah’s people with all their possessions. They went down alive to Sheol with all belonging to them; the earth closed over them, and they disappeared from the assembly (Num 16:31–33).

Then those who, together with Korah, offered their incense – the 250 rebels – were consumed by the fire sent by God (Num 16:35). This narrative is recalled by Ps 106[105]:16–18 and Sir 45:18. The Psalm attributes envy to the rebels, Sirach – anger and malice, traits similar to those that characterized Cain in Jude 11b. Jealousy is emphasised by the author of 1 Clem. (4:12), although he does not formally mention Korah, but only Datan and Abiram (Abiron): “Jealousy brought Dathan and Abiram down alive to hades, because they made sedition against Moses the servant of God”. Nor does he mention the name of any of the main rebels further on (1 Clem. 51:1–4), when he assesses the rebels as those whose “hearts […] was hardened” in opposition to living in love and fear of God; this hardness of heart destroys the inner harmony commanded to people. Korah’s envy, which led to Moses’ false accusations, is described at length by Josephus Flavius (Ant. IV 2:2–4, 3:4). Korah, though himself one of the most respected and wealthy of the Israelites,

437 Ibid.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

saw that Moses was in an exceeding great dignity, and was uneasy at it, and envied him on that account. […] He was particularly grieved because he thought he better deserved that honourable post […] So he raised a clamour against him among the Levites […] saying, That it was a very sad thing that they should overlook Moses, while he hunted after, and paved the way to glory for himself; and by ill arts should obtain it; under the pretence of God’s command: while, contrary to the laws, he had given the priesthood to Aaron; […] bestowing dignities in a tyrannical way on whom he pleased […] he did now not only take away their power, without their consent; but even while they were unapprized of his contrivances against them (Ant. IV 2:2).

Apparently Korah’s indignation was supposed to stem from his concern for the people, “in reality he was endeavouring to procure to have that dignity transferred by the multitude to himself ” (Ant. IV 2:3). Korah initially managed to convince only 250 people of his vision, but later the whole crowd, shouting slogans against the alleged tyranny, turned against Moses and wanted to stone him: “raising a clamour before the tabernacle of God, to prosecute the tyrant, and to relieve the multitude from their slavery under him: who under colour of the divine commands laid violent injunctions upon” (Ant. IV 2:3). Aaron was also accused. Moses tried to convince Korah with rational arguments that his opinion was wrong and hurtful. Finally, he decided to leave the judgement to God: “And do thou, O Corah, leave the judgment to God; and await to see on which side he will give his determination upon this occasion. But do not thou make thy self greater than God” (Ant. IV 2:4). Everyone – Korah and his followers and the whole assembly of Israel – agreed to Moses’ proposal. The next day they gathered in front of the Tent of Meeting, and Moses prayerfully invoked God as Lawgiver and Judge: thou who didst suggest to us the knowledge of thy laws […] come thou, I say, O Lord of the whole world, and that as such a judge and a witness to me as cannot be bribed […] This wilt thou do by inflicting such an open punishment on these men, who so madly fly in the face of thy glory, as will take them out of the world, not in an ordinary manner […] This will be a demonstration of thy power to all men; and this method of their sufferings will be an instruction of wisdom for those that entertain profane sentiments of thee. By this means I shall be found a good servant, in the precepts thou hast given by me. But if the calumnies they have raised against me be true, mayst thou preserve these men from every evil accident, and bring all that destruction on me, which I have imprecated upon them. And when thou hast inflicted punishment on those that have endeavoured to deal unjustly with this people, bestow upon them concord and peace. Save this multitude that follow thy commandments: and preserve them free from harm; and let them not partake of the punishment of those that have sinned. For thou knowest thy self, it is not

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

213

214

Structural commentary

just that for the wickedness of those men, the whole body of the Israelites should suffer punishment (Ant. IV 3:2).

The description of the punishment does not deviate too much from the biblical narrative, it is perhaps a little more vivid and dramatic. What is important, however, is its summary: “Thus did these men perish, and become a demonstration of the power of God” (Ant. IV 3:3). This version expanded by Flavius seems to have been as familiar to the narrator of the Letter of Jude as the biblical source story, for many parallels appear between Flavius’ description of Korah’s conduct and Jude’s suggestions of the behaviour and actions of the false teachers in verse 8. The closest parallels, of course, are between 11d and 8d. In the story of Korah, the slander against Moses and Aaron, the accusations of tyranny and nepotism, and the taking away of the people’s freedom by imposing laws on them corresponds to the “blaspheming the glories” and confirms the suggestion that under the term ‘glory’ we should see ‘the saints’, above all people, authorities communicating in the past and present God’s revelation and God’s will. Since 8d is a synthesis of 8b and 8c, 11d can similarly be treated as a synthesis of 11b and 11c. As already mentioned, Korah embodies the same traits that were attributed to Cain, with jealousy and envy at the forefront. Flavius describes him as greedy for fame and honour, which puts him on a par with Balaam. Moreover, like Balaam, Korah tried to deceive the people and promised them release not only from the leadership of Moses, but also from the laws that restrained the people. These analogies can now be transposed to the behaviour of the false teachers: to question the authority of Moses and the law given by him is at the same time to reject the authority and will of God. This is expressed, among other things, in a false understanding of freedom, devotion to licentiousness and denial of judgement. It is also worth noting the connections of the tradition behind 11d with Jude 9. Korah’s rebellion concerned God’s choice of Moses and Aaron. The rebels accused Moses of nepotism and authoritarianism, even tyranny, and tried to convince the people that the sons of Amram were not worthy to hold such responsible positions. This is reminiscent of the devil’s accusations against Moses, who was said to be unworthy to be buried by angels or even to ascend to heaven. The suggestion that the expression κρίσις βλασφεμίας should be understood as judgement for blasphemies is also confirmed. In Jude 9 all judicial functions are assigned to specific figures; in the narratives behind Jude 11c Moses appears in a dual role: as the accused (as in Jude 9) and as the one who gives judgement to God. In Flavius’ account, he utters the words καὶ σὺ δέ, Κορῆ, παραχώρησον τὴν κρίσιν τῷ θεῷ […] μὴ σεαθτὸν ποίει τοῦ θεοῦ: “And do thou, O Corah, leave the judgment to God […] But do not thou make thy self greater than God” (Ant. IV 2:4; Greek: Ant. IV 33), which recall and comment on the narrative in Jude 9 referring to the Archangel Michael. Korah,

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

therefore, not only accused Moses, but also questioned God’s authority as Judge, thus committing a double blasphemy: against Moses and against God. However, the strongest emphasis in Jude 11d falls on the verb ἀπόλλυμι (here in the Ind. aor. med. – ἀπώλοντο), which refers to punishment. As already said – on the one hand, it describes the punishment that befell Korah and his followers, who were “exterminated/destroyed” because the earth consumed them alive; on the other hand, the degree of generality of this description makes it possible to relate it also to 11b and 11c. If, on the other hand, we take the μισθός of 11c as an ironic term of punishment, the verb ἀπόλλυμι would specify this punishment. This confirms the climactic character of the examples in verse 11: in reference to Cain, the mention of punishment does not appear explicitly; in reference to Balaam, it may be indicated by the ironic and metaphorical use of the term “payment”, in the citation of Korah it is about “destruction”. The use of the aorist means that the narrator considers the punishment that befell Korah as complete on the one hand (total destruction), and on the other hand as universal, one that can serve as a foretelling of the punishment that is sure to befall all rebels who oppose the authorities communicating God’s will and divine revelation. We can see here a reference to Numbers 26:10, where the spectacular punishment of Korah and the burning of his 250 followers is to serve as a warning to future generations. In this aspect, the annihilation of Korah resembles a reference to the example of Sodom and Gomorrah, which also serve as a warning exemplum. The use of the aorist is also perfectly in line with the prophetic convention used in verse 11,438 which begins with the characteristic οὐαί ‘woe’ heralding judgement; thus, ἀπώλοντο can be regarded as aoristus propheticus.439 One can see here the hagiographer’s attention to style, even shaping the text into a prophetic message, in order to show that the fate of the rebels is already decided,440 although the punishment will only be applied in the future. In this way, the narrator sensitizes his recipients not only to the historical and warning aspects of the cited example, but also to its eschatological message, similar to that of verse 6 and 7, and especially of verse 5c, where the same verb ἀπόλλυμι is used. There the agens was Jesus, here the medial side may have the same meaning as passivum theologicum (“they were exterminated”) – then it would clearly indicate and confirm that the one who exterminates the rebels is also Jesus Christ. In this way, the authority of Jesus as Judge and His pre-existence are again emphasised. A substantial role in reinforcing the image of Jesus as Ruler and Judge would be played by references to the account of Josephus Flavius, who, as has been shown, evokes in a highly suggestive way the

438 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 84. 439 F. Mickiewicz, List św. Judy, p. 103. 440 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 268.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

215

216

Structural commentary

image of God as Ruler of all things, an incorruptible Judge, and sees punishment as a manifestation of His power. Jude would employ his characteristic strategy of transposing images, formulas and associations referring in Jewish tradition to God to the person of Jesus Christ. This Christological understanding of the form ἀπώλοντο is superimposed on its ethical, parenetic and cautionary understanding. These aspects are more apparent when ἀπώλοντο is translated in the reflexive: “they destroyed/exterminated themselves”. This means that through rebellion the followers of Korah doomed themselves. Similarly, the false teachers, by questioning the authority of “the saints”, by rejecting the authority of Jesus Christ and by preaching a false freedom from the law, condemn themselves to the judgement that will take place in the end times.441 This in turn is an expression of their unreasonableness or even stupidity. This suggestion of self-destruction may therefore be regarded as a typically vituperative element, already announced, as it were, in verse 10. The narrator of Jude is not alone in exploiting the eschatological potential of the narrative of Korah’s rebellion. He may be referring to the same tradition that his contemporary Pseudo-Philo, among others, was familiar with (Book of Biblical Antiquities 16:3). The rebels swallowed up by the earth with body and soul will not die, but will live and dwell in darkness until the end times, when God will renew the earth. This description is reminiscent of the situation of the rebellious angels in Jude 6. It is only after the final judgement – as can be surmised, although this is not articulated explicitly – when the others are resurrected, they will die and not live, and their life shall be taken away […] neither shall Hell vomit them forth again, and destruction shall not remember them, and their departure shall be as that of the tribe of the nations of whom I said, “I will not remember them”, that is, the camp of the Egyptians, and the people whom I destroyed with the water of the flood. And the earth shall swallow them, and I will not do any more unto them (Book of Biblical Antiquities 16:3).

This is probably what the author of 1 Clem. 51:3–4 has in mind when he writes that the condemnation of: “those was hardened who made sedition against Moses […] whose condemnation was clearly manifest, for they went down to hades alive, and Death shall be their shepherd”. The Biblical Antiquities (16:1) links Korah’s rebellion directly to the law concerning the tassels: “At that time did [Moses] give him commandment concerning the fringes: and then did Choreb rebel and 200 men with him”. This motif is developed

441 Ibid., p. 268; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 198–199.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

and extensively commented upon by later rabbinic tradition.442 If the narrator of the Epistle to Jude had been familiar with this tradition, the references to it could have been regarded as elements of vituperatio and narrative commentary (Midrashic) on the vituperative Jude 10. Questioning – as the targumic tradition would have it – the colour of the tassel clearly demonstrates Korah’s ignorance of the nature of the law. The superficial perception of the law is in turn confirmed by Josephus Flavius. The Flavian Korah sees only the limiting dimensions of the laws, which Moses would arbitrarily introduce in order to gain and maintain undue power. Jude refers to Korah’s rebellion as ἀντιλογίᾳ, just as the LXX translates the Hebrew toponym Meribah, the name of the place where the Israelites had a dispute, a quarrel – ύδωρ άντιλογία (Num 20:13, cf. Deut 32:51, 33:8, Ps 81[80]:8, 106[105]:32).443 On the one hand, this may allude to verse 9 and be synonymous with the concept of διαλέγομαι (περὶ τοῦ Μωϋσέως σώματος); on the other hand, phonetically it is undoubtedly associated with ἄλογος of verse 10 and with the concept of ἄλογα ‘lack of reason, irrationality’ implied by this verse. The inclusion in the last example of expressions that evoke direct – phonetic and semantic – associations with verse 10 (άντιλογία – ἄλογα and ἀπόλλυμι – φθείρω) makes it possible to treat them as a summary of the previous examples and to consider all the exemples in the context of verse 10 as supporting testimonies to the vituperative assessments and theological theses contained therein. “The way of Cain” and “the error/wrong way/deception of Baalam” would in fact be rebellion against God’s commands, testimony to ignorance, lack of reason and superficial understanding. All manifestations of rebellion lead to judgement and destruction of the rebels.

442 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 311; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 83; J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 268. 443 J.D. Charles, “Those” and “These”, p. 117; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 84.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

217

218

Structural commentary

Verse

A

B

a

b

10

Ignorance; Lack of reason; Sensory/ instinctive perception.

Blasphemy (understood as manifestations of rebellion, i.e. false teaching and ungodly acts).

Self-destruction; Self-deception –

Destruction by God through judgement –

φθείρονται

φθείρονται

(emphasis on the reflexive voice).

(emphasis on passivum theologicum).

11a

“Woe!” announcing judgement.

11b

Cain’s anger, sense of injustice, jealousy and self-love.

Murder (understood metaphorically as hatred and harming of fellow human beings), indulging the flesh, licentiousness, robbery, rape fraud.

[Condemning oneself to annihilation – ἀπώλοντο of 11d (emphasis on the reflexive voice)].

11c

Balaam’s lust for honour and fame.

Deceiving others, deception, advice/teaching leading others to reject God’s laws.

[Dooming oneself to extinction – ἀπώλοντο of 11d (emphasis on the reflexive voice)].

Reward μισθός – death by the sword understood as a reference to eschatological judgement; [destruction by God as a result of judgement – ἀπώλοντο of 11d (as equivalent to passivum theologicum)].

11d

Korah’s envy, jealousy, lust for honour and power.

Slander, rejection of the authority of God’s chosen people, rejection of God’s laws, deception; incitement to rebellion.

Doomed –

Destruction by God as a result of judgement – ἀπώλοντο (as equivalent to passivum theologicum); waiting in Sheol for the end times, eternal death as final punishment.

ἀπώλοντο

(emphasis on the reflexive voice).

2.5.2.3 Triplet part 3 α’’. Behaviour of intruders (verse 12 a–c) β’’. Reference to Jewish tradition (verse 12d–13) 12

They [are] the sea-rocks/reefs on your agape feasts/love feasts, feasting/eating together to satiety without fear, grazing themselves, waterless clouds carried away/along/swept along by winds, late-autumn fruitless trees/trees without fruit, twice dead, uprooted, 13 wild sea waves spitting out/casting up [like foam] their shame, wandering stars, [for] whom the blackness of darkness is reserved forever.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

In verses 12–13, the narrator of the Letter of Jude departs from directly invoking narratives from Jewish tradition that is familiar to his recipients. Until now, he has either alluded to some event (verse 5.6.7.9) or pointed in a catchphrase to recognizable figures and the actions associated with them (verse 11). Now he focuses primarily on describing the current situation, using more or less elaborate and sophisticated metaphors,444 and evoking the everyday life of the community – Christian feasts. The imagery used here is based on overlapping Hellenistic and Jewish literary traditions and on Jewish, or rather Judeo-Christian and Greek customs. One has to admit that the inspirations drawn from Greek culture and the polemical dialogue with that culture are clearer here than before and at times even constitute a literary dominant (as in verse 12a–c). Like verse 10 and 11 also verse 12 begins with the pronoun οὗτοι ‘these, they’ which refers to those “certain man” τινες ἄνθρωποι of verse 4. Whereas earlier the narrator focused mainly on their teaching, he now moves on to identify them directly – οὗτοί εἰσιν ‘these/they are’ – and to indicate what place in the community they are trying to occupy and how dangerous this is for the community (verse 12a). This can be seen very clearly in some copies of Jude (‫ א‬C2 samss bomss ) supplemented by a phrase carried over from verse 16: γογγυσταὶ μεμψίμοιροι κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας αὐθτῶν πορεθόμενοι “grumbling, complaining [about fate], following their desires/ lusts”. At the same time – especially in the metaphors in Jude 12d–13 – there is a mocking, vituperative assessment of the teachings of the false teachers. According to those who preach them, they are supposed to be of great benefit, but in fact they do no good,445 on the contrary, they create chaos and havoc in the community. The identification, or rather unmasking, of false teachers in verse 12 proceeds on two levels. First, on a metaphorical level – 12a.d–e: οἱ ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν σπιλάδες […] νεφέλαι ἄνυδροι ὑπὸ ἀνέμων παραφερόμεναι, δένδρα φθινοπωριντὰ ἄκαρπα δὶς ἀποθανόντα ἐκριζωθέντα “[they are] sea-rocks on your agape feasts; [they are] waterless clouds carried away by winds, late-autumn fruitless trees, twice dead, uprooted”; Secondly, on the plane of manners – 12a–c οἱ ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν σπιλάδες συνευωχούμενοι ἀφόβως ἑαθτοὺς ποιμαίνοντες “on your agape feasts they eat together to satiety without fear, grazing themselves (or at your agape feasts they eat together to satiety, without fear grazing themselves)”. In exposing false teachers on a moral level, the narrator of the Letter of Jude makes use of his favourite triplet, which, as noted, has not only rhetorical but also certificatory functions. The first, most general element of this triplet would be to indicate the circumstances in which the unmasking of the intruders takes place: “at your agape feasts” (A); the second (B) and third (C) elements would be specific behaviours:

444 F. Opoku-Giamfi, The Use of Scripture, p. 83. 445 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 202.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

219

220

Structural commentary

“eating together to satiety” and “grazing yourselves”. Thus, the proof of the falsity and danger of the teachings would be 1. their preaching on agape feasts; 2. the selfish behaviour of binge-eating; 3. the selfish behaviour of self-assertion in the rightness of the teaching and conduct.446 The structure, in which element A on the one hand determines, and on the other hand is made more specific by elements B and C, resembles the structure of Jude 8, where the dreams – 8a – determined the behaviours described in 8b and 8c. Since 8d was a summary of these descriptions and at the same time an introduction to the explanations found in verse 10, one might expect a similar arrangement here as well: Jude 12d on the one hand synthesizes the previous elements, and on the other hand begins the metaphorical imagery continued in verse 12e and verse 13. The connecting element between 12a and 12d–e would be the metaphors: the one-element, economical but eloquent naming of the false teachers σπιλάδες in 12a and the elaborate figurative imagery in 12d–e; the metaphor in 12d calls the intruders νεφέλαι ἄνυδροι “waterless clouds”, and that in 12e compares them to δένδρα ἄκαρπα “fruitless trees”. This structure, favoured by the narrator of the Letter of Jude, is illustrated in the table: Verse 8 A have dreams       B defile the flesh       C reject authority D blaspheme the glories

Verse 12 A are sea-rocks       B eat/drink together       C feast D waterless clouds… E fruitless trees… F wild sea waves… (verse 13a) G wandering stars… (verse 13b)

The first of the terms of the false teachers – σπιλάδες – is sometimes variously understood and variously translated. The basic meaning of the noun σπιλάς in the singular is ‘storm, tempest’. In Jude 12, however, it is usually indicated that the plural here means ‘rocks hidden under water’, ‘reefs’, sometimes ‘coastal rocks’. All these meanings imply danger for passing ships; for ships can be damaged by these rocks and sink. Most likely the hagiographer is referring here to ordinary rocks, visible at sea and/or near the shore. The noun σπιλάδες is used in this sense already by Homer in Odyssey 3:290–294 (“Now there is a smooth cliff, sheer towards the sea, on the border of Gortyn in the misty deep”) and by Josephus Flavius in De Bello Iudaico III 9:3: (the greatest part of them were carried by the waves, and dashed to pieces against the abrupt parts of the rocks, insomuch that the sea was bloody a long way, and the maritime

446 See below for a detailed analysis of the wording in Jude 12a–c.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

parts were full of dead bodies, for the Romans came upon those that were carried to the shore, and destroyed them).

Sometimes, on the basis of medieval Etymologium Magnum, an attempt is made to indicate that this refers to rocks hidden under water (e.g. John Norman Davidson Kelly447 ), but, as Richard Bauckham rightly points out, visible rocks are as much a danger to sailors as hidden rocks, and there is nothing to indicate that false teachers concealed their teachings and/or the resulting behaviour.448 The point of this metaphor, moreover, is not only to warn of danger, but also to suggest that false teachings be avoided just as one avoids colliding with rocks. This recommendation of caution and avoidance will be repeated again in Jude 23, where it becomes even clearer that it is not a matter of limiting contact with false teachers, but rather of not succumbing to their attractive teachings that lead to ungodly behaviour. By understanding the noun σπιλάδες as ‘sea rocks’, the image evoked is not limited to the rocks but also includes the ship at sea,449 which has to circumvent these obstacles/dangers. It is likely that the narrator of Jude drew on the culturewide topos of the ship at sea, which symbolised human life and fate. This topos was already used in Egyptian, Babylonian and Greek and Roman beliefs, especially in funerary texts, where crossing to the other side of the river or sea is a metaphor for death. But the identification of human fate with the sea voyage also appears in the metaphorically read literature of the periplus (circumnavigation) type, the best known examples of which are Homer’s Odyssey, cited above, and the first part (books I – VI) of Virgil’s Aeneid. Plato in the Laws (7:803b) explicitly mentions “considering by what means and by what modes of living we shall best navigate our barque of life through this voyage of existence”. Sophocles in Antigone (540) compares life disasters to sea waves; Seneca claims that it is only by fighting such adversities that one can be heroic: “a quiet sea and a favoring wind do not show the skill of a pilot either — some hardship must be encountered that will test his soul” (On Consolation to Marcia 5), and the Greek poet Antipater of Thessalonica, in one of his epigrams, shows by his own example that in every situation one should trust in the protection of the gods: “They call me the little skiff, and say that I do not sail so well and fearlessly as the ocean ships. I do not deny it; I am a little boat, but small and great are all the same to the sea; it is not a matter of size, but of luck […] may I be saved by the grace of God” (Epigram 9:107). This is, of course, overlaid with Jewish tradition, primarily wisdom writings. Ps 107[106]:25–26 can be read in the spirit of The Odyssey, where ships at sea

447 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 270. 448 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 85. 449 In iconography, the symbol of Judah is the ship.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

221

222

Structural commentary

symbolise human destinies. Those who are proud and haughty are cast “in the deep” by God, accompanied by a storm and high waves ordered by God. Similarly, in Wis 5:10, the transience of pride and wealth affirmed excessively by the unrighteous who have strayed from the path of truth is “Like a ship traversing the heaving water: when it has passed, no trace can be found, no path of its keel in the waves”. The most eloquent sapiential and at the same time Homeric image is contained in Wis 14:1–5. A man setting out on a sea voyage (i.e. sailing through life), who expects to encounter dangers at sea, should trust in no one and nothing but God’s providence: For the urge for profits devised [the boat], and Wisdom the artisan produced it. But your providence, O Father! guides it, for you have furnished even in the sea a road, and through the waves a steady path, Showing that you can save from any danger, so that even one without skill may embark. But you will that the products of your Wisdom be not idle; therefore people trust their lives even to most frail wood, and were safe crossing the waves on a raft.

Then there is a reference to the Flood and the rescue on Noah’s ark, which is later used by the Christian tradition: “For of old, when the proud giants were being destroyed, the hope of the universe, who took refuge on a raft, left to the world a future for the human family, under the guidance of your hand” (Wis 14:6). In Christianity, the ship has acquired a more communal meaning, since it symbolises the Church, which, despite the dangers lurking at sea (persecution and temptation), reaches a safe port together with the faithful entrusted to it. Christian imagery, like Wis 14:6, refers to Noah’s ark in which the patriarch’s family was rescued (cf. 1 Pet 3:20–21) and to narratives describing Jesus’ calming of the storm and the safe return of the apostles (Matt 8:23–27, 14:22–32, Mark 4:35–41, 6:45–51.53, Luke 8:22–25, John 6:16–21). This is confirmed by Tertullian in De baptismo liber 12, where the little ship represents the Church which is tossed about by the waves (i.e. persecutions and temptations) on the sea (in the temporal world); so it seems that Jesus is asleep, but “at the last times he is awakened by the prayers of the saints to calm the world and restore tranquillity to his own”. A similar theme is taken up by Hippolytus in Apostolic Tradition IV 38:4 “guiding the holy church to its mooring in [God’s] quiet haven”. If the narrator of the Letter of Jude draws on the image of a ship to escape dangers, he is most likely referring, on the one hand, to the Hellenistic, individual tradition, and, on the other hand, to the tradition emerging among Christians, referring to the wisdom literature and to Noah’s ark and/or the ship, where the communal aspect is exposed above all. It seems that the latter is even more emphasised here – remaining in the community of those who resist and “contend for the faith once for all handed down to the saints” (i.e. in the

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

Church) avoids the dangers of the teachings of false teachers and guarantees (like Noah’s ark) preservation in the end times.450 The noun σπιλάδες is also sometimes understood metaphorically as ‘stains, disgraces, defilements’. The supporters of such a translation usually refer to 2 Pet 2:13, where the term σπίλοι appears, and to Jude 23, where a verb referring to the same root as σπίλοι appears, namely σπιλόω ‘to stain, soil, defile’.451 However, while σπίλοι does indeed have strong ethical connotations, the same cannot be said so unequivocally of Jude’s σπιλάδες,452 which, as noted, comes from σπιλάς ‘storm, tempest’ rather than from σπίλος ‘stain’. Gene L. Green, who argues for an ethical understanding of the term σπιλάδες, points out that the narrator of Jude uses in verse 12d and verse 13 more elaborate and figurative metaphors.453 A metaphor in which the carrier is expressed by a single term would deviate from this pattern. It should be noted, however, that the narrator of the Letter of Jude is extremely adept at evoking images and even entire multithreaded narratives through sparing phrasing. This was perfectly evident in verse 11 and the references to “the way of Cain”, “the error/deception of Balaam” and “the rebellion of Korah”. As shown above, the one-element carrier of the metaphor in verse 12a – σπιλάδες – evokes associations not only with the rocks in the sea, but also with the ship that has to avoid these rocks. Moreover, “rocks” here are only representative of the wider dangers, as evidenced by the broad semantic field of the term including also storm and tempest. The use of the nautical motif when introduced to describe the teachings and behaviour of false teachers at community feasts is also reminiscent of some Greek works. For example, Pindar in the Encomium for Thrasybulus of Acragas (124a–b) uses the image of a sea voyage to describe the solace and reassurance and, importantly, the delusion brought by wine drunk at a symposium: “The cares that plague

450 Likewise, Pseudo-Ambrose develops the symbolism of the ship, the rocks and the sea voyage in Homily XLVI (De Salomone): “Likewise, we should consider the ship as a symbol of the Church floating on the open sea, which is exposed to the blows of the whirlwind, that is, to the plagues and attacks of temptation, and which the mighty waves – that is, the powers of this world – try to push against the rocks. This ship, though often shaken by waves and gales, is never shipwrecked, because on its mast, that is, on the cross, hangs Christ, at the stern sits the Father, and as helmsman the ship is steered by the Holy Spirit, the Comforter. The ship is steered by the Holy Spirit, the Consoler, through the dangerous straits of this world, by twelve rowers, that is, the twelve apostles, and the same number of prophets”, after: D. Forstner, Świat symboliki chrześcijańskiej, transl. W. Zakrzewska, P. Pachciarek, R. Turzyński, Warszawa 1990, p. 426 (own translation). 451 Sometimes the difference between σπιλάς (σπιλάδες) and σπίλος (σπίλοι) is explained by the author’s mistake, but R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 86, rightly argues that in the case of Jude, who speaks perfect Greek, such a mistake is very unlikely. 452 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 317; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 86. 453 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 317; see also J.H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 74–75.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

223

224

Structural commentary

the hearts of men are gone when we all sail together on the sea of golden riches into the land of delusion”454 . Similarly, Bacchylides in his feast poem For Alexander, son of Amyntas (20b): “And ships laden with wheat sail on the shining sea, carrying great riches from Egypt – so in his heart he who drinks dreams”455 . It is worth noting that such imagery is also used in Prov 23:34, where the man who abuses wine is compared to one “sleeping on the high seas, sprawled at the top of the mast”, and this has made him insensitive to danger and even to physical pain. The communal feasts recalled by Jude would be the occasion for the propagation of the teachings of the false teachers. These teachings, in turn, based on private revelations, would be very attractive to fellow feasters, providing justification for low behaviour and, like wine, soothing the conscience, bringing illusory benefit and freedom. These latter aspects are also alluded to in the following metaphors (12d–13). The image of the dangerous sea-rock introduced by Jude and the associations accompanying it would shatter this illusory calm and awaken a vigilance among the recipients that the false teachers had probably managed to lull into sleep. The feast-like, symposiastic context also allows for a dialectical treatment of the literal and metaphorical meanings conveyed by the noun σπιλάδες. It is possible that the hagiographer consciously used a pun on words here456 based on the phonetic similarity of σπιλάς and σπίλος (paronomasia) in reference to Greek and Roman feasts and symposia, during which sophisticated or, on the contrary, absurd puns were very common. They are described, for example, by Petronius in Trimalchio’s Feast, as jokes of the host that consisted in a ludicrous wordplays and a childish resemblance of sounds.457 In the context of feasts it is also later used by Clement of Alexandria in Paedagogus 2:1 when he calls those indulging in gluttony seriously ill (ἄσωτος) and unsalvageable (ἄσωστος): “crawling on their bellies, beasts in human shape after the image of their father, the voracious beast. People first called the abandoned ἀσώτους, and so appear to me to indicate their end, understanding them as those who are (ἀσώστους) unsaved, excluding the σ”. Community feasts are referred to in Jude 12a as ἀγάπαι458 . As it seems, Jude 12a is the oldest testimony in which the term appears in this sense.459 In order, on the

454 Pindar, Enkomion dla Trasybulosa z Akragantu, transl. J. Danielewicz, [in:] Liryka starożytnej Grecji, ed. J. Danielewicz, Warszawa–Poznań 1996, p. 342–343 (own translation). 455 Bacchylides, Dla Aleksandra syna Amyntasa, transl. J. Danielewicz, [in:] Liryka starożytnej Grecji, p. 318 (own translation). 456 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 202. 457 Petronius Gaius, Uczta Trymalchiona, transl. L. Staff, p. 26, fn. 74 (own translation). 458 In A C 88. 1243. 2492 appears the version ἀπαταις ‘amusements, deceptions, lies’ being a harmonisation with 2 Pet 2:13. It causes the pronoun ὑμῶν ‘your’ to be replaced by αὐτῶν ‘their’, among others, in Ac . 459 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 84.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

one hand, to allude lexically and semantically to the ἀγάπη of Jude 2, and on the other hand to distinguish the term from “love”, the hagiographer decided to use the plural ἀγάπαι460 . In the New Testament the term is perhaps still used in a similar sense by the author of 2 Pet 2:13.461 The term becomes more popular in the second century in early Christian literature, where it is certainly used as a specific name for common Christian meals, similar to those eaten in antiquity usually by members of some communities (koinon), associations (thiasos), clubs (eranos) or societies, including table societies in the strict sense (sissition).462 Undoubtedly, common meals were one of the most important bond-creating factors in antiquity, they fostered a sense of closeness and security. They often reflected the koinonia463 prevailing between the members of the community, which consisted not only in sitting at the table together but also in sharing the food brought and prepared (cf. Greek symbolai, i.e. contributory feasts, contributory symposia) and reaching for food and wine to a common vessel. Such a koinic understanding of a common meal presupposed a far-reaching inclusivism, a trust and acceptance of all those seated at the table, which is very well illustrated by Josephus Flavius’ description of the Essene meals in De Bello Iudaico (II 8:2–3.5) . Flavius emphasizes that the members of this community seem to have a greater affection for one another […] reject pleasures as an evil, but esteem continence, and the conquest over our passions to be virtue […] every one of them have no separate business for any, but what is for the uses of them all […] after a pure manner, into the dining-room, as into a certain holy temple, and quietly set themselves down; upon which the baker lays them loaves in order; the cook also brings a single plate of one sort of food, and sets it before every one of them; but a priest says grace before meat; and it is unlawful for any one to taste of the food before grace be said. The same priest, when he hath dined, says grace again after meat […] then they return home to supper, after the same manner, and if there be any strangers there, they sit down with them. Nor is there ever any clamour or disturbance to pollute their house, but they give every one leave to speak in their turn; which silence thus kept in their house appears to foreigners like some tremendous mystery; the cause of which is that perpetual sobriety they exercise, and the same settled measure of meat and drink that is allotted them.

Usually, the description of the gathering in 1 Cor 11:17–34 is pointed to as the closest parallel to Jude’s agape. Paul preaches about the συνέρχομαι “meeting” to 460 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 202. 461 The word ἀγαπαις being a harmonisation with Jude 12 appears, among others, in A B Ψ 5. 1611; most manuscripts give the ἀπαταις version. 462 H.-J. Klauck, Wczesnochrześcijańska wspólnota kościelna, transl. S. Jopek, Kraków 1995, p. 37. 463 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 315.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

225

226

Structural commentary

eat the Lord’s Supper (κυριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν). The Lord’s Supper is thus the goal, the climax of such an assembly. The eucharistic and anamnetic element is emphasised (1 Cor 11:23–25), the agapic element appears in the context of the instruction to treat all participants in the gathering in the same way, not to humiliate those who have brought nothing (the poor), not to eat only what one has brought oneself and to begin the meal together. Paul’s description, however, would refer to one particular kind of agape feasts, the agape with the Lord’s Supper agape.464 For it is difficult to suppose that the Eucharist and anamnesis were practised at all communal meals. Jude’s agape would have a broader meaning, would include not only the feasts with the Lord’s Supper, but also those with both thanksgiving and breaking of bread and drinking of wine, but they were not of an anamnesis character (Acts 2:42.44.46).465 The non-anamnetic practice of breaking bread during the common evening meal (deipnon), which persevered among Christians, is evidenced, for example, in Apostolic Tradition III 26:1–5.7 of Hippolytus of Rome, which distinguishes this breaking of bread from the Lord’s Supper: the bishop, after breaking the bread, must in every case taste and eat it with the other believers. [At such an offering] each shall take from the bishop’s hand a piece of [this] bread before breaking his own bread. [This service has a special ceremonial] for it is “a Blessing”, not “a Thanksgiving”, as is [the service of] the Body of the Lord. But before drinking, each one, as many of you as are present, must take a cup and give thanks over it, and so go to your meal. But to the catechumens is given exorcised bread, and each of them must offer the cup. No catechumen shall sit at the Lord’s Supper. […] But when you eat and drink, do so in an orderly manner and not so that anyone may mock, or your host be saddened by your unruliness.

Further on, the text contains permission to take sweets (apophoreta), which are distributed by the host at the end of the meal, as well as a recommendation to eat in silence, “But while the guests are eating, let them eat silently, not arguing, [attending to] such things as the bishop may teach” (III, 26:10). On the other hand, Hippolytus

464 It is worth noting that already the Apostle Paul seems to postulate the separation of the Lord’s Supper and the feast of an agape nature, especially when the participants do not show mutual brotherly love and concern. In 1 Cor 11:22 he asks a question that need not be purely rhetorical: “Do you not have houses in which you can eat and drink?” This may mean that the apostle is suggesting that agapas should be held in private homes, with only the family, while the Lord’s Supper, already without the agape element, should be practised in public halls or private homes, but involving a circle of participants wider than just a family. 465 Cf. F. Drączkowski, Kościół – agape według Klemensa Aleksandryjskiego, Lublin 1983, p. 26. The author claims that the opposite process took place – only in the course of time all parties organised by Christians came to be called agape feasts.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

writes very clearly that during such a supper, during the prayer of thanksgiving, the words “lift up your hearts” are not said “for that belongs to the oblation” (Apostolic Tradition III, 26:23). Treating the noun ἀγάπη firstly as a technical term and secondly as a hyperonym rather than a synonym for the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist also helps to explain the ambiguity of the early second-century Christian testimonies in which the term appears or, on the contrary, is absent. Did. mentions only the Eucharist and cites the prayers at the chalice (9), at the breaking of the bread (9) and after the Eucharist (10); it also recommends that the Eucharist should include only the baptised, “for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs” (Did. 9). Some commentators claim that there was an agape between the Eucharistic prayers in Did. 9 and the thanksgiving in Did. 10,466 as is evident in Did. 10 from the words “But after you are filled, thus give thanks” and the parallels between Luke 22:17–20 and the Jewish tradition of the Passover feast (later called the Seder meal or Seder in the Mishnah and Tosefta). Although the Jewish testimonies are later than the New Testament writings, most biblical scholars reconstruct the course of the Passover feast in the time of Jesus and the apostles on their basis. The feast centred on four cups: the first cup, the so-called chalice of sanctification, began the meal; the second cup, the so-called chalice of proclamation, inaugurated the haggadic recounting of the story of the exodus from Egypt and explanations related to the symbolism of the dishes; the third cup, the chalice of blessing, began the feast proper, when the lamb and unleavened bread were eaten; the fourth cup, the so-called chalice of glory, was drunk at the end of the feast after the singing of psalms 116–118, the so-called Hallelu.467 In Did., the cup from 9 would be the last cup of the feast, while the one of 10 would be the third cup of the Seder meal.468 The problem, however, is that Did. does not mention agape explicitly, and the attempt to see it in the expression about “satiety” does not have sufficient grounds. Conversely, although Jude 12a mentions agape and then even mentions “eating to satiety”,469 there is insufficient basis to see any allusion to the Eucharist. The detailed description of the Sunday Eucharist in First Apology 65–67 of Justin Martyr also omits references to agape, which in this context may indicate a desire to make a clear distinction between the Eucharist as a possible special kind of agape with the Lord’s Supper as its climax, and ‘ordinary’ agape without the Supper, in which Justin took no interest.

466 J.J. Janicki, Historia Eucharystii w pierwszych wiekach chrześcijaństwa w świetle wybranych źródeł (II–IV w.), “Textus et Studia” 4 (2015) no. 4, p. 105. 467 B. Pitre, Jezus i żydowskie korzenie Eucharystii, transl. M. Sobolewska, Kraków 2018, p. 169–177. 468 J.J. Janicki, Historia Eucharystii, p. 105. 469 See below.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

227

228

Structural commentary

Ignatius of Antioch in The Epistle of Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians 13 encourages us “often to come together to give thanks to God”. If we take this as a call to celebrate the Eucharist more often (cf. εὐχαριστέω ‘to give thanks’, εὐχαριστία ‘thanksgiving, gratitude’), it would mean that it was celebrated relatively rarely. Agape was certainly held more frequently, perhaps even daily. If the Eucharist was indeed celebrated during the agape, it would mean that Ignatius calls for more frequent agapes of a Eucharistic nature, although the term agape is not mentioned in the letter. In the same letter, Ignatius also writes about gathering in one faith, and in Jesus Christ, […] so that you obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but [which causes] that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ (The Epistle of Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians 20).

This is undoubtedly a description of the Eucharist and its effects. In the context of Jude 12, the combination of the command to listen to the bishop with the practice of breaking bread may seem significant, which may or may not point to the Eucharist, firstly because, as mentioned, even in the second/third century not every “breaking of bread” was the Eucharist, and secondly because the bishop or other teacher could speak at gatherings which were not explicitly Eucharistic or anamnestic in character either (cf. also Acts 20:7–9, The Shepherd of Hermas, Mandate 11, 1[43]:9).470 A clearer eucharistic connotation, though also ambiguous, has the mention of the agape in Ignatius’ letter to the Church in Smyrna: “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be […] It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God” (Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 8). Such connotations certainly appear in the Epistle of the Apostles 15: “And he shall come forth and come unto you and keep the night-watch with you until the cock crow. And when ye have accomplished the memorial which is made of me”, and they are strengthened by the mention of the “memorial” (anamnesis). On the other hand, in Acts of Paul and Thecla 6 we read: “In the meantime Paul, together with Onesiphorus, his wife and children, was keeping a fast in a certain cave […] They had five loaves, with some herbs and water, and they solaced each other in reflections upon the holy works of Christ” – the eucharistic connotations are absent, and the context indicates that it is about a communal, egalitarian and inclusive feast of joy.

470 See J.C. Kałużny, Miejsca spotkań eucharystycznych Kościoła w świetle źródeł pierwszej połowie II w., “Starożytność chrześcijańska. Materiały zebrane” 2 (2010), p. 32.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

In this broad sense, which corresponds best with Jude 12a, the term ἀγάπη is used by Tertullian in the Apologetics and Clement of Alexandria in the Paedagogus. It should be noted here that the term Eucharist is also familiar to them, but they do not use it in an agape-related context.471 Both fathers compare agapes – Christian feasts – with pagan feasts. Perhaps the comparative element is also at the root of Jude’s description because it fits very well into the vituperative convention of imagery used in the letter. The narrator would ironically and sarcastically contrast the selfish behaviour of false teachers with the Christian idea of agape, which the false teachers do not understand or understand very superficially (cf. Jude 10). Undoubtedly, common to Greek feasts and repasts and to early Christian agape feasts was the aforementioned inclusivism and a certain egalitarianism, assuming mutual acceptance of the participants of the meeting. The designation of a common meal in Christian communities as agape obviously stemmed from a sense of God’s love for those who were “beloved, preserved and called” by him (Jude 1). So far, the narrator of Jude has variously referred mainly to the second of these three formulations, but now he refers to the first and third. As described when analysing verse 1 and 2, the experience of God’s love is translated into the creation and experience of love by the members of the community; this love thus has a vertical and a horizontal dimension (cf. 1 John 4:7–10.16). It seems that the latter is more strongly emphasised here precisely by the differentiation between ἀγάπαι in the plural and ἀγάπη in the singular – here with the emphasis on the vertical aspect. In addition to theological reasons, phonetic and polemical considerations may be behind the introduction of the term ἀγάπαι into Jude 12a, as noted. It is no accident that the noun ἀγάπαι sounds similar to ἀπάγαι ‘entertainment’ (but also ‘deception’),472 and that wordplay was an integral part of Hellenistic feasts. Implicit here is, on the one hand, a reference to Greek customs, and on the other, a vituperative suggestion that everything said and done by false teachers is deception and illusion (cf. the reference to the illusory reassurance implied by the first naval metaphor). It should also be recalled that the participants of the Greek feasts called themselves φίλοι (philoi ‘friends’), thus emphasising the relations between them based on mutual understanding, respect, trust, kindness and referring to φιλία ‘love’ described in detail in Plato’s Phaedrus, among others. During the symposia everything was subordinated to the achievement of a carefree pleasure (physical and intellectual), which was supposed to make the philoi feel similar to the Olympian gods. Despite the emphasis on equality during feasts, which, however, ceased to apply after the end of the meeting, there was rivalry between the participants of

471 See M. Zając, Eucharystia jako centrum celebracji chrześcijańskiej w ujęciu aleksandryjskiej szkoły katechetycznej, “Vox Patrum” 32 (2012), p. 779. 472 See above for critical apparatus to 12a.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

229

230

Structural commentary

Greek feasts, especially in oratory and poetic and musical performances, sometimes also in dance.473 Any attempt by one or two people to dominate the feast contradicted not only the principle of symposial equality but also the idea of symposial love/friendship – philia. Calling the Christian feasts an agape, the narrator of the Letter of Jude firstly intensifies some of the elements constituting the phila – first of all the principle of equality between the participants, secondly, he excludes the erotic connotations accompanying the image of common pagan feasts, thirdly – he shifts the emphasis from the material to the spiritual dimension of the meeting. In this way he clearly differentiates between Greek feasts, which Plutarch defines as “an entertainment [that] is only a pleasant recreation at the table with a glass of wine, aiming to contract friendship through mutual good-will” (Quaestiones Convivales I 621b), and Christian agape feasts based on experiencing God’s saving love and sharing it. This was probably reinforced by moral considerations as well. Lack of moderation in eating and drinking, as well as in chattering, and later in erotic excesses during symposia, was condemned by ancient Greek and Roman authors. In the sixth/fifth century, Epicharmus – quoted by Athenaeus in the Deipnosophists, or the Banquet of the Learned (2:3) – scoffed: “Sacrifices feasts produce, Drinking then from feasts proceeds. […] Then the drinking riot breeds; Then on riot and confusion Follow law and prosecution; Law brings sentence; sentence chains; Chains bring wounds and ulcerous pains”. Petronius, in his Trimalchio’s Feast, also takes up theme of the lack of moderation in eating and drinking and the empty words that appear in speeches in a mocking manner. Christian agapes were to be characterised in every respect, first and foremost, by moderation, abstinence, and even modesty, as well as sensitivity to the needs of the meeting’s participants. Tertullian refers to such assumptions in the Apologeticus 39. He explains why common meals of Christians are called agape and stresses that their essence is love and piety: Our feast explains itself by its name. The Greeks call it agapè, i.e., affection. Whatever it costs, our outlay in the name of piety is gain, since with the good things of the feast we benefit the needy; not as it is with you, do parasites aspire to the glory of satisfying their licentious propensities, selling themselves for a belly-feast to all disgraceful treatment — but as it is with God himself, a peculiar respect is shown to the lowly. If the object of our feast be good, in the light of that consider its further regulations. As it is an act of religious service, it permits no vileness or immodesty. The participants, before reclining, taste first of prayer to God. As much is eaten as satisfies the cravings of hunger; as much is drunk as befits the chaste. They say it is enough, as those who remember that even during

473 See M. Węcowski, Sympozjon, czyli wspólnego picie. Początki greckiej biesiada arystokratycznej IX–VII w., Warszawa 2011, p. 73–77.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

the night they have to worship God; they talk as those who know that the Lord is one of their auditors. After manual ablution, and the bringing in of lights, each is asked to stand forth and sing, as he can, a hymn to God, either one from the holy Scriptures or one of his own composing — a proof of the measure of our drinking. As the feast commenced with prayer, so with prayer it is closed. We go from it, not like troops of mischief-doers, nor bands of vagabonds, nor to break out into licentious acts, but to have as much care of our modesty and chastity as if we had been at a school of virtue rather than a banquet.

Similarly, in Paedagogus 2:1, Clement of Alexandria contrasts the gluttony accompanying pagan feasts with the moderation and spirituality of the participants in Christian agapes. There is even a formulation referring to the behaviour of “irrational creatures” similar to Jude 10: Some men, in truth, live that they may eat, as the irrational creatures, “whose life is their belly, and nothing else”. But the Instructor enjoins us to eat that we may live. For neither is food our business, nor is pleasure our aim; […] There is no limit to epicurism among men. […] A man like this seems to me to be all jaw, and nothing else. […] But we who seek the heavenly bread must rule the belly, which is beneath heaven, and much more the things which are agreeable to it […] whence some, speaking with unbridled tongue, dare to apply the name agape, to pitiful suppers, redolent of savour and sauces. Dishonouring the good and saving work of the Word, the consecrated agape, with pots and pouring of sauce; and by drink and delicacies and smoke desecrating that name, they are deceived in their idea, having expected that the promise of God might be bought with suppers. Gatherings for the sake of mirth, and such entertainments as are called by ourselves, we name rightly suppers, dinners, and banquets, after the example of the Lord. But such entertainments the Lord has not called agapæ. […] But love (agape) is in truth celestial food, the banquet of reason. […] But the hardest of all cases is for charity, which fails not, to be cast from heaven above to the ground into the midst of sauces. […] But let our diet be light and digestible […] Nor is this a point which is beyond the sphere of discipline. For love is a good nurse for communication.

The narrator of the Letter of Jude is obviously much more sparing with words. However, as has already been said, behind the picture drawn by the phrases “feast together” and “grazing themselves” may lie on the one hand, a vituperative condemnation of the behaviour of false teachers, and on the other, a defence of an agapic idea that has not been understood. The compound verb συνευωχέομαι is usually translated as “feasting together”.474 The element εὐωχέομαι suggests that this refers to eating to satiety. It may refer to the most lavish meal of the day – i.e., supper; or

474 The wording συνευχομενοι ‘praying together’ appears in P72 .

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

231

232

Structural commentary

it may refer to the more solemn and lavish meal, which was also celebrated in the evening probably once a week (then it may indeed have been combined with the Lord’s Supper,475 though it need not have been, since Pliny the Younger in a letter (10:96) to Emperor Trajan, dated to the year 112, claims that Christians “were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day […] then reassemble to partake of food, but food of an ordinary and innocent kind”476 , and before sunrise sing hymns to Christ, acknowledging him as God). It seems that by using the term συνευωχέομαι, Jude wants to emphasize the fact of “eating to satiety”, which in this case should be considered a euphemism meaning gluttony. Such an attitude obviously contradicts the principle of agapic moderation. Moreover, the preposition συν indicating some kind of joint action is important here. Interpretation can point to at least two directions. Perhaps the most widespread view is that συν refers to eating together with other members of the community. This is based, among other things, on a comparison with 2 Pet 2:13, where the same verb occurs, further defined by the pronoun ὑμῖν (συνεθωχούμενοι ὑμῖν “eating to satiety/feasting together”). The danger of which the hagiographer warns in verse 12a would thus consist primarily in accepting false teachers and forming almost fraternal bonds with them over a common meal.477 However, in the context of the vituperative use of the verb συνευωχέομαι and in the light of the egalitarianism characteristic of Christian and Greek communal meals, συν would mean the formation by “these certain men” of small groups concentrated on indulging in gluttony and “grazing themselves” in their closed circle. Such an interpretation would be reminiscent of the situation outlined by Paul in 1 Cor 11:18–21478 and would further illustrate Jude 8 and 10, where false teachers are accused of exalting themselves because of the dreams they experience and of not understanding Christian teaching and having a superficial perception of it. The danger of this would be primarily to introduce divisions in the community. The symposial context of Jude’s description also makes it possible to treat dialectically both interpretations as an allusion to the word games that accompanied the ancient feasts. The expression ἑαυτοὺς ποιμαίνοντες probably also has a similar wordplay character. It can be taken both literally and metaphorically. The first variant – strictly vituperative – would complete the image of the small, exalted and arrogant groups created by the false teachers, who graze, i.e. feed and eat in a violent, greedy, animallike manner. This would also mean the introduction of dangerous divisions into the

475 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 201. 476 Cf. F. Ruggiero, Szaleństwo chrześcijan. Poganie wobec chrześcijaństwa w pierwszych pięciu wiekach, transl. E. Łukaszyk, Kraków 2007, p. 46. 477 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 86. 478 Cf. Id., Jude, 2 Peter, p. 86; J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 27

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

community and a departure from the ideal of equality and consent to all low behaviour. The second variant – metaphorical – allows us to see in the verb ποιμαίνω a reference to leadership functions in the Church (see e.g. John 21:16, Acts 20:28, 1 Cor 9:7, Eph 4:11, 1 Pet 5:2 and the letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the Church in Rome 9:1)479 and another reference to Jewish, Old Testament tradition (e.g. 2 Sam 5:2; 7:7). It seems that Jude’s expression is rooted directly in Ezek 34:2.8.10 [LXX] : Oh, you shepherds of Israel, do [these] shepherds feed themselves? Do not [these] shepherds feed the flock? […] The shepherds did not search for my sheep and the shepherds fed themselves but did not feed my sheep. […] Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will search for my sheep from their hands and turn them back so as not to shepherd my sheep, and the shepherds shall no longer feed them, and I will deliver my sheep from their mouth and they shall no longer be for them as food.

A motif similar to that of Ezekiel’s accusing shepherds of killing sheep, giving them away to wild animals and destroying their house is also found in 1 En 89:59–76; there, admittedly, the wording about “grazing themselves” does not appear, but the lack of proper care for the sheep entrusted to them and the abuse of their authority over them are written in the book, so that it may be “a testimony against them, and know every deed of the shepherds, that I may comprehend and see what they do, whether or not they abide by my command which I have commanded them” (1 En 89:63–64). The narrator of the letter no longer needs to explain what the actions of those “grazing themselves” are; he assumes that the recipients will reconstruct them on the basis of their knowledge of the prophetic and Enochean message. On the one hand, Ezekiel condemns the selfishness of the evil shepherds, who had only their own interests in mind; on the other, like Enoch, he accuses them of leaving the sheep (of Israel) unattended and of exposing the flock to danger (wild animals) and to dispersion. These actions will become the basis for the accusation of the shepherds in eschatological times. In the context of the whole Letter of Jude, dispersion, most probably understood as divisions, is of crucial importance: “those who graze themselves” are dangerous because they introduce divisions in the community. At the same time, it is worth noting that Ezekiel, condemning the behaviour of the evil shepherds, uses the verb βόσκω ‘to feed, to nourish’, which has less metaphorical potential than the verb ποιμαίνω used by Jude. This substitution undoubtedly serves to expand the associations built on the imagery rooted in the source text reconstructed by the recipients and fits well into

479 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 87; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 296.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

233

234

Structural commentary

the symposial wordplay thanks to the overlap of meanings conveyed by the literal and metaphorical understanding of the verb ποιμαίνω. A good parallel to the agape feasts, during which the ‘shepherds’ introduce divisions, is the description of the Cretan feasts called andreia in Strabo’s Geography (X 4:20). The feasts are attended by men and boys (young men). The latter are incorporated into so-called agelai ἀγέλαι ‘troops’ (etymologically ‘flock’) that are supervised by a leader of each troop, the father of the assembler, who has authority to punish and reward, but above all he prepares and induces the troops to compete both within the group and with other groups. This rivalry, which takes place during andreion, has a ritual and military character, so it is not surprising that the bodies of the Troop boys bear marks of the often-brutal struggle. It is highly likely that the false teachers of the Letter of Jude as shepherds also gather around them troops of followers which form rival groups. Of course, this rivalry is devoid of a military aspect, although the battle of words between the troops can be equally violent. The transposition of the Cretan agelai to the situation of the community of the recipients of the Letter of Jude also makes it possible to clarify the meaning of συνευωχέομαι as indulging in gluttony in the company of a troop of followers. Underneath this image, which refers to the animal world, lies a vituperative suggestion similar to that in Jude 10: not only are false teachers deprived of reason like animals, but also those who have succumbed to their teachings. Understood metaphorically, the function of a shepherd (or a leader) implies teaching. This most likely took place during the agape, as it did at the Greek feasts (cf. e.g. Plato’s Symposium, where Socrates teases the participants of the feast that he and Agathon will not have the opportunity to demonstrate their wisdom because so many excellent speakers will have spoken beforehand). Perhaps – as at the symposia – the opportunity to speak during the agape feasts was given to most of the participants. This is what Clement of Alexandria, among others, suggests when he warns that at feasts when they “meet together for the purpose of increasing our goodwill to each other”, they should not “stir up enmity by jibing. It is better to be silent than to contradict, and thereby add sin to ignorance” (Paedagogus 2:7). The Apostolic Tradition is different (III 26:10): it recommends that the Christian communal meal should be eaten in silence, so that the instructions of the participating bishop can be heard. The teaching role of the president is also highlighted in the First Apology 67 of Justin Martyr: […] “the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things”, that is, teachings taken from the “the memoirs of the apostles” (gospels?) or prophetic writings read during a meeting of a eucharistic character. In such a context also the statements of the superior/teacher/pastor acquired a status close to the apostolic and prophetic writings.480

480 See P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 202.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

It is impossible to say definitively what teaching looked like at the agape feasts mentioned in the Letter of Jude. If a “symposial” model, close to Clement’s, prevailed, false teachers could have tried to appropriate the time and attention of the participants in the meeting. This would be a violation of the principle of equality that guaranteed everyone the opportunity to speak. The reactions of the listeners forced to listen to such speeches are described, among others, by Theognis of Megara (Poems 295–298): “To a talkative man silence is a sore burden, and his speech a weariness to his company; all hate him, and the mingling of such a man in a carousal cometh only of necessity”. This symposial background in Jude 12c is further overlaid by a Jewish tradition equally averse to excessive talkativeness, which often becomes synonymous with stupidity and impiety (cf. e.g. Isa 32:6, Koh 10:12.13, Prov 10:8, 17:28 and Matt 6:7–8 and especially Titus 1:10–11, 3:9). It would also be a violation of symposial equality to address only the immediate recipients and not all the participants in the meeting. Such particularity and exclusivity of the teaching of individual shepherds intended only for the flock seems to be indicated by the addition that “they graze themselves”. It has then a very sarcastic character because it means that false teachers only confirm themselves and their already declared followers in the deceptive teaching. A similar sarcasm will also be seen in the natural metaphors of Jude 12d–13 evaluating this teaching. Also, if one assumes that the agape feasts were dominated by a “hierarchical” model close to Justin and Hippolytus, the statement about “(their) grazing themselves” can be taken sarcastically. Then the false teaching of the shepherds should not find recipients among any of the participants in the meeting. However, both when teaching a small group and when teaching all those taking part in the agape, one must be vigilant. The danger, Jude warns, is that of sowing doubt among the faithful about “the faith once for all handed down to the saints”: is this really the whole revelation if, as false teachers arrogantly claim, God keeps sending new visions to the elect, and the doctrine built on these visions contradicts previous teaching? This danger seems greater with the hierarchical model of agape because this model assumes that the speaker has some power and enjoys authority throughout the community. The doubts sown by the shepherds-teachers lead, as already mentioned, to divisions in the community, to dispersion, of which the prophet Ezekiel already wrote. That this danger was real and not at all rare, convinces, among others, Hermas in The Shepherd (Mandate 11, 1[43]:1–4): He shewed me men seated on a couch, and another man seated on a chair. […] “These […] are faithful, but he that sitteth on the chair is a false prophet who destroyeth the mind of the servants of God – I mean, of the doubtful-minded, not of the faithful. These doubtful-minded ones then come to him as to a soothsayer and enquire of him what shall befall them. And he, the false prophet, having no power of a divine Spirit in himself,

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

235

236

Structural commentary

speaketh with them according to their enquiries [and according to the lusts of their wickedness], and filleth their souls as they themselves wish. For being empty himself he giveth empty answers to empty enquirers; […] But he speaketh also some true words; for the devil filleth him with his own spirit, if so be he shall be able to break down some of the righteous. So many therefore as are strong in the faith of the Lord, clothed with the truth, […] hold aloof from them; but as many as are doubters […] practice soothsaying like the Gentiles, and bring upon themselves greater sin by their idolatries. For he that consulteth a false prophet on any matter is an idolater and emptied of the truth, and senseless.

Despite the real danger of dividing and adopting at least the most attractive elements of the false teachers’ doctrine, the narrator of Jude – like Hermas, though not as directly – judges their teaching as foolish and one that cannot come from God. This is evidenced by the references to verse 10 described above and the superficial, animal perception of revelation and reality that translates into animal behaviour. Added to this is the sarcasm and the invocation expressis verbis of the absence of fear (ἀφόβως), which in the Jewish sapiential tradition is the beginning of true, God-derived wisdom (Prov 9:10, Sir 1:14). Usually, in translations of Jude 12, the adverb ἀφόβως ‘without fear, without anxiety’ is combined with the verb συνευωχέομαι ‘to eat to satiety without fear, to graze without fear’. The basis for such an attribution is undoubtedly in Prov 15:16 in the LXX, where the term ἀφοβίας appears in the context of the superiority of being satisfied with lesser things “with the fear of the Lord” (μετὰ φόβου κυρίου) than having “great treasures without fear” (or rather “with non-fear” – μετὰ ἀφοβίας).481 False teachers would thus indulge in gluttony without fear. Since it is difficult to interpret such a phrase unambiguously, commentaries often interpret ἀφόβως as disrespectful or arrogant:482 false teachers would disrespectfully/arrogantly eat to their heart’s content at community feasts. Such an interpretation fits the already repeatedly cited situation described by Paul in 1 Cor 11:21–22.33–34, when some participants in a meeting, paying no attention to others – the poor and hungry – satisfy only their appetite. Gene L. Green extends the meaning of ἀφόβως to the social context and translates this adverb as “shamelessly”.483 One could also look at both of these explanations for a symposiastic background and a violation of the principle of feast equality. On the basis of 1 Cor 11:27–29, “spiritual arrogance” is also added:484 false teachers preach a doctrine that has nothing to do with divine revelation, but are so deeply convinced of its correctness that they find it difficult to undertake any critical reflection and 481 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 87; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 317; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 202. 482 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 87; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 202. 483 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 317; J. Painter, D.A. de Silva, James and Jude, p. 64. 484 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 87.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

verification of their doctrine on the basis of “the faith handed down to the saints”. This is why, while participating in the Eucharistic and anamnestic agape feasts, they partake in the Lord’s Supper without fear. It should be noted, however, that the adverb ἀφόβως is placed between two participles: συνευωχούμενοι and [ἑαυτοὺς] ποιμαίνοντες, which means that it can refer to both the first and the second verb. Such ambiguity would fit well with the frequent wordplays in this verse typical of symposial circumstances. In addition, in Jude 3.4.8, the inferential elements (often very elaborate) were placed before the verbs to which they referred.485 Here the hagiographer could use a similar strategy to emphasise that the act of “grazing themselves” is done “without fear”. Thus, as noted above, he would have judged all the components of this “grazing”, especially the ‘shepherd’s’ teaching, as impious and foolish. The adverb ἀφόβως may also contain allusions to the very content of false teaching, which emphasises only the liberating aspects of salvation. Fearlessness would thus indicate a lack of reflection regarding God’s judgement and, consequently, regarding Jesus’ judicial authority. This results in a sense of impunity and a rejection of responsibility for one’s immoral and lowly behaviour and for a community that is deceived by false teachings and promises of avoiding judgement in the end times. By using forms of part. praes. in 12b and c, Jude suggests that ungodly and foolish behaviour (represented by gluttony) and foolish and soteriologically dangerous teaching (represented by grazing) are not incidental; rather repeated and ongoing. The ridiculing and disparaging of false teachers, which is characteristic of vituperatio, can be seen even more clearly when one recalls and compares the status of the participants in Greek feasts and the agape described in Jude 12a–c. In addition to the philoi mentioned above, who were invited by the host, the so-called akletoi ἄκλητοι ‘uninvited’ also participated in the common feasts. They could accompany the invited guests, then they were called skiai σκιαί ‘shadows’.486 Such a shadow guest was undoubtedly one of the protagonists of Plato’s Symposium, Aristodemus, who together with Socrates came to the feast to Agathon. Shadow guests participated in the feast and its entertainment on equal terms with the invited guests. With time, however, they became desired and invited guests.487 This is very reminiscent of the situation of the false teachers, who were not invited to the community, but sneaked into it (Jude 4). After some time, however, they were completely accepted and, in an atmosphere of complete trust, they began to form close bonds with the members of the community.488 This made it easier for them to propagate harmful teachings and customs. 485 486 487 488

P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 202. See M. Węcowski, Sympozjon, p. 45. See Ibid., p. 45–46. G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 316.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

237

238

Structural commentary

Another type of guests not invited to Greek symposia were those who, in exchange for food and drink, were ready to give self-mocking performances. Władysław Witwicki writes in his introduction to Plato’s Feast: When a better party was in the making, apart from those invited, there would also appear figures who were completely ‘uninvited’, but with a good face such a gentleman would enter, make himself at home and entertain the company with humour and a good appetite. It was not so much a flattering role, as a comic one, so these figures became part of Greek comedy already for Epicharmus, and from there they passed on as a permanent ingredient to Latin comedy.489

While placing false teachers in the first category of ἄκλητοι raises understandable concerns for the narrator of the Letter of Jude, placing them in the second category fits better with the vituperative convention of the writing. The teachings of false teachers based on misunderstanding, blasphemy, arrogance, intuition, sensuality (Jude 10), foolishness and ungodliness (ἀφόβως) only ridicule those who preach them. Discrediting and ridiculing would also be the fact that these erroneous and harmful concepts do not always come from private revelation, but arise so that their preachers can eat (and drink) to their heart’s content together with the other participants in the communal feast. However, this does not diminish the danger they bring. The reference to false teachers of both categories of ἄκλητοι also helps to mark the difference between intruders and those who are called and invited into the community – κλητοί (Jude 1) and obliged to defend “the faith handed down to the saints”, lest elements of blasphemous, impious, but essentially foolish and ridiculous teaching should enter it. In Jude 12d begins a sequence of metaphors evaluating the teachings of false teachers as foolish and ridiculous on the one hand, but also as dangerous as “sea rocks” on the other. The character of the statements changes somewhat, for it seems that the four metaphors in Jude 12d–13 refer to Palestinian reality and Jewish literature to a greater extent than Jude 12a–c. Although the hagiographer does not completely abandon the references to Greek culture, the references to Judaism will now constitute a dominant feature and introduce a distinctly eschatological atmosphere. All four figures of speech can be called naturalistic. The first – with the clouds heralding rain, thus meteorological – refers to the air (12d), the second – with the trees (botanical) – to the earth (Jude 12e), the third – like Jude 12a (maritime) – to the sea (Jude 13a), and the fourth – with the stars (astronomical) – to heaven

489 Platon, Uczta, transl. W. Witwicki (own translation).

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

(Jude 13b).490 Together they form a comprehensive picture of the world created by God (cf. Gen 1:1–2:2), in which, however, the order established by God has been violated. In this way, the narrator alludes to earlier descriptions of transgressions, violations of God’s laws committed by angels (Jude 6) and humans (Jude 7). No such act is without consequences, so one might expect that consequences would also befall false teachers who preach contrary to God’s will, as explicitly stated in verse 13c lexically and figuratively very reminiscent of Jude 6d. As in his descriptions of earlier transgressions Jude drew abundantly on Enochean literature, so also now he draws mainly on 1 Enoch. In 1 En 2:1–3, 5:1–4 there is a command to observe natural phenomena, the same ones that Jude mentions in verse 12d–e.13a–b: Observe ye everything that takes place in the heaven […]. Behold ye the earth and give heed to the things […] how none of the things upon earth change. […] Behold the summer and the winter Observe ye how the trees cover themselves with green leaves and bear fruit […] give ye heed […] His works go on thus from year to year for ever, and all the tasks which they accomplish for Him, and their tasks change not. […] behold how the sea and the rivers in like manner accomplish and change not their task. […] But ye have not been steadfast, nor done the commandments of the Lord, but ye have turned away and spoken proud and hard words with your impure mouths against His greatness. […] ye shall find no peace!

References to heaven and earth and the elements associated with them – air, vegetation, sea – are not accidental here. They are a component of biblical and extrabiblical judicial imagery: heaven and earth are invoked as witnesses of the accusation against the wicked who, by their own conduct, that is, by transgressing God’s order, condemn themselves to a curse (Deut 30:19, 32:1, Book of Biblical Antiquities 19:4, ApBaSyr/2 Ba 19:1, 84:2).491 In the Letter of Jude, everything that makes up heaven and earth also provides an introduction to the vision of the Lord coming in judgement (Jude 14–15). In the Old and intertestamental references to heaven and earth, the main point is to show the contrast between the fixed, immutable laws of God to which nature (creation) is subjected and the transgression of these laws by the ungodly (cf. Jer 5:22–23, 1 En 101:5–8).492 Particularly significant is TNaph 3, already mentioned several times, which contrasts the constancy of God’s laws in nature with the

490 R. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives, p. 191. 491 Ibid., p. 192. 492 Ibid., p. 192.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

239

240

Structural commentary

violation of these laws by the inhabitants of Sodom (cf. Jude 7) and by the giants, the descendants of the rebellious angels (cf. Jude 6): Sun and moon and stars change not their order; so also ye shall not change the law of God in the disorderliness of your doings. Nations went astray, and forsook the Lord, and changed their order, and followed stones and stocks, following after spirits of error. But ye shall not be so, my children, recognising in the firmament, in the earth, and in the sea, and in all created things, the Lord who made them all, that ye become not as Sodom, which changed the order of its nature. In like manner also the Watchers changed the order of their nature, whom also the Lord cursed at the flood.

Jude, however, in verse 12d–e.13a–b departs from this contrast. In fact, the carriers of his metaphors are natural anomalies which, on the one hand, illustrate the teaching incompatible with God’s revelation, and on the other, direct the attention of the recipients to the end times. The background for the eschatological orientation of Jude’s metaphors is most probably the so-called The Book of the Heavenly Luminaries, which is part of 1 En (72–82).493 The unnatural phenomena described therein accompany the “days of the sinners” (1 En 80:1–8), which should be regarded as one of the signs of the approaching day of judgement (1 En 80:8), the opening and reading of the book of “heavenly tablets” (1 En 81:1–2).494 Attention is drawn to the order of the phenomena mentioned in Jude 12d–e and 13b, which corresponds to the order recorded in 1 En 80:2–8: the cessation of rain (Jude 12d – 1 En 80:2); the failure of trees to bear fruit in good time (Jude 12e – 1 En 80:3), the change in the track of the stars (Jude 13b – 1 En 80:6) and the misleading of sinners which will lead to judgement (Jude 13c – 1 En 80:8). This may indicate a direct relationship between the two texts. On the other hand, we should also note the absence in Enoch’s catalogue of natural anomalies of any mention of sea waves, or the sea in general, which is introduced by the narrator of the Letter of Jude in verse 13a. This, in turn, may indicate the non-Enochean provenance of this image or the existence of some extended version of 1 En 80.495 Apart from the eschatologically oriented and vituperative imagery, all these metaphors are united by a similar structure formally referring directly to 12a–c, and compositionally to verse 11. The governing phrase remains οὗτοι εἰσιν “these are/

493 Ibid., p. 194 notes that the juxtaposition of the images of God’s immutable laws in relation to nature in 1 En 2:1–5:4 and the eschatological natural anomalies in 1 En 80:2–8 already appears in the First Book of Enoch itself – 1 En 101:1–3, and not until the Epistle of Jude. Thus 1 En 2:1 corresponds to 1 En 101:1, 1 En 80:2 – 1 En 101:2, 1 En 5:4 – 1 En 101:3. 494 Ibid., p. 193. 495 See below for a detailed description of each metaphor.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

they are”, after which the hagiographer lists the nouns and participia characterising the intruders: οὗτοι εἰσιν “these are/they are” σπιλἀδες “rocks” (noun), συνεθωχούμενοι “eating together to satiety” (participium), ποιμαίνοντες “grazing” (participium), νεφέλαι παραφερούμεναι “clouds swept away” (noun + participium), δένδρα ἀποθανόντα ἐκριζωθέντα “fruitless [and] uprooted trees” (noun + participium), κύματα ἐπιφρίζοντα “foaming waves” (noun + participium), ἀστέρες πλανῆται “wandering/stray stars” (noun + adjective acting as participium).

All these elements are summarised in Jude 13c – “for [whom] the blackness of darkness is reserved for ever”, lexically alluding to Jude 6d. Such a summary after or in the final element is also reminiscent of Jude 11c, where the three anti-heroes are mentioned, but only at the last one (Korah) is there an indication of punishment, which does not refer only to Korah but to all the previous examples.496 The image outlined by the first meteorological metaphor describing false teachers as νεφέλαι ἄνυδροι ὑπο ἀνέμων παραφερόμενοι “waterless clouds carried away by winds” refers to natural phenomena characteristic of Israel, Syria, Lebanon or Jordan. In the sky one can see big clouds that should bring rain that is longed for especially in the dry season. However, not only do the clouds not bring rain, they are waterless, but they also increase the intense heat.497 There is thus a dissonance between the promise and the expectation, and the real effects of the phenomenon, which the author of the Book of Proverbs had already used to describe a lie: “Clouds and wind but no rain, the one who boasts of a gift not given” (Prov 25:14). Although the narrator seems to be referring here primarily to the Hebrew text,498 there may also be an ironic LXX version in the background, more in keeping with the vituperative convention of Jude’s argument:499 “As winds and clouds and rains are exceedingly apparent, so are they who boasts over a false gift”. The meaning of this metaphor is clear: the point is to show that false teachers are highly visible and

496 497 498 499

See below. J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 272. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 87; J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 272. See S. Longosz, Zarys historii inwektywy wczesnochrześcijańskiej, “Roczniki Teologiczne” 43 (1996), no. 2, p. 375.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

241

242

Structural commentary

promise much, but their teachings contain no positive content, no values;500 on the contrary, they are a fraud that brings harm. A similar picture is found, as mentioned, in 1 En 2:3, 4 and 80:2, although the emphasis there is somewhat different and the effect of the absence of rain is emphasised: Behold the summer and the winter, how the whole earth is filled with water, and clouds and dew and rain lie upon it. […] observe ye the days of summer […] And you seek shade and shelter by reason of the heat of the sun, and the earth also burns with growing heat, and so you cannot tread on the earth, or on a rock by reason of its heat. […] And the rain shall be kept back and the heaven shall withhold.

The life-giving rain, which the clouds/teachers should bring, is – as can easily be reconstructed – the teaching in accordance with “the faith once for all handed down to the saints”. The teachings given by false teachers are symbolised by clouds that intensify the scorching heat. Not only do they not bring any spiritually invigorating element to the community, but they cause the dying out of spirituality and, as 1 En would suggest, evangelistic activity. The waterless cloud is, moreover, in Jude’s view, something that opposes God’s order. The appearance of such an element heralds, as has been said, the coming of the eschatological judgement where all acts of violation of God’s will will be punished. The imagery of Jude must either have used a motif common in the first/second century or it must have become a popular pattern for other apocalyptic Christian texts, since a similar image also appears in Gnostic literature from Nag Hammadi. The author of the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter warns against those who exalt themselves by claiming to “have received their authority from God” and calls them “dry canals”. Peter H. Davids additionally draws attention to the winds that appear in this metaphor501 and dynamize it. Here they play the role of an agent, while the teacherclouds remain an involuntary, passive element (cf. part. praes. medii et passivi – παραφερόμενοι). This is even clearer in the textual variant given by ‫א‬: “guided by every wind” παντὶ ἀνέμῳ. This observation allows us to develop the picture in yet another direction, namely, that of the vacillation and instability of the false teachers themselves, who toss about in their teachings like wind-tossed clouds (cf. Jas 1:6), and involuntarily (without the participation of will or reason) submit to them like mindless animals (cf. Jude 10). Richard Bauckham also draws attention to the wind,502 and considers the use of this term sarcastic, especially in reference to the

500 R. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives, p. 190–191. 501 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 206. 502 R. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives, p. 198.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

already quoted text from Prov 25:14, where the LXX also contains the term ἄνεμος – wind. However, it seems that this sarcastic meaning is based on the Hebrew text, where the more ambiguous noun ‫ רוח‬appears here, which in addition to wind can also mean spirit/spirit (cf. John 3:8). By substituting as in the LXX ‫ רוח‬for ἄνεμος, which unambiguously refers to the wind, the narrator of the Letter of Jude points out to his recipients – obviously relying on their perfect knowledge of the Hebrew text of Proverbs – that although false teachers consider themselves inspired (cf. also Jude 19), moved by the prophetic “spirit/Spirit” – ‫( רוח‬cf. Jude 19), are in fact moved by the “breeze/wind” – ἄνεμος – of “false teaching” (cf. Eph 4:14, where a very similar phrase occurs: περιγερόμενοι παντὶ ἀνέμῳ). That the metaphor of being swept away by the wind was commonly invoked to denote illusory, false teaching and its accompanying actions is evidenced, for example, in Plutarch’s The Life of Timoleon (6:1):503 “So true is it that the purposes of men, unless they acquire firmness and strength from reason and philosophy for the activities of life, are unsettled and easily carried away by casual praise and blame, being forced out of their native reckonings”. In the botanical metaphor δένδρα φθινοπωρινὰ ἄκαρπα δὶς ἀποθανόντα ἐκριζωθέντα – “(late) autumn fruitless trees, twice dead, uprooted” – the term φθινοπωρινά combined with ἄκαρπα is the most debated and lexically controversial. There is no doubt that φθινοπωρινός refers to the time of harvest, when trees are expected to bear fruit. The harvest period usually falls in the Mediterranean in late summer and early autumn and is most commonly referred to in Greek literature as ὀπώρα ‘late, full summer’504 (last days of July, August and part of September). If one considers that the hagiographer really means harvest time, then the whole metaphor can be read in a similar vein to the earlier metaphor: the trees are false teachers, the fruit is teaching; despite the promised benefits and superficial appeal (fruit trees in blossom, which promise an abundant harvest), when confronting the techings of false teachers with “the faith handed down to the saints”, it turns out that the former is empty and does not produce the expected results (cf. also Luke 13:6). The similarity of Jude 12e with Matt 7:15–20 and the maxim “by their fruits you will know them” is self-evident. The erroneous teaching of false prophets/false teachers is recognised by the fact that it bears no fruit.505 Understood in this way, the metaphor would also refer, like the previous one, to the disruption of God’s established natural order heralding the coming of the end times. But it is also possible to understand the adjective φθινοπωρινός differently, which in Greek literature (e.g. in Plutarch or Herodotus)506 describes “late autumn”, i.e. 503 504 505 506

G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 322. J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 272. P. H. Davids, The Letters, p. 206; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 225. J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 272.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

243

244

Structural commentary

the time after the harvest season when no one expects fruit. Then the appellation ἄκαρπος fruitless would be a description of the natural state occurring at the time of φθινοπωρινός: in late autumn the trees (already) have no fruit. The whole phrase “late-autumn fruitless trees” should therefore be treated as an ironic, vituperative development of the meteorological metaphor, and not as a parallel metaphor. Since it has already been said in the meteorological metaphor that the teaching of the false prophets does no good, it would be foolish to expect any spiritual benefit from it, just as it is foolish to expect fruit in the late autumn season, when it is known that trees without fruit and often already without leaves look like dead trees. This opens up the space to develop this image towards death. The image of fruit-bearing or fruitless trees was frequently used in biblical literature (Ps 1:3, Jer 17:6.8, Wis 4:3–5, Sir 6:3, Matt 3:10, Luke 3:6, Jas 3:12, especially the example of the false prophets already cited in Matt 7:15–20, cf. Matt 12:32 and Luke 6:43–44 and in The Shepherd, Parable 4). Also at Qumran, one encounters texts in which the chosen/Essenes are likened to trees bearing abundant fruit:507 [I give you thanks, Lord,] because you have set me in the source of streams in a dry land, in the spring of water in a parched land, in the canals which water a garden [so that] a plantation of cypresses and elms [may grow,] together with cedars, for your glory. Trees of life in the secret source, hidden among the trees of water. They must make a shoot grow in the everlasting plantation, to take roots before it grows. Its roots reach as far as the gully, and its trunk opens to the living waters […]. Above it will rise all the trees of water for they will grow in its plantation […] But you, O God, you protect your fruit with the mystery of powerful heroes, of spirits of holiness, so that the flame of the searing fire [will] not [reach] the spring of life, nor with its everlasting trees will it drink the waters of holiness, nor produce its fruit with [the help] of the clouds […]. But the plantation of fruit […] eternal […] for the glorious garden and will [bear fruit always] (1QH 16:4–9.11–13.20).508

However, it seems that the direct source of inspiration for the narrator of Jude was the Enochean Book of the Heavenly Luminaries , which seems to resolve the doubt whether the 12e refers to late summer or late autumn, and put an eschatological spin on the metaphor.509 In 1 En 80:2–3 one can read: And in the days of the sinners the years shall be shortened, And their seed shall be tardy on their lands and fields, And all things on the earth shall alter, And shall not appear in

507 M. Rosik, List św. Judy, p. 137. 508 F.G. Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 345–346. 509 C.D. Osburn, 1 Enoch 80:2–8 (67:5–7) and Jude 12–13, “Catholic Biblical Quarterly” 47 (1985), no. 2, p. 297–299.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

their time [here may lie the solution to the problem with φθινοπωρινός – the fruit was also expected outside the harvest season] and the rain shall be kept back [perhaps an inspiration for the meteorological metaphor] […] in those times the fruits of the earth shall be backward, And shall not grow in their time, And the fruits of the trees shall be withheld in their time.

In this image of the disruption of the laws of nature established by God at the creation of the world, Jude sees the lawlessness and disruption of the community/ church caused by false teachers who have sneaked into the community of the recipients of the letter (cf. Jude 4). The image of the trees bearing fruit against the laws of nature in the Book of Enoch, and not bearing fruit in the Letter of Jude despite the disruption of the laws of nature, alludes to eschatological times, the period immediately preceding judgement. Jude refers to the judgement in the terms δὶς ἀποθανόντα – “twice dead” and ἐκριζωθέντα – “uprooted”. The concept of the second death was common in apocalyptic literature (cf. Rev 2:11, 20:6.14, 21:8).510 The first death would mean physical death; the second death is the death to which the final judgement condemns. This apocalyptic direction of the dendrological metaphor is confirmed by the next participle – “uprooted”; for “uprooted” in the context of punishment often appears in biblical (Deut 29:28, Ps 52:5, Prov 2:22, Wis 4:4, Matt 15:13) and extra-biblical literature (e.g. in the Ethiopic and Greek versions of Revelation in the explanation of the parable of the unfruitful fig tree – The Apocalypse of Peter). It can also be considered synonymous with the Gospel image of cutting down (e.g. Matt 3:10, 7:19, Luke 3:9, 13:9). In such apocalyptic imagery, excision is most often associated with being thrown into the fire, which Jude omits, presumably assuming that it is familiar to the recipients, but which is evidently associated with the second death (Rev 20:14–15, 21:8, particularly evocative is the agony and death in eternal fire depicted in Ethiopian The Apocalypse of Peter [see also greek The Akhmim fragment 22–34]). The fate of the false teachers, who are likened to fruitless trees, is described with the part. aor., which means that the hagiographer considers all the judgements as accomplished511 and complete. He thus refers to verse 4 and the claim that intruders who have broken into the community and spread false teachings have long since been “designated for judgement”. The archetypal example of the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah showed the consistency of God’s behaviour, who, when he announces punishment, carries it out. Similarly, these aorists can be interpreted – as Jude’s conviction that the conduct of the false teachers based on their false

510 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 273; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 84. 511 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 207.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

245

246

Structural commentary

teachings almost automatically condemns them to judgement, and that judgement will certainly take place. Some commentators downplay somewhat this apocalyptic and judicial context of the second metaphor and relate the expression “twice dead” primarily to the spiritual state of the false teachers.512 The first death is then interpreted as the sinful state before conversion. Liberation from sin through the death and resurrection of Jesus means revival, which is also expressed through baptism (cf. Col 2:13). However, rebellion against God, apostasy and the spreading of false teaching are nothing other than a return to the state of sinfulness before conversion. This state ultimately means being condemned to death (cf. Heb 6:4–8, 2 Pet 2:18–22), which in this context may be understood not only in an eschatological sense, but also in a spiritual or moral sense.513 The second (or perhaps, in this case, even third) death, to which the already spiritually dead will be condemned as a result of the final judgement, is expressed by the familiar image of uprooting/cutting out, usually supplemented by being thrown into the fire. Here the mention of being thrown into the fire does not occur, perhaps because in Jude 22 there is a call to show mercy to the erring and to pull them out of the fire.514 Eradication – apart from all eschatological connotations – may also be regarded as an indication of dealing with false teaching, which must be eradicated from the community. Such an understanding would refer, among others, to Jer 1:10, 1 Macc 5:51, 2 Macc 12:7, which present an image of mostly military desolation and cleansing of the territory from the hostile nations and their influence515 (in the LXX in these texts the same verb is used as in Jude 12e – ἐκριζόω). The reference to Wis 4:3–4 in turn gives hope that the eradication of false teaching will not be difficult, for it is – despite its attraction symbolised by the development of the branch – poorly rooted.516 It has already been pointed out that in Jude 12a–c the narrator often uses puns on words consisting primarily of associations triggered by phonetic similarities (annomination, homonymy). This had to do with the symposium background of the accusations against the false teachers. In the extended metaphors, the alliterative triplet becomes the signifying element and connects all the parts of verse 12: ἀφόβως ‘without fear’ (12b/12c); ἄνυδροι ‘waterless’ (12d); ἄκαρπα ‘fruitless’ (12e). This is a special alliteration, based on the hagiographer’s deliberate use of α privativum instead of constructions with negative particles. The concepts expressed in this

512 So, among others, J.B. Mayor, Ch. Bigg, W. Grundmann, and, following them, G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 225; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 207. 513 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 273. 514 See below for an analysis of verse 20–23. 515 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 225. 516 Ibid., p. 226.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

way form a certain logical sequence, which emphasises the main content of Jude 12 and affects the recipients on two levels: vituperative and cautionary. At the vituperative level, this sequence can be read as follows: the conduct and teaching of false teachers – defined as ‘fearlessness’ – is in fact foolish conduct and teaching; although it promises much, it proves ineffective, that is, ‘waterless’ and ‘fruitless’. On a cautionary level, the participium ἀποθανόντα ‘dead’ – is added to the alliterative triplet. Although in the word-formative sense it differs from the first three terms, together they form a clear message, ending with a strong, awe-inspiring emphasis: acting and teaching “without fear” is dangerous because it is contrary to God’s will, just as “waterless clouds” and “unfruitful trees” are contrary to God’s established laws of nature; lack of fear and transgression of God’s order deserve death, and therefore those who preach false doctrine without fear and those who yield to them “without fear” will become/are already “dead”. At this level, the eschatological orientation of Jude’s warning is also strongly marked: both conduct and teaching “without fear”, as well as natural anomalies – “waterless clouds” and “fruitless trees” – are signs of the end times, foreshadowing impending judgement and punishment – death – for rebels. The metaphorical imagery continues with the narrator in verse 13. Like the introductory metaphor of Jude 12a, the metaphor in Jude 13a κύματα ἄγρια θαλάσσης ἐπαφρίζοντα τὰς ἑαυτῶν αἰσχύνας – “wild sea waves spitting out/casting up their shame/indignity” – evokes the image of the sea. This affinity of imagery seems not coincidental, for it develops that part of the metaphor of 12d used extremely sparingly which was merely implied: the element of the sea, hostile to man and hostile to God. In 12a the danger of this element was mitigated by the misleading teachings of the false teachers, in 13a its horror is exposed. One can also see the difference in the nature of the two metaphors – the first was mainly of a cautionary nature, the second is mainly vituperative, discrediting the teachings of the false teachers. The background of both metaphors is different. Whereas the first was based primarily on associations with Hellenistic culture, introducing a sympathetic context, the second refers mainly to Judaic literature, placing itself more firmly than the first in a judicial and eschatological context. The image evoked in 13a is undoubtedly very dynamic, thanks, among other things, to the use of the adjective ἄγριος ‘wild, stormy, raging’, which appears in the description of the waves e.g. in Wis 14:1 (cf. also SibOr 3:778) and in the description of “moaning waves” in Euripides’ The Madness of Herakles (851).517 This adjective was used to characterise virtually everything that was untamed and partly also cruel – thus, for example, 3 Macc 7:5 describes the treatment of captives and

517 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 88; but there is no sufficient indication here of direct dependence of Jude 13a on Greek literature.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

247

248

Structural commentary

slaves.518 Above all, however, savagery and cruelty were associated with animals. In connection with Jude 10, animalism is associated with an inability to think rationally, and thus behind the evocation of the image of wild waves there is a desire to discredit the teachings and actions as well as the false teachers themselves as mindless, untamed, and at the same time cruel and dangerous. The wildness of the waves may also be correlated with the floating, or rather rolling, of the clouds by the wind in the first metaphor. Both illustrations refer to chaos, disorder, instability. The part. praes. also adds dynamism to the maritime metaphor ἐπαφρίζοντα ‘foaming’, which evokes the image of sinners in Isa 57:20 (in the Hebrew version: “But the wicked are like the tossing sea which cannot be still, Its waters cast up mire and mud”). By juxtaposing these two images, we can conclude that false teachers violently, aggressively, sometimes chaotically – this is all contained in the rarely used verb ἐπαφρίζω – preach their teachings and act accordingly. Conjuring up the image of the wicked as a stormy sea, Isaiah also speaks of dirt, silt, mud, or perhaps some remains of dead animals thrown out by the waves. A similar image appears in the Qumran literature when describing the behaviour of the wicked: the assembly of the wicked is roused against me, they roar like the turbulence of the seas when their waves beat and spew out ash and mud […] Like the crash of turbulent water is the roar of their voices, like a hurricane storm which destroys many (1QH X [formerly 2]:12–13.27); I had become the mockery of the raging torrents which throw their mire on me (1QH col. 16[formerly 8]:14–15).519

The narrator of the Letter of Jude no longer lists all these kinds of pollution, but calls them αἰσχύναι ‘disgrace, shame’. The use of the plural is intended, on the one hand, to allude to the numerous sea defilements, and on the other to draw attention to their variety. This brings to mind the listing of acts (plural) that bring shame and disgrace in Aristotle’s Rhetoric (2:6): “Shame may be defined as pain or disturbance in regard to bad things, whether present, past, or future, which seem likely to involve us in discredit; and shamelessness as contempt or indifference in regard to these same bad things”. Aristotle defines and specifies what these transgressions are: all manifestations of cowardice, injustice, licentiousness,520 greed and desire for profit, pettiness and wickedness, avoidance of hardships. Among these are those

518 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 227. 519 F.G. Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 330, 346. 520 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 228 sees in the shameful acts committed by heretics also actions of a sexual nature.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

attributable to false teachers, such as boasting and attributing others’ merits to oneself (probably revealed during agape feasts). It would also be shameful to be unwilling to learn the essence of “the faith once for all handed down to the saints”, resulting in the preaching of false teaching (“Once we are on a level with others, it is a disgrace to be, say, less well educated than they are” Rhetoric 2:6). If the recipients of Jude’s Letter were familiar with Aristotle’s reflections, they would read in this image a warning against succumbing to these teachings and an encouragement to fight (cf. Jude 3), for shame is also We are moreover ashamed of having done to us, having had done, or being about to have done to us acts that involve us in dishonour and reproach; as when we surrender our persons, or lend ourselves to vile deeds, e.g. when we submit to outrage. And acts of yielding to the lust of others are shameful whether willing or unwilling […] since unresisting submission to them is due to unmanliness or cowardice (Rhetoric 2:6).

The teachings and actions521 of false teachers thus pollute the community, bringing enslavement instead of freedom and trouble instead of the promised benefits – here we can see a continuation of theme of expectation and disappointment developed in the previous metaphorical images. However, whereas the earlier metaphors emphasised the emptiness and fruitlessness of false teachings, the third and fourth metaphors point out that instead of benefits, false teachings bring problems and devastation to spiritual life. An apparent difference can also be seen in relation to the natural phenomena presented. The two previous metaphors were based on anomalies, while the third metaphor refers to a natural phenomenon – a rough sea. It should be remembered, however, that in most mythological traditions rough waters symbolise forces opposing the gods. Similarly, in the Jewish tradition, where before there was an ordered world, there was chaos/disorder, and “a mighty wind sweeping over the waters” (cf. Gen 1:2, cf. also Ps 93[92]:3–4). The stormy sea is thus also an image of a state that denies God’s order. The preferred attitude in the face of the elements, and especially in the face of the filth brought by the foaming waves, is to trust in God and to cry out for help lest the element bring total destruction (Ps 69[68]:15–16, 124[123]:4–5). These connotations are common to Jude 12a and 13a. At the same time, the image of a stormy sea also evokes the imagery of God’s wrath and judgement on sinners (cf. Ps 32[31]:6, 42[41]:8, 88[87]:18, Isa 8:6–8). Like metaphors based on natural anomalies, it is thus a warning of impending judgement. This is also what Clement of Alexandria suggests in his Commentary

521 Some commentators find here only words (e.g. B. Reicke) or only deeds – cf. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 89; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 208.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

249

250

Structural commentary

on the Epistle of Jude: “By these words he signifies the life of the Gentiles, whose end is abominable ambition”.522 Richard Bauckham notes that the image of foaming waves is the only one that does not appear in the catalogue of phenomena accompanying the coming of the end times in 1 En 80:1–8.523 Instead, it appears in 1 En 101:4–5 as a description of the effect of the activities of false teachers, leaders called “kings of the sheep”, which can be seen as the equivalent of shepherds who, instead of taking care of the flocks, pasture themselves and condemn their subjects to loss and destruction (cf. Ezek 34:2–10, 1 En 89:59–77): And do you not see the kings of the sheep, how their sheep are battered by the waves and smashed by the winds and are in trouble? And for this reason they are afraid, because all their goods are sinking in the sea with them, and they think nothing good in their hearts, namely, that the sea will swallow them up, and they will be lost in it (1 En 101:4–6; own translation).

It is noteworthy that also in 1 En 5:3 when enumerating the elements of God’s immutable order, the sea and rivers are mentioned, and the list, as mentioned, includes meteorological (1 En 2:3, 4:1–2), botanical (1 En 3, 5:1), astronomical (1 En 2:1) and finally maritime phenomena: “behold how the sea and the rivers in like manner accomplish and change not their tasks” (1 En 5:3). Breaking God’s established law, especially pride and blasphemous statements against “God’s majesty”, are compared to violating this order; for this the rebels will be judged in the end times. Moreover, the author of Luke’s Gospel (Luke 21:25) includes “the roaring of the sea and the waves” among the signs of the end times, along with the astronomical signs of the sun, the moon and the stars. As can be seen, maritime imagery heralding the coming of the end times was firmly rooted in Jewish and early Christian consciousness. The last in the series of natural metaphors that belong, as it turns out, to a certain apocalyptic topos, is an astronomical metaphor using the image of wandering/errant 522 Clement of Alexandria, Adumbrationes in epistulas catholicas, [in:] Forschungen zur Geschichtedes, ed. T. Zahn, 3:84–85, as cited in: James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude, ed. G. Bray, p. 253. 523 R. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives, p. 199–201; Bauckham cites passages from Lactantius’ Divinae Institutiones 7:16 (early fourth century), where images of the sea also appear when describing the end times, and argues that the source of these illustrations for both Jude 13a and Lactantius is the expanded version of 1 Enoch 80:1–8, especially since the order of the images in Jude 12d–13b and Divinae Institutiones is the same: air, earth, sea, sky. It should be noted, however, that while the images of unusual rain and drought, cold and heat, and flowering trees that do not bear fruit are indeed reminiscent of Jude 12c–d, the image of the sea departs from Judah’s imagery. For Lactantius draws attention not to the stormy sea, but to the drying up of springs and rivers. A distant analogy can be found in the image of fish dying in waters transformed into blood or bitterness – such fish could be thrown ashore by foaming waves.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

stars: ἀστέρες πλανῆται οἷς ὁ ζόφος τοῦ σκότους εἰς αἰῶνα τετήρηται “wandering stars for whom the blackness of darkness has been (and is) reserved for ever” (cf. Mark 13:24–25, Matt 24:29, Luke 21:25). It seems that this metaphor, too, refers – at least lexically with the noun σκότος ‘darkness’ – to the state before the establishment of God’s order. In fact, almost the entire history of the world is hidden here. And it is well known that Jude is a master of synthesis, and just as he was able to sum up the whole history of the exodus in a single sentence (Jude 5), so he now sums up the whole history of the world in a single metaphor: from the darkness before the establishment of divine order (Gen 1:2), which according to Jewish tradition was to be watched over by angels (cf. Jude 6), through the reference to the establishment of order, symbolised by the stars (cf. Gen 1:3–5), the violation of this order, as suggested by the adjective πλανῆται ‘erroneous’, up to the allusions to the end times expressed by the phrase εἰς αἰῶνα ‘for ever’ and the verb τετήρηται ‘has been and is reserved’, which alludes both to Jude 1 and Jude 6. Not surprisingly, this synthesis was chosen by Jude to sum up his natural metaphors on the one hand and to introduce the climactic presentation of judgement in verse 14–15 on the other. The astronomical metaphor begins with the expression ἀστέρες πλανῆται, which can be translated as “wandering/errant stars” or as “errant and deceiving stars”. The term “wandering/errant stars” appears in Greek literature to denote those celestial bodies which showed their movement in contrast to the so-called fixed stars forming immovable constellations. It is synonymous to the simpler term – πλανῆται ‘planets’. Wandering stars/planets included the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn: “seven stars that have an independent motion and are unattached to the heavens” (Plutarch, On the ‘E’ at Delphi 4), “the sun is an immense distance from the upper circumference and that above the sun Venus and Mercury and the other planets revolved lower than the fixed stars and at great intervals from one another” (Plutarch, Concerning the Face Which Appears in the Orb of the Moon 9). It is not known what astronomical knowledge the narrator of the Letter of Jude and his recipients had. It is most likely, however, that he is not referring to this knowledge in the first place, but to the play on words associated with the adjective πλανῆται, which can be translated both as “wandering/errant” and as “wandering and deceiving”. As already mentioned, the adjective here is equivalent to part. praes. used in the previous metaphors. (cf. the verb πλανάω – to wander, err, lead astray). In the first case it is a reference to the order established by God. In the Jewish tradition, wandering, or the movements of the planets, called stars in ancient times, were watched over by angels (cf. Jub 2:2, 1 En 2:1, 72–82 – The Book of the Heavenly Luminaries ). In concluding a long reflection on the cosmic order in 1 Enoch, the narrator – the angel Uriel – states:

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

251

252

Structural commentary

all these things I am recounting to thee and writing down for thee! and I have revealed to thee everything […] all the powers of the heaven which revolve in their circular chariots. And these are the orders of the stars, which set in their places, and in their seasons and festivals and months. And these are the names of those who lead them, who watch that they enter at their times, in their orders, in their seasons, in their months, in their periods of dominion, and in their positions (1 En 82:1.9–11).

In the second case, the “erring/wandering stars” are a reference to the disruption of God’s order, the deviation from the right path (cf. Isa 14:12–15), the inexplicable and considered irregular phenomena of the “falling” of stars, the appearance of comets in the sky, etc. As in many mythologies, also in Jewish, especially apocalyptic, tradition stars were called celestial entities, angels, and those who rebelled against God (cf. Rev 8:10, 9:1). Perhaps in his imagery Jude is referring to 1 En 18:13–16, where there is a vision of seven stars (angels) imprisoned at the ends of the earth and awaiting judgement: This place is the end of heaven and earth: this has become a prison for the stars and the host of heaven. And the stars which roll over the fire are they which have transgressed the commandment of the Lord in the beginning of their rising, because they did not come forth at their appointed times. And He was wroth with them, and bound them till the time when their guilt should be consummated.

(cf. also 1 En 21:6–7: “These are of the number of the stars of heaven, which have transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and are bound here till ten thousand years, the time entailed by their sins, are consummated”; 1 En 88:1–3: I saw one of those four […] he seized that first star which had fallen from the heaven, and bound it hand and foot and cast it into an abyss: now that abyss was narrow and deep, and horrible and dark. […] lo, one of those four […] gathered and took all the great stars whose privy members were like those of horses, and bound them all hand and foot, and cast them in an abyss of the earth).

At the same time, this is a clear indication of the coming of the end times, for which anomalies in nature become characteristic: In those days “many chiefs of the stars shall transgress the order (prescribed). And these shall alter their orbits and tasks, and not appear at the seasons prescribed to them” (1 En 80:6). Obviously, the narrator of the Letter of Jude does not identify the stars in verse 13b with angels, but with false teachers. This second identification is highlighted precisely by the lexeme πλάνη ‘error’, which appears in verse 11 in the description of Balaam’s error/deception and in the New Testament descriptions of the actions

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

of false prophets (Matt 24:5.11.24, 1 Thess 4:1, 2 Tim 3:13, 2 Pet 3:17, 1 John 4:6, Rev 2:20, 13:14, cf. Matt 22:29, 27:64, Mark 12:24, John 7:12, Rom 1:27).524 Even Clement of Alexandria, in his Letter to Theodore (1:6–7), compares the Carpocratians to wandering stars, and Theophilus of Antioch calls the righteous who keep God’s commandments stars shining in a fixed place assigned to them and contrasts them with wandering stars, that is, the unrighteous who have turned away from God and His laws.525 However, associations with fallen angels are not accidental here. Firstly, because they link the behaviour of the false teachers with the archetypal rebellion of angels. Secondly, because they make the viewers aware that the rebellion of angels and the teaching and behaviour of false teachers are not based on any great idea, but on lust/desire, leading to licentiousness (a characteristic element of the vituperative convention). Thirdly, because they indicate the similar fate of one and the other (the similarity is realised also on the lexical level). Noteworthy, then, the emphasis in the text cited above, most likely a source for Jude 13c, from 1 En 21:6, is laid on the fact of the transgression of God’s commandments by the falling/wandering stars. This in turn is meant to show the recipients of Jude that, despite the seemingly convincing argument of the false teachers concerning salvation being reduced to acts of deliverance, this teaching is in fact a violation of God’s commandments and a transgression of God’s order, which also includes the relationship: guilt (i.e. sin/breaking the commandments) and punishment. Before the final judgement, the destiny of people who transgress God’s commandments and violate God’s order – both the false teachers themselves and those who have succumbed to their teaching – is “the blackness of darkness”. The noun ζόφος has already been used in a similar context when describing the fate of the fallen angels.526 Here this blackness and darkness are intensified by adding to ζόφος the synonymous term σκότος. But σκότος can be translated not only as darkness, but also metaphorically as sin and evil. It means that all who preach and indulge in false teachings are stuck in the “darkness of sin/evil” (cf. Matt 4:16, 6:23, John 3:19, Acts 26:18, Rom 2:19, 13:12, 2 Cor 6:14, Eph 5:11, 1 Thess 5:4–5, 1 Pet 2:9, 1 John 1:6)527 and will be so until the final judgement. This seems to be the main idea of the hagiographer, rather than an attempt to specify the place where judgement is expected. All the more so since the use of the noun σκότος in a metaphorical sense makes it possible to contrast the darkness of sin with the brightness of God’s righteousness and faithfulness (cf. Dan 12:3) strongly emphasised in the last verses of 1 En (1 En 108:11–15, especially verse 14–15: “they shall

524 525 526 527

P.H. Davids, The Letters, p.209; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 329. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 90. See above for an analysis of Jude 6. G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 330.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

253

254

Structural commentary

see those who were born in darkness led into darkness, while the righteous shall be resplendent”. Perhaps also behind the imagery of Jude 13c is Wis 17, where the fate of those who “went astray” is described (Wis 17:1: ψυχαὶ ἐπλανηθησαν). This would be evidenced by the lexical and motivic similarity. It is clear from the context that the reference is to the Egyptians who remained deaf to the teachings of Moses, but this illustration can be applied to all those who rejected the voice/teachings of the “saints” (patriarchs, prophets, apostles and universally recognised authorities in the Christian community). Wis 17:2 calls those who have gone astray and/or have been deceived the unrighteous (ἄνομοι), and their actions an attempt to subdue the holy people, which in turn brings to mind one of the shameful acts in Aristotle’s list: enslavement. The unrighteous have become “prisoners of darkness” (δέσμιοι σκότους), and the darkness intensifies their fear, for they experience terrifying visions and hear terrifying noises. Fear, in turn, robs them of their reason (Wis 17:11–12, cf. Jude 10). Their pride and arrogance disappeared (Wis 17:7), but remorse appeared: For the whole world shone with brilliant light and continued its works without interruption; But over them alone was spread oppressive night, an image of the darkness (εἰκὼν σκότους) that was about to come upon them. Yet they were more a burden to themselves than was the darkness (σκότος) (Wis 17:20.21).

The suggestion that darkness (and continuance in sin/evil) is the ultimate punishment for those who rebel against God is rare in intertestamental apocalyptic literature. In describing the final punishment, apocalypticists are more likely to draw on the image of fire528 (hence the uprooting and casting into the fire suggested elliptically in the botanical metaphor), or to combine – sometimes by paradox and/ or oxymoron – darkness and fire: The darkness of “everlasting fire” (1QS 2:8); “darkness and chains and a burning flame where there is grievous judgement shall your spirits enter; and the great judgement shall be for all the generations of the world” (1 En 103:8) and a telling text taken from the final passage of Enoch’s apocalyptic vision: for their names shall be blotted out of the book of life and out of the holy books, and their seed shall be destroyed for ever, and their spirits shall be slain, and they shall cry and make lamentation in a place that is a chaotic wilderness, and in the fire shall they burn; for there is no earth there (1 En 108:3, 2 En 10:1–3, SibOr 4:230–231, cf. also

528 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 89.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

Tob 14:10, PssSol 14:6(9), 15:10 where, however, darkness is synonymous with the final judgement529 ).

The cessation of darkness and the omission of fire in Jude 13c, as in Jude 12e, therefore seems significant, especially in the context of Jude 22–23. Already here the narrator of the epistle gently indicates that he is not describing the final fate of those erring, but warning against it. Just as the noun ζόφος “darkness” alludes to Jude 6 and the fate of the rebellious angels, so the phrase εἰς αἰῶνα “for ever” and the verb τετήρηται “was and is reserved/destined” allude to the same image. The phrase “for ever” does not mean here an endless/eternal sojourn in darkness, but a long period of time which, however, ends with the coming of the eschatological judgement (cf. Jude 6 and 7). In a similar way, the New Testament calls the judgement itself (“eternal judgement”) – κρίμα αἰωνίου (Heb 6:2) and the end times (“the end/fulfilment of the times”) – συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος (Matt 13:40). The verb τηρέω, which has already appeared in verse 1 and 6, makes it possible to specify certain details of the court, and especially to indicate the person of the judge. The form τετήρηται – ind. perf. m/pass – should be interpreted as passivum divinum/theologicum, which indicates that the agens is God. Indeed, in Jewish apocalyptic literature it is by the will/command of God that rebels are imprisoned and await judgement. Jude transfers these prerogatives to Jesus. In Jude 6 it is Jesus himself who preserves the rebellious angels for “the judgement of the great day”, and in Jude 1 the faithful are preserved for Jesus Christ. This dative can be translated both as “through Jesus Christ” and “for Jesus Christ”. Both translation variants, however, indicate the key role of Jesus during the final judgement. Similarly, therefore, in Jude 13c – it is Jesus who preserves the false teachers for his judgement, and it is he, not the recipients of the letter, who will deliver the final judgement (cf. Jude 9). As already mentioned, it should be noted that the final phrase of verse 13 – “for whom the blackness of darkness is reserved [for judgement] for ever” – although formally and illustratively related with the last metaphor, refers in fact to all the previous descriptions of the behaviour of the false teachers. A similar treatment has already been employed by the narrator of Jude in verse 11, where the punishment that befell Korah is understood more broadly as the fate of all rebels. This collective nature of the concluding phrase is evidenced by the use of the pronoun οἷς in the dative, which relates to all the previous pronouns οὗτοι in nom. occurring in verse 8.10.12. So, the “blackness of darkness” is the destiny of all who, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject the lordship [and judicial authority of Jesus], blaspheme the glories/authorities because they do not understand the doctrine/

529 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 211; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 89–90.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

255

256

Structural commentary

faith and perceive it superficially like animals, are a danger at agape feasts, feed and graze only themselves, and their teachings are of no benefit. One can already see the cyclical and repetitive nature of this warning/judgemental element, which is intertwined with the descriptive element – pointing to or describing the actions/ teachings of the intruders: Description of behaviour

Reminder/warning

verse 8       a. invoking dreams            b. desecration of the body            c. rejection of dominion       d. blaspheming the glories verse 10       a. blaspheming what one does not           understand       b. superficial, unintelligent perception verse 10c (self-destruction) destruction by God verse 11a woe verse 11       a. going the way of Cain       b. making a mistake and Balaam’s           payment verse 11b Balaam’s payment: In this scheme “Balaam’s payment” i.e. his death is mentioned twice. It seems that, for compositional reasons, it should be attributed to the narrative of the bard’s treacherous counsel rather than considered as a summary reminder/warning of judgement. It has therefore been bracketed in the second column of the table. verse 11       c. Korah’s rebellion verse 11c doomed to extinction verse 12       a. bringing danger            b. feasting together (overeating)            c. grazing themselves       d. preaching false teachings (clouds) verse 13       a. preaching false teachings (trees)       b. preaching false teachings that destroy       the community (foaming waves)       c. preaching false teachings fatal to       others (wandering stars) verse 13 d darkness for ever

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

As can be seen, the four metaphors in verse 12d–13 highlight the eschatological and judgemental element. They also fit perfectly into the vituperative convention that comes to the fore in the descriptions of the behaviour of false teachers at Christian agape feasts in Jude 12a–c. It is no accident that the narrator of the Letter of Jude reached for the symposium motif here. First of all, he used it to build up the atmosphere of the Greek feast and to contrast it with the atmosphere of the Christian feasts on the one hand and with the atmosphere that false teachers bring to the meetings on the other. In this way, the profanity of both gatherings could be presented. Second – the hagiographer makes it clear that the false teachers at the Christian feasts remain intruders, the uninvited acletoi, in contrast to the invited and appointed kletoi of verse 1. Third – the narrator ridicules the false teachers, who not only do not understand Christian doctrine, but are also incapable of understanding and respecting symposium ideas. Thus, in 12a–c the dominant illustrative feature was imagery that referred to Hellenistic culture and literature. The references to Jewish literature, however, provided a significant background and complemented the associations with Greek topoi. In Jude 12d, the narrator changes the dominant focus and returns to Jewish literature (primarily Enochean), which he had used before (hence the clear lexical and motivic connections, especially between verse 13 and verse 6). This is in order to move from a mocking tone to a warning tone again and to prepare the recipients for the development of judicial and eschatological motifs in verses 14–15. 2.5.3

Part c. Eschatological judgment foretold from the beginning of salvation history (Jude 14–15)

14

Enoch, the seventh from Adam prophesied to them, saying, Behold, the Lord is come among his holy myriads/myriads of saints, 15 to make judgment upon all, and to accuse every soul for all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and for all the hard/harsh words which the ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

Lines 14–15 – as is clear from the structure of the text proposed in the Introduction – constitute the centre of the Letter of Jude, the climax of its theological argumentation, because they most fully present the judicial aspect of salvation, which the hagiographer had already foreshadowed in verse 3, when he declared the need to write with particular care about “our common salvation” and called for the struggle for “the faith once for all handed down to the saints”. They also synthesise elements of Jude’s Christology hitherto scattered in various places in the letter. However,

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

257

258

Structural commentary

it should already be pointed out that a rather unexpected solution to the Judaic soteriology is found in verse 20–25.530 Theme of ungodliness and judgement was addressed for the first time by Jude in verse 4, when he identified intruders who preached doctrines contrary to the “faith” professed in the community of the letter’s recipients, based on the revelation handed down to the patriarchs, prophets and apostles. He then focused on the preliminary identification of the main points of false teaching (“perverting God’s grace into licentiousness and denying our only Ruler and Lord Jesus Christ) and the resulting behaviour generally defined as “ungodliness” ἀσεβεία. In doing so, he referred to the past and the belief that the teachings and behaviours of false teachers were qualified from the beginning as deserving punishment during the eschatological judgement. In his further argumentation, he tried to prove it with examples taken from the Jewish tradition, which illustrated the inevitability of punishment. Thus, he reached for topoi relating to the past (the destruction of Pentapolis, the death of Balaam, the death of Korah and his followers) and stories in which punishment is foretold (angels “kept in darkness for the day of judgement”). Against this background, he considered examples of the “ungodliness” of intruders (verse 8.10.12–13), which, per analogiam, deserve the same punishment that has befallen the ungodly in the past and that the rebellious angels expect, since all the acts of ungodliness depicted are in fact similar. Each time judgement was referred to either explicitly or implicitly, there was a more or less explicit suggestion that it would be carried out by Jesus Christ, to whom the false teachers deny judicial authority. Finally, in verse 14–15, there is an unambiguous description of the judgement carried out by “the Lord”. Here we can see references not only to verse 4, but also to verse 5.6.7, and especially to verse 9, which introduced this judicial atmosphere and assigned all dramatis personae their respective procedural functions. It can therefore be concluded that the framework for Jude’s presentation of the juridical aspect of salvation is provided by verse 4 (as introduction and foreshadowing of the judgement) and verses 14–15 (as fulfilment of these foreshadowing.531 Between the frame verses the argument runs, as Alexandra Mileto Robinson notes, to a crescendo, with the resounding prophetic οὐαί ‘woe’ in verse 11. The direct quotation from the Book of Enoch in verse 14 would be a natural consequence and culmination of the build-up not only of the accusations against the intruders,532 but also of the narrator’s increasingly frequent and clear recourse to Enochean literature. The accumulation of Enochean allusions was particularly evident in the natural 530 See below for an analysis of verse 21–25a. 531 For more on the framework composition (inclusio) of verses 4 and 14–15 see A.M. Robinson, The Enoch Inclusio in Jude: A New Structural Possibility, “Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism” 9 (2013), p. 196–212. 532 Ibid., p. 205.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

metaphors in 12d–13. Their eschatological overtones prepared the recipients for the introduction of a strong accent, i.e. the description of the final judgement, which also constitutes a release of the growing tension and a specific resolution of the plot. This way of conducting the argumentation – from general allusions to quotations – is not unique in the New Testament. It was used, for example, by the author of Acts in the reconstruction of Stephen’s speech,533 who, accused of disrespecting Jewish customs, laws and the temple (Acts 6:13), quotes the history of theophany and the relationship of the patriarchs to God from the time of Abraham to the time of Solomon, emphasising that it was Solomon who built the temple (Acts 7:48). But Stephen’s speech does not end there. It culminates in the claim that the “the Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands” supported by a quotation from Isaiah 66 introduced by the formula: “As the prophet says” καθὼς ὁ προφήτης λέγει (Acts 7:48–50). The juxtaposition of verse 4 and 14–15 also helps to explain why, in the description of “the Lord” coming in judgement, the narrator of Jude refers specifically to the prophecy of Enoch. As was shown when analysing verse 4, the motif of deeds judged in eschatological times already recorded at the beginning of time in heavenly holy books or on heavenly tablets (πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι εἰς τοῦτο το κρίμα), is frequent in apocalyptic literature. It is also taken up in 1 Enoch, a major source of inspiration for Jude.534 A special role in the argument of the Letter of Jude is played by the connection between the “beginning” (verse 4) and “the end of times” (verse 14–15) as an illustration not only of the whole of salvation history but also of the totality of salvific revelation, i.e. the “faith handed down to the saints”. One of those who came to know this comprehensive revelation is, according to the narrator of Jude, precisely Enoch, “a righteous man, whose eyes were opened by God, saw the vision of the Holy One in the heavens” (1 En 1:2). He saw in a vision of his sleep, as it will happen to the children of men throughout their generations until the day of judgment; he saw and understood everything, and wrote his testimony, and placed the testimony on earth for all the children of men and for their generations (Jub 4:19).

According to Gen 5:24 Enoch, who walked with God, was taken away (to heaven) by God. There, according to Jub 4:21, “[Enoch] was moreover with the angels of God these six jubilees of years, and they showed him everything which is on earth and in the heavens, the rule of the sun, and he wrote down everything” (cf. 4Q227

533 Ibid., p. 205. 534 N.J. Moore, Is Enoch, p. 499.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

259

260

Structural commentary

frag. 2:1–6535 ). The angel Uriel showed him, among other things, the fate of those who had long been written down for this judgement: “Observe, Enoch, these heavenly tablets, and read what is written thereon, and mark every individual fact”. And I observed the heavenly tablets, and read everything which was written (thereon) and understood everything, and read the book of all the deeds of mankind, and of all the children of flesh that shall be upon the earth to the remotest generations (1 En 81:1–3, cf. 4Q369 frag.1. col. 1:4–6536 ).

Among the sinful acts deserving of judgement in the end times were the abuses of shepherds (1 En 89:59–77), to which Jude indirectly points in verse 12c. [Enoch] he writes down the condemnation and judgment of the world, and all the wickedness of the children of men […] he should testify against all the children of men, that he should recount all the deeds of the generations until the day of condemnation (Jub 4:23.24).

All these implications and associations with Jude 4 find resolution in Jude 14–15, when the hagiographer directly reaches back to what Enoch wrote about the eschatological judgement on those who were “long ago designated for” it because of their “ungodly” teachings and deeds. One can thus see the content connections between verse 4 and verse 14–15. In addition to the content-related, lexical references are also noticeable – κρίμα (verse 4) and κρίσις (verse 15); κύριος (verse 4) and κύριος (verse 14); ἀσεβεῖς (verse 4) and ἀσέβεια, ἀσεβέω, ἀσεβεῖς (verse 15). The exponent of the cohesion between the two verses is the referential pronoun τούτοις in verse 14, which refers to “these/certain men” in verse 4, and of course calling the false teachers “ungodly” in verse 4 and “ungodly sinners” in verse 15. The main relationships between the framework lines are presented in the table below:

535 “Enoch, after we had taught him […] six jubilees of years […] of the earth, among the sons of men and he gave witness against them all 4 […] and also against the Watchers and he wrote everything […] of the heavens and the paths of their armies and […] so that they would not stray” (F.G. Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 245). 536 “[…] there he writes down the condemnation and judgment of the world […] for there he was set as a sign and that he should testify against all the children of men, that he should recount all the deeds of the generations until the day of condemnation” (Jub 4:23–24).

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

Verse 4b – introduction

Verse 14–15 – expansion/culmination

Long since designated for judgement – reference to 1 Enoch

How Enoch prophesied (14a) – reference to 1 Enoch

These/certain men

For them (14a)

Perverting the grace into licentiousness (disbelief in judgement)

The Lord comes (verse 14b) to bring everyone to justice and to accuse every soul (verse 15a.b) All ungodly deeds committed ungodly (15c) All the hard [words] they spoke against Him (15d)

Ungodly

Ungodly sinners (15d) All ungodly deeds committed in an ungodly way (15c) All the hard words they spoke against Him (15d)

Denying the only ruler and Lord (rejection of Jesus’ judicial authority)

The Lord comes with myriads of saints (14b) to judge and accuse everyone (15 a–b) All ungodly deeds committed in an ungodly way (15c) All the hard words they spoke against Him (15d)

As can be seen from the above juxtaposition, the accusations of “ungodliness, perverting the grace into licentiousness and denying our only Ruler and Lord” appearing in verse 4 include both the teaching (verse 15d) and the conduct resulting from that teaching (verse 15 c), although the presentation of the relationship between teaching and actions in verse 15 is inverse to verse 4. It should also be noted that only one element of verse 15 does not find a simple assignment to verse 4 – this is the indication that the judgement will concern “every soul” πᾶσα ψυχή. The lack of attribution seems to be a significant element not only compositionally but also theologically. For the hagiographer, contrary to what false teachers preach and in agreement with the contents of the Book of Enoch, maintains that the eschatological judgement will concern everyone: both the wicked, to whom he devotes more attention here, and the righteous, to whom he refers later in the letter. This is in line with his intention to show the juridical aspects of salvation, which concern all people.537 For it is only at the judgement that God’s mercy, which leads to eternal life (cf. Jude 21), can be fully manifested, and those who have been preserved by God from the fall and those who have been declared undefiled can enjoy direct contact with God (cf. Jude 24). 537 See below.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

261

262

Structural commentary

Although implications and indirect, illustrative references to apocryphal tradition and literature are evident throughout Jude, the most controversial was (and still is) the direct quotation of the First Book of Enoch as a prophecy, with the typical introductory formula used when quoting extracts from writings considered inspired: Προεφήτευσεν δὲ καὶ τούτοις ἕβδομος ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ Ἑνὼχ λέγων. In the New Testament, such a practice is followed with the texts of those prophets (authorities) whose prophecies (words) are fulfilled before the eyes of the hagiographers and the recipients of their writings (cf. Matt 11:13, 15:7, Mark 7:6, Acts 2:16, 1 Pet 1:10).538 The technique used by the narrator of Jude to prove that the time of the final judgement has come is reminiscent of the eschatological actualization and pesharim used, among others, at Qumran.539 The members of the Qumran community related all prophecies to themselves, to which they applied eschatological hermeneutics. In other words, they assumed that they were in fact about the end times540 and not about historical times, although the prophets could use historical images to describe eschatological and/or messianic reality. This, of course, meant that such prophecies could not be properly understood before the appearance of the Qumran Teacher of Righteousness, who discovered their proper meaning.541 The pesher itself consisted in quoting a suitably crafted biblical passage and then commenting on it with characteristic formulas, e.g. “The interpretation of this refers to the beginning of the [last] generation”542 (1QpHab col. 1:2–3) or “The interpretation of the word concerns the last days”543 (4QpIsb /4Q162 frag. 1, col. 2). Sometimes the explanation was not given explicitly, but in the form of an allegory or metaphor. Parallels can be drawn between the way in which the Enochean quotation from Jude 14–15 is explained and the pesher to the Book of Habakkuk544 (1QpHab), the pesher to the Book of Micah (1QpMic/1Q14), the pesher to Isa 10:3–11:5 (4QpIsa /4Q161, frag. 8–10), and especially the pesher to Isa 5:11–14.24–25 (4QpIsb /4Q162 frag 1. col. 2), which contains references to Jerusalem’s opponents of the doctrine professed in the Qumran community:545

538 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 341. 539 Cf. R. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives, p. 182, 201, 233; Id., Jude, 2 Peter, p. 4–5, 10, 44–45; the author argues that the entire Jude 5–19 passage can be described as a pesher. 540 M. Rosik, I. Rapoport, Wprowadzenie, p. 86. 541 See also the definitions of pesher of T. Lim, G. Brooke, S. Berrin (Tzoref), R. Williamson, [in:] B.A. Jurgens, It is Pesher, p. 497–501; S. Jędrzejewski, Peszer jako metoda egzegetyczna, “Seminare” 24 (2007), p. 115–122. 542 After P. Muchowski, Rękopisy, p. 3. 543 F.G. Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 187. 544 M. Green, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 387. 545 S. Mędala, Wprowadzenie do literatury międzytestamentalnej, Kraków 1994, p. 72.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

The interpretation of the word concerns the last days, laying waste the land through thirst and hunger. This will happen at the time of the visit to the land. Woe to those who rise early in search of intoxicants and carry on until by twilight the wine excites them […] they feast their drunkenness, but they pay no attention to God’s doings or notice the works of his hands! For this, my people will be exiled without realising it, their nobles will die of hunger and the ordinary folk have a raging thirst. For this, the abyss distends its jaws and enlarges its mouth immeasurably, lowers its nobility and its ordinary people and its revelling throng enters. These are the arrogant men who are in Jerusalem. They are the ones who: Have rejected the law of God and mocked the word of the Holy One of Israel. For this the wrath of God has been kindled against his people and he has stretched out his hand against them and wounded them. The mountains quake, their corpses lie like dung in the middle of the streets. […] This is the Congregation of the arrogant men who are in Jerusalem.546

Jude’s pesherization in fact concerns only one quotation,547 and the explanations to whom Enoch’s prophecy refers in the first place are scattered throughout the letter. Nevertheless the terms οὗτοι “these” or οὗτοί εἰσιν “these are” or their equivalents in Jude 4.8.10.12.16.(19)548 and the descriptions of the behaviour and teachings of the false teachers observed in the community, including those quoted as metaphors in 12d–13, are associated with the pesher technique used to explain the quotation in Jude 15c–d: περὶ πάντων τῶν ἔργων ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν ὧν ἠσέβησαν καὶ περὶ πάντων τῶν σκληρῶν ὧν ἐλάλησαν κατ᾽αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς “for all their ungodly deeds which they ungodly committed and for all the hard words which the ungodly sinners have spoken against him”. These relationships are best presented in a table:

546 F.G. Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 187. 547 B.A. Jurgens, It is Pesher, p. 508–509, while noting some formal similarities of Jude 14–16 to the pesher, emphasizes that the pesher did not refer to a single sentence, but was a continuous eschatological commentary on the text expounded verse by verse (sentence by sentence, phrase by phrase). 548 R. Bauckham, Jesus and the Relatives, p. 151, 204; cf. B.A. Jurgens, It is Pesher, p. 503–504.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

263

264

Structural commentary

Quotation in Jude 15c–d for all their ungodly deeds which they ungodly committed and for all the hard words which the ungodly sinners have spoken against him

Explanation of the quotation in the form of pesher

verse 4 these/certain men sneaked in… verse 8 these dreamers/these dreaming… verse 10 these are (these are the) blasphemers… verse 12 these are a danger (these) feasting (these) grazing themselves (these) waterless clouds (these) fruitless trees verse 13 (these are) waves spitting out foam (these are) the wandering stars verse 16 these are (the ones) complaining… (verse 19 these are who cause divisions…)

In Jude 14a, the pronoun τούτοις in the dative could at first glance be considered the main – though not classical – marker of pesherization. It is usually translated in reference to the false teachers as “(about) them” (more literally – “these”), whereas the case used would rather suggest the translation “(to) them”.549 In support of this suggestion, 1 En 1:2–3 is usually cited, in which Enoch explains to whom he is addressing his message: “not for this generation, but for a remote one which is for to come”. The patriarch as speaker thus assumes that only later generations will be able to read his message correctly; the generation he represents – the seventh after Adam – would not have understood, for example, the message about the punishment of the rebellious angels or the giants who only appeared on earth in the time of Noah. Classical pesherization would reduce the proper reading of prophecy to the “last generation”, but it seems that the narrator of 1 En does not apply such a limitation. In general, it can be said that the recipients of 1 En are all the generations that came after the Flood. It is therefore no coincidence that the plural is used in 1 En 1:2, as it is in Jub 4:18, where it is explicitly stated that Enoch wrote “a testimony and he testified to the sons of men among the generations of the earth”. This very inclusive understanding of the Enochean message is also reflected in Jude 14, as indicated by the conjunction καί occurring before the pronoun. When both the conjunction and the dative of the pronoun are taken into account, the translation of Jude 14a is as follows: “The seventh after Adam, Enoch prophesied and to them [i.e. also to them], saying”. This would mean that the false teachers are not the only recipients of the prophecy. This is confirmed by the entire narrative of the letter so far: the recipients of the message of eschatological judgement were representatives of “all generations”: Israelites rebelling in the desert (verse 5c)

549 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 276; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 93; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 344.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

the inhabitants of Pantapolis (verse 7), Balaam, Korah, even Cain (verse 11). The inclusiveness of the message evoked in Jude 14–15, however, has not only a temporal dimension. The collective aspect is equally important here, for the Enochian prophecy of judgement concerns not only the wicked (represented by the false teachers) but also the righteous (represented by the recipients of the letter): “And there shall be a judgement upon all (men). But with the righteous He will make peace. And will protect the elect, and mercy shall be upon them” (1 En 1:7–8). Thus, the formula προεφήτευσεν δὲ καὶ τούτοις “prophesied also to them” can be understood as a message addressed both to the righteous (in all generations) “and to them/to those”, i.e. the ungodly. For the righteous contemporaries of Jude, the recipients of the letter, this prophecy is a reminder of what they already know very well (cf. Jude 5a), that judgement is inextricably linked to salvation history and salvation itself, for it was foreshadowed from the beginning. For the false teachers, like the previous examples, it is a warning, an announcement of accusation and punishment. One may wonder whether the inclusivism carried over into Jude 14a from 1 En and the unsystematic explanations scattered throughout the letter relating to “ungodly sinners” preclude the classification of Jude’s technique as a pesher. Certainly, as mentioned, it is not a “classical Qumran pesher”. On the other hand, the extension of the recipients of Enoch’s message to “all generations” does not preclude the narrator of the Letter of Jude’s supposition that only the generation contemporary with Jude, the brother of James, can properly read all the elements of Enochean prophecy. This would be confirmed by verses 17–18, which point to the teaching of the apostles concerning the end times. Here, too, the technique of non-classical pesherization can be discerned:550 the apostolic announcement of the appearance of the scoffers, maintained in the form of an oratio recta, is commented on in verse 19 with a pesher explanation beginning with the formula οὗτοί εἰσιν – “these are they who cause division, sensual, devoid of the Spirit”. The additions in Jude 17–18 function as a summary transition, so their explanation in Jude 19 can also be read as a comment on the quotation from 1 En in Jude 15c–d.551 The question whether the narrator of the Letter of Jude treated the Book of Enoch like the writings of the prophets later recognized as canonical or like the writings of an important authority in his milieu but of lower rank than the authors of the sacred

550 The difference between the classical pesher and Jude’s commentary on apostolic teaching lies primarily in the status of the source text. For the pesher was used to comment on the texts of the prophets of old, universally recognized as authoritative, whereas Jude would use this technique to comment on a relatively young text, contemporary to himself, which was authoritative for small communities; see B.A. Jurgens, It is Pesher, p. 507. 551 See also the analysis of verse 17–18 (description of the end times) and verse 19 (reference to the situation of the recipients).

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

265

266

Structural commentary

writings cannot be answered unequivocally. Some light may be shed on this issue by the above comparison of the pesherization applied to the message of Enoch and to the apostolic message in verse 17–19. Both types of message are treated in the same way – as prophecies. In the case of the Book of Enoch, the author’s conviction of its prophetic character is expressed by the verb προφητεύω ‘to prophesy’; in the case of the apostolic announcement of the appearance of the slanderers in the end times, the verb προλέγω ‘to predict, to foretell’ is used. It must be remembered, moreover, that at the time of the writing of the Letter of Jude the so-called canonical consciousness was very limited, and the catalogue of scriptures in both Jewish and Christian circles was still undecided. It is generally accepted that the collection of Torah and Prophets (the so-called Ketuvim) was closed at that time; the collection of Scriptures (the so-called Ketuvim) still remained open. Until the middle of the second century, Judaism did not develop a unified position regarding the scope and internal organization of the biblical canon.552 Rather, the discussions concerned whether, in terms of content, a given book could be considered a text that is – as they would have said – defiles hands or is holy. At the same time, Christians also began to ask questions about the normativity of individual writings, including those used in Jewish circles, for the principles of the faith, which in effect led to the birth of modern Christian canonical consciousness.553 In this light, a consideration of the relationship of the narrator of the Letter of Jude to the biblical canon seems completely anachronistic and unnecessary. It is therefore difficult to agree with the frequently encountered thesis, which aims at defending the “orthodoxy” of the Letter of Jude, that the excerpt from the Book of Enoch belongs to the same type of quotation as the citation of the poet Aratus in Acts 17:28,554 of Menander in 1 Cor 15:33, and especially of Epimenides in Titus 1:12,555 and therefore does not undermine the canonicity of the epistle. It should be noted, however, that although the author of Titus calls the philosopher from Crete a prophet and considers his testimony to be true, he insists that he is “their [the Cretans’] own prophet” ἴδιος αὐτῶν προφήτης and does not treat him as an authority equal to the Old Testament prophets. Meanwhile, the narrator of Jude makes no distinction and treats the Book of Enoch as it was treated in most Jewish and Judeo-Christian circles in the middle and late first century. Jude does not make

552 A. Sanecki, Kanon biblijny w perspektywie historycznej, teologicznej i egzegetycznej, Kraków 2008, p. 34. 553 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 218. 554 Paul quotes the poets because the idea that humans are the offspring of Zeus was expressed by Cleanthes of Assos in addition to Aratus; the quotation, however, is from the Phaenomenon of Aratus of Soli. 555 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 342; I.H. Eybers, Aspects of the Background of the Letter of Jude, “Neotestamentica” 9 (1975), p. 114; D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 273.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

any distinction, treating the Book of Enoch as it was treated in most Jewish and Judeo-Christian circles in the mid- to late first century, i.e. as an inspired prophetic writing from then universally recognised authority, the patriarch Enoch,556 who describes the end times. Moreover, the narrator of the Letter of Jude reads the Book of Enoch in a Christocentric spirit, thus applying the hermeneutics typical of the early Christians and visible in the New Testament texts, which allows even texts originally non-Messianic to refer to the person of Jesus Christ. The quasicanonicality of the Book of Enoch is also attested to by early Christian literature, in which quotations and/or paraphrases from 1 En are treated as scriptural sources.557 Undoubtedly, in Jude’s milieu and among the recipients of his letter, Enoch was a significant figure. In intertestamental times, the patriarch enjoyed universal respect and even reverence. He was a model of justice, wisdom and a special relationship with God.558 Around the biblical source narrative of Gen 5:18.21–24, which was very sparing, an elaborate tradition developed over time, whose main motif was the interpretation of Enoch’s ascension.559 Although Wis 4:10–15 does not mention the name of the patriarch, it presents him as pleasing to God, one who had gained God’s love and whose soul “pleased God”. The details of Wis 4:10.13–14 coincide with Gen 5:21–24. The description of the reasons why Enoch was “taken away” (ἡρπάγη) is deepened: he “was carried away” (μετετέθη) “living among sinners, was transported – Snatched away, lest wickedness pervert his mind or deceit beguile his soul” (Wis 4:10–11). Theme of the righteousness and exceptional wisdom of Enoch and his ascension is also taken up by Jub 4:17.23: [Enoch] “was the first among men that are born on earth who learnt writing and knowledge and wisdom. […] he was taken from amongst the children of men, and we conducted him into the Garden of Eden in majesty and honour”. This makes him similar to the Moses mentioned in Jude 9. This Assumptionist implication may also provide an indirect interpretive clue to verse 9 and the content of the court dispute over Moses’ body. As already suggested when analysing Jude 9, it would not just be about burying the leader of Israel, but about taking his body to heaven, just as Enoch was taken to heaven (paradise). As tradition attributed the authorship of the Torah to Moses, so Enoch was attributed the books signed with his name, in which the

556 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 218–219; F. Opoku-Giamfi, The Use of Scripture, p. 93; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 341; otherwise, R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 93, who argues that although the verb προφητεύω indicates Jude recognised the prophet in Enoch, it does not necessarily mean that he treated the Book of Enoch as canonical; as an argument he provides the presence at Qumran of Enochean literature and other texts that ultimately did not enter the biblical canon. 557 See below. 558 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 275. 559 D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 416.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

267

268

Structural commentary

history of the world and its functioning according to the laws established by God are presented from the perspective of the eschatological judgement: [He also] wrote down the signs of heaven according to the order of their months in a book, that men might know the seasons of the years according to the order of their separate months. […] recounted the weeks of the jubilees, and made known to them the days of the years, and set in order the months and recounted the Sabbaths of the years as we made (them), known to him. And what was and what will be he saw in a vision of his sleep, as it will happen to the children of men throughout their generations until the day of judgment (Jub 4:17–19).

From the literature attributed to Enoch, as has already been shown, the narrator of Jude draws abundantly, treating it as inspired writings and assuming that his recipients were well acquainted with this literature, popular in Judaism and JudeoChristianity at the time. The popularity of the Enochean literature and tradition is evidenced, among other things, by the numerous copies and variants of the Book of Enoch, which is a heterogeneous text that took at least 500 years to form.560 It consists of five parts: The Book of the Watchers, The Book of Parables, The Book of the Heavenly Luminaries, The Book of Dream Visions and The Book of Exhortation and Promised Blessing for the Righteous and of Malediction and Woe for the Sinners (containing The Epistle/Testament of Enoch, The Apocalypse of Weeks and The Book of Noah). It is assumed that the oldest fragments may have been written even in the sixth century B.C. (The Book of the Heavenly Luminaries may have been known to the priestly editor of the Pentateuch),561 while the youngest (The Epistle/Testament of Enoch and the introduction to the whole collection – 1 En 1–5) in the first century AD. All these parts make up the fully preserved Ethiopic version of the text (Ge’ez),562 in which The Book of Parables replaced The Book of Giants.563 The original language of the present Corpus Enocheanum was undoubtedly a Semitic

560 M. Rosik, I. Rapoport, Wprowadzenie, p. 57; N.J. Moore, Is Enoch, p. 501. 561 Księga Henocha etiopska. Wstęp, [in:] Apokryfy Starego Testamentu, ed. R. Rubinkiewicz, Warszawa 2000, p. 142; cf. N. Cohn, Kosmos, chaos i świat przyszły. Starożytne źródła wierzeń apokaliptycznych, transl. A. Kurowska-Mitas, Kraków 2006, p. 183–184. 562 A distinction must be made here between the First Book of Enoch, i.e. the Ethiopic Book of Enoch; the Second Book of Enoch, i.e. the Slavonic Book of Enoch, which is an Old Church and Slavonic translation probably of a Greek text written in the first centuries after Christ; the Third Book of Enoch, i.e. the Hebrew Book of Enoch, also known under the titles The Book of the Palaces, The Book of Rabbi Ishmael or The Exaltation of Metatron, written between the fifth to sixth century AD; see M. Rosik, I. Rapoport, Wprowadzenie, p. 58–59. 563 Księga Henocha etiopska. Wstęp, [in:] Apokryfy Starego Testamentu, ed. R. Rubinkiewicz, p. 142.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

language, but it is impossible to say whether this was Hebrew or Aramaic or whether, as in the biblical books of Ezra and Daniel, some passages were written in Hebrew and others in Aramaic.564 It is also impossible to say whether the narrator of the Letter of Jude knew all the parts of Corpus Enocheanum or whether he knew them as a single collection and which language version he used.565 It is highly likely that originally the individual parts functioned separately566 and were translated separately into different languages: into Hebrew (if it was originally written in Aramaic), into Aramaic (if it was originally written in Hebrew), into Greek. The variants and lack of stability of the text is evidenced, among others, by several Aramaic manuscripts from Qumran,567 among which there is no Book of Parables, but The Book of Giants supplementing the content of The Book of the Watchers; the Prayer of Enoch (4Q369) also functions separately. But the lack of literary stability of the Book of Enoch does not exclude its authority in intertestamental times; suffice it to mention the references in the younger apocalyptic writings, e.g. Testament of Simeon 5, TLev 14, 16, TJud 18, TDan 5, TBenj 9, most of which use the characteristic formula: “I learned from the Book of Enoch”. As it turns out, Enochean literature was also popular in Christian circles in the first/second century568 Enoch’s words are quoted, among others, in The Epistle of Barnabas 4:3, which, like Jude, comes from Judeo-Christian circles: “The last offence is at hand, concerning which the scripture speaketh, as Enoch saith. ‘For to this end the Master hath cut the seasons and the days short, that His beloved might hasten and come to His inheritance’”. From 1 En 89:55–67 comes the picture of the destruction of the sheep and the destruction of the tower in Barn. 16:5. The same source, as shown in the analysis of Jude 12, is also behind Jude’s accusations of the shepherds. It is significant that the narrator of The Epistle of Barnabas 16:5, introducing this Enochean illustration and paraphrasing the source text, treats the text as Scripture: “For the scripture saith; ‘And it shall be in the last days, that the Lord shall deliver up the sheep of the pasture and the fold and the tower thereof to destruction’”. This testifies on the one hand to the authority of the Book of Enoch, and on the other to the already mentioned lack of canonical awareness and the unrestricted catalogue of normative writings for Christianity at the end of the first century after Christ. As late as the second century, Tertullian equates his Enochean source with other inspired books precisely on the basis of the quotation in Jude 14–15:

564 Ibid. 565 See below for a comparison of the quotation in Jude 14–15 and the known multilingual versions of 1 En 1:9. 566 N.J. Moore, Is Enoch, p. 501. 567 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 337; L.T. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Enoch, p. 9. 568 See N.J. Moore, Is Enoch, p. 504–507.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

269

270

Structural commentary

But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us; and we read that “every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired”. […] Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude (On the Apparel of Women 1:3).

At the same time, he is aware that the Book of Enoch was not included among the Jewish canonical books. The reason for the rejection of Enoch by the Jews would have been that the contents of the book were too Christian: “By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that (very) reason, just like all the other (portions) nearly which tell of Christ” (On the Apparel of Women 1:3). Irenaeus, in his Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 18, seems to refer to 1 En 7–8,569 when he enumerates the “teachings of wickedness” which: angels brought as presents to their wives […] [for] they brought them the virtues of roots and herbs, dyeing in colors and cosmetics, the discovery of rare substances, love-potions, aversions, amours, concupiscence, constraints of love, spells of bewitchment, and all sorcery and idolatry hateful to God.

A similar text to 1 En 9:8–9 (1 En 15:8–9) is also found in First Apology 5 of Justin Martyr: since of old these evil demons, effecting apparitions of themselves, both defiled women and corrupted boys, and showed such fearful sights to men, that those who did not use their reason in judging of the actions that were done, were struck with terror; and being carried away by fear.

This story is also referred to by Clement of Alexandria in Stromata 5:1: “the angels who had obtained the superior rank, having sunk into pleasures, told to the women the secrets which had come to their knowledge”. Clement further equates the authority of the prophet Daniel and Enoch when, in Fragments II, he confirms the correspondence between them and paraphrases Enoch’s words: “Daniel agrees with Enoch, who says that everything was manifest to Him”570 (cf. 1 En 1:2, Jub 4:21). He also cites 1 En 7–8 when he translates passages from the Psalms in Excerpts 53:4.571 As can be seen, Enoch’s popularity came primarily from his descriptions

569 Ibid., p. 504. 570 J. Hultin, Jude’s Citation of 1 Enoch: From Tertullian to Jacob of Edessa, [in:] Jewish and Christian Scriptures: The Function of ‘Canonical’ and ‘Non-Canonical’ Religious Texts, ed. J.H. Charlesworth, L.M. McDonald, Edinburgh 2010, p. 115; N.J. Moore, Is Enoch, p. 505. 571 J. Hultin, Jude’s Citation, p. 115; N.J. Moore, Is Enoch, p. 505.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

of the rebellion of the angels and its consequences,572 and from his eschatological references. Related to the latter is the typology and Christology of the Letter of Jude described below, elements of which can be found in the texts of Christian writers of the second to third centuries. As it seems, the decline in the popularity of Enochean literature did not begin until the third/fourth centuries573 with the rise in awareness and importance of canonicity. In the seventh/eighth century, Bede the Venerable, in his Commentary on the Letter of Jude, attempts to explain why Enochean literature did not enter the Christian canon and why the Letter of Jude, despite the controversy caused by the quotation from 1 Enoch eventually found its way into the canon: The Book of Enoch, from which he took this is classed by the Church among the apocryphal scriptures, not because the sayings of so great a patriarch in any way can or ought to be thought worthy of rejection but because the book which is presented in his name appears not to have been really written by him but published by someone else under his name. […] because it contains a witness from an apocryphal book, was rejected by a number of people from the earliest times. Nonetheless because of its authority and age and usefulness it has for long been counted among the holy scriptures, particularly because Jude took from an apocryphal book a witness which was not apocryphal and doubtful but outstanding because of its true light and light-giving truth (Commentary on the Seven Catholic Epistles, p. 250).574

The typological potential was undoubtedly given to the figure of Enoch by naming him in Jude 14a ἕβδομος ἀπὸ Ἀδάμ “seventh after Adam”. The term itself is based on the genealogy of Gen 5:1–24 (1 Kings 1:1–3a), in which Enoch indeed ranks seventh, provided that Adam is also included in this sequence of characters:575 Adam – Seth – Enos – Kenan – Mahalalel – Jered – Enoch (cf. 1 En 37:1–2 in reverse order; see also 1 En 60:8, 93:3, Jub 7:39) and suggests the antiquity of

572 N.J. Moore, Is Enoch, p. 506 points out that the popularity of this motif among early Christians was influenced by the identification of “the sons of God” in Gen 6:1–4 with angels, which can be found in some LXX copies. Enochean literature seems to have not only confirmed this identity, but also commented on it. However, with the departure of first the Jewish and then also the Christian circles from this interpretation, the need for its confirmation and development also diminished. 573 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 277; N.J. Moore, Is Enoch, p. 507. 574 M. Luther also refers to this discussion on canonicity in his commentary on Jude 14–15a: “This language of Enoch is nowhere to be found in Scripture. For this reason some of the Fathers did not receive this Epistle, although there is not a sufficient reason for rejecting a book on this account. For St. Paul, also, in II. Tim. iii. , makes mention of two that opposed Moses, Jannes and Jambres, names that are not even to be found in the Scriptures”, M. Luther, The Epistles. 575 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 275; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 342; J.P. Davids, The Letters, p. 220.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

271

272

Structural commentary

the prophecy.576 Seven in Jewish and later Christian tradition signified perfection and fullness/fulfilment/completeness;577 suffice it to mention that on the seventh day God rested after creation and blessed that seventh day as holy (Gen 2:2–3, Exod 20:10–11); in the seventh month after the flood the ark settled on Mount Ararat (Gen 8:4), for seven days the Israelites ate unleavened bread in the desert (Exod 12:15–16, cf. Deut 5:12–15), the seventh year was considered holy (Exod 23:10–12, Lev 25:3–8). The number also occupies a special place in apocalyptic and eschatological literature, emphasising the “fulfilment of ” time and the imminent arrival of the end (seven letters to the seven churches, seven seals, seven thunders, seven trumpets, seven angels, seven horns, seven hills, seven kings, seven plagues in the Apocalypse of John – Rev 8:6–9:21; 11:14–19).578 In Enochean literature, the placement of Enoch as the “seventh in the first generation” and/or “the seventh in the first week” has a symbolic meaning and is (at least) a doubly significant element. First, it emphasizes the perfect righteousness of the patriarch, and second, it lends credence to his message of the coming of the end of times (the consummation of the times). In 1 En 93:3 (the so-called Apocalypse of the Weeks), the patriarch describes himself as the “the seventh in the first week, while judgement and righteousness still endured”. This may mean that he is the most righteous of the righteous and closes that period in human history which was not yet marked by progressive iniquity. Thus, not only did he not have the opportunity to grow up in an atmosphere of ungodliness (otherwise, Wis 4:10–15), but he stood out among the other righteous because “he walked with God” and God granted him a special grace – his ascension and the revelation of the mysteries related with the functioning and fate of the world divided into “weeks”. In opposition to the first week, the seventh week is depicted, when “shall an apostate generation arise, and many shall be its deeds, and all its deeds shall be apostate” (1 En 93:9). At the same time, the chosen righteous will “receive sevenfold instruction concerning all His creation” (1 En 93:10). This passage is closely related to 1 En 91:7–10, Enoch’s speech to the righteous in which he reveals that: when sin and unrighteousness and blasphemy and violence in all kinds of deeds increase, and apostasy and transgression and uncleanness increase, a great chastisement shall come from heaven upon all these, and the holy Lord will come forth with wrath and chastisement to execute judgement on earth.[…] [The ungodly] shall perish in wrath

576 As N. Cohn, Kosmos, p. 184, the roots of both the biblical and Enochean traditions can be traced back to Sumerian literature, as Enoch shares similar characteristics with Epistle – the seventh king of Sumer and the seventh Sumerian sage. The legend of Enoch seems to have originated in the eastern (Babylonian) diaspora and developed partly along the lines of Mesopotamian narratives. 577 D. Keating, First, Second Peter, p. 317. 578 D. Forstner, Świat symboliki, p. 47; N.J. Moore, Is Enoch, p. 503.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

and in grievous judgement for ever. And the righteous shall arise from their sleep, and wisdom shall arise and be given unto them.

A further description of the various stages of judgement – 1 En 91:11–17 – is placed in the Apocalypse of Weeks (after 1 En 93:10) because it refers to the history of the world/humanity divided into weeks. In the eighth week “sinners shall be delivered into the hands of the righteous” (1 En 91:12), in the ninth week “the righteous judgement shall be revealed to the whole world, and all the works of the godless shall vanish from all the earth” (1 En 91:14). The most final judgement on the world will take place in the tenth week, “in the seventh part there shall be the great eternal judgement, in which He will execute vengeance amongst the angels. And the first heaven shall depart and pass away, and a new heaven shall appear, and all the powers of the heavens shall give sevenfold light” (1 En 93:15–16). Moreover, as mentioned, the seven refers to the typology of the week, in which the six days of creation represent the time of this world, and the seventh day – the future world.579 Both of these aspects of the seventh are related in Barn. 15:3–7, which also uses elements reminiscent of the pesher technique (explaining successive phrases of the biblical text using eschatological hermeneutics and with characteristic formulas): Of the Sabbath He speaketh in the beginning of the creation […] Give heed, children, what this meaneth; “He ended in six days”. He meaneth this, that in six thousand years the Lord shall bring all things to an end; for the day with Him signifyeth a thousand years; and this He himself beareth me witness, saying; “Behold, the day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years”. Therefore, […] in six days, that is in six thousand years, everything shall come to an end. “And He rested on the seventh day” this He meaneth; when His Son shall come, and shall abolish the time of the Lawless One, and shall judge the ungodly, and shall change the sun and the moon and the stars, then shall he truly rest on the seventh day. Yea and furthermore He saith; “Thou shalt hallow it [the Sabbath] with pure hands and with a pure heart”. […] then and not till then shall we truly rest and hallow it, when we shall ourselves be able to do so after being justified […] and all things have been made new by the Lord.

Irenaeus takes up similar themes (Adv. Haer. V 28:3) and concludes by saying that the six days of creation and the mention of rest on the seventh day “is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come”. If, therefore, the recipients of the Letter of Jude were as familiar with Enochean literature as the narrator seems to assume, they read the ‘seven’ as a connective element, linking protology and eschatology (cf. Jude 5 and the relationship between

579 J. Daniélou, Theology, p. 355.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

273

274

Structural commentary

Jude 4 and 14–15 described above), the beginning and the end of times, heralding a multi-stage judgement on sinners, the world (cf. Jude 5c.7.10d.11) and angels (cf. Jude 6.9) as well as the triumph of the righteous and the advent of a new reality. These latter aspects are extremely important for the soteriology of the Letter of Jude. They emphasise that the juridical dimension of salvation is not limited to the accusation and punishment of the ungodly, but also includes the righteous and their ultimate “preservation” – the experience of God’s mercy, peace and love (cf. Jude 2) characteristic of the new post-eschatological reality. It is worth mentioning that the intertestamental and early Christian apocalyptic literature also often contains the motif of the seven heavens (e.g. TLev 3), important here because of Jude’s connections with the idea of Christ’s pre-existence and descent from the seventh heaven so that the act of incarnation could take place (AscIsa 9:13, 10:7–27, cf. Eph 4:10) and with the idea of exaltation, and thus ascension into the seventh heaven580 (AscIsa 3:18, 10:23–32, cf. Eph 4:10). Irenaeus also speaks of the seven heavens in his Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 9 and connects them with the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. The image or even model of these heavens is a seven-branched candlestick. Significantly, Irenaeus also echoes the idea of pre-existence, for the seven gifts of the Spirit rested on the Logos, the Son of God, when he came into the world. The protological implications associated with the seven relating to pre-existence and the eschatological implications relating to judgement and the creation of a new heaven (and a new earth) call attention not only to the figure of Enoch but also to the person of Adam in the expression ἕβδομος ἀπὸ Ἀδάμ “the seventh from Adam” in Jude 14a. Simon J. Joseph sees here indications of the so-called Adamic Christology, widespread in the 1840s and 1850s, inherited from the Palestinian apocalyptic and messianic tradition, according to which the eschatological times and the judgement on the world would inaugurate a new creation including a reborn human being represented by the “new” Adam.581 Adamic Christology is reflected above all in Paul’s letters (1 Cor 15:45, Rom 5:12–19, Phil 2:6–11). But Christ’s relationship to Adam is also clearly seen in Luke 3:23–38, where, as in Jude 14a, the motif of the seven appears. Between Jesus the son of God υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ and Adam [the son] of God Ἀδὰμ τοῦ θεοῦ (Luke 3:28) are placed “seventy-seven” persons,582 among them Enoch “the seventh from Adam” (Luke 3:37). Jude’s Adam could thus be, as in Rom 5:14, a “the type of the one who was to come”, i.e. Christ, the Lord referred to in the text of the quotation. However, Jude seems closer to the Adamic Christology of 1 Cor 15:44–49 with the primacy of the fleshly Adam; the second Adam, Christ 580 See J. Daniélou, Theology, p. 275; cf. also the further analysis and culmination of theological motifs in Jude 14–15. 581 S.J. Joseph, Seventh from Adam, p. 478. 582 Ibid., p. 480.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

is the Man from heaven.583 Between the first and second Adam stands Enoch, the carnal man (like the first Adam) who was taken up into heaven and transformed into a spiritual man (like the second Adam).584 Making most likely use of this Adamic Christology, the narrator of the letter also refers to the typology associated with the figure of Enoch himself. It has already been said that Enoch’s final – seventh – position in this first week/generation makes him the most righteous, endowed with the special grace of “walking with God” and then being taken up to heaven (see also the exaltation and power of Enoch-Metatron in 3 Enoch 6:3–12:5, 14, 16).585 This makes Enoch a type of Christ – the righteous one who “ascended on high” (Eph 4:8). With ascension is related the idea of preexistence perfectly laid out by the author of the Letter to the Ephesians: “What does ‘he ascended’ mean except that he also descended into the lower [regions] of the earth? The one who descended is also the one who ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things” (Eph 4:9–10). The descent, as already stated when analysing Jude 5b, implies Christ’s sojourn in heaven and then taking on the form of Adam (becoming Jesus, as AscIsa 9:13 shows) and his role as the ‘first’ in the new creation. This pre-existential and Adamic Christology found expression in later Christian theology, including that of Hippolytus of Rome, who in his Commentary on Daniel 3:7:14 writes: “the first-begotten of a virgin, that He might be seen to be in Himself the Creator anew of the first-formed Adam, (and) as the first-begotten from the dead, that He might become Himself the first-fruits of our resurrection”. Having prepared his recipients theologically and, in his typical subtle way, indicating in the introductory formula the Christological motifs that will be just as subtly developed (pre-existence, messianism, the renewal of humanity and all creation), the narrator of the Letter of Jude introduces a quotation from the Book of Enoch. 1 En 1:9 is indicated as the source here, but most likely the hagiographer makes changes in the excerpt itself, making it difficult to identify the version of the source text. The text of 1 En 1:9 is preserved in four language versions: the Ethiopic version, already mentioned and quoted many times, which includes the text of the whole book, and fragmentary versions in Greek (Codex Panopolitanus), Latin (Pseudo-Cyprian, Ad Novatianum 16) and Aramaic (4Q204 col. 1:15–17). All have been collated and compared by Richard Bauckham.586 Obviously, the Ethiopic and Latin versions, which were written after the Letter of Jude, must be excluded

583 See for details: A. Jankowski, Eschatologia Nowego Testamentu, Kraków 2007, p. 98–103. 584 See below – overlapping Messianic and Adamic themes in associations related to the sources of imagery in Jude 14–15. 585 M.T. Miller, The Evolution of the Patriarch Enoch in Jewish Tradition, “Distant Worlds Journal” 1 (2016), p. 134. It should be noted here that although the 3 Enoch itself was edited relatively late, in the fourth to fifth century AD, some parts of it can be dated even to the Maccabean period. 586 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 95.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

275

276

Structural commentary

as sources, although they may provide supporting material. One problem is the poorly preserved Aramaic version, which lacks precisely those elements that would help to answer unequivocally the question of whether Jude 14b–15 is really a literal quotation or a paraphrase, and whether the changes made to the text are the result of an error, a quotation from memory,587 or whether they are intentional.588 The basic and still unresolved question is, therefore, whether the narrator of the letter used the Greek or Aramaic text, or whether he had two different texts at his disposal589 and in which version was the text known to its recipients. The Greek text of 1 En 1:9 from the Codex Panopolitanus reads as follows:590 ὅτι ἔρχεται σὺν ταῖς μυριάσιν αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ, ποιῆσαι κρίσιν κατὰ πάντων, καὶ ἀπολέσει πάντας τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς, καὶ ἐλέγξει πᾶσαν σάρκα περὶ πάντων ἔργων τῆς ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν ὧν ἠσέβησαν καὶ σκληρῶν ὧν ἐλάλησαν λόγων, [καὶ περὶ πάντων ὧν κατελάλησαν] κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς: “He cometh with

ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgement upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly: and to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him”. If we place the text of Jude 14b–15 next to it, we can clearly see the differences: Greek version 1 En 1:9

Quotation in Jude 14b–15

ὅτι ἔρχεται σὺν ταῖς μυριάσιν αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ, ποιῆσαι κρίσιν κατὰ πάντων, καὶ ἀπολέσει πάντας τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς, καὶ ἐλέγξει πᾶσαν σάρκα περὶ πάντων ἔργων τῆς ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν ὧν ἠσέβησαν καὶ σκληρῶν ὧν ἐλάλησαν λόγων, καὶ περὶ πάντων ὧν κατελάλησαν κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς.

ἰδοὺ ἦλθεν κύριος ἐν ἁγίαις μυριάσιν αὐτοῦ ποιῆσαι κρίσιν κατὰ πάντων καὶ ἐλέγξαι πᾶσαν ψυχὴν περὶ πάντων τῶν ἔργων ἀσεβεἰας αὐτῶν ὧν ἠσέβησαν καὶ περὶ πάντων τῶν σκληρῶν ὧν ἐλάλησαν κατ᾽αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς

He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgement upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly: and to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.

Behold, the Lord is come among his holy myriads to make judgement upon all and to accuse every soul for all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed and for all the hard words which the ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

It is also possible, though with less success since the text is damaged, to attempt to juxtapose the Aramaic text (4Q204 col. 1:15–17)591 with Jude 14b–15:

587 So, e.g., J.D.N Kelly, A Commentary, p. 276; see also G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 347. 588 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 94; R.L. Webb, The Eschatology, p. 146; F. Opoku-Giamfi, The Use of Scripture, p. 93; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 221; J.H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 80–81; C.D. Osburn, The Christological Use, p. 335. 589 F. Opoku-Giamfi, The Use of Scripture, p. 96. 590 After R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 95. 591 After R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 95; F.G. Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 250.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

Aramaic version 1 En 1:9

Translation of the Aramaic text

[‫את]רבו‬ ‫]הי[קדישו‬

[miriad]s (great number) holy ones

[‫שרא]ב‬ ‫על‬ ‫]׳[עובד‬

[fl]esh deed[s]

[‫רבן]רב‬ ‫וקש׳ן‬

all arrogant

Quotation in Jude 14b–15 ἰδοὺ ἦλθεν κύριος ἐν ἁγίαις μυριάσιν αὐτοῦ ποιῆσαι κρίσιν κατὰ πάντων καὶ ἐλέγξαι πᾶσαν ψυχὴν περὶ πάντων τῶν ἔργων ἀσεβεἰας αὐτῶν ὧν ἠσέβησαν καὶ περὶ πάντων τῶν σκληρῶν ὧν ἐλάλησαν κατ᾽αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς

As can be seen, the changes can only be properly traced on the basis of the Greek text. Nevertheless, some of them bear traces of the Semitic way of formulating thoughts, which is why – as mentioned – some exegetes consider the Aramaic text reconstructed on the basis of Jude 14b–15 as the source. Eleven differences in the quotation in Jude and in the text from Codex Panopolitanus are striking (listed in order of appearance of differences in the text): 1. Replacing the conjunction ὅτι with the participle ἰδού. 2. Replacing the ind. praes. of the verb ἔρχομαι – ἔρχεται with the ind. aor. form – ἦλθεν. 3. Introduction of the subject κύριος. 4. Replacing the preposition σύν with ἐν. 5. Combining into one phrase ἐν ἁγίαις μυριάσιν αὐτοῦ – “among their holy myriads” two unrelated phrases: a) σὺν ταῖς μυριάσιν αὐτοῦ – “with their myriads” and b) καὶ τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ – “and with their saints”. 6. Omitting the phrase καὶ ἀπολέσει πάντας τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς – “will destroy all the ungodly”. 7. Replacement of the ind. praes. of the verb ἐλέγχω – ἐλέγξει with the inf. aoristi form – ἐλέγξαι. 8. Replacing the noun σάρξ “flesh” in the accusative σάρκα with the noun ψυχή “soul” also in the accusative ψυχήν. 9. Addition of the phrase περὶ πάντων “for all” before the adjective σκληρῶν “hard” in gen. 10. Omission of the noun λόγων “word” in gen. pl. 11. Omission of the phrase καὶ περὶ πάντων ὧν κατελάλησαν “and for all (all) that (which) they have spoken against”. Of course, not all differences are of the same significance. Some of them may indeed result from the author’s translation of the Aramaic text (e.g. the replacement of the preposition σύν by ἐν). If the source was the Greek text, it can be seen that some of the changes are caused by an effort to improve style and avoid repetition (e.g. the

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

277

278

Structural commentary

omission of the phrase καὶ περὶ πάντων ὧν κατελάλησαν592 ). There are also the usual periblepsis errors (omission of the noun λόγων593 ), which, however, do not affect the understanding of the text as a whole. Other changes are most likely either intentional or the result of using another text, or possibly – other source texts. For, as Felix Opoku-Giamfi notes, Jude 14b does indeed show similarities to Semitic texts, while Jude 15 is closer to the Greek text.594 Undoubtedly, the initial participle ἰδού bears the mark of the Semitic style. It seems to be primary, since it also occurs in Ethiopic and Latin versions. It refers to the Hebrew participle ‫הנה‬, which appears relatively often in narratives of a theophanic character, when God – as in 1 En 1:9 – “cometh” to appear to people.595 This participle can be regarded as a transitory element that helps the recipient to focus attention on the text that follows it, as for example in Mic 1:3 (where even the phrases ‫כ׳‬-‫ הנה‬is used in the LXX – ἰδοὺ γάρ “for behold)”, Isa 26:21, 40:10. Texts introduced by ‫ הנה‬usually contained some important message, heralded judgement and/or doom.596 In Aramaic texts, the equivalent of the Hebrew ‫ הנה‬is ‫ אר׳‬or ‫אר׳‬ ‫הא‬, which may indeed have initiated this Enochean theophanic and eschatological relationship.597 Semitic provenance can also be seen in the use in Jude 14b of the aorist ἦλθεν instead of the ind. praes. ἔρχεται found in the Greek version. This may be regarded on the one hand as the so-called prophetic aorist characteristic of prophetic utterances (cf. Jude 14 and the announcement of prophecy)598 or the so-called proleptic aorist describing an event already begun but not yet completed.599 In the Hebrew books of the Old Testament such utterances were most often realised by the perfectum. The LXX used formal equivalence, so the Hebrew perfectum, which has a future meaning, was rendered with an aorist.600 This would mean that the source of the quotation in Jude 14b could also be a Semitic text with the perfectum in the function of the futurum. On the other hand, the aorist conveys the conviction of the narrator

592 Conversely, the repetition in the Codex Panopolitanus can be explained by dittography – see R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 96. 593 It is worth noting that in C 33. 81. 88. 307. 442. 1243. 1448. 1611. 1739. 1852. 2344 vgmss sy sa fa, the noun λογων does appear, so the omission may be an error of the copyist rather than the hagiographer. 594 F. Opoku-Giamfi, The Use of Scripture, p. 96. 595 C.D. Osburn, The Christological Use, p. 335. 596 F. Opoku-Giamfi, The Use of Scripture, p. 94; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 350. 597 See C.D. Osburn, The Christological Use, p. 336; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 94; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 347. 598 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 94; J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 276; F. Opoku-Gyamfi, The Use of Scripture, p. 94. 599 F. Opoku-Giamfi, The Use of Scripture, p. 94. 600 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 223.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

of the letter that the Parousia and judgement will certainly take place, and therefore it is possible to write about them as something accomplished.601 A similar strategy is also employed in Jude 7 using a convention called δεῖγμα, although there the example actually referred to the past confirming – paradoxically – what will happen in the future. The introduction of the subject κύριος “Lord” into the text and the Christianisation of Jewish kyriology characteristic of the Letter of Jude are of Christological significance. In the Greek text and most probably also in the Aramaic text the subject is not explicated, it is contained in grammatical forms (third person singular of the verbs used in the narrative) and results from the context. The context, however, speaks of God who will come in the days of trouble to bless his chosen ones, the righteous, give them peace and destroy the wicked and evil (cf. 1 En 1:1.5–8). God is called “Great, Holy, Eternal” (1 En 1:3.4), but none of the source texts, neither the Ethiopic translation nor the Latin translation, calls him Lord.602 This does not mean, however, that in Enochean literature the Judge was not called Lord. This title appears, for example, in 1 En 91:7:603 “the holy Lord will come forth with wrath and chastisement to execute judgement on earth”, and, as in the Old Testament, it refers to God. However, throughout the whole Letter of Jude, the title Lord belongs to Jesus (cf. verse 4.17.21.25); the noun ‘God’ occurs four times, twice in the genitive in the attributive sense – God (verse 4. 21) and twice with the complementary terms – “God the Father” (verse 1) and “God the Saviour” (verse 25), but never with the title “Lord”.604 Some doubt as to who the “Lord” is may have arisen in connection with the dispute over Moses’ body referred to in Jude 9 and the formula “May the Lord punish you”. It is not clear whether the narrator of the Letter of Jude cited it after Zech 3:2 (LXX) or whether he drew on a contemporary apocalyptic topos (cf. Rev 13:6). In each of these texts, however, God is the subject. The absence of any commentary or addition in Jude 9 caused uncertainty as to whether the title “Lord” really has a Christological meaning here, inferred from a reconstruction of theological and soteriological premises of the letter. There was a lack of a convincing argument, which only appears in the imagery of Jude 14b–15. When Jude 9 and Jude 14b–15 are compared, it is clear that the two passages share a characteristic judicial, procedural setting. Also, common seems to be Jude’s method of transferring judicial powers and functions traditionally vested in God to the person of the “Lord”, who is to be identified with the Messiah. For the transposition of judicial functions to the

601 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 276. 602 See C.D. Osburn, The Christological Use, p. 337; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 94; F. Opoku-Giamfi, The Use of Scripture, p. 94. 603 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 94. 604 R.L. Webb, The Use of “Story”, p. 68.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

279

280

Structural commentary

person of the Messiah was characteristic of and common in apocalyptic literature605 (cf. also John 17:2–3): This is the Messiah whom the Most High hath kept unto the end of days, who shall spring from the seed of David, and shall come and speak unto them; he shall reprove them for their ungodliness, rebuke them for their unrighteousness, reproach them to their faces with their treacheries. For at the first he shall set them alive for judgment; and when he hath rebuked them he shall destroy them. But my people who survive he shall deliver with mercy […] he shall make them joyful until the End come, even the Day of Judgment (4 Ezra 12:31–33, cf. 13:37–38, ApBaSyr/2 Ba 40:1, 72:2).

This motif also occurs in Enochean literature, where the Chosen One, or Messiah, is entrusted with eschatological judgement on the just and the unjust (cf. parables in 1 En 45–69).606 Jude obviously believes that the Messiah is Jesus. One may therefore assume that the Lord referred to in the judicial context of Jude 9 and 14b is the Messiah coming in judgement, i.e. Jesus Christ.607 Ultimately, doubts about who the “Lord” is will be resolved in verse 17 and 21 where the full kyriological and Christological formula “our Lord Jesus Christ” also set in a judicial context appears. Jesus as the Lord comes surrounded by ἐν ἁγίαις μυριάσιν “myriads of saints”. The preposition ἐν ‘in, among’ resembles the Aramaic text more than the Greek with σύν608 and is perhaps a translation of the Aramaic note ‫ב‬. Jude’s ἐν signifies not only the companionship of “the holy myriads”, but also the unity of purpose of the coming of the Lord and “the holy myriads” – to execute judgement and punish the ungodly.609 This helps somewhat in identifying the “holy myriads”, though the expression may cause some interpretive difficulties. Both terms occur in the dat. fem. pl. and form a grammatical agreement in which the adjective “holy” seems to define the “myriads”.610

605 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 97. Such a transposition is also used by other New Testament writers who in their eschatological texts transfer to Jesus not only divine titles and functions, but entire prophetic images; suffice it to mention, for example, the image from Isa 63:1–6 transposed into the image in Rev 19:13.15; or the text from Zech 14:5 probably repeated in 1 Thess 3:13 – see P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 224. 606 For more on the messianic connotations in Jude 14b–15 see below. 607 M. Black, Christological Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament, NTS 18 (1971–1972), p. 10–11 sees here an adaptation of the Aramaic formula Maranatha, which was originally a prohibition formula associated with judgement: “The Lord comes in judgement”. 608 See C.D. Osburn, The Christological Use, p. 337; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 94. 609 F. Opoku-Giamfi, The Use of Scripture, p. 95. 610 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 349.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

The term μυριάδες “myriads” was used to denote a very great number, something innumerable, rather than to indicate precisely 10,000 (cf. Acts 19:19).611 It is used in the same way by the narrator of the Letter of Jude, who makes this numeral more precise by using the adjective ἁγίαι “holy”. This peculiar abbreviation in relation to the Greek text, which speaks separately of “His myriads” and “His holy ones”, also resembles the Aramaic version more closely. However, it is the expanded Greek version that helps identify the beings/persons accompanying the Lord. Behind the image evoked by Jude, there seems to be 1 En 1:3–4: The Holy Great One will come forth from His dwelling, and the eternal God will tread upon the earth, (even) on Mount Sinai, [And appear from His camp] and appear in the strength of His might from the heaven of heavens.

“The host” and “the heaven” might undoubtedly have military connotations, which would mean that God will appear accompanied by angels forming these countless hosts of heavenly armies. The image of God coming to judgement and sitting on a throne surrounded by angels, though not necessarily at the head of a heavenly army, is very characteristic of intertestamental apocalyptic and eschatological literature (e.g. 1 En 14:22–23, 40:1, 47:3, 60:1–2, 61:10–11, 71:1.7–8.13). In 1 En 100:4–5 the angels even have their roles strictly laid out: In those days the angels shall descend into the secret places and gather together into one place all those who brought down sin and the Most High will arise on that day of judgement to execute great judgement amongst sinners. And over all the righteous and holy He will appoint guardians from amongst the holy angels to guard them as the apple of an eye, until He makes an end of all wickedness and all sin.

Also, in the Book of Parables (1 En 37–71), “angels of punishment” often appear, who carry out God’s judgements on the ungodly and fallen angels: I saw all the angels of punishment […] preparing all the instruments of Satan […] for the kings and the mighty of this earth, that they may thereby be destroyed […] I saw there the hosts of the angels of punishment going, and they held scourges and chains of iron and bronze. […] And He will deliver them to the angels for punishment, to execute vengeance on them because they have oppressed His children and His elect. […] In those days shall the mighty and the kings who possess the earth implore (Him) to grant them a little respite from His angels of punishment to whom they were delivered, that they

611 Ibid., p. 348.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

281

282

Structural commentary

might fall down and worship before the Lord of Spirits, and confess their sins before Him. (1 En 53:3.5, 56:1–2, 62:11, 63:1–2).

In a similar vein – although without details concerning the role of angels – are the New Testament descriptions of the parousia, when “the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father’s glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct” (Matt 16:27, cf. Matt 24:30–31, 25:31, Mark 8:38, Luke 9:26, 12:8–9 and Heb 12:22).612 In some of these texts the angels are additionally referred to by the adjective holy – so, for example, in 1 En 100:5 already quoted, or in 1 En 46:1–2, 60:4–5 and in Mark 8:38, where the arrival of the Son of Man together with the holy angels μετὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν ἁγίων is mentioned. In Mark 8:38 an adjective is used, as in Jude 14b, though it is differently realized. That in the Christian tradition Jude’s “holy myriads” were understood as being surrounded by the angelic hosts is shown by the copies of this text in Ψ: αγιαις μυριασιν αγγελων, in P72 : αγιων αγγελων μυριασιν, in ‫ א‬88. 442: μυριασιν αγιων αγγελων αυτου, among others. In addition to the introduction of the noun “angels” in the gen. pl. to denote myriads, one also sees attempts to change the dativus of the adjective holy/saintly to the gen., so that the grammatical agreement can function between saints and angels rather than between saints and myriads. These attempts are also often carried over into modern translations of Jude 14b, where, admittedly, there is no addition that the myriads of holy angels are meant, but the suggestion that they are “myriads of saints”. The grammatical agreement ἐν ἁγἰαις μυριάσιν “among the holy myriads” is replaced by the case government ἐν μυριάσιν ἁγίων “among the myriads of saints”. This opens up new interpretative possibilities, especially in conjunction with the reconstruction of the sources that could stand behind this image. As already mentioned, although the direct source for Jude’s vision of the Lord coming among the holy myriads is 1 Enoch, behind both the Enochean and Jude’s imagery stands the Old Testament tradition, especially theophanic texts that describe the circumstances surrounding God’s majestic “descent” (Judg 5:4–5, Isa 26:21, 64:1–3, Mic 1:2–4, Hab 3:2–15, cf. also TMos 10).613 With the angelic understanding of the phrase ἐν ἁγίαις μυριάσιν, these theophanies are usually superimposed on texts that speak of God’s angelic environment (e.g. Ps 68[67]:17–18, Isa 6:1–3, cf. also 4 Ezra 8:21, 1 En 14:22–23, 2 En 20:1–3, 21:1, 22:2–3, Rev 18–19,

612 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 97; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 348 613 As R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 97, notes, the Christian depiction of the parousia largely resulted from the direct application of Old Testament texts about the coming of God, which originally had no messianic context, to the description of Jesus’ second coming. For a classification of texts on the coming and descent of God, see E. Adams, The “Coming of God” Tradition and its Influence on New Testament Parousia Texts, [in:] Biblical Traditions in Transmission. Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb, ed. Ch. Hempel, J.M. Lieu, Leiden–Boston 2006, p. 3.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

AscIsa 9:6). In some of these the angels are referred to by the adjective “holy” alone (3 Macc 2:2.21, specific passages include psalms in which the indwelling, the sojourning of God in the temple in the LXX is rendered as dwelling, sojourning among the saints ἐν ἀγίοις e.g. Ps 22[21]:4, 68[67]:36, 150:1). Others, on the other hand, refer only to a great number standing before the throne of God and serving Him, without explicitly indicating that angels are meant (so Dan 7:10, where the phrases χίλιαι χιλιάδες and μύριαι μυριάδες appear without further specification). Among the Old Testament texts the most referential to Jude 14b are Deut 33:2–3 and Zech 14:5, which speak of the “coming of the Lord” and of the “saints”, which may or may not mean angels. The angelic meaning of ἐν ἁγίαις μυριάσιν is advocated by Richard Bauckham, who juxtaposes the Aramaic text (accepted as the source), the context of 1 En 1:4 and Zech 14:5: “And the eternal God will tread upon the earth […] in the strength of His might from the heaven of heavens”. He argues that the latter was the main source of early Christian depictions of the parousia as the arrival of Jesus surrounded by angels.614 However, there is no conclusive evidence that the saints mentioned by Zechariah are identified with angels. One indication is Zech 9:15, where the phrase ‫“ יהוה צבאות‬Lord of Hosts” appears, but the LXX translates it majestically rather than militarily as κύριος παντοκράτωρ (cf. κύριος σαβαωθ in Isa 6:3). The second premise is the use already in Jude 9 of a judicial background probably inspired by the scene in Zech 3:5. The participants in the trial in Jude 9 with strictly drawnout procedural roles are supernatural beings – the archangel Michael (in Zech 3:5 an unnamed angel of the Lord) and the devil (in Zech Satan – the accuser), the judgement is to be carried out by the Lord. Jude 14b–15, as mentioned, may take up and develop this theme. Then the angels accompanying the Judge would also have to perform some procedural function. On the basis of 1 En 100:5 they may be regarded as “assistants to the trial authorities” i.e. escorts gathering the defendants together in one place, on the basis of the description of the tasks of the angels of punishment as executors of judicial judgements. The “Lord” at the head of the angelic hosts may be related to the angelomorphic Christology described earlier, when analysing Jude 5b, and Christ as “the archangel”, exercising authority over the angels, which, as said, equates His authority with that of God and makes Him “the only Ruler and Lord” (Jude 4). Supporters of the inspiration drawn from Deuteronomy 33:2–3:615 The Lord came from Sinai and dawned on his people from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran. With him were myriads of holy ones; at his right hand advanced the gods.

614 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 97. 615 J.D. Charles, The Use of Traditional-Material, p. 5–7.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

283

284

Structural commentary

Indeed, lover of the peoples, all the holy ones are at your side; They follow at your heels, carry out your decisions,

no longer so sure of the angelic interpretation of “the saints” in Jude 14b, because in the Hebrew source text “all the saints” are members of the people that God loved, those who receive God’s words616 and obey them. This description clearly points to the righteous. The Greek text, which very clearly distinguishes between “saints” and “angels” and at the same time favours the angelic interpretation of “the holy myriads” in Jude 14b, is somewhat different: “The Lord came from Mount Paran. With Him were myriads of Kadesh” σὺν μυριάσιν Καδης, “at His right hand advanced the gods” ἄγγελοι μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ. “Indeed lover of His peoples, and all the holy ones πάντες οἱ ἡγιασμένοι are at your side [i.e., under Your care and subject to You], and […] carry your decisions”. There is no doubt that God comes surrounded by angels; the purpose of His coming is to punish the people, from which He ultimately departs. In contrast to the Hebrew text, which defines the behaviour of the saints, the Greek text speaks of God’s special care for “the myriads of Kadesh”. Only the phrase ὑπὸ σέ εἰσιν “are at your side” can be considered an expression of subjection, or obedience, to God. It is not clear which version would stand for Jude 14b. If it were the Hebrew version, then additional elements could be identified linking the Letter of Jude primarily with Deut 33:3 – the election and love of God and the acceptance of God’s words. Jude refers to election and love in verses 1 and 2, and in the following verses he refers to the necessity of preserving all of God’s revelation, including the law of Moses, which was denied by false teachers preaching an ill-conceived freedom. If this were the Greek version, theophany motif could be taken from it, and the angelic interpretation of the “holy myriads”, and the belief in God’s special protection of the saints/sacred at the time of judgement. Both versions, however, agree in the general characterisation of the “saints” as obedient to God, God-fearing, righteous. This image of “the saints” is perpetuated in Old Testament literature (e.g. Ps 16[15]:3, 33[34]:10, Sir 42:17, Wis 18:9) and Qumran literature. Members of the Essene community self-identify as [God’s] holy ones (1QM 6:6)617 , “your [God’s] holy people” (1QM 14:12618 , “men of holiness” (1QS 8:17), “men of perfect holiness” (1QS 8:20), “a House of Holiness for Israel, an Assembly of Supreme Holiness for Aaron” (1QS 8:5–6). There is clearly an apocalyptic direction to the interpretation of this concept, which seems to be a development of the older eschatological aspect. In the late Old Testament literature there is also a martyrdom element – the saints

616 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 223–224. 617 F.G. Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 99. 618 Ibid., p. 109.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

not only keep God’s law and obey God’s will, but also experience persecution, suffering and even death because of their faithful adherence to God (cf. Dan 7:21.25, where the struggle of the hostile powers against the Jews and the persecution of the Jewish “holy ones of the Most High” ἅγιοι ὑψίστου are described, and 1 Macc 1:44–63, where the actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes to destroy Judaism and the repression affecting the faithful are described; in verse 46 these actions are described as μιᾶναι ἁγίασμα καὶ ἁγίους the desecration “the sanctuary and the sacred ministers”; see also 1 Macc 6:54). The persecution and suffering of the saints will be rewarded to them after death and/or at the end-time judgement619 (cf. Dan 7:18.22.27, Wis 5:1–23). The concept of immediate post-mortem judgement and divine judgement is widespread, whereby “the righteous live forever, and in the Lord is their recompense, and the thought of them is with the Most High. Therefore shall they receive the splendid crown, the beautiful diadem, from the hand of the Lord” (Wis 5:15–16a). This means an expansion of the semantic field of the term saints, which in the intertestamental period includes both the living righteous and the righteous dead. This is very well demonstrated in PssSol 14:1–2(5).7(10), where the righteous are called saints: “Faithful is the Lord to them that love Him in truth […] To them that walk in the righteousness of His commandments […] The pious of the Lord shall live by it for ever […] the pious of the Lord shall inherit life in gladness” (cf. also PssSol 15). Such a vision of a happy posthumous existence of the righteous/saints is related to the Hellenization of Judaism, which is mentioned, among others, by Josephus Flavius in his description of the faithful. Josephus Flavius, describing the beliefs of the Essenes in De Bello Iudaico II 8:11: this is like the opinions of the Greeks, that good souls have their habitations beyond the ocean, in a region […] [where] is refreshed by the gentle breathing of a west wind, that is perpetually blowing from the ocean; while they allot to bad souls a dark and tempestuous den, full of never-ceasing punishments. And indeed the Greeks seem to me to have followed the same notion, when they allot the islands of the blessed […] whereby good men are bettered […] and whereby the vehement inclinations of bad men to vice are restrained, by the fear and expectation they are in, that although they should lie concealed in this life, they should suffer immortal punishment after their death (cf. also Ant. XVIII 1:3 and the beliefs of the Pharisees about the immortality of the soul and the possibility of the righteous souls returning to life).

Likewise, in Enochean literature, the term ‘saints’ is often synonymous with the righteous and the elect, who after death await ultimate justice and punishment of

619 H. Pietras, Eschatologia Kościoła pierwszych czterech wieków (Myśl Teologiczna 55), Kraków 2007, p. 12.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

285

286

Structural commentary

their ungodly persecutors. This synonymy is well illustrated in 1 En 48:1.7.8.9. Verse 1 lists the “righteous and holy and elect”; verse 4 only “righteous” and 7 “the holy and righteous”, while verses 8–9, in a characteristic parallel for Semitic literature, describes the ungodly delivered into the hands of the elect, “the righteous and the holy”, equating these three categories of people: And I will give them over into the hands of Mine elect: As straw in the fire so shall they burn before the face of the holy: As lead in the water shall they sink before the face of the righteous, And no trace of them shall any more be found (cf. similar contexts in 1 En 38:4–5, 39:4, 51:2, 58:1–3, 62:8.12–13).

The return to Enochean literature in attempting to interpret the holy “myriads” confirms that the immediate reference for the image outlined in Jude 14b is not Old Testament texts but intertestamental apocalypticism. However, two opposing lines of interpretation of the “holy myriads (myriads of saints)” have emerged – angelic and anthropological, both based on the same Book of Enoch. A solution may be to treat collectively God’s followers, which consists of both angels and humans, i.e. the righteous dead. Such collectivity is suggested, among others, in 1 En 47:1–4, where the term “saint/holy” includes both the righteous and the angels: And in those days shall have ascended the prayer of the righteous, and the blood of the righteous from the earth before the Lord of Spirits. In those days the holy ones who dwell above in the heavens shall unite with one voice and supplicate and pray and praise, and give thanks and bless the name of the Lord of Spirits on behalf of the blood of the righteous […] And that the prayer of the righteous may not be in vain before the Lord of Spirits, that judgement may be done unto them, and that they may not have to suffer for ever. In those days I saw the Head of Days when He seated himself upon the throne of His glory, and the books of the living were opened before Him: and all His host which is in heaven above and His counselors stood before Him, and the hearts of the holy were filled with joy; because the number of the righteous had been offered, and the prayer of the righteous had been heard, and the blood of the righteous been required before the Lord of Spirits.

From other passages in 1 En it appears that in “high heaven” dwell angels and the elect/righteous (1 En 39:1, cf. 41:2, 45:1),620 and “in those days […] the angels in heaven shall be lighted up with joy” (1 En 51:4), suggesting an angelic transfiguration (angelization) of the righteous dead so that they can stand before God and praise

620 This image comes from The Book of Parables (1 Enoch 38–71); in The Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 1–36), on his second journey, Enoch visits a place – the caves – intended for the souls of the righteous and ungodly dead, but which is not in heaven (1 En 22).

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

Him without risk. Among the innumerable host standing before the throne of God there are thus angels and (transformed most probably, and therefore angelized) the righteous: “The Head of Days sat on the throne of His glory, and the angels and the righteous stood around Him” (1 En 60:2, cf. 1 En 14:22–23). The angelic-human community of “saints” (angels) and “elect” (humans) praising and blessing God is also described in 1 En 61:12: “All the holy ones who are in heaven shall bless Him, and all the elect who dwell in the garden of life: and every spirit” – this may be taken as a reference to angelic spiritual entities – that “is able to bless, and glorify, and extol, and hallow Thy blessed name, and all flesh” – this in turn may be a reference to corporeal entities, humans – “shall beyond measure glorify and bless Thy name for ever and ever” (cf. 1 En 39:12, 40:1).621 The collective image of hosts glorifying God in the seventh heaven is also conveyed by early Christian literature. The vision in AscIsa 9:6–9, for example, concerns the time before the descent (birth) of the pre-existent Christ and therefore has many parallels with the heavenly visions of Enoch quoted above: And he raised me up into the seventh heaven, and I saw there […] angels innumerable. And there I saw the holy Abel and all the righteous. And there I saw Enoch and all who were with him, stript of the garments of the flesh, and I saw them in their garments of the upper world, and they were like angels, standing there in great glory.

As we can see, there is also here the motif of robes, already described in the analysis of Jude 9, which symbolise the transfiguration of the righteous/holy dead even before the coming of Jesus into the world. Later this motif will also gain an eschatological perspective: the transfiguration in the end times, after the judgement. Even more clearly than in heaven, this angelic/human environment of the “Lord/ God” is presented in the apocalyptic descriptions of judgement. The angels, as already mentioned, are the executors of the punishment awarded to the ungodly, the righteous assist this, watch as their former oppressors – here theme of retribution appears – are driven from the face of the earth (1 En 38:1), cast into darkness, tormented by worms without any hope of change or peace (1 En 46:6), put in chains (1 En 54:2–3), made to suffer (1 En 62:2–11). In other words, the punished ungodly “shall be a spectacle for the righteous and for His elect” (1 En 62:12). This motif,

621 The concept of an even broader, because earthly-heavenly angelic-human community also appeared in the Qumran literature. It has already been mentioned that the Essenes used terms with the lexeme ‘holiness’, they also called angels ‘holy’ (1QS 11:8, 1QH 19[formerly11]:12). ‘Holiness’, therefore, understood above all exclusively as a special devotion to God and as belonging to the “sons of brightness”, was the connecting element here; see H. Seebass, Holy, [in:] The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 2, p. 228.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

287

288

Structural commentary

also present in the Letter of Jude, helps to explain why the description of judgement in Jude 15 is dominated by penal themes. The resurrection message characteristic of Christian apocalypticism is not strongly exposed in Enochean literature. Besides, even in the Letter of Jude itself622 and the Christian AscIsa it is not so explicit. Instead, AscIsa 4:14–17 makes it clear that the parousia includes angels and transfigured saints: And after (one thousand) three hundred and thirty-two days the Lord will come with His angels and with the armies of the holy ones from the seventh heaven with the glory of the seventh heaven […] But the saints will come with the Lord with their garments which are (now) stored up on high in the seventh heaven: with the Lord they will come, whose spirits are clothed, they will descend and be present in the world, and He will strengthen those, who have been found in the body, together with the saints, in the garments of the saints […] And afterwards they will turn themselves upward in their garments, and their body will be left in the world.

The collective understanding of the “holy myriads” (possibly “myriads of saints”) in Jude 14b is finally supported by confronting this verse with Jude 3, where the same substantivized adjective – ἅγιοι – appears. At that time, it pointed primarily to people – patriarchs, prophets, apostles, i.e. the communicators of revelation/faith. However, it seems that already in verse 8 the hagiographer tried to extend this meaning to supernatural entities. He then spoke of “blaspheming the glories” and, to designate the authorities rejected by false teachers, he used the term traditionally accorded to angels, treating them as synonymous with the ‘saints’ of verse 3. In analysing verse 8 it was pointed out that it is not ruled out to include in the group of authorities also angels who, according to Jewish tradition, were responsible for the transmission and revelation of the law.623 In Jude 14b, this community of “saints” is even more inclusive, clearly including both humans and angels, with the human element seemingly limited to the righteous dead transformed in heaven in imitation of the angels and Enoch himself (cf. 2 En 22:5–9, 3 Enoch 4, 8:2, 9, 15, Rev 15:5–6, AscIsa 8:15). This collectivism seems to be well reflected in one of the variants of the source text for Jude 14b, the Greek Codex Panopolitanus, in which “His myriads” can be referred to innumerable angelic hosts and “His saints” to the righteous residing in God’s midst and present at the judgement. Continuing the Enochean quotation in verse 15, of the three elements mentioned in the Greek and Ethiopic versions: ποιῆσαι κρίσιν κατὰ πάντων, καὶ ἀπολέσει πάντας τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς, καὶ ἐλέγξει πᾶσαν σάρκα – “to execute judgement on all,

622 R.L. Webb, The Use of “Story”, p. 66–67. 623 Cf. above – analysis for verse 8.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

destroy all the wicked and accuse all flesh” – Jude leaves two: ποιῆσαι κρίσιν κατὰ πάντων καὶ ἐλέγξαι πᾶσαν ψυχήν “to execute judgement on all and to accuse ev-

ery soul/everyone”,624 changing the form of the verb ἐλέγχω from the ind. futuri to infinitivus aor. and equating it with ποιῆσαι (also in the infinitivus aor.). The instances of the aorist indicate a perfect, comprehensive, multifaceted conduct of the court and a meticulous execution of the accusation.625 This is overlaid by the aforementioned proleptic character of both aorists expressing the conviction that this perfect, complete court and prosecution have already begun but are not yet complete. In the Codex Panopolitanus, “destruction” and “accusation” define the main goal – the “execution of judgement”, while in Jude 15b–c two separate, as it were, goals of the “Lord’s” coming are given: “execution of judgement” and “accusation”. The first goal fits perfectly into the soteriology of Jude – the eschatological judgement concerns everyone: the just and the unjust. This is also indicated by the context of the quotation taken from 1 En 1:9: There shall be a judgement upon all (men). But with the righteous He will make peace. And will protect the elect, and mercy shall be upon them. And they shall all belong to God, and they shall be prospered, and they shall all be blessed […] And light shall appear unto them (1 En 1:7–8).

Jude, however, reverses this Enochean order and in describing the judgement first refers to the accusations against the wicked and only later (verse 21 and 24) to the fate of the righteous.626 Such an inversion to the immediate context of the quotation is most likely subordinated to the rhetorical assumptions of the letter and its composition: the beginning and end of the text deal with the positive, liberating aspects of salvation, which are also present in the judgement on the righteous/believers. However, it is not unusual if one considers other descriptions of judgement in 1 Enoch, especially those in the Book of Proverbs and the attempt to reconstruct the stages of the final judgement. The expression ποιῆσαι κρίσιν ‘to pass judgement’ is commonly used in the LXX (Gen 18:19, Deut 10:18, 33:21, Isa 5:7, 56:1, Jer 7:5, 1 Macc 6:22, Sir 35:18), and usually means ‘to do justice’ (hence the frequent parallel in the Old Testament between ‘judgement’ and ‘justice’) to ‘render a just verdict’. The agent can be either a human being or God. In the New Testament, passing judgement refers primarily to Jesus Christ (John 5:22.27.30, Heb 12:23, Jas 4:12, Acts 10:42, 17:31, Rom 2:16,

624 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 95; R.L. Webb, The Eschatology, p. 146. 625 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 94; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 223. 626 R.L. Webb, The Use of “Story”, p. 70.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

289

290

Structural commentary

2 Tim 4:1, 1 Pet 4:5, Rev 6:10).627 It is worth noting that the term κρίσις can mean not only ‘judgement’, but also ‘discernment’ based on a sound examination of the matter rather than on appearances – as in John 7:24.628 This extended understanding of the term κρίσις in Jude 15b is confirmed by the identification of the second purpose of the Lord’s coming. The second purpose is to accuse, to point out the guilt of the ungodly. The verb ἐλέγχω in various contexts means the indication of sin and a call to repentance (Matt 18:15, Eph 5:11, 1 Tim 5:20, 2 Tim 4:2, Titus 1:9.13, 2:15); thus, it has a pedagogical meaning – it gives the sinner a chance to learn about sin and repent. This pedagogical aspect, however, is weakened in intertestamental literature by the apocalyptic judicial context, which directs the meaning of the verb primarily to accusation (4 Ezra 12:31–33, PssSol 17:25, John 3:20, 16:8).629 Enochean literature repeatedly emphasizes that at the moment of judgement, when the wicked will know their sin and beg for the opportunity to repent, such an opportunity will no longer be given to them630 (cf. especially 1 En 62:9–12: Shall fall down before him on their faces, and worship and set their hope upon that Son of Man, and petition him and supplicate for mercy at his hands. Nevertheless, that Lord of Spirits will so press them that they shall hastily go forth from His presence, […] He will deliver them to the angels for punishment, to execute vengeance on them because they have oppressed His children and His elect and they shall be a spectacle for the righteous and for His elect.)

However, it seems that in Jude 15b this pedagogical aspect is present. This is evidenced by, among other things, the omission of the “destruction of all the ungodly” present in the source (cf. also the omission of casting into the fire in the images of uprooting and preservation in darkness in Jude 12e and 13c) and the suggestion of individual treatment of each of those subject to the accusation in the expression “every soul” πᾶσα ψυχή631 (cf. also Jude 22–23). This is well seen when this expression is juxtaposed with the pronoun πάντων. “The exercise of judgement over all/all” (Greek gen. pl. includes all people as well as all things, all creation, including angels) indicates the universal, global, inclusive character of the judgement; “the accusation of each soul” – indicates the individual and selective character of the accusation

627 628 629 630 631

G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 350. P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 226. G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 351. A.M. Robinson, The Enoch, p. 206. P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 223; Davids furthermore draws attention to John’s literature which emphasises the salvific aspects of judgement – cf. John 3:17.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

(cf. also Jude 22–23), directed against the ungodly.632 Many textual testimonies emphasize this orientation, using the expression παντας (τους) ασεβεις (αυτων) in place of the phrase every “soul [to accuse] all the ungodly” (so, among others, A B C Ψ 5. 33. 81. 88. 307. 436. 642. 1243. 1448. 1611. 1735. 2344).633 It is impossible to give a clear answer to the question why the narrator of the Letter of Jude changes the source complement closer “any flesh” to “any soul”, especially since “flesh” is also attested in the Aramaic text. Perhaps in this way he wants to reduce the fleshly aspect of ungodliness (cf. Jude 18) and to draw the attention of the recipients here primarily to ungodliness manifested in false and blasphemous teachings.634 Attention is drawn to the fact that in Jude 15b–c the “Lord’s” function is not limited to judging, but also includes accusation. In the context of Jude 9 and the adherence to the function and order of trial this may seem strange. However, it must be remembered that it was verse 9 suggested the falsity of the accuser: the devil accuses the righteous – Moses – of a crime in order to prevent his exaltation. In order to ensure a just judgement/discernment for all, and especially to prevent false accusations against the righteous, the function of the accuser here is assumed by the judge (cf. e.g. 1 En 50:4: “He is righteous also in His judgement, and in the presence of His glory unrighteousness also shall not maintain itself ”; 1 En 62:3: “[…] he sits on the throne of his glory and […] righteousness is judged before him, and no lying word is spoken before him”). Based on a comparison of Codex Panopolitanus and Jude 14b and 15a–b, one can observe a certain characteristic method of integrating the source text used by the narrator of the Letter of Jude. In verse 14b, the hagiographer, omitting the source’s definitions, merged myriads and saints into “holy myriads, but left their separate meanings (“myriads” refer to the heavenly hosts composed of angels; “saints” refer to both angels and the righteous). In verse 15a–b, by eliminating the “destruction” occurring in the source, he juxtaposed the “execution of judgement and accusation” side by side, treating them also as two distinct purposes (the unification of the form to inf. aor. also serves this purpose) of Christ’s parousia: universal judgement on all creation and individualized accusation of the ungodly. Later in verse 15 the question of accusations is clarified; Jude returns to the fate of the righteous in verse 21 and 24. In specifying the accusations in Jude 15 c–d, the narrator’s favourite triptych based here on the polyptych is employed: the term “ungodliness” appears three

632 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 276; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 97; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 351. 633 A.M. Robinson, The Enoch, p. 209. 634 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 97; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 223; F. Opoku-Giamfi, The Use of Scripture, p. 95.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

291

292

Structural commentary

times: ἔργα ἀσεβείας “deeds of ungodliness”, ἠσέβησαν “committed ungodly”, ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς “ungodly sinners”. This is accompanied by the broader alliteration ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς. The alliterative triplet – based mainly

on wordplay – was employed by Jude as early as verse 12 when he mocked those teachings of false teachers, teaching that are empty, ἄνυδροι “waterless”, ἄκαρπα “fruitless” preached ἀφόβως “without fear”. To this triplet he added a strong emphasis referring to the second death of δὶς ἀπουανόντα.635 Perhaps the polyptotic alliteration in verse 15c–d has a similar, warning purpose – ungodly conduct and teachings lead to accusation at the judgement, and ultimately to the second death in the end times. This would allude to the millenarian concept that already appears in Jewish apocalypticism and in the New Testament.636 In its most basic Christianised form, it is presented as follows: Christ’s Parousia includes first a victory over the Antichrist (Rev 19:19). The narrator of the Letter of Jude does not speak of it explicitly, but presumably assumes it, since he refers to the description of the successive stages of the Parousia. After this victory, the righteous/saints who have died will be resurrected (Rev 20:4, 1 Cor 15:23, 1 Thess 4:16), and the righteous/saints who are alive will be changed (1 Thess 4:17). This resurrection is not explicitly mentioned by the narrator either,637 but perhaps it is present in the image of the Lord surrounded by saints. Then the term ‘saints’ is further expanded to include the hosts of angels, the resurrected righteous whose souls were already in heaven, and the transformed righteous, as in AscIsa 4:14–17: And after (one thousand) three hundred and thirty-two days the Lord will come with His angels and with the armies of the holy ones from the seventh heaven with the glory of the seventh heaven […] But the saints will come with the Lord with their garments which are (now) stored up on high in the seventh heaven: with the Lord they will come, whose spirits are clothed, they will descend and be present in the world, and He will strengthen those, who have been found in the body, together with the saints, in the garments of the saints […] And afterwards they will turn themselves upward in their garments, and their body will be left in the world.

Together with the saints, Christ reigns on earth (Rev 20:4); He is Master and Lord, which “the ungodly” have denied (Jude 4). The time of the reign of Christ and the saints on earth is called the millennial kingdom (Rev 20:4). This period is followed by the final judgement, the dead are judged according to their deeds, by what was written in the scrolls (Rev 20:11–13) and the wicked are resurrected towards the

635 See above – analysis in. 12. 636 J. Daniélou, Theology, p. 338–339. 637 R.L. Webb, The Use of “Story”, p. 66–67.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

second death (Rev 20:13–15). The judgement and sentence pronounced on the basis of what is written in the books, which is common in apocalyptic visions, now makes it possible to link Jude 4 and Jude 15 even more closely: in verse 4 Jude mentions the ungodly who, according to Enochean literature, were “long ago designated for this judgement” in the heavenly books/heavenly tablets; in verse 15c–d he returns to this theme. He no longer speaks explicitly of books, but behind the detailed indictment of the wicked for ungodly acts and words there may be a suggestion that it was read from heavenly books/tables (cf. 1 En 81:1–2, cf. 1 En 103:2, 106:19638 ). As has already been said when analysing verse 4, the term ἀσέβεια in the LXX is synonymous with ἀδικία “unrighteousness”, or rather “lack of righteousness”, and denotes above all disrespect towards God and the rules established by Him,639 manifesting itself in transgressing God’s commandments640 and deserving punishment (Gen 18:23, Exod 9:27, 23:7, Deut 25:1, Ps 11[10]:5, Prov 10:16.20.24–25.28.30.32, Wis 4:16). In Jude 15c–d the introduction of this concept serves to contrast the attitude of the accused with that of the righteous and holy ones – accompanying the Lord and, like all creation, awaiting judgement. Already in verse 4, in describing manifestations of ungodliness, the hagiographer used the distinction between actions and words/teaching; first he referred to conduct indicating the “turning of the grace of our God into licentiousness”, and then to doctrine “denying the only Ruler and Lord Jesus Christ”. Now this distinction becomes clearer, and it is easier to point to its Enochean source (e.g. the general Jude’s differentiation of deeds and hard words in 1 En 101:3–4:641 “And if He sends His anger upon you because of your deeds, ye cannot petition Him; for ye spake proud and insolent words against His righteousness”). Elsewhere, Enoch lists in more detail the various manifestations of injustice – oppression, especially oppressing the righteous, deceit, dishonest accumulation of wealth and trust in it, wallowing in superfluity (1 En 94:6–8, 96:4–6.8), idolatry (1 En 99:7). Almost every time, he juxtaposes these deeds with blasphemy and/or false teaching: “Ye have committed blasphemy and unrighteousness, and have become ready for […] the great judgement” (1 En 94:9); “Woe to you who work unrighteousness and deceit and blasphemy” (1 En 96:7); “they shall become godless by reason of the folly of their hearts […] and through visions in their dreams” (1 En 99:8, cf. Jude 8). The juxtaposition of deeds and words/teaching means that, although they are described separately, they are to be seen as complementary, as correlating and interacting with one another: the deeds of ungodliness result from the acceptance of false teaching, and false teaching seeks to justify the deeds of 638 Judeo-Christian apocalypticism distinguishes between three concepts of heavenly books: the book of destiny, the book of life and the book of works. In different texts these concepts may overlap. 639 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 351. 640 See above – analysis of verse 4. 641 J.D.N Kelly, A Commentary, p. 276.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

293

294

Structural commentary

ungodliness (cf. Jude 4.8.10). This is why ungodly and blasphemous words alone are as deserving of judgement as ungodly and blasphemous deeds: This accursed valley is for those who are accursed for ever: Here shall all the accursed be gathered together who utter with their lips against the Lord unseemly words and of His glory speak hard things. […] here shall be their place of judgement (1 En 27:2–3, 101:3, cf. Mal 3:13–14, Matt 12:36).

The narrator of the Letter of Jude does not take the trouble to enumerate the “deeds of ungodliness”. He states that he is referring to all deeds, both those accented by Enochean literature just quoted, those mentioned in the Letter of Jude itself, and others that can be classified in this group. He applies a similar – global – quantifier to all the hard [words] they spoke against Him. Jude’s phrase ὧν ἐλάλησαν κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ is clearly shorter than the Codex Panopolitanus text: σκληρῶν ὧν ἐλάλησαν λόγων, καὶ περὶ πάντων ὧν κατελάλησαν κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ. The discrepancy can be explained in two ways: either the Codex Panopolitanus copyist committed dittography,642 or the letter’s narrator typically abridged the source text, leaving out the phrase καὶ περὶ πάντων ὧν κατελάλησαν, considering it a repetition against ἐλάλησαν λόγων κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ. Additionally, he also omits the noun λόγων, presumably to give the adjective σκληρῶν a noun meaning643 (literally, for all the hardness they said against him), just as he substantivized the adjective ἅγιοι in verse 3 and 14b. Hardness or hard words (some manuscripts, however, add this noun – so, e.g., ‫ א‬C 33. 81. 88. 307. 442. 630. 1241. 1505. 1739. 2495) refers to 1 En 5:4: “Ye have not been steadfast, nor done the commandments of the Lord, but ye have turned away and spoken proud and hard words with your impure mouths against His greatness” (cf. also 1 En 27:2),644 where, as in Jude 15, the generally defined “ungodly deeds” – transgression of the Law and “hardness/harshness of words” – are juxtaposed. In the Old Testament tradition, “hard words”, “hard speech”, or “hardness” in general means something that is difficult for the recipient to accept or understand, sometimes harsh, cruel, or even blasphemous in content (in LXX: Gen 21:12, 42:7, 30, Deut 1:17, 1 Kings 12:13, 2 Kings 10:13, Tob 13:14 – in ‫ ;א‬Isa 21:2), which usually express stubborn resistance to God’s will645 (cf. Deut 31:27, Judg 2:19, Isa 48:4, Sir 3:26.27, Ba 2:33). In PssSol 4:1–3, ungodliness is combined with hardness and hypocrisy, since “the ungodly” are depicted as hard in words (ὁ σκληρὸς ἐν λόγοις – verse 2), who is ready before the court to fervently accuse other sinners, although he

642 643 644 645

R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 96. G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 352. Ibid., p. 352. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 97.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

himself is guilty of many sins and corruption. The semantic field of the expression hard (words) thus undoubtedly includes the concept of “blasphemy”, especially when combined with the phrase “against Him”. “Blasphemy” in Jude 8.9 was defined as public defamation, slander that culminated in a lawsuit, while in the religious context it was defined as slander and disrespect against God. In Jude 10, the definition is expanded to include all the elements found in verse 8 (defilement of the flesh, rejection of power/authority, arrogance) that make up the active rejection of “the faith once for all handed down to the saints”. This confirms the complementarity and interplay of the two members of Jude’s juxtaposition: works of ungodliness and hard words. The confrontation of verses 4 and 15 cd makes it possible, among all these deeds and words, to indicate those which, because of the soteriological assumptions of the Letter of Jude, are of particular interest to the hagiographer: “denying the only Ruler and Lord Jesus Christ”.646 This leads to associations with the Enochean texts about the punishment of those who deny God and the Messiah who carries out the judgement and speaks out against God’s justice: “There shall be no one to take them with his hands and raise them: for they have denied the Lord of Spirits and His Anointed” (1 En 48:10);647 “The judgement shall come upon them because they believe in the lust of their body and deny the Spirit of the Lord” (1 En 67:10–11);648 “When the day, and the power, and the punishment, and the judgement come, which the Lord of Spirits hath prepared for those who worship not the righteous law, and for those who deny the righteous judgement, and for those who take His name in vain” (1 En 60:6); “For ye spake proud and insolent words against His righteousness: therefore ye shall have no peace” (1 En 101:3–4). The Enochean image of the righteous judge is in many cases directly linked to the messianic idea, which, as mentioned, Jude takes over and reinterprets based on a Christocentric reading of the source texts. Two threads of the messianic tradition adapted in Jude 14–15 are usually distinguished: a strictly judicial thread, referring to the figure of the son of man known from Dan 7:13–14, and an Adamic thread, emphasizing the renewal of creation.649 The former is found mainly in the Book of Parables (1 En 45–69), the latter in the Book of Dream Vision (1 En 83–90). In the Book of Parables, the Messiah is primarily called the Elect. On that day Mine Elect One shall sit on the throne of glory and shall try their works […]. And with Him was another being whose countenance had the appearance of a man, and

646 647 648 649

G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 355. So, for example, J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 276. So, e.g., C.D. Osburn, The Christological Use, p. 338. S.J. Joseph, Seventh from Adam, p. 474–476.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

295

296

Structural commentary

his face was full of graciousness […] And I asked the angel […] and he showed me all the hidden things, concerning that Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was, (and) why he went with the Head of Days […] This is the son of Man who hath righteousness, with whom dwelleth righteousness, and who revealeth all the treasures of that which is hidden, because the Lord of Spirits hath chosen him, and whose lot hath the pre-eminence before the Lord of Spirits in uprightness for ever (1 En 45:3, 46:1–3, cf. 1 En 61:8, 62:2, 69:27.29).

Then follows the now familiar description of judgement first on the wicked, identified here with kings, the mighty and the powerful, who have wronged the righteous, and then on the righteous; this righteous judgement will in fact prove to be a triumph for the righteous. Judgement also involves the full disclosure of the identity of the son of man and his eternal election: And at that hour that Son of Man was named in the presence of the Lord of Spirits, and his name before the Head of Days. Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars of the heaven were made, his name was named before the Lord of Spirits. He shall be a staff to the righteous whereon to stay themselves and not fall […] hath he been chosen and hidden […] Before the creation of the world and for evermore. And the wisdom of the Lord of Spirits hath revealed him to the holy and righteous […] Because the Elect One standeth before the Lord of Spirits, and his glory is for ever and ever, and his might unto all generations […] And he shall judge the secret things, and none shall be able to utter a lying word before him; for he is the Elect One before the Lord of Spirits according to His good pleasure […] All these things which thou hast seen shall serve the dominion of His Anointed (1 En 48:2–4.7, 49:2.4, 52:4, cf. 1 En 62:7, 69:26).

As can be seen, the earlier themes implying the pre-existence of Jesus were most likely taken directly by the narrator of the Letter of Jude from the Book of Enoch, to which he applied a Christocentric hermeneutic. This allowed him to see in the Enochean Messiah chosen centuries ago a Christ participating not only in the eschatological judgement, but also in all the previous salvific works of God.650 This is why Jude could confidently call Enoch a prophet in Jude 14a. It is worth noting in passing that Jude bases the subsequent narrative precisely on the pattern of the Enochean parables: after the judgement on the ungodly, there will be a judgement on the righteous (Jude 20–21), who

650 R. Bauckham, God Crucified. Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament, Carlisle 1998, p. 19–20 thinks that the figure of the Son of Man/Messiah in the Book of Proverbs participates only in the divine judgement, but does not – like Wisdom or the Word, for example – participate in the work of creation. His divine identity is thus only partial.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

with that Son of Man shall eat and lie down and rise up for ever and ever […] the righteous and the elect […] shall have been clothed with garments of glory. And these shall be the garments of life from the Lord of Spirits: and your garments shall not grow old, nor your glory pass away before the Lord of Spirits (1 En 62:14–16 and Jude 24–25).

The second of the messianic traditions to which Jude refers is the Adamic tradition associated with the restoration of creation. It is signalled already in the formula introducing the quotation – in the expression “seventh from Adam” (verse 14a). The hagiographer took it from the Animal Apocalypse (1 En 85–90), which, as mentioned, is part of the Book of Dream Vision. Like the idea of the son of man, the symbolic images in the Animal Apocalypse also refers to the Book of Daniel (Dan 2 and 7 and 8).651 The narrator of the text – Enoch, using zoomorphic images, tells his son Matthias the whole history of mankind – from the moment of creation to the end times. In the beginning “a bull came forth from the ground, and that bull was white; and after it came forth a heifer, and along with this (latter) came forth two bulls, one of them black and the other red” (1 En 85:2–4). Undoubtedly the white bull symbolises Adam, the heifer Eve, and the calves their first sons, Cain and Abel. In the story that follows, the plain white bulls represent the righteous, the black bulls the ungodly. The great black bulls, on the other hand, are the rebellious angels (later their leaders are depicted as stars fallen from heaven – 1 En 86:1–2) who “changed their stalls and pastures” (cf. Jude 6, 1 En 6–11) and with their heifers begat elephants, camels and donkeys, i.e. giants who aroused widespread terror and waged war among themselves. These behaviours were also adopted by the common bulls, or men (1 En 86, cf. 1 En 6–11). When the earth was overrun by general iniquity, the righteous Enoch was taken up to heaven and it was revealed to him what will “befall those elephants, camels, and asses, and the stars and the oxen, and all of them” (1 En 87:4). The stars were bound and cast into the depths of the earth (1 En 88:3). This description seems to be alluded to by Jude in verse 6, mentioning that the fallen angels were bound and left in darkness until the day of judgement. The narrator omits further episodes from the Book of Dream Vision, but adds the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Jude 7), which belongs to the traditional Jewish topos of punishment for impiety. Enoch does not include this motif. He focuses on the ancestors of Israel and then on the history of the chosen people. After the flood, from which one white bull (Noah), three cows (Noah’s wife and sons-in-law) and three bulls (Noah’s sons Shem, Cham and Japheth) survived, the earth was filled with various wild animals begotten by Noah’s descendants. Among them was another white bull (Abraham) who begat a wild donkey (Ishmael) and

651 B. Reynolds, Between Symbolism and Realism: The Use of Symbolic and Non-Symbolic Language in Ancient Jewish Apocalypses 333–63 BCE, Göttingen 2012, p. 163.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

297

298

Structural commentary

a white bull (Isaac). The offspring of this white bull were a black boar (Esau) and a white lamb (James), the father of twelve lambs (the twelve tribes of Israel). The offspring of the lambs were among the wolves (Egyptians) who began to harass them more and more. The story continues with the flight of the sheep (Israelites) led by two rams (Moses and Aaron), the wandering of the sheep and their offspring (cf. Jude 5bc), the rebellions (perhaps we should also look here for references to Balaam and his advice causing the apostasy of the Israelites and the rebellion of Korah – Jude 11cd), the old ram falling asleep and becoming a man (the death of Moses and humanisation most probably as an expression of angelization – Jude 9), the establishment of new rams as guides (Joshua and Caleb). Successive leaders and kings of Israel are also depicted under the figure of rams, the temple is a high tower visible to all, built for the Lord of the sheep (God of Israel), around which the life of the sheep is centred. Over time, many sheep began to go their own ways, moving away from the house of the Lord of the sheep and from the tower, putting themselves in danger. To them the Lord of the sheep sent sheep chosen from among the flock (prophets), but many of these chosen were killed by the disobedient sheep. In view of the disobedience of the sheep, their Lord “forsook that their house and their tower and gave them all into the hand of the lions, to tear and devour them” (1 En 89:56). Seeing this cruel fate of the sheep, Enoch intervened with God (the Lord of the sheep), who called shepherds “cast those sheep to them that they might pasture them” (1 En 89:59; the shepherds here probably symbolize the angels who look after the various nations – cf. Dan 10:13.21–22). Every abuse of the shepherds, every exposure of the sheep to danger and the death of every sheep were to be recorded in books, sealed and read on the day of judgement (cf. Jude 4.12), at which the white bulls who had become men (the righteous), all the wild animals and all the shepherds would be gathered. “I saw till a throne was erected in the pleasant land, and the Lord of the sheep sat Himself thereon, and the other took the sealed books and opened those books before the Lord of the sheep” (1 En 90:20). The stars (fallen angels) were judged first, found guilty and punished by being “cast into an abyss, full of fire and flaming, and full of pillars of fire” (1 En 90:24–25). The shepherds and blind sheep (those who succumbed to the teachings of the false shepherds) judged later suffered a similar fate. Some of the sheep – the conscious ones – were preserved, however. Then the fire destroyed – as we can guess – the whole world, but in place of this destroyed old world a new world was rebuilt with a new and more magnificent house of the Lord of the sheep “and all the sheep were within it” (1 En 90:29). The preserved sheep were transformed: […] they “were all white, and their wool was abundant and clean” (1 En 90:33), and it appeared that there were so many of them that the house could not accommodate them; moreover, all the wild animals that were gathered in the house of the Lord became good. However, the last verses, which speak about the white bull, are crucial:

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

And I saw that a white bull was born, with large horns and all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air feared him and made petition to him all the time. And I saw till all their generations were transformed, and they all became white bulls (1 En 90:37–38).

Thus, reference is made to the first white bull – Adam.652 The second, or rather the last white bull, was identified as the Word “that lamb became a great animal and had great black horns”. This text seems Christologically attractive, it would fit the Christian vision of the Messiah – the Word incarnate, but the problem is that verses 37–38 are known only in the Ethiopic version and it is not known how they sounded in the Aramaic and Greek text that Jude knew. Perhaps the word is indeed meant (ρῆμα rather than λόγος), or perhaps an indication of some large bull-like animal with great horns – most likely an aurochs. Whatever the wording of the source text, a Christocentric reading of 1 En 90:37–38 allows for a messianic interpretation of most of the characteristics of the white bull. As the first (firstborn – cf. a similar image in Deut 33:17), he begins a new era in history and a new quality of humanity transformed in his image. The firstborn bull (bullock) without blemish was ideally suited for sacrifice; here, therefore, “the white bull born” can symbolize the perfect sacrifice of Christ. The whiteness of the animal points to the purity, sinlessness, righteousness, holiness (cf. Isa 1:18, Ps 51:9) characterizing both Christ himself and the new, transformed man (Jude 24). The fact that all kinds of animals (pagan nations) became white bulls signifies the universality of the salvation brought by Jesus.653 It seems that for Jude the symbolism of whiteness is more important in this context than the transformation of species, because the sheep symbolising the Jewish believers underwent only a partial transformation – they still remained sheep, but perfectly now white and pure. In addition to the Adamic idea, Jude of the Animal Apocalypse also used the motif of angelization. In the Animal Apocalypse it is conveyed by the description of the humanization of animals: white bulls and rams – the righteous – become human (1 En 89:1.9.36, it is worth noting that the archangels are also “white men”); in Jude 14b it is marked in the collective view of the “holy myriads” accompanying the Lord coming to judgement. As can be seen, the narrator of the Letter of Jude most likely overlaid both messianic Enochean traditions, which he read in relation to the person and work of Jesus Christ. However, he used them selectively, adjusting the borrowed elements to his soteriological concept. Undoubtedly, the dominant element is the tradition 652 Other possibilities for interpreting the eschatological white bull are given by D.C. Olson, A New Reading of the “Animal Apocalypse” of 1 Enoch. All Nations Shall be Blessed, Leiden–Boston 2013, p. 26–31. 653 D.C. Mitchell, Firstborn Shor and Rem: A Sacrificial Josephite Messiah in 1 Enoch 90,37–38 and Deuteronomy 33,17, “Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha” 15 (2006), no. 3, p. 227.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

299

300

Structural commentary

taken from the Book of Proverbs referring to the image of judgement entrusted to the Messiah – the son of man. In the Animal Apocalypse, judgement remains in the hand of God (the Lord of the sheep). The introduction of a direct quotation from 1 En 1:9 is in fact only a pretext for developing associations built on the whole of the Enochean prophecies. As already mentioned, verses 14–15 most fully convey not only the soteriology but also the Christology of the Letter of Jude. Previously, the narrator had gradually prepared his recipients for this theological climax – transposing God’s titles and powers to Jesus, signalling the idea of Jesus’ pre-existence and participation in all salvific works. Now he develops them on the basis of associations with the Enochean images of judgement and the announcement of the restoration of humanity, which are well known to the recipients (Jude 21.24). The Christological typology already hinted at in Jude 14a, related to the person of Enoch himself, cannot be overlooked. As already mentioned, it is related to the recognition of Enoch as particularly righteous, but also as a son of man:654 This is the Son of Man who is born unto righteousness, and righteousness abides over him, and the righteousness of the Head of Days forsakes him not. […] He proclaims unto thee peace in the name of the world to come; for from hence has proceeded peace since the creation of the world, and so shall it be unto thee for ever and for ever and ever (1 En 71:14–15).

Of course, one may wonder whether in fact the protagonist and the narrator, Enoch and the son of man, are one and the same figure, especially since other texts, including those in the Book of Proverbs itself, seem to distinguish between the righteous man Enoch, son of Jered, who was taken up to heaven, and the chosen one before the creation of the world, the righteous one, the Messiah – the son of man, who seems to be a transcendent figure. However, there are various attempts to equate these two figures. One of them is the recognition of the supernatural, heavenly son of man as a certain entity already existing before the creation of the world, a spiritual model that will be embodied in the earthly Enoch,655 similarly to what is quoted from the apocrypha, among others, by Origen. Just as the apocryphal Josephus Prayer of the first century, quoted among others by Origen, presents the idea of the incarnation of angels in human form and the existence of the patriarchs before the

654 D. Heliso, Henoch as the Son of Man: Contextual and Christological Considerations, “Swedish Missiological Themes” 98 (2010), no. 2, p. 146. 655 Ibid., p. 148.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

creation of the world656 (cf. also Testimonies 1:14), and later in Ascension of Isaiah the incarnation of Christ. Thus, in his visions of the righteous, the elect, and the son of man, Enoch actually viewed himself, his transcendent, eternal (pre-existent) counterpart, and felt a longing for this disembodied state (e.g. 1 En 39:6–8). This concept fits well with both the Christological idea of pre-existence and exaltation: the heavenly, transcendent chosen son of man/Enoch would be a type of the preexistent Christ, just as the earthly righteous Enoch walking with the Lord would be a type of the earthly Jesus, and the ascended Enoch a type of the exalted Christ,657 who, as the Enochean son of man, “shall be a staff to the righteous whereon to stay themselves and not fall, and he shall be the light of the Gentiles, and the hope of those who are troubled of heart” (1 En 48:4, cf. 71:14–17). Desta Heliso points out the connection of the image of Enoch – son of man in 1 En 71:14 with the text quoted by Jude – 1 En 1:8–9;658 both can be interpreted in the spirit of Adamic typological Christology. The son of man (Enoch – a type of Christ) of 1 En 71:14–17 is the first of the righteous and saints described in 1 En 8–9. The lexical similarity of the two images is striking. The saints and the righteous are described as endowed with peace, preserved, belonging to God, blessed and endowed with God’s light, while the son of man is the one “born for righteousness”, in whom the “righteousness of the Eternal” dwells, on whom God’s peace will rest (cf. Jer 23:5–7). All the righteous will walk in his way, will dwell with him and will share his destiny. Verse 15 ends with a renewed reference to the ungodly. This final apposition has a threefold function. First, it defines the ungodly as sinners; second, it multiplies the negative connotations associated with the two terms, which corresponds to the vituperative convention of the epistle; third, it opens up the possibility of a direct pesher reference to the negative characters in verse 16. 2.5.4

Part b’. Reference to the situation of the recipients (Jude 16)

16

[These] are the murmurers/grumblers, complaining [about fate], following their desires/indulging in their lusts, and their mouths saying [things/words] haughty/arrogant, flattering for (the sake of) advantage.

In verse 16 the narrator returns to a situation familiar to the recipients of the letter, indicating who are “the ungodly sinners who were” the subject of the accusation

656 Cf. Prayer of Joseph, transl. J.Z. Smith, [in:] The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends; Wisdom and Philosophical Literature; Prayers, Psalms and Odes; Fragments of Judeo-Hellenistic Works, ed. J. Charlesworth, vol. 2, London 1983, p. 699–700. 657 See above – references to the typology of the exalted Enoch (called little YHWH) in 3 Enoch 6:3–12:5; 14;16 as a type of the exalted Christ. 658 D. Heliso, Henoch, p. 153.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

301

302

Structural commentary

in Enoch’s prophecy. At the same time, he uses lexis referring to the previously described episodes taken from the Jewish tradition (e.g. Israel’s wandering through the desert together with Korah’s rebellion, the dispute over Moses’ body, Cain’s behaviour and the story of Balaam) and to Greek ethics (e.g. indicating arrogance and acting for one’s own benefit). To this he superimposes his own pesher method combined with typology. He also does not abandon his favourite scheme of conveying thoughts, in which the key phrase is the primary one, and the phrases following it are treated as additions.659 This means that the accent in verse 16 falls on segment a – “murmuring” – which manifests itself in “complaining about fate/life” (16b), in “arrogant, haughty words” (16d) and “flattering for the sake of advantage” (16e). On the other hand, standing at the centre of 16c – “following their desires/lusts” should be considered on the one hand as a cause of complaining (16b), on the other hand as a source of arrogance (16d) and flattery (16e): 16a. γογγυσταί “murmuring” [literally: ‘murmurers’] 16b. μεμψίμοιροι “complaining about fate” 16c. κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας ἑαυτῶν πορευόμενοι “following his/her desires/lusts” 16d. τὸ στόμα αὐτῶν λαλεῖ ὑπέρογκα “their mouths speak haughty/arrogant [words]” 16e. θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα ὠφελείας χάριν “flattering for the sake of advantage”. In keeping with pesher practice, the narrator begins the actualization with the characteristic explanatory phrase οὗτοί εἰσιν. He supplements it with phrases referring to episodes taken from the Old Testament mentioned earlier in the list, which makes his pesher qualify as a certain variety of thematic pesher. However, he does not quote in extenso texts from the Jewish tradition describing “murmuring” (and texts that specify murmuring, i.e. something that consists in following one’s own desires, haughty words and flattery for the sake of advantage). He counts on the recipients of the letter to know them well and to associate them with the Exodus story cited in Jude 5 and with the examples in Jude 11. It is no accident that in each reference he uses verbs in the praes. (alternating ind. and part.): εἰσιν (ind. praes. act.), πορευόμενοι (part. praes. med./pass.), λαλεῖ (ind. praes. act.), θαυμάζοντες (part. praes. act.); he indicates in this way that the phenomena or attitudes noticeable in the past have their contemporary version. According to pesher principles,

659 See above; D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 419 notes the content rather than structural similarities between these poems.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

this contemporary unveiling, actualization, is related with the signs of the coming of the end times. Already when analysing verse 5c it was pointed out that “the destruction of those who did disbelieved” must be interpreted not only historically but also eschatologically (anagogically). Now this eschatological orientation becomes even clearer. “Those who did not believe”, from Jude 5c, are “the murmurers” of Jude 16a (along with all the manifestations of murmuring described in 16b–e). And “the murmurers” of Jude 16 are the “ungodly” to whom the quotation from 1 Enoch 1:9 in Jude 15b–d referred. By juxtaposing Jude 5 and Jude 14b–15 and 16, one can see the mutual complements in these texts and the references to past, future and present: Jude 5 (past)

Jude 14b–15 (future)

a. Jesus having saved the people from Egypt. b. He exterminated those who did not believe.

Jude 16 (present)

14b–15a. Behold, the Lord is come among his holy myriads to make judgement upon all. 15b–d. to accuse every soul for all the ungodly deeds committed ungodly and for all the hard words that ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.

These are murmurers, Complaining, Following their desires, Speaking haughty words, Flattering for the sake of advantage.

As can be seen, Enoch’s prophecy does not directly mention punishment; the prophet focuses on accusation. An elaboration of what punishment awaits the ungodly is found in 5c – “destruction”. The unbelievers of 5c are the ungodly committing ungodly deeds (15b) and blaspheming God (15c–d), and blaspheming God is in other words murmuring against Him, complaining, following one’s own desires and not God’s will, arrogance and seeking one’s own benefits. Unbelief and its manifestations (blasphemies committed in deed and speech) have their source in the rejection of the judicial authority of Jesus Christ, as the analysis of Jude 5c has shown. The coming judgement, at which Jesus will arrive with the “holy myriads”, will make the unbelievers – the ungodly – realise how wrong they were. However, according to the Enochean literature already cited in the analysis of Jude 14–15, it may then be too late to correct the mistake. Since typology is employed in Jude 5, it can also be used in interpreting verse 16. It was said earlier that the typology in the Letter of Jude includes those elements that pertain to community; the beloved, preserved and called people – Israel – is a prefiguration of the community of the beloved, preserved and called to which Jude writes. Whereas in verse 5b the narrator focused on all three attributes of community – belovedness, preservation, and calling – of which “salvation” consists, in 14b–15a

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

303

304

Structural commentary

he primarily emphasizes preservation and gives it a much clearer eschatological focus than before. He specifies that “preservation” does not mean preservation from judgement that awaits all, but it means “preservation” of the righteous (the beloved and the called) at the judgement. This highlights the main soteriological idea of the Letter of Jude: judgement, denied by false teachers, is inseparable from salvation from the beginning. Jude 15b–16 emphasises even more strongly that “those who have not believed” and have blasphemously rejected Jesus as Judge and the one who leads the chosen people into the promised land/kingdom of God are in fact outside the community of the beloved, the preserved and the called; they will not enter the promised land/kingdom of God – they will be exterminated, like the Israelites murmuring in the desert against God and his chosen leaders. The noun γογγυσταί – literally “murmurers” – belongs to the New Testament hapax legomena,660 as does another substantivized adjective – μεμψίμοιροι “complainers”.661 As has already been said, “murmuring” is primarily associated with the discontent of the Israelites during their wanderings through the desert, though of course the circumstances of the exodus are not the only ones in which murmuring is mentioned. E.g. PssSol 16:11 contains a prayer request for God to remove the murmuring of the one who prays, 1QS 11:1 a request for the instruction for “murmurers” against the teaching (cf. also the New Testament texts speaking allegorically or directly about “murmuring” against Jesus: Matt 20:11 – murmuring of the labourers against the host employing them, Luke 5:30 – murmuring of the Pharisees against Jesus and His disciples eating and drinking with sinners and tax collectors; John 6:41.43.61 – “murmuring against Jesus’” teaching, similarly John 7:32 – “murmuring” of the crowd against Jesus). It seems, however, that Jude’s main reference is to the “murmuring” of the Israelites in the wilderness,662 which in the LXX is realized primarily by the use of the verb διαγογγύζω and γογγύζω (Exod 15:24, 16:2, 17:3, Num 14:2.36, 16:41, 17:5–10 – in the LXX, 17:20–25). The Israelites “murmured” against Moses (Exod 15:24, Lev 14:36), against Moses and Aaron (Exod 16:2, Lev 14:2, 16:41, in the LXX – 17:6); and above all, they murmured against the God who had appointed Moses and Aaron as leaders (Exod 16:7–9.12, Lev 14:2.27.29, 16:11).663 The latter context is not coincidentally associated with the rebellion of Korah mentioned in Jude 11d, meaning that “murmuring” is, in the view of the narrator of the Letter of Jude, tantamount to speaking openly against God and questioning His decisions, and therefore an act of distrust in God (cf. the

660 However, the noun appears in the Greek translations of Symmachus (Prov 26:22: Isa 29:24) and Theodosius (Prov 26:20), but without reference to the wandering through the desert. 661 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 278; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 98. 662 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 98. 663 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 228–229.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

destruction of those who “disbelieved”). It is also an attempt to build a community based not on submission to God’s will but on one’s own idea of election (cf. Num 16:1–3.13 and Jude 16c). Both the reference of Jude 16a to verse 5c and to verse 11d make it possible to assume that the narrator’s main intention was to evoke in the recipients an association with the punishment that befell the rebellious slanderers – destruction (cf. 1 Cor 10:10) and deprive them of the hope of resurrection at the final judgement. This was the fate which, according to Jewish tradition (cf. Pseudo-Philo’s Book of Biblical Antiquities 16:3), befell Korah and his followers. It is worth returning further to the typological connections between Jude 16a and Jude 5 and confirming them on the basis of lexis. In Num 14, where the frequency of the verb meaning to “murmur” is relatively high, and in Sir 46:1–7, referring to Num 14, where the description of the attempt to control the “murmuring” of the people appears, the role of Joshua is mentioned and exposed. The Joshua – Jesus typology had already appeared in verse 5; now the narrator seems to make allusions to it: Joshua “the great saviour of God’s chosen ones” (Ἰησοῦς ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ ἐκλεκτῶν αὐτοῦ ἐδικῆσαι) – Sir 46:1, tried to suppress the “the wicked complaint” (γογγυσμος πονηρίας) – Sir 46:7, but ultimately failed to save the “complaining” and bring them into the promised land (Sir 46:8). Similarly, Jesus will not bring the “complaining/murmuring” rebels into his kingdom. The narrator of the Letter of Jude transposes these historical and typological associations to the situation in the community of the letter’s recipients. This means that “murmuring”, rebellion is for him tantamount to “blasphemy” both against God664 and against people who transmit God’s revelation, guard its entirety and enjoy special authority in the community of recipients665 (cf. verse 8d and “blasphemy of praise”). “Murmuring” as “blasphemy” is not limited to words, but also includes actions.666 This broad understanding of “murmuring” is also found in patristic literature; Oecumenius, in his Commentary on Jude, writes that those who murmur “include those who murmur against others”667 , and adds a similar definition of complainers: “malcontents are those who are always looking for ways in which they

664 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 98; he insists that ‘murmuring’ is ‘murmuring’ against God; in doing so, he refers to the synonymy of murmuring in verse 16a and the hard [words] in verse 15d, which were spoken against the Lord. 665 Cf. J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 278, who considers this interpretation to be too far-fetched and argues that the reference is limited to a citation of Exod 16:7–12; 17:3; Num 14:27–29; 17:5. 666 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 98 reduces murmuring-blaspheming to the antinomianism of false teachers. 667 List św. Jakuba, I–II List św. Piotra, I–III List św. Jana, List św. Judy, ed. D. Sztuk (Ojcowie Kościoła komentują Biblię 11), Ząbki 2014, p. 236 (own translation).

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

305

306

Structural commentary

can attack and disparage everything and everybody”668 . Murmuring blasphemers suffer the same fate as rebels in the desert. Jude 16a can therefore be seen as a complement to the prophecy of Enoch quoted in Jude 14b–15, which ends with the announcement of the accusation of the ungodly for “all their ungodly deeds and all the harsh words which the ungodly sinners” spoke against the Lord/Jesus.669 Jude goes further and suggests yet a punishment – final destruction (as in 5c) with no hope of resurrection (as in 11d). Gene L. Green draws attention to the onomatopoeic element of the term γογγυσταί670 characteristic of quiet utterances of discontented people, realised first of all by combining the dark, back vowels (ο and υ) with velar consonants (velar – γ, γγ). Phonetic symbolism, whose origins can be found as early as in the “linguistic” dialogue Cratylus by Plato, indeed makes it possible to associate dark vowels with negative phenomena, evil (cf. Sir 46:7: “the murmuring of evil”); the plosive g γ is also generally valued negatively. Following this line, onomatopoeia may also be found in the adjective μεμψίμοιροι, which by means of the accumulation of the labial, liquid, nasal m μ would even better reflect complaining, or rather “mumbling” under the breath. The adjective μεμψίμοιροι in Jude 16b is not a typically additive expression, but rather an appositional specification of the noun γογγυσταί, which means, as already noted when analysing the structure of verse 16, that murmuring manifests itself, among other things, in “mumbling/complaining” about fate. The whole phrase γογγυσταὶ μεμψίμοιροι could therefore be translated as “murmurers complaining about fate” or, to render the vocal instrumentation, “mumbling murmuring”. This phrase sounds undoubtedly ridiculous, which in the case of the Letter of James is not accidental because it fits perfectly into the vituperative convention of the text. The narrator has cleverly combined the biblical tradition with the extra-biblical Judaic tradition, because the adjective μεμψίμοιροι is not only absent from the New Testament, but it is also absent from the LXX. It is possible that Jude’s source of lexical inspiration was the Testament of Moses 7: Devourers of the goods of the (poor) saying that they do so on the ground of their justice, but in reality to destroy them, complainers, deceitful, concealing themselves lest they should be recognized, impious, filled with lawlessness and iniquity from sunrise to sunset.

668 Oecumenius, Jacobi Apostoli epistula catholica, [in:] Patrologiae cursus completes. Series Graeca, ed. J.P. Migne, vol. 119, Paris 1864, 119:717, as cited in: James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude, ed. G. Bray, p. 255. 669 Cf. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 98. 670 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 356.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

The Latin translation of the TMos uses the lexeme “querela”, which means complaint, grievance, reprimand, accusation (the verb “quaerelor” means “to complain, make a complaint, grievance”; the adjective “querelosus/querellosus – complaining, complaining, grieving”). Since in the Vulgate μεμψίμοιροι from Jude 16b is rendered as “querellosi”, it can be assumed that the same way this lexeme was translated in TMos.671 The reference to TMos in Jude 16b would also serve to draw the attention of the recipients to similar implications in Jude 16de and the reference to Jude 9, which is based on a narrative taken from TMos. Both the references to the biblical narrative and the invocation of the Testament of Moses can be seen as part of a polemic against the teaching of the false teachers devaluing both the person of Moses and his law. The intruders, as has already been said, most likely in the name of misunderstood Christian freedom also preached freedom from the law. According to Jude’s narrator, however, it is part of revelation, an element of the tradition of “faith handed down to the saints”, which is subject to Christian reinterpretation but has not been abrogated. On this point we can see the concordance of the views of Jude and Philo of Alexandria. Philo also believes that the commandments of Moses and the prescriptions of the Torah remain valid even if Judaism succumbs to philosophical Hellenization. Interestingly, in De vita Mosis I 33:181, the verb μεμψίμοιροι, related to the adjective μεμψιμοιρεῖ,672 appears when describing the Israelites’ complaints of thirst during their wanderings through the desert: “But when water failed them, so that for three days they had nothing to drink, they were again reduced to despondency by thirst, and again began to blame their fate as if they had not enjoyed any good fortune previously”. Philo clearly diagnoses the Israelites’ “complaining” as ingratitude, forgetting all God’s previous salvific works and blessings (happiness) and focusing only on present hardships and failures, which leads to rebellion. The appearance of the adjective μεμψίμοιροι as a complement to the noun γογγυσταί serves two basic purposes. First, to expose the eschatological and apocalyptic message, which fits perfectly with the pesher; second, to mark the vituperative convention. Both elements overlap and combine the Judaic tradition with the Greek tradition; this will become a characteristic feature of the whole verse 16, repeated in 16c.d.e. Devoid of the mention of “mumbling”, the noun “murmurers” could be regarded as a purely historical reference. Meanwhile, the descriptions of complaining characteristic of apocalyptic literature give the whole expression a clearly eschatological orientation. Suffice it to mention that a similar expression appears in ApBaSyr/2 Ba 72:2, 73:1.4, among others, as a harbinger of the coming of the messianic times:

671 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 278; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 98. 672 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 98; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 229.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

307

308

Structural commentary

After the signs have come, of which you were told before, when the nations become turbulent, and the time of My Messiah is come […] And it shall come to pass, when [the Messiah] […] has sat down in peace for the age on the throne of His kingdom, that joy shall then be revealed, and rest shall appear […]. And judgments, and abusive talk, and contentions, and revenges, and blood, and passions, and envy, and hatred, and whatsoever things are like these shall go into condemnation.

The vituperative component refers to Greek ethics.673 It serves not only to ridicule the opponents, but also to remind that “mumbling murmuring” against a deity as the opposite of expressing gratitude towards him and mere “complaining about the fate” originally identified with deities (Moirai/Moirae) was considered a religious transgression also in the Hellenistic world.674 The definition of “complaining” as a “lack of gratitude”, as it was in Philo, can be found, among others, in Theophrastus’ The Characters 17: “Grumbling is undue censure of one’s portion”. The philosopher calls those who are dissatisfied malcontents and ridiculously enumerates various manifestations of being malcontent, which has very much in common with suspicion. For even in objectively happy and beneficial situations, the malcontent sees the other side and evil intentions. Theophrastus also refers to the dissatisfaction shown to Zeus (17): “He will be annoyed with Zeus, not for not raining, but for raining too late”. So – instead of showing gratitude to the god for the rain, the malcontent shows arrogance and questions Zeus’ sovereign will. In a more mocking way, the malcontent is described by Lucian of Samosata in the dialogue Timon the Misanthrope (55). The object of Lucian’s mockery is, among other things, the eternally dissatisfied glutton, who looks for an excuse to manifest his malcontent: “Let him monopolize pastry or joint, he will still criticize the carving”. With incessant complaining Lucian associates such qualities as lying, insolence, greed, flattery, perjury, which “sits on his tongue-tip, imposture goes before him, and shamelessness is his good comrade”. Even the Stoic Marcus Aurelius, in his Meditations (10:28), allows himself to compare the perpetually discontented, the whiners, those who complain quietly or publicly, to piglets and unintelligent creatures in general (cf. Jude 10c): “People who feel hurt and resentment: picture them as the pig at the sacrifice, kicking and squealing all the way. Like the man alone in his bed, silently weeping over the chains that bind us. That everything has to submit. But only rational beings can do so voluntarily”. The question of the reason for the false teachers’ complaining about their fate cannot be answered unequivocally. From the Greek texts cited, it seems likely that murmuring and complaining were commonly understood as an evident lack

673 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 358. 674 Ibid. p. 357; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 229.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

of gratitude towards God on the one hand, and a sense of injustice and harm on the other. The transfer of such an understanding to Jude 16a implies that the false teachers feel rejected, undervalued, consider themselves victims of ostracism and therefore loudly express their dissatisfaction (cf. Acts 6:1, where the noun γογγυσμός is used).675 Richard Bauckham associates this complaining, as well as murmuring, with the antinomianism of false teachers;676 Peter H. Davids – with the strict moral requirements resulting from the teaching of Jesus.677 The reason for complaining would thus be all restrictions, especially moral ones, imposed on people by the law of Moses reinterpreted even more radically in Christian teaching based on the teaching of Jesus (cf. Matt 5:1–7:28, Luke 6:17–49). However, this seems to be an overly reductionist account, even though it most closely alludes to Jude 5c, the wandering through the desert and the lack of trust in God. In the light of the descriptions in Jude 8.10.12, and also verse 16d it is possible to suppose that the displeasure of the false teachers understood additionally as a sense of being wronged is due to the lack of popular obedience to their teaching based on private revelations, preached in community meetings. Obviously, the teaching includes elements of antinomianism or an attempt to circumvent the rigorism supposed, but it also includes, and perhaps above all, a rejection of Jude’s recalled Christology and soteriology (cf. Enoch’s prophecy of “hard words” against the Lord678 ), the focal point of which is the presentation of Jesus as the eschatological Judge who saves “the saints” and exterminates “the ungodly”. If, therefore, one can speak of opponents’ antinomianism, it is in the context of a rejection of the law as an essential part of revelation rather than in the context of morality. The dissatisfaction with fate and the sense of being wronged are linked by the narrator of the Letter of Jude in verse 16c directly to following one’s “own desires/ lusts” κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας ἑαυτῶν πορευόμενοι. Such conduct is characteristic both of the former rebels and of the intruders who sneaked into the community. It is no accident that the verb πορεύομαι is used here in the part. praes. med. et pass. It also occurred in verse 11b when describing those who “followed the way of Cain” τῇ ὁδῷ ἐπορεύθησαν. It occurs still in verse 18 in a phrase identical with that of Jude 16c, which confirms that the appearance of “following their desires” is a sign of the end times and of the imminent approach of judgement.679 In all these cases the use of the verb πορεύομαι has moral connotations, denoting a certain style of life and conduct, as was already pointed out when analysing verse 11b, giving examples of phrases containing the verb πορεύομαι taken from the LXX (e.g. 1 Kings 15:26.34, 675 676 677 678 679

G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 357. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 98. P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 230. Ibid., p. 230. G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 359.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

309

310

Structural commentary

16:2.19.26, 2 Kings 8:18.27, 16:3, Ps 32[31]:8, 81[80]:14, 101[100]:6, Prov 1:15, 2:13, 28:18, Isa 2:3, Ezek 23:31).680 Here, the lexical reference to “following the way of Cain” is related with a reminder of the Judaic tradition, known among others to Philo of Alexandria and Josephus Flavius, portraying Cain’s behaviour as the consequence of a false sense of injustice, jealousy and envy, and disappointed self-love. Similar motivations, moreover, also led to Korah’s rebellion. This supports the suggestion that the miserable “murmurers” complain about their fate because their ambitions have been disappointed, their self-love offended, and so they have a sense of injustice. Already in the citation of Cain’s example in Jude 11b there was an implication based on Jewish tradition that fratricide is not Cain’s only crime. The origin of Cain’s other ungodly deeds – “a great leader of men into wicked courses” (Ant. I 2:2), as Flavius calls him – is his yielding to lusts and desires: [he] increase[d] his wickedness: for he only aimed to procure every thing that was for his own bodily pleasure, though it obliged him to be injurious to his neighbours. He augmented his household substance with much wealth, by rapine and violence: he excited his acquaintance to procure pleasure and spoils by robbery (Ant. I 2:2).

Such a presentation of Cain served to discredit him, it was a vituperative element. The narrator of the Letter of Jude proceeds in a similar way in 16c. By introducing the reference to following one’s own desires – on the one hand, he transposes the example of Cain to the present situation in the community and the behaviour of the false teachers; on the other hand, by referring this time to associations related with “lusts/desires” ἐπιθυμίαι, he introduces a vituperative element. In Old Testament literature, the noun ἐπιθυμία may be used without any connotation (Deut 12:15, 14:26, Ps 21[20]:3, 78[77]:29), it may be valued positively, especially in sapiential literature where the desire for wisdom or the noble desires of the righteous are mentioned (Prov 10:24, 11:23, Wis 6:17.20, Sir 3:29, 14:14; cf. also Luke 22:15, Phil 1:23, 1 Thess 2:17), it can also have negative connotations (Ps 10[9]:24, 106[105]:14, 140[139]:9, Prov 12:12, Wis 4:12, Sir 5:2, 18:30, 23:5). Similarly, in the New Testament literature, although there we can already see a clearer turn towards a negative perception of this noun (e.g. Mark 4:19, Rom 7:7–8, Gal 5:16–17, 1 Tim 6:9, Titus 3:3, 1 Pet 1:14, 2:11, 1 John 2:16–17). Texts where ἐπιθυμία has a neutral or positive meaning are far fewer (e.g. Luke 22:15, Phil 1:23, 1 Thess 2:17). It can be seen that Jude 16c reflects these tendencies. In so doing, it fits into a trend that emphasizes that being driven by desires/lusts implies a lack of self-control (Titus 2:12); uncontrolled lusts are the source of all temptations and

680 See above for an analysis of Jude 11.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

therefore the main cause of sin (Jas 1:14–15) and corruption (2 Pet 1:4). Sometimes “desires/lusts” are identified with sexuality in both the Old (e.g. Jer 2:24, Sir 23:5–6) and New Testaments (e.g. Matt 5:28, Rom 1:24, 1 Thess 4:5, Titus 3:3, 1 Pet 1:14, 2:11, 4:3),681 but there is no indication that the understanding of “desires/lusts” in Jude 16c682 is limited to them. Rather, following one’s own desires here means following one’s own will, striving to satisfy one’s own mental and emotional needs rather than physical ones, which often leads to ignoring and rejecting God’s will.683 Following one’s own lusts/desires is therefore an opposition to living in accordance with God’s will κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θεοῦ or in the fear of God ἐν φόβῳ θεοῦ. Such a voluntaristic understanding of lusts/desires combined with the contestation of God’s will was already encountered in the wisdom literature (e.g. Wis 4:12, Sir 5:2, 18:30, 23:5). It is developed in the intertestamental literature, among others, by that from Qumran. The Damascus Document (CD 2:14–3:12),684 for example, describes the positive consequences of following God’s will and the negative consequences of following one’s own desires. The examples given partly overlap with those cited by Jude, meaning that in both cases they are drawn from a pan-Judaic literary and religious topos. Among the negative examples mentioned are the “For having walked in the stubbornness of their hearts the Watchers of the heavens fell”685 (CD 2:17–18; cf. Jude 6) and their sons walked in the stubbornness of their hearts, plotting against God’s precepts and each one doing what was right in his own eyes […] and their males were cut off in the wilderness. He to them in Qadesh: ‘Go and possess (the land’. But they preferred the desire) of their hearts, and did not listen to the voice of their creator, the precepts he had taught them and murmured in their tents. And the wrath of God flared up against their congregation […] were delivered up to the sword, for having deserted God’s covenant and having chosen their whims, and having followed the stubbornness of their heart, each one doing (what was) his desire686 (CD 3.5–9.10–12, cf. Jude 5.16a).

On the basis of the earlier passages in the Letter of Jude, therefore, an attempt may be made to specify with some precision the ἐπιθυμίαι of verse 16c. The false teachers – besides being generally guided only by their own will – wish to be regarded as God’s chosen ones receiving special revelation, as authorities for the faithful. This

681 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 359. 682 Cf. J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 279, who links ἐπιθυμίαι with sexuality and with the desire for profit. 683 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 98–99. 684 Ibid., p. 99. 685 F.G. Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 34. 686 Ibid., p. 35.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

311

312

Structural commentary

involves a desire to take control of teaching and leadership in the community, i.e. to gain fame and power and the resulting benefits, as alluded to in Jude 16de. The narrator also points out that following one’s own desires, being guided by one’s own will does not bring the expected satisfaction, which is why false teachers constantly complain about their fate (16b). This would mean that Jude 16c should indeed be considered a kind of causal addition to Jude 16b. As already said, the mention of “following one’s own desires” is also vituperative. This is because following one’s own lusts/desires can be considered a synonym for acting unintelligently. This implication is meant to discredit false teachers in the eyes of the recipients of the letter, to show them as persons lacking the ability to control their desires, guided by the lowest instincts. The implication in Jude 16c, however, goes in a slightly different direction from that in Jude 10c; it is rather to expose the imbalance of the false teachers leading to demoralization. This is reminiscent of the Greek view of anthropology, according to which – as Plutarch wrote in On Moral Virtue 3, drawing on the views of Plato and Aristotle – the human soul: has one part intelligent and reasoning, which is intended by nature to rule and dominate in man, and another part unreasoning, and subject to passion and caprice, and disorderly, and in need of direction. And this last again is divided into two parts, one of which, being most closely connected with the body, is called desire, and the other, sometimes taking part with the body, sometimes with reason, lending its influence against the body, is called anger.

The unintelligent part, “full of lusts”, can nevertheless submit to the rational part, “unless it be entirely corrupted by brute pleasure and a life of indulgence”. Following one’s own desires is not only a source of frustration for false teachers (16b), but also a driver of the behaviour described in Jude 16de. On the one hand, eager for fame and recognition, the teachers, citing their private revelations, become haughty and arrogant (16d); on the other, in order to gain followers and control over the community, they use flattery towards some people (16e). As before, by means of a single term, the narrator is trying to relate to the previous parts of the letter, to evoke relevant associations and to develop them in a slightly different direction. In Jude 16d such a key term seems to be the adjective ὑπέρογκα used in neutrum pluralis. It is a rare term in the LXX. It appears, among others, in Exod 18:22.26, where it denotes important matters; in 2 Sam 13:2 the virginity of Tamar is regarded by Ammon as a great thing; in Dan 5:12 it is complicated great things that Daniel knew how to explain. The text closest to the context of Jude 16d seems to be Lam 1:9, which speaks of the pride/arrogance of the city of Jerusalem. Besides, in a similar

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

sense – as something pompous, puffed up – the adjective also appears in Greek literature. It is uncertain what text inspired Jude to introduce this idiomatic phrase. Three possibilities are usually pointed out: Dan 7:8.20 (possibly Dan 11:36), the Aramaic version of 1 En 1:9, and TMos 7. The least likely inspiration seems to be Dan 7:8.20,687 where the phrase ‫ממלל‬ ‫ רברבן‬translated in the LXX as to “speak great things” λαλεῖν μεγάλα appears. The narrator of the Letter of Jude would have interpreted it as speaking arrogant words, and rendered the adjective ‘great’ (in the LXX μεγάλα) with the near-ambiguous but much more negatively-charged adjective ὑπέρογκα, which is also stylistically superior.688 For the idiomatic expression λαλεῖν ὑπέρογκα is not such a clear linguistic calque and bad-sounding Semitism as λαλεῖν μεγάλα. Perhaps this would have been behind the Greek translation of Theodotion, who in turn translated the text of Dan 11:36 as ἐπὶ τὸν θεὸν τῶν θεῶν ὑπέρογκα λαλήσει “and will speak strange things against the God of gods”689 (in the LXX ἐπὶ τὸν θεὸν τῶν θεῶν ἔψαλλα λαλήσει “and will speak strange things against the God of gods”), more accurately conveying the sense of the Semitic expression ‫“ ממלל רברבן‬speak strange things/words”. A return to the Aramaic version of the quotation from 1 En 1:9 seems more likely. As Richard Bauckham notes, in the adduced citation when analyzing verse 15 vis-à-vis the quotation from 4Q204 col. 1:17 appears a phrase reconstructed as [‫ רבן וקש׳ן]רב‬and translated as “arrogant and wicked [words]”. In the Greek version, both in Jude 15 and in the Codex Panopolitanus, only the adjective “hard” σκληρῶν is used. If Jude was using the Aramaic version of 1 Enoch, then in verse 16d he adds the previously omitted term690 – “great”, but interprets it in a way that leaves no doubt that arrogance is meant, taking care also to be linguistically correct – which is why he renders it as ὑπέρογκα rather than μεγάλα. In Jude 15d the “hard (words)” are directed against the Lord, as the expression κατ᾽αὐτοῦ “against Him” clearly indicates. Similarly in the source text of 1 En 1:9 (cf. also 1 En 5:4 and 101:3, where “great and hard words” actually mean “proud and hard words” directed against God’s majesty and justice).691 The omission of the element of pride in Jude 15d was probably due to a desire to expose the blasphemous element. Now, on the other hand, pride and arrogance are emphasised, which is why the adjective omitted earlier appears in 16d. The narrator no longer adds that this arrogance is also directed against the Lord/Jesus; on the basis of the associations with 1 En 1:9,

687 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 361; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 99; Daniel, transl. R. Timothy McLay (New English Translation of the Septuagint), New York 2009. 688 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 279. 689 Ibid., p. 279. 690 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 99. 691 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 231.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

313

314

Structural commentary

the recipients should reconstruct this for themselves. Such arrogance and pride imply contempt for God’s will as expressed above all in the commandments,692 the primacy of one’s own desires (16c), the rejection of God’s revelation and its replacement by one’s own visions with all the consequences of this in teaching (Jude 8a). The omission of the phrase “against Him” or its equivalent in 16d may also have another reason. The hagiographer would thus be widening the recipients of the arrogant words, which are spoken both against God (which is obvious) and against His chosen people. This would fit in perfectly with the delineation of the “murmuring” in the desert, which also included God-appointed leaders, and would confirm the earlier suggestion that “the blasphemy of praises” in Jude 8d means slander against the people, “the saints” chosen and responsible for the transmission of the revelation “given to them once for all”. Such “saints” are authorities for the recipients of the letter, but they are not so for the false teachers who show a sense of superiority towards them and speak of them with (blasphemous) arrogance. They also want to take their place – as is clear from earlier passages in Jude 16 and references to Jude 12. The extension of the recipients of the arrogant statements to the people would also be an important component of the description of the opportunistic behaviour of the false teachers continued in Jude 16e. On the one hand, apostates fail to show proper respect for God and people; on the other hand, they resort to flattery to secure benefits for themselves. Among the possible inspirations for Jude 16d, the lost Greek text of the Testament of Moses 7:9 is also mentioned. This would be the second – after 16b – reference to this source in verse 16. The available Latin version of the Milanese manuscript features the phrase “os eorum ingentia loquetur”:693 “their lips will speak mighty/ great things/words”, undoubtedly referring to the formula to “speak great things/ words” present in Semitic apocalyptic literature. As already shown from the Book of Daniel and the Book of Enoch, in Greek this Semitic phrase is sometimes rendered literally as λαλεῖν μεγάλα, but can also be translated as λαλεῖν ὑπέρογκα.694 It may be that this less frequently used variant was taken by Jude precisely from TMos 7. Moreover, the Testament of Moses was the inspiration for Jude 9; its invocation in Jude 16b would be in keeping with the epistle’s characteristic strategy, described above, of linking verse 16 with earlier images and evoking earlier associations. Here the evocation is based on a reference to the same source and a reminder of

692 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 99. 693 Citation after: J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 279; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 99 gives a different word order: “os eorum loquetur ingentia”; cf. Jude 16 in the Vulgate: “os illorum loguitur superba – their mouth speaks bold/delicious things/words”. 694 Cf. M. Parchem’s interpretation of the Latin text in Testament Mojżesza, p. 93: “their mouths will speak monstrosities”.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

the judicial context and the humble attitude of the archangel Michael, who did not give in to the “desire” to judge the devil, did not exceed his own competence and left the judgement to the Lord. This would imply that, for Jude, transgressing competence, and thus the order established by God, is an expression of pride and arrogance. In the case of false teachers, as already mentioned, this manifests itself in contesting God’s will and substituting it for one’s own, in discrediting the authority of the community (Jude 8d blaspheming the glories) and in introducing one’s own teaching in place of the revelation “once for all given to the saints”. Whatever the source of inspiration for Jude 16d, the introduction of arrogance and pride as characteristic of opponents was also dictated by two overlapping conventions. As already mentioned, the combination of Jewish and Greek traditions and apocalyptic and vituperative conventions can be considered a distinguishing feature of this poem. Apocalyptic literature often identifies the ungodly with the proud695 boasting of wealth and power (so they are usually kings, the powerful, the rich), and their arrogance manifests itself in, among other things, contempt and oppression of others; their opposite is the humble righteous. In judgement, the pride of the proud will be broken, but the humble will receive justice and mercy: Ye […] spoken proud and hard words with your impure mouths against His greatness. Oh, ye hard-hearted, ye shall find no peace! […] the years of your destruction shall be multiplied in eternal execration, and ye shall find no mercy. […] then there shall be bestowed upon the elect wisdom […] But they who are wise shall be humble […] From that time those that possess the earth shall no longer be powerful and exalted […] Then shall the kings and the mighty perish […] And this Son of Man whom thou hast seen shall raise up the kings and the mighty from their seats, [and the strong from their thrones] […] Because they do not extol and praise Him, nor humbly acknowledge whence the kingdom was bestowed upon them. And he shall put down the countenance of the strong, and shall fill them with shame. […] ye spake proud and insolent words against His righteousness: therefore ye shall have no peace (1 En 5:4–5.8, 38:4–5, 46:4–6, 101:3–4). But when the threatenings of the mighty God Shall draw near, and a flaming power shall come By billow to the earth, it shall consume Both Beliar and all the haughty men Who put their trust in him (SibOr 3:85–90). And every proud dominion of the present is turning into humiliation and shame, and every praise of the glory of this time is turning into the shame of silence […] And every clamor of the pride of this time is turning into dust and stillness (ApBaSyr/2 Ba 83:13–14.16).

695 J.H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 79.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

315

316

Structural commentary

The emphasis on the pride and arrogance of the false teachers in a broad sense thus serves to sensitise the recipients to the signs heralding the arrival of the end times (cf. Jude 17–18). The second convention that makes extensive use of theme of pride and arrogance is vituperation.696 The opponents are presented as unreliable, bragging boasters, who should not be believed because they embellish and bend reality in order to gain some benefits. Aristotle, among others, in Nicomachaean Ethics (4:7) paints such a portrait of the boasters, explicitly calling them liars (braggarts) and exposing their intentions, which to a large extent coincide with the intentions ascribed to false teachers by Judæa: The boastful man, then, is thought to be apt to claim the things that bring glory, when he has not got them, or to claim more of them than he has. […] He who claims more than he has […] he who does it for the sake of reputation or honour is (for a boaster) not very much to be blamed, but he who does it for money, or the things that lead to money, is an uglier character […] Now those who boast for the sake of reputation claim such qualities as will praise or congratulation, but those whose object is gain claim qualities which are of value to one’s neighbours and one’s lack of which is not easily detected, e.g. the powers of a seer, a sage, or a physician.

The coincidence of the intentions of Jude’s arrogant men and Aristotle’s liars may support the suggestion that in Jude 16d “the arrogant/hard words” are indeed directed not only towards God but also towards people. The vituperative references allow us to see two groups of recipients of arrogance. These are, on the one hand, the members of the community whom the false teachers want to deceive about their religious, spiritual and leadership competence, and on the other hand, the existing authorities, the saints, whose qualities are belittled so that the usurpers can shine with false virtues. Plutarch (How can one praise oneself without exciting envy 3, 18) considers boastfulness based on these premises as shamelessness, indecency, transgression, something close to madness, satisfaction of one’s own ambition, expression of vanity, envy and malice: That is vain glory then when men seem to praise themselves that they may call forth the laudation of others; and it is especially despised because it seems to proceed from ambition and an unseasonable opinion of oneself. […] if they get no one else to praise them, disgrace themselves by their anxiety to feed their own vanity. But when, not merely content with praising themselves, they vie with the praise of others, and pit their own deeds and actions against theirs, with the intent of outshining them, they add envy and

696 L.T. Johnson, The New Testament’s Anti-Jewish Slander, p. 430.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

malignity to their vanity. […]. For first […] ambition makes people talk about themselves, and a certain desire and impulse for fame which is hard to check bites and tickles that ambition.

As can be seen, the overlap between apocalyptic and vituperative conventions serves to draw attention to two aspects of pride and arrogance. In the apocalyptic, the dominant feature is the “great/arrogant words” directed primarily against God; in the vituperatio, pride, arrogance, and falsehood are exposed, which affect people first and foremost. The last phrase in. 16 – θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα ὠφελείας χάριν – is not clear. When translated, one can accentuate the speaking of flattery for the sake of advantage, which would correspond well with the vituperative element and emphasise the opposition between arrogant utterances (16d) and flattering utterances (16e) coming out of the same mouth. But one can also accentuate partiality, which corresponds in turn with the judicial context introduced by the lexical, or rather source reminder of Jude 9 and the Testament of Moses. The expression θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα itself in the New Testament belongs to the hapax legomen,697 in the LXX, however, it is quite common; it is most commonly used to render the Hebrew idiom ‫נשא פנים‬. Literally, it can be translated “admiring faces”. It probably has its origins in the act of greeting of the nature of prostration, when the “humble, lowly” servant would fall on his face and then “raise his face” to the master being greeted, and the master would show him favor, would “look at him” (cf. Gen 19:21, Deut 28:50).698 Two perspectives are evident here, which translated into the later understanding of this phrase: on the one hand, the perspective of the servant lifting up “his face to the master”, and on the other, that of the master “showing favour”. Over time, the phrase began to take on an increasingly pejorative meaning. The neutral showing of favor was replaced by “partiality, favoritism, showing favor” to a select few (Lev 19:15, Prov 18:5, 28:21, Job 13:10, 22:8), sometimes even with the suggestion of accepting bribes (Deut 16:19).699 Such manifestations of human partiality are contrasted with the justice of God, who “has no favourites” (Deut 10:17, 2 Kings 19:7, Sir 35:12–13, Job 34:19). So, if one accentuates bias in the expression θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα, one can see here the words and actions of false teachers favouring the rich and influential members of the community. Their support would be an undoubted benefit. Richard Bauckham and Peter H. Davids suggest that the bias against the rich and influential

697 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 279. 698 Ibid. 699 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 99; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 233.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

317

318

Structural commentary

resembles that described in Jas 2:1–4.700 This is related to the assumption that false teachers had some kind of high position in the community, and to further references in this picture to TMos,701 where accusations of partiality and bribery are made against scholars and teachers: “And many in those times shall have respect unto desirable persons and receive gifts, and pervert judgment” [literally, righteousness] (TMos 5). A clear suggestion of accepting financial benefits is present in the reference to TMos, which corresponds with the later part of verse 16e,702 insofar as the noun ὠφελεία is attributed a material meaning. With a biased understanding of θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα, the apocalyptic element manages to come out strongly, as it does in verse 16b and d, since accusations of favouritism and profiteering appear as characteristic of descriptions of the time before the judgement as accusations of complaining, pride and arrogance.703 The counterbalance to the growing bias in the end times is a legitimate eschatological judgement with a just judge who “shows no partiality”. In Jewish apocalyptic literature such judgement belongs to God and/or His Messiah, in Christian literature of course to the Messiah identified with Jesus: And in those days many will love office, though devoid of wisdom. And there will be many lawless elders, and shepherds dealing wrongly by their own sheep […]. And many will change the honour of the garments of the saints for the garments of the covetous, and there will be much respect of persons in those days and lovers of the honour of this world (AscIsa 3:23–25); and so shall the judgement be accomplished with strictness. For my Father said unto me: My Son, in the day of judgement thou shalt have no respect for the rich, neither pity for the poor, but according to the sins of every man shalt thou deliver him unto everlasting torment (Epistle of the Apostles 26).

A noticeable weakness of this concept is the lack of direct textual clues throughout the epistle to support the assumption that the false teachers actually performed any judicial or leadership functions in the community of the recipients of the Letter of Jude. It seems more probable, therefore, to understand the expression θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα not from the perspective of an influential person but, on the contrary, from the perspective of a supplicant who tries to win the favour of communal prominent men (cf. Job 32:21–22) as flattery.704 This flattery would have manifested

700 701 702 703 704

R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 99; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 233–234. J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 280. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 100. Ibid. G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 362.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

itself, for example, in a special affection for the rich, in the transfer and acceptance of the social hierarchy at the agape, which – as shown when analysing verse 12 – contradicted the idea of egalitarian Christian community feasts. This would include acquiescence to taking better seats, receiving better food, priority in eating and drinking, etc. Flattery may also manifest itself in teaching that does not deal with topics that are difficult for some recipients or justifies the behaviour of some people (cf. Mal 2:9, according to which partiality in giving instructions is at the same time the cause of low social standing and disregard for teachers), or even in “prophesying” for money for the benefit of community prominent men (Mic 3:11). Christian literature – New Testament and later – promotes the ideal of the impartial teacher, who “teaches the way of God” and does not “regard a person’s status, but in truth teaches the way of God” (Luke 20:21; cf. Matt 22:16; Mark 12:14), does not create divisions, reconciles conflicting parties, when necessary, rebukes (Did. 4; Barn. 19:4), although he is gentle, calm, humble in all things, leads a moral life (Barn. 19:3–4), is not afraid of anyone, especially the rich (Epistle of the Apostles 46).705 His contradiction seems to be the false teachers described in the Letter of Jude. The portrayal of false teachers as flatterers of persons of influence in the community obviously serves to discredit them; it is therefore a typically vituperative element. In the already quoted Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle defines a flatterer as someone who exaggerates politeness: “the man who is pleasant in the right way is friendly […] a flatterer if he is aiming at his own advantage” (2:7). He condemns him in the same way as the boaster and says that both are liars deserving of reprimand: And falsehood is in itself mean and culpable […]; and both forms of untruthful man are culpable […] as one man is a liar because he enjoys the lie itself, and another because he desires reputation or gain. […], those whose object is gain claim [to have] […] the powers of a seer, a sage, or a physician (4:7).

Finally, he thinks that “all flatterers are servile and people lacking in self-respect are flatterers” (4:3). The hypocrisy and malice of flatterers is also exposed by Plutarch, who rules out combining flattery with kindness and friendship: What will you do if your friend reads a poor poem, or parades a speech stupidly and ridiculously written? You will praise it of course, and join the flatterers in loud applause. But how then will you find fault with your friend if he makes mistakes in business? […] You cannot have me both as a friend and flatterer (On Shyness 6, 10).

705 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 100.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

319

320

Structural commentary

Furthermore, in the text already quoted, How can one praise oneself without exciting envy 10, he, like Jude, links pride with flattery and reveals what flatterers are actually driven by: But since most people very much dislike and object to a man’s praising himself, but if he praises some one else are on the contrary often glad and readily bear him out, some are in the habit of praising in season those that have the same pursuits business and characters as themselves, and so conciliate and move the audience in their own favour; for the audience know at the moment such a one is speaking that, though he is speaking about another, yet his own similar virtue is worthy of their praise.

In texts derived from the Jewish and Greek traditions, it is often emphasised that flatterers make their deceitful praise for the sake of some gain. Such an addition is also found in Jude 16e, where the noun ὠφελεία is used. This term belongs to the keywords on the basis of which the narrator of the letter builds associations and images. It most likely refers to Jude 11c, where the close synonymous μισθός is used. The story of Balaam emphasises that the “payment” μισθός is intangible, referring to recognition, fame, respect on the one hand; on the other, it corresponds to the vituperative convention of the letter, for it sarcastically points to Balaam’s death, the “payment” he actually received for his perfidious advice given to the Midianites and for a kind of pestering that led the Israelites to break God’s laws and reject God’s reign. The ὠφελεία used in Jude 16e in the LXX means primarily a benefit, an advantage obtained, not necessarily material, also emotional, moral and/or religious (Ps 30[29]:10, Job 21:15, 22:3, Sir 20:30, 30:23, 41:14), sometimes even a rescue, a help, a cure not only for some physical ailment but understood mainly as a healing of the situation (Isa 30:5, Jer 26:11, 37:13, 2 Macc 2:25, 8:20). A similar context to Jude appears in Jer 23:30–32, where the prophet turns against false prophets, denounces their lying prophecies made on the basis of false dreams, false messages, deceiving the people with lies and boastfulness, and concludes that such prophets are of no use or help to the people: καὶ ὠφέλειαν οὐκ ὠφελήσουσιν τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον [by no] “help to this people”. If Jude 16e is followed by Jer 23:32, then the recipients may have seen here a suggestion that flattery benefits only the flatterers, and is not instead beneficial to the life of the community. This image corresponds to the metaphorical description of the teachings of false teachers in verse 12d–13.706 Since ὠφελεία points primarily to intangible benefits, there is no direct indication in Jude 16e to claim that false teachers solicit money. Nor is there

706 See above for an analysis of verse 12–13.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

any indication that the community of the letter’s recipients is in a particularly good financial position.707 As previous analyses have shown, false teachers use flattery to seek benefits such as fame, respect, and recognition for themselves, which is undoubtedly associated with the profit for which Balaam acted. Nevertheless – if we take into account the intertextual strategy dominating in verse 16 – the material element cannot be completely excluded. For it is indirectly indicated by references to the apocalyptic. As has already been shown, the apocalyptic texts repeat the motif of flattering the rich, teaching and prophesying for money, and a particular love for gold. Such behaviour will intensify in the end times (TMos 5, AscIsa 3:23–25.28). The behaviour of false teachers, the desire for material gain – alongside fame and power – would thus be a visible sign of the advent of the end times. In the context of the intertextual strategy of, as shown, overlapping apocalyptic and vituperative conventions, however, it should be noted that it is precisely vituperatio that weakens the financial understanding of benefit or even help. In the Greek texts cited above, the “profits” of lying flatterers are either undefined or related to publicity, fame, gaining kindness and heed. This means that ὠφελεία in Jude 16e is indeed to be understood in the same way as μισθός in Jude 11c. This understanding corresponds well with the desires/lusts in Jude 16c, which refer precisely to fame, recognition, power, i.e. abstract concepts. If there are material benefits among them, they do not occupy a primordial place, they are rather secondary or even tertiary. In summary, it can be said that the pesher method in Jude 16 is followed, on the one hand, through lexical references to Israel’s history and, on the other hand, through similarly evoking associations with signs of the end times. The narrator of the letter already alluded to the signs of the end times when describing the fruitless teaching of the false teachers in verse 12d–13, based mainly on eschatological natural anomalies. Then, however, the apocalyptic element was subordinated to the vituperative element, to discredit the false teaching. Here, vice versa, the primacy belongs to apocalypticism. In this way, Jude sensitizes the recipients to those signs of the approaching judgement described in Jude 14b–15 that they can observe in their own community. In the end times, then, there will be “murmurers” who, like those in the desert, speak out against God and the leaders/authorities appointed by him (cf. Jude 5c.11c.d). This murmuring takes the form of “complaining about fate”, and its source is the desire to satisfy one’s own desires, contrary to God’s will. The desires are primarily concerned with changing the status of intruders in the community. False teachers want to replace existing authorities and, by introducing their own teaching based on unverified private revelations, gain fame, recognition and respect. Therefore, they go as far as arrogance, questioning the functioning of

707 This is, for example, according to G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 363.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

321

322

Structural commentary

the community and undermining the principles of “the faith once for all handed down to the saints”, and to flattery, in order to create goodwill among the members of the community for themselves and their teaching, and thus gain benefits that coincide with their desire for fame, respect, recognition. The message of verse 16 is an introduction to verse 17–19, in which the pesher technique is used in an almost classical way and the link between the appearance of false teachers in the community and the coming of the end times is not in doubt. 2.5.5

Part a’. End times (Jude 17–18)

17

And you, beloved, recall the words spoken earlier by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, 18 that they told you that in the last time there will be scoffers/mockers following their desires for ungodliness.

In the introduction, “the ungodly” described by Enoch (Jude 15b–d) are those who: are now behaving as once “marauding murmurers” in the wilderness (Jude 16ab, cf. Jude 5c and 11d), “follow their own desires”, ignoring God’s will concerning primarily the functioning of the community (Jude 16c, cf. Jude 11b–d), are “arrogant” towards God and people (Jude 16d, cf. Jude 8a.d) or, on the contrary, “with flattery for the sake of advantage” that will satisfy their thirst for fame, respect and recognition (Jude 16e, cf. Jude 11c); here elements of thematic peshmerga were used. The narrator of the Letter from Jude, however, did not do it in the “classical” way, referring expressis verbis to specific texts known from the Jewish tradition, but directed the recipients to them in an allusive way, by using appropriate lexis that evoked specific associations. References to Jewish tradition included texts from the Torah, the prophets, as well as apocalyptic literature, which was popular among the letter’s narrator and his recipients, while its authority and normativity were comparable to the Torah. In verses 17–19 Jude also reaches for the pesher technique. He seems to be continuing thematic pesher, but as before it is difficult to speak of a classical pesher here because of the problems of identifying the source of the teaching “of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 17c–d) concerning the “last time” (Jude 18b) and the appearance of “scoffers following their desires for ungodliness” (Jude 18c–d). Nonetheless, the application of elements of the same method of interpretation used in Jewish circles to explain writings considered to be inspired testifies to the equating of the authority of the apostolic words quoted with that of the inspired writings, especially the prophetic ones. In the manner of the transition from the prophetic tradition to the apostolic tradition there is a clear desire to give prominence to the latter. Therefore, the apostolic words are introduced in the form of a summary transit. Its exponents are the direct addresses to the recipients: calling them again the “beloved” ἀγαπητοί (cf.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

Jude 3), the use of the personal pronoun708 ὑμεῖς and the verb μνήσθητε in the imp. aor. for the second person plural. This transitivity is of considerable importance in the composition of the whole letter. Its final position in the sequence of pesher arguments concerning the identity of “certain men” (cf. Jude 4) indicates the finality of the apostolic resolution, which recapitulates earlier prophecies. Rhetorically, verses 17–19 conclude and separate the argumentatio (probatio) from the peroratio/ epilogos with an exhortation to the recipients (also called “the beloved”) to specific behaviours and attitudes (Jd. 20–23).709 The lexical and thematic references, on the other hand, allow us to see the thoughtful and non-accidental framework structure of the entire Judean letter. Peter H. Davids, taking into account the lexical and thematic criterion, sees this frame in verse 3–5 on the one hand and verse 17 on the other. To this may be added a formal criterion: the adjective “beloved” ἀγαπητοί in Jude 17a marks the beginning of the transitory; it had a similar function in Jude 3a. The counterpart of the “faith once for all handed down to the saints” in Jude 3 and of what the recipients “already know perfectly well” in Jude 5a are the “words spoken earlier by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ” in Jude 17cd, and the reference “to the desire to remember all this” in Jude 5a is the exhortation to “remember” the apostles’ words in Jude 17b.710 Of course, these are not all the references; they can be presented in much more detail, e.g. in tabular form, the framework also including verse 18: Jude 17–18

Jude 3–5

Recipients

Beloved (17a)

Beloved (3a)

Opponents

Mockers (18c)

These/certain men (4a)

Appeal to the faith/knowledge of the recipients

Recall the words of the apostles (17a–b)

I desire to remind you, everything you of already know (5a)

Content of the recipients’ faith/knowledge

Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ (17c) – belonging to Jesus Christ

Our common salvation (3b) Faith once for all handed down to the saints (3d) Grace of God (4c) Jesus as only Master and Ruler (4d) Jesus saved the people from Egypt (5b) Jesus destroyed those who disbelieved (5c)

708 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 235 notes the differences in the emotional use of this pronoun in Jude 17a and the completely neutral one in Jude 12; see also G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 367. 709 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 236. 710 See Ibid., p. 235.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

323

324

Structural commentary

Jude 17–18

Jude 3–5

Behaviour and content of opponents

Mockers following their desires for ungodliness (18c–d)

Sneaking (4a) The ungodly perverting the grace of our God into licentiousness, denying our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ (4c–d)

Reference to prophecy

Words previously spoken by the apostles (17b); They told you (18a)

Long ago designated for this judgement (4b)

time

In the last time (18b)

Long ago designated (4b)

A framework composition is also easily observed in the argumentatio itself – Jude 6–19. The main criterion of this framework is the reference to the whole of salvation history, which can be linked to the desire, declared in verse 3a, for a meticulous presentation of soteriology: in Jude 6 the narrator refers to the beginnings of salvation, and the associations – the appointment of angelic duties at the creation of the world – evoke an intertestamental, Midrashic protology; verse 18, on the other hand, is the apostolic teaching on the “end/last time”.711 Verse 17 begins with a reminder formula popular in classical rhetoric, which may have appeared at the beginning of a speech – as in Jude 5a – or within a speech.712 Jude uses it twice, but each time in a slightly different way and for a slightly different purpose. In Jude 5a, he wanted to remind the recipients of all that they already know perfectly well ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι εἰδότας ὑμᾶς ἅπαξ πάντα; therefore, he did not need to pinpoint texts or concretize traditions later on and could build up his multi-plot images and associations, relying on the competence of the recipients to read them correctly. In Jude 17b–18 he no longer allows the recipients such freedom and calls on them to recall the words frequently repeated earlier by the apostles – μνήσθητε τῶν ῥημάτων τῶν προειρημένων ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων. The associations are confined to three main elements, which the narrator had previously tried to illuminate against the background of “all knowledge” and now synthesizes in the apostolic teaching: first, the end/last times and judgement have been the subject of revelation from the beginning; second, the foretold end/last times have just occurred; third, the most visible sign of the end/last times and the imminence of the impending judgement is the appearance of the false teachers now called “scoffers” (verse 18b).713 The point, then, as we have seen, is to expose the judicial aspects of salvation, which the scoffers denied. If, therefore, the faithful do not wish to share the fate of the ungodly in the judgement,714 they should remain vigilant

711 712 713 714

See above for the argumentatio structure of Jude 6–19 and the analysis of Jude 6. See above with examples of the occurrence of this formula in Greek and early Christian literature. P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 236. G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 367.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

and sensitive to the signs of the end/last of times715 in order to be able to contend successfully “for the faith once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 3d). The apostolic teaching is called in verse 17c τὰ ῥήματα τὰ προειρημένα ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ “the words spoken earlier by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ”. In the expression τὰ ῥῆματα τὰ προειρημένα “spoken earlier” neutral, non-religiously charged or minimally charged elements combined by Jude and placed in the context of apostolic teaching yielded a strongly theologically charged phrase. The primary meaning of the noun ῥῆμα is, of course, word. New Testament it sometimes refers to a general message (John 8:20, Acts 2:14, 10:44, Rom 10:18) and to a message of a prophetic nature (Matt 26:75, Mark 9:32, 14:72, Luke 1:38, 2:29, 9:45, 18:34, 22:61, 24:8, Acts 11:16). When combined with the part. perf. med. et pass. προειρημένον, this prophetic trait is clearly reinforced; for the perfectum indicates the lasting, present-related effects of the earlier preaching. The compound verb προλέγω can also be used quite neutrally, without any religious or theological overtones – as to “speak beforehand, to mention beforehand, to announce, to warn, to threaten”. Such is the meaning of the participle προειρημένος in 2 Macc 3:7, where the “riches that had been reported”, or in 2 Macc 4:1, where it is about “the Simon mentioned above” (cf. also 2 Macc 3:28, 6:29, 14:8, 3 Macc 4:17, 6:35); a similar use is also found in the New Testament – e.g., 2 Cor 7:3, 13:3, 14:8, 3 Macc 4:17, 6:35. Only in the right context and/or in conjunction with a specific subject does it take on the character of soothsaying or prophetic prediction, such as in Herodotus’ The Histories (1:53): “Both the oracles agreed in the tenor of their reply, which was in each case a prophecy that if Croesus attacked the Persians, he would destroy a mighty empire”. It should be noted that such a prophetic meaning of προλέγω is, however, rare in the LXX (the only place is Isa 41:26), perhaps because of these pagan encumbrances. By contrast, there is no resistance to using the verb προλέγω in a prophetic context, nor does Josephus Flavius, who in De Bello Iudaico (VI 2:1) writes about prophetic preaching: And who is there that does not know what the writings of the ancient prophets contain in them? and particularly that oracle which is just now going to be fulfilled upon this miserable city. For they – [earlier] (προεῖπον) – foretold, that this city should be then taken when some body shall begin the slaughter of his own countrymen.

Neither do the New Testament writers, who use this verb to describe the prophetic preaching of Jesus (Matt 24:25, Mark 13:23), the words of David (Acts 1:16 and Heb 4:7), or the words of Isaiah (Rom 9:29).716

715 D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 435. 716 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 370.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

325

326

Structural commentary

Jude’s use of the verb προλέγω in verse 17b (and, incidentally, also of the verb λέγω in 18a) is especially helpful in understanding 1 Thess 3:4 and 2 Thess 2:5. In

1 Thess 3:4 Paul uses for προλέγω the form first person of the ind. imperf. act., i.e. the imperfective aspect, which has a durative and frequentative character. This means that the contents preached by Paul were frequently repeated while the apostle was in Thessalonica. Moreover – what Paul repeatedly foretold (the tribulation) had already come true.717 In 2 Thess 2:5 the verb λέγω is used (οὐ μνημονεύετε ὅτι ἔτι ὣν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ταῦτα ἔλεγον ὑμῖν “do you not recall that while I was still with you I told you these things?”), as in Jude 18a, and the content of the announcement concerns the end times. The sender of 2 Thess once again, with emphasis, recalls his constant (ἔτι) teaching, so that the recipients will not be deceived by false news. The imperfective form of the verb λέγω – the ind. imperf. act. (ἔλεγον) should therefore be understood as before, frequentatively – as a continuous prior repetition of eschatological prophecy. The same is true in Jude 18a, where the ind. imperf. act. also occurs. It must be made clear, however, that in Jude 17b the verb προλέγω does not occur in the imperfectum, but in perfectum. The meaning of this form therefore goes beyond the durative and frequentative aspect, since the frequent repetition in the past of the teaching about the appearance of scoffers, which will be a sign (one of the signs) of the coming of the end times, has effects in the present. We can conclude that these effects are twofold: first, the words of the prophecy are fulfilled before the eyes of the recipients of the Letter of Jude; second, they are perfectly remembered by the recipients, so the narrator could call for them to be recalled. It seems that recalling the repeated apostolic teaching regarding the last days is easier than building associations based on all the knowledge mentioned in verse 5a. And since the narrator of the letter did not hesitate to refer to this knowledge, highly appreciating the competence of his recipients in recalling the various strands of Jewish tradition and Greek culture, he expects all the more that the recipients will read the appearance of the false teachers as an eschatological sign, by which – precisely because of the repetition of the announcements – they will not be surprised.718 On the contrary, instead of being surprised, they should show vigilance and react as postulated in verses 20–23. There is much controversy about the combination of “the words spoken earlier” with the expression ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων – “by the apostles”. The subjective character of the genitive is confirmed by Jude 18a, where the agens does indeed become the apostles, though this is indicated only by the plural form of the verb (ἔλεγον). The controversy mainly concerns the semantic field of the expression “apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ”, but it also generates tension and discussion about the dating of

717 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 103; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 237. 718 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 236.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

the Letter of Jude.719 Arguments about this were already taking place in antiquity, since Hilary of Arles, in his Treatise on the Seven Catholic Letters, states that Jude “does not specify which apostles he is reffering to, but many people assume he means Peter, James and John”720 . There are now two main positions. The first limits the understanding of the term ‘apostle’ to the Twelve and to missionaries with particular authority, such as Paul or Barnabas, or possibly some of their collaborators and envoys (Acts 14:14, Rom 16:7, 1 Cor 15:5b.7b, 2 Cor 8:23, 1 Thess 2:6, Phil 2:25).721 This involves the assumption that the term ἀποστόλος used in Jude 17d already denoted a title rather than a function. This assumption postpones the date of the letter’s composition to a relatively late time, the end of the first century, when it was thought that the apostolic circle was already closed722 and the teaching preached by the apostles stabilised (cf. Jude 3 and 5: “the faith handed down once for all to the saints” and reference to all that the recipients already knew). Oecumenius already mentions this in his Commentary on Jude: “it is clear that Jude was writing toward the end of his life, when his and other apostles’ ministry was coming to an end”723 . One of the crowning arguments here becomes the accentuation of the temporal aspect in the expression τὰ ῥήματα τὰ προειρημένα – “words preached” before, whereby this “before” would cover a period of several decades. Moreover, the closure of the circle of those who would be entitled to the eminent title of “apostle” is to be seen in the fact that the letter’s narrator does not apply the title to himself, even though he uses the popular convention of the pseudonymous letter. In Jude 1 he presents himself as a “servant/slave” of Jesus Christ and as the “brother of James” identified with James, the Lord’s brother, who, it is worth noting, although Jude does not do so either, was entitled to the title apostle (Gal 1:19) as leader of the Church in Jerusalem.724 The second position extends the term “apostle” to include the many anonymous founders of local Christian communities,725 implying that at the time of the writing of the Letter of Jude the apostolic circle was not yet closed, and that the term

719 See Introduction. 720 Hilary of Arles, Tractatus in septem epistulas catholicas, [in:] Patrologiae Latinae Supplementum, ed. A. Hamman, vol. 3, Paris 1963, 3:131, as cited in: James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude, ed. G. Bray, p. 256. 721 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 281; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 372; D. Keating, First, Second Peter, p. 320. 722 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 103; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 237. 723 Oecumenius, Jacobi Apostoli epistula catholica, [in:] Patrologiae cursus completes. Series Graeca, ed. J.P. Migne, vol. 119, Paris 1864, 119:720, as cited in: James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude, ed. G. Bray, p. 256. 724 See Introduction. 725 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 103; according to Bauckham, an evangelistic-founding understanding of the function of an apostle would also explain the absence of the term apostle in the prescript of

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

327

328

Structural commentary

indicated a function rather than an honorary title. Related to this assumption is the belief in the relatively early date of the letter’s composition, especially since there is a suggestion in Jude 18b that the recipients of the letter may also have been direct hearers of the apostles (ἔλεγον ὑμῖν “have spoken to you”).726 In the expression τὰ ῥήματα τὰ προειρημένα it would be appropriate with this interpretation to emphasize primarily the frequency rather than the temporal aspect. If the apostles of Jude 17d were emissaries of the churches, as Paul mentions in 2 Cor 8:23, their activity must have been in the 40s–50s of the first century (before the creation of 2 Cor). It is difficult to speak of a Christian/apostolic doctrine that had already been stabilised at that time,727 so the narrator of Jude refers only to its fragment concerning eschatology. By using the plural – “apostles” – he intimates that this eschatological element was repeated in the message of many messengers of that time, and therefore it is a very characteristic, common feature of apostolic teaching and cannot be attributed to a particular “messenger”.728 This fragmentary presentation of the apostolic teaching allows conclusions to be drawn regarding the relationship between Jude 17d and Jude 3d. It turns out that with this interpretation “the words spoken earlier by the apostles” and the “faith once for all handed down to the saints” are not strictly synonymous concepts. For the eschatological teaching of the apostles does not exhaust the “faith handed down” to “the saints”; it is one of the elements that make up this faith understood as a comprehensive revelation, which is based above all on a Christologically reinterpreted intertestamental Judaism. The early composition of the epistle may also be indicated by the reference to an oral transmission in Jude 18a. The phrase ἔλεγον ὐμῖν “they told you” should be taken literally as an oral, and therefore a very early stage in the formation of Christian doctrine. The messengers of the existing churches founding and organising another community were “ministers of the word” (cf. Luke 1:2), charismatic preachers and evangelists. However, the lack of a record of the message preached also meant that it was not only formally but also in terms of content and sometimes even doctrinally unstable. This undoubtedly encouraged false teachers, made it easier for them to propagate their own teaching and led to tensions within the young Christian communities (cf. Jude 19). Jude’s understanding of the term “apostle” is also influenced by the complementizer of “Our Lord Jesus Christ”. The genetivus τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

the letter – the narrator/Jude was not the founder of the community to which he writes; similarly D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 436. 726 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 238. 727 Cf. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 103–104, who, although he cites arguments for the early dating of the Epistle of Jude, believes that by the time the epistle was written, apostolic teaching was already established. 728 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 238.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

should undoubtedly be defined as genetivus pertinentis (of belonging), but the implications directing it towards the category of the genetivus subiectivus and/or genetivus obiectivus cannot be completely excluded. It should be noted that Greek literature rarely uses the term ἀπόστολος and does not generally give it a religious meaning.729 Herodotus in The Histories treats the apostle as a herald: “Alyattes […] [immediately] sent a herald to Miletus […]. The herald went upon his way” (1:21) or the messenger: “Aristagoras the Milesian […] sailed away […] to Lacedaemon” (5:38). Similarly, Josephus Flavius in Ant. XVII 11:1: “For an ambassage of the Jews was come to Rome; Varus having permitted the nation to send it (ἀπόστολος), that they might petition for the liberty of living by their own laws”. The religious context in Greek literature appears sporadically and relatively late (e.g. in Epictetus).730 In the LXX the noun ἀπόστολος is as rare. It occurs only once in some ancient reviews of 1 Kings 14:6 [LXX: 3 Kings 14:6].731 Frequent, however, is the verb ἀποστέλλω, from which ἀπόστολος is derived. It is usually used to translate the Hebrew verb ‫שלח‬, which accentuates the fact that the messenger is authorised to carry out some mission and/or perform some function on behalf of the messenger. The mission is limited solely to the fulfilment of a specific task; it is in no way related to an office or the conferring of a title on the messenger as a tribute to his personal merits and qualities. This approach makes it possible to focus attention on the sender, who gives the messenger his power, his authority.732 The emphasis on the apostles’ belonging in Jude 17d to Jesus Christ probably refers to the Old Testament function of “the messenger” called ‫שִׁלי ַח‬, who does not represent himself or his own authority, but the person and authority of the messenger. The use of the term ἀπόστολος in a sense analogous to the Hebrew ‫ שִׁלי ַח‬supports the hypothesis that the letter was written relatively early and that “apostle” is not a title but a function. Moreover – it may be a function limited in time to the period of a particular mission. The New Testament literature makes it possible to specify that this mission consists of evangelism, proclaiming Jesus Christ and most probably giving personal testimony. All these elements are included in the genitive of “our Lord Jesus Christ” which defines “the apostles”. As already stated, the basic meaning of this genitive points to the apostles’ belonging to Jesus Christ, which corresponds to a personal experience of salvation, acknowledging Jesus as Lord and serving him (cf. Jude 1 and the term Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος “a slave of Jesus Christ”). Treating

729 Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. G. Kittel, G. Friedrich, p. 73. 730 E. von Eicken, H. Lindner, Apostle, [in:] The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 1, p. 127. 731 In most LXX critical editions, chapter 14 begins with verse 21. However, some ancient reviews place the Greek version of 1 Kings 14:1–20 here. 732 E. von Eicken, H. Lindner, Apostle, [in:] The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 1, p. 127.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

329

330

Structural commentary

the genitive as the gen. subiectivus involves seeing the apostle as a ‫ שִׁלי ַח‬who is sent by Jesus Christ, so what he preaches should be regarded as the teaching of Jesus himself.733 In reconstructing – even if only in general terms – the content of apostolic teaching, the gen. obiectivus proves helpful. It makes it possible to assume a Christocentric teaching, an essential element of which is the proclamation – contrary to false teachers – of Jesus Christ as Lord and Master and as eschatological judge (cf. Jude 4). Belonging to Jesus Christ in Jude 17d does not necessarily imply direct contact with the earthly Jesus, so it is not a term that limits the group of apostles to the Twelve. Rather, Jude’s narrator uses the indefinite, multifaceted genitive in a theological sense. Theological understanding of belonging to Jesus Christ paves the way for another interpretation of the whole phrase of Jude 17–18a: μνήσθητε τῶν ῥημάτων προειρημένων ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὅτι ἔλεγον ὑμῖν “recall the words spoken earlier by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ,

that they told you”. It is based on a Christology with elements of pre-existence, taking into account both pesher elements and the Judaic strategy of transposing titles, powers and images in Judaism associated with the person of God onto Jesus Christ. The idea of pre-existence implied in the Letter of Jude has already been mentioned several times when analysing individual verses. If Jesus is the one who leads the people out of the land of Egypt (verse 5b), exterminates in the wilderness (verse 5c), is the Messiah chosen before the creation of the world, “the Beloved one, the Beginning”, who resides in heaven with the angels (verse 6.14), some of whom have abandoned their duty to worship him and to stand guard by him (verse 6), executes the judgement on Sodom and Gomorrah (verse 7), then he is also the one who, from the beginning of salvation history, sent the “apostles”. “The apostle” in Jude 17d, as has been said, corresponds most closely to the Old Testament ‫;שִׁלי ַח‬ apostles, therefore, are chosen to carry out a specific mission, speak on behalf of the Sender (Jesus) and transmit His revelation – the “faith once for all handed down to the saints”. This means that the term “apostle” applies not only to the missionaries and evangelisers of the first century, but also to those who “had previously spoken”, conveyed the words of revelation. Enoch and Moses should be mentioned first of all because their writings and traditions are most often referred to by the narrator of the Letter of Jude in the passages suggesting pre-existence. However, any of the earlier patriarchs or prophets could be an apostle, regardless of the later canonization of their writings. Jude is not alone in such an inclusive interpretation and synonymisation of the terms prophet and apostle. It seems to be characteristic of early Christian literature,

733 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 373.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

especially of texts that deal with ideas of pre-existence and eschatology. It is no coincidence that 1 Pet 1:10–11 speaks of the spirit of Christ working in the prophets foretelling Christ’s suffering and exaltation, and 2 Clem. 14:2 of the eternal spiritual existence of the Church: And the Books and the Apostles plainly declare that the Church existeth not now for the first time, but hath been from the beginning: for she was spiritual, as our Jesus also was spiritual, but was manifested in the last days that He might save us.

In this synonymisation we can also see the Judaic strategy of transferring lexis characteristic of early Christianity to phenomena/images familiar to Judaism (cf. Jude 1 and the phrase ἐν θεῷ πατρὶ ἠγαπημένοι “beloved in God the Father” instead of the expected beloved “in Jesus Christ”734 ). Furthermore, the prophetic feature of the apostolic message is highlighted, which allows for a pesher interpretation to be applied to this teaching, as is the case with the prophetic texts. Considering the terms apostle and prophet as synonymous makes it possible to clarify the relationship between the “faith handed down to the saints” and the “words spoken earlier by the apostles”: if “faith” embraces the whole of revelation, from the prophecies of Enoch and the Pentateuch, to Christian doctrine – both that which is not yet fixed in writing and that which has literary form – then the “words spoken earlier by the apostles” also include both Christian teaching and all that the patriarchs and prophets had transmitted in the past, but – as is clear from verse 18b–d – limited to statements regarding the judgement and signs heralding the end times. One might even venture to say that the “words spoken earlier by the apostles” are Christ-centred Jewish eschatological prophecies interpreted according to the pesher method. Thus, the suggestion that the “faith handed down to the saints” is a broader concept than the “words spoken earlier by the apostles” is confirmed, and the hyponymy of the “words spoken earlier by the apostles” in relation to the “faith handed down to the saints” is based on thematic reduction. When interpreted theologically, in the expression τὰ ῥήματα τὰ προειρημένα the accents are equally distributed between the temporal aspect (a reference to much earlier historical teachings/prophecies now read by the pesher method) and the frequentative aspect (multiple repetitions over the centuries). A double meaning is gained by the phrase ἔλεγον ὑμῖν “they told you”, where the dativus can be understood as the dativus temporis or as commodi. In the first case (“they spoke in your days”) the pronoun ὑμῖν would indeed refer to the relatively recent orally transmitted evangelism to which the recipients of the Letter of Jude listened, while the verb ἔλεγον should be understood literally. In the second case (“they told you”)

734 See above – analysis verse 1–3.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

331

332

Structural commentary

the whole expression acquires a metaphorical character. For the prophetic and apostolic message recorded in writing is described as speech addressed not only to historical recipients, but also as speech that has meaning “for you”. This is all the more so because, according to the pesher tradition, only the generation living in the end times is able to correctly – that is, in an eschatological spirit – read the earlier messages (cf. 1 Pet 1:12). This is reminiscent of the inclusivism already known from the introductory formula for the quotation of 1 En 1:9: in Jude 14a there appeared the dativus καὶ αὐτοῖς translated as “and to them”, indicating that Enoch’s prophecy was intended not only for Enoch’s contemporaries but for “men among the generations of the earth” (Jub 4:18), and especially for “a remote [generation] which is for to come” (1 En 1:2–3). The similarity of the formulas in Jude 14a and 18a introducing direct speech is not only on the formal side. It also confirms that the prophetic word and the apostolic words (understood as the Christian message) are treated the same by Jude. Moreover, the words of the apostles can be seen as a complement to the prophecy mentioned in Jude 4 (see the table illustrating the relationship between Jude 3–5 and 17–18). Behind the prophecy in Jude 4, as shown, there is a broad apocalyptic tradition (ApBaSyr/2 Ba 24:1, TAsh 7), but its key sources are the visions and predictions of Enoch (1 En 81:1–2, 89:61–70, 103:2, 106:18).735 In verses 14–15 Jude referred to Enochean prophecy in a direct way with a quotation about judgement. Although the judgement applies to all, in 1 Enoch 1:9 and Jude 15b–e the motif of accusations against the ungodly was prominently displayed. Now the emphasis falls on the fact that the time of judgement of which the prophet wrote has in fact already come. In this way, Jude, on the one hand, gives credence to Enoch’s prophecy – it has been fulfilled, because “the ungodly” predicted by the prophet have appeared and are about to be accused in court.736 On the other hand, it gives credibility to the apostles’ message as a continuation of the prophetic Enochean tradition. The final proof of treating these prophecies in a similar way is the pesher interpretation applied to them. Despite its formal similarity to Jude 14a, verse 18b–d can hardly be regarded as a direct quotation (it does not appear as such anywhere except in 2 Pet 3:3, which is a text dependent on Jude). Rather, it is a Judean paraphrase of repeated predictions, in various places and circumstances, that in the end times the activity of false teachers, false prophets, deceivers and liars will increase.737 Since these announcements were characteristic both of the intertestamental apocalyptic literature and of the Christian message, which reinterprets this tradition in a Christological spirit, it is

735 See above – analysis of verse 4. 736 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 371. 737 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 282; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 102.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

impossible to indicate unambiguously whether the paraphrase was based on Judaic or Christian sources (1 Tim 4:1–2, 1 John 2:18.22, Acts 20:29–30, 2 Tim 3:1–5, 4:3–4738 , cf. also Did. 16). Most likely, Jude is synthesizing both sources here – which would correspond to his inclusive understanding of the term ‘apostle’ and correspond well with verse 16, which was based primarily on allusions to Jewish apocalypticism. If the primary source was Christian teaching, it is difficult in turn to say whether it was an oral or written version of it. The orality would be indicated by the literal treatment of the verb ἔλεγον, the absence of a stable literary version that Jude could refer to without the need for synthesis/paraphrase, and finally the attribution of the prophecy to the apostles rather than to Jesus himself (Matt 24:11.23–24, Mark 13:5–6.21–22). On the other hand, in Jude 14b–15 one could observe the intentional changes that Jude was making to the text of 1 En 1:9 functioning in written form in various languages. There would therefore be nothing to prevent him from making a paraphrase, and especially a synthesis, of the apostolic message recorded in writing. However, it would have to have come from before the time of the writing and dissemination of the Gospel of Mark, in which the warning against deception is attributed to Jesus (Mark 13:5). For it is difficult to suppose that the narrator, who shows the salvific activity of Jesus from the beginning of salvation history, would ignore his warning and prophetic (sic!) words. Besides, compositionally and argumentatively, a final reference to Jesus himself would be a stronger accent than a reference to the teaching of the apostles. Of the known apostolic writings, only 2 Thess written in the 1650s meets the chronological criterion; Jude’s synthesis would therefore apply to 2 Thess 2:1–12 (especially verses 10–12). Apostolic prophecy contains three key elements: an indication of time, an indication of a person and a description of lifestyle.739 The temporal indication appears first: ἐπ᾽ἐσχάτου χρόνου. The absence of the genitive makes the qualification of this expression difficult, so in some copies the copyists added the genitive before the noun χρόνος: ἐπ᾽ἐσχάτου τοῦ χρόνου (so in ‫ א‬A 33. 436. 1611. 1852 syph ms ). This makes it possible for the word sequence to be taken as predicative order: “when the time will be last/final”, but it can also be read as a combination of the adjective ἔσχατος – “end” understood as a noun and its noun attribute τοῦ χρόνου as “time: at the end of time”. Even with the completed genitive this phrase is characteristic only of Jude. There are, obviously, very similar expressions in the New Testament, used in a similar eschatological context, referring both to the second coming of Christ, and to the time of judgement, and to future salvation, e.g. John 6:40.44.54, 11:24, 12:48 ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ “on the last/final day”; 1 Pet 1:20 ἐπ᾽ἐσχάτου τῶν

738 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 373. 739 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 239.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

333

334

Structural commentary

χρόνων (with the noun χρόνος in the plural – “in the final time”), 1 Pet 1:5 ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ (also without the articles), 2 Tim 3:1, Jas 5:3 ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις

“for the last days”; Acts 2:17 ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις “in the last days” (with a clear attributive order); Heb 1:2 ἐπ᾽ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμέρων “in these last days”; 2 Pet 3:3 ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμέρων “in the last days”, 1 John 2:18 ἐσχάτη ὥρα “it is the last hour”.740 These various phrases correspond to the Hebrew expression ‫באחרית הימים‬, translated in the LXX as ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις or ἐπ᾽ἐσχάτῷ τῶν ἡμερῶν – “for in the last days” or ”in the end of days” (Deut 4:30, Isa 2:2, Jer 23:20, 25:19, 37:24, Ezek 38:16, Dan 2:28–29.45, 10:14, Hos 3:5, Mic 4:1).741 In the Old Testament, the context determines whether these phrases have an eschatological meaning or whether they can be taken as mere temporal expressions without eschatological overtones. Theological (eschatological) emphasis is intensified in the intertestamental texts. In Qumran, the “last/final time” signifies the era in which the members of the community live: “‘those called by name’ who stood up at the end of days” (CD 4:4)742 ; “And this is the rule for all the congregation of Israel in the last days” (1QSa /1Q28a 1:1)743 . Through the explanations of the Teacher of Righteousness they are aware that this is the era of the final fulfilment of earlier prophecies: “they will not obtain it, until there arises he who teaches justice at the end of days” (CD 6:10–11)744 . It is characterised by an antagonisation of attitudes, an exacerbation of open, blasphemous speeches against God and those who are faithful to Him, the breaking and even rejection of the covenant: [The interpretation of the word concerns] the traitors […] since they do not [believe in the words of the] Teacher of Righteousness from the mouth of God, (and it concerns) the traito[rs of the] new [covenant] since they did not believe in the covenant of God [and dishonoured] his holy name. Likewise: The interpretation of the word [concerns the trait]ors in the last days. They […] hear all that is going [to happen to] the final generation, from the mouth of the Priest whom God has placed wi[thin the Community,] to foretell

740 Ibid., p. 239. Diverse formulations concerning the latter times are also found in early Christian literature, e.g. in: Did. 16: “For in the last days false prophets and corrupters shall be multiplied”; Barn. 4:9: “Wherefore let us take heed in these last days” or Ignatius of Antioch’s Epistle to the Ephesians 11:1: “The last times have come upon us”. 741 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 239; F. Mickiewicz, List św. Judy, p. 122. 742 F.G. Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 35. 743 Hempel, Charlotte, The Earthly Essene Nucleus of 1Qsa, “Dead Sea Discoveries” 3 (1996), no. 3, p. 253. 744 F.G. Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 37.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

the fulfilment of all the words of his servants, the prophets, [by] means of whom God has declared all that is going to happen to his people […] (1QpHab 2:1–10).745

In non-Qumran apocalyptic literature, especially in texts attributed to prominent figures from the past, mentions of the end times are embedded in prophecies about the future. They are thus not a reality that is taking place, but a reality that is yet to come: “Earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the mighty God, and receive what I commit to you, and guard them until the last times”, […] What therefore will be to them? or how will the last time receive them? […] for what you have suffered is disproportioned to what you have done—in order that, at the last times, you may be found worthy of your fathers (ApBaSyr/2 Ba 6:8, 41:5, 78:5).

The signs of “the end times” largely coincide with those mentioned allusively in Jude 16 and 18d; many texts, like Jude 14–15, refer to the prophecies of Enoch: I know, my children, that in the last times your sons will forsake simplicity, and will cleave unto avarice, and leaving guilelessness will draw near to malice, and forsaking the commandments of the Lord will cleave unto Beliar […] [they] will follow after their wicked devices (TIss 6); For I have read also in the books of Enoch the righteous what evils ye shall do in the last days. Take heed, therefore, my children, of fornication and the love of money […]. for these things do withdraw you from the law of God, and blind the understanding of the soul, and teach arrogance, and suffer not a man to have compassion upon his neighbour (TJud 18); And now, my children, I have learnt from the writing of Enoch that at the last ye will deal ungodly, laying your hands upon the Lord in all malice (TLev 14); For I know that in the last days ye will depart from the Lord (TDan 5).

The narrator of the Letter of Jude imagines this eschatological period twodimensionally. First, for him it is a present reality that began with the earthly mission of Jesus, who, though “He was known before the foundation of the world but revealed in the final time for you” (1 Pet 1:20, cf. Gal 4:4, Heb 1:2, 9:26). This follows from the idea of pre-existence repeatedly noted in the letter. Secondly, in this eschatological reality, he still distinguishes the “last/final time”, which signifies events heralding the rapidly approaching judgement (cf. John 12:48).746 One of

745 Ibid., p. 198. 746 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 282.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

335

336

Structural commentary

the indications of this narrower approach is the use of an unusual formula in the singular – “the last time”, in which the equal degree of the adjective ἔσχατος is understood as a superlativus (“the most final time, the highest time”). “The last time”, therefore, is the last stage, the final phase of salvation history. The signs of its coming have already been described allusively in Jude 16; now, as has been said, the narrator explicitly quotes the conclusive argument (the synthesis of the teaching of the patriarchs, prophets and apostles) and the decisive proof (the appearance of “scoffers” who embody all the categories of ungodliness listed in verse 16747 ). The intensification of wickedness – the actions of the scoffers – is indeed indicative of a very imminent judgement, since in Christian tradition it is associated with the “shortening of those days” preceding Christ’s second coming “for the sake of the elect” (Matt 24:11–12.22, Mark 13:20). This idea is particularly clearly expressed in The Epistle of Barnabas (4:3), in which the narrator – like Jude – refers both to what is “written in Scripture” and to the prophecy of Enoch himself: “The last offence is at hand, concerning which the scripture speaketh, as Enoch saith. ‘For to this end the Master hath cut the seasons and the days short, that His beloved might hasten and come to His inheritance’”. Another key element of apostolic prophecy in Jude 18c is the indication of the characters referred to as ἐμπαῖκται ‘scoffers, mockers’. The noun ἐμπαῖκται belongs to Jude’s hapax legomena (its use in 2 Pet 3:3 is the result of direct correlations between the two texts). It was most probably taken from the LXX, where it also appears only once in Isa 3:4 (ἐμπαῖκται “mockers748 shall be lords of them”).749 If so, this would testify to an eschatological and Christological interpretation of Isaiah’s prophecy announcing judgement on Jude and Jerusalem. The association with this text leads to sensitising the recipients to the irregularities that appear in a community in which “scoffers” take the place of hitherto recognised authorities: heroes, warriors, judges, prophets, elders (Isa 3:2–3). These can be considered as additional signs of the last time. Isaiah’s characterization of Jude and Jerusalem complements the laconic, one-word portrait of the “scoffers” in Jude 18c in a manner remarkably consistent with Jude 4.8.14b–16, and furthermore serves as a warning to the recipients not to succumb to the flattery of the “scoffers” facing judgement: their tongues are joined with lawlessness, being disobedient toward the things of the Lord; now therefore their glory has been brought low. And the shame of their face has risen up against them. They have proclaimed their sin like that of Sodom, and they have

747 Ibid., p. 283. 748 In the Hebrew text there is a noun ‫ תעלולים‬meaning rather whimsical, light-hearted people. 749 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 242; otherwise R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 105, who argues that Jude 18c is not dependent on the LXX.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

made it plain. Woe to their soul! Because they have given evil counsel between themselves [βεβούλευνται], saying, “Let us bind the just, for he is a nuisance to us”. Therefore they shall eat the fruit of their works. Woe to the lawless one! Evil things will happen to him according to the works of his hands. O my people, your exactors strip you clean, and your creditors lord it over you. O my people, those who congratulate you mislead you and confuse the path of your feet. But now the Lord will stand up to judge, and he will make his people stand to judge them. The Lord himself will enter into judgement the elders of the people and with their rulers (Isa 3:8–13 [LXX]).

Associated with the noun ἐμπαίκτης is of course the verb ἐμπαίζω and the nouns ἐμπαιγμός, ἐμπαῖγμα or ἐμπαιμονή, which also shape the Judaic image of the scoffer. In the LXX, the verb ἐμπαίζω occurs in a neutral sense as “to amuse, enjoy, play” (Gen 39:14.17, Ps 104[103]:26, Isa 33:4, Nah 2:4, Bar 3:17) and with negative connotations as “to scoff, mock” (1 Sam 31:4, 1 Kings 10:4, 2 Kings 36:16, Prov 27:7, Ezek 22:5, Zech 12:3, Hab 1:10). Jude obviously uses the latter meaning, although the former may also appear somewhere in the background – the false teachers, carelessly enjoying themselves and satisfying their desires, show contempt for others. Soon, however, they will face judgement, and their joy will turn into sorrow and horror (cf. Jas 4:9). This means that both mocking and laughing are considered by Jude to be signs of stupidity. The nouns in the LXX denoting “derision, mockery, ridicule”, or even “disgrace” have an exclusively negative overtone: ἐμπαιγμός, ἐμπαῖγμα or ἐμπαιμονή (Isa 66:4, 2 Macc 7:7, 3 Macc 5:22, Wis 12:25, Sir 27:28, Ps 38[37]:8, PssSol 2:13(11), 17:12, Ezek 22:4). This characterization does not depart from the meanings found in Greek and Roman literature, where mockery was considered the highest act of dishonour, one that so violates the social order that the mocker can be brought to trial.750 Not surprisingly, Jude cites this accusatory term in the context of a court (cf. also Isa 3:13.14). Furthermore, mockery was not limited to verbal humiliation; it was often accompanied by actions. This active aspect of mockery directed against Jesus is accented in the New Testament by the evangelists, who use the verb ἐμπαίζω not infrequently in connection with μαστιγόω (to scourge) or σταυρόω (to crucify) – Matt 20:19, 27:29.31.41, Mark 10:34, 15:20, Luke 22:63, 23:11. Jude does not emphasize it as much, although he does include it in the general picture of “the last days”, when various manifestations of iniquity will intensify, including those involving active persecution (cf. 2 Thess 2:3, Matt 24:9–10.22, Mark 13:19), as well as in the accusations at the judgement, which will include “ungodly deeds” and “hard words” (Jude 15b). Associations based on lexis are not the only references of Jude 18c. The second group is made up of connotations built on Hebrew Old Testament texts that refer

750 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 378.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

337

338

Structural commentary

to the scoffer as ‫( לץ‬Ps 1:1, Prov 1:22, 9:7.8, 14:6, 15:12, 19:25, 20:1, 21:11.24, 22:10, 24:9, Isa 29:20);751 the LXX introduces a contextual translation here – e.g. fool ἄφρων (Prov 1:22, 24:9); wicked κακὀς (Prov 9:7.8, 14:6); ill-mannered, ignorant ἀπαίδευτος (Prov 15:12), arrogant ἀυθάδης (Prov 21:24), proud ὑπερήφανος (Isa 29:20), which corresponds to the aforementioned embedded in the meanings of the verb ἐμπαίζω carefree revelry as a manifestation of arrogance and foolishness. This is overlaid by images operating in intertestamental literature. Particularly close to Jude’s mocker is ‫‘( איש הלצון‬man of mockery’) known from Qumran literature. A Qumran mocker is at the same time a blasphemer and one who deceives the people with lies, so that they reject God’s commandments: so has Israel strayed, when ‘the scoffer’ arose, who scattered the waters of lies over Israel and made them veer off into a wilderness without path, flattening the everlasting heights, diverging from tracks of justice and removing the boundary with which the very first had marked their inheritance (CD 1:14–16);752 These are the arrogant men who are in Jerusalem. They are the ones who: Have rejected the law of God and mocked the word of the Holy One (4QpIsb /4Q162 2:6–7).753

As can be seen, Jude’s depiction of “scoffers” in verse 18c is very complex. In addition to Old Testament references, it is also based, as already mentioned, on a synthesis of the expressions contained in verse 16. It also refers to verse 4 (exchange of grace for licentiousness, rejection of the Lord and Lord Jesus Christ), to verse 8.10 (where accusations of slander/blasphemy appear) and to verse 15b (where words and deeds against the Lord are mentioned). Mockery according to Jude thus involves arrogance, pride, a sense of superiority and discontent which generate blasphemies against God and people, and also ignorance and foolishness leading to the same. Ignorance and stupidity, however, are no excuse for scoffers; they are only a vituperative element. As before, here too vituperatio is based primarily on associations with classical literature, but, as shown, connections can also be found with the semantic field of the verb ἐμπαίζω and the sapiential tradition – e.g., Proverbs 1:22 says explicitly that it is “fools who love to scoff ” ὕβρις (cf. also Prov 15:12, 24:9). Epictetus, in the Enchiridion 22, portrays the scoffers as an unintelligent crowd who are strangers to wisdom: “If you have an earnest desire towards philosophy, prepare yourself from the very first to have the multitude laugh and sneer”. He also gives advice on how to behave in such situations, in order to weaken the actions of the mockers and expose their instability and partiality: “keep

751 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 105. 752 F.G. Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 34. 753 Ibid., p. 187.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

steadily to those things which appear best to you, as one appointed by God to this particular station. For remember that, if you are persistent, those very persons who at first ridiculed will afterwards admire you” (Enchiridion 22). Aristotle in Rhetoric 2:2 exposes the basis of mockery and the contempt closely related to it – mockers are mainly concerned with deriving primitive pleasure from the humiliation of others, building their own false superiority and feeling apparent impunity: Now slighting is the actively entertained opinion of something as obviously of no importance. […] There are three kinds of slighting-contempt, spite, and insolence (ὕβρις). Contempt is one kind of slighting […] Spite is another kind; it is a thwarting another man’s wishes, not to get something yourself but to prevent his getting it. The slight arises just from the fact that you do not aim at something for yourself: clearly you do not think that he can do you harm, for then you would be afraid of him instead of slighting him, nor yet that he can do you any good worth mentioning, for then you would be anxious to make friends with him. Insolence is also a form of slighting, since it consists in doing and saying things that cause shame to the victim, not in order that anything may happen to yourself, or because anything has happened to yourself, but simply for the pleasure involved. (Retaliation is not ‘insolence’, but vengeance.) The cause of the pleasure thus enjoyed by the insolent man is that he thinks himself greatly superior to others when ill-treating them. […] One sort of insolence is to rob people of the honour due to them; you certainly slight them thus.

The evocation of Aristotle makes it possible to draw attention to further components of the notion of the scoffer that Jude uses. It is about the feeling of impunity related to the lack of faith in judgement, and about looking at following one’s own desires from a slightly different perspective. Aristotle claims that those disdain who “do not think that [other] can do [him] harm” (2:2). False teachers indulge in arrogance, rebellion, rejection of God’s will as expressed in revelation, of which the commandments are an integral part, all of which, as has been shown, make up Jude’s broad understanding of mockery (and blasphemy too), because they do not believe that they are threatened by anything or at any time. They do not, after all, recognise the juridical aspects of salvation and reject the judicial authority of Jesus.754 The narrator of the Letter of Jude argues against these views on various levels, showing that this authority has been given to Jesus from the beginning, will be fully revealed at the last time when Jesus will come with the “holy myriads” and will judge “every soul”, including the righteous. At the judgement the righteous will be preserved, while the unrighteous will be accused and punished. So, there is something to fear because the main “victim of mockery” – to use Aristotle’s language – that is, Jesus Christ as the just,

754 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 242.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

339

340

Structural commentary

eschatological judge “will” certainly “harm” the mockers. Disbelief in the coming of judgement most likely manifests itself in mocking questions about when it is to take place (cf. Jer 17:15, 2 Pet 3:3–4).755 Jude’s response seems sarcastic. On the one hand, it points to an enigmatic, vague end time, seemingly giving his opponents cause for further mockery; on the other hand, it exposes their superficial perception of reality (cf. Jude 10b–c) and their blindness, since they cannot see that their teaching and actions are the best evidence of the fulfilment of eschatological prophecies and the imminence of judgement. The final element of the apostolic prediction – the phrase κατὰ τὰς ἑαυτῶν ἐπιθυμίας πορευόμενοι τῶν ἀσεβειῶν – is an almost literal repetition of Jude 16c. Richard Bauckham argues that this coincidence may be evidence for Judaic authorship of both formulas,756 for it seems that the saying “to follow (one’s) lusts/desires”, although present in Jewish and Christian religious vocabularies (e.g. Sir 18:30, 1 Pet 4:3, Eph 2:3, TJud 13), was not in common usage. Once again, the desires are clearly defined as one’s own ἑαυτῶν, which can be interpreted theologically, as in verse 16c – as opposing one’s “own will to” God’s will.757 It is also possible to detect here a vituperative element, which Aristotle’s considerations of mockery and contempt allow to be highlighted, as already announced. “One’s own desires” would mean primitive pleasure, unworthy of rational man (cf. verse 10 – φυσικῶς, and verse 19 – ψυχικοί), derived from the very act of mockery, i.e. humiliation, slander, complaining, discrediting directed towards God and His chosen patriarchs, prophets, apostles, leaders, and building one’s own position on it (cf. verse 16). As already noted, mockery towards God manifested itself in a lack of trust in Him, in questioning His will and the truthfulness of His revelation to the saints (cf. verse 3d. 5c. 8a), mockery towards Jesus in questioning His authority – rejecting Him as Master, Lord and eschatological Judge (cf. verse 4), mockery towards God’s elect in respecting their prophetic and leadership authority (verse 8b–d). All of this is summed up by the second derivation of “desires” in Jude 18d – the plural noun attribute τῶν ἀσεβειῶν ([desires of many instances of] “ungodliness”).

755 Ibid., p. 242. 756 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 102. 757 See above – analysis in 16.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

The final positioning of the complement ἀσεβειῶν is not very skilful stylistically,758 since it appears only after the part. ποπευόμενοι referring to scoffers, and not directly after the noun ἐπιθυμίαι. It does, however, have compositional significance: it synthesises, as mentioned, earlier expressions of ungodliness and reminds the recipients of the images in verses 4 and 15,759 where there are also references to “ungodliness”, but in the context of judgement. Thus, the narrator – although he does not explicitly include the announcement of judgement in Jude 18 – refers to it in his typical way through lexical references. All three statements also have in common the fact that they are prophetic in nature. 2.5.6 19

Part b’’. Reference to the situation of the recipients (Jude 19)

These are they who cause divisions, sensual, devoid of/having not the Spirit.

Compositionally, verse 19 functions as a closing frame for the pesher (verses 17–18) and argumentatio (verses 6–19). It also refers to verse 4 and makes it possible to definitively identify “those people who have sneaked into the community” as bringing division into it and those whose teachings and actions do not come from the Holy Spirit. The unmasking of false teachers has a concluding character. Not surprisingly, the threads taken up earlier are resolved here. The recipients can now see and evaluate the true motivations for the false teachers’ actions, which have nothing to do with their declarations. The characterisation of the false teachers is maintained in the form of the narrator’s favourite triptych letter, which may be a reference to verse 1 and 2. There the recipients were described as the “beloved”, the “preserved” and the “called”, who enjoy God’s “mercy, peace and love”; here the false teachers are those who “bring division, are sensual and devoid of spirit/the Spirit”. The summary character is also alluded to by the structure of verse 19, which seems to be an inversion of the structures known from verses 8.11.12.16. There, the first, general expression/concept was specified by more precise ones. Now 758 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 283; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 244 notes that a similar appositional construction is also used by Hermas in the third vision of Shepherd: “But the others, which are near the waters and yet cannot roll into the water, wouldest thou know who are they? These are they that heard the word, and would be baptized unto the name of the Lord. Then, when they call to their remembrance the purity of the truth, they change their minds, and go back again after their evil desires” (Vision 3, 7[15]:3). Davids concludes from this similarity that also in Jude 18 this formulation refers to the immoral lifestyle of false teachers. 759 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 102 notes that, if one assumes the authenticity of the apostolic quotation, the mention of ungodliness may have been the reason for the choice of this text in order to correlate the teaching of the apostles with the prophecy of Enoch, and the formula in verse 16 would be an anticipation of the apostolic teaching.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

341

342

Structural commentary

the most general but also superior expressions 19b and 19c are placed in second position, so as to emphasise that they refer to the whole body of the letter. They form a parallelism in which 19c is an explanation for 19b: 19a “[these] are they who cause divisions” οὗτοί εἰσιν ἀποδιορίζοντες 19b “the sensual” ψυχικοί 19c “devoid of the Spirit/spirit” πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες. The final position of the expression “devoid of the Spirit/spirit” πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες allows it to be most strongly exposed and linked in opposition to verse 3 and the call to “contend for the faith once for all handed down to the saints” which comes from those who have the Spirit. As mentioned, verse 19 concludes the whole argumentatio (probatio) of the Letter of Jude dedicated to proving thesis that the eschatological judgement is from the beginning inscribed in the history of salvation and already anticipated from the time of the imprisonment of the rebellious angels (Jude 6). It does not concern only the ungodly, the righteous are also subject to it (cf. Jude 15a), but they will be “preserved” and treated with mercy (cf. Jude 1 and Jude 21), while the ungodly must expect accusations for all the blasphemies they have committed in word and deed (Jude 15b–d). As in verses 4.8–13.16, the narrator here refers to the present situation of the recipients. He does so after invoking an apostolic prophecy concerning the signs of the end times, or rather the “last time”, the final phase of salvation history immediately preceding the coming of Jesus in judgement. He brings the prophecy up to date and, at the same time, definitively identifies, perhaps even unmasks, “those people” who will be subject to judicial accusation by means of the pesher, used in a non-obvious way earlier (verses 8.10.12). The pesher interpretation is applied in a typical way in verses 14–16: the quotation from 1 Enoch 1:9 is immediately followed by an explanation focusing on the identification of “the ungodly”. At first glance the pesher in Jude 17–19 looks similar. The update begins with the formula οὗτοί εἰσιν “these are/those are/they are”, which follows immediately after the prophecy citation. What remains unusual, however, is the fact that the words commented on are essentially a Judaic synthesis of apostolic teaching rather than a quotation from a scripture familiar to the recipients. This indicates a respect for apostolic teaching, even in its oral and/or as yet unstabilised literary version, and treating it in the same way as other prophetic writings enjoying authority in the community of the letter’s recipients. The narrator of the Letter of Jude identifies those whom the apostles call “scoffers” in his typical manner, using a rare and unobvious vocabulary that nevertheless evokes specific associations. Earlier, “the ungodly sinners” mentioned by Enoch were referred to by Jude as γογγυσταί “murmurers” (verse 16a). This noun, although

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

not found in biblical literature, is clearly associated with “murmuring” against God in the desert. He added to it the adjective “complaining/grumbling” μεμψίμοιροι (verse 16b), which also does not occur in the LXX, but is easily linked to the Israelites’ wanderings through the desert on the one hand, and to images of the end times in apocalyptic literature on the other. It also has great vituperative potential. In paraphrasing the apostolic message, Jude reached for the noun ἐμπαῖκται “scoffers/ mockers” (verse 18c), which occurs only once in the LXX (Isa 4:3) but synthesizes well “the ungodly” teachings and practices of false teachers described earlier in the letter. He now uses the part. ἀποδιορίζοντες, which is the New Testament hapax legomenon, usually translated as ‘dividing, bringing division’. The unusual, surprising lexis makes all these terms more memorable to the recipients, stimulating their sensitivity and imagination. They also constitute a characteristic element of Jude’s style. It is not known from which texts Jude drew inspiration to call the opponents ἀποδιορίζοντες. Greek literature is usually indicated, although it is possible that, as with μεμψίμοιροι, the Testament of Moses is behind Jude’s term. The verb διορίζω is used, among others, by Aristotle in Politics (4:4),760 when he compares the diversity of systems to the diversity of animal species and presents a way of classifying them: “If we were going to speak of the different species of animals, we should first of all determine the organs which are indispensable to every animal”. The verb διορίζω is used here in the sense of ‘defining, distinguishing, delineating, demarcating, setting boundaries’. This seems to be the meaning taken over by later Christian literature, including the Gnostic cosmogony in the Sacred Sermon of the Corpus Hermeticum (3:2a).761 So, there is no reason to find diametrically opposed meanings in the Letter of Jude. There is, however, a noticeable difference in the valuation of the verb διορίζω. Aristotle uses it in a neutral sense, whereas Jude values it definitely negatively. For he regards the separation of some members of the community from others as an attack on the unity of the Church not only on the doctrinal level, but also on the functional and social level (cf. Eph 4:1–16). Once again, his sensitivity and disapproval of acts of violation of established orders is revealed here. Already in verse 1 he referred to the institution of slavery and the duty of the slave. Later, he linked the angels’ rebellion (verse 6) with the abandonment of functions and tasks entrusted by God and with the transgression of boundaries between the world of humans and the world of heavenly beings. The sin of the inhabitants of Pentapolis (verse 7) had a similar background. Against the rules established by God for the functioning of

760 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 284; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 105; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 381; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 244; D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 437. 761 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 105; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 244.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

343

344

Structural commentary

Israel at the time of the exodus, Korah and his followers acted (verse 11d). Now, on the other hand, it is possible to observe the actions of the false teachers – above all, the display of dissatisfaction and the denigration of previous authorities (verse 8.16.18cd) – which aim to change the norms of the community of believers. Against this background, the story of the Archangel Michael, who chose not to overstep his authority and step out of his procedural role as defender to become judge and accuser, stands out clearly (verse 9). The juxtaposition of Jude 9 and the content behind the part. ἀποδιορίζοντες is not accidental. For it is based on a reference to the same source – the Testament of Moses. Such a reference has already been used once before – in verse 16b the narrator reached for the rare adjective μεμψίμοιροι used most probably in the Greek version of TMos 7. Now he seems to refer to the same passage: “complainers, deceitful, concealing themselves lest they should be recognized, impious, filled with lawlessness and iniquity from sunrise to sunset” and borrows from it the term ἀποδιορίζοντες. Pointing to TMos 7 as the direct source of Jude’s lexical inspiration, Montagure Rhodes James762 cites the semantic affinity of the Greek verb διορίζω (‘to demarcate, to set boundaries’) and the Latin verb exterminare (‘to demarcate, to expel abroad, to expel’763 ). For from the verb exterminare derives the noun exterminatores (literally, ‘destroyers’, translated here as ‘devourers’) used in the Latin version of TMos 7, just as the Greek part. ἀποδιορίζοντες derives from the verb (ἀπο)διορίζω. From this Montagure Rhodes James concludes that the Latin term exterminatores is a translation of the Greek term ἀποδιορίζοντες. Furthermore, in the Latin text extraterminatores stands immediately before querulosi, which is a translation of the Greek μεμψίμοιροι used in Jude 16b. Thus, having the two rare terms μεμψίμοιροι and ἀποδιορίζοντες standing side by side in the Greek TMos 7, the narrator of the Letter of Jude used both. The references of Jude 19a to Jude 9 and the Testament of Moses do not end with lexis. They also include the images and associations evoked by the source text. In analysing the scene of the dispute over Moses’ body, it has already been pointed out that there are transformational motifs behind it that are characteristic of apocalyptic literature – the transformation of Moses’ earthly body into a spiritual body that makes it possible to be in the presence of God. Perhaps these motifs are reinterpreted in the further delineation of the ἀποδιορίζοντες “dividing” as ψυχικοί “carnal/sensual” (Jude 19b) and πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες “lacking the Spirit/

762 M.R. James, The Second Epistle General of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude, Cambridge 1912, p. 45; after: R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 106, who is rather sceptical about James’ thesis. 763 The next meanings are ‘to exterminate, destroy, desolate’, therefore the noun exterminator is translated as ‘destroyer’, ‘conqueror’, and thus also as a ‘killer’, ‘murderer’ – as in the above-mentioned translation. It is worth noting, however, that the Vulgate, instead of exterminare, uses in Jude 19 the verb segregare (segregant) – ‘to separate’, ‘to set apart’, ‘to choose’.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

spirit” (Jude 19c), i.e. those who have not experienced the transforming power of the Holy Spirit and cannot dwell in the presence of God. The narrator of the Letter of Jude does not specify what the divisions introduced by the false teachers are. They are usually identified with divisions on doctrinal grounds (rejection of Jesus as the only Lord and Ruler, libertine treatment of grace, disbelief in the judgement and judicial authority of Jesus), but such an account does not exhaust the meanings implicit in the part. ἀποδιορίζοντες and Jude’s sensitivity to the observance of social order. If only divisions caused by the preaching of a distinct doctrine were at issue, the narrator would most likely have used the much more common New Testament verb σχίζω or the nouns σχίσμα764 (1 Cor 1:10, 11:18), διχοστασία (Rom 16:17, Gal 5:20) or αἵρεσις (1 Cor 11:19, Gal 5:20, Titus 3:10). In early Christian literature these terms also refer primarily to doctrinal deviations. This is how, for example, Justin Martyr uses them when, in his Dialogue with Trypho 35, he quotes Jesus’ own prophetic words about the signs of the end times: For what things He predicted would take place in His name, these we do see being actually accomplished in our sight. For he said, “Many shall come in My name, clothed outwardly in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves”. And also: “There shall be schisms (σχίσματα) and heresies” (αἱρέσεις).

Meanwhile, the meaning of the verb (ἀπο)διορίζω, as is clear from its use in Aristotle, includes a defining element and a distinguishing element. The transfer of these meanings to Jude’s ἀποδιορίζοντες allows us to assume that these divisions were based on the introduction of evaluative terms with regard to members of the community (the defining element) and the demolition of its previous structure based on inclusivism and egalitarianism (the distinguishing and demarcating element). John Norman Davidson Kelly sees allusions to these divisions in the terms ψυχικοί and πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες. False teachers define themselves as those who possess the Spirit/spirit, and therefore allow themselves to question the principles of “faith once for all handed down to the saints” and introduce instead principles based on their own dream visions. They regard those who do not see them as inspired prophets as incapable of understanding true revelation and define them as ψυχικοί.765 However, the term ψυχικοί can be extended to include saints who, even if they received revelation, were unable to communicate and interpret it correctly

764 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 381. 765 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 284; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 107 is more cautious in advancing thesis that those who do not share the views of the false teachers and do not see them as inspired prophets are called ψυχικοί.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

345

346

Structural commentary

because their perception was limited to that of the ψυχικῶς inherent in people devoid of the Spirit/spirit. In this way the false teachers discredit the previous authorities. Such evaluative definitions create divisions and generate attempts to create a new elite hierarchy within the community.766 False teachers, who consider themselves to “have the spirit/Spirit” and have had revelations, are at the top of the hierarchy and most likely form a closed (separated from others) elite group. Slightly lower are those who are not visionaries themselves, but thanks to their Spirit/spirit, they recognize false teachers as inspired prophets and accept their teachings;767 both groups would be united by a strong belief in their own uniqueness, granting themselves the power to judge everyone and everything768 and to decide what is and what is not inspired. Clement of Alexandria, in his Comments on the Epistle of Jude, comments on this bluntly: “they do other things that are common to them with animals”. The lowest in the new hierarchy are those who preserve and defend the “faith handed down to the saints”. According to the new criteria, they are defined as ψυχικοί and therefore deserve contempt and disregard. Towards them the false teachers indulge in arrogant, haughty words (cf. Jude 16d). Ψυχικοί can, however, become πνευματικοί if they acknowledge the truthfulness and inspiration of the new teaching. The destruction of the existing structure and rules of the community by building a divisive elite hierarchy among the members corresponds to the repeatedly highlighted arrogance of the false teachers and the pursuit of their own needs and ambitions. Their current status did not provide them with fame, recognition or respect, let alone power. On the contrary, they were treated as intruders sneaking into the community (verse 4) and as acletoi appearing uninvited at the agape (verse 12),769 while their ambitions were far greater (cf. the story of Balaam – Jude 11c). The introduction of divisions in the community was illustrated earlier, in verse 12a–c, by the example of the agape feasts, where false teachers “graze themselves”. This can manifest itself in gathering around themselves groups of followers and favouring them and/or in trying to monopolise the teaching at such community meetings.770 To the situations described in verse 12a–c must be added the accusa766 In a similar vein he reads verse 19a. M. Luther in his commentary on the Epistle of Jude, The Epistles; the reformer claims that false teachers “will not let the ordinary estate of a Christian answer, namely, that wherein one serves another, but they set up other estates, and pretend to serve God by these”. 767 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 107. 768 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 284. 769 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 245, claims that the situation described in the Letter of Jude resembles that of 1 John 2:19. The author of 1 John writes about antichrists that “went out from us”, which suggests that false teaching originated within the community. The author of the Letter of Jude, however, makes it clear that it has external roots, since false teachers sneaked into the community (Jude 4) and at agapas – at least initially – appeared as acletoi (verse 12). 770 See above for an analysis of lines 12–13.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

tions of verse 16 – “murmuring” and “complaining” about the existing community order and seeking followers by “flattering” those considered most influential and “arrogantly humiliating” others. Richard Bauckham771 and Peter H. Davids772 point out that divisions initiated by false teachers do not lead to separatism. The different factions still function within the same community, as evidenced especially by the common meetings at agape feasts. This may mean that Jude is describing a rather early stage of the penetration of pernicious ideas into the community, when the false teachers are just looking for followers; this would be indicated by the durative aspect of the activity marked by the present tense in the part. ἀποδιορίζοντες. Moreover, it would seem that the ultimate aim of the false teachers was not secession, but such a transformation of the community as would give them a correspondingly high position. It is therefore a matter of destroying the existing order and replacing it with a new one – one based on their own vision, will and ambition, which not coincidentally alludes to the rebellion of Korah, who challenged the leadership of Moses and Aaron and wished to assume sovereignty over Israel rather than secede from it. Identifying and naming these aspirations of the false teachers closes the descriptions of the acts of transgression (Jude 6.7.11) in the argumentatio. Every transgression attempt mentioned by Jude ended with a more or less detailed mention of judgement. On this basis also in Jude 19a one can see judicial implications. Further characterisation of “those causing division” is realised by the adjective ψυχικοί and the expression πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες “deprived of the Spirit/spirit”. They form a parallelism in which the first member is explained by the second member. The terms should therefore not be treated additively, but rather explicatively, in a parallel way, especially since the definition of the term ψυχικοί itself can be difficult, and πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες makes it easier to understand. The term ψυχικός is well known and attested both in Jewish Hellenistic literature and in Christian literature. In Hellenistic literature it most often appears in two oppositions. The first juxtaposes it with the adjective σωματικός; in this juxtaposition ψυχικός indicates that which concerns the soul, while σωματικός indicates that which concerns the body.773 This is the sense in which the adjective ψυχικός is used, among others, by Josephus Flavius in De Bello Iudaico (I 21:13): “And then besides these performances of his, depending on his own strength of mind [τοῖς ψυχικοῖς] and body [τοῖς σωματικοῖς], fortune was also very favourable to him”774 . Similarly, 4 Macc 1:32: “Some desires are mental [ψυχικαί], others are physical, and reason obviously rules over both” [σωματικαί]. This juxtaposition of ψυχικός 771 772 773 774

R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 105. P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 245. G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 382; F. Mickiewicz, List św. Judy, p. 124. Josephus Flavius, The Jewish War [De Bello Iudaico], transl. W. Whiston, London 1737.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

347

348

Structural commentary

and σωματικός in a binary manner typical of the Semitic style refers to the whole (cf. body and soul, which denote the whole man). The two elements are equal, especially since they should be subordinated to reason/reason (νοῦς) or rational thinking (λογισμός).775 It is different in the second opposition between ψυχικός and reason/discretion νοῦς. According to Greek anthropology, νοῦς then represents the higher element and ψυχή, ψυχικός the lower element. On the other hand, the distinction characteristic especially of the Apostle Paul (1 Cor 2:14, 15:44.46) and of later Christian thought between the soul and all that pertains to it – ψυχικός (as the lower element) and the spirit πνεῦμα and all that pertains to it – πνευματικός (as the higher element) is practically unknown in Greek literature.776 It must be added that in Paul the terms ψυχικός and πνευματικός do not belong to a systematic anthropological description, but rather serve for theological reflection, for contrasting the natural with the supernatural. Πνευματικός is the man experiencing the action of the Holy Spirit. Ψυχικός is the man deprived of the gift of the Spirit. It is evident that the narrator of the Letter of Jude understands the term ψυχικός in the same way as Paul, since he explains it with the expression πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες “devoid of the Spirit”. But it is still difficult to conclude from this that he is directly dependent on Paul for terminology. As already mentioned, such a distinction was characteristic of early Christian literature in general. Thus, it can be found not only in Paul, but also, for example, in the Letter of James representing a tradition independent of Paul’s.777 James’ account of the term ψυχικός (Jas 3:15) seems even closer in detail to Jude’s account in 19bc. For the narrator of Jas, like the narrator of Jude, juxtaposes concepts that are mutually explanatory and complementary: the false wisdom that does not descend from above (from God) he calls the “earthly” wisdom ἐπίγειος [i.e.] “Wisdom of this kind does not come down from above but is earthly [characteristic of the ψυχική], unspiritual, demonic δαιμονιώδης”. It is characterised by jealousy, a tendency to start disputes, arrogance and fighting the truth with lies (Jas 3:14). In the same light are presented false teachers threatening the community of Jude’s recipients, who envy the respect, fame, and recognition of persons enjoying authority in this community, who want to take their place and in their efforts to achieve their goal use lies that cause divisions and disputes. The main accusation, however, concerns the lie of telling the faithful that the teachings they preach and the actions they take are inspired by the Holy Spirit,778 incoherent, lacking in depth, based on ignorance, a superficial reading of the Christian message

775 Cf. also the single occurrence of ψυχικός in Philo of Alexandria in Sacrifices 5:32 and Legis Allegoriae 3:247. 776 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 106; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 247. 777 K. Wojciechowska, M. Rosik, Mądrość zstępująca, p. 26, 56–57. 778 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 106; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 248.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

and the satisfaction of their own needs and ambitions (Jude 10.12–13.16c.18d), perhaps even demonic. All these accusations fall under the term ψυχικός. In Jude 19c the false teachers are finally exposed as those who are devoid of the Spirit/spirit. The very expression to “have a spirit/Spirit” ἔχω πνεύμα is relatively common in the New Testament, and its meaning is determined by the context and definition of what spirit is meant. It can indicate, for example, possession by an evil/unclean spirit (Acts 8:7, 16:16, 19:13), the awakening of faith (2 Cor 4:13 with the characteristic expression “have the spirit of faith” ἔψοντες τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς πίστεως), and finally the action of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of God (Rom 8:9; 1 Cor 6:19, 2 Cor 4:13). Despite the lack of indefiniteness next to the noun πμεῦμα, the recipients should have no doubt that the narrator primarily has the Holy Spirit in mind (cf. e.g. John 3:5; Gal 5:18.22.25),779 and that His action is presented primarily as the inspiration needed to preach true doctrine (cf. 1 Cor 12:3; 1 John 4:2–3), the prophetic charism (Rom 12:6; 1 Cor 12:10b), the gift of teaching and wisdom of the word780 (Rom 12:7c–d; 1 Cor 12:8) and the test of the truthfulness of revelation related with the gift of discerning spirits (1 Cor 12:10c; 1 John 4:1) and the gift of building unity (Eph 4:12–13). Since false teachers use blasphemy and slander to deny the content of the “faith handed down to the saints” (Jude 8cd.10a.15c.16a), their teachings are empty and do not bring any benefit, on the contrary, they can be dangerous (Jude 12a.d–13), instead of consolidating and strengthening the community, they destroy it, introducing into it divisions that conflict people (Jude 19a), finally, they do not recognize in their teaching the spirit of falsehood and in the “faith handed down to the saints” the spirit of truth, they absolutely cannot “have the Spirit”. Moral questions and those relating to customs781 concerning the proper understanding and exercise of Christian freedom remain in the background (cf. Gal 5:16–21.25–26). If the false teachers exchange grace for licentiousness (Jude 4c), defile the flesh (Jude 8b), indulge in gluttony (Jude 12b), and act under the influence of their own ambitions and desires (Jude 16c.18d), it means that “they do not follow the Spirit”, because “they do not have the Spirit”. It seems that the narrator of the letter deliberately did not specify Spirit/spirit (in contrast to verse 20) in order to exploit this ambiguity on the level of vituperatio and to show the false teachers not only as lacking the Spirit but also a deepened spirituality. Their teachings – despite their claimed divine inspiration and depth because they are supposed to reflect spirituality,782 are based on election and a special relationship with God – are based, as has been said, on a desire to satisfy their

779 780 781 782

F. Mickiewicz, List św. Judy, p. 124. P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 248. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 107. P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 246–247.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

349

350

Structural commentary

own needs and ambitions. They do not, therefore, in any way go beyond the temporal and the natural, that is, what makes up the concept of ψυχικός; they cannot be attributed the characteristics proper to spiritual things (πνευματικά). If their previous characterisations such as superficial, foolish teachings, based on a misunderstanding of revelation, being fruitless and doing more harm than good, are added to all this, it becomes clear that even the term ψυχικά is too favourable for them. This is why, for example, Oecumenius in his Commentary on Jude compares the conduct of false teachers to animals, thus referring to verse 10 and the terms φυσικῶς ὡς ἄλογα ζῷα:

Not only are they perishing themselves; they have raided the church and taken people away from it, which means that they have taken them outside the faith into their own assemblies, which are dens of thieves. Such people behave as if they were animals, living according to the pattern of the world and the demands of their instincts.783

As can be seen, the parallelism ψυχικοί, or πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες is also summary in nature. Once again it summarises all that the narrator has said about the false teachers and the nature and motivation of their actions and teachings. At the same time, it comtains the main, most severe accusation, which makes it possible to contrast these teachings with “the faith once for all handed down to the saints”. It turns out that the terms ψυχικοί and πνεῦμα (μὴ) ἔχοντες – taken from the statements of the false teachers themselves, who thus defined the members of the community,784 while attributing to themselves the actions inspired by the Spirit – are used by the narrator à rebours not only vituperatively, but also as a prelude to the reintroduction of the syncrisis (verse 20–23) interrupted in verse 5. Against the background of the shallow and superficial teaching of the false teachers, devoid of the Holy Spirit, the credibility of the true teaching – genuinely inspired by the Holy Spirit and deeply spiritual, illuminating all aspects of salvation – both liberating and judicial – is greatly enhanced. Such a regularity is also seen by Justin Martyr, who speaks plainly of the benefits to the faithful of the actions of false teachers:

783 Oecumenius, Jacobi Apostoli epistula catholica, [in:] Patrologiae cursus completes. Series Graeca, ed. J.P. Migne, vol. 119, Paris 1864, 119:720, as cited in: James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude, ed. G. Bray, p. 257; likewise M. Luther, The Epistles: “Besides, they are sensual or brutish men, who have no more understanding and spirit than an ox or an ass; they walk according to their natural reason and fleshly mind. They have no God’s-word by which they judge themselves, or by which they can live”. 784 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 107 points out that while such an inversion is plausible, it is equally possible that the terms in Jude 19bc come from the narrator and are simply his assessment of the false teachers.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

B’’. Ungodliness and judgement (Jude 6–19)

The fact that there are such men confessing themselves to be Christians […] yet not teaching His doctrines, but those of the spirits of error, causes us who are disciples of the true and pure doctrine of Jesus Christ, to be more faithful and steadfast in the hope announced by Him (Dialogue with Trypho 35).

The suggestion of taking the formulations, especially the second one, from the language of the false teachers has sparked a debate as to whether Jude’s anti-heroes represent some branch of (pre-)Gnosticism. Such a solution is advocated, among others, by John Norman Davidson Kelly785 , who refers to Irenaeus of Lyons and his description of the Valentinians, which in many points coincides with the picture of the false teachers in the Letter of Jude: But as to themselves, they hold that they shall be entirely and undoubtedly saved, not by means of conduct, but because they are spiritual by nature. […] it is impossible that spiritual substance (by which they mean themselves) should ever come under the power of corruption, whatever the sort of actions in which they indulged. […] Wherefore also it comes to pass, that the “most perfect” among them addict themselves without fear to all those kinds of forbidden deeds […] they tell us that it is necessary for us whom they call animal men, and describe as being of the world, to practise continence and good works, that by this means we may attain at length to the intermediate habitation, but that to them who are called “the spiritual and perfect” such a course of conduct is not at all necessary (Adv. Haer. I 6:2–4).

The Valentinians, moreover, draw their theories from: other sources than the Scriptures and […]. they endeavour to adapt with an air of probability to their own peculiar assertions the parables of the Lord, the sayings of the prophets, and the words of the apostles, in order that their scheme may not seem altogether without support. In doing so, however, they disregard the order and the connection of the Scriptures, and so far as in them lies, dismember and destroy the truth (Adv. Haer. I 8:1).

Cyril of Alexandria regards the references to false teachers who create divisions in the Church as prefiguring the emergence of the Nestorians and their doctrine of the divisive nature of Christ Himself:

785 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 285. The gnostic ideas in the Letter of Jude are also confirmed by A.E. Barnett and E.G. Homrighausen, The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude, London 1957; W. Grundmann, Der Brief des Judas; E.M. Sidebottom, James.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

351

352

Structural commentary

They are ‘sensual men, not having the Spirit’, and dividing the one Christ and Son and Lord into two sons, they will be caught as a result of their own undertakings […] but dividing him again into two hupostaseis separated and disjoined from one another they completely sweep away the doctrine of the mystery (Letter 50:20).

It seems, however, that – as in the case of the earlier passages in the Letter of Jude – it is unjustified to look here for (pre-)Gnostic influences. There is no question of the dualism typical of Gnostic doctrines, and the division introduced by the false teachers into “spiritual/those having the Spirit” and “sensual” (ψυχικοί) people is not very rigid here.786 Its basic criterion, it has been said, was to regard the teachers and their teachings as inspired, and thus the way for the ψυχικοί to join the ranks of the followers of false teaching remained open.

2.6

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

At the end of the letter, in peroratio (epologos), the narrator keeps returning to the problem of salvation he has already mentioned in his writing. However, these returns do not retain the same spirit and mood, which is evidenced above all by the change of mood from the indicative in verse 1 and 3 to the imperative in verses 20–23.787 The indicative mood appears implicitly only in verse 24 with the judgements about God’s saving works. In verse 25 the author uses imp. for the third person, typical of doxology (possibly optativus). although without the formal verb markings of this mood.788 Already this differentiation between moods suggests a division of part A’’ into smaller units. With these formal and rhetorical criteria, the division of lines 20–25 can be presented as follows: Syncrisis – verses 20–23 Summary of Jude’s soteriology – verses 24–25a Doxology – verse 25b In the syncrisis (verse 20–23), in which the imp. for the second person plural or its equivalents predominates, the attitude of the false teachers described above all after their final unmasking in verse 16–19 is contrasted with the attitude required of the recipients of the letter. The imp. for the third person is characteristic for the

786 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 107. 787 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 252. 788 However, as J.A.D. Weima notes in Neglected Endings, p. 138, doxologies without the finite verb are rather predicates than wishes; therefore the use of the indicative mood would be justified here rather than the third-person imperative or the optative, as in 1 Pet 4:11 (cf. also Rom 1:25, 2 Cor 11:31).

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

doxology (verse 25). Verse 24 is placed between these lines with an implicit indicative mode, which forms the centre not only of this passage, but also summarises Jude’s soteriology: despite the false teachers, all will stand before the court where the liberating aspects of salvation will be fully revealed, i.e. God’s mercy will be shown. This verse has the greatest eschatological potential in the passage: to stand unblemished before the majesty of the Saviour also signifies the transfiguration characteristic of apocalyptic literature, which appeared as a backdrop to the images especially in verse 9, in part 19 and overtly in verse 23. The aim of the recipients of the letter with regard to the false teachers and their followers is also contained here: showing mercy, rescuing by pulling them out of the fire and demonstrating the folly of the teaching preached by the intruders is to lead the impious to repentance and penance, that is, to conversion. This, in turn, will allow them to experience at the judgement the mercy of Jesus, who will exchange their garments polluted by sin for clean garments symbolising not only transformation but also salvation. 2.6.1

Part a. Syncrisis (Jude 20–23)

20

But you, beloved, building up yourselves by your most holy faith/on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, looking forward to/expecting/waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto/that leads to eternal life. 22 And show mercy to those arguing/in strife/in discord; 23 save them by pulling/snatching them out of the fire; to them show mercy with fear, hating also the garment defiled by/ stained by the flesh.

In verses 20–21 one can notice lexis that refers to phrases used earlier in verses 1–3. Some of these references are also developed by the narrator in verses 22–23.789 Jude 1–3 Preserved – verse 1 Beloved in God – verse 1 Love/charity (love wish) – verse 2 Mercy – verse 2 Beloved – verse 3 Faith – verse 3 Saints – verse 3

Jude 20–21 Preserve – verse 21 Love of God – verse 21 Love of God – verse 21 Mercy – verses 22 and 23 Beloved – verse 20 Faith – verse 20 The most holy – verse 20

These juxtapositions confirm the framework composition of the entire letter noted earlier, but they draw attention to different elements of Jude’s soteriology than before. This time the narrator returns to the liberating aspects of salvation

789 Table after: P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 254; see also R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 111.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

353

354

Structural commentary

with which he began his argument but presents them in a somewhat inverted way: he shows that they will be fully revealed only at the final judgment. The main difference from verse 1–3 is the change of subject except for the addressive phrase ἀγαπητοί “beloved”, which in verse 3 and verse 20 has a transitive meaning and mobilises the recipients to focus on what is expected of them; in verse 3 it was an encouragement to struggle for the faith, in verse 20–23 it is the attitudes and actions that make up that struggle. At the beginning of the letter, “preservation, love, mercy and faith once for all delivered/handed down to the saints” came from God and represented primarily vertical relationships.790 Now these divine gifts are to be reflected in horizontal relationships between faithful members of the community and in the conduct and attitude of the recipients of the letter towards false teachers. The essential function of syncrisis is to compare two individuals or groups in terms of their virtues and vices. According to Quintilian: the character is moulded by the contemplation of virtue and vice […] It is but a step from this to practice in the comparison of the respective merits of two characters […] [we deal] not merely with the nature of virtues and vices, but with their degree as well. But the method to be followed in panegyric and invective will be dealt with in its proper place, as it forms the third department of rhetoric (Institutio oratoria II 4:20–21).

The postulated behaviour of the recipients, treated rhetorically as examples of the virtues characterising the faithful in the Christian community, is contrasted with the defects of the false teachers presented summarily in verse 16–19, although one can also see lexical references to earlier passages in the letter (e.g. Jude 22 πυρός and verse 7 πυρός; verse 23 διακρινομένους and verse 9 διακρινόμενος; verse 23 ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένον and verse 8 σάρκα μιαίνουσιν).791 It is now clear why the narrator of Jude made certain summaries and syntheses in verses 16–19: to make it easier to juxtapose these opposites.792

790 See above for an analysis of Jude 1–3. 791 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 111. 792 See another account of false teachers (Jude 16–18) in comparison to the recipients of the letter (Jude 19–23) in J. Painter, D.A. de Silva, James and Jude, p. 399.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

Behaviour of false teachers

Behaviour of letter recipients

Causing divisions and tearing down the egalitarian community – verse 19a.

Building up in an egalitarian community – verse 20b.

Lack of Spirit – verse 19c.

Prayer in the Holy Spirit – verse 20c.

Following one’s will (one’s desires) – verse 16c.18d.

Following God’s will as a manifestation of love (for) God – verse 21a.

Lack of trust in God – verse 16ab.

Trust in the mercy of Jesus Christ – verse 21c.

Mockery, or the undermining of divine revelation – verse 18c.

Building on the foundation of the most holy faith – verse 20b.

Lack of love and mercy towards fellow human beings – showing arrogance or flattering them – verse 16 d.e.

Love towards others – verse 21a. Mercy towards opponents – verse 22.23b.

The use of syncrisis is also parenetic in nature. Not surprisingly, the postulates were probably drawn by the narrator from the rich early Christian catechetical and disciplinary tradition, as evidenced by both the form and content of the instructions. The interweaving of the participles ἑποικοδομοῦντες, προσευχόμενοι, προσδεχόμενοι, ἁρπάζοντες μισοῦντες with the imperative forms τηρήσατε, ἐλεᾶτε, σώζετε is particularly noteworthy in Jude 20–23. Such a juxtaposition is not unusual; it is also found in other New Testament parenetic texts, often with a numerical predominance of participles over imperative forms (Rom 12:9–19, Eph 4:2–3, Col 3:16–17, 1 Pet 3:1.7–9, 4:7–10). In all these cases the part. has an imperative meaning.793 Although, as can be seen, most such material is found in Paul’s letters, this does not mean that Jude depends directly on the Apostle to the Nations.794 Rather, he reaches back to an older Jewish tradition and convention used in regulative texts. As David Daube795 , the juxtaposition of participles and imperatives reflects a particular Semitic style, which was later also used by the rabbis when formulating rules and codes of conduct. In this regulative convention a participle could be used as the equivalent of an imperative; the postulated ideal character of rules formulated in this way should be noted because the participle in the imperative function was not used when giving direct orders (commands). This would mean that those New Testament passages where participles are used in the imperative function most likely come from codes of Christian conduct originally formulated in Hebrew or (more rarely) Aramaic. From a list of rules of conduct that were probably widely available and known, and belonged to early Christian topoi, in verse 20–21 Jude 793 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 111; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 389. 794 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 111. 795 D. Daube, Participle and Imperative in 1 Peter, [in:] E.G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St Peter, London 1946, p. 467–488, after R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 112; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 389.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

355

356

Structural commentary

selects four: build up, pray, abide, expect mercy. Richard Bauckham notes that the basis for this choice was most likely the traditional pre-Pauline formula/triad: faith (building on faith), hope (waiting for the coming of Christ and his mercy), and love (abiding in love).796 To these, the narrator added prayer probably in order to build another triad: Holy Spirit (prayer in the Holy Spirit) – God (love of God/love for God) – Jesus Christ (mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ).797 An imperative reading of participles is not, however, the only possible interpretation. The participles can be treated in accordance with their primary function as complementing expressions, describing actions and/or states contemporaneous to those expressed by verbs in the personal form, as in verse 23.798 This would mean that the narrator commands the audience to “preserve themselves” by building one another up, praying, and expecting mercy (verse 20–21), and to save the ungodly by pulling them out of the fire, i.e., by the actions in the early Christian tradition that consist in pulling out of the fire, and “showing mercy” by hating the garment defiled by the flesh, i.e., through hate towards sin (verse 23a–c). This seems – and especially the participial triplet in verse 20–21 (ἑποικοδομοῦντες, προσευχόμενοι, προσδεχόμενοι) – to be closer to the style of Jude, who had already similarly made more precise key concepts on several occasions (verse 8; 10; 11; 16; 19). The structure of verses 20–21 would then be as follows: praying in the Holy Spirit (20c); building up yourselves by your most holy faith/on your most holy faith (20b); keep yourselves/preserve in the love of God (21a); expecting the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life (21b–c). This structure also makes it possible to highlight the meaning of the verb τηρέω “preserve”, which is crucial here and stands at the centre of the construction, describing the relationship between the faithful in the community. This verb already appeared in verse 1, twice in verse 6 and once in verse 13; the present usage refers to these previous uses. An interpretation based on the proposed structure by no means excludes the catechetical and disciplinary source of Jude’s inspiration, but it does allow us to treat the actions and states expressed by the imperatives as real commands and not merely idealistic postulates. As already mentioned, verse 20 begins with the transitive use of ἀγαπητοί “beloved”, which is intended to focus the audience’s attention on how they should 796 D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 440. 797 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 112; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 253; D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 440. 798 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 251.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

behave towards themselves and towards false teachers. This seems to allude to and develop the transition used in verse 3 and verse 17: ἀγαπητοί, πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμενος γράφειν ὑμῖν περὶ τῆς κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας

[…] ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι τῇ ἅπαξ παραδοθείση τοῖς ἁγῖοις πίστει. “Beloved, I felt obliged to write to you particularly carefully about our common salvation […]” “To contend for the faith once for all handed down to the saints”. ἁγαπητοί, μνήσθητε τῶν ῥημάτων τῶν προειπημένων ὑπὸ ἀποστόλων

“Beloved, recall/remember the words spoken earlier by the apostles”. ἁγαπητοί, ἐποικοδομοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ ὑμῶν πίστει

“Beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith”.

In verse 3 the narrator referred to his intentions – to describe in detail “our common salvation” and to call us to “contend for the faith”. An important component of this description is the citation of the apostles’ prophetic message – the words “spoken earlier by the apostles” (verse 17), which is part of the “faith once for all handed down to the saints” (verse 3) and “our most holy faith” (verse 20). At the same time, recalling this warning prophecy (verse 17) and building on it (verse 20) is part of “contending for faith”. The narrator continues his positive message begun in verse 3, when he did not identify the opponents but the object of the struggle. Also, in verse 20–23 the aim of the battle is not to destroy false teachers (e.g. by ordering them to be removed from the community),799 but to strengthen one another in fidelity to the inspired revelation, to show what eschatological dangers may result from yielding to false teaching (verse 23c), and finally to show mercy to erring believers (verse 22 and 23c). The appearance of the term ἀγαπητοί in verse 20, immediately after the end of the evaluation of false teachers as those who are “devoid of Spirit/spirit”, also serves to emphasize the opposition between false teachers and the recipients of the letter,800 who not only have the Spirit and pray in the Spirit, but are also characterized by a deepened spirituality based on revelation, which enables them to show mercy to their opponents. The first recommendation is based on the metaphor of building up: ἐποικοδομοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ ὑμῶν πίστει “building up/build up yourselves by your most holy faith/on your most holy faith”. The dative τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ πίστει used here may be taken as instrumentalis – “by most holy faith”, but it is more likely that the point is primarily to indicate the firmest base on which the building is con-

799 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 251. 800 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 388.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

357

358

Structural commentary

structed, as in 1 Cor 3:12, Eph 2:20.801 Some interpretive clue lies in the compound verb ἐποικοδομοῦντες, which is somewhat less common in Greek and Christian literature than οἰκοδομέω. This is because the preposition ἐπί “on, over” indicates building on an already existing foundation or foundations, or – metaphorically – on an already existing structure.802 This meaning is found both in Greek literature (e.g. in Epictetus or Plato),803 Jewish Hellenistic literature (e.g. in Josephus Flavius in Ant. XI 4:2:79; XII 5:4:253 or in Philo De somniis 2:2:8), as well as in New Testament literature (1 Cor 3:10.12.14, Eph 2:20, Col 2:7). In many cases the base on which a construction is built is described by a prepositional phrase with a dative or by a dative alone, precisely as in Jude 20b τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ ὑμῶν πίστει.804 It seems, then, that the narrator of Jude is reaching for a common cultural topos and a conventionalized, formally stabilized metaphor that was carried over from Greek literature both into Palestinian Christianity (see Gal 2:9, where the apostles are called pillars) and into Greek Christianity. This is why the image of building a structure or the image of the faithful as a building can be found in early Christian texts of various provenance, representing different traditions, including traditional catechetical material (Rom 14:19, 15:2.20, 1 Cor 3:9–15, 8:1, 10:23, 14:3–5.12.17.26, 2 Cor 6:16, 10:8, 12:19, 13:10, Eph 2:18–22, 4:12.16, Col 2:7, 1 Thess 5:11, 1 Pet 2:5, Barn. 4:11, 6:15, 16:8–10, The Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 3, Parable 9, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians 9:1; Odes of Solomon 22:12).805 Collectivism is a characteristic feature of this imagery of building up. Building up, often accompanied by exhortations and praise of concord and mutual love806 (see 1 Cor 3:9–15, 8:1, 10:23, 14:3–5.12.17.26), concerns the whole community and the relationships between its members (see Rom 14:19, 15:2, 1 Cor 14:12.26, 1 Thess 5:11, Eph 4:11–16, 1 Pet 2:5). The narrator of Jude also uses this metaphor in opposition to the divisions and destruction of the community by false teachers described in verse 19a.807 The collective meaning is emphasised by the pronoun ἑαυτούς, which points not so much to individual building up as to the building up of one another. Clearly, building up one another in this way, in which the semantic dominant is mutual strengthening in faith, fosters the integration of the community, which in turn benefits each of its members.808 On top of this, there is also building

801 See J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 286; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 108; D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 440–441. 802 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 392. 803 Ibid., p. 392. 804 Ibid., p. 392; F. Mickiewicz, List św. Judy, p. 125. 805 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 112. 806 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 391. 807 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 113; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 254. 808 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 392.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

up in the sense of spreading faith and expanding the community, which corresponds to one of the meanings of preserving the community implied in verse 1 (see the inspiration of the triad “beloved, preserved, called” taken from Isa 51:3).809 The foundation on which the recipients of the Letter of Jude are to build up one another is called the ἡ ἁγιωτάτη πίστις “most holy faith”. The lexical reference to verse 3 is evident here. Faith, as in verse 3, understood primarily as the contents revealed to the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles, is sacred, even most holy (superlativus ἁγιωτάτῃ), because it comes from God810 (see passivum theologicum in verse 3) and makes those who preach and profess it “consecrated” to God – “holy” – servants (see also persons, objects and places consecrated to God/holy in, e.g., Matt 4:5, 27:53, Acts 7:33, Rom 1:7, 12:1, 1 Cor 1:2, Eph 3:5, Col 1:26, 3:12, Heb 3:1, 9:2, 1 Pet 1:15–16, Rev 11:2, 18:26, 21:2.10).811 There is no room here for doubt about the inspiration of the persons to whom it was handed down and who preserve it in its entirety and pass it on. This, of course, contrasts with the accusations in verse 19b–c against false teachers who are people who are focused on worldly things, cater to their own needs (verse 16c.18d) and are “devoid of the Spirit”. As we can see, the holiness of faith is considered from theandric perpective, taking into account both its divine – holy – origin, as indicated by its foundation, and its human transmission through the saints – patriarchs, prophets and apostles acting under the influence of the Holy Spirit. In the metaphor of building up, the holiness of faith also connotes permanence, constancy and inviolability, even untouchability.812 Therefore, nothing should be added, nothing subtracted, and nothing changed to this faith. Such an idea of holiness is contradicted by the reductionist teachings of false teachers and the substitution of some contents for others – “perverting grace into licentiousness” (Jude 4) or putting one’s own dream visions in place of previous prophecies and norms of conduct (Jude 8). In opposition to verse 19b–c and in relation to verse 20c, one can also see here a dynamic understanding of faith. It is about faith as a gift of the Holy Spirit, thanks to which it is possible to distinguish between revelation coming from God (the most holy) and private revelations (see Jude 8), which cannot withstand the revelation given to the saints.813 This distinction requires the knowledge and constant reading of the writings recognised as inspired, which means that the building up of

809 810 811 812 813

See above. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 113. G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 393. Ibid., p. 393. Likewise, Luther’s interpretation in his commentary on the Letter of Jude, The Epistles: “Faith is laid for the foundation on which we are to build; but to build is to grow from day to day in the knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ, and this takes place through the working of the Holy Spirit”.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

359

360

Structural commentary

a community on “your most holy faith” naturally includes the need for in-depth study of the inspired writings.814 Another important element of Judaic syncrisis in this cognitive-dissociative context seems to be the inconspicuous identification of “the most holy faith” with the pronoun ὑμῶν ‘your’815 . Obviously, this is meant to reinforce a sense of community in the recipients, but it also obliges them to be vigilant and to properly separate the contents accepted as their own/your own (yours) from those that are alien (not-yours). This is also the basis for the connection between the collective understanding of faith and its existential meaning implied at the beginning of the letter. Faith is meant to be both a communal and individual commitment816 to trust, to demonstrate faithfulness and to serve Jesus Christ (see Jude 1 Ἱησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος), the only Lord and Ruler (see Jude 4), who delivered the people from the land of Egypt and led the faithful into the promised land (Jude 5), which in Jude’s Christocentric hermeneutic oriented eschatologically means anticipating the introduction into the kingdom of God. “Your most holy faith” therefore implies communal as well as individual obedience to God’s will made known through the revelation given to the “saints”. The doctrine of the false teachers cannot be accepted as yours because it denies the above-mentioned elements: it rejects Jesus as the only Ruler and Lord; it undermines trust in God, which manifests itself in murmuring, grumbling, complaining (see Jude 16a–b.18b); it replaces His will with human will and human desires (Jude 16c.18d), which results in ungodliness in a broad sense, justified by private revelations and justified by the denigration of previous authorities (Jude 8). Parallel to building on faith, the letter’s narrator prescribes prayer in the Holy Spirit – ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ προσευχόμενοι “pray/praying in the Holy Spirit”. In doing so he uses the same participial construction as before and draws, it seems, on the general Christian vocabulary. In early Christian literature, the phrase ἐν πνεύματι “in the Spirit” primarily means acting and/or remaining under the control or inspiration of the (Holy) Spirit817 (Matt 22:43, Mark 12:36, Luke 2:27, 4:1, Rom 8:9, 1 Cor 12:3, Rev 1:10, 4:2, Barn. 9:7, AscIsa 3:19).818 In the testimonies indicated, inspiration most often concerns teaching and prophecy. Did. 11 emphasizes the need for coherence between the teachings proclaimed under the influence of the Spirit and the conduct of the prophet/teacher:

814 815 816 817 818

M. Green, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 403. In C 1739. 1853 the pronoun ἡμῶν ‘our’ appears. P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 255. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 113; D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 441. P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 256.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

not every one that speaks in the Spirit is a prophet; but only if he hold the ways of the Lord. Therefore from their ways shall the false prophet and the prophet be known […] every prophet who teaches the truth, if he do not what he teaches, is a false prophet.

In the context of the Letter of Jude, such coherence can be an additional criterion to distinguish not only the truthfulness of the revelation but also the true prophet from the false prophet and to recognize him as a “saint”, an authority for the community, especially since now the narrator of the epistle also refers to an attitude – prayer – that testifies to the possession of the Spirit. In contrast to verse 19d, in verse 20c the “Spirit” is specified as holy, so the element of ambiguity that was used earlier in a vituperative way is not present here. Instead, it is possible to see a supposition that the effect of the Holy Spirit on a community in prayer is that it becomes a community of true πνευματικοί. The adjective “holy” ἅγιος is also the element that links faith and the Spirit, which supports the suggestion that “the most holy faith” means revelation transmitted under the inspiration of the “Holy Spirit”. It is somewhat difficult to determine what is meant by the expression “praying in the Holy Spirit” in Jude 20c. For it can be understood in several ways. First, “prayer in the Holy Spirit” would be proof of the being “beloved, preserved” and “called” (see Jude 1) which constitute the status of a child of God (as in Rom 8:15–16, Gal 4:6). Second, “prayer in the Holy Spirit” can mean prayer prompted by the Spirit (as in Rom 8:26–27).819 There is an ongoing debate about the nature of this prayer. Richard Bauckham sees here an allusion to charismatic prayer in tongues.820 The prayer referred to here was not, even contextually, specified as an intelligible prayer of supplication or thanksgiving, so it could also include a prayer of praise with incomprehensible sounds and unintelligible words. Gene L. Green821 and Douglas J. Moo822 , on the other hand, see no reason to narrow the meaning of prayer in the Holy Spirit in this way, especially since, although it has individual benefits, it does not always contribute to community building (see 1 Cor 14:12–17); thus, it does not correspond to the Judaic collective perspective expressed in verse 20b. The third understanding of “praying in the Holy Spirit” alludes to a participatory form of expression, and therefore also to “mutual building up” on faith. Building up on the foundation of faith and prayer in the Spirit are not only complementary to each other, but also parallel and sometimes even synonymous. “Building up on faith” would therefore involve, among other things, “praying in the Holy Spirit”. This is especially true in the context of discussions 819 D. Keating, First, Second Peter, p. 323; F. Mickiewicz, List św. Judy, p. 126–127. 820 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 113; similarly, M. Green, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 403–404; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 256–257. 821 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 394. 822 D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 441.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

361

362

Structural commentary

and disputes about the truthfulness of doctrine cultivated in the community of recipients and preached by false teachers (Jude 3.8.19.20b). “Praying in the Holy Spirit” would help to discern and distinguish between revelation coming from God and incompatible private revelation.823 As already mentioned, this requires the study of the inspired writings, but in order to properly understand these writings, the action of the Holy Spirit, which can be experienced in and through prayer, is necessary. In the Letter of Jude, understanding – which is precisely the result of “praying in the Spirit” – is linked above all to a correct reading of the signs announcing the coming of the end times. A sample of this understanding in the Spirit is given by the narrator himself, who interprets the events and prophecies recorded and announced in the texts considered inspired by the community (the journey through the desert, the revolt of the angels, the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah, the story of Cain, Balaam and Korah, and especially the prophecies of Enoch) in a Christological and eschatological spirit, using the pesher method. Building up on faith and praying in the Spirit are linked in verse 21a by the verb τηρήσατε ‘preserve’ as verbum regens. It is preceded by two additional objects: the direct object – ἑαυτοὺς and the indirect object – ἐν ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ. The pronoun ἑαυτοὺς seems to have a somewhat broader meaning here than in verse 20a, where it indicated mainly communal relations. Now these relationships are also dominant, but a slight shift from collectivism to individualism can be discerned, which continues the existential implications of recognising the community’s faith as one’s own. Indeed, the recognition of faith as one’s own entails consequences in the form of personal fulfilment of its requirements in the horizontal dimension – towards others and in the vertical dimension – towards God. Both dimensions are taken into account in the indirect object of ἐν ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ. The expression ἐν ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ “in the love of God” refers to ἠγαπημένοις “to the beloved” [in God the Father] in Jude 1 and to ἀγάπη “love [may be multiplied for you]” in Jude 2. Both in verse 1 and in verse 2 the giver of love, its subject, is God, while the beneficiaries, its objects, are people. In verse 21a the narrator refers to love with the genitive θεοῦ, which may be treated as a gen. subiectivus (love whose giver is God) or as a gen. obiectivus (love whose object/object is God, i.e. love for God). The former would be supported by the parallelism with verse 1 and 2, the latter by the use of imperativus, which involves the recipient in the execution of the injunction824 and by syncrisis as a literary convention, which now focuses on the attitude of the recipients of the letter. The second variant (obiectivus) is most likely the dominant one, but the first variant (subiectivus) is also – at least in part –

823 See J.H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 90. 824 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 113; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 257; D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 442.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

contained within it. For the love that believers are to show to God is a response to the love that God has shown them825 (see 1 John 4:16). When analysing the expression ἐν θεῷ πατρὶ ἠγαπημένοι “beloved in God the Father” in verse 1, a suggestion was made to pay attention to the preposition ἐν, which indicates that it is about love experienced in/within the fellowship with God.826 This suggestion would also apply in verse 21a – God’s love can only be experienced in fellowship with God, which includes a vertical dimension (love for God as a response to God’s love for people) and a horizontal dimension (showing love to one another in community, as emphasised by the pronoun ἑαυτοὺς). In this way, as mentioned, the individual aspect – the personal relationship with God – is combined with the collective aspect – sharing the experience of God’s love in the community and strengthening and encouraging one another to express their love for God by doing His will827 as contained in the commandments and prophetic admonitions. This attitude is, of course, in contrast to the conduct and attitude of false teachers, who are guided by their own desires and, in the name of an illconceived Christian freedom, undermine God’s law, which is an essential part of revelation. If keeping God’s commandments and acting according to his will is proof of remaining “in love of/for God”, then actions against God reveal a lack of that love.828 This would mean that false teachers are deprived not only of the Holy Spirit but also of love of/for God; they do not cultivate the love they have received from God, they have departed from it, they have failed to persevere in it,829 and so they “did not preserve” the status and place that God, through his love, has assigned to them. Central to this passage is the verb τηρέω in the imp. aor. act. τηρήσατε830 . It appears already in verse 1 as the part. perf. med. et pass. τετηρημένοι ‘preserved’, twice in verse 6 – once as the negated part. aor. act. μὴ τηρήσαντας ‘having not

825 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 287; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 113–114 cites John 15:9–10 as a grammatically and semantically similar example (μεῖνετε ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ τῇ ἐμῇ and μεῖνετε ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ μοῦ “remain in my love”) and suggests that both the exhortation in Jude 21a and the exhortation in John 15:9–10 come from an early Christian common parenetic tradition. 826 D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 442. 827 M. Luther, in his commentary on the Epistle of Jude, The Epistles, strongly emphasizes here the realization of God’s will in the commandment to love one’s neighbour “When we are thus built up [in the knowledge of God and Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit], we shall do no work to merit anything or to be saved by it, but all to the service of our neighbor”. 828 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 286; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 257–258. 829 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 258; likewise M. Luther, The Epistles: “Thus we are to watch, that we abide in love, and not fall from it, like these fools who set up particular works and a peculiar life, and so draw people away from love”. 830 In some testimonies (P72 B C*vid Ψ 88. 1448. 1611. 1852 sy bo) there appears a variant with a coniunctivus for first person pl: τηρήσωμεν.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

363

364

Structural commentary

preserved [its beginning/authority/worthiness]’ (6a) and once as the ind. perf. act. τετήρηκεν ‘preserved and still preserving [for the judgment of the great day]’ (6c), and in verse 13 also as the ind. perf. med. et pass. τετήρηται ‘has been and is preserved forever’ pertaining to darkness [for the wandering stars]. It may be noted that the agens of the perfective forms are God (Jude 1), Jesus (6b), God or Jesus (13, where the agens is not explicitly indicated but suggested by the passivum theologicum), and their action in the past extends to the present. The agens of part. in verse 6a is the rebellious angels. In Jude 21a the narrator of the letter, using the same verb (imp. indicates that the agens here are the recipients of the letter), creates images and associations that refer to the previous uses, mainly to the one in Jude 6a. The context in which the verb τηρέω is used in verse 21a indicates that it is primarily about ‘keeping’ obedience. A similar meaning is found relatively frequently in New Testament literature when describing the observance of God’s Law, God’s commandments, God’s teaching, God’s faith (1 Tim 6:14, Jas 2:10, 1 John 2:3–5, 3:22.24, 5:3, Rev 12:17, 14:12). This is overlaid with the ‘preservation’ of unity (see Eph 4:3 – “preserve the unity of the spirit”) – which is synonymous with ‘building up’ and antonymous with divisions provoked by the false teachers in Jude 19a – and the ‘preservation of faith’ (cf. 2 Tim 4:7) – which alludes to Jude 3 and the call to ‘contend for the faith’.831 The aorist form τηρήσατε suggests total obedience to all God’s commandments – ‘completely keep one another in love of/to God’, which corresponds well with building up on your ‘most holy faith’ understood as inviolable, permanent, unchanging and perfect revelation. The contrast with the reductionist approach of the false teachers to God’s law is thus sharpened. In the first instance, however, the lexical and formal similarity evokes, as mentioned, the image of the rebellion of the angels who ‘did not preserve’ their beginning/authority/worthiness/ spiritual nature μὴ τητήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχήν, disobeyed the will of God and violated the order established by Him. The recipients of the Letter of Jude are to do the opposite – “keep [themselves] in love of/for God”, that is, in obedience to God’s will and respect for the order established by Him, without exceeding their powers or encroaching on God’s prerogatives. This applies above all to the authority to judge and to one’s own judgements as to whom mercy should be shown and to whom it should not be shown (see Jude 9.22–23). Jude’s predilection for wordplay allows him to add to this figurative recommendation a warning alluding to Jude 6 and 13c and a promise alluding to Jude 1. If the recipients of the letter act like the angels (see also Jude 7.8.11d.16.18cd.19a referring to rebellion against God’s order and provisions and to attempts of various kinds to question and destroy that order), that is, if they do not keep themselves

831 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 397.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

in love of/for God, they will – like the angels, called in verse 13 the “wandering stars” – be preserved in their iniquities/sins for judgment (Jude 6c.13c). But if they keep themselves in love of/for God, they will be preserved/kept safe (Jude 1). This promise is confirmed and developed in verse 21b, in which the explanation that “preservation” at the judgment consists in “expecting the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ” appears. The formula προσδεχόμενοι τὸ ἔλεος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ “expecting the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ” has a participial form, which makes it possible to place it in the same line with “building up on your faith” and “prayer in the Holy Spirit” as another instrumental complement of the verb τηρέω (“build up yourselves”, by “praying in the Holy Spirit” and by “expecting mercy”). There is also paronomasia here – a wordplay based on the phonetic similarity of the participium προσευχόμενοι ‘praying’ and the part. προσδεχόμενοι ‘expect’. However, while the participial expressions in Jude 20 were not clearly eschatological in character, the lexis used in Jude 21b very strongly exposes this eschatologicalsoteriological character. The final position of the entire formula “expecting the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life” suggests that it has a special meaning for the narrator. Indeed, the main theological idea of the letter is summed up in this formula, which emphasises the inseparable connection between salvation and judgment, to which all will be subjected, including the righteous/believers (see Jude 15a). It is therefore no coincidence that it was separated from the previous participial constructions by the governing expression with the imp. τηρήσατε. Thanks to the last specifying word, the eschatological potential of the verb τηρέω is even more strongly exposed, which in turn provides an excellent basis for the soteriological-eschatological summaries in Jude 24. The basic meaning of the verb (προς)δέχομαι, from which the part. προσδεχόμενοι is formed, is ‘to receive kindly’, ‘to accept’, ‘to let share’, ‘to admit to some fellowship’ (Lev 7:18, 22:23.25.27, 2 Macc 1:26, 3:9, 4:22, Sir 6:23.33, 7:9, 15:2, 35:11.16, 50:12, Hos 8:13, Amos 5:22, Mic 6:7, Mal 1:8.10.13, Matt 10:40, 18:5, Mark 9:37, Luke 8:13, 9:5.48, 15:2, Acts 24:3, Rom 16:2, Phil 2:29). Προσδέχομαι also expresses ‘anxious, impatient, watchful waiting’ for someone or something (Ruth 1:13, Rom 8:19.25, 1 Cor 11:33, 16:11).832 In the LXX, δέχομαι with various prepositions in compounds also appears in eschatological contexts (Mic 2:12, Ezek 20:40.41, 32:10, Isa 55:12, Dan 7:25), so it is not surprising that in such contexts the verb was sometimes used in New Testament and early Christian literature (Mark 15:43, Luke 2:35.38, 12:36, Acts 23:21, 24:15, Rom 8:23, 1 Cor 1:7, Gal 5:5, Phil 3:20, Titus 2:13, Heb 9:28, Jas 5:7, 2 Clem. 11:2).833 It seems that the narrator of the Letter

832 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 399. 833 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 114; F. Mickiewicz, List św. Judy, p. 128.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

365

366

Structural commentary

of Jude uses this verb in both senses. On the one hand, it is an eager anticipation of mercy towards eternal life connected with the advent of the end times and the approach of judgement; on the other hand, it is a suggestion that the community of those who will experience the mercy of Jesus Christ at the judgement should also include those towards whom Jude twice orders mercy to be shown in verse 22. The very term ἔλεος ‘mercy’ is sometimes variously defined. Sometimes in Greek literature it is equated with pity and compassion. Aristotle in Rhetoric (2:8) describes pity as: a feeling of pain caused by the sight of some evil, destructive or painful, which befalls one who does not deserve it, and which we might expect to befall ourselves or some friend of ours, and moreover to befall us soon. […] All unpleasant and painful things excite pity if they tend to destroy pain and annihilate; and all such evils as are due to chance, if they are serious.

Such an approach, which can also be found in Diogenes Laertius in his Lives of Eminent Philosophers (7:111)834 assumes that the suffering/misfortune that arouses pity is undeserved suffering. It is alien to the Jewish and later Christian tradition, which associates ‘mercy’ not so much with the innocence of those to whom it is shown as with God’s promise or even obligation to apply grace. The LXX as ἔλεος usually translates the Hebrew terms ‫( חסד‬see e.g. Gen 24:12, 40:14, Exod 20:6, Mic 7:20, Isa 63:7) or ‫( חן‬Gen 19:19). The first implies the idea of faithfulness to the covenant – “mercy” is shown to those who keep the commandments (the faithful and righteous). The second accentuates kindness, mercy shown most often to the one who deserves it.835 With time, the concept of mercy became increasingly associated with eschatology – God’s commitment to the righteous, which will be fulfilled in the end times, at the judgment. This eschatological idea of promiscuity is also included in Jude 21b. It is necessary to mention the earlier use of the noun ἔλεος in the Letter of Jude – verse 2 – because, as with the verb τηρέω and the noun ἀγάπη, all the uses of the same terms in Jude interact with each other. In Jude 2, ἔλεος – though not specified in any way – referred to the end times and judgment, as indicated by both the context and the resulting references to Jewish tradition, especially that of the intertestamental period (2 Macc 7:23, PssSol 14:6(9), 1 En 5:5–6, 27:4, TZeb 8:1–2, Isa 60:10 [LXX], Wis 12:22, Sir 2:9, 5:6, 16:12).836 Now this eschatological meaning is confirmed and the concept itself clarified in a manner characteristic of Jude:

834 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 399. 835 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 261–262. 836 See above for an analysis of verse 1–3.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

in texts from the Jewish tradition, mercy belonged to God, whereas the narrator attributes it to the Lord (see 2 Tim 1:18, 2 Clem. 16:2), whom he identifies expressis verbis with Jesus Christ. He uses the all-Christian formula already known from verse 4: “Our Lord Jesus Christ”. This link between Jude 4 and Jude 21b fits well with the convention of syncrisis, based here on a subtle play on words – the antonym of the verbs ἀρνέομαι ‘reject/deny’ and προσδέχομαι ‘expect’, but also ‘accept’. This has a theological translation and underlines one of the main Christological and soteriological ideas of the letter: “denying our only Ruler and Lord Jesus Christ” – as the false teachers have done – leads to accusations at the final judgment (see Jude 15); accepting Jesus Christ as the only Ruler and Lord makes it possible to expect His mercy at the time of judgment, i.e. final salvation. The genitive in the expression ἔλεος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοοῦ combines elements characteristic of genetivus possessivus and genetivus subiectivus. It is thus mercy that belongs to Jesus Christ and mercy that Jesus Christ shows.837 Verse 21 ends with the formula εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον ‘for eternal life’. It is closely related to mercy as an eschatological promise.838 In late Judaism the phrase εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον expressed the hope of overcoming the finality of death (see TAsh 5: “everlasting life awaits death”) and for the renewed life of the righteous after the eschatological judgment and/or after the resurrection839 (2 Macc 7:9, Dan 12:2, PssSol 3:16: “they that fear the Lord shall rise to life eternal, And their life (shall be) in the light of the Lord, and shall come to an end no more”; see also PssSol 13:9(11)–11(12), 14:6(9)–7(10) , 15:15(13) and John 6:40.54). It is also used in this sense by Jude. There is a clear difference in the conception of eternity in Jude 6.7.13 and in Jude 21b. Previously the expressions ἀϊδίος, αἰωνίος or εἰς αἰῶνα ‘eternal’, ‘for ever’, indicated a time limited by the coming of the final judgment; now eternity is reckoned from the judgment and seems to have no temporal limitation. However, the most significant element that appears in the conception of eternity after the final judgement is ‘life’ which is here synonymous with salvation. In this way, the narrator of the epistle emphasises once again that Christian soteriology is intimately bound up with judgment, and that salvation does not consist in avoiding judgment, as false teachers have claimed, but in being shown mercy by the Judge – Jesus Christ. Although the mention of judgment does not appear in verse 21,

837 Christocentrism, or even staurocentrism, of the Christian hope of experiencing mercy is emphasized by M. Luther, The Epistles: “That is the hope, toward which the Holy Cross moves. Therefore should our life be so shaped as to be nothing else than a steady longing and waiting for that life to come; yet so that that waiting be grounded on the mercy of Christ, so that we shall call upon Him with such an understanding as that he is to help us from this to that life out of pure mercy, and not for any work or merit of ours”. 838 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 287. 839 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 114; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 401.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

367

368

Structural commentary

the motif of judgment is rooted both in Jude’s understanding of mercy840 and in reference to eternal life. On the other hand, the whole final formula of expecting the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life is, as already mentioned, a summary of the eschatologically oriented Judaic soteriology. The next verses of syncrisis (Jude 22–23) focus on the believers’ behaviour towards false teachers and their followers. Thus, on the one hand, they seem to diverge thematically from verse 20–21, but on the other hand, it is evident that the narrator transfers especially the motif of love, which is supposed to reflect God’s love for people, and the closely related motif of mercy to attitudes and actions towards the ungodly. This is also overlaid with the second meaning of the verb προσδέχομαι – ‘to receive into a community’, ‘to allow to participate’. Determining the original wording of verse 22–23a is not easy; for many alternative versions of the text are extant, which have been described in detail, along with hypotheses of the order and reasons for the changes and additions, by Carroll D. Osburn841 , Sakae Kubo842 , Sara Winter843 , Joel S. Allen844 , among others. The textual versions can be divided into two groups: the first group includes testimonies supporting the shorter variant, consisting of two invocations beginning with the formula οὓς μὲν…, οὓς δὲ – “those/some pull/snatch out of the fire, and to those/some show mercy (with fear)” οὓς μὲν ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρνάσατε, οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐκ φόβῳ.845 The second group includes testimonies affirming a longer variant, consisting of three invocations, also beginning with the formula οὓς μὲν…, οὓς δὲ…, οὓς δὲ “convince the doubting, save them by pulling them out of the fire, to these/others show mercy (with fear)” οὓς μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακρινομένους, οὓς δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐκ φόβῳ.846 The basis for both variants was most likely early Christian teaching, catechetical tradition, and/or church discipline that regulated the treatment of sinners, which Jude nevertheless adapts to his soteriological theses that emphasize love and mercy.847 It is generally agreed that the most original version of the text is provided by the oldest testimony for Jude – P72 dating from the third/fourth century: ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρ840 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 261–262. 841 C.D. Osburn, The Text of Jude 22,23, “Zeitschrift für die neutestamentlische Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche” 63 (1972), p. 139–144. 842 S. Kubo, Jude 22–23: Two-division Form or Three, [in:] New Testament Textual Criticism. Its Significance for Exegesis, ed. E.J. Epp, G.D. Fee, Oxford 1981, p. 239–253. 843 S.C. Winter, Jude 22–23: A Note on the Text and Translation, “The Harvard Theological Review” 87 (1994), no. 2, p. 215–222. 844 J.S. Allen, A New Possibility for the Three-Clause Format of Jude 22–23, NTS 44 (1998), p. 133–134. 845 This version is advocated by, among others, C.D. Osburn, S.C. Winter, R. Bauckham. J. Neyrey. 846 This version is advocated by B. Metzger, G.L. Green, M. Green, D.J. Moo, among others. 847 D. Lockett, Objects of Mercy in Jude. The Prophetic Background of Jude 22–23, “Catholic Biblical Quarterly” 77 (2015), p. 324.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

πάσατε διακρινομένους δὲ ἐλεεῖτε ἐν φόβῳ.848 This version with two invocations

– “pull out of the fire”, “show mercy” – and without the pronoun oὕς before the second invocation would best suit Jude’s concise style with its characteristic sparing allusions to Jewish tradition. With slight alterations (the omission of the phrase ἐν φόβῳ) it is known to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 6:8) and Jerome. It is also transmitted by later Latin (Liber Commicus Toletanus Teplensis of the New Testament version of Vetus Latina) and Syriac (syph Philoxenia) testimonies.849 Since it seemed not entirely clear, in subsequent copies it was expanded with explanatory and/or commentary elements,850 often based on a harmonisation of Jude’s text with other early Christian testimonies. The interference of copyists can be seen especially in the additions to the first exhortation ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάσατε “pull/snatch them out of the fire”. Subsequent scribes sought to clarify the meaning of this metaphor by specifying the attitude towards those “pulled out of the fire” (ἐλεεῖτε διακρινομένους or ἐλέγχετε διακρινομένους) and interpreting this action as rescue (σῴζετε).851 Thus, a version with three exhortations – show mercy/save, show mercy with fear – grew up around the original text from P72 with two exhortations, in which some grammatical forms were also altered over time (replacing the imperativus ἁρπάσατε with the participium ἁρπάζοντες) in order to preserve the imperative triplet: οὓς μὲν ἐλεᾶτε διακρινομένους σῴζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες οὓς δὲ ἐλεεῖτε ἐν φόβῳ.852

A remnant of the version with two exhortations is the formula οὓς μὲν…, οὓς δὲ only before the first and last exhortation. With time, the phrase οὓς δὲ was also added to the second exhortation: οὓς δὲ σώζετε. There may be several reasons for the emergence of a version with three exhortations: pragmatic – making the text easier to understand and interpret – as already mentioned; stylistic – triplets are the narrator’s preferred form of arranging material (see Jude 1.2.4.11); harmonising

848 See C.D. Osburn, The Text of Jude 22:23, p. 139; S.C. Winter, Jude, p. 216; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 111; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 418. 849 C.D. Osburn, The Text of Jude 22:23, p. 139–140. 850 Ibid., p. 140. 851 Ibid., p. 141. 852 This is the version included in Codex B καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλεᾶτε διακρινομένους σῴζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ; while in the K L P S codices the text is conveyed as οὓς μὲν ἐλεεῖτε διακρινομένοι οὓς δὲ ἐν φόβῳ σῴζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες with a changed position of the expression ἐν φόβῳ.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

369

370

Structural commentary

– adaptation of Jude’s text to other early Christian testimonies of a parenetical and disciplinary nature – e.g. Matt 18:15–17, Did. 2 or Barn. 19. The basic version of the variant with three exhortations (without οὓς δὲ before the second exhortation) preserved, among others, in Codex B as καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλεᾶτε διακρινομένους σῴζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ could also raise doubts. They concerned especially the interpretation of the verb ἐλεάω used twice – whether each time the verb should be understood as ‘showing mercy’, or whether the meaning of ‘showing mercy’ is reserved only for the second use, while the meaning of the first ἐλεεῖτε needs to be further clarified. The tendency to distinguish the meanings of the verb ἐλεάω has also entailed the specification of the meaning of the part. διακρινόμενοι.853 In the codices A C* 5. 33. 81. 436. 1611. 1735. 1739. 2344. vg, the verb ἐλεάω was replaced by the verb ἐλέγχω ‘to admonish/ rebuke/chasten’, also ‘to accuse’ (see Jude 15); thus, as it were, the meaning of the term διακρινόμενοι was construed as ‘those doubting’ who should be ‘persuaded’ or ‘reprimanded/admonished’. There are two hypotheses to explain the origin of the version ἐλέγχετε διακρινομένους. The first suggests a reference to Did. 2: “You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life”. The same text may also have played a role in adapting Jude 22–23a to ecclesiastical disciplinary practices, especially when one wanted to give the exhortations from Jude the form of a triplet similar to the three-part formula in Did.854 The second hypothesis points to a dependence on Lev 19:17–18 (LXX), where the verb ἐλέγχω also occurs in connection with not hating one’s neighbour and showing love to him, and a warning not to incur guilt on account of him (see Jude 23c). Most scholars favour the first hypothesis, adding that there may be more interrelations between Jude 22–23a and Did. and early Christian catechesis and discipline. One of the most important interrelations would be the introduction of different categories of sinners to whom different treatment should be applied. Such a dissimilation would be suggested by the very construction οὓς μὲν…, οὓς δὲ used most frequently in enumeration, and translated as: ‘some… others/while others…’ Towards some, therefore, exhortation may be applied, and it may be believed that they will repent and be saved – they are those who can be “snatched from the fire” – οὓς μὲν ἐλεᾶτε διακρινομένους or more specifically οὓς μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακρινομένους σῴζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες. Towards the others, especially those hardened in their sins, only prayer remains, but in general all contact with them is to be avoided – they are the ones to whom “mercy” must be shown “with fear” –

853 See below. 854 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 110.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ.855 It is sometimes argued that the narrator of the letter

mentions three different groups,856 especially since the pronoun with the participle οὓς δέ also occurs before the verb σῴζετε (‫ א‬A Ψ 33. 81. 1735. 1739): the first group includes those doubting who must be convinced (verse 22) – οὓς μὲν ἐλεᾶτε διακρινομένους or οὓς μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακρινομένους, the second are sinners who can still be rescued and snatched from the fire (verse 23a) – οὓς δὲ σῴζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, the third are those towards whom the only thing left is to show mercy with fear/dread (verse 23b) – οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ.857 Comparative material is also found in Did. 2, where there are indeed three exhortations to three different groups: “some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life”. It seems, however, that the last exhortation – “love others more than your own life” – does not apply to a separate category of sinners but to believers, members of the same community,858 as in Barn. 19:5, which uses the same formula (“Thou shalt love thy neighbor more than thine own soul”). Moreover, in the disciplining texts of early Christianity, not every exhortation had to refer to a distinct group of people. Matt 18:15–17 shows that different disciplining measures could be applied to a single group. Individual exhortation, exhortation accompanied by two or three witnesses, and public exhortation are applied to those who can be expected to repent. They would constitute one category of sinners. The second category includes those who persist in their sins and against whom other means of discipline have failed. These should be avoided altogether. As already mentioned, the purpose of Jude’s syncrisis is not only to contrast the attitude of the faithful with the behaviour of false teachers, but also to expose a soteriological idea based on love and mercy. Although the variant of Jude 22–23a with the exhortations is regarded as secondary, it is of particular importance for the expression of this idea because of the rhetoric and composition of the text – for both uses of the verb ἐλεάω together with the additions form a parallel construction. It somewhat blurs the catechetical and disciplinary provenance of the individual exhortations and blurs the division of sinners into two different groups which are treated differently; instead, it highlights the application of mercy and shows from different perspectives what it consists in: Show mercy, a) save by pulling/snatching out of the fire, Show mercy, b) hating the garment defiled by the flesh.

855 856 857 858

Such a distinction is also used by M. Luther, The Epistles. M. Green, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 203; D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 446; F. Mickiewicz, List św. Judy, p. 132. G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 417. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 111.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

371

372

Structural commentary

The first part of the parallelism (a) focuses on actions towards sinners (positive aspect); the second part (b) indicates the dangers to which those showing mercy are exposed and suggests caution when engaging in actions towards sinners (negative aspect). Both elements are complementary to each other.859 The twofold exhortation to show mercy obviously has to do with the expectation of mercy from Jesus Christ. To emphasise this, the narrator uses polyptoton – he juxtaposes the noun ἔλεος and the etymologically related verb ἐλεάω. In doing so he changes the person of the agens. In Jude 2 and 21b the benefactor of mercy was God/Jesus. In the exhortations in Jude 22 and 23b it is the people who are to provide mercy. Behind this lies a strategy similar to that employed with the concept of ἀγάπη in verse 2 and verse 21a. As love of/for God was a response to God’s salvific love for people, so the believers’ showing of mercy to sinners reflects their hope for the mercy shown by Jesus at the judgment (see Wis 12:22, Matt 5:7, Luke 6:36, Jas 2:13, TZeb 8:1–2). Showing mercy to the ungodly is also part of imitating God and Jesus (Josh 2:12, Matt 9:13, 12:7, Luke 10:37) and a way of implementing the injunction to keep one another in love of/for God by doing His will (Mic 6:8, Sir 29:1, Zech 7:9, Matt 23:23). The linking of the hope of mercy at the time of the final judgment and the showing of mercy in temporality makes human misericordial actions eschatological (see TNaph 4). In the Letter of Jude this is particularly clear, for the narrator points out that the purpose of showing mercy to sinners in the present is to enable them to receive mercy at the judgment (see 1 En 27:4), that is, to include in the community – προσδέχομαι – those awaiting mercy and those experiencing mercy. In this way, an element of hope was added to the traditional dependence, according to which those who show mercy will themselves receive God’s mercy, that also those who have been shown mercy will experience the ultimate mercy of Jesus. Difficulties arise in determining to whom and to what extent to show mercy. They were already evident in the attempts to determine whether the invocations in Jude 22–23 refer to two, three or perhaps one group of ungodly people. This is compounded by strictly lexical problems. In Jude 22 the beneficiaries of human mercy are referred to as διακρινόμενοι. Among the various hypotheses, two basic concepts concerning the understanding of this term can be generated – an exclusive conception, which separates false teachers and those in whom they have succeeded in sowing doubt, and an inclusive conception, which unites false teachers and their followers into one group of ungodly sinners. The exclusive conception is based on the meanings of the verb διακρίνω in other New Testament contexts and on the version of the text handed down by A C* 5. 33. 81. 436. 1611. 1735. 1739. 2344 with the verb ἐλέγχω ‘to exhort’. The narrator of

859 See below.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

Jude had already used the part. διακρινόμενος in verse 9 in relation to the archangel Michael, whom he called – who was “bringing a (court) case”, or even “contending with the devil” over the body of Moses.860 The transfer of this meaning to the part. in verse 22 is uncertain because, as Peter H. Davids861 notes, no mention of the other side of the dispute appears here. This may suggest that it is a dispute, a quarrel with oneself, i.e. an internal conflict or internal doubt (cf. this meaning of the verb διακρίνω in Acts 10:20, 11:12, Rom 14:23, Jas 1:6).862 If we add to this the variants of the text with the verb ἐλέγχω, these inner dilemmas and hesitations become even more strongly exposed. This would mean that verse 22 is about those members of the community who, while listening to false teaching, become doubtful863 as to which teaching is true – the one preached by intruders, the attractive one, based on the negation of the judgmental, judicial authority of Jesus and condoning ungodly behaviour resulting from a wrong understanding of Christian freedom, or the more restrictive one, based on the revelation of the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles, not so much rejecting as reinterpreting the meaning of the law in the light of the cognitive works of Jesus. From this point of view, the διακρινόμενοι are not the same as false teachers, but constitute a separate group of those wavering in the faith, who, after exhortations and in the face of the arguments of the faithful, can overcome their doubts and convert. False teachers are excluded from the group of recipients of admonitions, and thus from the group of beneficiaries of the first call to show mercy. Such a limitation of mercy, however, seems incompatible with Jude’s soteriology and Jude’s system of values. It contradicts the verb προσδέχομαι used in verse 21 – “to receive into a community”, and furthermore implies human judgment as to who should be admonished and converted and who should not. This would mean having the competence of the Judge, Jesus, and transgressing the order established by God, which the narrator of the letter warned against in verse 9. The inclusive concept does not require the change of the verb ἐλεάω to ἐλέγχω and indicates that mercy should be shown to both false teachers and followers of their teaching. Its framework can already be seen in the Vulgate, which translates the part. διακρινόμενοι as iudicatos – ‘judged’864 . It thus suggests that it refers to “certain 860 See above for an analysis of verse 8–9. 861 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 265–266. 862 However, such a meaning – as considered by P. Spitaler, Dubt or Dispute (Jude 9 and 22–23). Rereading a Special New Testament Meaning through the Lens of Internal Evidence, “Biblica” 87 (2006), no. 2, p. 202 – is not confirmed in the Greek literature, and also in New Testament contexts it raises some doubts. 863 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 288; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 411. 864 The translation διακρινόμενοι as ‘those who were judged’ can also be understood as the passing of judgment on sinners by the Church (see 1 Cor 5:3–5). However, as R. Bauckham notes in Jude, 2 Peter, p. 114, such an interpretation is hardly convincing, since it seems that the false teachers in the community of recipients of the Epistle of Jude possessed too much influence to be formally

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

373

374

Structural commentary

men” mentioned in verse 4 as being “long ago foreordained for this judgement” and described in the prophecy of Enoch quoted in verse 15b–d. In a similar direction goes the juxtaposition of verse 22 with verse 9, where, as mentioned, the part. διακρινόμενος is used for the first time. It turns out that the meaning of verse 9 – ‘contending’ (see Latin ‘disputans’ in the Vulgate) – can be transposed to verse 22, despite the lack of specification of the other side of the dispute, since identifying the opponents in a dispute is not difficult. On the basis of Jude 19a, it can be inferred that those who introduce divisions are also those who are engaged in sharp disputes/ arguments865 concerning primarily the truthfulness of revelation (see 1 Cor 6:5, 11:29 and 14:29, where the verb διακρίνω is translated as ‘to discern’, ‘to dispute’ and/or ‘to distinguish’). While indeed the opponents of those who are “arguing” are not directly identified, it is plausible that they are those “contending for the faith handed down to the saints”. In finding adherents, the διακρινόμενοι, they bring about a division between those who believed in the veracity of the fantasies of the false teachers and those who remained faithful to the revelation handed down by the patriarchs, prophets and apostles.866 It is evident from the content of the entire letter that those who argue and cause divisions are at the same time those who have long since been saved for judgment (Jude 4) and, if they persist in false teaching and the conduct resulting from that teaching, will be accused at the final judgment (Jude 14–15).867 In addition to the false teachers themselves, this group also includes their followers,868 who, having succumbed to false teachings, perpetuate and deepen the divisions within the community by participating in disputes such as those that take place at the agape and advocating false believers (see Jude 12). In this way they too become διακρινόμενοι. This is superimposed on the judicial context so strongly highlighted in verse 9. Judgment over all “arguing” has been announced and described, but it still ultimately remains with Jesus Christ (see the formula “May the Lord rebuke you” in verse 9), so believers should not make their own judgments and take over the competence of the Judge, but by their misericordial actions embrace all διακρινόμενοι – false teachers and their followers, both staunch and hesitant.

865 866 867

868

excluded. Moreover, such an interpretation is contradicted by the lexical reference to verse 9 – see below. P. Spitaler, Dubt or Dispute, p. 211. D. Lockett, Objects of Mercy, p. 326–327. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 115; S.C. Winter, Jude, p. 218; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 411 argues that this cannot be about false teachers, since the whole body of the letter (Jude 5–16) suggests their condemnation rather than the hope of redemption. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 114–115, referring to the early Christian catechetical and disciplinary tradition, counts false teachers and their followers defined as διακρινόμενοι among those sinners who, instructed by the faithful, will eventually show repentance, and therefore belong to those towards whom mercy is shown by snatching them from the fire.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

The lexical and semantic affinity of verse 9 and verse 22–23 is also indicated by the setting of both passages taken primarily from Zech 3:1–5.869 Whereas in Jude 9 it was a matter of outlining the court atmosphere and delineating the roles of the litigants, now, in verse 23, the narrator seems to focus on details previously barely implied – the fire and the defiled garment motif. This does not mean, however, that he does not use the motif of process roles. On the contrary: more clearly than before, he suggests that the recipients of the letter imitate the archangel Michael not only in refraining from passing judgment, but also in their role as defenders and guardians of the accused. This is served by the imp. praes. act. σώζετε ‘save [them]’, which is intended to stimulate the faithful to constantly exhort and call the ungodly to repentance. ‘Save [them]’ would thus mean those actions that are intended to lead sinners to change their defiled garment into a clean one, so that they can stand before the Judge, experience His mercy and escape the punishing fire. The call σώζετε also implies the imitation of Christ himself, who “delivered the people from the land of Egypt”, for in Jude 5b the narrator uses the same verb – σώζω. This is at the same time a clear indication that Jesus Christ is the only one who has the power to save (see Jude 24), as well as the power to “destroy” (Jude 5c). The meaning of the exhortation σώζετε is further clarified by another participial construction: ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες “pulling out of the fire”, which alludes to the δαλὸς ἐξεσπασμένος ἐκ πυρός “a brand plucked from the fire” from Zech 3:2. There is no direct phraseological dependence here, which happens relatively often in Jude, but there is instead the characteristic dependence of images and associations evoked by lexis modified from the source. The image of Zechariah’s singed and partially charred “brand plucked from the fire” (saved from complete burning) is superimposed on the image of Sodom and Gomorrah punished by fire from Amos 4:11.870 In this way the narrator also builds the connection between verse 23a with Jude 7 describing the punishment for the sinful cities as πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκη “the punishment of eternal fire” or δεῖγμα πυρὸς αἰωνίου “an example of eternal fire”. While the imagery based on Zech 3:2 is positive, signifying rescue, the example in Amos 4:11 is negative: it is part of a sequence of warning punishments inflicted on Israel to get them to repent; Israel, however, does not repent and come back to God, so God announces the necessity “to meet” Him (Amos 4:12; in the LXX – “prepare to call upon your God”), which should be taken as synonymous with judgment. The overlapping images and contexts of Zech 3 and Amos 4 enable Jude 22–23 to be construed, on the one hand, as a warning and, on the other, as indicating

869 R.E. Stokes, Not over Moses’ Dead Body, p. 208. 870 D. Lockett, Objects of Mercy, p. 334; K.H. Jobes, The Minor Prophets in James, 1&Peter, and Jude, [in:] The Minor Prophets in the New Testament, ed. M.J.J. Menken, S. Moyise (Library of New Testament Studies 377), London 2009, p. 150–151.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

375

376

Structural commentary

to false teachers and their followers the last chance:871 if they repent, they will be saved; if they persist in their teaching and ungodliness, they will be accused of it and punished in the coming judgment (see Jude 14b–15). Although judgment is not directly mentioned here, fire definitely points to it; fire, as already noted in the analysis of Jude 7,872 is characteristic of Old Testament representations of divine wrath, divine punishment, and divine judgment (Deut 32:22, Isa 29:6, 30:27.30, 33:14, 66:15–16.24, Joel 2:3, Nah 1:6, Zeph 1:18, 3:8, 4 Macc 12:12). The imagery of fire appears relatively frequently in the Gospel accounts (see Matt 3:10, 5:22, 7:19, 13:40–42, 18:8, 25:41, Mark 9:47–48, Luke 3:17); however, other New Testament hagiographers use it less frequently (2 Thess 1:8, 2 Pet 3:7, Heb 10:27, Rev 9:17–18, 16:8, 20:9.14–15).873 It is also used in intertestamental apocalyptic literature: “But upon the ungodly shall the Lord bring everlasting fire, and will destroy them throughout all generations” (TZeb 10); “Woe to you, ye sinners, on account of the words of your mouth, And on account of the deeds of your hands which your godlessness as wrought, In blazing flames burning worse than fire shall ye burn” (1 En 100:9). Moreover, in Enochean literature the punishment of fire was first inflicted on the rebellious angels and then on the ungodly. Of particular importance is the text from Revelation of the Animals, which in Jude 14b–15 served as the background for the quotation from 1 Enoch 1:9: And the judgement was held first over the stars [rebellious angels], and they were judged and found guilty, and went to the place of condemnation, and they were cast into an abyss, full of fire and flaming, and full of pillars of fire. And those seventy shepherds were judged and found guilty, and they were cast into that fiery abyss. And I saw at that time how a like abyss was opened in the midst of the earth, full of fire, and they brought those blinded sheep, and they were all judged and found guilty and cast into this fiery abyss, and they burned; now this abyss was to the right of that house. And I saw those sheep burning and their bones burning (1 En 90:24–27).

The examples cited in the letter also follow this sequence: the rebellion of the angels (Jude 6), then the various manifestations of human disobedience to God’s will (Jude 7.11), and finally the recent appearance of false teachers with pastoral ambitions who deceive the people (Jude 12.14–16.18–19). Apocalyptic literature does not presuppose a differentiation in the fate of false teachers-pastors and their followers-sheep. It seems natural, therefore, that no such differentiation is applied by the narrator of the Letter of Jude either. The punishment of fire applies to all

871 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 115; D. Keating, First, Second Peter, p. 326. 872 See above for an analysis of verses 6–7. 873 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 268.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

the ungodly, and therefore all the ungodly must be included in the misericordial measures to rescue them from the fire. And since the day of judgment is indeed near (see Jude 18b), the rescue must be swift and decisive. This decisiveness and necessity for prompt action is well expressed by the verb ἁρπάζω ‘to seize violently, snatch, abduct’, even ‘to plunder’, which sometimes even suggests violence (see Job 24:2.9, Bar 4:26, Matt 11:12, 12:29, 13:19, John 6:15, 10:12.28–29, Acts 23:10, 1 Thess 4:17).874 It is also used by Flavius when he describes the violence with which Saul snatched up his spear to kill his son Jonathan with it (Ant. VI 11:9). In most cases ἁρπάζω has a negative connotation; in Jude 23 the context makes it valued positively, as in the prayer of Aseneth in the Midrashic Hellenistic romance Joseph and Aseneth 12:8.875 The daughter of an Egyptian priest, later wife of Joseph and mother of Ephraim and Manasseh, Aseneth confesses her sins, confesses before God to committing idolatry, to pride and conceit, and asks God for deliverance and rescue: “And do thou, O Lord, stretch forth thy hands over me, As a father that loves his children and is tenderly affectionate, And snatch me from the hand of my enemy” (Joseph and Aseneth 12:8). This would mean that the snatching from the fire in Jude 23a can be understood as actions designed to bring the false teachers to repentance and repentance similar to Aseneth’s repentance and to repentance, just as Aseneth repented. This understanding of “saving by snatching out of the fire” corresponds to the early Christian catechetical, parenetic and disciplinary tradition (Matt 18:15–17, Luke 17:3, Gal 6:1, 2 Thess 3:15, 1 Tim 5:20, Jas 5:19–20, Did. 2, 15).876 The rescue of sinners consists primarily in constant admonition, pointing out errors, warning and calling for repentance and penance.877 As with the imperative σώζετε, also with the part. ἁρπάζοντες the praesens is used in the durative aspect, without time limitation. Constant admonition would also be indicated by the various textual variants of Jude 22–23, where the verb ἐλέγχω appears in the imp. praes. Persistent admonition, pointing out error, warning and calling for repentance can be perceived as a kind of violence, which the semantic field of the verb ἁρπάζω contains. All this is intended to induce the false teachers and their followers to abandon their false doctrines and the ungodly conduct resulting therefrom, to show repentance and to undertake penance quickly, so that before the Judge the sinners may stand already

874 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 406. 875 Ibid., p. 407. 876 J.H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 186–187, considering the parallels of Jude 23a with other New Testament disciplining verses (especially Matt 18:15–20, 1 Cor 5:1–5, 1 Thess 5:14, 2 Thess 3:6–15) draws attention to the collective and even ecclesial character of the action to snatch the erring believers out of fire. This would imply a recognition of theological, moral and social authority of the Church, which predestines the Church as a community to control individuals. 877 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 115.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

377

378

Structural commentary

converted, awaiting – like the believers who convert them – “mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life”. At the same time, it must be pointed out that “saving by snatching out of the fire”, that is, pointing out mistakes, admonishing and calling to repentance, must be accompanied by an attitude well summarised in Leviticus 19:17–18 and The Didache 2–3: love, absence of hatred, patience, kindness, absence of haughtiness. All these qualities also constitute mercy, which is the overarching concept in verses 22–23a. From this it follows that the mercy of the first exhortation is equated with loving, kind and patient constant exhortation that points out mistakes and calls sinners to repentance, contrition and penitence so that they may avoid prosecution during the final judgement and, consequently, eternal fire. Jude 12e and Jude 13c may serve as a kind of instruction for the mercy thus shown, where the teaching of false teachers is ridiculed and discredited as fruitless (comparison to trees without fruit), erroneous and misleading (wandering stars). At the same time, it has been shown how dangerous it is (uprooting, a second death, blackness of darkness). The vituperative and cautionary formulations were intended to have an effect above all on the recipients of the letter, but in the light of the call to show mercy the false teachers must also be made constantly aware of how foolish and pernicious their teaching is. With the dendrological and astronomical metaphors, the narrator of the Letter of Jude – as mentioned – refrained from completing them with the evocative image of eternal fire. Now, this lack of complementation seems to have an explanation – the pointing out of errors, ridiculing and warnings are to snatch those arguing false teachers who are causing divisions out of the fire at the last moment. The call to show mercy is repeated in verse 23b this time with the addition ἐν φόβῳ: “show mercy with fear”. As already mentioned, most commentators argue that the pronoun with the participle οὓς δέ, which precedes the verb ἐλεᾶτε, here refers to a different group of ungodly people than the one(s) described in verse 22 and 23a: show mercy to those arguing; to these/the others, rescue them by pulling/snatching them out of the fire; to others, show mercy with fear/caution. Verse 22 and 23a would pertain to the ungodly who are likely to repent, which would better reflect the exclusive understanding of the term διακρινόμενοι (those doubting, those who argue); now it is about hardened sinners, identified with false teachers, who persist in their errors and sins. They need to be treated with mercy, but also with fear/concern. This would mean that the showing of mercy in verse 22 and the showing of mercy in verse 23b would have to be understood differently, and its scope adapted to particular groups of beneficiaries. This is, moreover, what the dissimilation of verbs in some testimonies and the replacement of the first imperative ἐλεᾶτε with ἐλέγχετε served. With the dissimilation of the verbs, as with the differentiation of the meanings of the verb ἐλεάω and the distinction between groups of sinners, it is difficult to say clearly what mercy would consist in towards those who show no repentance or desire to repent. Since it is not an exhortation (nor

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

a call to repentance, contrition or penitence), perhaps it would be a matter of not showing them overt hatred? Such a reductive account, however, would contradict earlier suggestions in the durative forms of the verbs that the actions comprising saving them and pulling them out of the fire are carried out continuously. Richard Bauckham878 rightly sees in the second exhortation to show mercy not only a benevolent attitude, but also some kind of action, just as in the first exhortation. He supposes that such a misericordial action towards hardened sinners could be, for example, prayer as in Did. 2, which becomes an available form of showing mercy even without the necessity of direct contact. The avoidance of direct contact with the ungodly is suggested by the addition of ἐν φόβῳ in verse 23b, and verse 23c to justify this reservation.879 Bauckham finds confirmation of his suggestions both for a different group of beneficiaries than in Jude 22–23a, and for prayer and the cessation of direct contact, in a letter to the Church at Smyrna by Ignatius of Antioch: I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that you also hold the same opinions [as I do]. But I guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with; only you must pray to God for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance, which, however, will be very difficult (Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 4).

Doubts about how to understand the second exhortation for mercy can be overcome by looking at verse 22–23 from a rhetorical perspective, as mentioned above, and treating these verses as a parallelism referring to the same problem and to the same audience. The parallelism of segments 22–23a and 22b–c is supported by the fact that in both the exhortation to show mercy is expressed with the imp. praes. act. ἐλεᾶτε and in both the complementing phrases are introduced with the forms of part. praes. act. ἁρπάζοντες and μισοῦντες (in the first segment an additional imp. σώζετε appears). The specification of the misericordial exhortation in the first segment has already been explained: it is about constant exhortation full of love for one’s neighbour, pointing out mistakes, warning and calling for conversion, so that during the final judgment the converted may receive the mercy of Jesus. The understanding of the exhortation to mercy in the second segment is exactly the same, but it is presented not from the perspective of the beneficiaries (who, thanks to the actions of the recipients of the letter, have a chance to avoid the fire/punishment), but from the perspective of the benefactors (who, by exhorting, calling for conversion, and especially by pointing out the errors in the doctrine of

878 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 116; J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 289. 879 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 289.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

379

380

Structural commentary

their opponents, must learn this dangerous, because attractive doctrine, but at the same time be careful not to succumb to it).880 This means at the same time that, although the perspective changes, the subject (the recipients of the letter) and the object of the action (in both cases they are false teachers and their followers in need of conversion) remain unchanged in both sections. The inclusive conception concerning the beneficiaries of mercy in both members of the parallelism is also confirmed in the oldest testimony of Jude and in the Greek construction οὓς μὲν… οὓς δὲ… οὓς δέ. As mentioned, P72 conveys a text with two exhortations: ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάσατε διακρινομένους δὲ ἐλεεῖτε ἐν φόβῳ “out of the fire, pull those arguing, show mercy with fear”. There are no markers here to conclude that the beneficiaries of the first exhortation, διακρινόμενοι, are not beneficiaries of the second exhortation. On the contrary, it seems that the part. διακρινόμενοι refers to both the first and the second invocation, while it is also formally connected with the second invocation through the particle δέ. Since there is no particle μέν in the first exhortation, the particle δέ can be seen as a conjunction, not as a juxtaposition: “pull those arguing out of the fire and show mercy with fear” (or “pull out of the fire and to those who argue show mercy with fear”). In the same way one should look at the construction οὓς μὲν… οὓς δὲ… οὓς δέ, which occurs with the three invocations. Although it is indeed most often used with enumerations (“one… the other… another”), it can also be used in references. The successive elements introduced by the pronoun with the particle would be a reference to the content of verse 22. The entire text of Jude 22–23a should then be translated emphatically as: And to those show mercy – to those arguing, save them …, to them show mercy with fear. This also emphasises the difference between the conduct of believers towards one another (see the pronoun ἑαυτοῦς) described in verses 20–21, and the conduct of believers towards those (οὕς) sinners who cause divisions but need conversion. Important for understanding the second call to show mercy is the phrase ἐλεᾶτε standing after the verb ἐν φόβῳ. Lexically it undoubtedly alludes to the adverb ἀφόβως from verse 12, which denoted the shamelessness, arrogance, pride,881 and stupidity that characterize the conduct of false teachers and their teachings (see also Jude 16de). Now – according to the convention of syncrisis – ἐν φόβῳ would have to be read as the opposite of such a sinful attitude, i.e. – with humility, modesty and wisdom coming from God.882 This meaning does not depart from the traditional Old Testament view of the fear of God as an attitude towards God883 (2 Chron 19:9, 26:5, Ps 5:8, Prov 14:26, 23:17, Sir 9:16, 27:3, 40:26, 45:23, PssSol 6:8, 17:44(40), 880 881 882 883

See P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 270. See above for an analysis of verse 12–13. J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 289. See K. Wojciechowska, Bojaźń Boża, “Życie duchowe” 97 (2019), p. 115–126.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

18:8(7)–10(9).13(11), see also 2 Cor 7:1, Eph 5:21, 1 Pet 1:17, 3:2). In the LXX, the noun φόβος rarely occurs without the additional φόβος κυρίου or φόβος θεοῦ; when it does, the context determines whether it refers to the ‘fear of God’ (Ps 2:11, Mal 2:5, PssSol 17:38(34)),884 or to the use of this noun without theological marker – ‘in fear’, ‘with uncertainty’, ‘with apprehension’ (Isa 33:7 [LXX]; 1 Cor 2:3; Heb 2:15). In Jude 23b the expression ἐν φόβῳ seems to refer both to the traditional biblical theological approach and to the neutral approach. It should be noted, however, that there is a lack of any specification. If the emphasis is placed on the meaning defining the attitude, then “showing mercy with fear” should be understood as “showing mercy with care”, so as not to fall into pride caused by taking credit for the conversion of sinners and arrogance towards sinners. If the emphasis is placed on the second, more neutral meaning, then ἐν φόβῳ will be understood as caution against the teaching of false teachers and fear of the ungodliness resulting from the acceptance of these teachings. By learning about the teaching of false teachers in order to demonstrate its fallacy, irrationality and stupidity, one may – even unintentionally – adopt some elements of it, and this will make those who show mercy – admonishers and converts – liable to become ungodly and, like them, to deserve accusation and judgment. This means that – despite the appearance of neutrality – the expression ἐν φόβῳ in Jude 23b has a theological overtone, since the fear of ungodliness resulting from the adoption of false teachings is in fact the fear of God’s judgment (see Heb 10:27)885 and of encountering God Himself (His glory – Jude 24b) as the source of holiness (see Heb 12:21.28–29).886 Added to this is the conviction that judgment is imminent and the fear that there may not be enough time for conversion and repentance. This fear, however, must not be a reason for abandoning the exercise of mercy, that is, for ceasing to admonish, expose errors and convert the ungodly; but this misericordial activity must be carried on, in awareness of the risks which accompany it (see Gal 6:1). These dangers have already been partially mentioned by the narrator of Jude when he calls false teachers in verse 12 σπιλάδες ‘reefs, sea-rocks’. This nautical metaphor would suggest that false teachers should be avoided. On the one hand, such avoidance would fit in with the recommendations of the repeatedly mentioned New Testament and early Christian disciplinary-catechetical tradition and would protect the unity of the community (Matt 18:17, 1 Cor 5:11, Titus 3:10, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians 7:1 and The Letter to the Church in Smyrna 4:1, 7:2 of Ignatius of Antioch; the author of 2 John 10–11 explicitly states that even greeting those who do not share the faith of the Church is improper “for whoever greets him

884 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 412. 885 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 116. 886 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 270.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

381

382

Structural commentary

shares in his evil works”). On the other hand, however, ostracism would contradict the call to continually show mercy. An attempt to resolve this tension is Richard Bauckham’s proposal, mentioned above, that in the case of false teachers stubbornly stuck in error and sin, mercy should be limited to prayer, which would also be evidence of love of neighbour and a desire to save (even) opponents. However, this position is not supported by rhetorical analysis, which has shown that the call to show mercy in verse 22 and verse 23b should be understood in the same way – as exhorting, pointing out errors, warning of judgment, and calling for repentance, contrition, and penance. Among these actions there is of course a place for prayer, but mercy cannot be reduced to prayer, especially if it were to involve avoiding contact with sinners. The tension between mercy and caution is more effectively reduced by treating the nautical metaphor not as a suggestion to avoid sinners, but as a synonym for the expression ἐν φόβῳ – i.e. the recommendation to be particularly careful in contacts intended to lead to the conversion of sinners.887 The recommendation to be careful in direct encounters with false teachers and their followers corresponds to the encouragement to “contend for the faith” expressed in verse 3 by the verb ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι, behind which the idea of wrestling is concealed.888 The essence of wrestling understood in this way is not to avoid contact and evade direct confrontation, but to demonstrate in combat perseverance, determination, commitment and efficiency with maximum caution and alertness to the opponent’s strategy. Also, if the verb ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι is taken more abstractly as a reference to discussion or dispute, which is justified in the context of calling the ungodly “those arguing”, the implication of direct confrontation is preserved. The occasion for direct encounters and the waging of doctrinal and moral disputes was undoubtedly an agape feast, from which false teachers and their followers were not excluded (otherwise in Matt 15:17 and especially in 1 Cor 5:11).889 Although the narrator of the Letter of Jude suggests that the false teachers were intruders in the community (verse 4) and were not invited to the agape feasts, there is no indication that he anywhere assumes the exclusion of the ungodly from the community feasts or from the community itself. On the contrary, the synonymy of the nautical metaphor and the expression ἐν φόβῳ indicates that it is at communal gatherings that special care should be taken. Common feasts could also be an opportunity to demonstrate the errors of the intruders’ teaching and to convert them. How to be cautious is hinted at by the participial specification of the second exhortation to show mercy – μισοῦντες καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένον

887 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 412. 888 See above for an analysis of verses 1–3. 889 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 274.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

χιτῶνα “hating also the garment/tunic defiled by the flesh” in Jude 23c. It also expresses the hope that all those admonished and exhorted to repent will repent and receive mercy at the time of the final judgment;890 thus it has a clear soteriological and eschatological orientation, not merely a disciplinary character. As already stated, the main source of imagery for this addition is the scene in Zech 3:3–5 and the intertestamental Jewish apocalyptic tradition concerning the transformation necessary to be in the presence of God.891 Motifs from this tradition have already been used in verse 9, where the “contending/arguing about the body” could be interpreted not only as a funerary dispute – about the place Moses was buried – but also as a dispute over whether his body should remain on earth or whether the patriarch could receive the ascension, which is associated with the transformation of a human body into an angelic-like body.892 Now the transformation motif is much better grasped by the introduction of the image of the defiled garment. In the source Zech 3:3–5 the defiled garment, which symbolises sins, prevents the accused high priest Joshua from appearing before God. However, it is removed and replaced with festive, clean clothing, which symbolises forgiveness of sins and justification. The LXX in Zech 3:3 uses the expression ἱμάτια ῥυπαρά, Jude in 23c the more developed formulation ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένος χιτών, which shows greater dependence on the Hebrew Zechariah text: ‫בגדים צואים‬. While the Greek adjective ῥυπαρός is quite euphemistic – it indicates something dirty, greasy, polluted, and in a metaphorical sense is sometimes used to denote meanness, commonness or lack of culture – the Hebrew lexeme ‫ צאה‬denotes a meaning closely related to carnality. In the Old Testament ‫ צאה‬is used to refer to faeces (Deut 23:14, 2 Kings 18:27, Prov 30:12, Isa 36:12, Ezek 4:12) or vomit (Isa 28:8). It also has a metaphorical use when it expresses sinfulness and wickedness (Isa 4:4).893 The narrator of the Letter of Jude tries to convey both meanings – he transfers the disgust and revulsion caused by the image of faeces to ungodliness, which should evoke the same repulsion in the recipients of the letter. Therefore, he introduces into his description the part. perf. med. and pass. ἐσπιλωμένος from the verb σπιλόω ‘to stain, smear, mark’, which is also sometimes used in a literal sense (as e.g. in Wis 15:4, where it refers to a picture stained with various colours) and in a figurative sense – most often in reference to morality (e.g. Jas 3:6; see also the metaphorical use of the

890 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 117. 891 R.E. Stokes, Not over Moses’ Dead Body, p. 208 reverses this relationship and argues that the narrator of the Epistle of Jude primarily drew on the apocalyptic (transformational and Assumptionist) tradition from Zech 3:3–5; see also H.W. Hollander, The Attitude toward Christians Who Are Doubting: Jude 22–23 in the Text of Zechariah 3, [in:] The Book Zechariah and Its Influence, ed. Ch.M. Tuckett, Burlington 2003, p. 127. 892 See above for an analysis of verses 8–9. 893 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 117; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 274.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

383

384

Structural commentary

noun σπίλος e.g. in Eph 5:27). The whole picture is completed by the expression ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκός “by the flesh/from flesh”, which is most likely physiological here, so it should be understood literally as adding to what the dirt/stains come from – from bodily secretions. Such a literal understanding corresponds with the designation of the garments as chiton χιτών. For the chiton – a kind of linen or woollen shirt, usually sleeveless, which was worn directly on the body, usually under the toga (ἱμάτιον) – fulfilled the function of underwear, retaining and absorbing all the natural secretions, and was therefore constantly exposed to dirt from the body, especially since it was not taken off even for the night. The noun ‘body/flesh’ was already used by the narrator in verse 7 and verse 8 – then it also had a literal meaning. The expression “pursuing strange flesh” in verse 7 had sexual connotations, but it described above all transgression, the crossing by the inhabitants of Sodom of the boundaries set by God and the desire to have an intercourse with “strange body/flesh”, the body of angels. In verse 8, “defiling the body/flesh” was one manifestation of sinful behaviour based on private revelations – the fantasies of false teachers. Based on the previous uses of the noun σάρξ and on the accusations of licentiousness in verse 4 some exegetes also see in the expression ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκός in verse 23c an allusion to sexual promiscuity.894 However, this seems too reductive an approach, especially since towards the end of the letter, from verse 16 onwards, the narrator shows a tendency to summarise and synthesise. Here he also refers to earlier vituperative descriptions of impiety as being guided by instincts (verse 10), the desire to satisfy one’s own needs, above all the need for fame and recognition (verse 16c.18d), and to carnality defined in verse 19b as ψυχική. The most distinctive feature of these descriptions was to show that the conduct of the false teachers goes hand in hand with an evident lack of reason to restrain instincts, desires and rationalise actions. In other words, ungodliness and carnality are equated in the letter with stupidity. A garment stained by the flesh would thus signify ungodliness caused by foolishness resulting from acting according to the flesh, that is, without the use of reason. Such foolish impiety is to be scorned and thus stigmatised (vituperatio), on the one hand, and to be avoided and hated (syncrisis), on the other. Hence, moreover, in syncrisis, the use of the verb μισέω, which with the verb ἐλεάω creates a subtle wordplay: to show mercy towards people by showing hatred towards mindless ungodliness. In this view, we can see the influence of Hellenistic literature and of intertestamental apocalypticism. In Euripides’ Electra 387 the expression αἱ σάρκες κεναὶ φρενόν means people devoid of reason and therefore called mere “bodies” (“those

894 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 273; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 415.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

bodies that are empty of mind”).895 Plutarch, in his Moralia, compares reason to reins, which can control the unreasonable, unintelligent: even the spirit and nerves and bones, and other parts of the body, though devoid of reason, yet at any instigation of reason, when she shakes as it were the reins, are all on the alert and compliant and obedient, the feet to run, and the hands to throw or lift, at her bidding. […] The same is shown by the subsidence of our passions, which are laid to rest in the presence of handsome women or boys, whom reason and the law forbid us to touch […] For at once passion is laid at the voice of reason, and the body exhibits its members as subservient to decorum (On Moral Virtue 4).

4 Macc 7:16–18 reads that sensations of the flesh can be governed by means of piety (εὐσεβής) and the use of prudent reason (λογισμός). TJud 19 identifies the flesh immersed in sin with a man devoid of reason, a madman driven by greed: “the love of money leadeth to idols […] and it causeth him who hath it to fall into madness […] For the prince of deceit blinded me, and I was ignorant as a man and as flesh, being corrupted in sins”. The flesh is treated even more extensively by TZeb 9:7, which lists almost all the faults of the false teachers in the Letter of Jude. At first glance, TZeb refers to the typical Old Testament anthropology, according to which flesh simply means man. The flesh is therefore the sons of men. However, this neutral statement is made more precise in the apocalyptic spirit – the flesh are those people who were deceived by the spirits of falsehood, the spirits of error, fell under the power of Beliar and made a division in Israel, committed idolatry and consequently fell into all other sins. Similar teaching and enumerations of guilt are found at Qumran, where the flesh in the transgression are those who deceive the members of the community and those who let themselves be deceived and act against God’s Law and against the authority of the Teacher of Righteousness: They are messengers of deceit and visionaries of falsehood, plotting against me the intrigues of Belial to change your law […] They have deprived the thirsty of the drink of knowledge, and when they were thirsty, they have watered them with vinegar to watch their confusion […] so that they may be caught in their snares. They, on the other hand, hypocrites, are intent on the intrigues of Belial, they seek you with a sincere heart and are not established in thy truth. They come to seek you in the mouth of deceitful prophets, tempted by error. With mocking lips and a strange tongue they speak to your people, deceiving them by turning their deeds into madness. […] Which flesh is like this? What

895 H. Seebass, Flesh, [in:] The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 1, p. 671.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

385

386

Structural commentary

creature of dust can perform great miracles? It lives in transgression from the womb and till old age it is guilty of misdeeds896 (1QH 12[formerly 4]:9–17.29–30).

No justice can be born in a man who is such flesh, which is why the Qumran teaching, like Jude in verse 24, points to God as the source of justice. Justice is given to men by the Spirit of God and because of God’s mercy: Righteousness belongs not to man, nor perfection of way to Adam’s son. To God Most High belong all righteous deeds and a man’s way is not established but by the spirit God has formed for him make perfect the way of men, so that all his works may know the strength of his power and the abundance of his mercy for all his favoured sons897 (1QH 12[formerly 4]:30–32).

Jude, therefore, while recommending caution against the teaching of false teachers, which puts one’s reason to sleep and causes one to submit to one’s own desires rather than to the will of God, shows at the same time that all this, although it seems as natural and attractive as possible to man (the flesh), leads to ungodliness and accusations at the time of judgment (Jude 15). The converts of false teachers and their followers must not themselves be deceived. It is towards false teaching, not towards sinners, that special care and reserve must be exercised. Now it is clear that in Jude 23bc the same actions are involved as were announced generally in Jude 22 – show mercy to those arguing, and in Jude 23a specified as rescue by continual snatching from the fire, i.e. patiently showing false teachers and their followers their errors, warning them, and calling them to repentance and conversion. In order to point out these errors, it is necessary to know both the “faith once for all handed down to the saints”, in which the Holy Spirit has a part, and the teachings of the false teachers, which by appealing to natural human inclinations can appear attractive and tempting. As already stated, in Jude 23c the motif of the defiled garment serves a soteriological lecture that is built on associations with Assumptionist literature. The image evoking these associations has been sketched in Jude’s typical elliptical manner – only the defiling garment, i.e. the ungodliness fostered and affirmed by the teachings of the false teachers, is marked. The continuation of the story familiar from Zech 3:3–5 and the Assumptionist literature seems to be omitted, but the narrator assumes that the audience knows it well and can reconstruct it – it is about the exchange of a defiled garment for a clean one, often mediated by angels. The

896 After P. Muchowski, Rękopisy, p. 60–70 (own translation). 897 After Ibid., p. 70 (own translation).

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

important thing is that everything happens at the initiative of God, which is clear, among other things, in 2 En 22:7–9, already quoted: And the Lord said to his servants tempting them: Let Enoch stand before my face into eternity, and the glorious ones bowed down to the Lord, and said: Let Enoch go according to Your word. And the Lord said to Michael: Go and take Enoch from out of his earthly garments, and anoint him with my sweet ointment, and put him into the garments of My glory. And Michael did thus, as the Lord told him. He anointed me, and dressed me […]and I looked at myself, and I was like one of his glorious ones.

AscIsa 9:6–9 adds to this prerequisites that are close, it seems, also to Jude’s exhortation to constantly convert false teachers and their followers. The prerequisite for obtaining a clean garment is trust in Christ’s words, faith in him and in his salvific work, that is, what Jude describes as the “faith handed down to the saints” in verse 3 and the “most holy faith” in verse 20: And he raised me up into the seventh heaven, and I saw there a wonderful light and angels innumerable. And there I saw the holy Abel and all the righteous. And there I saw Enoch and all who were with him, stript of the garments of the flesh, and I saw them in their garments of the upper world, and they were like angels, standing there in great glory. And there I saw Enoch and all who were with him, stript of the garments of the flesh, and I saw them in their garments of the upper world, and they were like angels, standing there in great glory […] And I saw there many garments laid up, and many thrones and many crowns. And I said to the angel: “Whose are these garments and thrones and crowns?” And he said unto me: “These garments many from that world will receive, believing in the words of That One, who shall be named as I told thee, and they will observe those things, and believe in them, and believe in His cross: for them are these laid up” (AscIsa 9:6–9.24–26).

The effect of transformation is described in Jude 24, which emphasises that the righteousness by which one can stand before God in a clean garment is in fact His gift and not the merit of man. In summing up the whole syncrisis, its two essential elements are worth emphasising once again. The first relates to intra-community relations between believers, the second relates to dealing with false teachers and their followers. The narrator emphasizes the need to do the opposite of what the false teachers do: instead of destroying the unity and egalitarian nature of the community, to build one another up in it and with it; instead of undermining God’s commandments, to keep them, that is, to remain in the love of/for God; instead of contesting God’s revelation handed down by the patriarchs, prophets and apostles and replacing or supplementing

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

387

388

Structural commentary

it with private revelations, to study that revelation in depth (praying in the Holy Spirit); instead of denying the universal final judgement and the judicial authority of Jesus, to look forward to a judgement in which mercy will be shown. It is also necessary to refrain from judging false teachers, following the Archangel Michael in his role of advocate, and to show sinners the consequences of ungodliness and false faith (the basis of the accusations in the final judgment being highlighted in Jude 14b–15), to encourage them to abandon pernicious practices by demonstrating the errors of their teachings, and to continually exhort them to repent, show contrition and undertake penance. For this is what it means to show mercy to all the ungodly – false teachers and their followers – to which Jude twice calls the recipients of his letter. 2.6.2

Part b. The soteriological thesis (Jude 24–25a)

24

To him having power to keep/guard you from stumbling and to set you/make you stand before his glory in joy [as] spotless ones/without blemish, 25 to the only God our Saviour through Jesus Christ

Formally, Jude 24 forms a whole with verse 25 and therefore in most commentaries the two verses are analysed together as a doxology. However, before the narrator quotes a typical doxological formula, he presents the recipient of this formula – God – from a soteriological perspective and based on imagery taken from Jude 9, Zech 3:3–5, transformational and assumptionist literature and formulations related to Jewish tradition. In this way he presents his main theological thought: the purpose of God’s salvific acts is to show mercy to people at the eschatological judgement and to enable them to be in his presence. This is what “our common salvation” is about, about which the narrator from the beginning wanted to write to the recipients of his letter (Jude 3), and what inclusion in the community of those eagerly awaiting the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ is about (Jude 21). As already stated in the initial analysis of verse 20–25, thematic distinctness of verse 20–23, 24–25a and 25b is marked by the use of separate moods. While in verse 20–23 there appear verbs in the imperative for the second person plural (keep, show mercy, save), in verse 24–25 the indicative, optative or imperative moods for the third person plural – often used in doxologies – are implicit because no verbs in the personal form appear here. There is no doubt that verses 24–25a are indicative, describing God’s salvific acts towards people. If it were necessary to insert an auxiliary verb here, which would become the marker of the mood, it would be the verb ἐστί (ν) in the ind. praes. or its equivalents resulting from the

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

context,898 as in Rom 1:25, 2 Cor 11:31 and 1 Pet 4:11. In Jude 24–25a it is primarily a matter of recognising and indicating God’s attributes, which are not conditioned by time,899 even though the whole scene with the people standing before God refers to the eschatological judgment to come. This description is not to be understood as modal – as a description of probable events, but as a description of certain events, which is best expressed by the indicative mood. Several textual variants of verse 24 can be found. It seems that, as with verses 22–23a, the version contained in P72 corresponds most closely to the Judaic style: στηριξαι ασπιλους αμωμους αγνευομενους απεναντι της δοξης αυτου “keep you spotless, without blemish before His glory”. It comprises, as in verse 12, intentionally introduced alliterations based on α privativum, which form a triplet of terms referring to those who experience mercy: ἄσπιλος, ἄμωμος, ἁγνευόμενος (if one wanted to render this alliteration one would have to translate this triplet: unstained, undefiled, undirty). In verse 12 the triplet ἀφόβως ‘without fear’, ἄνυδροι ‘waterless’, ἄκαρπα ‘fruitless’ described the manner and ineffectual actions of false teachers; here it describes the effectiveness and effects of God’s salvific acts. The juxtaposition of these triplets helps to accentuate the opposition between the actions of the false teachers and the actions of God, which in turn fits well with the syncretistic convention of verses 20–23 and continues it despite the change of agens (in verse 24 the agens is God) and the imparting to verse 24 the form of a doxology. Furthermore, in the terms used for those standing before God in Jude 24, there can be seen direct lexical and figurative references to verses 20–24. The first term in P72 – ἄσπιλος ‘spotless/without blemish’ – undoubtedly refers to verse 23 and the verb σπιλόω ‘to be defiled’, ‘to be stained’. The second adjective, because of its phonetic similarity to ἄνομος (‘unrighteous’), may create a subtle wordplay with this adjective characteristic of Jude and allude to verse 21, where faithfulness and observance of God’s law was an expression of “abiding in love of/for God”. The third term, the part. ἁγνευόμενος, has the character of summarising the first two terms, which can also be seen as a practice characteristic of the letter’s narrator. The term ἁγνευόμενος combines the image of purity/purification symbolising justification, forgiveness of sins, and the image of ritual, religious purity based on the observance of religious precepts (see the noun ἁγνεία ‘purity’, ‘cleansing’, ‘observance of religious regulations’). It is no accident that the participle form in the med. et pass. is used here, thus suggesting that God is the purifier and enabler of the observance of the commandments, i.e. the display of love in every dimension – vertical and horizontal.

898 J.A.D. Weima, Neglected Endings, p. 138–140; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 435. 899 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 435.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

389

390

Structural commentary

The accents are somewhat differently distributed if one considers the other testimonies that convey the text as adopted by Novum Testamentum graece, ed. Erwin Nestle, Barbara Aland. Here, both the alliteration and the triplet are not so pronounced, since the two adjectival terms beginning with α privativum – ἅπταιστοι ‘free from stumbling/not stumbling’ and ἄμωμοι ‘spotless’ – are separated by a phrase with the infinitivus aor. act. στῆσαι ‘to stand/make stand’ and complemented by the prepositional phrase ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει ‘in the greatest joy’. However, the text adopted in Nestle–Aland (edn 28) and the abandonment of the attentiongetting alliteration describing the status of the faithful allows more focus on God’s action than P72 does.900 The reference to God in verse 24–25a appears in the dative (dativus commodi), as in other New Testament doxological formulas (e.g. Rom. 16:25, Eph. 3:20, where God is also referred to as δυνάμενος ‘the one who can/who has power’). The separation of the genitive and noun content throughout verse 24 suggests that the description of God’s salvific acts towards humans is attributive in nature; for the phrase “having power to guard you from stumbling and to set you before his glory in joy [as] spotless” is here used in the suffix formation. The opening phrase – τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ having power expresses faith in the sovereignty of God in His salvific act.901 God is neither passive nor, still less, powerless in the face of human stumbling blocks and human ungodliness, and therefore, He is prompted by love and mercy (see Jude 1–2), He undertakes salvific works towards people. God’s action is defined in Nestle–Aland (edn 28) as the “power to preserve from stumbling” τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ φυλάξαι ὑμᾶς ἀπταίστους and (the power) “to set before His face as spotless” (τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ) στῆσαι κατενώπιον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ ἀμώμους. Some problems may arise in trying to determine who are those whom God has saved from stumbling and made spotless. They are generally seen as the recipients of the letter and the pronoun ὑμεῖς – the plural you (ye) used earlier to refer to the recipients – is indicated as an argument. In this way, the continuation of syncrisis is also emphasised in the formal doxology, without isolating a summary theological thesis, though often with an emphasis on theocentric character of verse 24.902 Those enjoying being in the presence of God are to be contrasted with false teachers who have long been saved for judgment, have turned the grace of God into licentiousness, and have rejected the only Ruler and Lord Jesus Christ (verse 4). They will be accused and judged, just as other rebels and sinners have been judged and punished in the past (verse 5b–16).903 Their fate has long been foretold,

900 901 902 903

See below. J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 290; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 426. G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 425. Ibid., p. 424.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

including by Enoch (verse 4.14), and the apostles warned of their activities “in the last time” (verse 17–18). With such an exclusive variant of the interpretation of Jude 24, however, several details escape. First of all, it ignores the direct connections of verse 24 with verse 21–23, above all the call to show mercy to false teachers and their followers (Jude 22–23a) and to abide in love (by) welcoming others (the ungodly) into the community awaiting mercy (Jude 21). Even if one assumes that “saving by pulling out of the fire” applies only to those doubting members of the community, the division between the recipients of Jude’s epistle placed “before God’s glory” and the false teachers awaiting prosecution does not take into account the group of those rescued “from the fire”. So, while one may agree that Jude 24b – φυλάξαι ὑμᾶς ἀπταίστους, where the pronoun ὑμεῖς occurs – does indeed refer to the recipients of the letter, such a narrow understanding of Jude 24c, where the pronoun ὑμεῖς does not occur,904 leaves doubt. In examining Jude 22–23, it is stated that mercy here is to be understood inclusively and to include false teachers and their followers. The exhortation of them all, the exposing of errors in doctrine, the warning of judgment, the calling to repentance, contrition and penance are to be carried on continually, implicitly, until their filthy garment is changed into a clean one. This is alluded to in verse 24 by the expression ἄμωμος ‘without blemish, spotless’. The recipients of the epistle, mandated to show mercy together with the warning not to be seduced by attractive but erroneous teaching leading to ungodliness, are here described as ἄπταιστοι literally ‘un-stumbled’, i.e. ‘saved by God from stumbling’. Thus, with regard to verses 22–23, it is suggested that verse 24 also refers to two groups of people enjoying being in the presence of God. The first group are the converts – the recipients of the letter, believers showing mercy with care to avoid being stained by false teaching, whom God has saved from stumbling, that is, from being defiled by false teaching. The second group are the converts – the false teachers and their followers, who, although they have soiled themselves by preaching and accepting false teaching, have, thanks to the misericordial actions of the faithful, abandoned their errors and God has made them “spotless”. This interpretation seems to be confirmed by the aforementioned separation of the terms ἄπταιστος ‘un-stumbled’ and ἄμωμος ‘undefiled’, and the expression ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει ‘in great joy/with great joy’ would be synthesising and describing the condition of all to whom the mercy of Jesus Christ was shown at the judgment (see Jude 21). This is supplemented by references to source texts: in Zech 3:3–5 the clean garment is given to the high priest Joshua, who personifies Jerusalem, and his dirty clothes symbolise her many sins – acts of unfaithfulness and deviation from God’s

904 See below.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

391

392

Structural commentary

commandments. Moreover, as the recipients of the Letter of Jude are well aware (see Jude 5a), the scene in Zech 3:3–5 is preceded by a call to repentance (Zech 1:2–6), in which there are motifs also used by the narrator of the Letter of Jude – the warning exhortation of the prophets (see Jude 4.14–15.18) and references to history (ancestors), which prove the fulfilment of God’s word (see Jude 6.7.11). Later in the Book of Zechariah, reference is already made to God’s mercy and the removal of guilt (Zech 1:12–17, 2:8–9.14–16, 3:3). The composition of the Letter of Jude thus follows that of Zech 1–3. Jude additionally updates and Christianises these motifs, just as the author of AscIsa 9:24–26 does later. If the basis of ungodliness and false teaching was the rejection of Jesus Christ as the only Ruler and Lord and the turning of God’s grace into licentiousness (Jude 4), then the basis of conversion is the acceptance of Jesus as the only Ruler and Lord, the abandonment of licentiousness and submission to His grace. This is reminiscent of the conditions for receiving a new garment in AscIsa.905 It is also worth noting that some manuscripts incorporate this inclusive concept in different ways, using αὐτοῦς instead of the pronoun ὑμᾶς (so e.g. P Byz: “having the power to keep them from stumbling”) or the pronoun ἡμᾶς (so e.g. A vgmss syph : “having the power to keep us from stumbling”). The first variant one seems to clearly refer to those previously identified as διακρινόμενοι and towards whom the recipients are to show mercy; however, this would designate one group of beneficiaries of God’s salvific mercy – converted sinners, and thus would not include the recipients of the letter in this eschatological vision. The second option would be to include in the group of the “unconverted” also the sender of the letter and, as can be assumed, all those who remain faithful to God’s true revelation even outside the community of the letter’s recipients. These intuitions are also confirmed by the detailed analysis in verse 24b and 24c. Jude 24b begins with the verb φυλάσσω, which primarily denotes protection (Luke 11:21), watching, guarding (Acts 22:20) and imprisonment, prison guard (Luke 8:29, Acts 12:4, 23:35, 28:16).906 In some contexts, these prison connotations are blurred, while the very activity of protection, guarding, is accentuated. It acquires a more abstract and soteriological meaning when it is attributed to God (John 17:12, 2 Thess 3:3, 2 Tim 1:12). This leads to an understanding of protection as salvation (2 Pet 2:5), which means that the verb φυλάσσω, especially in eschatological contexts, is sometimes interpreted as a synonym of the verb τηρέω ‘to preserve’ (see Jude 1 and Rev 3:10).907

905 See below. 906 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 426. 907 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 122; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 282–283 reads verse 24a as a theological elaboration of the injunction from verse 21a – “keep yourselves in the love of/for God”

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

The adjective ἄπταιστος belongs to Jude’s hapax legomena. The whole phrase “keep from stumbling” is perhaps – at least lexically – dependent on the LXX, where a similar doxological phrase appears in 3 Macc 6:39:908 μεγαλοδόξως ἐπιφάνας τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ τῶν ἀπταίστους ἀυτοὺς ἐρρύσατο ὀνοθυμαδόν “the Lord of all most gloriously revealed his mercy and rescued them all together and unharmed [unstumbled]”. The terms ‘save/preserve’ (in the LXX – ῥύομαι) and ‘guard/protect’ (φυλάσσω) can be treated synonymously, while ‘stumble’ here has a metaphorical meaning – it denotes a mistake, a shortcoming, an offence usually of a moral nature, which in religious language is usually called sin. In the context of verse 23b this ‘stumbling’ can be made more concrete and understood as accepting the teaching of false teachers or only one of the ideas that make up this teaching, which could happen during discussions aimed at converting misbelievers. It should be noted that even such a single stumble would have an impact on the totality and effect of the actions taken. The image of faltering, stumbling on the way or on the run, popular in the Jewish Old Testament tradition and Hellenistic literature, served to reflect difficulties, delays and doubts on the way to achieving the goal (so, for example, in Meditations 5:9 by Marcus Aurelius909 ), sometimes even obstacles effectively preventing its achievement. Its roots are to be sought in the psalms (e.g. Ps 38[37]:17, 56[55]:14, 66[65]:9, 73[72]:2, 94[93]:18, 121[120]:3), where it was sometimes reinforced or replaced by accusations that it is the ungodly who set traps or snares for the righteous in order to prevent them from following the path of righteousness, that is, from keeping the commandments (e.g. Ps 140[139]:5–6, 141[140]:9–10, 142[141]:4). Not surprisingly, such imagery is also accompanied by a request to God for protection against stumbling, falling, or falling into a trap, or an expression of gratitude for that protection (e.g. Ps 121[120]:3–8, 140[139]:5, 141[140]:9).910 In De agricultura 40:177–180, Philo, speaking of the journey along the road leading to godliness, refers to the image of a runner who wishes to reach his goal without stumbling; at the same time, he observes that on this road people may encounter countless obstacles, and it is very rare that “God gives to any one to keep his life in a steady course from the beginning to the end, without either stumbling or falling” (40:180). A little earlier (40:174), like Jude 12, cites the image of a sea voyage and a vessel that approaches a harbour but is repelled from it by the wind. The affinity between

does not imply human abilities to fulfil the Law, but the power/authority of God who enables the faithful to this love. 908 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 122; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 283. 909 “Not to feel exasperated, or defeated, or despondent because your days aren’t packed with wise and moral actions. But to get back up when you fail, to celebrate behaving like a human—however imperfectly—and fully embrace the pursuit that you’ve embarked on”. 910 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 122.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

393

394

Structural commentary

Philo’s references and those of the narrator of the Letter of Jude can also be seen in the fact that they depict guilt and impiety committed unintentionally, so that they can – as Jude 23b–c argues – accompany even very noble actions which aim at the conversion of sinners, which is why great care and vigilance must be exercised, but also because it is God who protects the faithful from stumbling. The New Testament literature continues this metaphorical view of stumbling and falling as obstacles to righteousness and emphasizes that even a small and/or involuntary error resulting in the transgression of God’s law renders one completely ungodly (Rom 11:11, Jas 2:10, 3:2).911 A similar hamartiology arising from the Old Testament understanding of sin is represented by Jude 23b–c – “a stumble” could derail one’s hope of experiencing God’s mercy at the time of judgment. Now it is clear that “keeping from stumbling” in Jude 24a is closely related to the recommendation of caution in Jude 23b–c, for it specifies how this caution can be exercised. It must not be based on human strength, but on trust in God, who, seeing the mercy shown to the ungodly by the faithful, will also be merciful and will not allow the faithful “contending for the faith” to stumble and fall into ungodliness caused by false teaching when converting false teachers and their followers.912 As already noted in the analysis of verse 22–23, the narrator of the Letter of Jude expands the relationship between God’s mercy shown to people who were merciful to others to include a third element – God’s mercy shown to those toward whom people showed mercy. He develops this thought in verse 24c, when he describes God’s eschatological salvific actions leading to a change in the status of all converted sinners from ungodly to undefiled. As before, the emphasis here is primarily on the actions of God, who has “power to set/make you stand before His glory spotless and without blemish”. What draws attention here is the lack of a direct object – the narrator does not clearly indicate who is the beneficiary of these actions. It is usually argued that the pronoun ὑμεῖς in verse 24b also refers to verse 24c, especially when verse 24c is taken as an elliptical construction of ACI and translates as “he has power so that you will stand before his glory as spotless/unblemished”. While such a translation seems the most natural, it does not exhaust translational variants. Moreover, it falsifies the essential message about God as the source and initiator of all salvific action. It would seem better to treat the part. δυνάμενος ‘having power’ from verse 24a as verbum regens for two parallel infinitive constructions: the first refers to the believers, the recipients of the letter, whom God protects from stumbling, i.e. from succumbing to the teachings of false teachers; the second refers

911 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 291, argues that this fragment does not focus on stumbling/falling/ sinning in life in general, but on the judgement; therefore, the expression “without falling/stumbling” is synonymous with “faultless” in 24c. 912 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 122.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

to the converted false teachers and their followers, i.e. the ungodly, whom God has freed from sin and as undefiled has “set before his glory”: δυνάμενος – having power Φυλάξαι ὑμᾶς ἀπταίσμους

Στῆσαι κατενώπιον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ ἀμώμους

“keep you from stumbling” (literally, to protect you [as] un-stumbled/unharmed/unfaltering)

“set before his glory [as] spotless”

The verb beginning the second attributive description of God’s actions towards sinners should be taken as verbum transitivum and translated as ‘set/make stand’. This accentuates God’s role as sovereign agens. In a transitive sense, the verb ἵστημι is sometimes used in texts of a military nature and then means to ‘set up/deploy an army/soldiers’. It is possible that this military context has been taken into account here, especially since the image evoked by the phrase’ set before God’s glory’ includes angelic hosts surrounding God and accompanying the Lord coming to judgment (Jude 14b) together with – probably set in proper array – the righteous dead who have experienced angelization in order to be in God’s presence.913 The verb ἵστημι here also refers to stability, especially when juxtaposed with the adjective ἄπταισμος used synonymously.914 Just as in Jude 24b the faithful who convert false teachers are protected from stumbling, and thus strengthened by God in the true faith, lest they falter in it under the influence of false teaching (see 1 Cor 15:1), in the same way, the converts in Jude 24c, through the acceptance of true faith (see 2 Cor 1:24, Eph 3:17, 2 Thess 2:16–17, 3:3, AscIsa 9:26) and the transforming action of God, are able to stand in his presence without uncertainty or fear (see 1 Thess 3:13, 1 Pet 5:10, AscIsa 9:2). In the firmness and certainty implied in the adjective ἄπταισμος and the verb ἵστημι we can also find references to Jewish and Greek Hellenistic literature, which strongly criticises instability. Philo, in De somniis 2:2:11, describes the hesitation of Joseph, who, lured by life’s various attractions, remained constantly in “commotion and agitation, without being able to stand firm”, i.e. unable to keep stability and opt for specific values. Diogenes Laeartius, on the other hand, in his Lives of Eminent Philosophers 2:136, referring to Antigonus of Karystos, presents Menedemos as a philosopher who “never held firmly by any doctrine”;915 by this and by his ambiguously formulated judgements, he proved to be a dangerous opponent. Since in the earlier passages of the Letter of Jude the allusions to Greek literature served to strengthen the vituperative element, these references can also be treated in

913 See above for an analysis of verse 14–15; D.J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 447. 914 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 284. 915 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 429.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

395

396

Structural commentary

a similar way here and regarded as an additional component of syncrisis: the labile teaching of the false teachers, conditioned by many private revelations which were not necessarily in harmony with one another, offered no support, no guarantee of preservation in times of judgement, and was probably not preached with sufficient firmness and conviction. Only the true “most holy faith”, in which both converts and those about to be converted are strengthened by God, gives the guarantee of abiding in God’s presence. In order for converted sinners to be brought before God and to be in his presence without fear, they must be declared “spotless/faultless/blameless”. The adjective ἄμωμος used in verse 24c is probably rooted in Old Testament cultic tradition916 – the animal offered to God as a sacrifice had to be “without blemish”. When describing sacrificial practices in the LXX, the same adjective is used as in Jude 24c (Exod 29:1.38, Lev 1:3, 3:1.12, Num 6:14, Ezek 43:22). In the psalms and wisdom literature it is also applied to human beings, and thus takes on a moral-religious character – the spotless man is synonymous with the righteous man (Ps 15[14]:2; Sir 31:8; 40:19). In such a metaphorical sense ἄμωμος also occurs in the New Testament, often in an eschatological context that uses imagery similar to that of Jude 24 (Eph 1:4; 5:27; Phil 2:15; Col 1:22; Rev 14:5; see also the phonetically and semantically close adjective ἄμεμπτος in 1 Thess 3:13). The cultic provenance is seen above all in the descriptions of Christ as an undefiled sacrifice (Heb 9:14), a lamb without blemish (1 Pet 1:19). In early Christian literature, e.g. The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians 5 by Polycarp of Smyrna, immaculateness is a moral requirement for people wishing to exercise ecclesiastical functions: In like manner should the deacons be blameless before the face of His righteousness, as being the servants of God and Christ, and not of men They must not be slanderers, doubletongued, or lovers of money, but temperate in all things, compassionate, industrious, walking according to the truth of the Lord, who was the servant of all.

The image of the faithful standing before God without blemish is, as noted earlier, a reference to and a continuation of the scene begun in Jude 23c from Zech 3:4–5 and the Assumptionist literature and from Jude 9. Ryan E. Stokes even suggests that verse 24b in some respects more closely resembles the scenario in Jude 9 than in Zech 3: the transformation of Moses would be paradigmatic of the transformation that the righteous/justified will undergo at the time of judgment.917 However, the source texts make it possible to clarify the recipients of Jude’s term ‘spotless’ and

916 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 291; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 122; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 285. 917 R.E. Stokes, Not over Moses’ Dead Body, p. 208.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

to distinguish them from those who are saved from stumbling. According to Zech 3:4 with the removal of the filthy garment from Joshua the guilt was removed.918 According to Jude 23c the filthy garment is the teachings and conduct of false teachers. Instead of the filthy garment, Joshua was given a new, festive, clean garment which symbolises a new status enabling him to be in the presence of God. Likewise, the filthy garment of the false teachers is exchanged for ‘spotless’ clothing, and they, freed from guilt, can be brought before God. There is also a subtle Jude’s play on words and associations behind this analogy. In the LXX, Joshua’s guilt is described as ἀνομία (lawlessness). The same – ἀνομία (see antinomianism) – can be called the ideas and actions of false teachers based on a rejection of God’s law. This explains why among the spotless from Jude 24b we should see the converted false teachers rather than the faithful righteous who were kept from stumbling. Zechariah’s references, however, need to be reinterpreted in a Christian spirit. This is helped by the reference to the Judeo-Christian tradition from which Ascension of Isaiah draws. As has already been mentioned many times, the anomie of the false teachers consisted in “perverting God’s grace into licentiousness and denying Jesus Christ as the only Ruler and Lord” (Jude 4), and as the eschatological Judge who will carry out judgment on the righteous and the ungodly. The conversion of those who preach such a doctrine therefore consists in accepting Jesus Christ as Ruler, Lord and Judge, which, as AscIsa 9:26 states, guarantees the receipt of a new (clean) garments prepared in heaven for those who, having believed in the words of Jesus, “will observe those things, and believe in them, and believe in His cross” (AscIsa 9:26). The intertestamental and early Christian assumptionist tradition interprets the motif of receiving new garments as a transformation, which is often equated with angelization (see also Matt 22:30, Mark 12:25). In 2 En 22:6–9, in order for Enoch to stand before the Lord “into eternity”, he must receive “garments of [His] glory”, and by being dressed in these garments and anointed with ointment, he becomes like one of the Glorious Ones or angels, and “like [transfigured] one”. The transformational and angelising motif is even more clearly conveyed in ApAbr 13:14. Iaoel, the angel guide of Abraham, says directly to the fallen angel Azazel: “the garment which is heaven was formerly yours has been set aside for him [Abraham]”. Similarly, AscIsa 9:2–18, where the statement is made that all the righteous, beginning with Adam, “stript of the garments of the flesh, and I saw them in their garments of the upper world, and they were like angels, standing there in great glory. But they sat not on their thrones, nor were their crowns of glory on them” (AscIsa 9:9–10). They 918 Whereas in the assumptionist and transformationist traditions the main dramatis personae are the culprit/accused and the angel/archangel who, at God’s command, changes the garments of the sinner/deceased, often with the opposition of the accuser Satan/fallen angel (as in Rev 13:4–5), in Jude 24b it is God’s action that is foregrounded.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

397

398

Structural commentary

will sit on their thrones and in their crowns only in the end times, like the righteous followers of Christ (AscIsa 9:24–26). This transformational and angelizing motif in Jude 24 is reinforced by the images and associations evoked by the expression κατενώπιον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ “before His glory” which is the object of the verb ἵστημι. The preposition κατενώπιον ‘before, towards, in the face’ in the LXX appears rarely (Lev 4:17, Josh 1:5, 3:7, 21:44, 23:9). It is also rare in the New Testament – apart from Jude 24c, it occurs only in Col 1:22; Eph 1:4 in an eschatological context similar to Jude. It is used by Polycarp of Smyrna in the already quoted Epistle to the Philippians 5:2,919 where it is also used to describe those “blameless before the face of His righteousness”. Instead of the simple version κατενώπιον θεοῦ or κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ (as in the other New Testament texts), the narrator used the periphrastic expression κατενώπιον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ reflecting the traditional Jewish way of speaking of God.920 In the LXX, δόξα θεοῦ/κυρίου is synonymous with God’s presence (Exod 33:18–23, 40:34–35, 1 Kings 8:11, 2 Kings 5:13, Ps 26[25]:8, 73[72]:24, Wis 9:10, Sir 17:13, Tob 12:12, 15:1); in the New Testament similarly (John 11:40, Acts 7:55, Rom 1:23, 3:23, 5:2, 2 Pet 1:17, Rev 15:8). The letter’s narrator gave this traditional formulation an eschatological context, similar to that found in 1 En 104:1–3, where even more periphrastic references to God are used: “the glory of the Great One: and your names are written before the glory of the Great One […] and the portals of heaven shall be opened to you”. It is worth noting that the noun δόξα itself already appeared in the Letter of Jude in verse 8, but in the plural. The analysis has shown that it refers to authorities enjoying special respect in the community of the recipients of the letter, above all to patriarchs, prophets, apostles, evangelists transmitting God’s revelation, whom false teachers wanted to discredit in order to take their place. It has not been ruled out that the concept of δόξαι glory may also include angels as mediators of revelation.921 On the basis of the supposition that δόξαι in the plural in Jude 8 and δόξα in the singular in Jude 24c refer to the same designator – angels – Clement of Alexandria claims that the phrase: ‘in the presence of His glory’ means ‘in the presence of angels’.922 Such an angelological interpretation of Jude 24c is not without foundation. In the intertestamental and early Christian apocalyptic literature, angels are often referred to as “glories” or “glorious” (see 2 En 22:7.9, AscIsa 9:32–33); this is confirmed by Philo, who defines “glory” as “powers which attend thee [God] as thy [His] guard” (Special Laws I 8:45). The presence of angels by God evokes not only Old and Intertestamental images of God’s abode (see Ezek 9:3, 10:4.18), but 919 920 921 922

R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 122. P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 286. See above for an analysis of verse 8–9. G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 429.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

also scenes of eschatological judgment in which angels participate (see Zech 14:5, Matt 16:27, 25:31). This apocalyptic motif was used by Jude as early as verse 14b when he described the Lord coming to judgment with the holy myriads/myriads of saints. Among the myriads of saints were both angels and the righteous dead who had received transformation (angelization). If this image is also the background of Jude 24c, then the phrase κατενώπιον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ can be understood as a synecdoche synthesising all three Jude’s meanings of the noun δόξα. It refers to the image of the converted sinners dressed in clean clothes brought before the face of God (the first meaning of the noun δόξα – synonymous with the term God), accompanied during the judgement by angels (the second meaning of the noun δόξα/δόξαι) and the dead righteous, who are authorities for the recipients of the letter (the third meaning of the noun δόξα/δόξαι). However, since the singular is used, the first meaning should be considered dominant, while the second and third meanings should be considered as secondary meanings which in turn correspond well with the aforementioned military connotations of the verb ἵστημι: behold, the transformed ungodly are set/joined in the array of angels and the righteous undergoing angelization. Verse 24 ends with the phrase ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει ‘in joy’, which applies both to those “kept from stumbling” and to those who have fallen and committed iniquity but have repented and the guilt has been removed from them. The noun ἀγαλλίασις signifies the exuberant joy shown in public, often expressed by singing and dancing, which accompanied the celebration and integrated the participants.923 Already the LXX, by means of this noun or nouns and verbs formed from the same root – ἀγαλλίαμα, ἀγαλλιάω – describes eschatological joy in God’s salvation and divine presence (Isa 12:6; 25:9; Tob 13:13; Ps 96[95]:11–12; 97[96]:8);924 close to Jude 24c is especially Isa 61:10, where the motif of joy is linked to salvation symbolised by the dressing of the believer in a ceremonial (wedding) garment. In the intertestamental apocalyptic literature we can find texts which attribute eschatological joy to the whole creation. TLev 18 associates it with the appearance of the Messiah: “the heavens shall rejoice in His days, and the earth shall be glad, and the clouds shall be joyful […] and the angels of the glory of the presence of the Lord shall be glad in Him”. However, most works expose the joy of the righteous, who will be rewarded for their faithfulness by seeing the face of God. 1 En 104:2 compares the eschatological joy of the righteous to the joy of angels, in which one can discern a discrete indication of the angelization of the faithful, who – like the angels – will see the face of God: “Be hopeful; for aforetime ye were put to shame through ill and affliction; but now ye shall shine as the lights of heaven”. In addition

923 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 287. 924 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 122–123; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 431.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

399

400

Structural commentary

to their future sojourn in the presence of God, the source of their joy is also the knowledge of their fidelity to the true revelation, which has been carefully written down and which they have protected from distortion and falsification: “And to them shall the books be given, and they shall believe in them and rejoice over them, and then shall all the righteous who have learnt therefrom all the paths of uprightness be recompensed” (1 En 104:13). In a similar vein, 4 Ezra 7:98–99 insists that the joy of seeing the face of God is considered a reward for faithfulness that was not easy to maintain: they shall rejoice with boldness, be confident without confusion, be glad without fear, for they are hastening to behold the face of him whom in life they served and from whom they are destined to receive their reward in glory. This is the order of the souls of the righteous.

It is worth considering ApAbr 29:15–20, which seems to feature a similar motif to that in Jude of converted sinners and the righteous. The latter, who have, as it were, an assured place before God, share in God’s joy at the sincere conversion of the ungodly and their acceptance into eschatological fellowship with God: In those days […] will be left the righteous men in their number, protected by me, who strive in the glory of my name toward the place prepared beforehand for them […] Those rebuked by me when they are to see me rejoicing with my people for those who rejoice and receive and truly return to me.

This means that ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει in Jude 24c can be taken more collectively, inclusively and comprehensively than it would seem at first sight. First, it is the joy of righteous and converted sinners resulting from being in the presence of God. Secondly, it is the joy of God who is pleased by the sincere conversion of sinners. Thirdly, it is the joy of the righteous who rejoice at the conversion of the ungodly and their inclusion in fellowship with God. Fourthly and finally, it is the joy of God resulting from the accomplishment of the saving work and the acceptance of people into fellowship with Himself (see Jude 21). This soteriological aspect of joy is highlighted by the phrase μόνῳ θεῷ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν “to the only God our Saviour through Jesus Christ d” (Jude 25a). Because of its doxological form, it can also be interpreted as an enthusiastic cry of praise expressing eschatological joy.925 The first part of the phrase is somewhat reminiscent of the wording of Jude 4 (“denying our only Ruler and Lord”), but without the narrator’s characteristic transposition of the title

925 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 287.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

Saviour, which in Jewish tradition belongs to God, to the person of Jesus Christ. This treatment is unnecessary here because the addition of διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν “through Jesus Christ” suggests that God as Saviour reveals himself to people through Jesus Christ. The formula “the only God our Saviour” is undoubtedly rooted in the Jewish declaration of the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4–9), which is well known to the recipients of the letter, emphasising the singularity of God and reminding them of man’s duties towards Him (see Jude 21a – abiding in love [of/for] God). Placing the allusion to the Shema immediately after verse 22–24 seems justified. The believers who, by showing mercy to the false teachers and their followers, induced them to repent, show contrition and do atonement, might try to claim these merits for themselves. They might also consider as their own merit persevering in the “most holy faith” and resisting the temptation to accept the attractive elements of false teaching. Meanwhile, as verse 24 strongly emphasised, faithfulness, righteousness, and the conversion of the ungodly are the salvific works of God, and it is to Him that thanksgiving and praise are due – hence the designation of God by the sole but meaningful title of Saviour. It is unlikely that the context of Jude’s reference to the Shema is similar to that of Old Testament passages emphasizing the singularity of God in opposition to the polytheism or cult of the emperor as saviour that dominated the ancient world (see 2 Kings 19:15.19, Ps 83[82]:19, 86[85]:10, Isa 37:16.20, 41:20–24, Neh 9:6, 2 Macc 1:24–25, 4 Macc 5:24).926 It is equally unlikely that the emphasis on “the only” God reflects polemics with (pre)Gnostic ideas,927 which later in the second century resulted in a clear distinction between God – creator of the spiritual world and the demiurge/s – creator/s of matter.928 The designation of God by the title “Saviour” corresponds with the stated purpose of writing the letter in verse 3 to remind them of “our common salvation” γράφειν ὑμῖν περὶ τῆς κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας. Here this “our common salvation” is concretised as the mercy shown in judgement to the faithful/righteous and converted false teachers and their followers. Its benefactor is, of course, God. The juxtaposition of “our common salvation” with the person of “God our Saviour” alludes to the traditional Hebrew formula ‫“ אלהי ישענו‬God our salvation”, which in the LXX and Greek intertestamental literature is rendered as ὁ θεὸς ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν “God our Saviour” (Ps 65[64]:5; 79[78]:9; PssSol 17:3; see Isa 17:10 God your Saviour). Occasionally in the Hebrew text God is called salvation explicitly, but the LXX usually uses ὁ θεὸς ὁ σωτήρ (Ps 27[26]:9; see also Ps 38[37]:23 κύριε τῆς σωτηρίας μου “Lord of my salvation”; PssSol 8:39(33) – κύριε σωτὴρ ἡμῶν “Lord our Saviour”). 926 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 291; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 431. 927 This is suggested by J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 290, although he admits that this is hardly evidence. 928 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 123; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 287.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

401

402

Structural commentary

It should be noted, however, that the Old Testament use of the title “Saviour” refers primarily to God’s liberating actions in the temporal realm, the rescue given to Israel or the righteous in dire straits, in danger. A turn towards an eschatological understanding of this title can only be seen in intertestamental apocalypticism, and even more clearly in the New Testament and early Christian literature,929 in the few texts that attribute it to God rather than Jesus (Luke 1:47 referring to Hab 3:18, 1 Tim 2:3, 4:10, Titus 1:3, 2:10, 3:4, 1 Clem. 59:3 and 1 Tim 1:1, where “God our Saviour” appears alongside “Christ Jesus, our hope”).930 Jude thus, in a typical fashion, combines traditional Old Testament terminology with its Christian, here clearly eschatological, reinterpretation931 (but, as noted, without direct transposition). The confession of “the only God our Saviour” is completed with the formula “through Jesus Christ our Lord” διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. An inversion to the formula used in Jude 4 and Jude 21 is evident here. Moreover, the placement of this formula between the title “Saviour” and the typical doxological call δόξα μεγαλωσύνη κράτος καὶ ἐξουσία has caused difficulties in its interpretation and consequently its omission in some late codices (P 642. 1175. 1243. 1448 Byz). The addition can be understood in at least two ways. First, based on the comparison with Rom 16:27, where there is a very similar doxological formula probably taken from the liturgy μόνῳ σοφῷ θεῷ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν “to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ be glory forever and ever. Amen”, the phrase from Jude 25a “through Jesus Christ our Lord” is combined with Jude 25b – “glory, majesty, power/might and authority” and is understood as giving glory to God through Jesus Christ. Such function of Jesus – as the (only) mediator in worship and praise – is known to New Testament literature (Heb 13:15, 1 Pet 2:5, 4:11, see 2 Cor 1:20) and early Christian literature (1 Clem. 61:3, 64:1 calls Christ the high priest and intercessor through whom God is glorified; likewise, the Martyrdom of Polycarp 14:3; see also the doxology in 1 Clem. 65:2, Did. 9).932 This would mean that all the glory, honour and thanksgiving due to the transcendent God, before whom man as a sinner cannot stand, should be given only by/through the sinless Jesus Christ.933 The similarity with other doxologies would indicate the liturgical provenance of the phrase “through Jesus Christ our Lord”, which in turn would speak in favour of its cultic interpretation. Another interpretation is also possible, based on the combination of the phrase “through Jesus Christ our Lord” with the title “Saviour”. It emphasises, as already 929 930 931 932 933

J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 292. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 123; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 289. J. Painter, D.A. de Silva, James and Jude, p. 409. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 123; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 290. G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 434.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

noted, the manifestation of God as Saviour through Jesus Christ. Grammatically, this combination is possible, although many biblical scholars find it stylistically awkward.934 The idea of God’s salvific act through Jesus Christ is of course not foreign to Christian tradition (see John 1:3, 3:17, Acts 10:36, 2 Cor 5:18, Col 1:20), but it does not generally appear in doxological formulas. As a matter of fact, the only text that would express this thought in the form of a doxology is 2 Clem. 20:5:935 “To the only God invisible, the Father of truth, who sent forth unto us the Saviour and Prince of immortality, through whom also He made manifest unto us the truth and the heavenly life, to Him be the glory for ever and ever. Amen”. In the doxology in the Martyrdom of Polycarp 20:2, which is also sometimes cited as an argument for a soteriological interpretation of Jude 25a and contains lexical similarities and a similar idea, there is an almost twin ambiguity: “to him who is able to bring us all in his grace and bounty, to his heavenly kingdom, by his only begotten Child, Jesus Christ, be glory, honour, might, and majesty for ever”. In light of theology of the entire Letter of Jude and on the basis of the transpositional strategies employed by the narrator, it can be concluded that a soteriological interpretation is nevertheless more justified than a doxological one, or at least it is the dominant one here.936 The salvific act of God thus takes place through the salvific act of Jesus Christ, as the narrator pointed out when transposing Old Testament titles to Jesus at the beginning of the letter, and then already expressis verbis in verse 5bc, where reference is made to the pre-existent Jesus,937 who leads the people out of Egypt and punishes them, and verse 6, whose subject is also Jesus, and whose action consists in preserving the fallen angels for the final judgment. Indirectly, the idea of the pre-existence and identity of the salvific and punitive actions of God and Jesus Christ is present in all passages that refer to Old Testament narratives and to the Judaic intertestamental motif of transferring God’s primarily judicial prerogatives to the person of the Messiah. This relationship can also be shown from the other side – the salvific acts of Jesus Christ are essentially the saving works of God, rooted in his love for people (see verse 2).

934 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 290; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 434; F. Mickiewicz, List św. Judy, p. 138. 935 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 123; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 290 points out, however, that Jude 24–25 and 2 Clem. 20:5 are fundamentally different; primarily in structure and the fact that in 2 Clem. God is not called the Saviour, so it is difficult to speak of His salvific acts through Jesus Christ. 936 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 434, argues that it is the first perception – with a cult-related and doxological dominant – that is in question. 937 Differently J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 292, who, while admitting that the formula “through Jesus Christ our Lord” is ambiguous, sees no reference to pre-existence here.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

403

404

Structural commentary

The combination of the phrase “through Jesus Christ our Lord” with the passage referring to the Shema also allows us to see continuation and/or solutions to some of the thoughts taken up earlier. If the Shema served to constantly remind and confirm belonging to the “beloved, preserved and called” people of God understood initially in religious and ethnic terms (see Jude 1), then complementing it with a Christological formula serves to confirm belonging to the new “beloved, preserved and called” people of God signalled earlier by the typology (Jude 5). It also shows the continuity of salvation history and the unity of revelation. Formerly, it was transmitted through the patriarchs and prophets, symbolised by the Shema and the typical Old Testament use of the title “Saviour” in relation to God, and now, in the Christian era, through the apostles, evangelists, and preachers, symbolised by the reference to Jesus Christ (Jude 3.20, see Luke 1:2).938 In conclusion, it should be recalled that the entire Jude 24–25a is a vivid summary of Jude’s soteriology inscribed in the doxological formula. The narrator began his soteriological lecture by showing the positive – liberating – aspects of salvation (Jude 1–3.5b). He argued that they must not be understood in an antinomian or libertine way, but be combined with the judicial aspects, which are usually presented as judging the ungodly who have betrayed God’s will (Jude 5b – 19). At the same time, already from the middle of the epistle, Jude indicated that the eschatological judgment does not concern only the ungodly, but also the righteous – “every soul” (Jude 15a). The image of judgment on the ungodly was treated as a warning – if the false teachers identified with the ungodly and their followers do not repent, a cruel fate awaits them – obliteration (Jude 5b.7.10.11.23a). If they repent, at the judgment they can, like the righteous, experience the mercy of Jesus/the mercy of God and become beneficiaries of the liberating aspects of salvation: cleansing of guilt, transfiguration and abiding in God’s presence (Jude 24b). The faithful were obliged to show mercy to sinners in the last days, i.e. to be steadfast in exhorting them, converting them, showing them the errors of the preached teachings, calling them to contrition and penance (Jude 22–23). In this context, the whole body of the letter (Jude 4–24) can serve as a ready model for this merciful conduct and warnings addressed to false teachers, not only to believers. Jude’s reflections – reminders, warnings and exhortations to show mercy – are crowned by the scene of the eschatological judgment, which is a liberating judgment for both the righteous and converted sinners (Jude 24). This means that the two aspects of salvation – judicial and liberational – overlap and are complementary to each other. Soteriology cannot be reduced to one of them – usually – as in the case of false teachers, to the liberation aspect, but Jude also warns against the 938 It cannot be excluded, as suggested by J.D.N Kelly, A Commentary, p. 292 and R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 123, that the ambiguity of Jude 25a was intended to combine formal requirements – the doxological ending of the text typical of early Christian writing – with a summary of theological (soteriological) message. Even if this were the case, theological message is the dominant one here.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

temptation to overemphasise the judicial aspect and to enter into the role of Judge or Accuser. This function is reserved for God who, motivated by love for people “through Jesus Christ”, undertakes salvific works aimed at bringing people to meet him and share eschatological joy. Thus, verses 24–25a allow us to summarise Jude’s soteriology in a thesis: the purpose of God’s salvific work (through Jesus Christ) is to show mercy to people at the eschatological judgement (through Jesus Christ). 2.6.3

Part c. Doxology (Jude 25b)

25b

Glory, majesty, power/might and authority/dominion before all ages, and now, and for all ages. Amen.

The doxology that concludes the Letter of Jude is an element that continues to provoke discussion, first of all regarding its source and its elaborate form, which would indicate the late dating of the whole letter. There are also general doubts, already indicated in the Introduction, as to whether a text ending with a final formula that differs from the formulae used in ancient and New Testament epistolography is primarily a letter, or perhaps another literary genre or speech that was later given the shape of a letter.939 In Greek and Roman literature, the endings of letters varied greatly. Much depended on the genre and literary convention – whether it was an official or private letter, a letter to the diaspora,940 a didactic letter, a popularising letter, a scholarly letter, a letter of recommendation, a love letter, a poetic letter, etc.941 The most typical of ancient epistolography was the final formula containing personal greetings, health wishes, assurances of remembrance, e.g.: Give many salutations to Capiton and my brother and sister and Serenilla and my friends. I have sent you by Euctemon a portrait [eikonin] of myself. My name is Antonius Maximus, my company [kenturi(a)] is the Athenonica. I pray for your health;942 Give my affectionate greetings to your dear wife, whereby I wish you health and good luck, my lord son.943

939 940 941 942

See above – Introduction. K. Wojciechowska, M. Rosik, Mądrość zstępująca, p. 8, p. 73–77. J. Schnayder, Różne rodzaje listów, [in:] List antyczny, p. XIV–XXXII. Letter from Apion, an Egyptian soldier in the Roman navy, to his father, [in:] Select Papyri, vol. 1, Private Documents, transl. Arthur Surridge Hunt, Campbell Cowan Edgar (LCL 266), Cambridge 1932; cf. List marynarza do ojca, transl. J. Manteuffel, [in:] List antyczny, p. 10; when joining the navy, foreign sailors were given Roman names, hence the mention of the name given to the sender – Apion; “Centuria Athenonica” is the name of the unit. 943 Gratulacje z powodu małżeństwa syna, transl. J. Schnayder, [in:] List antyczny, p. 15 (own translation).

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

405

406

Structural commentary

Often, especially a rhetorical letter, ended with a post-script,944 which repeated information from the prescript, i.e. data on the author and the place and circumstances in which the letter was written, e.g: Since I believe that I will come quickly to (arrive at) the city [Rome], I especially ask from you that may I see (ask to see) you there in order that I may be able to benefit from your counsel, dignity, (and other) assistance. You will forgive (Please forgive) my haste and the brevity of my letter; you will learn the rest from Furnius (Caesar Imperator speaks greetings to Cicero Imperator);945 But really my scroll has insufficient space to record the remaining excuses, so great is the scarcity of papyrus rolls the Great King has caused us by his conquest of Egypt. Farewell, and after you have assisted him send Antipater back to us;946 I write this sitting on a cart. Farewell, and as for me – be of good cheer.947

But the endings could be less conventionalized and also contain sentences, miniparables, confessions; they could also lack any final element and the letter would abruptly end. Final doxological, benedictory or prayerful formulas are relatively least frequent in ancient letters. It is different in the New Testament letters, most of which contain more or less elaborate conventionalized final formulas. Most New Testament letters end with greetings, often specifying both the persons greeted (Rom 16:3–16, Phil 4:21, Col 4:15, 2 Tim 4:19, 3 John 15) and those who send the greetings (Rom 16:21–23, 1 Cor 16:19–21, Phil 4:22, Col 4:10–14, 2 Tim 4:21, Titus 3:15, Phlm 23–24, Heb 13:24, 1 Pet 5:13, 2 John 13, 3 John 15). Greetings were usually followed by a wish (blessing), the basic form of which is: “Grace be with you” (1 Cor16:23, 2 Cor 13:13, Gal 6:18, Eph 6:23–24, Phil 4:23, Col 4:18, 1 Thess 5:28, 2 Thess 3:18, 1 Tim 6:21, 2 Tim 4:22, Titus 3:15, Phlm 25, Heb 13:25). Only two New Testament letters besides Jude end with typical doxologies948 (Rom 16:27, 2 Pet 3:18); doxological formulas, on the other hand, may appear earlier, e.g., before greetings (Phil 4:20, 2 Tim 4:18), in the middle of the letter (Rom 11:36, Eph 3:20–21, 1 Tim 1:17; 6:1.6, 1 Pet 4:11), or at the beginning of the letter (Gal 1:5). The arbitrary location indicates that the doxologies were not typical

944 J.A.D. Weima, Neglected Endings, p. 55; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 420. 945 Cf. W pośpiechu pisany list Cezara (do Cycerona), transl., E. Rykaczewski, [in:] List antyczny, p. 102. 946 A.F. Natoli, The Letter of Speusippus to Philip II: Introduction, Text, Translation and Commentary; with an Appendix on the Thirty-first Socratic Letter Attributed to Plato, Sttutgart 2004, p. 109. 947 Temistokles ma wyrzuty sumienia, transl. J. Schnayder, [in:] List antyczny, p. 217 (own translation). 948 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 276.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

epistolographical final formulas. This is also confirmed in early Christian writings, where final doxologies occur in 1 Clem 65:2, 2 Clem. 20:5, The Martyrdom of Polycarp 21:1, and The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus 12, but they can also be found woven – sometimes repeatedly – into the body of letters (e.g. Did. 8–9, 1 Clem. 20:12, 32:4, 43:6, 58:2, 61:3, 64:1, The Martyrdom of Polycarp 14:3, 20:2). As Reinhard Deichgräber notes,949 Christian doxologies, irrespective of their location, become increasingly common in the first/second century and increasingly stable in form, displacing the benedictory formulas popular in Judaism (see 2 Cor 1:3, Eph 1:3, 1 Pet 1:3). The Old Testament contains many different formulas of doxology – from very extensive, as in 1 Kings 29:11–13, through more sparing ones, as e.g. in Ps 62:12[61:13], 104[103]:31, to very reduced ones, as in Ps 22[21]:29. In a form more resembling formulas known from Christian writings, Judaic doxologies appear only in Hellenistic times, although also in versions far from being stable, e.g: “To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen” (4 Macc 18:24); “for all the hosts of the heavens sings to thee, and thine is the glory for ever and ever. Amen” (The Prayer of Manasses 14); “To it belongs the strength and the kingship and the power and the majesty of all the ages. Blessed be the God of truth!” (1 Ezra 4:40); “yours is the glory” (1 Ezra 4:59). Reinhard Deichgräber concludes on this basis that the New Testament doxologies originate from the liturgical synagogue practice of Diaspora Judaism. Richard Bauckham, who argues against this position, sees the origins of doxologies in Old Testament benedictory formulas (1 Chron 16:36, Ps 41[40]:14, 89[88]:53, 106[105]:48, Dan 2:20, PssSol 17:3), which contain a temporal element and end with an “amen” acclamation.950 This would mean that the cradle of doxology is to be sought in Palestinian Judaism and not in the Diaspora. The liturgical roots of doxology itself raise no doubt. Such formulae (which were considered a special variant of prayer) usually ended prayers or sermons, but they could also be an independent and autonomous act of praising God (Luke 2:14, 19:38, Rev 7:10, 19:1).951 For the Letter of Jude, this liturgical rooting of the doxology is of particular importance, for it suggests that the text thus concluded was intended to be read in a worship service (see Col 4:16, 1 Thess 5:27).952 This primary liturgical purpose of Jude can explain the lack of final formulas typical of epistolography,

949 R. Deichgräber, Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der frühen Christenheit. Untersuchungen zu Form, Sprache und Stil der frühchristlichen Hymnen, Göttingen 1967, p. 40–42. 950 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 121. 951 Ibid., p. 121. 952 Ibid., p. 121; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 276; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 421 argues that appending a doxology to letters that are intended to be read at a service is a strictly Christian practice, not found in either the Jewish or pagan world.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

407

408

Structural commentary

especially greetings. However, it should already be pointed out that Jude’s doxology is not just an addition to the main text to justify its liturgical use, but an integral part of it, referring to earlier theological and soteriological content953 and containing elements typical of the narrator’s recognisable style (e.g. the introduction of the triple temporal expression: “before all ages, and now, and for all ages”). The concluding doxology of the Letter of Jude formally includes the vivid theological thesis analysed earlier (verse 24–25). This makes Jude’s doxology seem very elaborate, especially when compared to typical, much more sparing liturgical formulas. The basic form of the doxology is: “To Him/Thou/God be glory for ever. Amen”. It consists of four elements:954 1. the indication of the recipient of the doxology (usually in the dativus commodi); 2. the expression of praise (usually the noun δόξα ‘praise’ or its synonym in the nominative); 3. the specification of the temporal scope (‘for ever’ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, its equivalent or a more elaborate form e.g. ‘for ever and ever’); 4. the final formula ἀμήν ‘amen’ – an acclamation by which those saying it join the orants.955 The elements may be more or less expanded. In the Letter of Jude this expansion is evident and affects all parts except the “Amen” acclamation. This results in theories, sometimes mutually exclusive, regarding the sources of inspiration, origin and age of Jude’s additions. According to Reinhard Deichgräber, extensions such as the salvific attributes of God (Jude 24–25a), the Christological formula (Jude 25a), the addition of synonyms for the noun δόξα as further attributes of God (Jude 25b), and finally the three-element temporal marker (Jude 25b) are supposed to point to a late time of composition of the entire letter. For usually short forms are considered more primitive than long forms.956 However, this rule does not always hold true, as evidenced for example by 1 Kings 29:11–13957 with its broad catalogue of attributes belonging to God. Moreover, in different environments different variants of doxology may have functioned simultaneously,958 especially since, as already noted, their form was still unstable in the first century. The extension of the first element – naming God as the recipient and describing His salvific acts – has already been discussed from a theological perspective. It fits in very well with the main soteriological message of the letter, which is why it has been called and interpreted as a summary theological thesis. Looking at Jude

953 J.A.D. Weima, Neglected Endings, p. 55–56; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 424; see also the analysis above in verse 24–25a. 954 R. Deichgräber, Gotteshymnus, p. 25–27; J.A.D. Weima, Neglected Endings, p. 55, 135–144; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 277. 955 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 277. 956 R. Deichgräber, Gotteshymnus, p. 28–29. 957 P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 279–280. 958 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 120.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

24–25a from a formal perspective makes it possible to draw attention to those components found in other Christian doxological formulas: the identification of God as “the only one” (1 Tim 1:17, 6:16, 1 Clem. 43, 2 Clem. 20:5), as “the deliverer” (PssSol 17:3) and as “the one who has power” (Rom 16:25, Eph 3:20, Rev 5:12, The Martyrdom of Polycarp 20:2). This would mean that the narrator of the Letter of Jude did not introduce completely new terms into his doxology but used those that functioned in various doxologies with liturgical and/or prayerful (also private, extraliturgical) applications.959 The choice of attributes was obviously subordinated to the soteriological and Christological message. For the sake of the latter, a Christological formula has been added here “through Jesus Christ our Lord”.960 The expansion of the second element consists in introducing more attributes of God besides “glory”, this time of a transcendent and hegemonic nature. The narrator follows the same practice as before: from the known doxologies he uses those elements that allow him to expose theological message of the entire letter. The source here seems to be primarily the doxology of 1 Chron 29:11–13, which lists μεγαλωσύνη ‘greatness/majesty’, δύναμις ‘power’, καύχημα ‘splendour’, νίκη ‘victory’, ἰσχύς ‘strength’, δόξα ‘glory’, δυναστεία ‘dominion’. Only the transcendent attributes – μεγαλωσύνη ‘greatness/majesty’ and δόξα ‘glory’ – are literally selected from this catalogue, but the hegemonic attributes in Jude 25b – κράτος καὶ ἐξουσία – allude to ἰσχύς and δυναστεία and the descriptions of God’s dominion over the world in 1 Chron 29:11–13. This gives rise to Jude’s list of the four attributes δόξα, μεγαλωσύνη, κράτος and ἐξουσία, which looks quite impressive against the background of the New Testament doxologies, although there are also more extensive collections of God’s attributes in early Christian literature (see 1 Tim 1:17 – honour and glory, 1 Tim 6:16 – honour and eternal power, 1 Clem. 64:1 – glory, majesty, might and honour, 1 Clem. 65:2 – glory, honour, power, greatness and eternal dominion, The Martyrdom of Polycarp 20 – glory, honour, might and majesty, The Martyrdom of Polycarp 21 – glory, honour, majesty, eternal throne). The choice of attributes is, as said, deliberate and not accidental; the attributes associated with divinity/transcendence and power961 emphasise God’s sovereign authority and thus evoke verse 4, where this authority transferred to Jesus Christ is challenged. This transference implies that God’s authority and dominion also takes place and is represented “through Jesus Christ”, similar to the salvific act of God previously

959 Ibid., p. 120. 960 See above for an analysis of verse 24–25a. 961 J.H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 96. The transcendent and hegemonic character of the attributes mentioned in Jude 25b is perceived and commented on by Hilary of Arles in his Treatise on the Seven Catholic Letters: “Glory to him, because he conquers; majesty, because the heavenly hosts worship him; power to him, because he rules over all creation; and might, because he is able to destroy or to liberate all that he has created” (own translation).

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

409

410

Structural commentary

described in the doxology (Jude 24–25a). Thus, the Christological formula in Jude 25a – “through Jesus Christ” – refers both to Jude 24 (the salvific act of God) and to Jude 25b (the glory and power of God). It should be noted, however, that Jude’s formula “glory [to God] through Jesus Christ” is not, as in standard doxologies, about giving God glory “through Jesus Christ” as mediator and intercessor in praise and worship (see Heb 13:15, 1 Pet 2:5, 4:11, 2 Cor 1:20, 1 Clem. 61:3962 , 64:1963 , 65:2964 ; The Martyrdom of Polycarp 14:3965 , The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus 12), especially since, in addition to glory, it is greatness, power and authority that are also mentioned; it aims to perceive these transcendent and hegemonic attributes of God “through Jesus Christ, the only Ruler and Lord”. A similar direction is also represented by Heb 1:3, where Christ is called “the refulgence of his glory”, and “the very imprint of his being”; 1 Clem. 36:2 “Through Him let us look steadfastly unto the heights of the heavens; through Him we behold as in a mirror His faultless and most excellent visage”; and The Martyrdom of Polycarp 21:1: “but Jesus Christ was reigning for ever, to whom be glory, honour, majesty, and an eternal throne, from generation to generation. Amen”. Such a direction may also be attributed to the lack of the term τιμή ‘worship’, typical of Christian doxology,966 which has clear prayerful connotations (see 1 Tim 1:17, 6:16, Rev 5:13, 7:12). The noun δόξα is the most frequently occurring element in Christian doxologies (it is absent only in 1 Tim 6:16 and 1 Pet 5:11). In the Letter of Jude, the term appeared twice – in verse 8 and in verse 24. In verse 8, it referred in the plural to people, while in verse 24 – to God’s heavenly entourage of angels and the righteous. This time it has a strictly theological meaning. All these usages fit well into the narrator’s favoured triadic system; they also form a climactic system: from the use that is least obvious and least acute in meaning, but most anthropological, to the use that is most obvious, unambiguous and theological. Δόξα in verse 25b is the equivalent of the Hebrew term ‫כּבוֹד‬, which points primarily to God’s presence, transcendence, highness, holiness, miraculous and yet fear-inspiring acts (see Exod 15:11 [LXX], where not only the noun δόξα but also the verb δοξάζω is used; Rev 21:23). Sometimes Glory or even Great Glory is a periphrastic term for

962 “[…] we praise Thee through the High priest and Guardian of our souls, Jesus Christ, through whom be the glory and the majesty unto Thee”. 963 “[…] through our High priest and Guardian Jesus Christ, through whom unto Him be glory and majesty, might and honor, both now and for ever and ever”. 964 “[…] through [Christ] whom be glory and honor, power and greatness and eternal dominion, unto Him, from the ages past and forever and ever. Amen”. 965 “For this reason I also praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee through the everlasting and heavenly high Priest, Jesus Christ, thy beloved Child, through whom be glory to Thee […] both now and for the ages that are to come, Amen”. 966 F. Mickiewicz, List św. Judy, p. 138.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

God himself (TLev 3). Of course, this also implies ‘glory’ understood as reverence, respect, adoration, honours to be given to God,967 but this seems not to be the meaning the narrator wants to emphasise here. This understanding of the term δόξα in Jude 25b confirms another attribute of a transcendent nature. As already stated, the term μεγαλωσύνη ‘greatness/majesty’ is probably taken from the doxology in 1 Kings 29:11. It also points to God’s transcendence, faithfulness to promises, perfection, righteousness, salvific works (see Deut 32:3–4, 2 Sam 7:23), so it is treated as a synonym for ‘glory’ in theological sense.968 It can also be a synonym of glory understood as praise, honour and thanksgiving (see Sir 39:15), it seems, however, that the first meaning is closer to the narrator, as well as to the imagery referred to in the apocalyptic texts969 of 1 En 5:4 (condemnation of words spoken against the “greatness” of God) and TLev 3 (“for in the highest of all [seventh heaven] dwelleth the Great Glory, in the holy of holies, far above all holiness […] the heavens, and the earth, and the abysses, are shaken at the presence of His majesty”). Such an understanding of God’s majesty is also known to Christian writers – the authors of Heb 1:3, 8:1, 1 Clem. 27:4 (“By a word of His majesty He compacted the universe; and by a word He can destroy it”); 1 Clem. 36:2 (“through Him we behold as in a mirror His faultless and most excellent visage”); 1 Clem. 58:1 (“that we may dwell safely, trusting in the most holy Name of His majesty”). The notion of μεγαλωσύνη, though apart from Jude 25b not found in New Testament doxologies, became quite common in early Christian doxologies970 – The Martyrdom of Polycarp 20:2 (“to him who is able to bring us all in his grace and bounty, to his heavenly kingdom, by his only begotten Child, Jesus Christ, be glory, honour, mighty, and majesty for ever”); 21:1 (“to whom be glory, honour, majesty, and an eternal throne, from generation to generation, Amen” ); 1 Clem. 20:11–12 (“through our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory and the majesty for ever and ever. Amen”); 64:1 (“through whom unto Him be glory and majesty, might and honor, both now and for ever and ever. Amen”); 65:2 (“through whom be glory and honor, power and greatness and eternal dominion, unto Him, from the ages past and forever and ever. Amen”). The next two attributes – κράτος καὶ ἐξουσία – are hegemonic in nature; they focus on God’s sovereign power.971 The term κράτος ‘might, strength, power, mighty action, authority’ appears relatively frequently in New Testament dox-

967 968 969 970

P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 291. G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 437. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 124; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 292–293. See J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 293; R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 124; P.H. Davids, The Letters, p. 292–293. 971 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 437.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

411

412

Structural commentary

ologies (1 Tim 6:16, 1 Pet 4:11, 5:11, Rev 1:6, 5:13),972 sometimes it may even be the only element of such a doxology (1 Pet 5:11). It is equally common in early Christian doxologies (1 Clem. 64:1, 65:2, The Martyrdom of Polycarp 20:2). In the LXX κράτος is used in reference to God and signifies His authority, power (2 Macc 3:34), might (with military connotations), which comes to the aid, defends, and achieves final victory (Job 12:16, Isa 40:26, Jdt 9:14, 2 Macc 11:4, 3 Macc 1:27). In Ps 62[61]:13 and PssSol 17:3 it is combined with mercy. It seems that the images outlined by these Greek texts had the narrator of the Letter of Jude in mind, for they fit well with his eschatological imagery and soteriology. The vision of the Lord coming in judgment with myriads of saints in Jude 15b is summed up in Jude 25b as an expression of God’s power and his final victory; in turn, Jude 21b and Jude 24 emphasise mercy towards believers and converted sinners, which is closely associated with God’s power and authority (see δύναμαι ‘to have power’ in Jude 24), help and also with the final victory often described in apocalyptic literature in military terms. Here, too, the previously suggested manifestation of God’s attributes “through Jesus Christ” is revealed more clearly. The power (and mercy) of God is displayed at the time of judgment by Jesus the Judge. Thus, it can be seen how strongly Jude’s doxology is integrated into the content of the entire letter and how thoughtful the narrator’s choice of attributes has been. The intentionality of Jude’s choice is confirmed by the inclusion in the doxology of the term ἐξουσία synonymous with κράτος ‘strength, power, authority’.973 Such a doxological use of the term ἐξουσία is found only in the LXX in 1 Ezra 4:40 (beyond that it does not occur in any known Jewish or Christian doxologies): καὶ αὐτῇ ἡ ἰσχύς καὶ τὸ βασίλειον καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία καὶ ἡ μεγαλειότης τῶν πάντων αἰώνων “To it [the Truth] belongs the strength and the kingship and the power and

the majesty of all the ages. Blessed be the God of truth!” In other LXX texts ἐξουσία appears as a term for God’s sovereign authority and power (Dan 4:17, Sir 10:4), also in an eschatological sense. Similarly, in Josephus Flavius in Ant. V 1:26: “For do not you imagine that because you are got over the river, that you are got out of the reach of God’s power. You are every where in places that belong to him: and impossible it is to overrun his power [ἐξουσία], and the punishment he will bring on men thereby”, and in the New Testament, where this eschatological, afterlife aspect of God’s (or Jesus’) unlimited power is even more strongly emphasized (Matt 28:18, Luke 12:5, Acts 1:7, Rev 16:9, see Rom 9:21, of course, in the New Testament ἐξουσία also appears in other contexts, e.g. in the description of Jesus’ teaching and miracles performed with the power Mark 1:22, 6:7, 11:28974 which

972 Ibid. 973 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 124. 974 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 293.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

testify to his divine competence, and as a term for forces opposed to God – Eph 1:21, 2:2, 3:10, 6:12, Col 1:13.16, 2:10.15). In Jude 25b the function and meaning of the noun ἐξουσία is similar to that of the noun κράτος: it summarises the content related to the dominion and power of God expressed earlier in the letter. This is obviously related to the judicial context: God alone has the power to pass judgment – a reference to Jude 9 and Jude 22–23 can be seen here. He does all this “through Jesus Christ”. With this representative and Christological understanding of the attributes mentioned in the doxology (Jude 25b) – especially the hegemonic attributes κράτος and ἐξουσία – the already mentioned connections with Jude 4 can be seen.975 While the naming of Jesus as “the only Ruler and Lord” may have initially caused some concern to the Judeo-Christian recipients of the letter, the explanation offered in the doxology should remove any doubt about the transposition of titles and powers in Jewish tradition ascribed to God to the person of Jesus Christ. God as “the only Ruler and Lord”, to whom belong δόξα “glory”, μεγαλωσύνη “greatness” and κράτος “might” and ἐξουσία “power”, performs his mighty and powerful works through Jesus Christ. All his mighty and powerful works are, of course, saving works, as Jude has already made clear in verse 24 by calling God – the Saviour. Theological orientation of the doxology in the Letter of Jude confirms previous suggestions about its indicative rather than optative (wishful) character (see 1 Pet 4:11, Rom 1:25, 2 Cor 11:31, Did. 8–10, 1 Clem. 58:2).976 The attributes mentioned in Jude 25b characterise God, have always belonged to Him, do belong to Him and will belong to Him,977 regardless of human competence in recognising them or human attitude.978 In other words, the “blasphemies” against God, both by deed and word, used by the wicked (see verse 4) will not deprive God of his glory, greatness, might and power. The constant attributes, their permanence and immutability in the past, present and future, is emphasised by the triple temporal formula πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας “before all ages, and now, and for all ages”, which, as already mentioned, is expanded and unique compared to the basic doxology (or benediction) containing only the expression “for ever” possibly “for ever and ever” (1 Kings 29:10, 1 Ezra 4:40, 4 Macc 18:24, Ps 72[71]:19, 89[88]:53, PssSol 17:3, Dan 2:20, The Prayer of Manasses 14, Rom 1:25, 9:5, Gal 1:5, Phil 4:20, 1 Pet 4:11,

975 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 438. 976 J.A.D. Weima, Neglected Endings, p. 138. It should be noted, however, that there are doxologies which use the optativus (e.g. Quis dives salvetur 40:42 by Clement of Alexandria) or the imperativus for 3 sg. (e.g., 1 Clem. 32:4) – see R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 119. 977 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary, p. 294; G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 424. 978 However, G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 438, citing Austin’s speech act theory, argues that these indications of God’s attributes are an imperative illocution (intention).

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

413

414

Structural commentary

5:11, The Martyrdom of Polycarp 20:2, 2 Clem. 20:5, 1 Clem. 20:12, 32:4, 43:6, 58:2, Did. 8–10, The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus 12). The narrator used here his favourite triplet, which he combined with a concentric construction exposing the central element, the present: πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας.

The expression “for ever (and ever)” meant eternal continuance, but it was oriented towards the future (“from now to forever”). In order to better express the idea of God’s eternity and His reign, and to extend it also to the past, especially to the past before the creation of the world and time – protology – double formulas began to be used, containing elements that were semantically distant from each other, e.g. “the First and the Last” (e.g. Isa 48:12, Rev 21:6), “the Alpha and the Omega”, the First and the Last, “the Beginning and the End” (Rev 22:13), similarly Josephus Flavius in Ant. VIII 11:2, who speaks of God as “the beginning and end of all things”, and Philo of Alexandria, who in De Plantatione 93 also calls God “the beginning and the limit of all things”. Thesis of the existence of God and the attributes belonging to him before the creation of the world and time is rendered by Jude with the expression πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος “before all ages”, which is unique in the New Testament. At the other extreme is thesis of the existence of God with the same attributes also when the world and time come to an end, expressed by the formula for all ages, which in this antonymic juxtaposition acquires even clearer futuristic connotations. In biblical and early Christian literature such benedictory and doxological two-part formulas referring to the past and the future were not frequent (Ps 41[40]:14, 106[105]:48, 1 Clem. 65:2: “from the ages past and forever and ever”; Martyrdom of Polycarp 21:1: “from generation to generation”). One can also encounter those that refer to the present and the future (2 Pet 3:18: “now and to the day of eternity”; 1 Clem. 64:1 “now and for ever and ever”; The Martyrdom of Polycarp 14:3: “now and for the ages that are to come”). The present is naturally woven into the triple formula, although apart from the Letter of Jude such a formula does not occur in known Jewish and early Christian doxologies.979 This does not mean, however, that triple expressions cannot be found outside the doxologies, especially in apocalyptic literature.980 ApBaSyr/2Ba 21:9 mentions that God can “sustain all who are, and those who have passed away, and

979 R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 120. 980 Ibid. p. 120.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

A’’. Salvation (Jude 20–25)

those who are to be, those who sin, and those who are to righteous”. This text seems close to the narrator of the Letter of Jude because of the juxtaposition of the sinners and the rightous and God’s sovereign will/authority/power to sustain both groups. Also ApBaSyr/2Ba 23:3 enumerates, people “who now are”, those “who have passed away”, and those “who are appointed to come”. However, whereas Jewish apocalyptic three-part formulas referred to people, Jude uses references to past, future and present to express the eternity of God always acting through Jesus Christ. Certain parallels can also be drawn with apocalyptic descriptions of prophecies which, as for example in Jub 1:25, deal with what happens at the beginning, at the end and in between, although this is not expressed by any formula but by a narrative text: And do thou write down for thyself all these words which I declare unto thee on this mountain, the first and the last, which shall come to pass in all the divisions of the days in the law and in the testimony and in the weeks and the jubilees unto eternity, until I descend and dwell with them throughout eternity.

Tripartite formulas in reference to deities are found in Greek literature. For example, Plato in the dialogue Timaeus (37) refers to the “eternal essence” that “was”, “is” “will be”, although in fact it would be enough to say that it “is”, because it does not undergo any changes and is always the same. In a similar way, Athena (Isis) is described by the inscription on the statue of the goddess at Sais quoted by Plutarch in Isis and Osiris 9: “I am all that has been, and is, and shall be”. Such a triple reference to the existence and action of God through Jesus Christ is in harmony with the idea of pre-existence, which is woven into theology of the Letter of Jude. It can also be found in other New Testament texts in which tripartite formulas refer to Christ. Heb 13:8 declares the immutability of Jesus Christ, the same “yesterday, today, and forever”. More ambiguous at first glance appear texts from Revelation; though rooted in Jewish tradition and phraseology, yet the term ἐρχόμενος “he who is to come” makes it possible to identify the one “who is and who was and who is to come” ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος from Rev 1:4 and 4:8 with Jesus Christ. In Jude’s triple formula, the highlighted present can be interpreted broadly. Woven between the expression “before all ages”, which refers to the era before the creation of the world, and the expression “for all ages”, which refers to the future, it denotes the period between the creation of the world and its end in the last times (see 1 Tim 6:17; 2 Tim 4:10; Titus 2:12).981 What is notable here is the abandonment of the noun αἰῶν, which is also sometimes used to designate the present era, the

981 G.L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, p. 424.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

415

416

Structural commentary

present aeon, in favour of the conspicuous adverb νῦν. The presentness of νῦν can also be divided into historical past, present and future. The narrator referred to all these elements of the present in his letter when describing God’s action in the history of Israel, the present situation of the community that lives in the end times, and the coming judgment that concludes the historical present. He also combined protology with eschatology (Jude 4.14–15.24). This historical understanding of the present also determines the understanding of eternity in doxology. It is similar to that which already appeared in Jude 21b with the expression “eternal life” ζωὴ αἰώνιος, where it meant life after the final judgment (see another understanding of eternity in verse 6.7.13). Also, in Jude 25b the post-eschatological reality is referred to. Jude thus makes it clear that the attributes of God and his action through Jesus Christ are not limited by time on any account. He expressed this thought by using his favoured form of the triplet. The doxology ends with the Hebrew acclamation ἀμήν “amen”. It is rooted in the Old Testament, where it signifies the response of the community to the messages communicated to it. In the LXX it is usually translated optatively γένοιτο – “May it be” (Deut 27:15–26, 1 Kings 1:36, Ps 41[40]:14, 72[71]:19, Jdt 13:20), but in the books written after the Babylonian exile the original version was kept (1 Kings 16:36, Neh 5:13, 8:6, Tob 8:8, 3 Macc 7:23, 4 Macc 18:24, The Odes of Solomon 12:15, 14:28.35), which came into common liturgical use also among Greek-speaking Jews; all prayers, blessings, doxologies ended in this way. The original version of the acclamation and its liturgical use was also adopted by Christians (see 1 Cor 14:16), therefore New Testament and early Christian blessings, prayers, doxologies – even those that do not conclude the text – have the final ἀμήν “amen” (Rom 1:25, 9:5, 11:36, 16:27, Gal 1:5, Eph 3:21, Phil 4:20, 1 Tim 1:17, 6:16, 2 Tim 4:18, 1 Pet 4:11, 5:11, 2 Pet 3:18, Rev 1:6, 7:12, 1 Clem. 20:12, 32:4, 43:6, 58:2, 61:3, 64:1, 65:2, 2 Clem. 20:5, The Martyrdom of Polycarp 14:3, 21:1, The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus 12). While in prayers or blessings the optative translation “amen” is justified, in doxologies, also in Jude 24–25 – because of their indicative character – it seems preferable to emphasize the affirmative aspect of the expression and translate it as “It is so! / It is indeed so! / Indeed, it is so! / Yes, it is true!”, or simply “Yes!” (see 2 Cor 1:20, Rev 1:7). The placement of the acclamation “amen” at the end of the Letter of Jude has a double function. First, “amen” is a formal marker of the conclusion of the doxology. Second, it indicates that the narrator intended from the beginning that the letter be read during the liturgy (see Col 4:16, 1 Thess 5:27). The final “amen” was not intended to be read by a lector but was a kind of clue as to how the community should respond to the content of the entire doxology (Jude 24–25), which is a summary of the letter’s most important soteriological ideas.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

3.

Conclusions

The overlap of threads between the Letter of Jude and (especially) the Second Letter of Peter, the first bishop of Rome, has prompted exegetes to comment on them jointly. Of the few volumes of biblical commentaries making up renowned series, one is typically dedicated to these three writings (Jude, 1–2 Pet). This publication has adopted a different approach. The authors construed this New Testament text of only twenty-five verses in terms of its parenetic motifs, pointed up by many commentators, and – first of all – its theological content, which, as analyses have shown, focuses on soteriology and Christology. This theological message is at times underestimated if the letter is read in a linear way based on ancient rhetoric. The structural perspective uncovers the said message much better, despite the fact that the structural elements of the Letter of Jude mostly correspond to those of the classical antique letter. The epistle appears to have a chiastic structure: it opens and closes with references to salvation while the passages referring to judgement occur in between: A. Salvation – Jude 1–3 B. Ungodliness and judgement – Jude 4 A’. Salvation – Jude 5ab B’. Ungodliness and judgement – Jude 5c B’’. Ungodliness and judgement – Jude 6–19 a. The beginning of salvation history – Jude 6–7 b. Reference to the situation of the recipients – Jude 8–13 c. Eschatological judgement foretold from the beginning of the world – Jude 14–15 b’. Reference to the situation of the recipients – Jude 16 a’. End times – Jude 17–18 b’’. Reference to the situation of the recipients – Jude 19 A’’. Salvation – Jude 20–25. The rationale for attempting to examine the soteriology exposed in the opening and closing sections of the letter is Jude 3, in which the author of the letter admits that he wanted to describe “our common salvation” in a particularly careful way. The continuation of this verse may suggest that the original intention was abandoned (this is what most scholars assume). However, Greek also allows us to construe this verse as to mean that the author did not so much abandon that intention as but verified the manner and perspective from which salvation would be described.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

418

Conclusions

Since false teachers preach antinomian ideas and the preservation of Christians from judgment, thus denying the judicial competence of Jesus Christ, the author of the Letter of Jude undertook a polemic against these views and tried to describe salvation from a judicial perspective. He showed that salvation can be considered in its liberation aspect: as liberation from sin and death (see Jude 1–2) and in its judicial aspect. In presenting the judicial aspects of salvation, Jude begins by affirming that the views propounded by false teachers deserve the judgement that is inherent in salvation history from the very beginning (Jude 4). Jesus, on the other hand, is not only the one who saves, but also the one who has the power to judge (Jude 5) To illustrate this, he cites arguments from Jewish tradition, which he reinterprets in a Christocentric way. He shows that this Jesus has in the past carried out judgement on the rebellious angels (Jude 6), the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah (Jude 7), on Cain, Balaam and Korah (Jude 11). This same Jesus-Judge will soon arrive at the final judgment. Thesis of the inevitability of the judgment announced from the beginning of salvation history and carried out in eschatological times thus stands at the centre of the entire letter (Jude 14–15). The image of judgment drawn from 1 En 1:9 is not only the culmination of examples from the past, but also a kind of turning point in the narrator’s reflections. While the guilt-punishment relationship was emphasised earlier, the author now argues that the judgement applies not only to the wicked; the righteous will also be subject to it. In this way, Jude portrays judgment as an element inseparable from salvation. For at the time of judgement, the mercy of Jesus Christ will be fully revealed, which is a guarantee of eternal life (Jude 2.21.24). The narrator announces the idea of mercy already in verse 2, but he develops and exposes it in the final fragments of the letter. He exhorts his recipients not only to passively await the mercy of Jesus Christ in the court (verse 21), but also to actively show mercy to false teachers and their followers (verse 22–23b). Showing mercy here is understood as “snatching out of the fire” and is realised by demonstrating the errors in the teaching of false teachers, warning them through examples of punishment well known from tradition and continual conversion. In this way, the recipients of the letter are to “contend for the faith once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 3). The body of the letter is, moreover, a perfect model both for the struggle for the faith and for the exercise of mercy: false teachers must be made aware of the fallacy of the ideas they proclaim, of their absurdity, obscurantism, irrationality, ineffectiveness and, above all, of the fact that these teachings are not of divine origin, since they do not stand up to the revelation handed down by the truly inspired patriarchs, prophets and apostles (Jude 8.19). The best tool for this turns out to be vituperatio – a technique of persuasion used to discredit and ridicule the message and those who proclaim it, often by means of conventionalized invectives

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Conclusions

referring to promiscuity, lack of self-control, lack of reason, arrogance, greed, etc. (Jude 8.10.12–13.16.18–19). In order to demonstrate the futility of the teachings of false teachers, it is necessary to know them, being careful not to adopt either false ideas or ungodly behaviour that may seem attractive (Jude 23bc). At the same time, the recipients of the letter, called to show mercy, are warned against the temptation to assume the role of the Judge – Jesus – and decide who should be shown mercy. These warnings begin as early as verse 9, which alludes both to the story of the dispute over Moses’ body from the Assumption of Moses and to the court scene in Zech 3:3–5. Both narratives emphasize that the judgment of even such an obvious fault as blasphemy belongs exclusively to God/Jesus. To assume the role of judge would be to transgress God’s order, to defy His will, to negate revelation and to satisfy one’s own ambitions; it would therefore be no different from the conduct of false teachers. In turn, the resulting failure to admonish, warn and convert anyone would be a denial of abiding in God’s love, which manifests itself not only in the expectation of the mercy of Jesus Christ, but also in allowing others to share in that expectation (Jude 21). To exclude anyone from the circle of those awaiting mercy would be to introduce division in the community and would therefore also be no different from the behaviour of false teachers (Jude 19). The soteriology of the Letter of Jude finds its summary and culmination in verse 24, in the image of the saved standing before God. This scene alludes to scenes of eschatological joy known from biblical and extra-biblical literature. In Jude’s theology, eschatological joy is closely linked to the mercy of Jesus Christ shown at the time of judgment. Great joy and mercy leading to eternal life are experienced both by those called to show mercy to false teachers (God keeps them from stumbling – Jude 24a) and by the false teachers “snatched from the fire” (God makes them spotless and without blemish – Jude 24b), to whom the recipients of the letter showed mercy, that is never stopped warning them and turning them back from the wrong path, thus fighting for “the faith once for all handed down to the saints”. The Letter of Jude also deals with Christological aspects which have large similarities with soteriological issues. First, the idea of Jesus’ pre-existence which rooted in apocalyptic intertestamental literature and the election of a Messiah even before the creation of the world. The author of Jude resorted to the strategy of transposing the titles and powers in the Old Testament belonging to God to the person of Jesus Christ. Obviously, this is most evident in the transposition of judicial powers (Jude 5c.6.7.11), but it is also noticeable in the titles: Jesus is referred to as Lord, Ruler, Saviour, and in the presentation of Jesus as the executor of God’s salvific plans. Jude’s Christology is encapsulated in the phrase “to the only God our Saviour through Jesus Christ our Lord glory, majesty, power/might and authority/dominion” (Jude 25). It most often lends itself to doxological interpretation as giving glory to God the

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

419

420

Conclusions

Saviour through Jesus Christ, though the grammatical structure does not exclude a soteriological and Christological understanding as giving glory to God who as Saviour acts through Jesus Christ. Theology of the Letter of Jude presented in the commentary substantiates the former reading. Verses 14–15, which occur in the centre of the letter, not only constitute theological content of Jude, but also provide methodological and hermeneutical guidelines for the initial and all subsequent recipients of the text. First of all they reveal the Christocentric hermeneutics of the author of the Letter, who interprets the prophecies belonging to apocalyptic literature as referring to Jesus Christ. It may be assumed that Jude perceives the Old Testament and intertestamental literature, which he does not quote directly, in a similar fashion. Verses 14–16 evidently draw on the pesher method in interpreting the text. The quotation from the scripture recognized as inspired and the interpretation with the use of the formula “these are/those are” are most reminiscent of the classical Qumran pesher. Drawing on the classical pesher reveals the apocalyptic and eschatological orientation of the whole theological reflection of the author of the Letter of Jude.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Bibliography

Biblical texts Bibbia TOB. Edizione Integrale, Torino 1992. Die Bibel nach der Uebersetzung Martin Luthers, Stuttgart 1984. Die Bibel. Lutheruebersetzung, Stuttgart 2016. La Bible. Traduction Oecuménique de la Bible comprenant l’Ancien et le Nouveau Testament traduits sur les textes originaux hébreu et grec avec introductions, notes essentielles, glossaire, edn 2, Paris 1992. Biblia de Jerusalén. Nueva edición totalmente revisada y aumentada, Bilbao 1975. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. Karl Elliger, Wilhelm Rudolph, Stuttgart 1975. Biblia Jerozolimska, Poznań 2006. Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem, ed. Robert Weber, ed. 3, Stuttgart 1983. Biblia to jest Pismo Święte Starego i Nowego Przymierza (przekład dosłowny), Poznań 2019. Biblia to jest Pismo Święte Starego i Nowego Testamentu z apokryfami. Nowy przekład, Warszawa 1990. Daniel, transl. R. Timothy McLay (New English Translation of the Septuagint), New York 2009, http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/40-daniel-nets.pdf [accessed: 30.04.2021]. Grecko-polski Nowy Testament. Wydanie interlinearne z kodami gramatycznymi, Warszawa 1994. Die Heilige Schrift. Altes und Neues Testament, Bonn 1966. The Holy Bible. New Revised Standard Version, New York 1990. The New Jerusalem Bible, New York 1985. Novum Testamentum graece et latine, ed. August Merk, Romae 1964. Novum Testamentum graece, ed. Erwin Nestle, Barbara Aland, edn 28, Stuttgart 2012. Nowy Testament. Ekumeniczny Przekład Przyjaciół [The Ecumenical Translation of Friends], Warszawa 2017. Pismo Święte Nowego Testamentu i Psalmy. Najnowszy przekład z języków oryginalnych z komentarzem, Częstochowa 2005 [the Pauline Bible]. Pismo Święte Nowego Testamentu i Psalmy. Przekład ekumeniczny na trzecie tysiąclecie, Warszawa 2001 [the Ecumenical Bible]. Pismo Święte Starego i Nowego Testamentu w przekładzie z języków oryginalnych, Poznań – Warszawa 1990 [the Millennium Bible]. Pismo Święte Starego Testamentu, vol. 3: Księgi dydaktyczne. Przekład ekumeniczny, Warszawa 2008 [the Ecumenical Bible]. Pismo Święte Starego Testamentu, vol. 5: Księgi deuterokanoniczne. Przekład ekumeniczny, Warszawa 2011 [the Ecumenical Bible].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

422

Bibliography

Septuagint, ed. A. Ralphs, Stuttgart 1984. Septuagint, [English] trans. Lancelot C.L. Brenton, 1851, https://ecmarsh.com/lxx/Exodus/ index.htm [accessed: 20.05.2021].

Apocryphal literature The Acts of Thomas, transl. Montague Rhodes James, [in:] Montague Rhodes James, The Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford 1924, http://gnosis.org/library/actthom.htm [accessed 28.01.2021]. The Acts of Paul and Thecla, transl. Jeremiah Jones, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/maps/primary/thecla.html [accessed: 30.04.2021]. The Apocalypse of Abraham, http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepigrapha/Apocalypse_ of_Abraham.html [accessed: 21.05.2021]. The Apocalypse of Baruch (Syriac), transl. Robert Henry Charles, [in:] APOTEn, p. 70–526, http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepigrapha/2Baruch.html [accessed: 03.04.2021]. The [Gnostic] Apocalypse of Peter, transl. James Brashler, Roger A. Bullard, http://gnosis.org/ naghamm/apopet.html [accessed: 30.04.2021]. The Apocalypse of Peter, transl. Montague Rhodes James, [in:] Montague Rhodes James, The Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford 1924, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ apocalypsepeter-mrjames.html [accessed: 20.06.2021]. Apokryfy Nowego Testamentu, vol. 1–5, ed. Marek Starowieyski, Kraków 2003–2007. Apokryfy Starego Testamentu, ed. Ryszard Rubinkiewicz, Warszawa 2000. The Ascension of Isaiah, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ascension.html [accessed: 06.04.2021]. The Ascension of Isaiah: Translated from the Ethiopic Version, Which, Thogether with the New Greek Fragment, the Latin Version and the Latin Translation of the Slavonic, ed. R.H. Charles, London 1900, https://archive.org/details/cu31924014590529 [accessed: 19.07.2021]. The Assumption of Moses/Testament of Moses, transl. Robert Henry Charles, [in:] APOTEn, p. 407–424, http://wesley.nnu.edu/index.php?id=2124 [accessed: 27.04.2021]. The Book of Baruch (Fourth), transl. William Newby, http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak//publics/ pseudepig/ParJer-Eng.html [accessed: 12.08.2021]. The Book of Enoch, transl. Robert Henry Charles, [in:] APOTEn, p. 163–281, https://www. ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/enoch/ENOCH_4.HTM [accessed:25.03.2021]. The Book of Enoch (Second), transl. Robert Henry Charles, Nevill Forbes, [in:] APOTEn, p. 425–469, https://archive.org/details/apocryphapseudep02char/page/n7/mode/2up [accessed: 19.06.2021]. The Book of Ezra (Fourth), [in:] APOTEn, p. 542–624 https://archive.org/details/apocryphapseudep02char/page/590/mode/2up [accessed: 07.04.2021].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Apocryphal literature

The Book of Jubilees, transl. Robert Henry Charles, [in:] APOTEn, p. 1–82, http://www. pseudepigrapha.com/jubilees/20.htm [accessed: 03.04.2021]. The Book of the Secrets of Enoch (Also known as Slavonic Enoch or 2 Enoch), transl. W.R. Morfill, http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepigrapha/enochs2.htm#Ch7 [accessed:27.04.2021]. The Book of Thomas, transl. John D. Turner, https://web.archive.org/web/20160130132129/ http://jdt.unl.edu/thomasbook.htm [accessed 07.03.2021]. The Fourth Book of Maccabees, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1 &byte=4496061 [accessed: 03.04.2021]. The Gospel of Thomas, transl. Thomas O. Lambdin, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ text/thomas-lambdin.html [accessed 28.01.2021]. Dzieciństwo Pana, Ewangelia Tomasza [Infancy Gospel of Thomas], trans. Marek Starowieyski, [in:] Apokryfy Nowego Testamentu, vol. 1, ed. Marek Starowieyski, Kraków 2003, p. 388–404. James, Montague Rhodes, Latin Infancy Gospels: A New Text, with a Parallel Version from Irish, Cambridge 1927. Joseph and Aseneth, transl. David Cook, [in:] The Apocryphal Old Testament, Oxford 1984, p. 473–503, http://markgoodacre.org/aseneth/translat.htm [accessed: 20.05.2021]. The Odes of Solomon, transl. James Charlesworth, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ text/odes.html [accessed: 04.07.2021]. Parchem, Marek, Testament Mojżesza. Wprowadzenie oraz przekład z objaśnieniami, “Collectanea Theologica” 76 (2006), no. 2, p. 79–103. Prayer of Joseph, transl. J.Z. Smith, [in:] The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends; Wisdom and Philosophical Literature; Prayers, Psalms and Odes; Fragments of Judeo-Hellenistic Works, ed. James Charlesworth, vol. 2, London 1983, p. 699–700. The Prayer of Manasses, https://www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/Manasseh/index.html [accessed: 22.04.2021]. The Protoevangelium of James, transl. Alexander Walker, [in:] ANF, vol. 8, https://www. newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm [accessed: 08.03.2021]. Psalms of Solomon, transl. G. Buchanan Gray, [in:] APOTEn, p. 625–652, http://wesley. nnu.edu/sermons-essays-books/noncanonical-literature/noncanonical-literature-otpseudepigrapha/the-psalms-of-solomon/ [accessed: 20.04.2021]. The Sibylline Oracles, transl. Milton S. Terry, New York–Cincinnati [1899], https://www. sacred-texts.com/cla/sib/sib05.htm [accessed: 30.04.2021]. The Testament of Asher concerning Two Faces of Vice and Virtue, https://www.biblestudytools.com/history/early-church-fathers/ante-nicene/vol-8-third-fourth-centuries/ twelve-patriarchs/x-testament-of-asher-concerning-two-faces-of-vice-and-virtue.html [accessed: 30.03.2021].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

423

424

Bibliography

The Testament of Benjamin Concerning a Pure Mind, https://www.biblestudytools.com/ history/early-church-fathers/ante-nicene/vol-8-third-fourth-centuries/twelve-patriarchs/ xii-testament-of-benjamin-concerning-a-pure-mind.html [accessed: 25.05.2021]. The Testament of Dan Concerning Anger and Lying, https://www.biblestudytools.com/ history/early-church-fathers/ante-nicene/vol-8-third-fourth-centuries/twelve-patriarchs/ vii-testament-of-dan-concerning-anger-and-lying.html [accessed: 20.04.2021]. The Testament of Issachar Concerning Simplicity, https://www.biblestudytools.com/history/ early-church-fathers/ante-nicene/vol-8-third-fourth-centuries/twelve-patriarchs/vtestament-of-issachar-concerning-simplicity.html [accessed: 20.04.2021]. The Testament of Judah Concerning Fortitude, and Love of Money, and Fornication, https:// www.biblestudytools.com/history/early-church-fathers/ante-nicene/vol-8-third-fourthcenturies/twelve-patriarchs/iv-testament-of-judah-concerning-fortitude-and-love-ofmoney-and-fornication.html [accessed: 29.01.2021]. The Testament of Levi Concerning the Priesthood and Arrogance, https://www.biblestudytools. com/history/early-church-fathers/ante-nicene/vol-8-third-fourth-centuries/twelvepatriarchs/iii-testament-of-levi-concerning-priesthood-and-arrogance.html [accessed: 25.05.2021]. The Testament of Naphtali concerning Natural Goodness, https://www.biblestudytools.com/ history/early-church-fathers/ante-nicene/vol-8-third-fourth-centuries/twelve-patriarchs/ viii-testament-of-naphtali-concerning-natural-goodness.html [accessed: 29.01.2021]. The Testament of Reuben Concerning Thoughts, https://www.biblestudytools.com/history/ early-church-fathers/ante-nicene/vol-8-third-fourth-centuries/twelve-patriarchs/itestament-of-reuben-concerning-thoughts.html [accessed: 04.07.2021]. The Testament of Simeon Concerning Envy, https://www.biblestudytools.com/history/ early-church-fathers/ante-nicene/vol-8-third-fourth-centuries/twelve-patriarchs/iitestament-of-simeon-concerning-envy.html [accessed: 04.07.2021]. The Testament of Zebulun Concerning Compassion and Mercy, https://www.biblestudytools. com/history/early-church-fathers/ante-nicene/vol-8-third-fourth-centuries/twelvepatriarchs/vi-testament-of-zebulun-concerning-compassion-and-mercy.html [accessed: 20.04.2021]. The Third Book of Maccabees, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1 &byte=4451716 [accessed: 03.04.2021].

Ancient Christian writers Augustine, The City of God, https://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0354-0430,_ Augustinus,_De_Civitate_Dei_Contra_Paganos,_EN.pdf [accessed 06.03.2021]. Bede the Venerable, Commentary on the Seven Catholic Epistles, transl. David D. Hurst, Kalamazoo 1985.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Ancient Christian writers

Clement of Alexandria, Comments on the Epistle of Jude, transl. William Wilson, [in:] ANF, vol. 2, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0211.htm [accessed: 07.03.2021]. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/clement.html [accessed: 12.08.2021]. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor (Paedagogus), transl. William Wilson, [in:] ANF, vol. 2, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02092.htm [accessed: 30.04.2021]. Clement of Rome, Second Letter of Clement, transl. J.B. Lightfoot, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/2clement-lightfoot.html [accessed: 03.04.2021]. Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, transl. J.B. Lightfoot, http:// www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html [accessed: 04.04.2021]. Constitutions of Holy Apostles, transl. Philip Schaff, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/AnteNicene_Fathers/Volume_VII/Constitutions_of_the_Holy_Apostles/Book_VII/Sec._IV [accessed: 03.04.2021]. Cyril of Alexandria, Letters 1–50, transl. John I. McEnerney (The Fathers of the Church 76), Washington 2007, https://vdocuments.site/download/cyril-of-alexandria-foc-letters–1–50 [accessed: 20.04.2021]. The Didache, transl. M.B. Riddle, [in:] ANF, vol. 7, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714. htm [accessed: 09.04.2021]. Dion Chrysostom, Discourses [Oratoria], transl. James W. Cohoon, Henry Lamar Crosby, https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dio_Chrysostom/home.html [accessed: 12.08.2021]. Epiphanius of Salamina, Panarion. Books I (Sects 1–46), transl. Frank Wiliams, Leiden–Boston 2009, https://gnosis.study/library/ %D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0/ENG/Epiphanius%20of%20Salamis%20-%20The%20Panarion,%20Book%20I%20(Sects%201-46).pdf [accessed: 25.06.2021]. Epiphanius of Salamina, Panarion. Books II and III. De Fide, transl. Frank Wiliams, Leiden–Boston 2013, https://archive.org/stream/EpiphaniusPanarionBksIIIII1/Epiphanius%20–%20_Panarion_%20–%20Bks%20II%20%26%20III%20–%201_djvu.txt [accessed: 12.08.2021]. The Epistle of Barnabas, transl. J.B. Lightfoot, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ barnabas-lightfoot.html [accessed: 12.08.2021]. The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, transl. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, [in:] ANF, vol. 1, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0101.htm [accessed: 22.04.2021]. The Epistle of the Apostles [The Epistula Apostolorum], transl. Montague Rhodes James, http:// www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/apostolorum.html [accessed: 06.04.2021]. Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History [Historia Ecclesiastica], transl. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, [in:] Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 1, ed. Philip Schaff, Henry Wace, Buffalo, NY 1890, revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm [accessed: 10.02.2021];

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

425

426

Bibliography

Greek text: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01. 0640%3Abook%3D3%3Achapter%3D25%3Asection%3D3 [accessed: 12.08.2021], Hermas, The Shepherd, transl. J.B. Lightfoot, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ shepherd-lightfoot.html [accessed: 26.04.2021]. Hippolytus of Rome, Commentary on Daniel, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0502.htm [accessed: 21.04.2021]. Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition, transl. Burton Scott Easton, https://www.gutenberg.org/ files/61614/61614-h/61614-h.htm#ch4 [accessed: 30.04.2021]. Ignatius of Antioch, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, transl. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, [in:] ANF, vol. 1, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm [accessed: 09.04.2021]. Ignatius of Antioch, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, transl. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, [in:] ANF, vol. 1, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm [accessed: 08.03.2021]. Ignatius of Antioch, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians, transl. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, [in:] ANF, vol. 1, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0108.htm [accessed: 16.07.2021]. Ignatius of Antioch, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, transl. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, [in:] ANF, vol. 1, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm [accessed: 20.04.2021]. Ignatius of Antioch, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, transl. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, [in:] ANF, vol. 1, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm [accessed: 16.07.2021]. Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html [accessed: 12.08.2021]. Irenaeus of Lyons, Demonstration of the Apostolic Doctrine, http://www.earlychristianwritings. com/text/demonstrationapostolic.html [accessed: 20.04.2021]. Irenaeus of Lyon, Fragments from the Lost Writings, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/ 0134.htm [accessed: 28.04.2021]. James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude, ed. Gerald Bray (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture 11) Downers Grove 2019. Jerome, De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men), transl. Ernest Cushing Richardson, [in:] ANF, vol. 3, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2708.htm [accessed: 12.08.2021]. Justin Martyr, The Dialogue with Trypho, transl. Marcus Dods, George Reith, [in:] ANF, vol. 1, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0128.htm [accessed: 05.04.2021]. Justin Martyr, First Apology, transl. Marcus Dods, George Reith, [in:] ANF, vol. 1, http:// www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm [accessed: 12.08.2021]. Justin Martyr, Second Apology, transl. Marcus Dods, George Reith, [in:] ANF, vol. 1, https:// www.newadvent.org/fathers/0127.htm [accessed: 12.08.2021]. The Letter of Aristeas, ed. R.H. Charles, Oxford 1913, https://www.ccel.org/c/charles/ otpseudepig/aristeas.htm [accessed: 28.04.2021].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Other ancient writers

List św. Jakuba, I–II List św. Piotra, I–III List św. Jana, List św. Judy, ed. Dariusz Sztuk (Ojcowie Kościoła komentują Biblię 11), Ząbki 2014. The Martyrdom of Polycarp, transl. Kirsopp Lake, [in:] Apostolic Fathers (LCL), http://www. earlychristianwritings.com/text/martyrdompolycarp-lake.html [accessed: 17.02.2021]. Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, transl. John Patrick, [in:] ANF, vol. 9, http:// www.newadvent.org/fathers/101610.htm [accessed: 10.10.2019]. Origen, De Principiis (Book III) [On the First Principles], transl. Frederick Crombie, [in:] ANF, vol. 4, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04123.htm [accessed: 12.08.2021]. Polycarp of Smyrna, Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, transl. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, [in:] ANF, vol. 1, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm [accessed: 21.04.2021]. Tertullian, Apology [Apologeticus], transl. S. Thelwall, [in:] ANF, vol. 3, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0301.htm [accessed: 30.04.2021]. Tertullian, De baptismo liber/On Baptism, transl. Canon Ernest Evans, 1964, http://www. tertullian.org/articles/evans_bapt/evans_bapt_text_trans.htm [accessed: 12.08.2021]. Tertullian, On the Apparel of Women [De cultu feminarum], transl. S. Thelwall, https://ccel. org/ccel/tertullian/women_apparel/anf04.iii.iii.i.i.html [accessed: 12.08.2021].

Other ancient writers Aeschylus, Persians, transl. G. Theodoridis, https://bacchicstage.wordpress.com/aeschylus–2/ persians/ [accessed: 12.08.2021]. Antipater of Thessalonica, Epigrams, http://www.attalus.org/poetry/antipater2.html [accessed: 30.04.2021]. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, transl. W.D Ross, http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html [accessed: 19.04.2021]. Aristotle, Politics, transl. Benjamin Jowett, http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.4.four. html [accessed: 20.04.2021]. Aristotle, Rhetoric, transl. William Rhys Roberts, http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric. html [accessed: 28.04.2021]. Athenaeus, The Deipnosophists, or the Banquet of the Learned, transl. Charles Duke Yonge, vol. 1–3, London 1854, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/36921/36921-h/36921-h.htm [accessed: 30.04.2021]. The Biblical Antiquities of Philo, transl. Montague Rhodes James, London 1917, http://ccat. sas.upenn.edu/rak/publics/pseudepig/LAB.html#trans [accessed: 27.06.2021]. Caesar Imperator speaks greetings to Cicero Imperator, https://www.coursehero.com/file/ ps17fn/Gnaeus-Pompeius-Proconsul-says-offers-greetings-to-General-Cicero-If-youare/ [accessed: 22.04.2021].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

427

428

Bibliography

Cicero, Marcus Tullius, The familiar epistles of M.T. Cicero [Epistulae ad Familiares libri], transl. J. Webbe, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A18843.0001.001/1:8.13?rgn= div2;view=fulltext [accessed: 21.05.2021]. Cicero, Marcus Tullius, Letters to Atticus [Epistulae ad Atticum], transl. Eric Otto Winstedt, vol. 1 (LCL), London–New York 1919 https://archive.org/details/letterstoatticus01ciceuoft/page/n11/mode/2up [accessed: 27.06.2021]. Cicero, Marcus Tullius, Letters to Atticus [Epistulae ad Atticum], transl. Eric Otto Winstedt, vol. 2 (LCL), London–New York 1913 https://archive.org/details/letterstoatticus02ciceuoft/page/n5/mode/2up [accessed: 27.06.2021]. The Community Rule, transl. G. Vermes, http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/other/courses/ rels/225/Texts/1QS [accessed: 20.04.2021]. Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, transl. C.H. Oldfather http://www.perseus.tufts. edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0084%3Abook%3D15%3Achapter%3D58%3Asection%3D1 [accessed: 12.08.2021]. Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, Books I–V, ed. Immanuel Bekker, Ludwig Dindorf, Friedrich Vogel, Immanel Bekker, Leipzig 1888–1890, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/ hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:2008.01.0540 [accessed: 27.06.2021]. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, transl. Robert Drew Hicks, Cambridge 1972, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01. 0258%3Abook%3D2%3Achapter%3D17 [accessed: 12.08.2021]. The works of Epictetus, consisting of his discourses, in four books, the Enchiridion, and fragments, transl. Thomas Wentforth Higginson, vol. 2, Boston 1891, https://www.stmarys-ca.edu/ sites/default/files/attachments/files/Enchiridion.pdf [accessed: 20.04.2021]. Euripides, Hippolytus, transl. E.P. Coleridge, http://classics.mit.edu/Euripides/hippolytus. html [accessed: 25.04.2021]. Flavius, Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, transl. William Whiston, London 1737, http:// penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/index.html [accessed: 23.04.2021]. Flavius, Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae [original text], [in:] in: Flavii Iosephi opera, ed. Benedikt Niese, Berlin 1892, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc= Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0145%3Abook%3D2%3Awhiston+chapter%3D6%3Awhiston+section%3D7 [accessed: 19.07.2021]. Flavius, Josephus, Against Apion [Contra Apionem], http://public-library.uk/ebooks/10/45. pdf [accessed: 29.06.2021]. Flavius, Josephus, The Jewish War [De Bello Iudaico], transl. William Whiston, London 1737, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/war-pref.html [accessed: 20.04.2021]. Herodotus, Histories, transl. George Rawlinson, https://files.romanroadsstatic.com/materials/herodotus.pdf [accessed: 29.04.2021]. Hesiod, Theogony, [in:] Hesiod, The Homeric Hymns, and Homerica, transl. Hugh G. Evelyn-White, Cambridge–London 1914, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc= Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0130%3Acard%3D1 [accessed: 27.06.2021].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Other ancient writers

Homer, The Iliad, transl. Samuel Butler, http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/iliad.6.vi.html [accessed: 25.04.2021]. Homer, The Odyssey, transl. A.T. Murray, vol. 1–2, Cambridge–London 1919, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01. 0136%3Abook%3D3%3Acard%3D276 [accessed: 29.04.2021] Letter from Apion, an Egyptian soldier in the Roman navy, to his father, [in:] Select Papyri, vol. 1, Private Documents, transl. Arthur Surridge Hunt, Campbell Cowan Edgar (LCL 266), Cambridge 1932, http://www.csun.edu/ hcfll004/paplet1.htm [accessed: 22.04.2021]. Liryka starożytnej Grecji, ed. Jerzy Danielewicz, Warszawa–Poznań 1996. List antyczny. Antologia, ed. Jerzy Schnayder, Wrocław 2006. Lucian of Samosata, Timon the Misanthrope, [in:] The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. H.W. Fowler, F.G. Fowler, Oxford 1905, http://lucianofsamosata.info/wiki/doku. php?id=home:texts_and_library:dialogues:timon-the-misanthrope#section55 [accessed: 12.08.2021]. Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, transl. Gregory Hays, New York 2002, http://seinfeld.co/ library/meditations.pdf [accessed: 03.04.2021]. Martinez, Florentino Garcia, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. The Qumran Texts in English, transl. Wilfred G.E. Watson, Leiden 1994. Muchowski, Piotr, Rękopisy znad Morza Martwego. Qumran – Wadi Murabbaat – Masada, Kraków 1996. Natoli, Anthony Francis, The Letter of Speusippus to Philip II: Introduction, Text, Translation and Commentary; with an Appendix on the Thirty-first Socratic Letter Attributed to Plato, Stuttgart 2004. Octavian Augustus, The Deeds of the Divine Augustus, transl. Thomas Bushnell, http://classics. mit.edu/Augustus/deeds.html [accessed: 29.03.2021]. Pausanias, Description of Greece, transl. W.H.S. Jones, H.A. Ormerod, vol. 1–4, Cambridge–London 1918, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Paus.+10.32.13 &fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0160 [accessed: 28.01.2021]. Petroniusz Gajusz, Uczta Trymalchiona, transl. Leopold Staff, http://biblioteka.kijowski.pl/antyk%20rzymski/06.%20petroniusz%20gajusz%20%60arbiter%60%20%20uczta%20trymalchiona.pdf [accessed: 12.08.2021]. Philo of Alexandria, Allegorical Interpretation [Legum allegoriae], transl. Charles Duke Yonge, London 1854–1890, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book4.html [accessed: 12.08.2021]. Philo of Alexandria, On Abraham [De Abrahamo], transl. Charles Duke Yonge, London 1854–1890, http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book22.html [accessed: 12.08.2021]. Philo of Alexandria, On the Life of Moses [De Vita Mosis], transl. Charles Duke Yonge, London 1854–1890, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book24.html [accessed: 12.08.2021].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

429

430

Bibliography

Philo of Alexandria, On the Confusion of Tongues [De confusione linguarum], transl. Charles Duke Yonge, London 1854–1890, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book15. html [accessed: 05.04.2021]. Philo of Alexandria, On Dreams, that they are God-sent [De somniis], transl. Charles Duke Yonge, London 1854–1890, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book21.html [accessed: 12.08.2021]. Philo of Alexandria, On Husbandry [De agricultura], transl. Charles Duke Yonge, London 1854–1890, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book11.html [accessed: 12.08.2021]. Philo of Alexandria, On the Posterity of Cain [De posteritati Caini], transl. Charles Duke Yonge, London 1854–1890, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book8.html [accessed: 12.08.2021]. Philo of Alexandria, The Special Laws, transl. Charles Duke Yonge, London 1854–1890, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book27.html [accessed: 26.05.2021]. Plato, Philebus, transl. Benjamin Jowett, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1744/1744–h/ 1744–h.htm [accessed: 29.03.2021]. Plato, Laws, [in:] Plato in Twelve Volumes, vol. 10–11, transl. R.G. Bury, London 1967–1968, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01. 0166%3Abook%3D7%3Asection%3D803b [accessed: 12.08.2021]. Plato, Timaeus, transl. Benjamin Jowett, https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/physis/platotimaeus/time.asp [accessed: 12.08.2021]. Platon, Uczta, transl. Władysław Witwicki, https://wolnelektury.pl/katalog/lektura/platonuczta.html [accessed: 12.08.2021]. Pliny the Younger, Letter to the Emperor Trajan, [in:] Pliny the Younger, Letters, vol. 1–2 (LCL 55, 59), Cambridge–London 1915, transl. William Melmoth, http://vroma.org/vromans/ hwalker/Pliny/Pliny10–096–E.html [accessed:30.04.2021], Plutarch, Quaestiones Convivales, ed. William Watson Goodwin, https://topostext.org/work/ 297 [accessed: 30.04.2021]. Plutarch, Demetrius, [in:] Plutarch’s Lives, transl. Bernadotte Perrin, Cambridge–London 1920, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01. 0040%3Achapter%3D1%3Asection%3D6 [accessed: 26.04.2021]. Plutarch, Isis and Osiris [De Iside et Osiride], [in:] Plutarch, Moralia, transl. Frank Cole Babbitt, Cambridge–London 1936, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc= Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0239 [accessed: 12.08.2021]. Plutarch, Concerning the Face Which Appears in the Orb of the Moon, transl. Harold Cherniss, vol. 12, [in:] Plutarch, Moralia (LCL 406), Cambridge 1957, p. 1–223, https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/The_ Face_in_the_Moon*/B.html [accessed: 28.04.2021]. Plutarch, The Life of Timoleon, [in:] Plutarch, Lives, transl. Bernadotte Perrin (LCL 103), Cambridge–London 1923, https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/ Lives/Timoleon*.htm [accessed: 12.08.2021].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Other ancient writers

Plutarch, On the ‘E’ at Delphi, transl. Arthur Octavius Prickard, Oxford 1918, http://penelope. uchicago.edu/misctracts/plutarchE.html [accessed: 28.04.2021]. Plutarch, On Moral Virtue, transl. W.C. Helmbold, [in:] Plutarch, Moralia, vol. 6 (LCL 337), Cambridge 1939, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/23639/23639-h/23639-h.htm#Page_ 98a [accessed: 28.04.2021]. Plutarch, On Shyness, [in:] Plutarch, Moralia, transl. Arthur Richard Shilleto, London 1898, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/23639/23639-h/23639-h.htm#Page_315a [accessed: 30.04.2021]. Plutarch, How can one praise oneself without exciting envy, [in:] Plutarch, Moralia, transl. Arthur Richard Shilleto, London 1898, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/23639/23639-h/ 23639-h.htm#Page_315a [accessed: 30.04.2021]. Polybius, The Histories, vol. 1–6, transl. William Roger Paton (LCL), Cambridge 1922–1927, https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/home.html [accessed: 27.04.2021]. Pseudo-Demetrius, On Style [De elocutione], transl. William Rhys Roberts, London–Cambridge 1902, https://archive.org/details/demetriusonstyle00demeuoft/page/172/mode/ 2up [accessed: 11.03.2021]. Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, transl. Harold Edgeworth Butler (LCL), Cambridge 1920–1922, https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Quintilian/Institutio_ Oratoria/home.html [accessed: 12.08.2021]. Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria [latin] (LCL), Cambridge 1920, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/ hopper/collection?collection=Perseus%3Acorpus%3Aperseus%2Cauthor%2CQuintilian [accessed: 18.04.2021]. Seneca, Lucius Annelius, Moral Letters to Lucilius [Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales], transl. Richard M. Gummere, vol. 1–3, London–New York 1917–1925, https://en.wikisource. org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/Letter_75 [accessed: 11.03.2021]. Seneca, Lucius Annelius, On Consolation to Marcia [De Consolatione ad Marciam], [in:] Lucius Annelius Seneca, Moral Essays, vol. 2, transl. J.W. Basore (LCL), Cambridge 1932, https://www.stoictherapy.com/elibrary-marcia [accessed: 12.08.2021]. Sophocles, Antigone, ed. Richard Jebb, Cambridge 1891, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0186%3Acard%3D531 [accessed: 12.08.2021]. Strabo, Geography, transl. Horace Leonard Jones, vol. 1–8, Cambridge 1917–1932, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/home.html [accessed: 12.08.2021]. Theophrastus, The Characters, transl. R.C. Jebb, 1879, https://www.eudaemonist.com/biblion/ characters/ [accessed: 03.04.2021]. Theophilus of Antioch, To the Autolycus, transl. Marcus Dods, http://www.logoslibrary.org/ theophilus/autolycus/210.html [accessed: 12.08.2021]. Theognis of Megara, Poems, transl. J.M. Edmonds, Cambridge–London 1931, http://demonax.info/doku.php?id=text:theognis_poems#section295298 [accessed: 12.08.2021].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

431

432

Bibliography

Dictionaries, synopses and concordances The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman, New York 1992. Głowiński, Michał, Kostkiewczowa, Teresa, Okopień-Sławińska, Aleksandra, Sławiński, Janusz, Podręczny słownik terminów literackich, Warszawa 1994. Ilan, Tal, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity. Part 1: Palestine 330 BCE–200 CE (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 91), Tübingen 2002. Jaworski, Stanisław, Podręczny słownik terminów literackich, Kraków 2001. Korolko, Mirosław, Sztuka retoryki. Przewodnik encyklopedyczny, Warszawa 1990. Louw, Johannes P., Nida, Eugene A., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domain, New York 1988. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown, vol. 1–2, Grand Rapids 1975–1976. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, transl. Geoffrey William Bromiley, Grand Rapids 1985.

Commentaries Barclay, William, The Letters of John and Jude, Edinburgh 1960. Barnett, Albert E., Homrighausen, Elmer George, The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude, London 1957. Bartnicki, Roman, Walka z herezjami (List św. Judy), [in:] Ewangelia św. Jana, Listy powszechne, Apokalipsa, red. Janusz Frankowski (Wprowadzenie w Myśl i Wezwanie Ksiąg Biblijnych 10), Warszawa 1992, p. 132–141. Bateman, Henri W., Interpreting the General Letters: An Exegetical Handbook, Grand Rapids 2013. Bauckham, Richard, Jude, 2 Peter (World Biblical Commentary 50), Waco 1983. Bauckham, Richard, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church, London–New York 2004. Bigg, Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude (International Critical Commentary: on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments 41), Edinburgh 1901. Brosend, William F., The Letters of James and Jude (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), Cambridge 2004. Carson, Donald Arthur, Moo, Douglas J., Morris, Leon, An Introduction to the New Testament, Manila 1992. Charles, J. Daryl, 1–2 Peter, Jude, Scottdale 1999. Chester, Andrew, Martin, Ralph Philip, The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter and Jude, Cambridge 1994. Craddock, Fred B., First and Second Peter and Jude, Louisville 1995.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Commentaries

Davids, Peter H., The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude (The Pillar New Testament Commentary), Grand Rapids 2006. Donelson, Lewis R., I and II Peter and Jude (New Testament Library), Louisville 2010. Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G., The Messianic Jewish Epistles. Hebrew, James, I Peter, II Peter, Jude (Ariel’s Bible Commentary), San Antonio 2005. Green, Gene L., Jude and 2 Peter (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), Grand Rapids 2013. Green, Michael, 2 Peter, Jude. An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), Grand Rapids 1987. Grundmann, Walter, Der Brief des Judas und der zweite Brief des Petrus (Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament 15), Berlin 1974. Gryglewicz, Feliks, List św. Judy, [in:] Listy katolickie – Wstęp. Przekład. Komentarz, ed. Feliks Gryglewicz, Poznań 1959, p. 473–496. Guthrie, Donald, New Testament Introduction, London 1970. Harrington, Daniel J., Jude and 2 Peter/Senior, Donald P., 1 Peter, Collegeville 2003. Harrington, Daniel J., The Early Catholic Writings of New Testament, [in:] Richard J. Clifford, George W. MacRae, The Word in the World: Essays in Honor of Frederick L. Moriarty, Cambridge 1973. Hillyer, Norman, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, Grand Rapids 1992. James, Montagure Rhodes, The Second Epistle General of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude, Cambridge 1912. Keating, Daniel, First, Second Peter, Jude, Grand Rapids 2011. Kelly, John Norman Davidson, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude (Black’s New Testament Commentaries), London 1982. Kistemaker, Simon J., New Testament Commentary: James, Epistles of John, Peter and Jude, Grand Rapids 1996. Knight, Jonathan, 2 Peter and Jude, Sheffield 1995. Knoch, Otto, Der erste und zweite Petrusbriefe. Der Judasbrief, Regensburg 1990. Lenski, Richard Charles Henry, Interpretation of I and II Epistles of Peter, the three Epistles of John nad the Epistle of Jude, Minneapolis 2008. Lucas, Dick, The Message of 2 Peter and Jude. The Promise of His Coming, Leicester 1995. Luther, Martin, The Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude Preached and Explained, transl. E.H. Gillet, New York, 1859, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29678/29678-h/29678-h.htm [03.04.2021]. Luther, Martin, Preface to the Epistles of Saint James and Saint Jude, http://www.godrules. net/library/luther/NEW1luther_f8.htm [accessed 06.03.2021]. Mayor, Joseph Bickersteth, The Epistle of St Jude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter, London 1907. Mickiewicz, Franciszek, List św. Judy. Drugi List św. Piotra (Nowy Komentarz Biblijny. Nowy Testament 18), Częstochowa 2018. Moo, Douglas J., 2 Peter, Jude (The NIV Application Commentary), Grand Rapids 1996.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

433

434

Bibliography

Neyrey, Jerome H., 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible 37c), New York 1993. Nienhuis, David R., Not by Paul Alone: The Formation of the Catholic Epistle Collection and the Christian Canon, Waco 2007. Nienhuis, David R., Wall, Robert W., Reading the Epistles of James, Peter, John and Jude as Scripture: The Shaping of a Canonical Collection, Grand Rapids 2013. Painter, John, Silva, David Arthur de, James and Jude (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), Grand Rapids 2012. Paulsen, Henning, Der Zweite Petrusbrief und der Judasbrief (Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 12/2), Göttingen 1992. Reading 1–2 Peter and Jude, ed. Eric Farrel Mason, Troy W. Martin, Atlanta 2014. Reese, Ruth Anne, 2 Peter and Jude, Grand Rapids 2007. Reicke, Bo, The Epistles of James, Peter and Jude (The Anchor Bible 37), New York 1964. Rosik, Mariusz, List św. Judy, [in:] Hugolin Langkammer, Mariusz Rosik, Mirosław S. Wróbel, Komentarz do Listu św. Jakuba Apostoła, 1–2 Listu św. Piotra Apostoła, 1–3 Listu św. Jana Apostoła, Listu św. Judy i Apokalipsy (Komentarz teologiczno-pastoralny do Biblii Tysiąclecia. Nowy Testament 5), Poznań 2015, p. 129–140. Schelkle, Karl Hermann, Die Petrusbriefe. Der Judasbrief, Göttingen 1988. Schreiner, Thomas R., 1, 2 Peter, Jude (New American Commentary 37), Neshville 2003. Seremet, Bogusław, Dzieje Apostolskie i listy katolickie (Academica – Wydział Teologiczny PAT w Tarnowie 54) Tarnów 2001. Sidebottom, Ernest Malcolm, James, 2 Peter, Jude (New Century Bible Commentary), Grand Rapids 1980. Skaggs, Rebecca, The Pentecostal Commentary on 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Jude (Pentecostal Commentary Series), London 2004. Spitta, Friedrich, Der Zweite Brief des Petrus und der Bried des Judas. Eine geschichtlische Untersuchung, Halle 1885. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, ed. Bruce Manning Metzger, Stuttgart 1975. Wallace, Daniel B., Jude: Introduction, Argument, and Outline (New Testament: Introductions and Outlines), https://bible.org/seriespage/26-jude-introduction-argument-and-outline [accessed: 12.08.2021]. Wojciechowska, Kalina, Rosik, Mariusz, Mądrość zstępująca z góry. Strukturalny komentarz do Listu św. Jakuba, Warszawa 2018.

Studies Adams, Edward, The “Coming of God” Tradition and its Influence on New Testament Parousia Texts, [in:] Biblical Traditions in Transmission. Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb, ed. Charlotte Hempel, Judith M. Lieu, Leiden–Boston 2006, p. 1–20.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Studies

Allen, Joel S., A New Possibility for the Three-Clause Format of Jude 22–23, NTS 44 (1998), p. 133–134. Bartholomä, Philipp F., Did Jesus Save the People out of Egypt? A Re-examination of Textual Problem in Jude 5, “Novum Testamentum” 50 (2008), p. 143–158. Batten, Alicia J., The Letter of Jude and Graeco-Roman Invective, “HTS Teologiese studies/ Theological Studies” 70 (2014), no. 1, p. 1–7. Bauckham, Richard, God Crucified. Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament, Carlisle 1998. Black, Matthew, Christological Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament, NTS 18 (1971–1972), p. 1–14. Boobyer, George H., The Verbs in Jude 11, NTS 5 (1958–1959), p. 45–47. Całek, Anita, Nowa teoria listu, Kraków 2019. Charles, J. Daryl, Literary Artifice in the Epistle of Jude, “Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentlische Wissenschaft” 82 (1991), p. 106–124. Charles, J. Daryl, Literary Strategy in the Epistle of Jude, Scranton 1993. Charles, J. Daryl, The Use of Tradition-Material in the Epistle of Jude, “Bulletin for Biblical Research” 4 (1994), p. 1–14. Charles, J. Daryl, “Those” and “These”: The Use of Old Testament in the Epistle of Jude, JSNT 38 (1990) p. 109–124. Cohn, Norman, Kosmos, chaos i świat przyszły. Starożytne źródła wierzeń apokaliptycznych, transl. Adriana Kurowska-Mitas, Kraków 2006. Comfort, Philip Wesley, Barrett, David P., The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts, Wheaton, 2001. Coulley, Thomas Scott, ΒΑΛΑΑΚ in the P72 Text of Jude 11: A Proposal, NTS 55 (2009), p. 73–82. Daniélou, Jean, Theology of Jewish Christianity: A History of Early Christian Doctrine Before The Council of Nicaea, London 1977. Daube, David, Participle and Imperative in 1 Peter, [in:] Edward Gordon Selwyn, The First Epistle of St Peter, London 1946, p. 467–88. Deichgräber, Reinhard, Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der frühen Christenheit. Untersuchungen zu Form, Sprache und Stil der frühchristlichen Hymnen, Göttingen 1967. Drączkowski, Franciszek, Kościół – agape według Klemensa Aleksandryjskiego, Lublin 1983. Dubarle, André-Marie, Rédacteur et destinataires de L’Épître aux Hébreux, “Revue Biblique” 48 (1939), p. 509–529. Dunnett, Walter M., The Hermeneutics of Jude and 2 Peter: The Use of Ancient Jewish Traditions, “Journal of The Evangelical Theological Society” 31 (1988), no. 3, p. 287–292. Dutcher, Roger, An Unorthodox Argument and Jude’s Non-Canonical Sources, “Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies” 11 (2008), no. 1–2, p. 33–43. Ellis, Edward Earle, Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity, Tübingen 1978. Eybers, I.H., Aspects of the Background of the Letter of Jude, “Neotestamentica” 9 (1975), p. 113–123.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

435

436

Bibliography

Flink, Timo, Reconsidering the Text of Jude 5,13,15 and 18, “Filologia Neotestamentaria” 20 (2007), p. 95–125. Forstner, Dorothea, Świat symboliki chrześcijańskiej, transl. Wanda Zakrzewska, Paweł Pachciarek, Ryszard Turzyński, Warszawa 1990. Fossum, Jarl, Kurios Jesus as the Angel of the Lord in Jude 5–7, NTS 33 (1987), no. 2, p. 226–243. Głowiński, Michał, Narracje literackie i nieliterackie, Kraków 1997. Gryglewicz, Feliks, Rozwój teologii listu św. Judy i Drugiego Listu św. Piotra, “Ruch Bibilijny i Liturgiczny” 5 (1980), p. 247–258. Gunther, John J., The Alexandrian Epistle of Jude, NTS, 30 (1984), p. 549–562. Heliso, Desta, Henoch as the Son of Man: Contextual and Christological Considerations, “Swedish Missiological Themes” 98 (2010), no. 2, p. 141–155. Hempel, Charlotte, The Earthly Essene Nucleus of 1Qsa, “Dead Sea Discoveries” 3 (1996), no. 3, p. 253–269, https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/185471625.pdf [accessed 25.04.2021]. Hengel, Martin, Acts and the History of Early Christianity, London 1979. Hiebert, D. Edmond, Selected Studies from Jude, Part 1: An Exposition of Jude 3–4, “Bibliotheca Sacra” 142 (1985), p. 142–151. Hollander, Harm Wouter, The Attitude towards Christians Who Are Doubting: Jude 22–23 in the Text of Zechariah 3, [in:] The Book Zechariah and Its Influence, ed. Christopher M. Tuckett, Burlington 2003, p. 123–134. Hultin, Jeremy, Jude’s Citation of 1 Enoch: From Tertullian to Jacob of Edessa, [in:] Jewish and Christian Scriptures: The Function of ‘Canonical’ and ‘Non-Canonical’ Religious Texts, ed. James H. Charlesworth, Lee Martin McDonald, Edinburgh 2010, p. 113–128. Janicki, Jan Józef, Historia Eucharystii w pierwszych wiekach chrześcijaństwa w świetle wybranych źródeł (II–IV w.), “Textus et Studia” 4 (2015), no. 4, p. 95–126. Jankowski, Augustyn, Eschatologia Nowego Testamentu, Kraków 2007. Jędrzejewski, Sylwester, Peszer jako metoda egzegetyczna, “Seminare” 24 (2007), p. 111–126. Jobes, Karen H., The Minor Prophets in James, 1 & 2 Peter, and Jude, [in:] The Minor Prophets in the New Testament, ed. Maarten J.J. Menken, Steve Moyise (Library of New Testament Studies 377), London 2009, p. 135–153. Johnson, Luke Timothy, The New Testament’s Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic, “Journal of Biblical Literature” 108 (1989), p. 419–441. Joint Statement by the Lutheran World Federation and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity on the conclusion of the year of the common commemoration of the Reformation, 31st October 2017, https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/ pubblico/2017/10/31/171031a.html [access: 30.01.2021]. Joseph, Simon J., Seventh from Adam (Jude 1,14–14): Re-Examining Enochic Traditions and Christology of Jude, “The Journal of Theological Studies” 64 (2013), no. 2, p. 463–481. Joubert, Stephan J., Language and the Social Context of the Letter of Jude, “Neotestamentica” 24 (1990), no. 2, p. 335–349. Joubert, Stephan J., Persuasion in the Letter of Jude, JSNT 58 (1995), p. 75–87.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Studies

Jurgens, Blake A., Is It Pesher? Readdressing the Relationship Between the Epistle of Jude and the Qumran Pesharim, “Journal of Biblical Literature” 136 (2017), no. 2, p. 491–510. Kałużny, Józef Cezary, Miejsca spotkań eucharystycznych Kościoła w świetle źródeł pierwszej połowy II w., “Starożytność chrześcijańska. Materiały zebrane” 2 (2010), p. 17–46. Klauck, Hans-Josef, Wczesnochrześcijańska wspólnota kościelna, transl. Stanisław Jopek, Kraków 1995. Koktysz, M., Elementy parenetyczne Listów Piotra i Judy. Studium egzegetyczno-porównawcze (MS), Warszawa 2016. Kotecki, Dariusz, “On Bogiem wiernym a nie zwodniczym” (Pwt 32,4). Refleksja biblijnoteologiczna nad wiernością Boga w Starym Testamencie, “Collectanea Theologica” 75 (2005), no. 2, p. 13–38. Kruger, Michael A., ΤΟΥΤΟΙΣ in Jude 7, “Neotestamentica” 27 (1993), no. 1, p. 119–132. Kubo, Sakae, Jude 22–23: Two-division Form or Three, [in:] New Testament Textual Criticism. Its Significance for Exegesis, ed. Eldon Jay Epp, Gordon D. Fee, Oxford 1981, p. 239–253. Landon, Charles, A Text-Critical Study of the Epistle of Jude (JSNTSup 135), Siefield 1996. Langstaff, Beth, The Book of Enoch and the Ascension of Moses in Reformation Europe: Early Sixteenth-Century Interpretations of Jude 9 and Jude 14–15, “Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha” 23 (2013), no. 2, p. 134–174. Loader, James Alfred, A Tale of Two Cities: Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament, Early Jewish and Early Christian Traditions, Kampen 1990. Lockett, Darian, Objects of Mercy in Jude. The Prophetic Background of Jude 22–23, “Catholic Biblical Quarterly” 77 (2015), p. 322–336. Longosz, Stanisław, Zarys historii inwektywy wczesnochrześcijańskiej, “Roczniki Teologiczne” 43 (1996), no. 2, p. 363–390. Lyons, William John, Canon and Exegesis. Canonical Praxis and the Sodom Narrative (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series 352) London–New York 2002. Malherbe, Abraham J., Ancient Epistolary Theorists, Atlanta 1988. Mathews, Mark D., The Literary Relationship of 2 Peter and Jude. Does the Synoptic Tradition Resolve this Synoptic Problem?, “Neotestamentica” 44 (2010), p. 47–66. Mędala, Stanisław, Wprowadzenie do literatury międzytestamentalnej, Kraków 1994. Miller, Michael T., The Evolution of the Patriarch Enoch in Jewish Tradition, “Distant Worlds Journal” 1 (2016), p. 128–141. Mitchell, David Campbell, Firstborn Shor and Rem: A Sacrificial Josephite Messiah in 1 Enoch 90,37–38 and Deuteronomy 33,17, “Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha” 15 (2006), no. 3, p. 211–228. Moore, Nicholas J., Is Enoch also among the Prophets? The Impact of Jude’s Citation of 1 Enoch on the Reception of Both Texts in the Early Church, “The Journal of Theological Studies. New Series” 64 (2013), no. 2, p. 498–515. Muddiman, John, The Assumption of Moses and the Epistle of Jude, [in:] Moses in Biblical and Extra-Biblical Traditions, ed. Axel Graupner, Michael Wolter, Berlin–New York 2007, p. 169–180.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

437

438

Bibliography

Olson, Daniel C., A New Reading of the “Animal Apocalypse” of 1 Enoch. All Nations Shall be Blessed, Leiden–Boston 2013. Opoku-Giamfi, Felix, The Use of Scripture in the Letter of Jude, “Ilorin Journal of Religious Studies” 5 (2015), no. 1, p. 73–102. Osburn, Carroll D., 1 Enoch 80:2–8 (67:5–7) and Jude 12–13, “Catholic Biblical Quarterly” 47 (1985), no. 2, p. 296–303. Osburn, Carroll D., The Christological Use of 1 Enoch 1:9 in Jude 14, 15, NTS 23 (1977), no. 3, p. 334–341. Osburn, Carroll D., The Text of Jude 5, “Biblica” 62 (1981), no. 1, p. 107–115. Osburn, Carroll D., The Text of Jude 22,23, “Zeitschrift für die neutestamentlische Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche” 63 (1972), p. 139–144. Pietras, Henryk, Eschatologia Kościoła pierwszych czterech wieków (Myśl Teologiczna 55), Kraków 2007. Pitre, Brant, Jezus i żydowskie korzenie Eucharystii, transl. Magda Sobolewska, Kraków 2018. Plessis, P.J. du, The Authorship of the Epistle of Jude, [in:] Biblical Essays: Proceedings of the Ninth Meeting od “Die Ou-Testamentise Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika” and Proceeding of the Second Meeting of “Die Nuwe-Testamentise Werkgemeenskap van Suid-Afrika”, Potchefstroom 1966, p. 191–199. Reading Jude with new eyes. Methodological Reassessments of the letter of Jude, ed. Robert L. Webb, Peter H. Davids, London 2008, p. 81–108. Reese, Ruth Anne, Writing Jude: The Reader, the Text, and the Author in constructs of Power and Desire, Leiden–Boston–Köln 2000. Reynolds, Bennie, Between Symbolism and Realism: The Use of Symbolic and Non-Symbolic Language in Ancient Jewish Apocalypses 333–63 BCE, Göttingen 2012. Robinson, Alexandra, Jude on the Attack. A Comparative Analysis of the Epistle of Jude, Jewish Judgement Oracles, and Greco-Roman Invective, London–New York 2018. Robinson, Alexandra Mileto, The Enoch Inclusio in Jude: A New Structural Possibility, “Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism” 9 (2013), p. 196–212. Robinson, John Arthur Thomas, Redating the New Testament, London 1976. Rosik, Mariusz, Rapoport, Icchak, Wprowadzenie do literatury i egzegezy żydowskiej okresu biblijnego i rabinicznego, Wrocław 2009. Rowston, Douglas J., The Most Neglected Book in The New Testament, NTS 21 (1975), p. 554–563. Royse, James Ronald, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri, Leiden–Boston 2008. Ruggiero, Fabio, Szaleństwo chrześcijan. Poganie wobec chrześcijaństwa w pierwszych pięciu wiekach, transl. Ewa Łukaszyk, Kraków 2007. Rumianek, Ryszard, Idea powołania indywidualnego w księgach prorockich, “Warszawskie Studia Teologiczne” 13 (2000), p. 49–59. Salway, Benet, What’s in a Name? A Survey of Roman Onomastic Practice from c. 700 B.C. to A.D. 700, “Journal of Roman Studies” 84 (1994), p. 124–145.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Studies

Sanecki, Artur, Kanon biblijny w perspektywie historycznej, teologicznej i egzegetycznej, Kraków 2008. Skibiński, Tomasz, Listy katolickie w starożytności chrześcijańskiej, “Vox Patrum” 28 (2008), p. 937–950. Spitaler, Peter, Dubt or Dispute (Jude 9 and 22–23). Rereading a Special New Testament Meaning through the Lens of Internal Evidence, “Biblica” 87 (2006), no. 2, p. 201–222. Starowieyski, Marek, Nauka Piotra (Petrou Kerygma). Materiały do poznania legendy i kultu Apostołów (6), “Warszawskie Studia Teologiczne” 19 (2006), p. 205–210. Stokes, Ryan E., Not over Moses’ Dead Body: Jude 9, 22–24 and the Assumption of Moses in their Early Jewish Context, JSNT 40 (2017), no. 2, p. 192–213. Stowers, Stanley K., Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, Philadelphia 1986. Stuckenbruck, Loren T., The Book of Enoch: Its Reception in Second Temple Jewish and in Christian Tradition, “Early Christianity” 4 (2013), no. 1, p. 7–40. Szewc, Eugeniusz, Chwały w listach Judy i Piotra, “Collectanea Theologica” 46 (1976), no. 3, p. 51–60. Wassermann, Tommy, Papyrus 72 and the Bodmer Miscellaneous Codex, NTS 51 (2005), no. 1, p. 137–154. Watson, Duane F., Invention, Arrangement, and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter (SBL Dissertation Series 104), Atlanta 1988. Webb, Robert L., The Eschatology of the Epistle of Jude and Its Rhetorical and Social Functions, “Bulletin for Biblical Reaserch” 6 (1996), p. 139–151. Webb, Robert L., Use of “Story” in the Letter of Jude: Rhetorical Strategies of Jude’s Narrative Episodes, JSNT 31 (2008), no. 1, p. 58. Weima, Jeffrey Alan David, Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings (JSNTSup 101), Sheffield 1994. Węcowski, Marek, Sympozjon, czyli wspólne picie. Początki greckiej biesiady arystokratycznej IX–VII w.), Warszawa 2011. White, John Lee, Light from Ancient Letters, Philadelphia 1986. Winter, Sara C., Jude 22–23: A Note on the Text and Translation, “The Harvard Theological Review” 87 (1994), no. 2, p. 215–222. Witherington III, Ben, Jude, Another Brother of Jesus, “Bible Review” 21 (2005), no. 4, p. 14–15. Wojciechowska, Kalina, Bojaźń Boża, “Życie duchowe” 97 (2019), p. 115–126. Wojciechowska, Kalina, Grzech – zemsta szatana? “Gdański Rocznik Ewangelicki” 9 (2015), p. 174–180. Wolthuis, Thomas, Jude and Jewish Traditions, “Calvin Theological Journal” 22 (1987), p. 21–45. Wright, Nicholas T., The New Testament and the People of God, London 1992, p. 260. Zając, Marian, Eucharystia jako centrum celebracji chrześcijańskiej w ujęciu aleksandryjskiej szkoły katechetycznej, “Vox Patrum” 32 (2012), p. 773–792.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

439

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Index of persons

A Aaron, brother of Moses 154, 199, 212–214, 284, 298, 304, 347 Abel 182, 200, 202–204, 287, 297, 387 Abiram, son of Eliab 212 Abiron s. Abiram Abraham 24, 80, 84, 117, 119, 120, 122, 136, 137, 182, 187, 259, 297, 397 Adam (first man) 20, 24, 31, 103, 138, 179, 203, 257, 264, 271, 274, 275, 295, 297, 299, 386, 397 Adams, Edward 282 Aland, Barbara 117, 390 Allen, Joel S. 368 Alphaeus, father of James 28 Ammon, son of David 312 Annas 24 Antigonus of Karystos 395 Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king 285 Asclepius, deity 83 Aseneth, wife of Joseph 377 Athena, deity 415 Athenagoras of Athens 18 Auses, son of Nun s. Joshua, son of Nun Austin, John Langshaw 413 Azazel, demon 182, 187, 397 B Balaam 17, 45, 48, 54, 57, 66, 69, 190, 194, 197–202, 205–211, 214, 215, 218, 223, 252, 256, 258, 265, 298, 302, 320, 321, 346, 362, 418 Balak, king of Moab 17, 201, 205–208, 210 Barclay, William 107 Barnabas 26, 27, 38, 47, 327 Barnett, Albert E. 351

Barrett, David P. 18 Bartholomä, Philipp F. 117–120, 124 Bartnicki, Roman 12 Basilides, gnostic teacher 172 Bateman, Henri W. 60 Batten, Alicia J. 98 Bauckham, Richard 11, 19, 21, 27–29, 31–34, 37–41, 43–47, 49–52, 54, 56–59, 64–67, 72, 79, 90, 97, 99–105, 107–111, 115, 118, 120, 133, 138, 140, 142, 145, 146, 151, 153, 155, 159, 161, 164–167, 169–173, 176–181, 186, 192, 194, 195, 197, 198, 200, 202, 204, 207, 208, 215, 217, 221, 223, 224, 232, 233, 236, 239, 241, 242, 245, 247, 249, 250, 253–255, 262–264, 267, 275, 276, 278–280, 282, 283, 289, 291, 294, 296, 304–307, 309, 311, 313, 314, 317–319, 326–328, 332, 336, 338, 340, 341, 343–350, 352–356, 358–363, 365, 367–371, 373, 374, 376, 377, 379, 381–383, 392–394, 396, 398, 399, 401–404, 407, 408, 411–414 Beliar, demon 203, 315, 335, 385 Benjamin, son of Jacob 25 Berrin (Tzoref), S. 262 Bigg, Charles 11, 48, 51, 246 Black, Matthew 280 Boobyer, George H. 202 Bray, Gerald 168, 176, 193, 203, 250, 306, 327, 350 Bromiley, Geoffrey William 154 Brooke, Georg 262 Brosend, William F. 11, 66 Brown, Colin 88, 127 Bullinger, Heinrich 22–24

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

442

Index of persons

C Cain 45, 54, 56, 57, 66, 69, 190, 194, 197–204, 212, 214, 215, 217, 218, 223, 256, 265, 297, 302, 309, 310, 362, 418 Caleb, son of Jephunneh 126, 128, 129, 179, 298 Całek, Anita 63 Carson, Donald Arthur 19 Cassidy, Kevin 11 Cham, son of Noah 297 Charles, J. Daryl 11, 52, 57, 63–65, 98, 133, 143, 189, 197, 199, 200, 217, 283 Charlesworth, James 301 Charlesworth, James H. 270 Chester, Andrew 11 Cleanthes of Assos 266 Cleopas 32 Cleophas s. Clopas Clifford, Richard J. 41 Clopas, brother of Joseph 32, 33 Cohn, Norman 268, 272 Comfort, Philip Wesley 18 Corpus Paulinum 114, 274, 355 Coulley, Thomas Scott 17, 18, 205 Craddock, Fred B. 11 Cyprian of Carthage 19 D Daniel, prophet 270, 312 Danielewicz, Jerzy 224 Daniélou, Jean 124, 148, 158, 172, 273, 274, 292 Datan, son of Eliab 212 Daube, David 355 David, king 24, 25, 35, 36, 148, 280, 325 Davids, Peter H. 11, 12, 19, 21, 26, 28, 34–37, 46, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 111, 118, 121, 125, 138, 140, 146, 151, 153, 162, 164–167, 169–173, 175, 176, 178, 184–188, 192, 194, 195, 198, 203, 204, 211, 216, 219, 224, 225, 232, 234,

236, 237, 242, 243, 245, 246, 249, 253, 255, 266, 267, 271, 276, 278, 280, 284, 289–291, 304, 307–309, 313, 317, 318, 323, 324, 326–328, 333, 334, 336, 339, 341, 343, 346–349, 352, 353, 356–358, 360–363, 366, 368, 373, 376, 380–384, 392, 393, 395, 396, 398–403, 406–408, 411 Deichgräber, Reinhard 407, 408 Didymus the Blind 177, 178 Domitian, emperor 35–37, 92 Doneson, Levis R. 11 Drączkowski, Franciszek 226 Dubarle, André-Marie 59 Dunnett, Walter M. 11 Dutcher, Roger 19, 66 E Edgar, Campbell Cowan 405 Eicken, Erich von 329 Ellis, Edward Earle 66 Enoch, son of Jared 19, 20, 30, 58, 69, 71, 72, 101, 103, 132, 138, 140, 144, 147, 181, 233, 257, 259–261, 263–272, 274, 275, 286, 287, 296, 297, 300–303, 306, 309, 322, 330–332, 335, 336, 341, 342, 362, 374, 387, 391, 397 Enos, son of Seth 271 Ephraim, son of Joseph 377 Epimenides of Knossos 266 Epp, Eldon Jay 368 Esau, son of Issac 200, 211, 298 Eve (first woman) 179, 297 Eybers, I.H. 38, 266 Ezekiel, prophet 233, 235 F Fee, Gordon D. 368 Flink, Timo 118 Forstner, Dorothea 223, 272 Fossum, Jarl 11, 122, 136

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Index of persons

Freedman, David Noel 88 Friedrich, Gerhard 154, 208, 329 Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. 84 G Gabriel, archangel 124, 175 Gillet, Ezra Hall 24 Głowiński, Michał 59, 86 Graupner, Axel 177 Green, Gene L. 12, 18, 21, 25, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37–43, 46, 47, 50, 52, 53, 57, 60, 61, 64–66, 68, 75, 78, 79, 82–84, 88–90, 92–96, 99, 100, 102, 104–109, 111, 113, 115, 116, 124, 127, 128, 130, 138, 140, 142, 144, 151, 152, 158, 159, 163, 166–168, 170, 171, 173–175, 177, 178, 183, 186, 187, 189, 191, 194, 197–199, 202, 208, 217, 223, 225, 233, 236, 237, 243, 246, 248, 253, 262, 264, 266, 267, 269, 271, 276, 278, 280, 282, 290, 291, 293–295, 306, 308, 309, 311, 313, 318, 321, 323–325, 327, 330, 332, 333, 337, 343, 345, 347, 355, 357–359, 361, 364–369, 371, 373, 374, 377, 381, 382, 384, 389, 390, 392, 395, 398, 399, 401–403, 406–408, 411, 413, 415 Green, Michael 11, 47, 51, 80, 95, 99, 154, 169, 262, 360, 361, 368, 371 Grundmann, Walter 11, 51, 52, 246, 351 Gryglewicz, Feliks 12 Gunther, John J. 52, 53 Guthrie, Donald 27, 37, 38 H Hadrian, emperor 31 Harnack, Adolf von 27, 37 Harrington, Daniel J. 41 Hegesippus, chronicler 33, 35, 36, 39 Heliso, Desta 300, 301 Helvidius 32, 35 Hempel, Charlotte 282, 334

Hengel, Martin 42 Herod the Great 24, 35 Hiebert, D. Edmond 93, 95, 96, 99, 100, 102–104, 106 Hillyer, Norman 11, 51, 80–84, 88, 92, 138, 164, 166, 186 Hollander, Harm Wouter 383 Homrighausen, Elmer George 351 Hultin, Jeremy 270 Hunt, Arthur Surridge 405 Hurst, David D. 28 I Iaoel, angel 182, 397 Ilan, Tal 25 Isaac, son of Abraham 298 Isaiah, prophet 122, 325, 336 Ishmael, son of Abraham 297 Isis, deity 83, 415 J Jacob, patriarch 25, 26, 87, 122, 136, 147 Jambres, Egyptian sorcerer 271 James the Just 20, 24–39, 43, 52, 65, 75, 77, 265, 327 James the Less 33 James, father of Judas 27, 28 James, Montagure Rhodes 11, 34, 344 James, son of Alphaeus 28 James, son of Zebedee 28, 327 Janicki, Jan Józef 227 Jankowski, Augustyn 275 Jannes, Egyptian sorcerer 271 Japheth, son of Noah 297 Jaworski, Stanisław 86 Jędrzejewski, Sylwester 262 Jered, son of Mehalalel 271 Jesus Christ 14, 17–19, 24–29, 31–37, 40–47, 52, 65, 73–75, 77–82, 84, 85, 87–89, 91, 94–97, 102, 106–110, 112, 115–122, 124, 127–133, 135–138, 141,

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

443

444

Index of persons

142, 144, 147–150, 154, 155, 157–159, 161, 162, 167–172, 174, 182, 185, 188–192, 195, 196, 210, 211, 215, 216, 222, 223, 227, 228, 232, 237, 246, 255, 258, 261, 263, 267–270, 274, 275, 279, 280, 282, 283, 287, 289, 291–293, 295, 296, 299–301, 303–306, 309, 313, 318, 322–331, 333, 335–340, 342, 345, 349, 351–353, 355, 356, 359, 360, 363–367, 372–375, 378, 379, 387, 388, 390–392, 396–398, 400–405, 409–413, 415, 416, 418–420 Jobes, Karen H. 375 John, evangelist 28, 33, 327, 346 Johnson, Luke Timothy 66, 316 Jonathan, prince 377 Jopek, Stanisław 225 Joseph son of Mary 33 Joseph, bishop 31 Joseph, brother of Jesus 30, 33–35 Joseph, patriarch 25, 377, 395 Joseph, saint 30–34 Joseph, Simon J. 31, 274, 295 Joses, brother of Jesus s. a. Joseph, brother of Jesus, 30, 33 Josetos, brother of Jesus s. Joseph, brother of Jesus Joshua, high priest 383, 391, 397 Joshua, son of Nun 78, 112, 119–122, 126, 128, 129, 131, 176, 177, 179, 180, 298, 305 Joubert, Stephan J. 11, 43, 53, 54, 59, 65, 97, 98, 100 Juda, author of letter 250 Judah Maccabaeus 25, 65 Judah, brother of Jesus 34 Judah, son of Jacob 25, 26 Judas 29, 31, 37, 38 Judas Barsabbas 26, 27 Judas Iscariot 24, 26, 28, 29 Judas of Damascus 27 Judas Thomas 28–30

Judas, bishop 31 Judas, brother of James 38 Judas, brother of Jesus 30, 33 Judas, son of James 26 Jude, apostle 20, 22, 27–30, 32–36, 38, 43, 65, 77 Jude, author of the letter 14, 20, 24, 27, 28, 30–32, 35, 39–41, 43, 44, 46–49, 52, 53, 57–59, 64, 66, 67, 78–80, 82, 85, 89–94, 99–105, 107, 108, 110, 112, 118, 120–122, 124, 127, 137–140, 142, 145, 153, 156, 157, 159–163, 170, 175, 178, 188, 194, 197, 198, 200, 204, 205, 207, 209, 216, 221, 223, 229, 240, 244, 259, 262, 266, 268, 280, 294, 296, 299, 303, 307, 313, 314, 324, 325, 327, 328, 342, 343, 358, 373, 380–382, 412–416, 418–420 Jurgens, Blake A. 133, 262, 263, 265 Justus, bishop 31 K Kałużny, Józef Cezary 228 Keating, Daniel 79, 93, 96, 103, 107, 154, 195, 272, 327, 361, 376 Kelly, John Norman Davidson 11, 19, 22, 44, 45, 51, 52, 65, 75, 77, 78, 86, 89, 91, 93, 94, 101, 106, 107, 110, 111, 139, 145, 155, 159, 165, 167, 169–174, 184, 191, 195, 198, 200, 202, 203, 209, 215, 217, 221, 232, 241, 243, 245, 246, 264, 267, 271, 276, 278, 279, 291, 293, 295, 304, 305, 307, 311, 313, 314, 317, 318, 327, 332, 335, 341, 343, 345, 346, 351, 358, 363, 367, 373, 379, 380, 390, 394, 396, 401–404, 411, 412 Kenan, son of Enos 271 Kistemaker, Simon J. 11, 48 Kittel, Gerhard 154, 208, 329 Klauck, Hans-Josef 225 Knight, Jonathan 11 Knoch, Otto 11

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Index of persons

Koktysz, Michał 22 Korah 45, 54, 57, 66, 69, 190, 194, 197–202, 211–218, 223, 241, 255, 256, 258, 265, 298, 302, 304, 305, 310, 344, 347, 362, 418 Korolko, Mirosław 57, 63, 76, 89 Kostkiewczowa, Teresa 86 Kotecki, Dariusz 125 Kruger, Michael A. 133, 137, 139, 151, 154, 155, 157, 162 Kubo, Sakae 368 Kurowska-Mitas, Adriana 268 L Landon, Charles 11, 40, 119 Langkammer, Hugolin 12, 25 Langstaff, Beth 22–24 Lea, wife of Jacob 25 Lefèvre, Jaques 22, 24 Lenski, Richard Charles Henry 11 Libanius of Antioch 93 Lieu, Judith M. 282 Lim, Timothy 262 Lindner, Helgo 329 Loader, James Alfred 151–153 Lockett, Darian 368, 374, 375 Longosz, Stanisław 241 Lot, son of Haran 111, 112, 136, 137, 151, 152, 155, 156, 158, 159, 163 Louw, Johannes P. 125 Lucas, Dick 100, 103, 107, 155 Łukaszyk, Ewa 232 Luke, evangelist 27, 250 Luther, Martin 15, 21, 22, 24, 48, 167 Lyons, William John 152 M MacLeod, Wayne F. 11 MacRae, George W. 41 Mahalalel, son of Kenan 271 Malherbe, Abraham J. 93

Manasseh, son of Joseph 377 Manteuffel, Jerzy 405 Martin, Ralph Philip 11 Martin, Troy W. 12 Martinez, Florentino Garcia 184, 244, 248, 260, 262, 263, 276, 284, 311, 334, 338 Mary of Clopas 33 Mary, daughter of Joseph 34 Mary, mother of Jesus 24, 30, 32–34, 119, 124 Mason, Eric Farrel 12 Mastema, devil 179, 181 Mathews, Mark D. 48, 49 Mayor, Joseph Bickersteth 11, 246 McDonald, Lee Martin 270 Mędala, Stanisław 262 Melchizedek 154 Menander 266 Menedemos of Eretria 395 Menken, Maarten J.J. 375 Metzger, Bruce Manning 368 Michael, archangel 50, 69, 71, 161, 171, 172, 174–177, 179–182, 184–191, 194, 214, 283, 315, 344, 373, 375, 387, 388 Mickiewicz, Franciszek 12, 39, 139, 159, 169, 185, 195, 210, 215, 334, 347, 349, 358, 361, 365, 371, 403, 410 Miller, Michael T. 275 Mitchell, David Campbell 299 Moffatt, James 37 Moo, Douglas J. 19, 51, 59, 78–83, 86, 88–90, 94, 103, 105–107, 109–111, 113, 115, 139, 154, 163, 164, 166, 169, 170, 172, 181, 186, 190, 266, 267, 302, 325, 328, 343, 356, 358, 360–363, 368, 371, 395 Moore, Nicholas J. 19, 20, 140, 259, 268–272 Moriarty, Frederick L. 41 Morris, Leon 19

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

445

446

Index of persons

Moses, patriarch 22, 24, 44, 46, 50, 54, 58, 78, 119–122, 126, 129, 136, 137, 141, 148, 162, 170, 171, 174–183, 185, 186, 188, 189, 194, 199, 201, 206, 212–217, 254, 267, 271, 279, 284, 291, 298, 302, 304, 307, 309, 330, 344, 347, 373, 375, 383, 396, 419 Moyise, Steve 375 Muchowski, Piotr 262, 386 Muddiman, John 177

122, 155, 171, 187, 225, 226, 228, 232, 236, 266, 271, 326–328, 348 Paulsen, Henning 52, 165 Perez, son of Judah 25 Peter, apostle 49 Philoxenus 21 Pietras, Henryk 285 Pitre, Brant 227 Plessis, P.J. du 27 Pontius Pilate 24

N Natoli, Anthony Francis 406 Nero, emperor 32 Nestle, Erwin 117, 390 Neyrey, Jerome H. 11, 52, 54, 95, 98, 121, 223, 276, 315, 362, 368, 377, 409 Nida, Eugene A. 125 Nienhuis, David R. 11, 155, 187 Noah, patriarch 222, 223, 264, 297

R Raguel, angel 175 Raphael Phanuel, angel 175 Rapoport, Icchak 67, 201, 262, 268 Reese, Ruth Anne 50, 75, 117 Reicke, Bo 11, 61, 249 Remiel 175 Reynolds, Bennie 297 Ridley, Lancelot 22 Robinson, Alexandra 48 Robinson, Alexandra Mileto 258, 290, 291 Robinson, John Arthur Thomas 39, 48 Rosik, Mariusz 12, 25, 36, 37, 39, 64, 67, 107, 138, 143, 201, 244, 262, 268, 348, 405 Rowston, Douglas J. 11 Royse, James Ronald 17 Rubinkiewicz, Ryszard 268 Ruggiero, Fabio 232 Rumianek, Ryszard 83

O Oecolampadius, John 22 Okopień-Sławińska, Aleksandra 86 Olson, Daniel C. 299 Onesiphorus, christian 228 Opoku-Giamfi, Felix 152, 153, 156, 165, 175–177, 181, 200, 201, 203, 205, 219, 267, 276, 278–280, 291 Osburn, Carroll D. 11, 71, 72, 122, 125, 140, 147, 244, 276, 278–280, 295, 368, 369 Oshea, son of Nun s. Joshua, son of Nun P Pachciarek, Paweł 223 Painter, John 79, 106, 108, 155, 166, 167, 236, 354, 402 Parchem, Marek 58, 177, 180, 314 Paul, apostle 17, 23, 24, 26–28, 30, 38, 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 49, 51, 64, 77, 80, 95, 105,

S Salome, daughter of Joseph 34 Salway, Benet 78 Samael, angel 176, 180, 185 Sanecki, Artur 266 Saraqael, angel 175 Satan 143, 175–177, 179, 182, 184, 185, 187, 188, 281, 283, 397 Saturninus, gnostic teacher 172 Saul, king 25, 377

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Index of persons

Schelkle, Karl Hermann 11, 51, 155, 169 Schnayder, Jerzy 60, 62, 63, 405, 406 Schreiner, Thomas R. 44, 70, 111, 115, 126, 128 Sedulius Scottus 34 Seleucid, dynasty 25 Selwyn, Edward Gordon 355 Seremet, Bogusław 12 Seth, son of Adam 271 Severus of Antioch 178 Shem, son of Noah 297 Sidebottom, Ernest Malcolm 45, 351 Silas 26, 27, 38, 47 Silva, David Arthur de 79, 106–108, 155, 166, 167, 236, 354, 402 Simeon, bishop 31 Simeon, brother of Jesus 33, 34 Simeon, son of Clopas 32, 33, 36 Simeon, son of Joseph 34 Simon bar Kokhba 31 Simon Iscariot 26 Simon Magus 172 Simon, brother of Jesus 30, 32, 33, 35 Simon, of the tribe of Bilgah 325 Skaggs, Rebecca 11 Skibiński, Tomasz 19, 21 Sławiński, Janusz 86 Smith, J.Z. 301 Sobolewska, Magda 227 Solomon, king 141, 259 Spitaler, Peter 373, 374 Spitta, Friedrich 48 Staff, Leopold 224 Stapulensis, Faber 22 Starowieyski, Marek 34, 141 Stephen, martyr 259 Stokes, Ryan E. 177, 181, 182, 375, 383, 396 Stowers, Stanley K. 63 Stuckenbruck, Loren T. 42, 269 Symmachus, translator 304

Szewc, Eugeniusz 169 Sztuk, Dariusz 305 T Tamar, daughter of David 312 Tamar, daughter-in-law of Judah Thaddeus, apostle 28 Theodosius, translator 304 Thomas, apostle 28, 29 Timothy McLay, R. 313 Trajan, emperor 32, 36, 232 Tuckett, Christopher M. 383 Turzyński, Ryszard 223 U Uriel, angel

25

175, 251, 260

W Wall, Robert W. 11 Wallace, Daniel B. 48, 49 Wassermann, Tommy 17, 18 Watson, Duane F. 11, 57, 59, 61, 70, 75, 98 Watson, Wilfred G.E. 184 Webb, Robert L. 11, 87, 132, 161, 163, 276, 279, 288, 289, 292 Węcowski, Marek 230, 237 Weima, Jeffrey Alan David 60, 68, 352, 389, 406, 408, 413 Wendland, Ernst R. 11, 70 Whiston, William 347 White, John Lee 37, 75, 78, 89, 113 Williamson, R. 262 Winter, Sara C. 368, 369, 374 Witherington III, Ben 28 Witwicki, Władysław 238 Wojciechowska, Kalina 37, 39, 64, 143, 348, 380, 405 Wolter, Michael 177 Wolthuis, Thomas 26 Wright, Nicholas T. 82 Wróbel, Mirosław S. 12, 25

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

447

448

Index of persons

Z Zając, Marian 229 Zakrzewska, Wanda

223

Zebedee, father of James 28 Zerah, son of Judah 25 Zeus, deity 266, 308

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Index of references

Bible Genesis – 1:1–2:2 239 – 1:2 249, 251 – 1:3–5 251 – 1:28 156 – 2:2–3 272 – 2:4 148 – 4:1–16 203 – 4:6–7 203 – 4:8 203 – 4:13–15 202 – 5:1–24 271 – 5:18 267 – 5:21–24 267 – 5:24 259 – 6:1–4 135, 138, 143, 271 – 6:11 [LXX] 195 – 8:4 272 – 9:1 156 – 9:17 156 – 14:8 151 – 15:1 208 – 18:1–19:22 137 – 18:17–33 123 – 18:19 289 – 18:23 293 – 19:1–25 135 – 19:4–11 152 – 19:5 152 – 19:12–23 159 – 19:13–14 123 – 19:19 366 – 19:21 317 – 19:21–23 151

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

19:23 136 19:23–24 137 19:24–25 151 19:25 123, 151 19:28 151 19:28–29 151 19:29 123, 151 21:12 294 24:12 366 24:12 [LXX] 87 29:35 25 30 294 34:5 166 34:19 173 36:5 211 36:14 211 36:16 211 36:18 211 37:5 164 38:24 153 39:14 337 39:17 337 39:21 [LXX] 87 40:5 164 40:14 366 42:7 294

  Exodus – 2:12–14 177, 180 – 3:10 116 – 3:14 121 – 4:24 179 – 6:24 211 – 7:4 116

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

450

Index of references

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

7–11 179 9:27 293 12:15–16 272 12:21 83 12:37 112 12:51 116 12–14 179 13:3 116 14:13 91 15:2 91 15:11 [LXX] 169, 411 15:24 304 16:2 304 16:7–9 304 16:7–12 305 16:12 304 17:3 304 17:14 129, 130 18:22 312 18:26 312 20:6 366 20:10–11 272 20:25 166 20:30 96 23:7 293 23:10–12 272 23:20–21 [LXX] 122 24:26 170 28:43 177 29:1 396 29:38 396 32 125, 126, 128 32:7 116 32:10 [LXX] 125 32:11 116 32:12 [LXX] 125 32:28 125 32:33–35 125 32:34 130 32:34–35 127 33:2 130

– – – – – – –

33:5 130 33:18–23 170, 398 33:20–23 130 34:10–12 126 34:15 154 34:15–16 157 40:34–35 398

  Leviticus – 1:3 396 – 3:1 396 – 3:12 396 – 4:17 398 – 5:3 166 – 7:18 365 – 11:24 166 – 11:44 96 – 11:45 96 – 13:3 166 – 13:27–29 135 – 13:31–33 135 – 14:1–4 135 – 14:2 304 – 14:11–12 135 – 14:27 304 – 14:27–37 135 – 14:29 304 – 14:36 304 – 16 212 – 16:11 304 – 16:41 304 – 17:7 157 – 19:2 96 – 19:15 317 – 19:17–18 378 – 19:17–18 [LXX] – 19:29 153 – 20:6 157 – 20:7 96 – 21:6 96

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

370

Bible

– – – – – –

22:23 22:25 22:27 22:32 25:3–8 26:10

365 365 365 209 272 212

  Numbers 127 – 5:3 166 – 6:14 396 – 12:6 164 – 12:7 126 – 13 126 – 13:13 143 – 13:27–29 127 – 13:30 128 – 13:31 127 – 13:31–33 127 – 14 125–127, 129, 305 – 14:2 304 – 14:7–9 128 – 14:9 130 – 14:11 126 – 14:11–12 [LXX] 126 – 14:12 126 – 14:14 130 – 14:19 [LXX] 87 – 14:20–23 112 – 14:27–29 305 – 14:36 304 – 14:36–37 127 – 14:38 129 – 14:42 130 – 15:40 96 – 16 199 – 16:1–3 305 – 16:3 96 – 16:5 201 – 16:10–11 212 – 16:13 305

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

16:13–14 212 16:22 179 16:30 212 16:31–33 212 16:35 212 16:41 304 17:5 305 17:5–10 [LXX] 304 17:20–25 304 20:13 217 20:29 199 22:1–4 205 22:15 173 22:18 210 22:31 210 22:32 205 22:34 210 22–24 199, 205, 206 24:11 205 24:11 [LXX] 208 24:12–13 210 24:13 205 25:1–3 206 25:4–8 209 26:9 57 26:10 215 27:16 [LXX] 179 31:16 206

  Deuteronomy – 1:17 294 – 4:3 157 – 4:30 334 – 5:1 83 – 5:12–15 272 – 6:4 109 – 6:4–9 401 – 6:14 157 – 7:6–8 [LXX] 117 – 7:9 126

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

451

452

Index of references

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

8:19 157 9:12 116 9:26 116 9:29 116 10:17 317 10:18 289 12:15 310 13:1 164 13:3 164 13:5 164 14:26 310 16:19 317 17:6 197 19:15 197 23:5–6 206 23:14 383 25:1 293 27:15–16 416 28:14 157 28:20 127 28:22 127 28:24 127 28:50 317 29:22 151 29:22–23 151 29:28 245 30:18 127 30:19 239 31:3–8 129 31:16 154 31:27 294 32:1 239 32:3–4 411 32:4 126 32:8 138 32:22 160, 376 32:51 217 33:2–3 283 33:3 284 33:8 217 33:17 299

– – – –

33:21 289 34 22 34:1–9 175 34:6 [LXX] 175

  Joshua 119 – 1:5 398 – 2:12 372 – 2:12 [LXX] 87 – 3:7 398 – 5:14 107 – 13:22 209 – 21:44 398 – 23:9 398 – 24:9–10 206   Judges – 2:8 78 – 2:19 294 – 5:4–5 282   Ruth – 1:13

365

  1 Samuel – 3:4 82 – 3:6 82 – 3:10 82 – 22:14 126 – 28:6 164 – 31:4 337   2 Samuel – 5:2 233 – 7:7 233 – 7:23 411 – 11:13 83 – 13:2 312

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Bible

1  Kings – 1:1–3a 271 – 1:9 83 – 1:19 83 – 1:25 83 – 1:36 416 – 3:5 164 – 8:11 398 – 8:51 116 – 9:19 211 – 10:4 337 – 12:13 294 – 12:20 83 – 13:30 197 – 14:1–20 329 – 14:6 329 – 15:26 202, 309 – 15:34 202, 309 – 16:2 202, 310 – 16:19 202, 310 – 16:26 202, 310 – 16:36 416 – 26:19 211 – 29:10 413 – 29:11 411 – 29:11–13 407, 408   2 Kings – 5:13 – 8:18 – 8:27 – 10:13 – 16:3 – 18:12 – 18:27 – 19:7 – 19:15 – 19:19 – 21:8 – 36:16

398 202, 310 202, 310 294 202, 310 78 383 317 401 401 78 337

 3 Kings – 14:6 [LXX]

329

  1 Chronicles – 16:36 407 – 29:11–13 409   2 Chronicles – 19:9 380 – 26:5 380   Ezra

269

  Nehemiah – 5:13 416 – 8:6 416 – 9:6 401 – 13:2 206   Tobit 8:8 416 8:16–17 87 8:17 107 12:12 398 13:13 399 13:14 294 14:10 255 15:1 398   Judith – 7:20 87 – 9:14 412 – 13:20 416 – 16:17 197

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

453

454

Index of references

1  Maccabees – 1:41–9:22 25 – 1:44–63 285 – 1:46 285 – 5:51 246 – 6:22 289 – 6:54 285 – 7:6 166 – 10:36 100 – 13:46 87   2 Maccabees – 1:24–25 401 – 1:26 365 – 1–2 64 – 2:25 320 – 3:7 325 – 3:9 365 – 3:28 325 – 3:34 412 – 4:1 325 – 4:22 365 – 5:17 107 – 5:20 107 – 6:29 325 – 7:7 337 – 7:9 367 – 7:23 87, 366 – 8:20 320 – 8:33 209 – 11:4 412 – 12:7 246 – 13:14 93 – 14:8 325 – 15:22 107   Job – 12:16 – 13:10

412 317

– – – – – – –

21:15 320 22:3 320 22:8 317 24:2 377 24:9 377 32:21–22 318 34:19 317

  Psalms 270 – 1:1 338 – 1:3 244 – 2:11 381 – 5:8 380 – 10[9]:24 310 – 15[14]:2 396 – 16[15]:3 284 – 19:1 170 – 21[20]:3 310 – 22[21]:4 283 – 22[21]:29 407 – 26[25]:8 398 – 27[26]:9 401 – 30[29]:10 320 – 32[31]:6 249 – 32[31]:8 202, 310 – 33:3–34:16 [LXX] 17 – 33[34]:10 284 – 34[33]:10 96 – 38[37]:8 337 – 38[37]:17 393 – 38[37]:23 401 – 41[40]:14 407, 414, 416 – 42[41]:1 211 – 42[41]:8 249 – 51:9 299 – 52:5 245 – 56[55]:14 393 – 62:12[61:13] 407 – 62[61]:13 412 – 65[64]:5 401

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Bible

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

66[65]:9 393 68[67]:17–18 282 68[67]:36 283 69[68]:15–16 249 72[71]:19 413, 416 73[72]:2 393 73[72]:24 398 78[77]:29 310 79[78]:9 401 81[80]:8 217 81[80]:14 202, 310 83[82]:19 401 85[84]:9 88 86[85]:10 401 88[87]:18 249 89[88]:53 407, 413 93[92]:3–4 249 94[93]:18 393 96[95]:11–12 399 97[96]:8 399 101[100]:6 202, 310 104[103]:26 337 104[103]:31 407 106[105]:8 116, 121 106[105]:10 116, 121 106[105]:14 310 106[105]:16–18 212 106[105]:21 116, 121 106[105]:32 217 106[105]:48 407, 414 107[106]:25–26 221 117:24 148 121[120]:3 393 121[120]:3–8 393 124[123]:4–5 249 140[139]:5 393 140[139]:5–6 393 140[139]:9 310 141[140]:9 393 141[140]:9–10 393 142[141]:4 393

– 149:8 – 150:1

173 283

  Proverbs 241, 243, 289, 296, 300 – 1:15 202, 310 – 1:22 338 – 2:13 202, 310 – 2:17 140 – 2:22 245 – 9:7 338 – 9:8 338 – 9:10 236 – 10:8 235 – 10:16 293 – 10:20 293 – 10:24 310 – 10:24–25 293 – 10:28 293 – 10:30 293 – 10:32 293 – 11:18 208 – 11:23 310 – 12:12 310 – 14:5 96 – 14:6 338 – 14:26 380 – 15:11 127 – 15:12 338 – 15:16 236 – 17:28 235 – 18:5 317 – 19:25 338 – 19:27 140 – 20:1 338 – 21:11 338 – 21:24 338 – 22:10 338 – 23:17 380 – 23:29 197 – 23:34 224

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

455

456

Index of references

– – – – – – – – – –

24:9 338 25:13 126 25:14 57, 241, 243 26:20 304 26:22 304 27:7 337 27:20 127 28:18 202, 310 28:21 317 30:12 383

  Wisdom of Solomon 2:22 208 4:2 93 4:3–4 246 4:3–5 244 4:4 245 4:10 267 4:10–11 267 4:10–15 267, 272 4:12 310, 311 4:13–14 267 4:16 293 5:1–23 285 5:10 222 5:15 208 5:15–16a 285 6:17 310 6:20 310 8:3 107 9:10 398 10:6–9 152 10:7 160 10:17 208 11:15 194 12:22 87, 366, 372 12:25 337 14:1 247 14:1–5 222 14:6 222

14:15 95 15:4 383 17 254 17:1 254 17:2 254 17:7 254 17:11–12 254 17:20 254 17:21 254 18:9 284 19:14 152   Sirach 112, 212 – 1:14 236 – 2:8 208 – 2:9 87, 366 – 3:26 294 – 3:27 294 – 3:29 310 – 4:28 93 – 5:2 310, 311 – 5:6 87, 366 – 6:3 244 – 6:23 365 – 6:33 365 – 7:9 365 – 9:16 380 – 10:4 412 – 11:22 208 – 14:14 310 – 15:2 365 – 16:7 111, 135, 143 – 16:7–8 111 – 16:7–10 113 – 16:8 111, 135, 151, 200 – 16:9–10 112 – 16:10 113, 125 – 16:12 87, 366 – 17:13 398 – 18:30 310, 311, 340

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Bible

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

20:30 320 23:5 310, 311 23:5–6 311 27:3 380 27:28 337 29:1 87, 372 30:23 320 31:8 396 34:1–7 165 35:11 365 35:12–13 317 35:16 365 35:18 289 36:15 208 38:8 88 39:15 411 40:19 396 40:26 380 41:8–9 197 41:14 320 42:17 284 45:2 177 45:18 212 45:23 380 46:1 305 46:1–7 305 46:7 305, 306 46:8 305 50:12 365 51:30 208

  Isaiah 248 – 1:9 151 – 1:18 299 – 2:2 334 – 2:3 202, 310 – 3:1 107 – 3:2–3 336 – 3:4 336 – 3:5 173

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

3:8–13 [LXX] 337 3:13 337 3:14 337 4:3 96, 343 4:4 383 5:1–30 197 5:7 289 5:11–14 262 5:24–25 262 6:1–3 282 6:1–13 177 6:3 140, 142, 283 8:6–8 249 8:22 126 10:3–11:5 262 10:33 107 12:6 399 13:19 151 14:12 138 14:12–15 143, 252 17:10 401 21:2 294 23:8 173 25:9 399 26:3 88 26:21 278, 282 27:5 88 28:8 383 29:6 160, 376 29:20 338 29:24 304 30:5 320 30:27 160, 376 30:30 160, 376 32:6 235 32:17 88 33:4 337 33:7 [LXX] 381 33:14 160, 376 36:12 383 37:16 401

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

457

458

Index of references

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

37:20 401 40:10 208, 278 40:26 412 41:9 79 41:20–24 401 41:26 325 42:6 79, 84 43:1 79, 82, 84 43:1–2 82 43:4 79, 173 44:2 79 44:6 79 45:3–5 84 48:4 294 48:12 84, 414 48:15 79, 82 49:1 79, 84 49:5 173 49:8 79 51:2 79, 81, 84 51:2–3 81, 117 51:3 80, 359 55:7 140 55:12 365 56:1 289 57:2 [LXX] 88 57:20 57, 248 57:23 57 60:10 [LXX] 87, 366 61:10 399 62:11 208 63:1–6 280 63:7 366 64:1–3 282 66 259 66:4 337 66:15–16 160, 376 66:24 160, 376

J  eremiah 1:10 246 2:24 311 3:20 [LXX] 168 4:10 107 5:22–23 239 6:4 197 7:5 289 13:9 195 17:6 244 17:8 244 17:15 340 22:13–17 197 22:18 197 23:1–4 197 23:5–7 301 23:14 152 23:20 334 23:25 164 23:28 164 23:30–32 320 23:32 164, 320 25:4 78 25:19 334 26:11 320 29 64 29:8 164 37:13 320 37:24 334 38:16 208 49:12 [LXX] 87 49:18 151 50:40 151   Lamentations – 1:9 312 – 4:6 151 Baruch – 2:19

87

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Bible

– – – – – –

3:13 88 3:14 88 3:17 337 4:26 377 5:4 88 6:1–73 64

  Ezekiel – 4:12 383 – 9:3 169, 398 – 10:4 169, 398 – 10:18 169, 398 – 16:49–50 151 – 16:52 [LXX] 195 – 20:30 154 – 20:40 365 – 22:4 337 – 22:5 337 – 23:31 202, 310 – 24:41 365 – 32:10 365 – 34:2 57, 233 – 34:2–10 250 – 34:8 233 – 34:10 233 – 38:16 334 – 43:22 396   4 Ezra/Latin Ezra (Vulgata) – 2:8 151   Daniel 269, 314 – 2 297 – 2:1 164 – 2:20 407, 413 – 2:28–29 334 – 2:44 195 – 2:45 334 – 3:35 87

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

4:1 88 4:17 412 5:12 312 6:26 88 7 297 7:8 313 7:10 283 7:13–14 295 7:14 195 7:18 96, 285 7:20 313 7:21 285 7:22 96, 285 7:25 285, 365 7:27 285 8 297 10:13 22, 175, 298 10:14 334 10:21 175 10:21–22 298 11:36 313 12:1 175 12:2 367 12:3 253

  Hosea – 1:2 154 – 2:7 153, 157 – 2:15 157 – 3:5 334 – 4:1 [LXX] 87 – 4:12 154 – 4:13 153 – 5:3 154 – 7:13 198 – 8:13 365 – 9:17 55 – 12:7 [LXX] 87 – 13:4 116

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

459

460

Index of references

Joel – – – –

2:3 160, 376 2:11 147 2:28 164 3:1 [LXX] 164

  Amos – 4 375 – 4:11 57, 151, 375 – 4:12 375 – 5:22 365 – 6:1–3 197   Micah – 1:2–4 282 – 1:3 278 – 2:12 365 – 3:11 319 – 4:1 334 – 6:7 365 – 6:8 372 – 6:8 [LXX] 87 – 7:20 366   Nahum – 1:6 160, 376 – 2:4 337 – 3:10 173   Habakkuk – 1:10 337 – 2:6–20 197 – 3:2–15 282 – 3:18 402   Zephaniah – 1:14 147 – 1:18 376

– 2:9 – 3:8

151 376

  Zechariah 181, 283, 375, 383, 392, 397 – 1:2–6 392 – 1:12–17 392 – 1–3 392 – 2:8–9 392 – 2:14–16 392 – 3 177, 375, 383, 396 – 3:1–5 175, 176, 375 – 3:2 22, 279, 375 – 3:2 [LXX] 187 – 3:3 57, 383, 392 – 3:3–5 383, 386, 388, 391, 392, 419 – 3:4 397 – 3:4–5 181, 396 – 3:5 283 – 7:9 372 – 7:9 [LXX] 87 – 9:10 [LXX] 88 – 9:15 283 – 10:2 164 – 12:3 337 – 14:5 280, 283, 399   Malachi – 1:8 365 – 1:10 365 – 1:13 365 – 2:5 88, 381 – 2:9 319 – 3:13–14 294 – 3:22 147   Matthew 28, 30, 35 – 1:2–3 25 – 1:20 164 – 2:12–13 164

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Bible

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

2:19–22 164 3:10 244, 245, 376 3:17 89 4:3 28 4:5 359 4:16 253 4:18 28 4:21 28 5:1–7:28 309 5:7 87, 372 5:12 208 5:21–22 203 5:22 376 5:28 311 5:47 208 6:2 208 6:3 32 6:5 208 6:7–8 235 6:16 208 6:23 253 7:15 43, 102 7:15–20 243, 244 7:19 245, 376 7:24 108 8:23–27 222 9:3 169 9:13 372 10:2 28 10:3 28 10:14–15 152 10:15 151 10:25 108 10:32 109 10:40 365 10:41–42 208 11:12 377 11:13 262 11:24 151 12:7 372 12:29 377

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

12:32 244 12:36 294 13:19 377 13:24–25 102 13:40 255 13:40–42 376 13:55 26, 30, 32, 34 13:57 35 14:22–32 222 15:7 262 15:13 245 15:17 382 16:27 282, 399 17:1–5 177 17:5 89 18:5 365 18:8 160, 376 18:15 290 18:15–17 370, 371, 377 18:15–20 377 18:16 197 18:17 381 20:11 304 20:19 337 22:1–14 83 22:16 319 22:29 253 22:30 397 22:43 360 22:46 185 23:13–36 198 23:23 372 24:5 253 24:9–10 337 24:11 253, 333 24:11–12 336 24:22 336, 337 24:23–24 333 24:24 253 24:25 325 24:29 251

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

461

462

Index of references

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

24:30–31 282 25:31 282, 399 25:41 160, 376 26:65 169 26:75 325 27:3–10 26 27:29 29, 337 27:31 337 27:37 186 27:41 337 27:53 359 27:54 149 27:64 253 28:18 412

  Mark 28, 333 – 1:11 89 – 1:22 412 – 3:18 28 – 3:21 35 – 4:19 310 – 4:35–41 222 – 6:3 26, 30, 32–34 – 6:4 29 – 6:7 413 – 6:45–51 222 – 6:53 222 – 7:6 262 – 8:38 282 – 9:32 325 – 9:34 183 – 9:37 365 – 9:47–48 376 – 10:34 337 – 11:28 413 – 12:14 319 – 12:24 253 – 12:25 397 – 12:34 185 – 12:36 360

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

13:5 333 13:5–6 333 13:19 337 13:20 336 13:21–22 333 13:22 102 13:23 325 13:24–25 251 14:72 325 15:20 337 15:40 33 15:43 185, 365 15:44 102

  Luke 32 – 1:2 94, 328, 404 – 1:38 325 – 1:47 402 – 2:14 407 – 2:27 360 – 2:29 107, 325 – 2:35 365 – 2:38 365 – 3:6 244 – 3:9 245 – 3:17 376 – 3:22 89 – 3:23–38 274 – 3:28 274 – 3:33–34 25 – 3:37 274 – 4:1 360 – 5:30 304 – 6:16 26, 27, 32 – 6:17–49 309 – 6:23 208 – 6:24–26 198 – 6:25 198 – 6:35 208 – 6:36 372

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Bible

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

6:43–44 244 7:13 118 8:13 365 8:22–25 222 8:29 392 9:5 365 9:26 282 9:29 154 9:45 325 9:48 365 10:7 208 10:12 151 10:37 372 10:41 118 11:21 392 11:42–44 198 11:42–52 198 12:5 412 12:8–9 282 12:36 365 13:6 243 13:9 245 13:15 118 13:25 108 14:7–14 83 14:18 92 15:2 365 15–24 83 17:3 377 17:26–29 111 17:29–30 151 18:34 325 19:38 407 20:21 319 20:40 185 21:25 250, 251 22:15 310 22:17–20 227 22:61 118, 325 22:63 337 23:11 337

– 23:17 92 – 23:32 154 – 24:8 325   John – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

1:3 148, 403 3:5 349 3:8 243 3:16 127 3:17 290, 403 3:19 253 3:20 290 4:12 127 4:36 208 5:22 289 5:27 289 5:30 289 5:44 107 6:15 377 6:16–21 222 6:39 81 6:40 333, 367 6:41 304 6:43 304 6:44 333 6:54 333, 367 6:61 304 6:71 26 7:3 35 7:5 35 7:12 253 7:24 290 7:32 304 8:20 325 8:58 121 10:12 377 10:28 127 10:28–29 377 11:24 333 11:40 398

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

463

464

Index of references

– – – – – – – – – – –   Acts – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

12:41 121 12:48 333, 335 14:22 26 15:4–6 81 15:9–10 363 16:8 290 17:2–3 280 17:3 107 17:12 127, 392 19:25 33 21:16 233

27, 42, 259 1:7 412 1:13 32 1:14 35 1:16 325 1:16–20 26 2:5–11 53 2:14 325 2:16 262 2:17 164, 334 2:20 147 2:42 226 2:44 226 2:46 226 4:12 91, 154 4:18 84 4:24 107 6:1 53, 309 6:7 94 6:9 53 6:13 259 7:33 359 7:38 170 7:45 119 7:48 259 7:48–50 259 7:53 170 7:55 398

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

8:7 349 9:11 26, 27 9:32 96 10 53 10:20 373 10:36 88, 403 10:42 289 10:44 325 11:12 373 11:16 325 11:17 108 12:4 392 12:5 149 12:11 118 13:16–41 64 14:14 327 14:16 202 15:13 30 15:22 27 15:22–32 26 15:26 108 15:27 27 15:32 27 16:4 94 16:9–10 164 16:16 349 16:23 149 17:28 266 17:31 289 17:34 154 18:9 164 19:13 349 19:13–16 172 19:19 281 19:37 169 20:7–9 228 20:28 233 20:29–30 102, 333 22:20 392 23:10 377 23:21 365

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Bible

– – – – – – – –

23:35 392 24:2 84 24:3 365 24:15 365 25:18 183, 186 26:18 253 28:16 392 28:31 108

  Romans 46 – 1:1 46, 77, 82 – 1:4 108 – 1:6–7 82 – 1:7 85, 108, 359 – 1:13 47, 114 – 1:18 105 – 1:23 398 – 1:24 42, 311 – 1:25 352, 389, 413, 416 – 1:26–27 194 – 1:27 253 – 2:16 289 – 2:19 253 – 2:24 169 – 3:8 44, 99, 110, 169 – 3:23 398 – 4:24 84 – 5:1 88, 108 – 5:2 398 – 5:8 89 – 5:10 91 – 5:11 108 – 5:12–19 47, 274 – 5:14 274 – 5:21 108 – 6:1 44, 105, 110 – 6:12–13 42 – 6:12–20 108 – 6:14 46 – 6:15 44, 110

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

6:15–16 46 6:17 94 7:7–8 310 7:12 46, 171 7:23 154 8:6 88 8:9 349, 360 8:15–16 361 8:19 365 8:23 365 8:25 365 8:26–27 361 8:27 96 8:28 82 8:33–39 171 8:38 140 9:5 413, 416 9:11 82 9:21 413 9:29 151, 325 10:9 109 10:10 91 10:18 325 11:11 394 11:25 47, 114 11:36 406, 416 12:1 92, 359 12:5 81 12:6 349 12:7c–d 349 12:9–19 355 12:19 89 13:11 91 13:12 253 13:13 42 14:4 118 14:17 88 14:19 358 14:23 373 15:2 107, 358 15:4 102

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

465

466

Index of references

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

15:8 107 15:18 185 15:20 358 15:26 96 16:2 365 16:3–16 406 16:7 327 16:17 41, 345 16:21–23 406 16:22 37 16:25 18, 390, 409 16:25–27 62 16:27 107, 402, 406, 416 65:8 82

  1 Corinthians – 1:1–2 82 – 1:2 80, 359 – 1:3 85 – 1:7 365 – 1:10 91, 92, 345 – 1:18 127 – 1:21 91 – 1:24 82 – 2:3 381 – 2:14 47, 348 – 3:9–15 358 – 3:10 358 – 3:12 358 – 3:14 208, 358 – 3:17b 195 – 4:18 100 – 5:1–5 377 – 5:1–6 44, 110 – 5:3–5 373 – 5:11 381, 382 – 6:3 173 – 6:5 374 – 6:12 46 – 6:12–20 44, 110

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

6:19 349 7:15 88 7:17 118 7:37 92 8:1 47, 114, 358 8:6 84 9:5 35, 36, 51 9:7 233 9:16 92 9:25 93 10:1 47, 114 10:1–11 121, 122 10:1–13 158 10:4 122 10:9 122 10:10 305 10:14 89 10:16–17 81 10:23 44, 110, 358 10:23–24 46 11:2 47, 94, 95 11:10 171 11:17–34 225 11:18 345 11:18–21 232 11:19 345 11:21–22 236 11:22 226 11:23–25 226 11:27–29 236 11:29 374 11:33 365 11:33–34 236 12:1 47, 114 12:3 349, 360 12:8 349 12:10b 349 12:10c 349 14:3–5 358 14:12 358 14:12–17 361

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Bible

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

14:15 47 14:16 416 14:17 358 14:26 358 14:29 374 15:1 395 15:1–3 47, 95 15:5b 327 15:7b 327 15:23 292 15:24 123 15:33 195, 266 15:34 100 15:40 154 15:44 47, 348 15:44–49 182, 274 15:45 47, 274 15:46 47, 348 16:11 365 16:19–21 406 16:23 406

  2 Corinthians 328 – 1:2 85 – 1:3 407 – 1:8 47, 114 – 1:20 402, 410, 416 – 1:24 395 – 2:15 127 – 3:1 100 – 4:3 127 – 4:13 349 – 5:10 84 – 5:18 403 – 6:14 253 – 6:16 358 – 7:1 89, 381 – 7:2 195 – 7:3 325 – 8:9 118, 121

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

8:23 327, 328 9:7 92 10:8 358 10:12 100 10–11 43 11:3 195 11:4 154 11:31 352, 389, 413 12:1–3 44, 164 12:19 102, 358 12:21 42 13:1 197 13:3 325 13:10 358 13:13 406 14:8 325

  Galatians 30 – 1:3 85 – 1:5 406, 413, 416 – 1:6 154 – 1:6–9 41 – 1:7 100 – 1:9 47 – 1:10 46, 77 – 1:11 47, 114 – 1:19 30, 327 – 1:23 94 – 2:4 99 – 2:9 30, 358 – 2:12 30 – 3:1 100 – 3:2 95 – 3:5 95 – 3:19 170 – 3:26 91 – 3:28 91 – 4:3 108 – 4:4 335 – 4:6 361

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

467

468

Index of references

– – – – – – – – – – – –

4:8 108 5:5 365 5:13 44, 110 5:16–17 310 5:16–21 349 5:18 349 5:20 345 5:22 349 5:25 349 5:25–26 349 6:1 377, 381 6:18 406

  Ephesians – 1:1 80 – 1:2 85 – 1:3 407 – 1:4 84, 396, 398 – 1:19–21 123 – 1:21 140, 167, 413 – 2:2 413 – 2:3 340 – 2:8 86 – 2:14 88 – 2:18–22 358 – 2:20 358 – 3:3 102 – 3:5 359 – 3:10 140, 413 – 3:17 395 – 3:20 390, 409 – 3:20–21 406 – 3:21 416 – 4:1 92 – 4:1–16 343 – 4:2–3 355 – 4:3 364 – 4:5 94 – 4:8 275 – 4:9–10 275

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

4:10 274 4:11 233 4:11–16 358 4:12 358 4:12–13 349 4:14 243 4:16 358 4:17–19 42 4:22 195 4:22–24 182 5:11 253, 290 5:21 381 5:27 384, 396 6:12 140, 413 6:15 88 6:18 47 6:23–24 406

  Philippians – 1:1 46, 77 – 1:2 85 – 1:6 85 – 1:12 47, 114 – 1:14 185 – 1:23 310 – 2:5 118, 121 – 2:6–11 47, 274 – 2:7 29 – 2:12 89 – 2:15 396 – 2:25 327 – 2:29 365 – 3:20 365 – 4:2 92 – 4:20 406, 413, 416 – 4:21 406 – 4:22 406 – 4:23 406

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Bible

Colossians – 1:13 413 – 1:16 140, 167, 413 – 1:20 403 – 1:22 396, 398 – 1:26 359 – 1:29 93 – 2:7 358 – 2:10 413 – 2:13 246 – 2:14–23 171 – 2:15 123, 140, 413 – 2:18 44, 164, 173 – 3:9–10 182 – 3:12 80, 84, 359 – 3:16–17 355 – 4:10–14 406 – 4:12 46, 77 – 4:15 406 – 4:16 64, 407, 416 – 4:18 406   1 Thessalonians – 1:1 85 – 1:3 108 – 1:4 84 – 1:5 108 – 1:9 108 – 2:5 208 – 2:6 327 – 2:12 82 – 2:17 310 – 3:4 326 – 3:13 280, 395, 396 – 4:1 92, 253 – 4:5 311 – 4:13 47, 114 – 4:16 175, 292 – 4:17 292, 377 – 4:24 82

– – – – – – –

5:4–5 253 5:9 91 5:11 47, 92, 358 5:14 377 5:23 81 5:27 64, 407, 416 5:28 406

  2 Thessalonians 326, 333 – 1:2 85 – 1:8 160, 376 – 1:12 106 – 2:1–12 333 – 2:2 164 – 2:3 337 – 2:5 164, 326 – 2:10 127 – 2:10–12 333 – 2:15 41, 47, 94, 95, 164 – 2:16–17 395 – 3:3 118, 392, 395 – 3:6 47, 94, 95 – 3:6–15 377 – 3:15 377 – 3:18 407   1 Timothy – 1:1 402 – 1:2 86 – 1:3 100 – 1:7 107 – 1:17 406, 409, 410, 416 – 1:19 100 – 2:3 402 – 4:1–2 333 – 4:10 402 – 5:19 197 – 5:20 290, 377 – 6:1 406

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

469

470

Index of references

– – – – – – – – –

6:1–2 107 6:5 44, 208 6:6 407 6:9 310 6:12 93 6:14 364 6:16 409, 410, 412, 416 6:17 415 6:21 406

  2 Timothy – 1:2 86 – 1:12 392 – 1:18 367 – 2:1–2 94 – 2:2 47, 95 – 2:19 201 – 2:21 107 – 3 271 – 3:1 334 – 3:1–5 333 – 3:8–9 158 – 3:13 253 – 4:1 290 – 4:2 290 – 4:3–4 333 – 4:7 364 – 4:10 415 – 4:18 406, 416 – 4:19 406 – 4:21 406 – 4:22 406     Titus 266 – 1:3 402 – 1:4 85 – 1:9 290 – 1:10–11 235

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

1:11 1:12 1:13 1:15 1:16 2:9 2:10 2:12 2:13 2:15 3:2 3:3 3:4 3:9 3:10 3:15

44, 208 266 290 42 109 107 402 310, 415 365 290 169 310, 311 402 235 345, 381 406

  Philemon – 3 85 – 23–24 406 – 25 406   Hebrews 21, 22, 59, 64 – 1:1 102 – 1:1–2 96 – 1:2 334, 335 – 1:3 410, 411 – 2:2 170 – 2:15 381 – 2:27 92 – 3:1 359 – 4:7 325 – 4:8 119 – 6:2 255 – 6:4–8 246 – 6:9 89 – 7:11 154 – 8:1 411 – 9:2 359

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Bible

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

9:5 169 9:14 396 9:26 335 9:28 365 10:27 376, 381 10:28 197 11:26 121, 122 12:21 381 12:22 282 12:23 289 12:28–29 381 13:8 415 13:15 402, 410 13:24 406 13:25 406

  James 11, 15, 20–22, 24, 30, 37, 45, 48, 61, 77, 79, 84, 106, 155, 166–168, 176, 184, 186, 193, 203, 236, 250, 306, 327, 344, 348, 350, 351, 354, 375, 402 – 1:1 77 – 1:6 242, 373 – 1:14–15 311 – 2:1–4 318 – 2:10 364, 394 – 2:13 87, 372 – 3:2 394 – 3:6 383 – 3:12 244 – 3:14 348 – 3:15 348 – 4:9 337 – 4:11 188 – 4:12 289 – 5:3 334 – 5:7 365 – 5:19–20 377

1  Peter 355 – 1:2 85 – 1:3 108, 407 – 1:4–5 81 – 1:5 85, 91, 334 – 1:10 262 – 1:10–11 331 – 1:12 332 – 1:14 310, 311 – 1:15 82, 96 – 1:15–16 359 – 1:17 381 – 1:18–19 78 – 1:19 396 – 1:20 333, 335 – 2:5 358, 402, 410 – 2:9 82, 253 – 2:11 89, 310, 311 – 2:16 110 – 3:1 355 – 3:2 381 – 3:7–9 355 – 3:19–20 146 – 3:20–21 222 – 3:22 123 – 4:3 311, 340 – 4:3–4 42 – 4:4 169 – 4:5 290 – 4:7–10 355 – 4:11 352, 389, 402, 406, 410, 412, 413, 416 – 4:12 89 – 4:18 105 – 5:2 233 – 5:10 82, 395 – 5:11 410, 412, 414, 416 – 5:12 37 – 5:13 406

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

471

472

Index of references

1  –2 Peter 11, 12, 17, 44, 51, 64, 70, 81–84, 88, 92, 93, 111, 115, 126, 128, 138, 154, 164, 166, 168, 176, 186, 193, 203, 250, 306, 327, 350, 417   2 Peter 11–13, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 27, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37–61, 64, 66–68, 72, 75, 77–84, 86, 88–90, 92–100, 102–113, 115, 116, 121, 124, 127, 128, 130, 133, 138–140, 142, 144–146, 151–155, 158, 159, 161, 163–178, 181, 183, 186, 187, 189–192, 194, 195, 197–200, 202, 204, 207, 208, 215, 217, 221, 223–225, 232, 233, 236, 237, 241, 243, 245–249, 253–255, 262, 264, 266, 267, 269, 271, 275, 276, 278–280, 282, 283, 289–291, 293–295, 302, 304–309, 311, 313–315, 317–319, 321, 323–328, 330, 332, 333, 336–338, 340, 341, 343–350, 352–367, 369–371, 373, 374, 376, 377, 379, 381–384, 389, 390, 392–396, 398, 399, 401–404, 406–410, 411–415 – 1:1 77 – 1:2 85 – 1:3 82 – 1:4 311 – 1:8 108 – 1:17 398 – 1:19–21 17 – 2:1 99, 107, 108 – 2:1–3 50 – 2:1–3:3 49 – 2:2–3 208 – 2:3 50 – 2:4–10 111 – 2:5 392 – 2:6 105, 111, 151 – 2:7 112 – 2:10–11 169 – 2:10–12 169

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

2:11 184 2:12 194, 195 2:13 55, 209, 223–225, 232 2:14 208 2:15 202 2:18 55 2:18–22 246 2:19 108 3:1 89 3:2 49 3:3 55, 332, 334, 336 3:3–4 340 3:7 105, 160, 376 3:8 89 3:9 100 3:10 160 3:14 89 3:17 89, 253 3:18 62, 406, 414, 416

  1 John – 1:6 253 – 2:3–5 364 – 2:7 89 – 2:16–17 42, 310 – 2:18 333, 334 – 2:19 346 – 2:22 333 – 2:22–23 109 – 3:1 89 – 3:2 89 – 3:12 201, 203 – 3:21 89 – 3:22 364 – 3:24 81, 364 – 4:1 43, 89, 349 – 4:2–3 349 – 4:6 253 – 4:7 89 – 4:7–10 229

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Bible

– – – –

4:11 89 4:16 229, 363 5:3 364 5:18 81

  1–3 John 48, 107, 168, 176, 193, 203, 250, 306, 327, 350   2 John – 3 86 – 7 109 – 8 208 – 10 43, 99 – 10–11 381 – 13 406   2–3 John   3 John – 15

12, 20, 22

406

  Revelation 21, 22, 43, 96, 245, 272, 415 – 1:4 415 – 1:6 412, 416 – 1:7 416 – 1:10 360 – 2:11 245 – 2:14 51, 110, 201, 206 – 2:20 51, 110, 253 – 3:10 392 – 3:14 141, 147 – 4:2 360 – 4:8 415 – 5:12 409 – 5:13 18, 410, 412 – 6:10 107, 290 – 6:17 147

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

7:10 407 7:12 410, 416 8:6–9:21 272 8:10 252 8:13 197 9:1 252 9:4 191 9:17–18 160, 376 11:2 359 11:14–19 272 11:18 208 12:7 22, 175 12:12 197 12:17 364 13:4–5 397 13:6 279 13:14 253 14:5 396 14:12 364 15:5–6 288 15:8 398 16:8 160, 376 16:9 412 16:14 147 18:1 169 18:10 197 18:16 197 18:19 197 18:26 359 18–19 282 19:1 407 19:2 195 19:9 83 19:10 173 19:13 280 19:15 280 19:19 292 20:4 292 20:6 245 20:9 160, 376 20:11–13 292

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

473

474

Index of references

– – – – –

20:13–15 293 20:14 245 20:14–15 245, 376 21:2 359 21:6 414

– – – – –

21:8 245 21:10 359 21:23 410 22:8 173 22:13 141, 147, 414

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Apocrypha

Apocrypha Apocalypse of Abraham – 13:3–14 182 – 13:7–8 187 – 13:14 397 – 29:15–20 400

187

  Apocalypse of Baruch (Syrian) – 6:8 335 – 19:1 239 – 21:9 415 – 23:3 415 – 24:1 100, 332 – 40:1 280 – 41:5 335 – 56:10–14 138 – 56:10–15 142, 143 – 56:13 145 – 72:2 280, 307 – 73:1 307 – 73:4 307 – 78:2 88 – 78:5 335 – 78–86 64 – 83:13–14 315 – 83:16 315 – 84:2 239   Apocalypse of Zephaniah   2 Baruch – 5:12

140

  4 Baruch – 9:5 175

167

1  Ezra – 4:40 – 4:59

88

407, 412, 413 407

  4 Ezra 194 – 7:98–99 400 – 7:104–106 128 – 8:21 282 – 8:29–30 194 – 12:31–33 280, 290 – 13:37–38 280   Corpus Enocheanum 12, 13, 21, 31, 36, 42, 50, 52, 54, 58, 140, 143, 145–147, 152, 160, 164, 166, 233, 239, 240, 244, 257, 258, 262, 264, 265, 267–269, 271–273, 278–280, 282, 285, 286, 288–290, 293–296, 299–301, 303, 332, 335, 376 Corpus Henochicum s. Corpus Enocheanum   First Book of Enoch (Etiopian) 19–24, 42, 52, 53, 56, 58, 67, 100–102, 104, 107, 109, 143, 144, 146, 198, 239, 242, 245, 251, 253, 258, 259, 261, 262, 264–271, 282, 286, 289–291, 293, 296, 299, 313, 314 – Book of Dream Visions 268 – 83–90 295 – 85:1 164 – 85:2–4 297 – 85–90 297 – 86 297 – 86:1–2 297 – 86–88 138 – 87:4 297 – 88:1 145 – 88:1–3 252

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

475

476

Index of references

– 88:3 297 – 89:1 299 – 89:9 299 – 89:36 299 – 89:55–67 269 – 89:56 298 – 89:59 298 – 89:59–76 233 – 89:59–77 250, 260 – 89:61–70 332 – 89:61–71 101 – 89:63–64 233 – 90:20 298 – 90:24–27 376 – 90:29 298 – 90:33 298 – 90:37–38 299 – 91:7 279 – 91:7–10 272 – 91:10 210 – Book of Exhortation and Promised Blessing for the Righteous and of Malediction and Woe for the Sinners 268 – 91:11–17 273 – 91:12 273 – 91:14 273 – 92:105 197 – 93:3 271, 272 – 93:9 272 – 93:10 272, 273 – 93:15–16 273 – 94:6–8 293 – 94:6–9 197 – 94:7 198, 210 – 94:9 293 – 95:6 199 – 96:4–8 199, 293 – 96:6 198 – 96:7 293 – 96:8 199, 293

– 98:5 187 – 98:7–8 101 – 98:9 195 – 98:10 202 – 98:12–13 210 – 98:14–15 199 – 99:7 293 – 99:8 164, 293 – 99:15–16 210 – 100:4–5 281 – 100:5 282, 283 – 100:9 376 – 101:1 240 – 101:1–3 240 – 101:2 240 – 101:3 240, 294, 313 – 101:3–4 293, 295, 315 – 101:4–5 250 – 101:4–6 250 – 101:5–8 239 – 103:2 101, 293, 332 – 103:8 198, 254 – 104:1–3 398 – 104:2 399 – 104:13 400 – 106:13–17 138 – 106:18 332 – 106:19 101, 293 – 108:3 254 – 108:11–15 253 – 108:14–15 253 – Apocalypse of Weeks 268 – Epistle/Testament of Enoch 268 – The Book of Noah 268 – Book of Parables 268, 269, 281, 295 – 6–19 138 – 37:1–2 271 – 37–71 281 – 38:1 287 – 38:2 109 – 38:4–5 286, 315

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Apocrypha

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

38–71 286 39:1 286 39:4 286 39:6–8 301 39:12 287 40:1 281, 287 40:1–10 140 40:9 175 41:2 109, 286 45:1 286 45:2 109 45:3 296 45–69 280, 295 46:1–2 147, 282 46:1–3 296 46:4–6 315 46:6 287 46:7 109 47:1–4 286 47:3 147, 281 48:1 286 48:2–4 296 48:4 301 48:7 286, 296 48:8 286 48:9 286 48:10 107, 109, 295 49:2 296 49:4 296 50:4 291 51:2 286 51:4 286 52:4 296 53:3 282 53:5 282 54:2–3 287 54:3 147 54:3–5 145 54:5 145 54:6 175 56:1 147

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

56:1–2 282 56:1–4 145 56:3 145 58:1–3 286 60:1–2 281 60:2 287 60:4–5 282 60:6 295 60:8 271 61:8 296 61:10 167 61:10–11 281 61:12 287 62:2 296 62:2–11 287 62:3 291 62:7 296 62:8 286 62:9–12 290 62:11 282 62:12–13 286 62:14–16 297 63:1–2 282 67:4–8 160 67:8 109 67:10 109 67:10–11 295 69:5 166 69:26 296 69:26–29 147 69:27 296 69:29 296 71:1 281 71:3 175 71:4–17 147 71:7–8 281 71:7–9 140 71:8–9 175 71:13 175, 281 71:14 301

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

477

478

Index of references

– 71:14–15 300 – 71:14–17 301 – Book of Watchers – 1:1 279 – 1:2 259, 264, 270 – 1:2–3 264, 332 – 1:3 279 – 1:3–4 281 – 1:4 279, 283 – 1:5 138 – 1:5–8 279 – 1:7–8 265, 289 – 1:8–9 301 – 1:9 12, 19, 42, 50, 58, 103, 140, 269, 275–278, 289, 300, 303, 313, 332, 333, 342, – 376, 420 – 1–5 268 – 1–36 143, 268, 269, 286 – 2:1 240, 250, 251 – 2:1–3 239 – 2:1–5:4 240 – 2:3 242, 250 – 3 250 – 4 242 – 4:1–2 250 – 5:1 250 – 5:1–4 239 – 5:3 250 – 5:4 240, 294, 313, 411 – 5:4–5 315 – 5:5–6 87, 366 – 5:8 315 – 6:2 138 – 6:19 143 – 6–11 297 – 7:1 166 – 7–8 270 – 8–9 301 – 9:1 175 – 9:2 143

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

9:8 166 9:8–9 270 10:4–6 145 10:6 147 10:7 138 10:9 138 10:11 166 10:12 145 10:12–13 146 10:12–14 146 10:15 138 10:20 105 12:3 140 12:4 138, 140, 166 12:4–5 139, 144 13:1 145 13:10 138 14:1 138 14:3 138 14:4 138 14:5 140, 145 14:5–6 146 14:22–23 281, 282, 287 15:3 140, 166 15:3–7 144 15:4 166 15:7 140 15:8–9 270 15:10–12 143 16:2 138 18:13–16 252 20:1–7 139 20:2–8 175 21 138 21:1–10 146 21:6 253 21:6–7 252 21:7 160 21:10 160 22 286 22:10–11 146

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Apocrypha

– 22:11 147 – 27:2 294 – 27:2–3 294 – 27:4 87, 366, 372 – The Book of the Heavenly Luminaries – 72–82 240, 244, 251, 268 – 80 240 – 80:1–8 240, 250 – 80:2 240, 242 – 80:2–3 244 – 80:2–8 240, 244 – 80:3 240 – 80:6 240, 252 – 80:8 240 – 81:1–2 240, 293, 332 – 81:1–3 101, 260 – 82:1 252 – 82:9–11 252 – 82:10–20 139

  Second Book of Enoch (Slavonic) – 7:1–3 145, 191 – 7:2 146 – 10:1–3 254 – 18:3 191 – 18:4 146 – 18:6 146 – 20:1 167 – 20:1–3 282 – 21:1 282 – 22:2–3 282 – 22:5–9 288 – 22:6 175 – 22:6–9 181, 397 – 22:7 169, 398 – 22:7–9 387 – 22:9 398 – 22:10 169

H   ebrew Book of Enoch s. Third Book of Enoch The Book of Rabbi Ishmael s. Third Book of Enoch The Book of the Palaces s. Third Book of Enoch The Exaltation of Metatron s. Third Book of Enoch Third Book of Enoch 268, 275 – 4 288 – 6:3–12:5 275, 301 – 8:2 288 – 9 288 – 14 275, 301 – 15 288 – 16 275, 301   Joseph and Aseneth – 12:8 377   Book of Jubilees 112, 166, 171, 179, 188 – 1:25 415 – 1:26–28 170 – 2:2 138, 251 – 4:15 138 – 4:17 267 – 4:17–19 268 – 4:18 264, 332 – 4:19 259 – 4:21 259, 270 – 4:22 138 – 4:23 260, 267 – 4:23–24 260 – 4:24 260 – 4:31 202 – 5:1 138 – 5:1–11 143 – 5:6 145 – 7:20–21 166

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

479

480

Index of references

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

7:39 271 10:5 138 10:7 175 16:5 152 16:5–6 166 16:6 151 16:9 151 20:5 111, 135, 143, 151, 152 20:5–6 111, 200 20:6 111, 135 22:22 151 36:10 151 48 179, 181 48:3 179 48:9 179 48:12 179 48:15 179 48:16–18 179 48:18 179

  3 Maccabees 112 – 1:27 412 – 2:2 283 – 2:4 111, 135 – 2:4–5 111 – 2:4–7 113 – 2:5 111, 135, 143, 151, 158, 200 – 2:6 116 – 2:6–7 112 – 2:21 283 – 2:24 187 – 4:17 325 – 5:22 337 – 6:35 325 – 6:39 55, 393 – 7:5 247 – 7:23 416

4  Maccabees – 1:32 347 – 5:24 401 – 7:16–18 385 – 10:15 146 – 12:12 160, 376 – 14:14 194 – 14:18 194 – 18:24 407, 413, 416

  Prayer of Joseph 300, 301   Prayer of Manasses – 14 407, 413

  Psalms of Solomon – 2:13(11) 337 – 3:16 367 – 4:1–3 294 – 6:8 380 – 8:33(27)–34(28) 87 – 8:39(33) 401 – 13:9(11)–11(12) 367 – 14:1–2(5) 285 – 14:6(9) 87, 255, 366 – 14:6(9)–7(10) 367 – 14:7(10) 285 – 15 285 – 15:10 255 – 15:15(13) 367 – 16:11 304 – 17:3 401, 407, 409, 412, 413 – 17:12 337 – 17:25 290 – 17:38(34) 381 – 17:44(40) 380 – 18:8(7)–10(9) 381 – 18:13(11) 381

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Apocrypha

Slavonic Life of Moses

178

  Testament of Abraham 178 – 1:4 175 – 1:6 175 – 10:1 175 Testament of Job 178 Testament of Moses 12, 19, 21, 22, 42, 50, 52, 54, 58, 176–181, 187, 307, 314, 317, 318, 343, 344 – 5 318, 321 – 7 306, 313, 314, 344 – 7:9 314 – 10 179, 282 – 11 180 – 11:5–8 178 – 12 180 – Assumption of Moses 12, 27, 58, 177, 178, 421 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 178 – Testament of Asher 101 – 4–5 166 – 5 367 – 6 176 – 7 101, 151, 155, 192, 332 – Testament of Benjamin – 7 203 – 7:5 203 – 9 152, 269 – Testament of Dan – 5 269, 335 – Testament of Issachar – 6 335 – Testament of Judah – 13 340 – 18 269, 335 – 19 385 – 23–24 87 – 25 169 – Testament of Jude 88

– Testament of Levi – 3 274, 411 – 14 154, 156, 269, 335 – 16 269 – 18 169, 399 – Testament of Naphtali 112, 153 – 3 111, 135, 138, 142, 151, 153, 200, 239 – 4 87, 372 – Testament of Reuben – 5 138, 143 – Testament of Simeon – 5 269 – Testament of Zebulun 385 – 8:1–2 87, 366, 372 – 9:7 385 – 10 376 – 10:3 105, 160   Dead Sea Scrolls – Berakhot (4Q Ber b) 172 – Blessings a (4QBer a) 172 – frag. 2col. 2 184 – frag. 7col. 2:1–8 185col. 2:11–12 185col. 2:11–12 185 – Blessings f (4QBer f) 172 – 2–5 184 – Book of Jubilees c (4QpsJub c) – 4 138 – frag. 2:1–6 260 – Cairo Damascus Document s. a. Damascus Rule, 138 – Community Rule – 2:8 254 – 3:18–25 176 – 8:5–6 284 – 8:17 284 – 8:20 284 – 11:1 304 – 11:8 287

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

481

482

Index of references

– Damascus Covenant s. a. Damascus Rule, 138 – Damascus Rule – 1:14–16 338 – 2:14–3:12 311 – 2:17–18 311 – 2:17–19 138 – 2:18 138, 140 – 3 311 – 4:4 334 – 5:9 311 – 5:17–18 176 – 6:10–11 334 – 10–12 311 – Enoch c (4QEncar) – col. 1:15–17 275, 276 – col. 1:17 313 – Eschatological commentary (4Q Catena a) 67 – Eschatological commentary c 67 – Eschatological commentary e (4QHistorical Work) 67 – Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20 ar) – 2:1 138 – Hymns (11Q5/11QPsa) – 12[formerly 4]9–17 386 – 12[formerly 4]29–30 386 – 12[formerly 4]30–32 386 – 16:4–9 244 – 16:11–13 244 – 16:20 244 – 18[10]:8 169 – 19[formerly11]12 287 – col. 16[formerly 8]14–15 248 – X [formerly 2]12–13 248 – X [formerly 2]27 248 – Melchizedek document (11Q13) 67 – Midrash on Eschatology a (4Q174/ 4QMidrEschata) 67 – Pesher on Habakkuk 262 – 2:1–10 335

– –

– –

– – – – –

– 4:2 173 – col. 1:2–3 262 Pesher on Isaiah a (4Q161) – frag. 8–10 262 Pesher on Isaiah b (4Q162) – 2:6–7 338 – frag. 1col. 2 262 Pesher on Micah (1Q14) 262 Pesher on Nahum (4Q169) – 2:9 173 – 3:9 173 – 4:4 173 Player of Enosh (4QPEnosh) 269 – frag. 1.col. 1:4–6 260 Rule of the Congregation (1Q28a) – 1:1 334 Tanhumim (4QTanh) 67 Visions of Amram b (4QAmram b ar) – 10–11 176 War Scroll – 6:6 284 – 9:14–15 175 – 14:11 173 – 14:12 284 – 17:6–8 175

  Acts of Paul – 2:388 27   Acts of Paul and Thecla – 6 228   The Acts of the Apostle Jude Thomas – 2 29 – 5 29 – 10 29 – 11 29 – 12 29 – 31:2 29

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

29

Apocrypha

– 39 29 – 39:2 29 – 78 29   Apocalypse of Peter

242, 245

  Ascension of Isaiah 142, 288, 301, 392, 397 – 2:2 167 – 3:16 175 – 3:18 274 – 3:19 360 – 3:23–25 318, 321 – 3:28 321 – 4:14–17 288, 292 – 8:15 288 – 9:1–2 182 – 9:2 395 – 9:2–18 397 – 9:5 121 – 9:6 283 – 9:6–9 182, 287, 387 – 9:9–10 397 – 9:12 121 – 9:12–18 141 – 9:13 121, 274, 275 – 9:23 175 – 9:24–26 182, 387, 392, 398 – 9:26 395, 397 – 9:32–33 169, 398 – 9–10 121, 142 – 10:7–27 274 – 10:23–32 274   The Epistle of Barnabas – 1:7 107 – 4:3 269, 336 – 4:9 334 – 4:11 358

18, 120, 129

– – – – – – – – – – – –

6:2 198 6:15 358 9:7 360 12:8–10 120 12:9 129 15:3–7 273 16:5 269 16:8–10 358 19 370 19:3–4 319 19:4 319 19:5 371

  Gospel of the Hebrews

34

  The Akhmim fragment – 22–34 245   Gospel of Thomas

28, 30

  Infancy Gospel of Thomas – 16:1 34   Book of Thomas (the Contender)   Life of Mary   3 Corinthians

17

18

  Odes of Solomon – 11 17 – 12:15 416 – 14:28 416 – 14:35 416 – 22:12 358

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

30

483

484

Index of references

 Protoevangelium of James 30, 33, 34 – 9 34 – 17 34 – 62–76 34 – 89 34 – 92 34

 Sibylline Oracles – 2:290 166 – 3:85–90 315 – 3:778 247 – 4.230–231 254

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Others

Others A Aeschylus 145 – Persians – 839 145 Andrew – Catena 168, 193, 203 Antipater of Thessalonica 221 – Epigrams – 9:107 221 Aratus of Soli 266 – Phaenomenon 266 Aristotle 61, 78, 248, 249, 254, 312, 316, 319, 339, 340, 343, 345, 366 – Nicomachean Ethics 319 – 2:7 319 – 4:3 319 – 4:7 319 – 8:11 78 – Politics – 4:4 343 – Rhetoric – 2:2 339 – 2:6 248, 249 – 2:8 366 Athanasius the Great – Easter letter 21 Athenaeus 230 – Deipnosophists, or the Banquet of the Learned – 2:3 230 Augustine of Hippo 19, 20, 23, 27 – The City of God 19 – XV 23 20, 27 – XVIII 38 27 B Bede the Venerable 23, 28, 176, 189, 271 – Commentary on the Seven Catholic Epistles 23, 28

– On Jude

176, 189, 271

C Cajetan, Thomas 22, 23 – Commentario in Judae 23 Calvin, John 22, 164, 167 – Commentarii in Epistolas Canonicas 22 – Institutio Christianae Religionis – I 7,2 22 Cicero, Marcus Tullius 57, 61–63, 199 – Caesar Imperator speaks greetings to Cicero Imperator 406 – Epistulae ad Familiares libri – 2:4 63 – 4:13 63 – Letters to Atticus – 5:10 61 – 8:14 61 – 9:10 61 – Oratorio 57 – Speakers s. a. Oratorio, 57 Clement of Alexandria 13, 19, 30, 46, 52, 78, 141, 148, 167, 170, 177, 178, 193, 224, 226, 229, 231, 234, 235, 249, 250, 253, 270, 346, 369, 398 – Adumbrationes in epistulas catholicas 250 – Comments on the Catholic Letters 30 – Comments on the Epistle of Jude 31, 170, 177, 193, 250, 346 – Eclogae Propheticae – 53,1 148 – Excerpts – 53:4 270 – Fragments – II 270 – Letter to Theodore – 1:6–7 253

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

485

486

Index of references

– Quis dives salvetur – 40:42 413 – Stromata 148 – 3:2 46 – 5:1 270 – 5:11 167 – 6:7 141 – 6:8 369 – 6:16 148 – The Instructor (Paedagogus) – 2:1 224, 231 – 2:7 234 Clement of Rome 18, 40 – First Epistle 18, 40 – 4:1–7 201 – 4:7 203 – 4:12 212 – 7:5 107 – 8:2 107 – 9:4 107 – 11:1 107 – 14:15 105 – 20:8 107 – 20:11 107 – 20:11–12 411 – 20:12 407, 414, 416 – 24:1 107 – 24:5 107 – 27:4 411 – 32:4 407, 413, 414, 416 – 33:1 107 – 33:2 107 – 36:2 107, 410, 411 – 36:4 107 – 40:1 107 – 43 409 – 43:6 407, 414, 416 – 48:1 107 – 51:1–4 212 – 51:3–4 201, 216 – 52:1 107

229

– – – – – – – – – –

53:1 114 56:16 107 57:7–8 105 58:1 411 58:2 407, 413, 414, 416 59:3 402 59:4 107 61:3 402, 407, 410, 416 64:1 402, 407, 409–412, 414, 416 65:2 62, 402, 407, 409, 410, 412, 414, 416 – Second Epistle 40, 403 – 11:2 365 – 14:2 331 – 16:2 367 – 17:7 109 – 20:5 403, 407, 414, 416 Constitutions of Holy Apostles/Apostolic Constitutions – 7:4:46 32, 36 Council of Florence – Decretum pro Iacobitis 21 Cyril of Alexandria 351 – Letter – 50:20 352

D Decretum de libris sacris et de traditionibus recipiendis 24 Didache 18, 44, 45, 51, 59, 227, 370 – 2 370, 371, 377, 379 – 2–3 378 – 4 168, 319 – 8–9 407 – 8–10 413, 414 – 9 227, 402 – 10 107, 227 – 11 44, 45, 99, 360 – 11–12 43, 44 – 12 43

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Others

– 15 377 – 16 333, 334 Diodorus Siculus 92, 173, 174, 187 – Bibliotheka Historica – III 67:2 187 – XV 58:1 173 Diogenes Laertius 99, 194, 366, 395 – Lives of Eminent Philosophers – 2:136 395 – 7:111 366 – 10:137 194 Dion Chrysostom 114 – Discourses (Oratoria) – 17:1–2 114 – 17:10–16 208 – 32:11 208 – 35:1 208 E Epictetus 329, 338, 358 – Enchiridion – 22 338, 339 Epiphanius of Salamina 32–36, 165 – Panarion 34 – 26:3 165 – 28:7:6 34 – 66:19:8 32 – 66:20:1–2 32 – 78:8:1 34 – 78:8:1–2 34 Epistle of the Apostles 123 – 13–14 124 – 15 228 – 26 318 – 46 319 Erasmus of Rotterdam 22, 23 – Letter of Dedication 23 Etymologium Magnum 221 Euripides 145, 247, 384 – Electra – 387 384

– Hippolytus 145 – The Madness of Herakles – 851 247 Eusebius of Caesarea 15, 20, 28, 31, 35, 39, 108 – Historia Ecclesiastica – I 7:14 35, 108 – I 13:10 28 – II 23:4 33, 39 – II 23:25 20 – III 19:1 35 – III 19:1–3 37 – III 19:1–20:8 35 – III 20:1 33 – III 20:2 35 – III 20:6–7 36 – III 25:3 20 – IV 5:2–3 31 – IV 22:4 33, 34 – VI 13:6 20 – VI 14:1 20 F Flavius, Josephus 39, 59, 99, 101, 146, 151, 153, 158, 160, 183, 187, 191, 193, 204, 206–208, 212, 214, 215, 217, 220, 225, 285, 310, 325, 329, 347, 358, 377, 412, 414 – Antiquities of the Jews – I 2:2 204, 310 – I 11 151 – IV 2:2 213 – IV 2:2–4 212 – IV 2:3 213 – IV 2:4 213, 214 – IV 3:2 214 – IV 3:3 214 – IV 3:4 212 – IV 6:6 206 – IV 6:9 206 – IV 6–7 206

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

487

488

Index of references

– IV 8:48 177 – IV 33 214 – V 1:26 412 – VI 11:9 377 – VIII 11:2 414 – VIII 13:5 107 – X 11:6 194 – XVII 11:1 329 – XVIII 1:3 285 – Antiquities of the Jews [original text] – II 6:7:130 183 – IV 8:23:248 183 – XI 4:2:79 358 – XI 4:9:117 183 – XI 5:4:253 358 – XVIII 4:6:107 187 – Contra Apionem 191 – 1:1 191 – 2:2 191 – 2:8 191 – 2:12 191 – 2:14 191 – 2:29 193 – De Bello Iudaico 347 – I 21:13 347 – II 8:2–3 225 – II 8:5 225 – II 8:11 285 – II 8:14 101 – III 9:3 220 – IV 8:4 160 – VI 2:1 158, 325 – VI 9:4 146 – VII 10:1 107

G Gaius Petronius Arbiter 224, 230 – Trimalchio’s Feast 224, 230 Gelasius of Cyzicus 178 – Ecclesiastical History 178

H Hermas 123, 166, 168, 228, 235, 236, 341, 358 – The Shepherd 123 – Mandate 4.1.9 166 – Mandate 6:2[36]:1 176 – Mandate 11:1[43]:1–4 235 – Mandate 11:1[43]:9 228 – Parable 4 244 – Parable 56[59]:1 168 – Parable 56[59]:3 168 – Parable 7[60].2 166 – Parable 83[69]:2–3 171 – Parable 9 358 – Vision 3 358 – Vision 3:7[15]:3 341 Herodotus 243, 325, 329 – The Histories – 1:21 329 – 1:53 325 – 5:38 329 Hesiod – Theogony – 716–741 145 Hilary of Arles – Treatise on the Seven Catholic Letters 327, 409 Hippolytus of Rome 222, 226, 235, 275 – Apostolic Tradition – III 26:1–5 226 – III 26:7 226 – III 26:10 226, 234 – III 26:23 227 – IV 38:4 222 – Commentary on Daniel – 3:7:14 275 Homer 145, 220, 221 – Iliad – VI 145

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Others

– Odyssey 221 – 3:290–294 220 – 10:510–514 145 I Ignatius of Antioch 40, 41, 59, 84, 99, 228, 233, 334, 379, 381 – Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians – 6 41 – 8:2 84 – 13 41 – The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians – 3 114 – 7 100 – 7:1 381 – 9 99, 100 – 9:1 358 – 11:1 334 – 13 228 – 20 228 – The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians – 1 41 – 4 41 – 8 41 – 10 41 – The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans – 4 379 – 4:1 381 – 7:2 381 – 8 228 – 8–9 41 – The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians – 1–4 41 – 13 41 Irenaeus of Lyon 19, 46, 84, 172, 200, 209, 211, 270, 273, 274, 351 – Adversus Haereses – I 6:2–4 351 – I 6:3 46

– I 8:1 351 – I 23:2–3 172 – I 23:5 172 – I 25:1 172 – I 31:1 200, 212 – I:24 172 – II 1:2 84 – II 4:2 84 – V 28:3 273 – Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching – 9 274 – 18 270 – Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus – 23 211 – 25 209

J Jerome of Stridon 20, 21, 32, 33, 35, 143, 369 – De Viris Illustribus – 4 20 Joint Statement by the Lutheran World Federation and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity on the Conclusion of the Year of the Common Commemoration of the Reformation 15 Justin Martyr 18, 119, 120, 122, 129, 136, 137, 139, 141, 147, 148, 227, 234, 235, 270, 345, 350 – Dialogue with Trypho 148 – 35 345, 351 – 49 148 – 56 136, 137 – 61–62 141 – 75 119, 122 – 100 147 – 113 120, 129 – 120 119

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

489

490

Index of references

– First Apology – 5 270 – 65–67 227 – 67 234 – Second Apology – 5 139 K Karlstadt, Andreas 23 – De canonicis 23 L Letter from Apion, an Egyptian soldier in the Roman navy, to his father 405 Letter to Aristides 108 Lucian of Samosata 308 – Timon the Misanthrope – 55 308 Luther, Martin 24, 106, 109, 167, 173, 177, 202, 271, 346, 350, 359, 363, 367, 371 – Preface to the Epistles of Saint James and Saint Jude 21, 24, 48 – The Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude Preached and Explained 24, 109, 167, 173, 177, 202, 271, 346, 350, 359, 363, 367, 371 M Marcus Aurelius 308, 393 – Meditations – 5:9 393 – 10:28 308 Martyrdom of Polycarp 18, 85 – 0:1 85 – 14:3 402, 407, 410, 414, 416 – 20 409 – 20:2 403, 407, 409, 411, 412, 414 – 21 409 – 21:1 407, 410, 414, 416 Melito of Sardis 17 – Paschal homily 17 Mishnah 227

O Octavian Augustus 95 – The Deeds of the Divine Augustus – 6 95 Oecumenius 305, 306, 327, 350 – Commentary on Jude/Jacobi Apostoli epistula catholica 305, 306, 327, 350 Origen 13, 19, 27, 30, 52, 57, 161, 177, 178, 300 – Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew – 10:17 13, 19, 30, 57 – Contra Celsum – 5:52 161 – De Principiis 178 – 2:1 27 – On the First Principles s. a. De Principiis, 178

P Palaea Historica 178 Patterns of Letters 65 Pausanias 83 – Description of Greece – 10:32:13 83 Peshitta 21 Phileas – Apology 17 Philo of Alexandria 59, 92, 122, 123, 130, 136, 148, 150, 151, 153, 160, 169, 176, 194, 204, 207, 208, 210, 216, 305, 307, 308, 310, 348, 358, 393–395, 398, 414 – De Abrahamo – 26:133–136 151 – 26:135–136 153 – 27:141 160 – De agricultura – 40:177–180 393 – De confusione linguarum – 28:146 130 – 28:146–147 123

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Others

– De posteritati Caini – 11:38–39 204 – De somniis – 2:2:8 358 – 2:2:11 395 – 25:1:85–87 136 – 25:1:157 123 – 41:1:238 123 – 41:1:238–239 130 – 41:1:239 123 – De vita Mosis – I 46:272 207 – I 46:274 210 – I 48:268 207 – I 53:293 207 – I 54:295 207 – II 10:56 160 – II 51:291 176 – Legum allegoriae – 3:247 348 – I 8:19–21 148 – III 9:30 194 – Sacrifices – 5:32 348 – Special Laws – I 8:45 169, 398 Philoxenus – Philoxenian 21 Plato 221, 229, 234, 237, 238, 306, 312, 358, 406, 415 – Feast 238 – Laws – 7:803b 221 – Phaedrus 229 – Philebus 95 – Timaeus – 37 415 Pliny the Younger 232 – Letter to the Emperor Trajan – 10:96 232

Plutarch 99, 158, 194, 195, 208, 230, 243, 251, 312, 316, 319, 385, 415 – Advice about Keeping Well – 131A 208 – Concerning the Face Which Appears in the Orb of the Moon – 9 251 – Demetrius – 1:6 158 – How can one praise oneself without exciting envy – 3 316 – 10 320 – 18 316 – Isis and Osiris – 9 415 – On Affection for Offspring – 493D 194 – On Moral Virtue – 3 312 – 4 385 – 6 195 – On Shyness – 6 319 – 10 319 – On the ‘E’ at Delphi – 4 251 – Quaestiones Convivales – I 621b 230 – The Life of Timoleon – 6:1 243 Polybius 183 – The Histories – II 22:11 183 – V 41:3 183 – XXXVIII 18:2 183 Polycarp of Smyrna 396, 398 – The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians – 5 396 – 5:2 398

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

491

492

Index of references

Pseudo-Ambrose 223 – Homily XLVI (De Salomone) 223 Pseudo-Cyprian 275 – Ad Novatianum – 16 275 Pseudo-Demetrius 60, 61, 63, 65 – De elocutione/On style – 223 61 – 228–229 61 – 231 61 – 234 61 – Epistolary Types 60 Pseudo-Libanius 63, 65 – Manual of Correspondence 63 Pseudo-Oecumenius 178 Pseudo-Philo 200 – Book of Biblical Antiquities – 16:1 216 – 16:1–2 200 – 16:3 216, 305 – 19:4 239 Q Quintilianus, Marcus Fabius 57, 60, 66, 199, 354 – Institutes of Oratory s. a. Institutio oratoria, 57 – Institutio oratoria 57 – II 4:20–21 66, 354 – IV 5:1–VI 1:1 60 – IX 4:23 199 – IX 4:25 199 – XII 10:58 60 Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat – X 32 204 – XXI 78 204 S Sacred Sermon of the Corpus Hermeticum – 3:2a 343 Seneca, Lucius Annelius 61, 221 – Moral Letters to Lucilius

– 75:1 61 – On Consolation to Marcia – 5 221 Sextus Julius Africanus 35, 108 – On the genealogy in the Holy Gospels 108 Sophocles 221 – Antigone – 540 221 Statenvertaling 22 Strabo 234 – Geography – X 4:20 234 T Tertullian 13, 19, 20, 23, 27, 52, 143, 222, 229, 230, 269, 270 – Apologeticus – 39 230 – De baptismo liber – 12 222 – De cultu feminarum 23 – 1:3 19, 27, 270 The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus – 12 62, 407, 410, 414, 416 The Letter of Aristeas – 222 195 Theognis of Megara 235 – Poems – 295–298 235 Theophilus of Antioch 18, 141, 253 – To the Autolycus – 2:10 141 Theophrastus 308 – The Characters – 17 308 Tosefta 200, 227 – Sotta – 4,9 200 V Vio, Tomas de

s. Cajetan, Thomas

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573385 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0