Jude on the Attack 9780567678782, 9780567678805, 9780567678799

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

581 Formerly Journal of the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series

Editor Chris Keith

Editorial Board Dale C. Allison, John M.G. Barclay, Lynn H. Cohick, R. Alan Culpepper, Craig A. Evans, Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gathercole, John S. Kloppenborg, Michael Labahn, Love L. Sechrest, Robert Wall, Steve Walton, Catrin H. Williams

JUDE ON THE ATTACK

A Comparative Analysis of the Epistle of Jude, Jewish Judgement Oracles, and Greco-Roman Invective

Alexandra Robinson

T&T CLARK Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the T&T Clark logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2018 Paperback edition first published in 2019 Copyright © Alexandra Robinson, 2018 Alexandra Robinson has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. For legal purposes the Acknowledgements on p. vii constitute an extension of this copyright page. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Robinson, Alexandra, author. Title: Jude on the attack : a comparative analysis of the Epistle of Jude, Jewish judgement oracles, and Greco-Roman invective / Alexandra Robinson. Description: New York : Bloomsbury Academic, 2017. | Series: Library of New Testament studies ; volume 581 | Includes bibliographical references Identifiers: LCCN 2017020740 | ISBN 9780567678782 (hb) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Jude–Criticism, interpretation, etc. Classification: LCC BS2815.52 .R63 2017 | DDC 227/.97066–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017020740 ISBN: HB: 978-0-5676-7878-2 PB: 978-0-5676-8918-4 ePDF: 978-0-5676-7879-9 Series: Library of New Testament Studies, volume 581 Typeset by Forthcoming Publications (www.forthpub.com) To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

C on t en t s

Acknowledgements vii A Note on Translation ix Abbreviations xiii Chapter 1 Introduction

1

Chapter 2 Preliminary Matters 2.1. Authorship 2.2. Jude and 2 Peter 2.3. Textual Variants 2.3.1. Jude 5 2.3.2. Jude 22–23 2.4. Summary

6 6 10 11 12 12 16

Chapter 3 Examining the Literature, the Method, and the Genres 3.1. Literature Review 3.1.1. Partly Jewish and Partly Greek 3.1.2. A Polemical Attack 3.1.3. Summary 3.2. Defence of the Genres 3.2.1. Following in Their Footsteps 3.2.2. Jude’s Rhetorical Climate 3.2.3. Hints from Within the Text 3.2.4. Method for the Comparative Analysis

17 17 18 23 26 27 27 28 32 38

Chapter 4 The Structure of Jewish Judgement Oracles, Greco-Roman Invectives, and the Epistle of Jude 4.1. The Structure of Jewish Judgement Oracles 4.1.1. Jeremiah 23.9–22 (Case Study, Part 1) 4.1.1.1. Context Surrounding the Selected Passage 4.1.1.2. The Structure of Jeremiah 23.9–22

40 40 42 46 46

vi Contents

4.2. The Structure of Greco-Roman Invectives 4.2.1. Exploring a Variety of Greco-Roman Texts 4.2.2. Demosthenes and Ovid: The Case Studies 4.2.2.1. Demosthenes, Against Meidias (Case Study, Part 1) 4.2.2.2. Ovid, Ibis (Case Study, Part 1) 4.3. The Structure of the Epistle of Jude 4.3.1. Exploring the Units of Jude 4.3.1.1. Jude 1–2 (Greeting) 4.3.1.2. Jude 3–4 (Purpose) 4.3.1.3. Jude 5–10 (Comparisons and Past Examples) 4.3.1.4. Jude 11–13 (Reproof) 4.3.1.5. Jude 14–16 (Enoch’s Prophecy) 4.3.1.6. Jude 17–19 (Prophetic Reminder) 4.3.1.7. Jude 20–23 (Instructions to the Beloved) 4.3.1.8. Jude 24–25 (Doxology) 4.4. Comparative Analysis

49 49 52 53 56 58 62 62 63 71 73 74 76 76 77 77

Chapter 5 The Aim of Jewish Judgement Oracles, Greco-Roman Invectives, and the Epistle of Jude 82 5.1. The Aim of Jewish Judgement Oracles 82 5.1.1. Jeremiah 23.9–22 (Case Study, Part 2) 87 5.2. The Aim of Greco-Roman Invectives 88 5.2.1. Demosthenes, Against Meidias (Case Study, Part 2) 92 5.2.2. Ovid, Ibis (Case Study, Part 2) 93 5.3. The Aim of the Epistle of Jude 94 5.3.1. Primary Aim 95 5.3.1.1. σωτηρία and πίστις 97 5.3.1.2. Treaty Language in Jude 101 5.3.1.3. Contend for the Faith 104 5.3.1.4. Summary of the Primary Aim 106 5.3.2. Secondary Aim 107 5.4. Comparative Analysis 110 Chapter 6 Themes in Jewish Judgement Oracles, Greco-Roman Invectives, and the Epistle of Jude 6.1. Themes in Jewish Judgement Oracles 6.1.1. Jeremiah 23.9–22 (Case Study, Part 3) 6.2. Themes in Greco-Roman Invectives 6.2.1. Demosthenes, Against Meidias (Case Study, Part 3) 6.2.2. Ovid’s Ibis (Case Study, Part 3) 6.3. Themes in the Epistle of Jude 6.4. Comparative Analysis

114 114 118 120 128 129 131 147

Contents

vii

Chapter 7 The Style of Jewish Judgement Oracles, Greco-Roman Invectives, and the Epistle of Jude 7.1. The Style of Jewish Judgement Oracles 7.1.1. Jeremiah 23.9–22 (Case Study, Part 4) 7.1.1.1. Jeremiah 23.9–22 (Stylistic Devices) 7.1.1.2. A Word on Hermogenes’ Model 7.1.1.3. Overall Style of Jeremiah 23.9–22 7.2. The Style of Greco-Roman Invectives 7.2.1. Demosthenes (Case Study, Part 4) 7.2.2. Ovid, Ibis (Case Study, Part 4) 7.3. The Style of the Epistle of Jude 7.3.1. Metaphor 7.3.2. Simile 7.3.3. Intertextuality 7.3.4. Marked Emphasis 7.3.5. Overall Style 7.4. Comparative Analysis 7.4.1. Stylistic Devices 7.4.2. Overall Style

150 150 154 155 159 161 162 167 169 173 174 179 180 188 190 194 195 198

Chapter 8 Conclusion

201

Bibliography 205 Index of References 229 Index of Authors 246

A ck n owl ed g em e nts

I wish to thank those Chris Keith, Nathan L. Shedd and Dominic Mattos of Bloomsbury T&T Clark, as well as my copy-editor, Duncan Burns, for kindly assisting me in the process of getting this book to print. I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of Larry Welborn and Stephen Llewelyn who had a significant role in guiding me through my doctoral dissertation. Many thanks to you both for your endless support and insight over the years. Thank you to those who offered feedback or supported my research, including Andrie B. du Toit, Alan Cadwallader, Raffaella Cribiore, Markus Bockmuehl, Richard Kalmin, Steven Runge, John Painter, David Neville, Jonny Robinson, Will Robinson, Nat Smith, Blake Wassell, Jenny Knight, Don Barker, Alanna Nobbs and my New Testament and Early Christianity cohort at Macquarie University. This book contains material presented at Macquarie University and the Fellowship for Biblical Studies Conference (September 2012). I want to thank the participants at these events for their helpful comments. Some of the material from this book appears elsewhere in another form, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the publishers for their permission to reuse the material here. Material for Chapters 4 and 5 appears in ‘The Enoch Inclusio in Jude: A New Structural Possibility’, JGRChJ 9, no. 7 (2013): 196–212. This book could not have come to fruition without the assistance and financial support of the Australian Postgraduate Award, the ADM Anna Pallister Scholarship, the ADM Travel Scholarship and the Macquarie Postgraduate Research Fund. Thank you to each of these committees for providing me with an opportunity to spend time at Columbia University, Fordham University and Oxford University compiling my research. To the Australian Academy for Humanities, thank you for supporting work like this, and for your efforts to see early career researchers excel. To Beck Beeton, Maryann Webb, Hayley Tate, Alison op de Veigh, Nicola Hay, Jane Robinson, and Katrina Mileto, thank you for giving up so many hours to sit and play with my girls while I wrote this book. Many thanks to Jane and Stuart Robinson for the countless sleepovers with Elsie

x Acknowledgements

and Ida, and Katrina Mileto for taking Elsie on weekly shopping outings. Rocco and Katrina Mileto and Stuart and Jane Robinson, thank you for greatly supporting my love for the Bible. To my darling daughters Elsie Rose and Ida Lily, thank you for letting me spend my days reading to you from Cicero and Isocrates and learning to entertain yourselves while I worked. Thank you to my husband Jonny, for his tolerance, encouragement and feedback. If it were not for you, I would have never finished this project! Finally, my greatest thanks: Τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ φυλάξαι ὑμᾶς ἀπταίστους καὶ στῆσαι κατενώπιον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ ἀμώμους ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει μόνῳ θεῷ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. (Jude 24–25)

A N ot e on T r a n slati on

It should be noted that unless otherwise stated: the author has used NA28 for references to the Greek New Testament, biblical citations in English have been self-translated, and classical translations are derived from the Loeb Classical Library.

A b b rev i at i ons

1–2 Clem. 1–2 Clement 1 Apol. 1 Apology 1 En. 1 (Ethiopic) Enoch 2 En. 2 (Slavonic) Enoch 2 Bar. 2 (Syriac) Baruch [Apocalypse of Baruch] 3 Macc. 3 Maccabees 4 Macc. 4 Maccabees 4 Ezra 4 Ezra [2 Esd. 3–14] ‫ א‬ Codex Sinaiticus A Codex Alexandrinus AB Anchor Bible ʾAbot. ʾAboth Aesch., Ag. Aeschylus, Agamemnon Aeschin. Aeschines AJP The American Journal of Philology Alc., Heracl. Alcaeus, Heracles AnBib Analecta Biblica APA American Philological Association Arist., Kn. Aristophanes, Knights Arist. Aristotle De an. De anima Poet. Poetics Rhet. The Art of Rhetoric Artem., One Artemidorus Daldianus, Oneirocritica Ass. Mos. Assumption of Moses August. Augustine De civ. D. De Civitate Dei Contra Paganos Doctr. Chr. De Doctrina Christiana b. Babylonian Talmud BA The Biblical Archaeologist BAGD W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, F. Danker, GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Reprint, Chicago, 2000 Barn. Barnabas BBB Bonner biblische Beiträge BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research BCAW Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World

xiv Abbreviations BCBC BCE BDF

Believers Church Bible Commentary before the Common Era Friedrich Blass, A. Debrunner and Robert W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961 Bekh. Bekhorot Ber. Berakot BHGNT Baylor Handbook of the Greek New Testament Bib. Biblica BJS Biblical Judaic Studies BNTC Black’s New Testament Commentary BZNW Beihefte zur ZNW Callim. Callimachus Cat. Catullus, Poems CBC The Cambridge Bible Commentary CBNTS Coniectanea Biblica New Testament Series CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CCTC Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries CD Damascus Document CE Common Era CGTSC Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges Cic. Cicero Att. Epistulae ad Atticum Cael. Pro Caelio Cat. In Catilinam Clu. Pro Cluentio De or. De oratore Dom. De domo sua Inv. De inventione rhetorica Off. De officiis Phil. Orationes Philippicae Pis. In Pisonem QRosc. Pro Roscio comoedo Rep. De republica Sen. De senectute Vat. In Vatinium Verr. In Verrem Clem. Clement of Alexandria Paed. Paedagogus Protrep. Protrepticus Comm. Commodus CTJ Calvin Theological Journal Crates Ep. Crates, Epistle Dem. Demosthenes Andr. Against Androtion Cor. On the Crown

Abbreviations Emb. On the False Embassy Meid. Against Meidias Phil. Philippics Demetr., Eloc Demetrius, De Elocutione (Περὶ έρμηνείας) Democr. Democritus Did. Didache Din., Dem. Dinarchus, Against Demosthenes Dio Cass., Rom Hist. Dio Cassius, Roman History Dio Chr., Or. Dio Chrysostom, Orations Diog. Diogenes Dion. Hal. Dionysius Halicarnassensis EGGNT Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament Epicurus Epicurus Ep. Epistulae RS Ratae Sententiae Epiph. Epiphanius Erub. Erubin (Babylonian Talmud) Esd. Esdras ESV English Standard Version ETSMS Evangelical Theological Society Monograph Studies Eur., Ion Euripides, Ion Euseb. Eusebius Hist. eccl. Historia ecclesiastica EvT Evangelische Theologie fr. fragment Gos. Pet Gospel of Peter Hdt. Hist. Herodotus, Histories Heliogab. Heliogabalus Hermas, Vis. Hermas, Vision Hermas, Sim. Hermas, Similitude Hermog. Hermogenes Id. Περὶ ὶδεῶν Hil. Comm. Ps. Hilary of Poitiers, Commentarius in Psalmum Hippoc. Hippocrates Hom. Homer Il. Iliad Od. Odyssey Hor., Carm. Horace, Carmina or Odes HSCP Harvard Studies in Classical Philology HTR The Harvard Theological Review HUT Hermeneutische Untersuchugen zur Theologie I. Inscription ICC The International Critical Commentary IG Inscriptionae Graecae Ir., Ad. Haer. Irenaeus, Ad Haereses I.Samos Inscription Samos

xv

xvi Abbreviations Isoc. Isocrates Antid. Antidosis Call. Against Callimachus Dem. To Demonicus de Pace On the Peace Euth. Against Euthynous Nic. Nicocles Panath. Panathenaicus Paneg. Panegyricus Soph. Against the Sophist Speech. Speeches JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion JBL Journal of Biblical Literature Jer. Jerome Comm. Ep. Ad Tit. Commentarius in Epistolam ad Titum De vir. Ill. De viris illustribus JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society JGRChJ Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies Joseph. Josephus Ant. Antiquities of the Jews Apion Against Apion Life Life of Josephus War The Jewish War JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series JTS Journal of Theological Studies Jub. Jubilees Jus., 1 Apo. Justin Martyr, 1 Apologia Juv., Satire Juvenal, Satires Ketub. Ketubbot KKNT Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament L.A.B. Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum Lib Libanius Max. The Exercise in Maxim Prog. Progymnasmata LNTS The Library of New Testament Studies Series Loeb Loeb Classical Library LSJ H.G. Liddell, Robert Scott and H. Stuart Jones, Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 9th ed., 1968) Lucian Encom. Demosth. Encomium of Demosthenes Nigr Nigrinus LXX Septuagint m. indicates a tractate of the Mishnah Martial, Ep. Martial, Epigram

Abbreviations

xvii

Meg. Megillah Mish Mishnah MT Masoretic Text NA27 Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece. Edited by K. Aland et al. 27th rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993 Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece. Edited by B. and NA28 K. Aland et al. 28th rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012 NAC The New American Commentary NASB The New American Standard Bible NCB The New Century Bible Commentary Neot. Neotestamentica NETS New English Translation of the Septuagint NHMS Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies NICOT The New International Commentary on the Old Testament NIDB New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld. 5 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 2006–2009 NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary NIV New International Version NKJV New King James Version NLT New Living Translation NovT Novum Testamentum NPNF Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers NRSV New Revised Standard Version NTM New Testament Message NTL The New Testament Library NTS New Testament Studies OTL The Old Testament Library OTP Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985 OTS The Old Testament Series Ov. Ovid Ib. Ibis Tr. Tristia 𝔓 Papyrus/papyri PGNT Phoenix Guide to the New Testament Philo Philo Judaeus Agr. De agricultura Leg. Gai. Legatio ad Gaium Op. Mund. De opificio munid Plant. De Plantatione Rer. Div. Her. Quis rerum divinarum heres sit Vit. Mos. De vita Mosis Pind., Pyth. Pindar, Python Pl. Plato Resp. Respublica Tht. Theaetetus

xviii Abbreviations Plin., Pan. Pliny (the Younger), Panegyricus Plut. Plutarch Comm. not. On Common Conceptions about Stoics Dem. Demosthenes Fab. Fabius Maximus Gab. Gabla Num. Numa Pomp. Pompey P. Mich Michigan Papyrus Collection PNTC The Pillar New Testament Commentary Polyb., Hist. Polybius, Histories P.Oxy. Oxyrhynchus Papyri ps.- pseudo ps.-Cic. Pseudo Cicero ps.-Demetr. Pseudo Demetrius ps.-Sall. Pseudo Sallust Q Qumran 1QH Hymns 1QpHab Habakkuk Pesher Jubilees 1QJubb 1QNoah Noah 1QS Community Rule 2QapProph prophecy Hosea Pesher 4QpHos Lamentations on Jerusalem 4QapLama 4Q185 Eulogy of Wisdom Fragments of Jeremiah from Cave 4 4QJerb 4QD Damascus Document Songs of the Sage 4QShirb Quint., Inst. Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria Rhet. Alex. Rhetorica ad Alexandrum Rhet. Her. Rhetorica ad Herennium Ros. Has. Rosh Hashanah (Babylonian Talmud) Sall. Sallust Sanh. Sanhedrin SBL Society of Biblical Literature SBTS Sources for Biblical and Theological Study Sen., Ep. Seneca (the Younger), Epistles SHA Scriptores Historiae Augustae Shab. Shabbat Sib. Or. Sibylline Oracles Sir. Sirach Sot. Sotah (Babylonian Talmud) SOTSMS Society for Old Testament Study Monograph Series SSN Studia Semitica Neerlandica Strab., Georgr. Strabo, The Geography of Strabo

Abbreviations

xix

Suet. Suetonius Aug. Divus Augustus Dom. Domitianus Vesp. Vespasianus Syll Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum SymS Symposium Series t. indicates a tractate of the Tosefta T. Job Testament of Job T. Levi Testament of Levi T. Naph. Testament of Naphtali T. Reu. Testament of Reuben Tac., Hist. Tacitus, Histories TANZ Texte und Arbeiten zum Neutestamentlichen Zeitalter TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76 Tert. Tertullian THL Theory and History of Literature Thuc., Hist. Thucydides, Histories TNTC Tyndale New Testament Commentaries TSAJ Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum The Greek New Testament. Edited by K. Aland et al. 4th rev. ed. UBS4 Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1994 VF Verkündigung und Forschung VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum WBC Word Biblical Commentary Wis. Wisdom of Solomon WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Xen. Xenophon An. Anabasis Hell. Hellenica y. Jerusalem Talmud ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

Chapter 1 I n t rod uct i on

The epistle of Jude has generated robust arguments owing to its eclectic use of Jewish apocalyptic material, its mysterious authorship, fascinating relationship with 2 Peter, and unusual scribal discrepancies. Since the late fourth century, when the authority of 1 Enoch was disputed by Augustine (De civ. D. 15.23; 18.38), Hilary of Poitiers (Comm. Ps. 132.3–6) and Jerome (De viris Ill. 4; Comm. Ep. Ad Tit. 1.12), the authenticity of the epistle of Jude was also questioned.1 Jerome records: ‘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 many’ (De viris Ill. 4).2 Jude’s use of 1 Enoch has troubled Christians for centuries.3 While some openly deny Jude’s use of the Enochic corpus,4 concluding that there are no quotations or allusions drawn from it, the majority of scholars are more realistic, and seek to explore the reasons why a first-century follower of Jesus would quote this particular text in an authoritative manner.5 Despite this initial 1.  Gerald L. Bray, ed., James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture 11 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 255. See also Paul L. Maier, Eusebius: The Church History, trans. Paul L. Maier (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 101; OTP, 1:8. 2.  Jerome, ‘Lives of Illustrious Men’, in NPNF: Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, and Rufinus, ed. Philip Schaff, Christian Classics Ethereal Library (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1892), 833 (emphasis added). 3.  Scot McKnight, ‘Jude’, in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, ed. James D. G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 1532; Ernest M. Sidebottom, James, Jude and 2 Peter, NCB (London: Thomas Nelson, 1967), 75. 4.  Randall Price, Searching for the Original Bible (Oregon: Harvest House, 2007), 136. See also George L. Lawlor, Translation and Exposition of the Epistle of Jude (Nutley: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1972), 102; John Phillips, Exploring the Epistle of Jude: An Expository Commentary, The John Phillips Commentary Series (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004), 73. 5.  Most scholars recognize that the Enochic influences found in Jude are intertwined among Old Testament references, stories and thinking. See J. Daryl Charles

2

Jude on the Attack

negativity, the epistle gained authority ‘by age and use’ (De viris Ill. 4),6 and among modern scholars (even those who doubt the authority of 1 Enoch) there is minimal hesitation in accepting Jude into the canon.7 As Green concludes, ‘Within the contemporary church, the canonical status of Jude has not been shaken by its use of apocryphal works’.8 Of Jude’s 25 verses, 19 resurface within 2 Peter (see §2.2). Apart from the synoptic gospels, few New Testament texts have this level of correlation. A relationship of this scale has prompted vigorous debates among scholars and raised many questions:9 Which author borrowed from the other? Was there a third text to which both writers had access? Are these texts pseudonymous?10 Are these texts from the early second century CE? Are they, in fact, written by their implied first-century authors?11 These and Erland Waltner, 1–2 Peter, Jude, BCBC (Scottdale & Waterloo: Herald, 1999), 276; Gene L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 26; Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, WBC 50 (Waco: Word, 1983), 10. See §2.1 for a discussion on date and authorship. 6.  Jerome, ‘Lives of Illustrious Men’, 833. 7.  For example, Phillips, Exploring the Epistle of Jude, 73; Lawlor, Translation and Exposition of the Epistle of Jude, 102; Price, Searching for the Original Bible, 136; Douglas J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, ed. Terry Muck, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 271–78. Painter helpfully reminds us that Jude would not have been operating under any particular ‘canon’. The quest for a canon had hardly begun, let alone been settled, by the end of the first century. See John Painter and David A. deSilva, James and Jude, Paideia (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012). 8.  Green, Jude and 2 Peter, 29. In the end ‘the canonization of Jude shows that it is authoritative’, despite its use of Enochic literature. See Duane F. Watson, ‘The Letter of Jude’, in The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. L. E. Keck et al. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 493. 9.  Callan takes the position that that the author of 2 Peter has not only incorporated Jude’s epistle into his own, but reworked it to serve his own purposes. See Terrance Callan, ‘Use of the Letter of Jude by the Second Letter of Peter’, Bib 85 (2004): 42. These issues are picked up again in §2.2. 10.  One argument advocating this theory is the obvious inconsistency between 1 Peter and 2 Peter; see Scot McKnight, ‘2 Peter’, in Dunn and Rogerson, eds., Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, 1504. However, this could simply be the result of different scribes as opposed to a different author. See also Terry L. Wilder, J. Daryl Charles, and Kendell Easley, Faithful to the End: An Introduction to Hebrews Through Revelation (Nashville: B&H Academic 2007), 125–33. 11.  On this, see Michael J. Kruger, ‘The Authenticity of 2 Peter’, JETS 42, no. 4 (1999): 670; John N. D. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and of Jude, BNTC (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1969), 2; Richard J. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1990), 224–25.

1. Introduction

3

questions and more will be examined in Chapter 2. Further speculation concerns the textual transmission of the epistle of Jude. For example, does Jude 5 refer to ‘the lord’ or to ‘Jesus’? In Jude 14–15, is the author paraphrasing 1 En. 1.9, or is he using an Aramaic text to which we no longer have access? Was Jude 22–23 originally a two-clause passage (as found in 𝔓72) or a three-clause passage (as found in NA28)?12 Though th speculative nature of these issues prevents any definitive conclusion being drawn, these matters have also been the focus of many prominent studies on Jude.13 This topic of textual transmission will also be examined in the following chapter (§2.3), as it does impact upon the way in which the epistle is read and understood. In addition to these textual debates, the rich vocabulary and style of this short but energetic text has generated a variety of approaches to the study of the epistle. In the existing scholarship, we find rhetorical studies,14 grammatical studies,15 socio-historical studies,16 and even a semiotic study.17 In the latter, the epistle is read alongside the classic science fiction/horror film, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, in an attempt to explore the dynamics of paranoia.18 Such a variety of approaches to the study of the epistle of Jude amplifies the complexity and intrigue that has surrounded this text for centuries. In this growing field of Jude studies, the epistle is repeatedly referred to as an invective, a polemic, and an attack speech. Commentators also note Jude’s dependence on both Jewish and Greco-Roman sources. Due to the pre-established relationship between the New Testament writings and the Hebrew Bible (and more specifically Jude’s own references to Jewish sources), it makes sense to look at Jewish literature by way of comparison to the epistle of Jude. However, there are elements of the text, for example 12.  See §2.3 for an in-depth discussion on this variant and others. 13.  See Tommy Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude: Its Text and Transmission, CBNTS 43 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2006), 148–50, 174–84, 196–99, 262– 66, 295–306, 320–30. 14.  Duane F. Watson, Invention, Arrangement and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter, SBL Dissertation Series 104 (Atlanta: SBL, 1988). 15.  Peter H. Davids, 2 Peter and Jude: A Handbook on the Greek Text, BHGNT (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2011). 16.  Ruth Ann Reese, Writing Jude: The Reader, the Text and the Author in Constructs of Power and Desire (Leiden: Brill, 2000). 17.  George Aichele, The Letters of Jude and Second Peter: Paranoia and the Slaves of Christ, PGNT (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012). 18.  Andrew Mbuvi, ‘Review of George Aichele, The Letters of Jude and Second Peter: Paranoia and the Slaves of Christ’, RBL 6 (2015).

4

Jude on the Attack

rare vocabulary and the letter-writing style, which cannot be explained using this Jewish literature alone. Much of the rare vocabulary found in the epistle appears in Aristotle (e.g. ἐνυπνιάζω and φθινοπωρινός), Homer (σπιλάς), and Isocrates (μεμψίμοιρος) suggesting we turn to Greco-Roman sources for further investigation.19 The letter-writing style also reflects the well-established epistolary form and model taught in the Greek schools of antiquity.20 Accepting all this, the challenge, as Frey recognizes, ‘is to render more specifically what the Jewish and Hellenistic elements of Jude’s position are’,21 and in this case, how they relate to the harsh nature of the discourse. This is precisely the task of the present study. By examining the structure, aims, themes, and style of various Greco-Roman and Jewish polemical texts, I will show to what degree Jude has been influenced by Greco-Roman invective and Jewish judgement oracles in the composition of this brief but detailed letter. To do this, I will first discuss some prevailing controversies surrounding Jude in order to establish my position going forward (Chapter 2). Following this, I will survey the existing commentary on Jude where the Jewish, Greek, and polemical elements of the epistle have been noted (Chapter 3). A thorough investigation of these elements begins in Chapter 4, where I analyse the structure of Jewish judgement oracles and Greco-Roman invective, comparing these to the structure of Jude. This same pattern continues through Chapters 5, 6, and 7 where the aims, 19.  Some scholars have even noticed a parallel between the language of Jude and Theogony 715–33. Cozunsen notices that the language in Jude 6 (δεσμοῖς, ὑπὸ ζόφον) echoes Hesiod’s story of Zeus’ defeat of the Titans, and Jude 13 (wild waves foaming up shame) echoes Theogony 188–200. See Bert Cozunsen, ‘A Critical Contribution to the Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti: Jude and Hesiod’, in The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World, ed. L. V. Rutgers et al. (Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 96–109. See also Thomas F. Glasson, Greek Influence in Jewish Eschatology: With Special Reference to the Apocalypses and Pseudepigraphs (London: SPCK, 1961), 62–63; Henning Paulsen, Der zweite Petrudbrief und der Judasbrief, KKNT 12 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 72. 20.  Abraham J. Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists, SBL Sources for Biblical Study 19 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 6. In the Hellenistic Period, letter writing was ‘common place’ at certain social levels. See Catherine Hezser, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, TSAJ 81 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 254. However, we do not have evidence of a strong Hebrew letter writing tradition. Apart from the Hebrew Bible, we only have 47 extracts of Hebrew letters from ca. 7 BCE to c. 2 CE. Thus, this too leads us to the Hellenistic world for answers. See ibid., 258. 21.  Jörg Frey, ‘The Epistle of Jude Between Judaism and Hellenism’, in The Catholic Epistles and Apostolic Tradition, ed. Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr and Robert W. Wall (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009), 315.

1. Introduction

5

themes, and style of these two genres are analysed in similar manner and, once again, compared to Jude. To conclude, I summarize the findings concerning these four elements and their manifestation in Jude. In the end, I will argue that Jude has constructed a ‘Jewish invective’. His epistle is a polemical text which takes the form (structure, aims and style) of a typical Greco-Roman invective but is filled with Jewish content (themes and allusions), drawing on Israel’s heritage for the benefit of his primarily Jewish-Christian audience.

Chapter 2 P rel i m i n a ry M at t e r s

Before arriving at our main argument, three preliminary matters must be addressed: the authorship of the epistle;1 Jude’s relationship with 2 Peter; and the textual transmission of Jude. Of the many issues surrounding Jude, I will focus only on these three, as they are the most contentious and have direct bearing on my argument. 2.1. Authorship Scholars are divided on the issue of authorship concerning the book of Jude. It has been suggested, for example, that Jude was the historical brother of Jesus, a scribe from a later generation, a relative, or a disciple writing under Jude’s name.2 At this stage, I am less concerned with adding another survey of evidence, and more concerned with the way Jude portrays himself throughout the discourse.3 From the opening verse, Jude provides explicit information, establishing himself initially as δοῦλος (‘a slave’) and as ἀδελφός (‘a brother’) of someone named Ἰακώβου (‘James’).4 The author makes use of identification markers to create a persona (a carefully constructed depiction of oneself, interpreted in a particular manner by the 1.  It is necessary to note at this stage that some scholars would classify this piece of writing as an epistle and not a letter. See Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, trans. Lionel R. M. Strachen, 2nd ed. (1923; repr., New York: George H. Doran Co., 1927), 228–29. Others, however, are divided on the matter and see too many overlaps to draw such clear categorical distinctions. See John L. White, ‘The Ancient Epistolography Group in Retrospect’, Semeia 22 (1981): 6. Due to this ambiguity, I will be using the two words interchangeably. 2.  Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 14–16; Richard Kugelman, James and Jude, NTM 19 (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1980), 79–82. For a discussion on a later first-century dating, see Peter Müller, ‘Der Judasbrief’, ThR 63 (1998): 267–89. 3.  Throughout this book I will refer to the author of Jude as ‘he’ as it is clearly the gender the writer wants to project. 4.  Reese, Writing Jude, 20.

2. Preliminary Matters

7

recipients of the letter).5 Introductions play a significant role in communication. Here, the writer puts forth his ‘credentials’ as he sees fit for the situation at hand.6 Although ‘brother’ and ‘slave’ are familiar terms, they are nonetheless deliberately selected by the writer as he seeks to establish a connection with his recipients. In a greeting a writer will choose the identification which best fits the objectives of his purpose. The metaphor δοῦλος, meaning ‘one in a position of being controlled and possessed by another’, infers obedience and submission.7 In the ancient world, according to BAGD, slaves were generally ‘duty-bound only to their owners or masters, or those to whom total allegiance is pledged’.8 It is this idea of allegiance that Jude draws upon when using the metaphor of δοῦλος. He is magnifying a loyalty and commitment to Jesus Christ, ‘the only Lord and Master’ (Jude 4). Interestingly, what is of concern to Jude is that persons within the community are no longer submitting to the lordship of Jesus Christ, but denying him as the only Lord and Master (v. 4).9 In contrast, Jude identifies himself as a servant or slave of Jesus Christ. Slavery is a complicated concept. Although the term δοῦλος could signify dishonour, it was also used as ‘an honorific title’ for those in service to God.10 Being a slave of God reflected a special claim to authority. Jude’s audience would have understood the phrase Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ 5.  I use this term persona with caution given that it can bear negative connotations and can carry an aura of falsehood. This is not the meaning here. For clarification, see Robert C. Elliott, The Literary Persona (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 19. On the use of identification markers, see Steven E. Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2010), 317. 6.  Steven E. Runge, Philippians: A Visual Textual Guide, High Definition Commentary (Bellingham: Lexham, 2011). 1. 7.  Reese, Writing Jude, 20. 8.  BAGD, s.v. δοῦλος, 260. See also Haim H. Cohn, ‘Slavery’, in Encyclopedia Judaica, ed. Cecil Roth and Geoffrey Wigoder (Jerusalem: Keter, 1972), 1655; James Albert Harrill, The Manumission of Slaves in Early Christianity, HUT 32 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 25; Painter and deSilva, James and Jude, 190; Carolyn A. Osiek and David L. Balch, The Families in the New Testament World: Households and House Churches, Family, Religion, and Culture Series (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 74. 9.  For example, in Galatians, Paul identifies himself as ‘an apostle not from men nor by men but through Jesus Christ’ (Gal. 1.1) because ‘what is at stake is his apostleship’ (Runge, Philippian, 1). 10.  Painter and deSilva, James and Jude, 191. See also, Dale B. Martin, Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990).

8

Jude on the Attack

δοῦλος in the context of the Hebrew Bible, where Israel is often referred to as ‘slaves of the Lord’ (Ps. 134.1; Isa. 49.3; Jonah 1.9; Judg. 2.8) and Yahweh is referred to as the κύριος of his people (Mal. 1.6). For Philo, a servant of God is filled with delight for his master, ‘when he is free from all sins, and is aware in his conscience that he loves his master, feeling more joy at the fact of being a servant of God, than he would if he were sovereign over the whole race of mankind’ (Philo, Rer. Div. Her. 2.7). Here, there is a clear sense of pride in being known as a slave of the Lord. Therefore, in this context, δοῦλος is not an offensive term, but rather a symbol of loyalty to God. He takes great pride in this honoured title and it sets the scene for the underlying issue at the heart of Jude’s epistle. Jude also identifies himself as the brother of James. While Jude and James were common names at this time (Lk. 6.16 and Jn 14.22), there is one Judas-Jacob pair in the early church that would have been well known; they were the brothers of Jesus (Mt. 13.55//Mk 6.3; Mt. 27.56// Mk 15.40). Whether the writer is in fact the biological brother of James (and, in turn, the half-brother of Jesus) is difficult to confirm. However, it is not a stretch of the imagination to suggest that the audience would have made this connection, especially given the fact that James was such a prominent figure in the early church.11 The writer could have used any title to identify himself, but he chooses ‘brother of James’ presumably to create a connection with his audience and as an attempt on the author’s part ‘to establish credibility’ among his hearers.12 As Aristotle writes, such a technique gives the impression of ‘good sense, good moral character, and goodwill’ (Arist., Rhet. 2.1.25) and when held against the opposing party it not only undermines their credibility, but arouses suspicion and prejudice (Arist., Rhet. 3.14.6–7; 3.19.1; Rhet. Alex. 1436a.33–37).13 From as early as the Council of Jerusalem, James was a prominent leader and a spokesman for the Jerusalem eldership (Acts 15.12–29).14 But his legacy did not end there. Eusebius records that James, the brother of the Lord, was ‘surnamed “the Just” for his outstanding virtue’, he was ‘elected to the bishop’s throne of the church of Jerusalem’ (Euseb., Hist. eccl. 2.1.2); the only bishop who was referred to by Eusebius as having ‘a throne’.15 Eusebius’ reference from Hegesippus suggests that James was 11.  Note that ἀδελφὸς, like δοῦλος, can also be used in a metaphorical sense. However, in this verse I take it to be a literal usage. 12.  Painter and deSilva, James and Jude, 190. 13.  Ibid. 14.  Dan G. McCartney, James (Grand Rapids: Baker Academy, 2009), 9–10. 15.  John Painter, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (Edinburgh: First Fortress, 1999), 113.

2. Preliminary Matters

9

the first bishop (Euseb., Hist. eccl. 4.22.4), again providing him prominent status, and that during the reign of Domitian, Jesus’ grandnephews, the grandchildren of James and Jude, continued as leaders of the Jerusalem church (Hist. eccl. 3.19.1–3.20.8). Hengel makes mention of the inscription Ἰάκο/βος ά παπα (with editors concluding that the final word should read πρωτοπαπας) found on a marble fragment in Ephesus from the church of St. John, reflecting that the Eastern Church also regarded James as the first pope of Jerusalem.16 James was held in high esteem even by non-Christian Jews ‘on account of his Torah observance and personal piety’ (Hist. eccl. 2.23.4–7).17 Bauckham also references the second-century Gospel of the Hebrews (fr. 7), in which James is referred to as ‘the first person to whom Jesus appeared after his resurrection’. From this document, we clearly see that there is a strong tendency in the early church ‘to glorify the figure of James’.18 By closely associating himself to James, not only was Jude capitalizing on his personal connection with one of the ‘pillars’ (Gal. 1.19; 2.9, 12) of the early church,19 but more specifically a ‘pillar’ of the ‘Jerusalem community of Jews, who followed Jesus’.20 Therefore, Jude would have us believe that he is the brother of James, the leader of the Jerusalem Church, who was held in high regard by most.21 Whether the author, self-titled as ‘Jude’, is in fact the first-century brother of James and servant of the Lord is partially irrelevant. It is the linguistic choices which are important here. By using these credentials – ‘servant of Jesus Christ’ and ‘brother of James’ – to identify himself, the author creates a respectable status, demanding authority from the recipients and causing them to pay careful attention to the message which is to follow.22 16.  Martin Hengel, ‘Jakobus der Herrenbruder – der erste Papst?’, in Glaube und Eschatologie. Festschrift für Werner Georg Kümmel zum, ed. Erich Gräßer and Otto Merk (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1985), 71–104. 17.  See also Painter and deSilva, James and Jude, 190–96. 18.  Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church, 55. 19.  Ian J. Elmer, Paul, Jerusalem and the Judaisers: The Galatian Crisis in Its Broadest Historical Context, WUNT 258 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 90. 20.  Jacob Neusner and William Scott Green, eds., Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period (New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 1996), 327. For a discussion on the significance of the Jerusalem church, see John Riches, The World of Jesus: First Century Judaism in Crisis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 22; Nicholas H. Taylor, Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem: A Study in Relationships and Authority in Earliest Christianity (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992), 75. 21.  Kugelman, James and Jude, 79. 22.  Aichele, The Letters of Jude and Second Peter, 4.

10

Jude on the Attack

2.2. Jude and 2 Peter It is clear, even superficially, that an exceptional relationship exists between the epistle of Jude and the second epistle of Peter.23 The overlap between these two texts has been observed by most Jude and 2 Peter scholars and is the focus of many studies.24 There are three main positions when discussing the relationship between Jude and 2 Peter and their potential dependency upon each other: (i) the author of Jude quotes (and thus simplifies) the text of Second Peter;25 (ii) the author of Second Peter quotes and expands on the themes found in Jude;26 (iii) neither has borrowed from the other – rather, they are working from a common source (perhaps somewhat like the alleged Q).27 There are influential scholars on every side of this debate. Callan, for instance, is of the view that Jude, being the briefer and more concise 23.  Compare 2 Pet. 1.5 with Jude 3; 2 Pet. 1.12 with Jude 5; 2 Pet. 2.1 with Jude 4; 2 Pet. 2.4 with Jude 6; 2 Pet. 2.6 with Jude 7; 2 Pet. 2.10–11 with Jude 8–9; 2 Pet. 2.12 with Jude 10; 2 Pet. 2.13–17 with Jude 11–13; 2 Pet. 3.2–3 with Jude 17–18; 2 Pet. 3.14 with Jude 24; and 2 Pet. 3.18 with Jude 25. 24.  See Jeremy F. Hultin, ‘The Literary Relationships Among 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude’, in Reading 1–2 Peter and Jude: A Resource for Students, ed. Eric F. Mason and Troy W. Martin (Atlanta: SBL, 2014), 27–30; Callan, ‘Use of the Letter of Jude by the Second Letter of Peter’. 25.  See Mark D. Mathews, ‘The Literary Relationship of 2 Peter and Jude: Does the Synoptic Tradition Solve this Synoptic Problem?’, Neotestamentica 44, no. 1 (2010): 47–66. See also D. Edmond Hiebert, Second Peter and Jude: An Expositional Commentary (Greenville: Unusual Publications, 1989); J. B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. Peter and St. Jude, ICC, 2nd ed. (1907; repr., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2004); Anders Gerdmar, Rethinking the Judaism–Hellenism Dichotomy: A Historiographical Study of Second Peter and Jude, CBNTS (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2001), 116–23. Gerdmar also goes on to suggest that both Jude and 2 Peter could have simply arisen out of a common milieu (ibid., 331–38). 26.  See Jörg Frey, Der Brief des Judas und der zweite Brief des Petrus (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2015), 158–61; Edouard Cothenet, ‘La tradition selon Jude et 2 Pierre’, NTS 35 (1989): 408; Jerome H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 37C (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 122; Alfred R. C. Leaney, The Letters of Peter and Jude, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 77–78. 27.  A position raised but not necessarily held by Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of James, Epistles of John, Peter, and Jude, NTC (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996). It has also been suggested that both epistles were written by the same author, which might explain the overlap. See John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 193. This view, however, has not gained much traction.

2. Preliminary Matters

11

text, is original.28 Frey, Baulkham, Kelly, and Thurén agree with this observation.29 However, scholars such as Mathews, Bigg, and Wallace consider 2 Peter to be the original text.30 Wallace observes that the author of Peter’s second epistle speaks in future terms (i.e. the false teachers are yet to come), while Jude speaks of the false teachers as already among the community (present tense).31 He also suggests that in Jude 17 (‘remember the words of the apostles’) the author is referencing the words found in 2 Peter. He writes: ‘It is perfectly clear why an author, after the age of the apostles had ended, spoke of them in more absolute terms’.32 While Wallace makes an interesting case, I side with the scholars who view Jude as the earlier text.33 I believe that Jude’s shorter epistle has been expanded upon by Peter and used for his own distinct purposes (as was customary with the practice of quotation and allusion in the ancient world). This is contrary to the theory that Jude reduced Peter’s epistle to suit his own needs. As Bauckham suggests, ‘The habit of classing 2 Peter and Jude together has, for too long, been a serious hindrance to research’.34 Consequently, I will not turn to 2 Peter to discuss issues of intertextuality in Jude but hold that Jude is fully independent from 2 Peter. 2.3. Textual Variants Before commencing my analysis of the epistle of Jude, the text from which I am working must first be established. Although the primary concern of this study is not textual criticism, the issue of an original reading of Jude must be briefly discussed. Of the several textual variants in the epistle of Jude, two are especially important with regards to my interpretation: Jude 5 and Jude 22–23. 28.  Callan, ‘Use of the Letter of Jude by the Second Letter of Peter’. 29.  Frey, Der Brief des Judas und der zweite Brief des Petrus, 158–61; Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church, 147; Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and of Jude, 2; Lauri Thurén, ‘Hey Jude! Asking for the Original Situation and Message of a Catholic Epistle’, NTS 43 (1997): 454. 30.  Mathews, ‘The Literary Relationship of 2 Peter and Jude’, 52–62; Charles Bigg, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902), 217–25. 31.  Daniel B. Wallace, ‘Second Peter: Introduction, Argument, and Outline’, New Testament: Introductions and Outlines 22 (2015): www.bible.org. 32.  Daniel B. Wallace, ‘Jude: Introduction, Argument, and Outline’, New Testament: Introductions and Outlines 26 (2015): www.bible.org. 33.  See Hultin, ‘The Literary Relationships among 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude’, 40. 34.  Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church, 147.

12

Jude on the Attack

2.3.1. Jude 5 The textual variant in this verse relates to the subject, ὁ κύριος (the Lord). Some manuscripts read Ἰησοῦς (Jesus), while others use θεός (God). The committee of the Greek New Testament clearly struggled to come to a consensus on the matter given their verdict to class this variant as category D (unresolved).35 According to Wallace, the reason scribes inserted κύριος, instead of Ἰησοῦς, into v. 5 was because they were uncomfortable with the concept of Jesus being physically active and present before his recorded birth. The Ἰησοῦς reading, however, has strong support from early witnesses (e.g. manuscripts A B 33 81 1241 1739 1881 2344 pc vg co Or1739mg), and is used by the new Nestle-Aland (NA28). This more difficult reading was previously argued for by Bartholomä, who studied this variant in detail and concluded that Ἰησοῦς was preferred.36 However, Wasserman, who has compiled the most exhaustive investigation of the epistle, favours the reading found in NA27. He argues that at no other point in the New Testament is Jesus mentioned in any acts prior to his birth under the name Ἰησοῦς. Frey also views κύριος as the original subject, but whether it was originally preceded by the article (ὁ) is more difficult to determine.37 Furthermore, ὁ κύριος has a significant place in the overall cohesiveness of the epistle (as demonstrated in §4.3.1.2 and §6.3.a). While it is possible that either of these readings could be original, I follow Wasserman and remain with NA27 on this variant. 2.3.2. Jude 22–23 By far the most problematic text in Jude is vv. 22–23. First, there is the issue of textual discrepancies, and then the notorious difficulty of translation. The available manuscripts can be arranged into two groupings: two-clause readings (C, K, P, L, and 𝔓72) and three-clause readings (A and ‫)א‬.38 While there is an overwhelming amount of support for the two35.  J. Harold Greenlee, An Exegetical Summary of Jude, 2nd ed. (1999; repr., Dallas: SIL International, 2012), 26. 36.  Philipp F. Bartholomä, ‘Did Jesus Save the People Out of Egypt? A Re-Examination of a Textual Problem in Jude 5’, NovT 50, no. 2 (2008): 143–58. 37.  Frey, Der Brief des Judas und der zweite Brief des Petrus, 70. 38.  There are several compelling resources which offer plausible theories on this topic. For example, Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude, 320–31; Joel S. Allen, ‘A New Possibility for the Three-Clause Format of Jude 22–3’, NTS 44 (1998): 22–23; Frey, Der Brief des Judas und der zweite Brief des Petrus, 119–31; Sara C. Winter, ‘Notes and Observations on Jude 22–23: A Note on the Text and Translation’, HTR 82, no. 2 (1994): 215–22; Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, NAC 37 (Nashville: B&H, 2003), 484–9; Sakae Kubo, ‘Jude 22–23: Two-division Form or Three?’, in New

2. Preliminary Matters

13

clause reading,39 it could be argued that the credibility of Codex Sinaiticus (‫ )א‬and Codex Alexandrinus (A) makes the three-clause reading more plausible,40 hence its acceptance in NA27 and NA28.41 The two-clause reading is a smoother rendition, and is most likely a scribal attempt to simplify the original command.42 On the other hand, the three-clause reading, being more grammatically complicated, perhaps best explains the rise of all other readings.43 (a) Deconstructing the Three-clause Reading. As mentioned, the threeclause reading of NA28 is difficult to interpret. First, it is not clear to what οὕς refers; second, the μέν, δέ, δέ construction is problematic; and third, the term διακρινομένους is difficult to translate. In regards to the structure of the verse, there are two main interpretations: (i) the relative pronoun (οὕς) introduces three individual subordinate clauses, each with their own object, modified by a new imperative command (i.e. have mercy on some, save others, have mercy on other ones);44 (ii) there are three subordinate Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis, ed. Eldon Gay Epp and Gordon D. Fee (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981), 239–53. 39.  Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 109–10; J. Neville Birdsall, ‘The Text of Jude in p72’, JTS 14, no. 2 (1963): 394–99; Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 85–86; Winter, ‘Notes and Observations on Jude 22–23’, 215–22; Carroll D. Osburn, ‘The Text of Jude 22–23’, ZNW 63 (1972): 139–44; Charles Landon, A Text-Critical Study of the Epistle of Jude (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 131–34. It must be noted that Osburn has now changed his position on this issue and is in favour of the three-clause reading. See Carroll D. Osburn, ‘Discourse Analysis and Jewish Apocalyptic in the Epistle of Jude’, in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis, ed. David Alan Black (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 292. Many of these scholars base their views on 𝔓72 (which has the two-clause reading). While 𝔓72 is an important manuscript, when it comes to Jude, ‘it is more idiosyncratic and wild’, only agreeing with Codex B 38% of the time. See Philip W. Comfort, The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 95–96. 40.  Ben Witherington, Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2007), 626. 41.  There is one variant between ‫ א‬and A: ‫ א‬contains ἐλέγχετε in the initial clause, whilst A contains ἐλεᾶτε. As Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 486, points out, ἐλεᾶτε is supported by the wider textual tradition, while ἐλέγχετε is more likely a scribal addition, used to create a progression of severity. 42.  Darian Lockett, ‘Objects of Mercy in Jude: The Prophetic Background of Jude 22–23’, CBQ 77 (2015): 325. 43.  Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude, 325; Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 486. 44.  Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 484–89; Witherington, Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians, 626; Charles and Waltner, 1–2 Peter, Jude, 274–340; Greenlee, An Exegetical Summary of Jude, 72–74; Daniel A. Keating, First and Second Peter, Jude,

14

Jude on the Attack

clauses, but one central object (διακρινομένους) to which each relative (οὕς) refers (i.e. have mercy on those, save those, have mercy with fear upon those).45 A position on this will soon be established. (b) Analysing the Three-clause Reading. Jude 20–23 is broken up into two parts. The clause ‘build yourselves up in the most holy faith’ functions as the main clause of the four verses.46 Verse 22 begins, ‘And indeed have mercy’ (καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλεᾶτε).47 This subordinate clause marks a shift in focus from the believers’ own faith to others within the community.48 Initially, Jude instructs the community on how to keep themselves in their own faith, whilst waiting for the mercy of the Lord (vv. 20–21), whereas Jude 22–23 expresses how the beloved are to show mercy to those who oppose the faith.49 The difficulty arises in interpreting the μέν, δέ, δέ construction (vv. 22–23). Such a construction could be used to contrast opposing ideas or simply to separate one thought from another (BAGD, s.v. μέν, δέ, 520; BDF §250). It can also appear in series (accompanied by pronouns or reoccurring articles),50 or in isolation. Only context can determine which is in use. Within the epistle itself, the μέν, δέ, δέ construction appears previously in Jude 8. Here, the dreamers defile the flesh and reject authority and blaspheme angelic beings. Jude does not contrast three opposing ideas, but instead makes use of the μέν, δέ, δέ construction to build upon an argument and create increasing emphasis, known as the ‘anaphoric δέ’.51 An example is also found in Jude 10, where this Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker Academy, 2011); Ruth Anne Reese, 2 Peter and Jude (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 70; Simon J. Kistemaker, Peter and Jude, NTC (Grand Rapids: Evangelical Press, 1987), 406–9. 45.  A view also held by Allen, ‘A New Possibility for the Three-Clause Format of Jude 22–3’, 134; Davids, 2 Peter and Jude, 35; Lewis R. Donelson, 1 & 2 Peter and Jude: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2010), 199–200; Daniel J. Harrington, 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter, Sacra Pagina (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2003), 221. 46.  Davids, 2 Peter and Jude, 35; John Benton, Slandering Angels (Darlington: Evangelical Press, 1999), 148. 47.  A similar usage is found in 1 Cor. 12.28, καὶ οὓς μέν, translated ‘and certainly indeed’. For a discussion on καί as a linking device, see John D. Denniston, The Greek Particles (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 291. 48.  Richard B. Vinson, Richard F. Wilson, and Watson E. Mills, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2010), 395. 49.  This is a position argued in more detail below. 50.  Allen, ‘A New Possibility for the Three-Clause Format of Jude 22–3’, 136. 51.  Denniston, The Greek Particles, 383.

1. Introduction

15

construction appears in a slightly different order δέ, μέν, δέ, but, again, it is used in a climactic manner. It is therefore not inconceivable that Jude would be using this same climactic sense in Jude 22–23. Is it then possible that these three clauses are directed to a single group?52 If this were the case then these verses would be a subdivision of actions as opposed to groups,53 implying that Jude is using μέν, δέ, δέ as a tool to distinguish actions and add increasing emphasis.54 The structure of Jude 22–23 leans towards this theory. Jude is constructing a progressive argument (as seen in Jude 8 and 10),55 and referring to the one larger group.56 The first clause is a simple construction. The second clause adds a prepositional phrase. The third clause adds a prepositional phrase and an explicit warning. (c) The Object in the Three-clause Reading. Although this section moves outside the scope of textual criticism, it may prove effective to establish to whom Jude refers when making use of the relative pronoun in vv. 22–23. Relative pronouns often act as hinge words, referring back to something previously mentioned while also commencing a new clause.57 Thus, Jude is either referring to the beloved ones (vv. 1, 20–21, 24) or the ungodly (vv. 3, 5, 14–15, 16, 19),58 as these are the only two groups mentioned previously.59 The participle διακρινομένους (and the object of the relative pronoun), then, either refers to those who are wavering/doubting within the community (i.e. the beloved) or those who are contesting with the beloved (i.e. the ungodly).60 Even though it seems unlikely that Jude would instruct the beloved to show mercy to the ungodly, a case could 52.  Lockett, ‘Objects of Mercy in Jude’, 328. 53.  See also Peter H. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, ed. D. A. Carson, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 35; Donelson, 1 & 2 Peter and Jude, 199; Harrington, 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter, 223. 54.  Allen, ‘A New Possibility for the Three-Clause Format of Jude 22–3’, 136. 55.  Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude, 328. 56.  Donelson, 1 & 2 Peter and Jude, 200. Similar examples can be found in 2 Macc. 3.26; 11.18; 12.24; 15.12; 3 Macc. 6.29; 4 Macc. 4.12; 7.1. 57.  Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 44. 58.  See Peter Spitaler, ‘Doubt or Dispute (Jude 9 and 22–23): Rereading a Special New Testament Meaning Through the Lens of Internal Evidence’, Biblical Studies on the Web 87 (2006): 201–22. A problem also noticed by Greenlee, An Exegetical Summary of Jude, 73; Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 90–92. 59.  Landon, A Text-Critical Study of the Epistle of Jude, 133. 60.  Donelson, 1 & 2 Peter and Jude, 200.

16

Jude on the Attack

be made for this very assertion:61 (i) Jude previously uses the term διακρινομένος in v. 9 when referring to the archangel Michael and the devil ‘contesting’ over the body of Moses; (ii) there is a significant amount of ambiguity surrounding the language used in vv. 22–23 (mirroring the ambiguity used in v. 4, ‘certain persons’); (iii) just as the beloved have received mercy from God (vv. 2, 20–21), they are to show mercy (Mt. 18.33); (iv) ‘showing mercy’ to the very ones with whom they contend highlights that judgement is reserved for the Lord (which is stated several times throughout the letter, vv. 5, 9, 14–15). Therefore, I not only favour the three-clause reading of Jude 22–23 as it appears in NA28; rather, I believe that Jude is referring to one group (those who are contesting with the beloved), providing a three-part instruction for the beloved to perform toward this group. 2.4. Summary In summary, Jude uses identifying markers – Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος and ἀδελφὸς δὲ Ἰακώβου – to present himself as a faithful servant of the Lord and to establish credibility before his audience. I argue that the epistle of Jude was written independently of 2 Peter and, because of this, my analysis will proceed without reliance upon this text. Finally, concerning the choice of manuscript, I remain with ὁ κύριος in v. 5 (as found in NA27) and the three-clause reading of Jude 22–23, as found in NA28. For vv. 22–23, I present a case for a three-clause, single-object interpretation whereby the beloved are instructed to show mercy to those with whom they contest. These preliminary matters clarify my position on some existing controversies surrounding the epistle, which will at times impact my interpretation of the text.

61.  This case is explored in detail in a forthcoming NTS article: Alexandra Robinson, Stephen Llewelyn, and Blake Wassell, ‘Showing Mercy to the Ungodly and the Inversion of Invective in Jude’.

Chapter 3

Examining the Literature, the Method, and the Genres

With a wealth of available genres, the first task is to make clear why I have chosen only two for comparison with Jude. In regards to the polemical nature of the epistle, I will argue that Jude is primarily influenced by Greco-Roman invective and Jewish judgement oracles. First, I will survey the existing literature on Jude where an overwhelming number of scholars have noticed Greek, Jewish, and polemical elements throughout the epistle. Second, I will attempt to extract more specifically the Jewish and Greek elements present in Jude and suggest that Greco-Roman invective and Jewish judgement oracles are the most suitable candidates both historically and stylistically. Finally, I will briefly outline my methodology before moving into the main body of the argument beginning in Chapter 4. 3.1. Literature Review The last three decades have seen a significant increase in the number of books, monographs, and articles published on the epistle of Jude. Studded with allusion, quotation, and various influences, the epistle has generated an amount of scholarship and intrigue seemingly out of proportion to its mere 25 verses. Where there was once a well-noted gap in scholarship,1 there is now a healthy body of work with which to engage.2

1.  Charles and Waltner, 1–2 Peter, Jude, 274; Lauri Thurén, ‘The General New Testament Writings’, in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 300 B.C.–A.D. 400, ed. Stanley E. Porter (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 451; Douglas J. Rowston, ‘The Most Neglected Book in the New Testament’, NTS 21 (1975): 554; Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, 15. 2.  The pool is comparatively shallow compared to Pauline studies, but is alive and well within itself.

18

Jude on the Attack

Reading through the existing scholarship, one is struck by the repetition of phrases used to explain and describe the epistle of Jude. There are two categories of repeated phrases on which I will focus here. First, there are the wider and various references to Jude’s dependence upon both Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions, and second, there are the many references to the harsh and polemical nature of Jude’s discourse. Most of these references are brief, but a few, as will be seen, go further. With the purpose of highlighting a gap in research, I will provide an overview of these two notions in the current literature, and show where my own research fits into this. 3.1.1. Partly Jewish and Partly Greek Much attention has been placed upon the Greco-Roman and Jewish influences woven throughout the epistle. Importantly, scholars have recognized that these coincide within the one text, and few commentators argue for a wholly Jewish or wholly Greek influence.3 However, for the sake of clarity, I will examine first some existing references to Greek tendencies followed by a discussion of the Jewish influence. Given that both Greek language and culture steadily infiltrated the entire Mediterranean (see §3.2.2) including Jewish Palestine,4 it is no surprise that the epistle has Greek persuasive strategies. In Jude’s brief communication, there are 34 participle forms,5 22 uncommon Greek words6 (some with distinct Hellenistic meaning),7 several carefully organized Greek grammatical patterns,8 a number of Greek pragmatic structures,9 and the usage of Greco-Roman rhetorical devices.10 Comments have been made 3.  A point expressed also by Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 26–27; Harrington, 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter, 179; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 5–6. Frey writes: ‘the short text strongly refers to biblical and early Jewish traditions, but is written in a profound, almost artistic rhetorical style’. See Frey, ‘The Epistle of Jude Between Judaism and Hellenism’, 310. 4.  Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period. Vol. 1, Texts (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2003), 60. See also Christopher Forbes, ‘Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Paul’s Boasting and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric’, NTS 32 (1986): 23. 5.  J. Daryl Charles, ‘Literary Artifice in the Epistle of Jude’, ZNW 82, no. 1–2 (1991): 110–11. See also, Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 27. 6.  As established by Eric Fuchs and Pierre Reymond, La Deuxième épître de Saint Pierre; L’épître de Saint Jude (Genève: Labor et Fides, 1988), 138. 7.  Spitaler, ‘Doubt or Dispute’, 205. 8.  Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude, 327. 9.  See also Wilder, Charles, and Easley, Faithful to the End, 227. 10.  Watson, Invention, Arrangement and Style, 194.

3. Examining the Literature, the Method, and the Genres

19

regarding Jude’s ‘natural command of the Greek language’,11 ‘competence in Greek’,12 ‘close familiarity with Greek rhetorical style’,13 rhetorical structure (and use of the honour/shame dichotomy),14 ‘extensive Greek vocabulary’,15 easy use of ‘Greek idioms’,16 and the letter itself follows ‘conventions of Hellenistic letter writing’.17 A few scholars have taken these observations further. Primarily looking into Jude’s structural resemblance to Greco-Roman rhetoric, Duane F. Watson compares Jude to the rhetorical styles of Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian.18 He suggests that Jude follows a pattern similar to speeches found in the Greek handbooks of antiquity, complete with a quasiexordium (vv. 1–2), exordium (v. 3), narratio (v. 4), probatio (vv. 5–16), peroratio (vv. 17–23), and quasi-peroratio (vv. 24–25).19 Jude’s rhetoric, he argues, conforms to the ‘best principles’, including elements in the proper sequence and used with correct function.20 In Watson study, Jude’s rhetorical genre is categorized as deliberative rhetoric given that Jude intends to advise and dissuade, often stressing likely future outcomes and highlighting what is advantageous and what is harmful via comparison. Watson also sees elements of epideictic rhetoric given the present time references.21 Watson paved the way for many seeking to understand Jude as a product of its time and not as a ‘New Testament’ letter paradoxically isolated from its place in history and geography.22 However, as 11.  Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 11. 12.  Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude, 297. 13.  Jennifer Wright Knust, Abandoned to Lust (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006), 119. 14.  Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 23–27. 15.  Harrington, 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter, 179. 16.  J. Daryl Charles, ‘Polemic and Persuasion: Typological and Rhetorical Perspectives on the Letter of Jude’, in Reading Jude with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of Jude, ed. Robert L. Webb and Peter H. Davids (London: T&T Clark International, 2008), 103. 17.  Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 23. 18.  Watson, Invention, Arrangement and Style, 77. 19.  Ibid., 77–78. 20.  Ibid., 78. 21.  Ibid., 32–33. 22.  In reference to this work Pearson writes, ‘Watson’s book is in many ways a ground-breaking work. It has certainly demonstrated to me the usefulness of employing rhetorical criticism in the study of the NT epistles. I need hardly add that scholarship on Jude and 2 Peter will never be the same as a result of this book.’ See Birger A. Pearson, ‘Review of Invention, Arrangement, and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter, by Duane Frederick Watson’, JBL 109, no. 1 (1990): 166.

20

Jude on the Attack

demonstrated by Watson’s own confession, these categories are ‘too neat’.23 As a result, the study is perhaps too strict in suggesting such a precise structure whereby every verse of Jude fits into an established rhetorical grid.24 While Watson’s study puts rhetoric onto the map (in relation to Jude), at the same time it does not go into detail regarding the aim of Jude, its rich metaphors, or its similarities with other existing polemics.25 These are elements, which, along with structure, provide evidence of Jude’s interaction with Greco-Roman rhetoric and polemic (and will be discussed in this book). Stephan Joubert argues that Jude’s ‘global strategy’ is, in fact, predominantly epideictic, employing praise (laudatio) and blame (vituperatio) to estrange the opponents and build trust with the readers.26 Green also recognizes the use of vituperatio in Jude,27 while Neyrey (endorsing Watson’s general structure) believes that the emphasis on crime and punishment and the consistent contrasts (e.g. virtue/vice, praise/blame, honour/shame, and conquestio/indignatio) reflect forensic rhetoric.28 The fact that each of these commentators attributes a different rhetorical species to the epistle highlights both the difficultly in assessing Jude, and the fluid nature of discourse in relation to these rhetorical categories (as opposed to the rigid forms offered by the handbooks).29 As with the above scholarship on Greek influences, several authors have looked deeper into Jude’s Hebraic inclinations (particularly its relationship to Jewish literature) and produced more extensive studies on this. Within the commentaries, there are mentions of the ‘Jewish

23.  As mentioned, Watson himself recognizes that the classification of deliberative rhetoric is ‘too neat’. See Watson, Invention, Arrangement and Style, 33. 24.  Davids explains that while Jude displays familiarity with this kind of education, form is ‘secondary and often modified’. See Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 24. Harrington writes that whether Jude deliberately followed a pattern or instinctively did so is impossible to determine. See Harrington, 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter, 179. 25.  Watson does mention style, but only briefly. See Watson, Invention, Arrange­ ment and Style, 22–28, 79. 26.  Stephan J. Joubert, ‘Persuasion in the Letter of Jude’, JSNT 58 (1995): 79–80. See also Anna A. Novokhatko, The Invective of Sallust and Cicero (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 13. 27.  Green, Jude and 2 Peter, 20–22. 28.  Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 27. 29.  Much of the comprehensive work done on Jude’s Greek influence has concentrated on the structural similarities and not on stylistic or thematic features, as this study aims to do.

3. Examining the Literature, the Method, and the Genres

21

nature’,30 the ‘Jewish character’,31 and an assumed familiarity with Jewish traditions (‘steeped in Jewish traditions’).32 We read that the discourse is ‘replete with examples of prophetic typology’,33 is ‘rich in its use of story drawn from the Jewish scriptural tradition’,34 contains Semitisms (vv. 5, 7, 11, 16, 17, 18, 21),35 and Hebraic literary techniques (e.g. triplets, vv. 5–7, 11,36 and parallelism, v. 6). Scholars adduce that Jude has a ‘predilection for Jewish apocalyptic tradition’,37 displays skilled Jewish exegesis,38 and is ‘embedded’39 within Jewish-Christian apocalypticism.40 Bauckham summarizes that ‘despite his competence in Greek, the author’s real intellectual background is in the literature of Palestinian Judaism’.41 In 1978, E. Earle Ellis laid much of the groundwork regarding Jude and its relation to Jewish and Hebraic rhetorical style. His insight into what he calls ‘phenomena in earlier Christian literature’, recognized Jude’s use of midrash and midrashim.42 Midrash is a hermeneutical act designed to recreate significant religious and redemptive experiences

30.  Craig L. Blomberg, From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts Through Revelation (Nashville: B&H, 2006), 461. 31.  Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 11. 32.  Thomas R. Wolthuis, ‘Jude and Jewish Traditions’, CTJ 22 (1987): 21. See also David A. deSilva, The Jewish Teachers of Jesus, James and Jude: What Earliest Christianity Learned from the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 56; Sáiz Busto and José Ramon, ‘La Carta de Judas a la Luz de Algunos Escritos Judíos’, Estudios Bíblicos 39 (1981): 83–105. 33.  J. Daryl Charles, ‘The Use of Tradition-Material in the Epistle of Jude’, BBR 4 (1994): 2. 34.  Robert L. Webb, ‘The Use of “Story” in the Letter of Jude: Rhetorical Strategies of Jude’s Narrative Episodes’, JSNT 31, no. 53 (2008): 55. 35.  Landon, A Text-Critical Study of the Epistle of Jude, 96. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 6, argues that these Semitisms are not prominent. 36.  Charles and Waltner, 1–2 Peter, Jude, 292. 37.  Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 410. 38.  Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 176. 39.  Reese, 2 Peter and Jude, 25. 40.  Gerdmar, Rethinking the Judaism–Hellenism Dichotomy, 2. See also Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 8–10. 41.  Jude, 2 Peter, 7. 42.  E. Earle Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity: New Testament Essays, WUNT 18 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1978), 221.

22

Jude on the Attack

found in the Torah,43 and in Jude’s case is a ‘preformed’ piece on the theme of judgement.44 Like Ellis, Bauckham also observes the use of Jewish midrash.45 Cementing Jude’s familiarity with Jewish tradition, Bauckham closely ties the letter to Palestinian Jewish Apocalyptic literature, focusing his attention on comparable literary styles found in the writings at Qumran (e.g. Sir., CD, 3 Macc., m. Sanh.), which refer to the stories found in Jude 5–7).46 Bauckham’s most meticulous textual studies concern two Jewish works alluded to in Jude 9 (Ass. Mos.) and vv. 6, 14–15 (1 En.). Bauckham provides a significant excursus detailing the background to the account mentioned in v. 9 where Michael and the devil contest over the body of Moses.47 Bauckham provides us with a tour through the Ass. Mos. and reconstructs a text of which we are no longer in possession.48 He also offers one of the earliest analyses of Jude 14–15 containing Jude’s quotation of 1 En. 1.9 and makes a case for Jude’s use of the Aramaic text,49 as well as wider reliance on 1 Enoch.50 Overall, Bauckham argues for dependence on the Hebrew Bible.51 ‘The work’, he writes, ‘has all the marks of a fairly early work of Palestinian Jewish Christian provenance’.52 J. D. Charles identifies the letter as a ‘word of exhortation’, a type of homily used in Jewish synagogues.53 In ‘Literary Artifice in the Epistle of Jude’, he recognizes that grammatically ‘semiticism is far less prolific’

43.  Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash, Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature, 2nd ed. (1990; repr., Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994), 5, 14, 28, 110. 44.  E. Earle Ellis, The Making of the New Testament Documents (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 120. 45.  For a clear analysis of this text and Bauckham’s contribution to Jude scholarship, see Frey, ‘The Epistle of Jude Between Judaism and Hellenism’, 311. See also Kelly Carter, ‘Jude, 2 Peter, Richard J. Bauckham’, Leaven 2, no. 2 (1992): 45. 46.  Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 5, 46. See also Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 1. 47.  Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 65–76. 48.  Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church, 141–44, 235–80. 49.  Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 93–101. 50.  Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church, 139–41. 51.  Ibid., 136–37. 52.  Ibid., 177. While it is true that Jude certainly has a deeply Jewish foundation, I disagree that the author could not have relied upon the LXX. An explanation of this viewpoint is given in the following chapter. 53.  J. Daryl Charles, Literary Strategy in the Epistle of Jude (Scranton: University of Scranton Press, 1993), 25–30.

3. Examining the Literature, the Method, and the Genres

23

than the Greek.54 However, it is, in his opinion, undeniable that the text has persuasions indicative of the writer’s profoundly Jewish world-view.55 He explores the way Jewish stories and traditions have been embedded into Jude’s argument affecting the entire tone of the discourse.56 In a similar manner, Wolthius outlines the way Jewish traditions have thoroughly coloured the text both thematically and theologically.57 Wolthius’ study seeks to enhance our understanding of how Old Testament material was developed in the context of Jewish exegesis and thought and, in particular, how this was done throughout Jude. 3.1.2. A Polemical Attack Secondly, Jude has been understood a number of different ways, being called a ‘short but lively polemic’,58 ‘a vehement polemic’,59 a ‘sharp, succinct, creative and multi-faceted’ polemic,60 a ‘forceful polemic’,61 an ‘impassioned invective’,62 a ‘bitter invective’,63 a strong invective,64 a 54.  Charles, ‘Literary Artifice in the Epistle of Jude’, 110–11. 55.  Charles, ‘The Use of Tradition-Material in the Epistle of Jude’, 2. See also Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 11. 56.  In Frey’s reflection upon this work he notices the way Charles parallels the author of the epistle of Jude with the apostle Paul. Both ‘combine Jewish tradition and methods of exegesis with elements of Hellenistic rhetoric and style’ (Frey, ‘The Epistle of Jude Between Judaism and Hellenism’, 314). See also Roman Heiligenthal, Zwischen Henoch und Paulus. Studien zum Theologiegeschichtlichen Ort des Judasbriefes, TANZ 6 (Tübingen: Francke, 1992). 57.  Wolthuis, ‘Jude and Jewish traditions’, 21–45. 58.  Charles, ‘Literary Artifice in the Epistle of Jude’, 114. 59.  Frederik Wisse, ‘The Epistle of Jude in the History of Heresiology’, in Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts in Honour of Alexander Böhlig, ed. M. Krause, Nag Hammadi Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 134. 60.  J. Daryl Charles, ‘Jude’s Use of Pseudepigraphical Source-Material as Part of a Literary Strategy’, NTS 37, no. 1 (1991): 133. 61.  Charles, ‘The Use of Tradition-Material in the Epistle of Jude’, 13. 62.  Henry Alford, The Greek Testament. Vol. 4, The Epistle to the Hebrews, the Catholic Epistles of St. James and St. Peter, the Epistles of St. John and St. Jude and the Revelation (London: Deighton, Bell & Co., 1871), 147. See also Alicia J. Batten, ‘The Letter of Jude and Graeco-Roman Invective’, HTS Teologiese Studies/ Theological Studies 70, no. 1 (2014): 1–7. 63.  Andrew Chester and Ralph P. Martin, The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 81. 64.  Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 423. Schreiner comments that ‘the invective is strong’ even though Bauckham warns we should be careful not to label vv. 5–19 as a denunciation of the opponents. See Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church, 157.

24

Jude on the Attack

‘polemical attack’,65 and repeatedly, and more simply, an ‘invective’.66 It is described as being, ‘clearly polemical’,67 ‘highly polemical’,68 ‘a rather vicious (and clever) attack’,69 ‘stern and unbending’,70 as having ‘a very distinct polemic character’,71 a ‘very polemic nature’,72 and ‘harsh tones’.73 It is said to be a ‘virulent attack’,74 with ‘polemical motivation’,75 and ‘frequently polemical tenor’.76 McCruden sees Jude keeping in line with ‘ancient models of rhetorical invective’,77 while Brosend identifies ‘invective, sarcasm, and denunciation’.78 We find references to the way in which Jude ‘piles on’ the invective,79 has a ‘main stream’ of invective,80

65.  Harrington, 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter, 180; John MacArthur, 1, 2, 3 John and Jude (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007), 106; Keating, First and Second Peter, Jude, 202; Landon, A Text-Critical Study of the Epistle of Jude, 110. 66.  Ralph P. Martin and Andrew Chester, The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter and Jude, New Testament Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 73; Wilder, Charles, and Easley, Faithful to the End, 224; Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and of Jude, 225; Green, Jude and 2 Peter, 110. 67.  Simon J. Joseph, ‘ “Seventh from Adam” (Jude 1.14–15): Re-examining Enochic Traditions and the Christology of Jude’, JTS 64, no. 2 (2013): 465. 68.  Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 17. 69.  Lewis R. Donelson, ‘Gathering Apostolic Voices: Who Wrote 1 and 2 Peter and Jude?’, in Mason and Martin, eds., Reading 1–2 Peter and Jude, 21. 70.  Bigg, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, 311. 71.  Ian H. Eybers, ‘Aspects of the Background of the Letter of Jude’, Neot 9 (1975): 113–14. 72.  Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude, 327. 73.  Chester and Martin, The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude, 81. 74.  Michel Desjardins, ‘The Portrayal of the Dissidents in 2 Peter and Jude: Does It Tell Us More About the “Godly” than the “Ungodly”?’, JSNT 30 (1987): 89–90. 75.  Ernst R. Wendland, ‘A Comparative Study of “Rhetorical Criticism”, Ancient and Modern: With Special Reference to the Larger Structure and Function of the Epistle of Jude’, Neot 28, no. 1 (1994): 217. 76.  Charles, ‘Literary Artifice in the Epistle of Jude’, 112. 77.  Kevin B. McCruden, ‘2 Peter and Jude’, in The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament, ed. David E. Aune (West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 604. 78.  William F. Brosend, James and Jude (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 192. 79.  John J. Gunther, ‘The Alexandrian Epistle of Jude’, NTS 30, no. 4 (1984): 556; Green, 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary, 190. 80.  Montague R. James, The Second Epistle General of Peter and the Epistle of Jude, vol. 19, CGTSC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912), xlix.

3. Examining the Literature, the Method, and the Genres

25

a ‘polemical vein’,81 and how the opponents are ‘denounced with invective’.82 While these descriptions are used rather frequently in an adjectival sense, some commentators have gone into detail, attempting to tie Jude’s tone to an existing genre or rhetorical category. Again, Watson’s influential 1988 study argues that Jude structures his letter per the conventions of Greco-Roman rhetoric. He considers there to be both deliberative (‘persuasion and dissuasion’) and epideictic (‘praise and blame’) elements throughout the epistle.83 Together these genres help in discrediting Jude’s opponents by lowering their ethos, diminishing their reputation in the community, and, in turn, convincing the godly to avoid such evil snares.84 As stated earlier, Joubert makes a similar case to Watson, focussing his attention specifically on epideictic rhetoric.85 Jude makes use of the conventions of laudatio (praise) and vituperatio (blame) to magnify the divide between the two parties as well as to persuade the believers to reject the teachings of the intruders, who are acting as an obstacle in the way of true faith.86 Jennifer Wright Knust’s major study, Abandoned to Lust, places Jude among a range of Greco-Roman invectives by remarking upon the offensive language used by Jude, specifically sexual imagery and slander, and its similarity to the Greco-Roman invectives in this. Importantly, invective in this context is not merely a convenient adjective but an established style following convention.87 Like Joubert, Wright Knust argues that invective is ‘designed to control insiders [and] shame outsiders’.88 The association between these polemics and Jude is made primarily due to the latter’s use of sexual language (Jude 5–19).89 While Wright Knust’s work is a comprehensive analysis of invective, Jude is only one example among many, and thus significant avenues of the study of Jude as an invective are not explored due to obvious time and space constraints.90 81.  Jonathan Knight, 2 Peter and Jude, New Testament Guides (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 46. 82.  Witherington, Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians, 597. 83.  Watson, Invention, Arrangement and Style, 10. 84.  Ibid., 79. 85.  Joubert, ‘Persuasion in the Letter of Jude’, 79. 86.  Ibid., 79, 87. 87.  Wright Knust, Abandoned to Lust, 13. 88.  Ibid. 89.  Ibid., 122–26. 90.  Ibid.

26

Jude on the Attack

More recently, Alicia J. Batten has endeavoured to show the explicit relationship between the epistle of Jude and Greco-Roman invective. She argues that this well-known style – given its prevalence throughout the Mediterranean world in antiquity – was used to display different types of morality. Invective, she writes, was an effective way to create divisions between members of society: it could elevate the morally upright, lower the corrupt, and manipulate the way each party viewed the other.91 After a discussion of invective in the Greco-Roman world and some common themes,92 Batten focusses on sexual misconduct,93 indulgence, and deceitful speech in Jude.94 Like Wright Knust, the scope of Batten’s article lacks key elements. There is a very brief mention of the aim of the letter,95 and no account of style, aside from a comment on comparison and metaphor.96 The argument is structured using Watson’s categories without further defence or justification of them. 3.1.3. Summary In conclusion, and taken together, we repeatedly read in the existing literature that Jude is a polemical attack with both Greek and Hebrew influences. A small number of commentators have been more explicit, actively tying Jude to an existing rhetorical species (e.g. epideictic) or style (e.g. invective). However, many have used these terms in passing without clear explanation or expansion. I will build upon the many passing references, as well as the work of Wright Knust and Batten, and examine the precise nature of Jude’s polemical ‘attack’, offering criteria for Greco-Roman invective and providing several case studies whereby these criteria can be applied and evaluated. However, as illustrated above, Jude owes an obvious debt to both Greek and Jewish influences and, as yet, there is no thorough investigation of Jewish polemics and Jude’s possible usage of or dependence upon them. There exists, then, a further gap in the current research. I aim at providing criteria for Jewish judgement oracles and presenting a detailed case study whereby these criteria can be applied and evaluated. With these data, I will compare the epistle of Jude with both Greco-Roman invective and Jewish judgement

91.  Batten, ‘The Letter of Jude and Graeco-Roman Invective’, 1. 92.  Ibid., 3–4. 93.  Ibid., 4. 94.  Ibid., 5. 95.  Ibid., 6. 96.  Ibid., 7.

3. Examining the Literature, the Method, and the Genres

27

oracle with the aim of detailing the precise nature of Jude’s attack and its stylistic influences. In short, the aim of my research will be to examine both Greco-Roman invective and Jewish judgement oracles to see how the epistle of Jude is influenced by both.97 3.2. Defence of the Genres Of the many hundreds of literary genres available, I have chosen to focus only on two: Greco-Roman invective and Jewish judgement speech. It might be asked why these two, above all others, have been selected. Why not, for example, investigate Babylonian poetry or Ancient Egyptian literature to see if Jude owes any debts to these as well?98 I offer three reasons for the narrow focus chosen. First, as this study is an expansion of previous commentary, I am following the authors already mentioned and thus looking for genres which fit the description of an ‘attack’. Second, the discussion of Greek and Hebrew influences makes sense given the cultural climate in which Jude was written. And, third, there are hints within the text of Jude that make Jewish judgement oracle and Greco-Roman invective particularly plausible. 3.2.1. Following in Their Footsteps As discussed in my literature review (§3.1), most scholars agree that the epistle of Jude is polemical in nature and has both Jewish and Hellenistic persuasive strategies. However, noting that Jude’s rhetoric is somewhat Jewish, somewhat Greek, and has distinct harsh tones, is relatively

97.  Neyrey undertakes a similar project with 2 Peter, examining Greco-Roman and Jewish polemics which might have had some influence on the form of Peter’s discourse. See Jerome H. Neyrey, ‘The Form and Background of the Polemic in 2 Peter’, JBL 99, no. 3 (1980): 407–31. 98.  Some may also question why the study does not draw on Hebrew and Aramaic letters as collated in James M Lindenberger, Ancient Aramaic and Hebrew Letters, 2nd ed. (1994; repr., Atlanta: SBL, 2003). These letters have been consulted, and besides a small few letters (i.e. accusation and warning of AP 38 [no. 31], accusation of AP 27 [no. 33], petition regarding the destruction of Jewish temple of AP 30/31 [no. 34], letter of complaint no. 47, and Mezad Hashavyahu Ostracon [no. 50]), which do have a negative tone, the overall structure, aim, themes, and style of these letters are not overly comparable to Jude. These letters are largely official or reporting in nature. See Lutz Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters and the Beginnings of Christian Epistolography (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 95. Overall they lack literary pretension and thus have not proved to be helpful for this analysis.

28

Jude on the Attack

obvious. As highlighted in the introduction, the challenge ‘is to render more specifically what the Jewish and Hellenistic elements of Jude’s position are’, and in this case, how they relate to the harsh nature of the discourse.99 By analysing specific forms of harsh rhetoric within these two cultural milieus, we might clarify the observations made in previous scholarship and, in turn, show that the epistle is a true reflection of its time, place, and circumstances. 3.2.2. Jude’s Rhetorical Climate After the death of Alexander the Great, Greek language and culture thoroughly infiltrated the Roman Empire. By looking at the language of Koine Greek alone, we can perceive that its sphere of influence was far-reaching, dominating economic, political, and public life at that time. In this language, the laws were written, the merchants dealt, the treaties were signed, and the letters were inscribed.100 The infiltration of Greek language and culture impacted all peoples (Jews included).101 Evidence for this can be seen rather broadly in infrastructure,102 cultural practices,103 inscriptions, and literature.104 Given its pervasive nature it was inevitable that the Jewish peoples would also absorb certain elements of Greek culture.105 Cadwallader observes that 99.  Frey, ‘The Epistle of Jude Between Judaism and Hellenism’, 315. 100.  Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 58. 101.  George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984). 11 102.  Under the rule of Herod and Augustus, Hellenization became especially apparent. Typically, Greek institutions and buildings were erected, including the theatres in Caesarea, Petra, and Jerusalem. See John Strange, ‘Herod and Jerusalem: The Hellenization of an Oriental City’, in Jerusalem in Ancient History and Tradition, ed. Thomas L. Thompson (London: T&T Clark International, 2003), 100. In addition to this, the High Priest, Jason, obtained permission to build a gymnasium in 175 BCE (2 Macc. 4.9) and according to Josephus, the Hasmonean palace was built in the Upper City (War 1.7; 2.17.3) and the temple also underwent a degree of Hellenization. 103.  For an extensive discussion on the relationship between Judaism and its surrounding Greek culture, see Richard J. Bauckham, The Jewish World Around the New Testament (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 252–53. 104.  For a discussion on Jewish men and women with Latin names, see ibid., 384. 105.  For a helpful discussion on what is meant by Judaism in this period, see Gabriele Boccaccini, Middle Judaism: Jewish Thought 300BCE to 200CE (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991). When referring to first-century Judaism in this book, it is assumed that this includes both Christ followers and non-Christ followers.

3. Examining the Literature, the Method, and the Genres

29

many Jews even adopted secondary Greek names in order to ‘advance prospects and facilitate connections in the dominant culture’.106 To demonstrate this connection more clearly, we must step back and begin our discussion with what is now known as the Classical age (particularly the sixth, fifth and fourth centuries). In this period subjects such as grammar, rhetoric, logical reasoning, ethics, politics, medicine, physics, and metaphysics, ‘began to emerge into the Greek consciousness as distinct entities’.107 Building upon this progress, in the Hellenistic age Roman education became formalized. Up until the fourth century bce, a child’s primary educator was his or her parent or guardian, but this rapidly changed during the Hellenistic period when schools were introduced.108 Through these schools came the systemization of rhetoric.109 During the Greco-Roman period, orators such as Demetrius, Cicero, Quintilian (largely influenced by Aristotle), and Hermogenes wrote rhetorical handbooks setting forth complete systems of rhetoric and teaching students how to construct persuasive arguments. Texts such as Cicero’s De Inventione were widely read for the next fifteen hundred years.110 Quintilian’s Institutio Oratoria and Rhetorica ad Herennium (compiled by an unknown author) had similar impact. In the second century CE, Hermogenes, who, according to Kennedy, was ‘the single most important rhetorician of Roman imperial times’, wrote, inter alia, 106.  Alan Cadwallader, ‘Greeks in Colossae: Shifting Allegiances in the Letter to the Colossians and its Context’, in Attitudes to Gentiles in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. David C. Sim and James S. McLaren, LNTS 499 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 238. 107.  George A. Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1980), 15–16. 108.  Michael Chiappetta, ‘Historiography and Roman Education’, History of Education 4, no. 4 (1953): 149–56. 109.  This has been called ‘the great creative activity of the Hellenistic Age’. See Laurent Pernot, Rhetoric in Antiquity, trans. W. E. Higgins (Washington: The Catholic University of America, 2005), 58. While rhetoric was always a part of Greek speech and literature, ‘such a degree of conceptualization’ had never before been achieved. See Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 7; Heinrich Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: die Grundlegung d. Literaturwiss (Munich: Hueber, 1960); Henri I. Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1982); Stanley F. Bonner, Education in Ancient Rome (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977); Raffaella Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001). 110.  Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 90.

30

Jude on the Attack

his Progymnasmata111 and Peri Ideon.112 Students across the empire were encouraged to compose speeches using the models set forth by well-known figures such as Cicero and Sallust, imitating their oratory techniques and styles to help train them for their future careers.113 As early as 60 BCE, Cicero described his own orations of 63 BCE as ‘offering a model of study for contemporary youths’.114 Writing on style, Quintilian refers to the writings of Cicero, asserting that these passages would have been familiar to any student; there was even an expectation that Cicero’s spelling of certain words would have been well-known to the reader (Quint., Inst. 1.4.11). Students from all areas, including the regions of Palestine and Syria, would have been influenced by this rhetoric.115 As noted by Forbes, ‘If Josephus the historian, Theodorus the rhetorician, Meleager the poet, and Philodemus the philosopher were hailed from Galilee, perhaps it is indeed time to dispel the myth of “Galilean illiteracy” ’.116 While many Jews maintained the centrality of religious instruction,117 they were not excluded from Greek education (e.g. Christian bishops Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus who studied rhetoric alongside Julian the future emperor,118 Josephus who was both Jewish and Roman and a prominent 111.  Ibid., 103. Hermogenes’ was born in Tarsus, the same city from which the apostle Paul was born. Even though Hermogenes’ work dates to the second century CE, it is still a helpful indicator of the writing that was coming out of Tarsus at the beginning of the Common Era. 112.  The work of Hermogenes will resurface in later parts of this book, specifically when analysing the style of various texts. Thank you to Professor Larry Welborn for bringing, Peri Ideon, to my attention. 113.  Novokhatko, The Invective of Sallust and Cicero, 3. 114.  Anthony Corbeill, ‘Ciceronian Invective’, in Brill’s Companion to Cicero, ed. James M. May (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 211. Cicero writes: ‘As for my poor speeches, I will send you both those you ask for and some more also, since what I write to satisfy the studious youth finds favour, it seems, with you also’ (Cicero, Att. 2.1.3). 115.  Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism, 9. See also Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1, 60. 116.  Forbes, ‘Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony’, 23. 117.  Parents (particularly fathers) had a great responsibility to teach their children in the ways of the Lord (Gen. 18.19; Prov. 22.6; Deut. 6.7). It was expected that young men would be thoroughly familiar with the Torah as well as the cultural practices, dietary laws, and practical occupations that accompanied the life of a Jew (Joseph., Apion 2.204). See also Philo, Leg Gai. 210; Joseph., Apion 17. 118.  Richard Flower, Emperors and Bishops in Late Roman Invective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 33.

3. Examining the Literature, the Method, and the Genres

31

historian and even Jesus who ‘shows considerable dialectical skill’ when disputing, with the Pharisees in Mt. 22).119 There is indication in Josephus’ and Paul’s writings to suggest that a Jewish citizen could have received a typically Jewish education in the Torah,120 and an education in the surrounding schools. There were hundreds of places to study the scriptures in and around Jerusalem,121 from as early as five years of age (m. ʾAbot. 5.12). Both Josephus (Joseph., Life 7–9; Ant. 20.263)122 and the apostle Paul123 are said to have been learned in the Hebrew Scriptures, but also clearly at home in the Greek idiom of his time and the conventions of the Greek epistle.124 Whether learned or simply instinctive, rhetoric was ‘a commodity of which the vast majority of the population were either producers or much more likely consumers’.125 Rhetoric would have been on display daily in the courtrooms, marketplaces, and assemblies of the empire. Christians and Jews intermingled with their neighbours and would have been ‘exposed to the same coins, inscriptions, legal pronouncements, 119.  Hans D. Betz, The Sermon on the Mount: Including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:3–7:27 and Luke 6:20–49), Hermeneia: A Critical & Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995); Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism, 9. 120.  Shmuel Safrai, ‘Education and the Study of the Torah’, in The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, vol. 2, ed. Shemuel Safrai and Menahem Stern (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1976), 945–70 (945). 121.  David M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 243. According to t. Meg. 3 and t. Ketub. 13.35c there were four hundred and eighty synagogues in and around Jerusalem which had houses for the study of the scriptures and the study of the law. 122.  Safrai, ‘Education and the Study of the Torah’, 953; Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart, 243. 123.  See Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts, ‘Paul’s Bible, His Education and His Access to the Scriptures of Israel’, JGRChJ 5 (2008): 9–41. 124.  On Paul’s education, see Ronald F. Hock, ‘Paul and Greco-Roman Education’, in Paul in the Greco-Roman World, ed. J. Paul Sampley (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2003), 198–227; Porter and Pitts, ‘Paul’s Bible, His Education and His Access to the Scriptures of Israel’, 11–12; Christopher P. Craig, ‘Self-Restraint, Invective, and Credibility in Cicero’s First Catilinarian Oration’, AJP 128, no. 3 (2007): 335–39; Hock, ‘Paul and Greco-Roman Education’, 198–227; Strabo, Geogr. 14.5.13; Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism, 10. 125.  Duane Litfin, St. Paul’s Theology of Proclamation, 1 Corinthians 1–4 and Greco-Roman Rhetoric (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 132. See also Flower, Emperors and Bishops in Late Roman Invective, 33.

32

Jude on the Attack

building projects, and statuary as their neighbours’.126 They did not live in isolation.127 As Josephus records, even Herod swayed from Jewish purity by incorporating foreign practices. ‘He appointed solemn games to be celebrated every fifth year, in honour of Caesar, and built a theatre at Jerusalem’, and there were inscriptions of Caesar’s great acts (‘all made of the purest gold and silver’) around the theatre (Joseph., Ant. 15.7.1). It is widely believed that the writers of the New Testament would have been familiar with their Jewish heritage as well as Greek rhetoric ‘either from formal education or interaction with oral and written Hellenistic culture’.128 These authors wrote in the context of a Greek world with Greek-speaking listeners and thus assuming an understanding of classical rhetoric would seem fitting. In terms of education, it is reasonable to suggest that Jewish men (in particular) would have been well versed in both the Hebrew Scriptures with an appreciation for Greek language. Considering this, I believe that my initial focus on Jewish and GrecoRoman texts is justified both historically and geographically. The specific genres of Jewish judgement speech and Greco-Roman invective, however, will require some further defence. 3.2.3. Hints from Within the Text At a superficial level, there are two main textual features within the epistle of Jude hinting at specific Jewish and Greco-Roman polemical genres. The first is the ‘woe-cry’ (v. 11), a literary device that suggests the presence of Jewish judgement oracle. The second is the obvious tonal shift throughout the discourse from praise (vv. 1–3) to blame (vv. 4–19) and back to praise (vv. 20–25), hinting at the trademarks of epideictic rhetoric. I will now briefly describe these two literary genres. (a) Jewish Judgement Oracles. Even though the Jews of the Second Temple period did not appear to conceptualize rhetoric in any formalized manner, after consideration it can be seen that there are, in fact, rhetorical categories within their writings.129 A central literary form is that of 126.  Litfin, St. Paul’s Theology of Proclamation, 132. 127.  Wright Knust, Abandoned to Lust, 17. 128.  Duane F. Watson and Alan J. Hauser, Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: A Comprehensive Bibliography with Notes on History and Methods (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 110. 129.  These were most likely learned by imitation. See John Van Seters, ‘Creative Imitation in the Hebrew Bible’, in CSBS Presidential Address (Alberta: Canadian Society of Biblical Studies, 2000), 10. Some of these literary forms include law, prophecy, wisdom, apocalyptic, and narrative. See Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 123.

3. Examining the Literature, the Method, and the Genres

33

prophecy.130 Within the prophetic genre, there are two primary variations: those that focus on salvation, and those that focus on judgement.131 The adverse aspect of prophecy, known as oracles of judgement or judgementspeech, will be the focus of this section.132 The judgement oracle is a structured speech-form, which was often used by the appointed prophets to bring public indictment against a guilty person or persons.133 According to Petersen, this speech-form can be traced back to the ‘law court’ where it was used to summarize legal proceedings.134 In polemical writings, it is used when a prophet has an accusation to bring against a guilty person(s): the accusation is made, a sentence is passed, and Yahweh’s decree is used to seal the fate of the guilty party.135 A prominent feature within judgement oracles is the woe-cry, ‫( הוי‬οὐαί or ὦ in the LXX). It appears more than 50 times in the Hebrew Bible and, on 36 of these occasions, it is delivered with an explicit tone of accusation (e.g. Hab. 2.6; Zeph. 2.5). It is generally believed that this term ‫ הוי‬either originated in the context of funeral laments (as seen in 1 Kgs 13.30, Jer. 22.18 and 34.5, which is why this term could also be used as a summons or a lament over death136) or out of the covenant curse.137 The 130.  For a discussion on prophecy, see Christopher Forbes, ‘Christian Inspired Speech and Hellenistic Popular Religion’, NovT 28, no. 3 (1986): 257–70. 131.  See Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 124–25. 132.  These oracles were delivered ‘during periods of social crisis and political oppression’. See David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 73–74. 133.  Erhard Gerstenberger, ‘The Woe-Oracle of the Prophets’, JBL 81, no. 3 (1962): 250. 134.  David L. Petersen, The Prophetic Literature: An Introduction (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 66. 135.  Ibid. For examples, see Isa. 28.14–22; 29.13–14; 30.12–14. Tucker clarifies that prophetic announcements are ‘not speculations about coming events, but the very word of God about the future’; see Gene M. Tucker, Form Criticism of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 62. 136.  Claus Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech (Cambridge: John Knox, 1991), 191. See Robert B. Chisholm, ‘Structure, Style and the Prophetic Message: An Analysis of Isaiah 5.8–30’, in Vital Biblical Issues: Examining Problem Passages of the Bible, ed. Roy B. Zuck (Grand Rapids: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1994), 92. Others, such as Gerstenberger, believe that the woe-form originated in clan wisdom where it was intended to teach morality to the younger members of the community, and thus, ‘the woe-form in its original shape and content came out of the popular ethos’. See Gerstenberger, ‘The Woe-Oracle of the Prophets’, 258. 137.  Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, 191–98; Waldemar Janzen, Mourning Cry and Woe Oracle (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972), 27.

34

Jude on the Attack

sound of the word is conducive to pain and anguish. It has been described as a cry,138 or a reflex used to express ‘grief, pain or other emotional release’.139 It was known to be an effective way to draw the attention of the listeners,140 marking the presence of a woe oracle (a common subset within judgement speech). The primary difference between a woe oracle and a judgement-speech is this use of the woe-cry at the opening. In the context of woe oracles, ‫ הוי‬is often followed by an accusation outlining the misdeeds of those, against whom the oracle is directed, and an announcement of judgement often centred upon the day of the Lord.141 In such speeches, ‘the mood is frequently one of scorn and bitterness even to the point where the hôy-cry takes on all the characteristics of a curse (Zech. 11.17)’.142 As ‘God’s hired professional mourner’143 (Jer. 9.17–18; Amos 5.16), the prophet is ‘the first to announce both the woe cry and the death wail’.144 The hôy-cry is the instinctive reaction of the prophet upon hearing the announcement of God’s sure and certain judgement. This cry appears to be found in Jude 11 and signals the impending presence of a woe oracle (vv. 11–15). (b) Greco-Roman Invective. According to ancient rhetoricians, there are three main species of rhetoric: deliberative, forensic (judicial), and epideictic (Arist., Rhet. 1.3.1358b.3; Rhet. Alex. 1.1421b.7; Cic., Inv. 1.5.7; Cic., De Or. 1.31.141, 2.81.333–85.349; Quint., Inst. 2.21.23; 3.3.14–15; 3.4.12–15).145 Each genre has a different objective. The aim 138.  Barbara R. Rossing, ‘Alas for Earth! Lament and Resistance in Revelation 12’, in The Earth Story in the New Testament, ed. Norman C. Habel and Vicky Balabanski, The Earth Bible 5 (London: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 182. 139.  Janzen, Mourning Cry and Woe Oracle, 3. 140.  Jesus uses this to great effect in his speech against the Pharisees in Mt. 23. 141.  Common constructions can be found in Isa. 5.8, 11, 18, 20; 10.1; 29.15; 31.1; 33.1; 45.9, 10; Jer. 22.13; Ezek. 13.18; Amos 5.18; Mic. 2.1; Hab. 2.6, 9; Zeph. 3.1. 142.  Janzen, Mourning Cry and Woe Oracle, 3. Janzen unpacks the relationship between the woe-cry used in mourning rites and the woe of prophetic invective and admits that at times it is difficult to distinguish between the two (1 Kgs 13.30; Isa. 1.24; 17.12; 18.1; Jer. 22.18; Ezek. 34.2). 143.  Steven Horine, ‘A Study of the Literary Genre of the Woe Oracle’, CBTJ 5 (1989): 86. 144.  Ibid. 145.  Although the different handbooks agree that there are three species, each author provides different terminology. For a contemporary discussion on this topic see George A. Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World: 300 B.C.–A.D. 300 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972), 7–23; Duane F. Watson, ‘The Three Species of Rhetoric and the Study of the Pauline Epistle’, in Paul and Rhetoric,

3. Examining the Literature, the Method, and the Genres

35

of the deliberative orator (and author) is to urge or deter (Arist., Rhet. 1.3.1358b.3–5; Rhet. Alex. 1.1421b.17–23; Cic., Inv. 1.5.7; Quint., Inst. 3.4.6–16; 3.8.1–6; Cic., De Or. 1.31.141; 2.82.333–36). The aim of the forensic orator is to prosecute or defend in matters of the present but also crimes of the past (Arist., Rhet. 1.3.1358b.5; Cic., Inv. 2.4.12; 2.51.155– 56; Quint., Inst. 3.4.15). For epideictic rhetoric, the objective is to praise and blame, and is generally concerned with issues of the present (Arist., Rhet. 1.3.1358b.3–5; Rhet. Alex. 3.1425b.36–39; Cic., Inv. 1.5.7; 2.4.12; Quint., Inst. 3.4.6–16). Although, in theory, these three genres are agreed upon, still Aristotle, in Art of Rhetoric, recognizes that there is much overlap between forensic, deliberative, and epideictic oratory with all ‘both praising and denouncing, both urging and deterring, both in prosecution and in defence’ (Arist., Rhet. 1.3.1359a). Not only is there overlap but, as Quintilian warns, while the divisions made within the handbooks are easy and neat, they are not necessarily exclusive, ‘for all three kinds rely on the mutual assistance of the other. For we deal with justice and expediency in panegyric and with honour in deliberations, while you will rarely find a forensic case, in part of which at any rate something of those questions just mentioned is not to be found’ (Quint., Inst. 3.14.16). One sub-genre, which often appears in each of these species, is invective.146 Invective can be used as both a technique within a text (Cic., Cael. 31–34), or as framework and style for a text in its entirety (Cic., Pis.).147 The word ‘invective’ actually means ‘to ride into the attack’.148 It was a term originally found in the context of military dialogue, but has taken ed. J. Paul Sampley and Peter Lampe (New York: T&T Clark International, 2010), 25–47. Carey makes a helpful observation regarding these rhetorical categories, pointing out that the genres did not emerge randomly but were established based on ‘existing trends in oratorical practice’. See Christopher Carey, ‘Epideictic Oratory’, in A Companion to Greek Rhetoric, ed. Ian Worthington (Oxford: Blackwell, 2007), 236. 146.  Valentina Arena, ‘Roman Oratorical Invective’, in A Companion to Roman Rhetoric, ed. William Dominik and Jon Hall (Malden: Blackwell, 2007), 150, writes, ‘In the strict sense only speeches delivered, or supposedly delivered, as a direct attack against an individual should be considered invective… However, if we are prepared to broaden our definition, speeches whose first aim was not to attack the opponent directly, but to discredit him or her in order to achieve a specific persuasive goal, might also be considered invective’. This study will be working with that ‘broader definition’. 147.  I will use examples of both throughout. 148.  J. G. F. Powell, ‘Invective and the Orator: Ciceronian Theory and Practice’, in Cicero on the Attack, ed. Joan Booth (Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales, 2007), 2.

36

Jude on the Attack

on a more metaphorical meaning ‘to launch an attack’.149 In reference to a literary genre, the term itself did not make an appearance until the fourth century CE, though it is widely understood that the technique was being used long before this by orators such as Cicero, Isocrates, and Demosthenes, particularly in their writings titled ‘Against…’. In the Latin rhetorical tradition, vituperatio (invective), together with its opposite laus (praise), were the principal topics making up the genus demonstrativum or, as the Greeks had named it, epideictic oratory.150 Technically speaking, ‘invectives were to be formal epideictic orations, with negative subject matter organized into the same categories and structure employed for panegyrics’.151 A brief discussion of invective (named ‘blame’ by Cicero) can also be found in his work De Inventione (Cic., Inv. 2.177–78), while a more extensive discussion can be found in Rhetorica ad Herennium (Rhet. Her. 3.6.10–3.7.15), here titled ‘censure’. Rhetorica ad Herennium states that the author of an invective should expose the opponent’s shortcomings so that ‘they [the audience] may avoid his [the target’s] wickedness […and] vigorously disapprove his way of life’ (Rhet. Her. 3.6.12).152 Corbeill writes that vituperatio or invective is ‘the public shaming of a known individual through the open recounting of faults’, and is often used to instil fear in the public with a view to avoiding similar behaviour.153 Invective appears in various 149.  Ibid. 150.  Arena, ‘Roman Oratorical Invective’, 149. Although invective is normally considered to be the counterpart to ‘praise’ within epideictic oratory (Cic., Inv. 2.177; Rhet. Her. 1.1.2; 3.6.10), it often arises within forensic and deliberative rhetoric alike. (See Rhet. Her. 3.7.15 for a helpful discussion on this intertwining of genres.) For example, Cicero’s speech Pro Cluentio is categorized within the forensic corpus but certainly has elements of invective as Cicero launches an attack against Sassia. In fact, many of Cicero’s speeches are both forensic and invective in nature. This can be so because language in practice is far more fluid than the handbooks claim. As Arena points out, invective is often an ingredient within rhetoric and is not restricted to the praise and blame genre. See ibid. 151.  Flower, Emperors and Bishops in Late Roman Invective, 49. 152.  Demetrius observes five features of negative epideictic speech: blaming, reproaching, censure, admonishing, and invective (Demetr., Eloc. 211.18–22; 288.4–19; 292.21–24; see also ps.-Demetr., Epist. 3–9; Sen., Ep. 75.6–7; Clem., Paed. 1.9.76.1– 81.2). See also Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists, 33–39; Stanley K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 86. 153.  Corbeill, ‘Ciceronian Invective’, 200. Invective is often used to attack prominent or influential figures, as will be seen in the following examples. See Renato Barilli, Rhetoric (trans. Giuliana Menozzi), THL 63 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989), 3.

3. Examining the Literature, the Method, and the Genres

37

contexts and in various forms, such as letters (categorized in the praise and blame genre), public orations (often judicial in nature) and poetic discourses. Even though criticism and rebuke are dominant features of invective, it is important to note that invective is not merely slander or ridicule but rather bringing an accusation against someone (Cic., Cael. 6).154 In the epistle of Jude, we find charges of wrongdoing (vv. 4, 8, 10, 11–13, 16, 19), proofs and comparative examples of wrongdoing (vv. 5–7, 9, 14–15, 18), shaming (vv. 11–13), and the running theme of praise (vv. 1–2, 3, 20–25) and blame (vv. 4–19). These similarities with invective warrant further investigation. Taking the above into account, the styles of Greco-Roman invective and Jewish judgement oracle best fit the criteria of an attack speech in a part of the world dominated by Greek and Hebrew education, authority, and religious tradition. As I am comparing letter, court case, poem and prophecy, there is the potential issue of genre to answer for. Importantly, all these texts envisage a degree of oral delivery and, though they present differently, the convention of a confronting address takes precedence. The divide we now have between the written and spoken genres is a false dichotomy. There would not have been such a strict distinction in the mind of the writer, especially one working with the understanding that his letter would have been heard by most of the audience. It is estimated that the rate of literacy in the Roman Empire was less than 10%,155 creating a necessity for letters to be read aloud. ‘Both political persuasion and the diffusion of literature remained oral to an important degree throughout 154.  Anthony Corbeill, Controlling Laughter: Political Humor in the Late Roman Republic (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 18. 155.  See Willem Smelik, ‘Code-switching: The Public Reading of the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek’, in Was ist ein Text? Alttestamentliche, ägyptologische und altorientalistische Perspektiven, ed. Ludwig Morenz and Stefan Schorch (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 125; Seth Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society 200 BCE to 640 CE (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 10–11; Hezser, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, 496–504. Some, such as Poirier and Safrai, give a slightly higher statistic; see John C. Poirier, ‘The Linguistic situation in Jewish Palestine in Late Antiquity’, JGRChJ 4 (2007): 127; Safrai, ‘Education and the Study of the Torah’. Factors such as class, gender, and urbanization make it difficult to know the real figure for a community, but nonetheless, the principle of the ‘oral-literacy continuum’ means that even in areas where literacy were high, orality tradition would have been prominent. See Ruth Finnegan, Literacy and Orality: Studies in the Technology of Communication (Oxford: Blackwell, 1988), 4–6.

38

Jude on the Attack

antiquity.’156 In other words, the distinction between text types is somewhat falsely drawn as the practices of the written medium were penetrated by those of the oral. It is, therefore, ‘misleading to view orality and literacy as simple opposites in an either/or distinction’.157 When a letter was sent to a community it was expected that the letterbearer would present the message before the audience, performed not distributed. Therefore, while I do recognize that the epistle of Jude is a letter, I justify my claim that it can be compared to oral discourse on the basis that Jude was working with the understanding that his recipients would have heard the letter through oral delivery. 3.2.4. Method for the Comparative Analysis The lens through which I will study Jude may be described as tri-focal insofar as it is not solely dependent on one approach or methodology. My methodological focus draws upon rhetorical, historical, and sociolinguistic elements. The main body of this study will consist of a four-part analysis examining the structure (Chapter 4), aims (Chapter 5), themes (Chapter 6), and style (Chapter 7) of Jewish judgement oracles, Greco-Roman invectives, and the epistle of Jude. Each chapter will be broken up into four parts: the first concerning Jewish judgement oracles (§4.1, §5.1, §6.1, and §7.1), the second Greco-Roman invectives (§4.2, §5.2, §6.2, and §7.2), the third the epistle of Jude (§4.3, §5.3, §6.3, and §7.3), and the fourth, a comparative analysis of all three (§4.4, §5.4, §6.4, and §7.4). In each chapter, I will begin with an overview of a variety of texts across both styles (Jewish judgement oracles and Greco-Roman invective) in an attempt to understand how each genre broadly functions in relation to structure, aims, themes, and style. Specific case studies – Jeremiah 23, Demosthenes’ Against Meidias, and Ovid’s Ibis – will also be provided in each chapter for a more detailed and consistent examination.158 This will be followed by an analysis of Jude, first looking at the structure of 156.  William V. Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), 326. 157.  Istvan Haag, Stephen Llewelyn, and Jack Tsonis, ‘Ezekiel 16 and Its Use of Allegory and the Disclosure-of-Abomination Formula’, VT 62, no. 2 (2012): 200. 158.  Given that Jude’s relationship with Jewish literature is widely accepted among scholars only one Jewish case study has been provided (Jer. 23.9–22). However, as the influence of Greco-Roman rhetoric on Jude is (comparatively) less established, two case studies from Greek and Latin texts will be explored.

3. Examining the Literature, the Method, and the Genres

39

the epistle, then the aim, themes, and finally the style. Once the data are assembled, I will use the comparisons to identify whether Jude (or part of Jude) might be understood as invective or judgement-speech, and to what extent the author has been influenced by each genre (if at all).159

159.  My aim is not to take a set rhetorical genre (as outlined in the handbooks) and to apply it strictly to Jude. Rather, I will look for patterns arising within polemical discourse across both cultures (either contemporary to the epistle or at least influential at this time) to see if any of these patterns also arise in Jude.

Chapter 4 T he S t ruct ur e of J ewi sh J udge me nt O r a c l es , G r ec o- R om a n I nve ct i ve s,

a n d t h e E p i s t l e of Jude

This chapter marks the beginning of our central investigation into the epistle of Jude. The study will commence with structure, the first of four elements under consideration. After looking at the structure of Jewish judgement oracles and Greco-Roman invective, I argue that Jude’s positive/negative strategy and epistolary greeting follows a tradition found in Greco-Roman texts of censure, praise, and blame. Within the invective, Jude 11–15 closely mirrors the structure of a traditional Jewish woe oracle, beginning with a woe-cry and continuing with a series of accusations and a pronouncement of judgement. The device is employed to provide an authoritative prophetic declaration within the invective. I begin with a survey of the structure of Jewish judgement oracles (§4.1), Greco-Roman invectives (§4.2), and a case study from each. If the reader wishes to move straight to an analysis of Jude and my own comparative argument; this can be found in section §4.3–4. 4.1. The Structure of Jewish Judgement Oracles Given the absence of Jewish handbooks (which might provide an overview of rhetorical practice), we must assess specific examples of judgement oracles and woe oracles from within Jewish literature to gain clarity on this literary genre and its construction. Such an analysis will facilitate in identifying common features within the genre. A case study from Jeremiah 23 will also be used to provide a more detailed look at the structure of a single judgement oracle. Typically, Jewish judgement oracles begin in a plainly negative manner. The message is made clear from the opening line: ‘Gather together, gather, O shameless nation’ (Zeph. 2.1), ‘Ah, soiled, defiled, oppressing city!’ (Zeph. 3.1), ‘Ah, the proud garland’ (Isa. 28.1), ‘Woe to the shepherds’



4. The Structure of Jewish Judgement Oracles

41

(Jer. 23.1), ‘Woe to you, O Jerusalem’ (Jer. 13.27), ‘Woe! Woe to you’ (Ezek. 16.23), ‘Woe to them’ (Hos. 7.13; see also Isa. 5.8; 10.1; 29.2; Ezek. 16; Amos 1.2, 6, 9, 11, 13; 2.1, 4, 6; 1 En. 94, 99). The prophets did not rely on the approval or disapproval of the audience; in fact, they were often rejected due to the overtly disciplinary nature of their message (i.e. 1 Kgs 7.10–12; 19.10; Jer. 1.19; 15.15; 26.20–23; 38.1–26; Ezek. 3.22–27; Mk 6.4; Acts 7.52). Their concern was communicating God’s judgement, which would come whether the hearers were convinced or not. Oracles of judgement possess two primary structural attributes: the accusation and the announcement of judgement, appearing in either order (accusation first, e.g. Isa. 3.12; 29.13–14; Jer. 16.11–13; Amos 3.2; 4.1–2; 8.4–8; Zeph. 2.8–11; Sib. Or. 5.162–78; judgement first, e.g. Jer. 29.10–11; Ezek. 29.1–10; Amos 6.11–12; Mic. 7.13; 2 Esd. 15.14– 18).1 In most speeches, transitional markers (e.g. ‘thus says the Lord’, ‘therefore’), preceded the announcement (Mic. 2.1–3; Ezek. 34.10a; 2 Esd. 15.7, 9, 48).2 In the prophetic writings, it was also common for the prophets to use structural devices such as inclusio and chiasm to arrange their discourse (Hab. 3.3–7, 8–15; Joel 2.1–11; Mic. 1.8–16; 2.6–11; Nah. 1.2–6; Hos. 9.1–11.7). These were deliberate devices used by the prophets to provide coherence to the text and to mark points of transition between structural subunits.3 Owing to the explicit use of οὐαί in Jude 11, we turn specifically to the subcategory of the woe oracle, which had the same basic structure as that of the prophetic judgement oracle, but with the added hôy (‫)הוי‬ at the commencement of the piece.4 The introductory ‫( הוי‬also known as the woe-cry) was almost always connected to a participle or an adjective, determining who was being addressed (Amos 5.18; 6.1; Isa. 1.4; 5.8, 11, 18, 20, 21, 22; 10.1; 29.15; 30.1; 31.1; 45.9, 10; Mic. 2.1; Jer. 22.13; 23.1; Zeph. 3.1; Ezek. 34.2; Nah. 3.1; Hab. 2.6, 9, 12, 15, 19; 2 Esd. 15.14).5

92.

1.  Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World,

2.  Rick Byargeon, ‘Thus Saith the Lord: Interpreting the Prophetic Word’, in Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture, ed. Bruce Corley, Steve W. Lemke, and Grant I. Lovejoy (Nashville: B&H, 1996), 303. 3.  Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric, 2nd ed. (1975; repr., Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 29. 4.  Chisholm, ‘Structure, Style and the Prophetic Message’, 43; Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, 190. 5.  Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, 191; Daniel Hojoon Ryou, Zephaniah’s Oracles Against the Nations: A Synchronic and Diachronic Study of Zephaniah 2:1–3:8 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 340.

42

Jude on the Attack

Woe oracles are often embedded within larger judgement oracles, as seen in Amos 5.6 Within a woe oracle, the initial indictment often leads to a threat (Isa. 5.9, 13, 24; 30.3–5; 31.2–3; Mic. 2.3; Hab. 2.16; Zeph. 3.5; Hermas, Vis. iv.2.6; Sim. ix.31.3–5), a lament (Isa. 2.5; Jer. 22.18; Amos 5.1–16), a curse (Zech. 11.17), a series of ironical or rhetorical questions (Isa. 10.3; Amos 2; Hab. 2; 2 Esd. 16.1–11; Sir. 2.14), a proverbial saying (Isa. 29.16; 4Q185.9), or a new accusation (Isa. 45.11; Jer. 22.15; 23.2; Ezek. 13.4, 18; Zeph. 3.3). When several woes are found in series (Isa. 5; 28.1–33.1; Hab. 2; 1 En. 94.6–95.7; 96.4–8; 97.7–10; 98.9–16; Mt. 23.13–36; Rev. 18.10–19), the judgement is compounded. Woe oracles are a central element within the prophetic judgement genre and one that continues to find its way into Jewish literature throughout antiquity (e.g. Lk. 6.24–26; 10.13–14; 11.42–52; Rev. 8.13; 12.12). 4.1.1. Jeremiah 23.9–22 (Case Study, Part 1) Jeremiah 23.9–22 has been chosen as a case study for this section and the subsequent chapters (Chapter 5 – Aims, Chapter 6 – Themes, and Chapter 7 – Style) as it encompasses many of the key features of a traditional judgement oracle (and bears some helpful parallels with the epistle of Jude, as will be discussed in §4.4). By analysing one passage in detail it will become clearer how judgement oracles function more generally. In Table 1, I present Jer. 23.9–22 as found in the LXX and the English translation as found in NETS.7 In choosing any text from the Hebrew Bible as a point of comparison, the researcher is faced with the issue of which language version to use.8 Given that Greek was the lingua franca in the first century, it seems most plausible to assume that when using the Hebrew Bible, Jude and his audience would have been more comfortable with the Greek LXX. Documentary evidence from both inscriptions and papyri demonstrates a facility and preference for Greek in the Jewish communities of the Mediterranean.9 It was commonplace for Jews of the Second Temple 6.  Chisholm, ‘Structure, Style and the Prophetic Message’, 14. 7.  I would like to acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Stephen Llewelyn in helping me put together this textual work on Jer. 23. 8.  The following discussion on Jude’s use of the Greek Old Testament reinforces the argument made in Chapter 3 on the cultural and literary environment of Jude (see §3.2.2). 9.  On the pervasive use of Greek and Hellenistic culture and the Mediterranean diaspora, see John J. Collins, Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on the Jewish Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Rule (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 1–20. On



4. The Structure of Jewish Judgement Oracles

43

period to be well-versed in Hellenistic philosophical ideas and language (see 4 Macc. 7.18–19; 16.25; Wis. 3.1–4; and Joseph., War 2.164) and to compose their own works in Greek.10 We also know that the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek and used by the diaspora communities (Letter of Aristeas 301–22; Philo, Vit. Mos. 2.25–45), implying that in the diaspora communities the LXX received a status on par with that of the Hebrew text.11 Of course, the above argument only speaks generally and not particularly to Jude and his audience. Richard Bauckham has taken an opposing stance in the case of the epistle of Jude, arguing that the author of Jude knows the Hebrew text and thus cannot be citing from the Greek text.12 He offers four examples (Jude 12 – Prov. 25.14, ‘Like clouds and wind without rain’; Jude 12 – Ezek. 34.2, ‘shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves’; Jude 13 – Isa. 57.20, ‘like the tossing sea that cannot keep still’; and Jude 23 – Zech. 3.3–4, ‘dressed with filthy clothes’) where it appears that Jude relies on the MT rather than the LXX. These examples, however, are problematic; for they are allusions, not direct citations, where flexibility was a given. When assessing the quotation, however, the resemblance between Jude 14–15 and the Greek version of 1 En. 1.9 is striking.13 The other issue with Bauckham’s case is that he assumes that the choice of literary dependence is between the MT or LXX texts. He overlooks the presence of other Jewish revisions and Greek influence upon the synagogues as attested in inscriptions and titles of officials, see Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), 625–26. On the Hellenistic ethos of diaspora honorary inscription, see Tessa Rajak, ‘The Synagogue within the Greco-Roman City’, in Jews, Christians and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue: Cultural Interaction in the Greco-Roman Period, ed. Steven Fine (London: Routledge, 1999), 143–53; Edrel Arie, ‘The Diaspora in the Hellenistic Period’, in Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora: Origins, Experiences, and Culture, ed. M. Avrum Ehrlich (Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio, 2009), 13–14. 10.  On the extent of diaspora Jewish literature composed in Greek for a Jewish audience, see Martin Goodman, Judaism in the Roman World: Collected Essays (London: Brill, 2007), 96, 105–6. 11.  Veltri writes, ‘For Jewish-Hellenistic communities, the Greek translation of the Torah represents the magna charta, the foundation document of their identity as a cultural minority within a “pagan” environment’. See Giuseppe Veltri, Libraries, Translations, and ‘Canonic’ Texts: The Septuagint, Aquila and Ben Sira in the Jewish and Christian Traditions (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 27. 12.  Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church, 136–37; idem, Jude, 2 Peter, 7. 13.  See Table 4.

44

Jude on the Attack

translations of the Hebrew that sought to align the Greek text better with the MT.14 It is for these reasons that I use the LXX when referring to the Hebrew Bible.15 Table 1. Jeremiah 23.9–22 in the LXX and NETS Verse 9

10

11

12

13

LXX16 Συνετρίβη ἡ καρδία μου, ἐν ἐμοὶ ἐσαλεύθη πάντα τὰ ὀστᾶ μου, ἐγενήθην ὡς ἀνὴρ συντετριμμένος καὶ ὡς ἄνθρωπος συνεχόμενος ἀπὸ οἴνου ἀπὸ προσώπου κυρίου καὶ ἀπὸ προσώπου εὐπρεπείας δόξης αὐτοῦ. ὅτι ἀπὸ προσώπου τούτων ἐπένθησεν ἡ γῆ, ἐξηράνθησαν αἱ νομαὶ τῆς ἐρήμου, καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ δρόμος αὐτῶν πονηρὸς καὶ ἡ ἰσχὺς αὐτῶν οὐχ οὕτως. ὅτι ἱερεὺς καὶ προφήτης ἐμολύνθησαν, καὶ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ μου εἶδον πονηρίας αὐτῶν. διὰ τοῦτο γενέσθω ἡ ὁδὸς αὐτῶν αὐτοῖς εἰς ὀλίσθημα ἐν γνόφῳ, καὶ ὑποσκελισθήσονται καὶ πεσοῦνται ἐν αὐτῇ· διότι ἐπάξω ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς κακὰ ἐν ἐνιαυτῷ ἐπισκέψεως αὐτῶν. καὶ ἐν τοῖς προφήταις Σαμαρείας εἶδον ἀνομήματα· ἐπροφήτευσαν διὰ τῆς Βααλ καὶ ἐπλάνησαν τὸν λαόν μου Ισραηλ.

NETS My heart was crushed; within me all my bones shook; I became like a crushed man and like a person overcome by wine, due to the Lord and due to the dignity of his glory,

because due to these the land mourned, the pastures of the wilderness were dried up. And their course became evil, and their strength not so, because priest and prophet were defiled, and in my house I have seen their wickedness. Therefore let their way be to them like slipperiness in thick darkness, and they shall be tripped up and fall in it; for I will bring evil upon them in the year of their visiting. And in the prophets of Samaria I saw lawless deeds: they prophesied by the goddess Baal and led my people Israel astray.

14.  For an early awareness of differences between MT and LXX, see Prologue to Sirach (117 BCE). See also Joseph., Ant. 12.109. 15.  When it comes to Jer. 23.9–22 there are only minor variants when comparing Jeremiah in the LXX and the MT. See Georg A. Walser, ‘Translating the Greek Text of Jeremiah’, in Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, ed. Melvin K. H. Peters, Septuagint and Cognate Studies (Atlanta: SBL, 2008), 355; Andrew G. Shead, ‘Jeremiah’, in The T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, ed. James K. Aitken (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 483. 16.  For a few variations on this text (as reflected in Vaticanus B), see Georg A. Walser, Jeremiah: A Commentary Based on Ieremias in Codex Vaticanus (Leiden: Brill, 2012).



4. The Structure of Jewish Judgement Oracles 14

15

16

17

18

19

20

καὶ ἐν τοῖς προφήταις Ιερουσαλημ ἑόρακα φρικτά, μοιχωμένους καὶ πορευομένους ἐν ψεύδεσι καὶ ἀντιλαμβανομένους χειρῶν πονηρῶν τοῦ μὴ ἀποστραφῆναι ἕκαστον ἀπὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ τῆς πονηρᾶς· ἐγενήθησάν μοι πάντες ὡς Σοδομα καὶ οἱ κατοικοῦντες αὐτὴν ὥσπερ Γομορρα. διὰ τοῦτο τάδε λέγει κύριος ᾿Ιδοὺ ἐγὼ ψωμίζω αὐτοὺς ὀδύνην καὶ ποτιῶ αὐτοὺς ὕδωρ πικρόν, ὅτι ἀπὸ τῶν προφητῶν Ιερουσαλημ ἐξῆλθεν μολυσμὸς πάσῃ τῇ γῇ. οὕτως λέγει κύριος παντοκράτωρ Μὴ ἀκούετε τοὺς λόγους τῶν προφητῶν, ὅτι ματαιοῦσιν αὐτοὶ ὅρασιν, ἀπὸ καρδίας αὐτῶν λαλοῦσι καὶ οὐκ ἀπὸ στόματος κυρίου. λέγουσιν τοῖς ἀπωθουμένοις τὸν λόγον κυρίου Εἰρήνη ἔσται ὑμῖν· καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς πορευομένοις τοῖς θελήμασιν αὐτῶν, [παντὶ τῷ πορευομένῳ πλάνῃ καρδίας αὐτοῦ] εἶπαν Οὐχ ἥξει ἐπὶ σὲ κακά. ὅτι τίς ἔστη ἐν ὑποστήματι κυρίου καὶ εἶδε τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ; τίς ἐνωτίσατο καὶ ἤκουσεν; ἰδοὺ σεισμὸς παρὰ κυρίου καὶ ὀργὴ ἐκπορεύεται εἰς συσσεισμόν, συστρεφομένη ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς ἥξει. καὶ οὐκέτι ἀποστρέψει ὁ θυμὸς κυρίου, ἕως ἂν ποιήσῃ αὐτὸ καὶ ἕως ἂν ἀναστήσῃ αὐτὸ ἀπὸ ἐγχειρήματος καρδίας αὐτοῦ· ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν νοήσουσιν αὐτά.

45

And in the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen shocking things: people committing adultery and walking in lies and strengthening the hands of evildoers so that no one turns, each from his wicked way; all have become like Sodom to me, and its inhabitants just like Gomorra. Therefore this is what the Lord says: ‘Behold, I will feed them pain and will give them bitter water to drink, because from the prophets of Jerusalem defilement went out to the whole land’. Thus says the Lord Almighty: ‘Do not hear the words of the prophets, because they are rendering a vision empty. They speak from their own heart and not from the mouth of the Lord’. They say to those who reject the word of the Lord, ‘There shall be peace for you’, and to all who walk by their own will, [to everyone who walks by the error of his own heart,] they said, ‘No evil shall come upon you’. because who has stood in support of the Lord and seen his word? Who has given ear and obeyed? Behold, an earthquake from the Lord, and wrath goes forth as a seismic upheaval; when it gathers, it will come against the impious. And the anger of the Lord will no longer turn back until he has executed it and until he accomplished it due to the undertaking of his heart. In the last of days they will understand them.

46 21

22

Jude on the Attack οὐκ ἀπέστελλον τοὺς προφήτας, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔτρεχον· οὐκ ἐλάλησα πρὸς αὐτούς, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐπροφήτευον. καὶ εἰ ἔστησαν ἐν τῇ ὑποστάσει μου καὶ εἰ ἤκουσαν τῶν λόγων μου, καὶ τὸν λαόν μου ἂν ἀπέστρεφον αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν πονηρῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων αὐτῶν.

I was not sending the prophets, and they themselves kept running; I did not speak to them, and they themselves kept prophesying. And if they had stood in support of me and if they had heard my words, they would also have turned them, my people, from their evil doings.

4.1.1.1. Context Surrounding the Selected Passage The indictment at the beginning of Jeremiah 23 sets the scene for the remainder of the chapter (ὦ οἱ ποιμένες οἱ διασκορπίζοντες καὶ ἀπολλύοντες τὰ πρόβατα τῆς νομῆς μου). It is a woe oracle brought against the ‘shepherds’, who have ‘scattered and destroyed the sheep’ of God’s pasture (a metaphor familiar to a Jewish audience, Ezek. 34; Isa. 56).17 In these opening verses, there are four possessive pronouns (on behalf of Yahweh), ‘my pasture’, ‘my people’, ‘my sheep’, and ‘my flock’. God is making an explicit point that these people belong to him and that the shepherds (appointed to care for God’s people) have been negligent with the master’s sheep, and will be punished accordingly. This example of poor leadership is the backdrop for the leaders mentioned throughout the subsequent verses (shepherds, vv. 1–4; the king, vv. 5–8; the prophets and priests, vv. 9–40). 4.1.1.2. The Structure of Jeremiah 23.9–22 The remainder of the chapter is composed of five separate units (vv. 9–12, 13–15, 16–22, 23–32, 33–40),18 linked together by v. 9 (the prophet’s 17.  This is a political statement of mismanaged royal power; see Walter Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 206. See also Benjamin A. Foreman, Animal Metaphors and the People of Israel in the Book of Jeremiah (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 44; Rosalie Kuyvenhoven, ‘Jeremiah 23.1–8: Shepherds in Diachronic Perspective’, in Paratext and Megatext as Channels of Jewish and Christian Traditions: The Textual Markers of Contextualization, ed. A. A. den Hollander, Ulrich B. Schmid, and Willem Frederik Smelik, Jewish & Christian Perspectives (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 3. 18.  John A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 493. For varying structures of this passage, see Ebenezer Henderson, The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, and That of the Lamentations, Translated from the Original Hebrew with a Commentary, Critical, Philological, and Exegetical (London: Hamilton, Adams & Co., 1851), 144; William McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, vol. 1,



4. The Structure of Jewish Judgement Oracles

47

expression of personal turmoil). These oracles were most likely united due to their shared criticism of leadership.19 The passage in question, Jer. 23.9–22, is composed of three judgement oracles brought against the various religious leaders of Jeremiah’s context.20 Even though these may have been composed separately, the fact that the hearers would have heard and understood them as a complete literary unit makes it valid to study them together. Jeremiah 23.9–22 follows a typical pattern of judgement-speech: Introduction (personal reflection) v. 9 First Oracle vv. 10–12 Accusation vv. 10–11 Judgement v. 12 Second Oracle vv. 13–15 Accusation vv. 13–14 Judgement v. 15 Third Oracle vv. 16–22 Instruction v. 16a Accusation vv. 16b–18 Judgement vv. 19–22 The prophet begins with a comment regarding his personal state of mind, regarding his heart being crushed and his bones shaking (v. 9).21 When Jeremiah speaks of his heart, this is not an emotion, but rather a resolve; ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986), 569–90; William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1–25, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 672–79. 19.  Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, ‘The Priests and the Temple Cult in the Book of Jeremiah’, in Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah, ed. Hans M. Barstad and Reinhard Gregor Kratz (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 240; Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, 493. The variants between the MT, the LXX, and the fragments found at Qumran (4QJerb) from the Jeremiah corpus, strongly support the case for later editorial changes. See Joseph Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983), 155. See also John Brian Job, Jeremiah’s Kings: A Study of the Monarchy in Jeremiah, SOTSMS (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), 26. 20.  Tiemeyer, ‘The Priests and the Temple Cult in the Book of Jeremiah’, 240. 21.  In the MT, v. 9 has an editorial note, ‘concerning the prophets’, which frames the subsequent oracles. On this, see Geoffrey H. Parke-Taylor, The Formation of the Book of Jeremiah: Doublets and Recurring Phrases, SBL Monograph Series (Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 81. This does not appear in the Greek text; instead, the translator makes it part of the address, i.e. ‘My heart is crushed on account of the prophets’.

48

Jude on the Attack

in other words, his morale is shattered. This ignites an interest for the hearer, as they question why the prophet has lost his morale. The writer is preparing the hearers for what is to follow. Then, in vv. 10–11, we learn that the land mourns, the pastures are dried up, their course has become evil, and the priests and prophets have defiled God’s house. These verses make up the initial accusation (vv. 10–11), which leads to the first judgement (v. 12): ‘Therefore let their way be to them like slipperiness in thick darkness, and they shall be tripped up and fall in it [darkness]’. There is a logical transitional marker, ‘therefore’ (διὰ), which indicates the beginning of the judgement (as per tradition).22 The second oracle is also consistent with a traditional form.23 Several accusations appear in vv. 13–14, an explicit transitional marker in v. 15, ‘because of this the Lord says’, which leads to an obvious announcement of judgement, ψωμίζω αὐτοὺς ὀδύνην (‘I will feed them pain’).24 Interestingly, the third oracle (vv. 16–22) has a slightly different structure.25 It begins with the statement, ‘thus says the Lord Almighty’, which leads to an instruction or warning for those within the community, ‘do not hear the words of the prophets, because they are rendering a vision empty’, which precedes the accusations (vv. 17–18) and the announcement of judgement (vv. 19–22), introduced by the exclamation ἰδού (‘behold’). ἰδού visualizes the storm as present to the hearer. An example of inclusio can also be found in this oracle (specifically between v. 18 and v. 22). In v. 18 two questions are raised, ‘Because who has stood in the council of the Lord and seen his word? Who has given ear and obeyed?’ A type of response is then offered in v. 22, ‘And if they had stood in my council and if they had heard my words, they would also have turned them, my people, from their evil doings’. These verses are not only paralleled but, as Lundom suggests, they function as a chiasm, 22.  Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World, 92; Byargeon, ‘Thus Saith the Lord’, 303. 23.  Commentators such as Willis argue that due to the thematic links between vv. 10–12 and vv. 13–15, these verses function as one oracle. See Timothy M. Willis, Jeremiah and Lamentations, The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin: College Press, 2002), 196. 24.  Allen notes that the second unit (vv. 13–15) has several formulaic markers. There is the introductory marker ‘therefore’ (v. 14) and the quotation formula (v. 15a). See Leslie C. Allen, Jeremiah: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 265. 25.  McKane also regards Jer. 23.16–22 as a single unit, whereas Holladay identifies 23.16–20 as an independent unit. See McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 1, 577; Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 633.



4. The Structure of Jewish Judgement Oracles

49

with v. 18 mirroring v. 22.26 Therefore (with the exception of v. 16), these three oracles follow a relatively customary structure, making them clear and distinct judgement oracles. 4.2. The Structure of Greco-Roman Invectives By examining several Greco-Roman invectives from antiquity, similar rhetorical patterns will once again begin to emerge. Invective in practice, whilst not conforming to the exact regulations of the handbooks, certainly does possess commonalities which become evident across many texts. 4.2.1. Exploring a Variety of Greco-Roman Texts To deliver an effective and powerful invective in the Greco-Roman world was considered an art. The performance would determine whether the opponent was held accountable for his or her actions. In many ways, it was less about relaying facts and more about the way one built and conveyed one’s argument.27 While writers had the freedom to construct a speech in any way they saw fit, there were patterns that developed among rhetoricians.28 For epideictic speech, Cicero suggests several key structural phases, which include (Cic., Inv. 1.53):

(C1) Reference to an authoritative source (C2) Amplification (C3) Discussion of outcomes (C4) Comparison (C5) Description of foul deeds (C6) Circumstances surrounding the actions (C7) Impact on the hearers

These phases were in no way binding, but simply suggestive. In the early fourth century, comparable phases were still being taught and can be seen in Libanius’ Progymnasmata for maxim and anecdotes.29 The similarity 26.  Lundbom also argues that vv. 19–20 is an editorial addition, strengthening his case for chiasm. See Lundbom, Jeremiah, 119. 27.  Novokhatko, The Invective of Sallust and Cicero, 14. 28.  Paul MacKendrick, The Speeches of Cicero (London: Duckworth, 1995), 311–19. 29.  Such phases are also found in Hermogenes, Aphthonius, Nicolaus, and Theon. See Libanius, Libanius’s Progymnasmata: Model Exercises in Greek Prose Composition and Rhetoric, trans. Craig A. Gibson, Writings from the Greco-Roman World (Atlanta: SBL, 2008). Even though Libanius writes after Jude, his models

50

Jude on the Attack

of these categories to Cicero’s demonstrates how thoroughly such phases had become a part of persuasive discourse: (L1) Praise (L2) Paraphrase of the saying (L3) Discussion of rationale (cause) (L4) Elaboration by contrast (L5) Comparisons (L6) Discussion of relevant examples from history (L7) Citation of an ancient authority (L8) Brief epilogue exhorting the reader to follow the advice set forth in the maxim Like the persuasive goal of invective, maxims and anecdotes were used to urge hearers toward or away from an action or attitude. Throughout the analysis of invective (and subsequently, the epistle of Jude) we will see whether anything resembling these structural phases suggested by Cicero or Libanius appear. A vital structural technique in polemical works was the majority– minority divide. The orator would fashion the discourse in order to appear a ‘champion of normative values’.30 This would enable the orator to separate members of the ruling class from the crowd based on negligent behaviour. As Jehne explains: ‘This rhetorical device of dividing a group into some leaders fully responsible for cheating the rest, and the rest as innocent victims, seems to have worked perfectly in the case of Rullus because in the end he no longer commanded the necessary support and seems to have dropped his rogatio’.31 The majority–minority metaphor used in relation to this structural theme was often that of a shipwreck, where political leaders were likened to a ship leading the people off-course (see Pl., Resp. 488a–c; Cic., Sen. 17).32 Orators needed are a reflection of common practice in antiquity. That the same (or similar) features are suggested by Cicero so many years earlier demonstrates just how ingrained the models were. 30.  W. Jeffrey Tatum, ‘Invective Identities in Pro Caelio’, in Praise and Blame in Roman Republic Rhetoric, ed. Christopher Smith and Ralph Covino (Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales, 2011), 167. 31.  Martin Jehne, ‘Blaming the People in Front of the People: Restraint and Outbursts of Orators in Roman Contiones’, in Smith and Covino, eds., Praise and Blame in Roman Republic Rhetoric, 113–14. 32.  See Kei Eun Chang, The Community, the Individual and the Common Good: ‘To Idion’ and ‘To Sympheron’ in the Greco-Roman World and Paul (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 66.



4. The Structure of Jewish Judgement Oracles

51

to demonstrate that they were driven by the common good in order to win the favour of the majority and cause them to question or condemn the minority.33 Regarding structural progression, Corbeill provides a helpful observation: ‘In most speeches, the speaker’s opponent is initially depicted simply as a violator of social expectations. The depiction then grows increasingly hostile, until ultimately it climaxes with the revelation that the opponent can no longer be tolerated.’34 This is notable across invective discourse, which grows in intensity until the fitting punishment has been made clear. This punishment is not usually a legal finding, but rather a matter of rebuke and conscience. As Cicero writes, ‘What then is punishment?… [I]t is a mind hampered and overwhelmed by conscience; it is the hatred of all virtuous men; it is the deserved brand of the senate; it is the loss of dignity’ (Cic., Pis. 43). True punishment is the rejection of one’s community, the loss of dignity, and the establishment of guilt (i.e. honour/shame culture). With the intention of seeing more specifically how these arguments progress in practice, we now turn to four examples from Cicero’s orations. In Against Vatinius, Cicero moves from a discussion of Vatinius’ unworthiness of character (Cic., Vat. 1) to his violence and intent to commit murder (Vat. 17, 24), concluding with the most potent statement, ‘You could not possibly do anything more agreeable to the people than you would if you were to kill yourself’ (Vat. 39). There is notable elevation in intensity of aggression here. Similarly, in the oration Against Piso, Cicero begins by addressing the way Piso deceivingly crept in (Cic., Pis. 1), and may have even appeared sinless in the public eye (Pis. 12). But Cicero then goes on to define Piso as evil (Pis. 42), exclaiming with outbursts that he is wicked, a pest, and a disgrace (Pis. 56), and finally expresses his desire for him to be despised by all and to end up alone (Pis. 99). In Against Verres, Cicero first expresses his desire to relieve the citizens of Rome of this evil (Cic., Ver. 2). He then provides several details concerning Verres’ offenses including: robberies (Ver. 15), rape (Ver. 14), and incestuous acts (Ver. 14). Cicero continues by warning the judges (Ver. 36), and concludes by begging them to guard themselves and resist such evil (Ver. 43). Finally, in Philippics, Antonius is first supposed to be imitating wicked men (Cic., Phil. 2.1) and is then described as living out a life of complete corruption (Phil. 2.15). In the final picture he is 33.  Jehne, ‘Blaming the People in Front of the People’, 119. See ps.-Sall., Cic. 1.1. 34.  Corbeill, ‘Ciceronian Invective’, 213.

52

Jude on the Attack

perceived to be a vile barbarian drenched by his own vomit and reeking of his own shame (Phil. 2.65). In these speeches, the intensity builds as the opponent is brought low by his own wickedness. Upon reaching the climax of the speech, the orator hopes to have influenced the way in which the community responds to the person in question, deterring them from following the same course of action.35 With a slightly different form, Martial’s epigram against the slanderous poet (Ep. 10.5) begins with a brief comment concerning the subject (‘[he] injured them with his impious verse’), and then builds the intensity by dreaming up a series of punishments for his foe, each with growing severity.36 Wolf observes that in Martial’s fantasy, his anonymous foe moves from being an ‘outcast’, to a beggar eating ‘spoiled bread reserved for dogs’, to being cold and dreary and wishing for his death as he ‘drives off the birds of prey’.37 Even after death, his pain and suffering continue as he ‘exhaust[s] all the fabled torments of the poets’. To link these events and build the intensity, Martial makes use of the phrase ‘may he…’ (‘may he wander through town after town’, ‘may he entreat for mouthfuls of the spoilt bread’, ‘may he hear around him the howling of dogs’, etc.). This pattern is suddenly broken in line 9 with the use of the couplet ‘Nor… but…’ (i.e. nor may his punishment end with death but continue into the afterlife). By breaking the flow with this interjection, Martial draws our attention to what follows. It is at this point that the stakes are heightened: ‘May he exhaust all the fabled torments of the poets’ and ‘confess the truth’. It is here that we arrive at the heart of the matter. Martial desires a confession from this slandering foe. Structurally, the entire discourse is mounting to this point, ‘may he exclaim, betrayed by his conscience’. 4.2.2. Demosthenes and Ovid: The Case Studies We now turn to two Greco-Roman case studies. These texts have been selected as together they reflect much of what is common to the invective genre. The first has been selected from a well-known orator, Demosthenes, who publicly disgraces his opponent Meidias in a controlled and precise way. The second is a text from a first-century poet, Ovid, who attacks an anonymous opponent in a lyrical and exaggerated manner. 35.  Ibid. 36.  Martial, Epigrams. Vol. 2, Books 6–10, ed. and trans. David R. Shackleton Bailey, LCL 95 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993). 37.  See Gregg Woolf, ‘Writing Poverty in Rome’, in Poverty in the Roman World, ed. M. Atkins and R. Osborne (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 94–97. For similar imagery, see Martial, Ep. 1.92.



4. The Structure of Jewish Judgement Oracles

53

4.2.2.1. Demosthenes, Against Meidias (Case Study, Part 1) Demosthenes is arguably one of the most skilled orators in antiquity (Lucian, Encom. Demosth. 5.1).38 In his speech Against Meidias, Demosthenes accuses his opponent of personally attacking him and sabotaging his role as chorus-master (Dem., Meid. 13–18).39 It is alleged that since their youth, Demosthenes had been fending off endless strings of insults from his foe.40 Their feud, however, culminated when Demosthenes volunteered as chorus-master at the Dionysia of 348 BCE. Supposedly, Meidias saw this as a crucial opportunity to make Demosthenes’ life a misery.41 He harassed Demosthenes (Dem., Meid. 16.8–9), bribed the judges (Meid. 17),42 antagonized the whole group (Meid. 17.12), even went as far as physically striking Demosthenes (Meid. 18.8–9), in the end, damaging his chance of winning a prize (Meid. 18.10).43 It has been suggested that, after accepting a settlement of thirty mnai (Aeschin. 3.52), potentially out of fear (Plut., Dem. 12), Demosthenes had no reason to deliver this speech before a jury.44 Perhaps this speech was merely ‘composed’ and never officially ‘delivered’ (as implied by Dionysius of Halicarnassus in his First Letter to Ammaeus 4).45

38.  Lib., Max. 3.1. See Libanius, Libanius’s Progymnasmata, 101; Cecil W. Wooten, ‘Cicero and Quintilian on the Style of Demosthenes’, A Journal of the History of Rhetoric 15, no. 2 (1997): 178; James Fredal, ‘The Language of Delivery and the Presentation of Character: Rhetorical Action in Demosthenes’ Against Meidias’, Rhetorical Review 20, no. 3/4 (2001): 258. 39.  Lionel Pearson, The Art of Demosthenes (Meisenheim am Glan: Anton Haig, 1976), 61. 40.  Werner Jaeger, Demosthenes der Staatsmann und Sein Werden (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963), 145. 41.  Ian Worthington, Demosthenes of Athens and the Fall of Classical Greece (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 147. See also, Christiane SourvinouInwood, Tragedy and Athenian Religion (Oxford: Lexington, 2003), 70. 42.  Jaeger, Demosthenes der Staatsmann und Sein Werden, 145. 43.  Worthington, Demosthenes of Athens and the Fall of Classical Greece, 147. 44.  For further analysis on this argument, see Edward M. Harris, ‘Demosthenes’ Speech Against Meidias’, HSCP 92 (1989): 117–36. There is also a suggestion that this speech is less polished than Demosthenes’ other speeches. See Arnold D. Schäfer, Demosthenes und seine Zeit (Leipzig: Beilagen, 1858), 58–63. 45.  See Douglas MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 246.

54

Jude on the Attack

(a) An Excerpt and Its Structure. The chosen extract, Against Meidias 16–21, conveys what took place at Dionysia between Demosthenes and Meidias. Here, Demosthenes presents his evidence and urges the jury to pass judgement:46 [16] His conduct, which I am now going to describe, passes all limits; and indeed I should never have ventured to arraign him today, had I not previously secured his immediate conviction in the Assembly. The sacred apparel – for all apparel provided for use at a festival I regard as being sacred until after it has been used – and the golden crowns, which I ordered for the decoration of the chorus, he plotted to destroy, men of Athens, by a nocturnal raid on the premises of my goldsmith. And he did destroy them, though not completely, for that was beyond his power. And no one can say that he ever yet heard of anyone daring or perpetrating such an outrage in this city. [17] But not content with this, men of Athens, he actually corrupted the trainer of my chorus; and if Telephanes, the flute-player, had not proved the staunchest friend to me, if he had not seen through the fellow’s game and sent him about his business, if he had not felt it his duty to train the chorus and weld them into shape himself, we could not have taken part in the competition, Athenians; the chorus would have come in untrained and we should have been covered with ignominy. Nor did his insolence stop even there. It was so unrestrained that he bribed the crowned Archon himself; he banded the choristers against me; he bawled and threatened, standing beside the umpires as they took the oath, he blocked the gangways from the wings, nailing up those public thoroughfares without public authority; he never ceased to cause me untold damage and annoyance. [18] Of those outrages which were committed in public or before the umpires in the theatre, you are yourselves my witnesses, all of you, gentlemen of the jury. And surely the statements on which most reliance should be placed are those of which the jury can themselves attest the truth. So after he had already corrupted the umpires in the men’s contest, he put the cap, as it were, on all his previous acts of wantonness by two outrages: he assaulted my person, and he was chiefly responsible for preventing my tribe, which was winning, from gaining the prize. [19] These were the crimes and brutalities which Meidias committed in connection with the festival against my fellow-tribesmen and myself. It was for these, men of Athens, that I lodged my public plaint; and there are many besides, of which I will describe to you immediately as many as I can. But I have to tell of many other acts of unmitigated rascality and insolence, directed against many of yourselves, and many daring crimes of this blackguard. 46.  Demosthenes demands the death penalty on four occasions in this text (see Dem., Meid. 21, 70, 118, 201).



4. The Structure of Jewish Judgement Oracles

55

[20] Some of his victims, gentlemen of the jury, suffered in silence, because they were cowed by him and his self-confidence, or by his gang of bullies, his wealth and all his other resources; others tried to obtain redress and failed; others again made terms with him, perhaps because they thought that the best policy. Those, then, who were induced to do so have obtained the satisfaction due to themselves; but of the satisfaction due to the laws, by breaking which Meidias wronged them and is wronging me now and every other citizen – of that satisfaction you are the dispensers. [21] Therefore include all the offences in one sweeping penalty, whatever you consider just. I will first, then, adduce proofs of the outrages against myself, next of those against you. After that, Athenians, I will examine all the rest of his life and will show that he deserves not one death, but a thousand. First please take and read the deposition of the goldsmith.

At the end of section 15, Demosthenes admits that his case, up until this point, has been based primarily on personal offenses (which may not have directly aroused the interest of the hearers). However, he confirms that he will now be moving into a new phase in the discourse, which ‘will excite indignation in all’ (Dem., Meid. 15). Against Meidias 16 then opens with the assertion that Meidias’ conduct (‘I am now going to describe’) has passed all limits. In announcing to the audience that he is about to tell them something important about his opponent, Demosthenes makes it clear to his hearers where the argument is headed. Such markers were used by orators to maintain the audience’s focus and attention (see C2).47 Demosthenes describes Meidias’ foul and cruel deeds (C5; Meid. 17–19), discusses the circumstances surrounding these actions (C6; Meid. 17–19), comments on the outcome of his behaviour (C3; Meid. 21), and the impact all of this has upon the hearers (C7; Meid. 20). Such components are typical of invective speech.48 There is also a noticeable progression of aggression in this portion of the discourse. Demosthenes’ argument builds in intensity as he sets forth his case. There are several key markers, which highlight this intensification. Against Meidias 17 begins with the phrase ‘but not even content with this’, indicating that even more offensive actions are yet to be relayed. Another similar phrase occurs several lines later, καὶ οὐδ’ ἐνταῦθ’ ἔστη τῆς ὕβρεως (‘nor did his insolence stop even there’), again, highlighting that greater offenses are yet to be described.

47.  In this statement, we perceive what Hermogenes describes as distinctness (Hermog., Id. 17). See Cecil W. Wooten, ‘Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Hermogenes on the Style of Demosthenes’, AJP 110, no. 4 (1989): 583–84. 48.  As noted by Cicero at a much later date (Cic., Inv. 1.53).

56

Jude on the Attack

To demonstrate one of Meidias’ pinnacle offenses (the physical striking of his person), Demosthenes uses the phrase ‘he put the cap on it’ (Dem., Meid. 18.6–7), an expression equivalent to our modern saying ‘he put the final nail in the coffin’. There is, then, a transition at section 21 with the marker οὖν (‘therefore’) used to draw this section to a close. Here, Demosthenes states that given the severity of all these offenses, along with the many other crimes Meidias has committed throughout his life, this man deserves not only one but a thousand deaths (Dem., Meid. 21.5). From these examples, we see the depiction of Meidias grow in hostility and reach an obvious climax as Demosthenes declares that this man deserves to die many times for his countless crimes.49 4.2.2.2. Ovid, Ibis (Case Study, Part 1) Publius Ovidius Naso (43 BCE–18 CE) composed Ibis along with several other texts while in Tomis, the city to which he was exiled by Emperor Augustus in 8 CE.50 In this text, Ovid curses an unnamed enemy, one pseudonymously named Ibis. It is thought that the name of this text was adapted from Callimachus’ curse poem, unfortunately now lost (see Ib. 53–58).51 Ibis can be divided into two major parts. Initially the poet utters a general curse against Ibis (Ib. 1–248, known as the prologue), and then presents a series of obscure stories adapted from mythology, history, and legend (Ib. 249–642, known as the catalogue).52 In these, Ovid explores every possible avenue of death for Ibis.53 Below I have provided an excerpt from the beginning portion of the prologue and the beginning portion of the catalogue: 49.  Corbeill, ‘Ciceronian Invective’, 213. 50.  Katharina Volk, Ovid, Blackwell Introduction to the Classical World (West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 6. 51.  Gareth Williams, ‘Ovid’s Exil Poetry: Trista, Epistulae ex Ponto and Ibis’, in The Cambridge Companion to Ovid, ed. Philip Hardie (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 243. Unfortunately, not a single line of this Hellenistic model survives, making it nearly impossible to determine to what extent this text influenced Ovid’s overall model and style (aside from the title, of course). See Martin Helzle, ‘Ibis’, in A Companion to Ovid, ed. Peter Knox, BCAW (West Sussex: Blackwell, 2009), 185. There can also be no certainty as to who this anonymous opponent represents. 52.  Volk, Ovid, 18. Williams, ‘Ovid’s Exil Poetry’, 233, offers a slightly different division breaking the text from 1–250 and 251–638. 53.  Speared like Telegonus (Ovid, Ib. 567–68), throttled like Anticlus in the Trojan horse (Ib. 569–70), crushed to death like the philosopher Anaxarchus (Ib. 571–72). See Williams, ‘Ovid’s Exil Poetry’, 243.



4. The Structure of Jewish Judgement Oracles

57

Until now, now that I’ve reached my fifties, all my Muse’s poetry has been harmless: and no letter of Ovid’s exists, of the thousands written, that can be interpreted as hostile: and my books have hurt no one but myself: the author’s own life was ruined by his ‘Art’. One person alone (and this itself is a great wrong) won’t grant me the title of an honest man. Whoever it is (for I’ll be silent still as yet about his name) he forces my novice hand to take up weapons. He won’t let me, a man banished to the frozen source of the north wind, hide myself away in exile: and he, inexorably, disturbs the wound of a man seeking peace, bandies my name about the forum: won’t let the companion of my marriage bed mourn the ruin of her living husband, without troubling her, and while I cling to the shattered fragments of my boat, he fights for the planks from my shipwreck: this robber, who ought to quench the sudden flame, looks for plunder here in the middle of the fire. He works so there might be no succour for an aged fugitive: ah, how much more he himself deserves my misfortune! (Ovid, Ib. 1–22) So that you may not be tortured without the examples of an earlier age, may your misfortunes be no lighter than the Trojans’, and may you endure just as many wounds in your envenomed leg as Poeas’s son, the heir of club bearing Hercules, endured. Nor may you be more lightly pained than he who drank at the hind’s udder and endured the armed man’s wound, the unarmed man’s aid; and he who fell headlong from his horse into the Aleïan fields, whose face was nearly the cause of his destruction. May you see just what Amyntor’s son saw, and may you fumble at your trembling journey with a staff to guide you, deprived of sight; and may you see no more than he who was guided by his daughter, each of whose parents experienced his iniquity. May you be such as he was, after he was appointed judge over the playful debate, the old man famed for his Apolline art; and such as he was, at whose instruction a dove was used as forerunner and leader for Pallas’s ship; and he who lacked the eyes through which he had evilly seen the gold and which the bereft parent gave as a funeral sacrifice to her son; like the shepherd of Aetna, to whom Telemus the son of Eurymus had previously prophesied his future misfortunes; like the two sons of Phineus, from whom the same man took away the light as gave it; like the head of Thamyras and Demodocus. Thus may someone slice off your piece, as Saturn cut off those parts whence he had been created. And may there be no kindlier Neptune for you in the swollen waves than there was for him whose brother and wife were suddenly birds, and also for the crafty man, on whom Semele’s sister took pity as he held onto the shattered pieces of his raft. (Ovid, Ib. 251–75)

Even while analysing this small section of Ibis, it can be seen that there is a significant difference in tone between the opening portion of text and the beginning of the catalogue. Ovid begins with a personal defence, ‘He forces my novice hand to take up weapons’ (Ib. 10). He uses this opening to make known his innocence and to show that he is merely responding to

58

Jude on the Attack

the attacks of his opponent who has continuously hounded him. The text appears to begin in a modest and authentic manner, with a man pleading for justice. But this humble beginning quickly develops to become an ‘epic performance’.54 Williams explains that the material found in Ib. 1–250 is ‘a mere prelude for much worse to come!’55 Even though Ovid begins this piece in a rather placid manner, as the discourse progresses there is an almost dream-like nature to the text as Ovid explores more and more colourful ways in which his opponent could be punished. This rise in intensity is unmissable. As Ovid heaps insult upon insult and punishment upon punishment, the momentum grows. This progression is noticeable as Ovid announces that he will hate his opponent beyond death, as he is eaten by wolves, dwells in the Underworld, and suffers ‘endless forms of mutilation, torture, and death’.56 Ovid’s relatively placid beginning quickly accelerates as the discourse moves through a list of punishments, each one slightly more serious than the last. There is an overwhelmingly persuasive quality to Ovid’s discourse, which resembles the features later outlined by Libanius. Ovid begins by praising himself (L1; Ib. 1–6), then states his motive for writing and discusses the circumstances surrounding his rationale (L3; Ib. 9–22), before elaborating on this charge using contrasts (L4; Ib. 22–36), comparisons (L5; Ib. 546–596), relevant examples from history (L6; Ib. 251–636), and ancient authorities (L7; Ib. 137). Structurally, Ovid juxtaposes his own innocence with the guilt of Ibis and uses much of the discourse to construct a case which suppresses his opponent with an extravagant tirade of punishments. 4.3. The Structure of the Epistle of Jude In vv. 3–4 of Jude there is a sudden shift of mood in the discourse. A text that at first appears to be an encouragement to the believers becomes a fierce polemic against the ungodly. Questions are raised early on concerning Jude’s structural strategy. Several suggestions have been put forward regarding the structure of Jude and its literary units. Indeed, Jude’s structural composition forms a major portion of the current work done on the epistle. NA28 has 54.  Gareth Williams, The Curse of Exile: A Study of Ovid’s Ibis (Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 1996), 91. See also Darcy Krasne, ‘The Pedant’s Curse: Obscurity and Identity in Ovid’s Ibis’, Dictynna 9 (2012): 3. 55.  Williams, ‘Ovid’s Exil Poetry’, 243. 56.  Helzle, ‘Ibis’, 184.



4. The Structure of Jewish Judgement Oracles

59

segmented the Greek text into seven parts: 1–2, 3–4, 5–7, 8–13, 14–16, 17–23, and 24–25. The NRSV, NASB, and ESV translators follow this same breakdown. The NKJV has several extra divisions: 1–2, 3–4, 5–7, 8–11, 12–13, 14–16, 17–19, 20–21, 22–23, 24–25,57 while the NIV isolates v. 11 as its own sub-unit. Commentators offer a variety of readings and are generally divided on where to break up the main body of the text (vv. 3–23). Watson breaks up the letter into the quasiexordium (vv. 1–2), exordium (v. 3), narratio (v. 4), probatio (vv. 5–16), peroratio (vv. 17–23), and quasi-peroratio (vv. 24–25).58 Schreiner and Davids offer a structure of three divisions: vv. 3–4, 5–16, 17–23.59 Bauckham, on the other hand, believes that Jude used Jewish midrash as a literary device and keeps vv. 5–19 as one main unit, not breaking until v. 20. Bauckham does not view the first ὑμεῖς δὲ ἀγαπητοί of v. 17 as the beginning of a new section.60 Osburn’s chiastic structure is different

57.  The NLT follows a similar pattern to the NKJV but indents v. 16 as its own sub-unit. 58.  Watson, Invention, Arrangement and Style, 77–78. Wolthuis holds a similar view, though he believes Jude had no formal training in Greek rhetoric and applied the formation due to its natural fit. See Thomas R. Wolthuis, ‘A Dialogue on the Rhetorical Nature of the Epistle of Jude’, CTJ 22 (1987): 132–33. 59.  Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 23; Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 426. Those in favour of this position include: Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, 232; Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 23 (with a variation); J. D. Turner, Jude: A Structural Commentary (New York: Edwin Mellen, 1996), 26–27; Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity, 13–15; Paulsen, Der zweite Petrudbrief und der Judasbrief, 78; Thurén, ‘The General New Testament Writings’, 604. Charles, Literary Strategy in the Epistle of Jude, 31, also seems to see a change in direction at v. 17. 60.  Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 4. See also David R. Helm, 1 and 2 Peter and Jude: Sharing Christ’s Sufferings, Preaching the Word (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 315. Wendland writes, ‘For Bauckham [v. 17] begins the last and the climactic in the series of biblical proof passages’; see Wendland, ‘A Comparative Study of “Rhetorical Criticism”, Ancient and Modern’, 208. Those following Bauckham include: Charles and Waltner, 1–2 Peter, Jude, 275–76; Green, Jude and 2 Peter, 42; Wendland, ‘A Comparative Study of “Rhetorical Criticism”, Ancient and Modern’, 207; Earl J. Richard, Reading 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter: A Literary and Theological Commentary, Reading the New Testament 12 (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2000), 256; Richard C. Lucas and Christopher Green, The Message of 2 Peter and Jude, Bible Speaks Today (Leicester: IVP Academic, 1995), 213; Frey, Der Brief des Judas und der zweite Brief des Petrus, 16–17. Watson builds upon the work of Kennedy (Classical Rhetoric) and Bauckham’s understanding of Jude’s midrash is indebted to the work of Ellis (Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity).

60

Jude on the Attack

again, suggesting that the body of the letter maintains five divisions: vv. 3–4, 5–7, 8–16, 17–19, and 20–23.61 Each interpretation varies again when considering the smaller divisions within the main literary units. Interestingly, none of these outlines precisely follows the pattern of NA28 or the various English translations, highlighting the difficulty in finding the subdivisions of this letter. The structure presented in this work (Table 2) does not solve all of these tensions, but rather offers an alternate reading by focusing on the many pivotal ‘discourse markers’.62 This analysis divides Jude into eight literary units (vv. 1–2, 3–4, 5–10, 11–13, 14–16, 17–19, 20–23, and 24–25, along with one overarching unit from vv. 4–15). The structure will first be demonstrated by mapping the flow of the text (Table 2), a technique used to show how the letter fits together (i.e. what is in focus, what is supportive, and where new thoughts begin).63 Each literary unit will then be examined in more detail, showing how these form new units and what purpose they bear within the discourse. Table 2. Mapping the Flow of Jude 1. ’Ιούδας [Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος, ἀδελφὸς δὲ Ἰακώβου], τοῖς [ἐν θεῷ πατρὶ ἠγαπημένοις καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ τετηρημένοις] κλητοῖς 2. ἔλεος ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ ἀγάπη πληθυνθείη 3. ► Ἀγαπητοί [πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμενος γράφειν ὑμῖν περὶ τῆς κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας] ἀνάγκην ἔσχον γράψαι ὑμῖν παρακαλῶν ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι τῇ [ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις] πίστει. 4. Παρεισέδυσαν γάρ τινες ἄνθρωποι [οἱ πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα] [ἀσεβεῖς] [τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν χάριτα μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν] [τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι] 5. ► Ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, [εἰδότας ὑμᾶς πάντα] ὅτι ὁ κύριος ἅπαξ λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν

61.  Osburn, ‘Discourse Analysis and Jewish Apocalyptic in the Epistle of Jude’, 309. 62.  Johannes P. Louw, ‘A Discourse Reading of Ephesians 1.3–14’, in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jeffery T. Reed (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 311. 63.  Ibid., 308.



4. The Structure of Jewish Judgement Oracles

61

6. ἀγγέλους τε τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχὴν [ἀλλὰ ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήπιον] [εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον] τετήρηκεν 7. ὡς Σόδομα καὶ Γόμορρα καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις [τὸν ὅμοιον τρόμον τούτοις ἐκπονεύσασαι] [καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας] πρόκεινται δεῖγμα πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκην ὑπέχουσαι 8. Ὁμοίως μέντοι καὶ οὗτοι ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι σάρκα μὲν μιαίνουσιν κυριότητα δὲ ἀθετοῦσιν δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν 9. ὁ δὲ Μιχαὴλ ὁ ἀρχάγγελος, [ὅτε τῷ διαβόλῳ διακρινόμενος διελέγετο περὶ τοῦ Μωϋσέως σώματος,] οὐκ ἐτόλμησεν κρίσιν ἐπενεγκεῖν βλασφημίας ἀλλὰ εἶπεν, Ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι κύριος 10. οὗτοι δὲ ὅσα μὲν οὐκ οἴδασιν βλασφημοῦσιν ὅσα δὲ φυσικῶς ὡς τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα ἐπίστανται ἐν τούτοις φθείρονται 11. ► οὐαι αὐτοῖς, ὅτι τῇ ὁδῷ τοῦ Κάϊν ἐπορεύθησαν καὶ τῇ πλάνῃ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ μισθοῦ ἐκεχύθησαν καὶ τῇ ἀντιλογίᾳ τοῦ Κόρε ἀπώλοντο 12. οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν σπιλάδες συνευωχούμενοι ἀφόβως ἑαυτοὺς ποιμαίνοντες νεφέλαι ἄνυδροι ὑπο ἀνέμων παραφερόμεναι δένδρα φθινοπωρινὰ ἄκαρπα δὶς ἀποθανόντα ἐκριζωθέντα 13. κύματα ἄγρια θαλάσσης ἐπαφριζοντα τὰς ἑαυτῶν αἰσχύνας ἀστέρες πλανῆται οἷς ὁ ζόφος τοῦ σκότους εἰς αἰῶνα τετήρηται 14. ► Προεφήτευσεν δὲ καὶ τούτοις ἓβδομος ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ Ἑνὼχ λέγων, Ἰδοὺ ἦλθεν κύριος ἐν ἁγίαις μυριάσιν αὐτοῦ 15. ποιῆσαι κρίσιν κατὰ πάντων καὶ ἐλέγξαι πᾶσαν ψυχὴν περὶ πάντων τῶν ἔργων ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν ὧν ἠσέβησαν καὶ περὶ πάντων τῶν σκληρῶν ὧν ἐλάλησαν κατ’ αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς 16. οὗτοί εἰσιν γογγυσταὶ μεμψίμοιροι κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας ἑαυτῶν πορευόμενοι, καὶ τὸ στόμα αὐτῶν λαλεῖ ὑπέροκα, θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα ὠφελείας χάριν 17. ► Ὑμεῖς δὲ, ἀγαπητοι, μνήσθητε τῶν ῥημάτων τῶν προειρημένων ὑπο τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ 18. [ὅτι ἔλεγον ὑμῖν] ὅτι ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου [τοῦ] χρόνου ἔσονται ἐμπαίκται κατὰ τὰς ἑαυτῶν ἐπιθυμίας πορευόμενοι τῶν ἀσεβειῶν

62

Jude on the Attack

19. οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες, ψυχικοί, πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες 20. ► ὑμεῖς δὲ, ἀγαπητοι, [ἐποικοδομοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ ὑμῶν πίστει] [ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ προσευχόμενοι] 21. ἑαυτοὺς ἐν ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ τηρήσατε προσδεχόμενοι τὸ ἔλεος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον 22. καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλεᾶτε διακρινομένους 23. δὲ σῷζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ μισοῦντες καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένον χιτῶνα 24. ► Τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ φυλάξαι ὑμᾶς ἀπταίστους καὶ στῆσαι κατενώπιον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ ἀμώμους ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει μόνῳ θεῷ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν 25. δόξα μεγαλωσύνη κράτος καὶ ἐξουσία πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ νῦν εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.

4.3.1. Exploring the Units of Jude Table 2 shows the way the discourse moves from thought to thought, highlighting which aspects are connected, contrasted, focal, and supportive. It also indicates where a new thought begins and how such thoughts frame and create individual units. The specific purpose of each unit is as follows: 1. Greeting: vv. 1–2 2. Purpose: vv. 3–4 Inclusio (vv. 4–15) 3. Comparisons and past examples: vv. 5–10 4. Reproof: vv. 11–13 5. Enoch’s prophecy: vv. 14–16 6. Prophetic reminder: vv. 17–19 7. Instructions to the beloved: vv. 20–23 8. Doxology: vv. 24–25

These eight units will now be explored in greater detail. 4.3.1.1. Jude 1–2 (Greeting) In a typical Hellenistic salutation one would expect a simple ‘A to B greeting’ as found in Seneca to Lucilius (ca. 62–64 CE), Ammonius to Apollonius (ca. 100 CE), or Apollonius to Dioscurides (ca. 200 CE), perhaps with the occasional addition ‘and good health’ as found in Heraklas to Horos and Tachonis (14–27 CE) and Chairas to Dionysius



4. The Structure of Jewish Judgement Oracles

63

(58 CE).64 However, like Paul in Rom. 1.7, Jude ‘preserves one of the characteristics peculiar to Semitic letter writing when he adds a wish for peace to his greeting’: ἔλεος ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ ἀγάπη πληθυνθείη.65 This construction approximates a health wish, carrying the sense of an optative of wish. It has been suggested that this is a distinctively ‘Christian formula’, stemming from the Greek greeting χαίρειν and the Jewish peace-greeting.66 It has been suggested by Doering that Jude may be using what he describes as the ‘Danielic greeting’ (εἰρήνη ὑμῖν πληθυνθείη), as seen in Dan. 4.1 and Dan. 6.25.67 However, unlike these Danielic passages, Jude not only wishes for peace to be multiplied, but mercy and love also. The pleasant opening is in line with what Libanius later describes as praise (L1). Watson categorizes this opening as the quasi-exordium, and draws a clear parallel between Jude’s epistle and both deliberative and epideictic discourse.68 Joubert describes Jude’s approach here as a ‘positive/negative presentation’ strategy.69 The called ones (v. 2) are presented in a positive manner while the ungodly (v. 4) are disobedient and rebellious (vv. 4–15). It is this transition from positive to negative that is particularly intriguing. In this opening, several key ideas are announced, which recur later in the text (vv. 20–23) and provide thematic consistency to Jude’s overall message.70 4.3.1.2. Jude 3–4 (Purpose) In v. 3, Jude transitions from the optative (πληθυνθείη) to the vocative (Ἀγαπητοί), a transition which calls for the attention of the audience and marks the beginning of a new thought.71 The phrase πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμενος γράφειν ὑμῖν supports the main clause ἀνάγκην ἔσχον γράψαι ὑμῖν, together setting up the primary idea ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι…τῇ πίστει. This is the central theme of the letter and something which Jude divulges early 64.  For the details of these letters, see Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. 65.  Ibid., 21. See also 2 Bar. 78.2 66.  Murray J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon, EGGNT (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 9. 67.  See Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters, 115, 479. 68.  Watson, Invention, Arrangement and Style, 32–33. 69.  Joubert, ‘Persuasion in the Letter of Jude’, 79–80. 70.  Painter and deSilva, James and Jude, 191–93; Otto Knoch, Der erste und zweite Petrusbrief: Der Judasbrief, RNT (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1990), 170; Paulsen, Der zweite Petrudbrief und der Judasbrief, 53. 71.  The shift in vv. 3–4 (as well as in vv. 17 and 20) is highlighted by the word ‘beloved’, which functions ‘as a discourse marker to highlight transition to new material’; see Osburn, ‘Discourse Analysis and Jewish Apocalyptic’, 288.

64

Jude on the Attack

on. Γάρ (v. 4), then, is a logical conjunction, pointing back to the previous main clause ἀνάγκην ἔσχον γράψαι ὑμῖν (offering the reason why Jude felt compelled to write to his audience) while also emphasizing the importance of what is to follow (perhaps being translated ‘for indeed’).72 This is in line with Libanius’ (L2), paraphrase of the saying (maxim or thesis statement). As the discourse progresses from vv. 3–4, Jude uses the majorityminority technique, another stylistic pattern found in Greco-Roman invective designed to divide a ‘group into some leaders fully responsible for cheating the rest, and the rest as innocent victims’.73 In invective, it was important for the orator to affiliate himself with the majority of the crowd in order to get them on side and convince them to disassociate from the immoral minority.74 Jude achieves this in several ways. First, he establishes credibility by giving the appearance of good character (Arist., Rhet. 2.1.25) and describing himself as a servant of Jesus Christ, the brother of James, and a partaker of the common salvation (vv. 1–3).75 Second, he undermines the credibility of the opposing party, arousing suspicion and prejudice against them (Rhet. 3.14.6–7; 3.19.1; Rhet. Alex. 1436a.33–37). As was suggested previously (see §2.1), in praise and blame it was important for the writer to associate himself with the majority so as to discredit the adversaries in a successful manner.76 Jude makes his association with the beloved clear in v. 3 with the phrase κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας (‘our common salvation’). Here, Jude uses the inclusive first person plural ἡμεῖς (‘our’) and the adjective κοινῆς (‘common’) to describe their mutual salvation. This pattern continues in v. 4, where Jude not only partners with the beloved on two more occasions, but also creates contrast between the beloved and the ungodly: τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν χάριτα μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν (‘the grace of our God they have changed into licentiousness’) and τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι (‘our only master and lord Jesus Christ they have denied’). As Joubert suggests, Jude and the addressees form ‘a distinct group because of their religious commitment…to God and Christ’.77 This is what

72.  See Rom. 8.18, 22, 24 73.  Jehne, ‘Blaming the People in Front of the People’, 113–14. 74.  Ibid., 119. See ps.-Sal., Cic. 1.1 75.  Painter and deSilva, James and Jude, 190–91. 76.  Ibid., 191. 77.  Stephan J. Joubert, ‘Language, Ideology and the Social Context of the Letter of Jude’, Neot 24 (1990): 340.



4. The Structure of Jewish Judgement Oracles

65

Joubert describes as the positive/negative strategy,78 and du Toit refers to as the speaker presenting ‘his own person as acceptable to the audience’ and pointing out ‘identifying markers to stress common ground, that is to affirm that they belong to the same in-group’.79 The idea is to imply that the speaker shares the same values and goals as the majority.80 Jude not only achieves this in the opening verses but all throughout the letter by dividing the subjects into two parties, ἀγαπητοί (‘the beloved’, vv. 3, 17, 20) and οὗτοι (‘these ones’, or the others, vv. 8, 10, 11, 12, 16, 19).81 He takes this idea further still using metaphors such as the opponents being ‘hidden reefs’ fellowshipping within the community (v. 12). It was commonly believed that a leader should ‘contemplate the common good of those under his authority’ (Pol. 1279a.4–8), but instead these leaders are causing division (v. 19). (a) Meta-Unit: Jude 4–15 (Inclusio). Verses 4–15 (although containing individual units) together consist of a major structural contribution to the epistle of Jude.82 These verses function as an inclusio whereby Jude gradually builds a case against the ungodly replete with historical examples, contemporary charges, and a prophetic pronouncement of judgement. Besides warning the beloved of the fate of the ungodly, it also allows Jude to speak indirectly to the opponents, making sure that they understand that judgement is coming. Before examining the units within the inclusio, we will look at the inclusio itself. It will be worth considering this section as a whole due to its importance in Jude’s overall argument.83 78.  Joubert, ‘Persuasion in the Letter of Jude’, 79–80. 79.  A. B. du Toit, ‘Alienation and Re-Identification as Pragmatic Strategies in Galatians’, Neot 26, no. 2 (1992): 282–83. 80.  This is described as ‘positive-politeness’ in Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson, Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, Studies in International Sociolinguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 103. 81.  J. Daryl Charles, ‘ “Those” and “These”: The Use of the Old Testament in the Epistle of Jude’, JSNT 38 (1990): 109. 82.  It should be noted that while vv. 4–15 can be examined as an inclusio this does not mean that there are not smaller sub-units within this larger unit that overlap each other. Other verses, such as vv. 2–21, can also be taken as a larger inclusio (with the paralleled use of the word ἔλεος). To clarify, the identification of this inclusio does not discount the other sub-units of the letter. Where meta-narrative is concerned, it is common for there to be blurred boundaries between structural units. This is why v. 4 can be part of the inclusio but also be treated as part of the purpose (vv. 3–4) and why v. 16 is excluded from the inclusio but is seen as part of vv. 14–16. 83.  Note that the following section on Jude’s inclusio has been adapted from my publication, Alexandra M. Robinson, ‘The Enoch Inclusio in Jude: A New Structural

66

Jude on the Attack

Inclusio, also known as an ‘envelope effect’, is a literary device where the opening idea of a passage is repeated at the end.84 Often the first and last lines of a literary unit are paralleled (either by word, phrase, or theme). Kalimi shows an extensive use of inclusio in Chronicles and 1 Kings, where first and last lines are paralleled.85 Stronstad and Bartelt provide examples of larger and more general (thematic) use of inclusio in Luke and Isaiah respectively.86 Breck makes this important observation about the bracket effect of an inclusio: The tendency is not merely to repeat or reflect in A′ what was already stated in A. Rather, inclusion incorporates an element of intensification from A to A′, such that the conclusion is ‘more than’ the beginning: it rounds out or fulfils the major theme(s) of the passage as a whole… Inclusion, then, is not merely a practical device used to facilitate the telling or reading of an element of tradition. It serves to complete that tradition as well as to frame it. Accordingly, analysis of the movement from the first to the second element of an inclusion (from A to A′) is essential for discerning the meaning of the entire passage.87

The use of an inclusio signifies that v. 4 to vv. 14–15 is a literary unit where the inescapable judgement of the Lord is made clear, in Jude’s case against the ungodly. The structure of Jude’s epistle has been the subject of many previous studies. Watson’s suggestion of a Hellenistic rhetoric structure, and Bauckham’s suggestion of a Jewish midrashic structure, while well argued, both apply a rhetorical grid to the text derived from a system of education of which Jude may be unaware.88 Wendland’s chiastic structure, Possibility’, JGRChJ 9, no. 7 (2013): 196–212. I would also like to acknowledge the help of Jonathan Robinson in solidifying this point. 84.  John Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study (London: Westminster John Knox, 1984), 202. 85.  Isaac Kalimi, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 295, writes that inclusio was ‘one of the most prominent literary devices of the Chronicler’. 86.  Roger Stronstad, The Prophethood of All Believers: A Study in Luke’s Charismatic Theology (London: Sheffield Academic, 2003), 16; Andrew H. Bartelt, The Book Around Immanuel: Style and Structure in Isaiah 2–12, BJS 4 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 241–42. 87.  John Breck, The Shape of Biblical Language: Chiasmus in the Scriptures and Beyond (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary, 1994), 33. 88.  Watson, Invention, Arrangement and Style, 43; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter. See also Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity, 231.



4. The Structure of Jewish Judgement Oracles

67

while noted for its impressive symmetry, presumes that Jude composed his letter paralleling each line with another, from beginning to end.89 This assumes a great deal of planning and discipline on Jude’s part. The current approach (though not incompatible with the above suggestions) is more inductive, using the clear authority and influence of 1 Enoch as a starting point for analysing Jude’s structure.90 It is worth noting that although these verses display an envelope effect, Jude may not have written the letter with this explicit literary device in mind.91 Thus, the term will be used in this book while acknowledging that it is merely a modern way of describing the structure of vv. 4–15. Here I suggest that v. 4 and vv. 14–15 function as an inclusio, given that several words and themes are paralleled in both verses. Jude begins by referring to a coming judgement in v. 4 and pronounces that judgement in vv. 14–15. The second bracket in vv. 14–15 is not merely a repetition, but an intensification and a culmination of ideas first mentioned in v. 4. Jude’s inclusio can be understood as a case against the ungodly opponents complete with a charge (v. 4), evidence (vv. 5–13), and a climactic prophetic pronouncement from 1 Enoch (vv. 14–15). Jude opens his letter with a greeting addressing the beloved (vv. 1–2) and in v. 3 urges them to contend for the faith. The reason for this is given in v. 4, widely understood as a summary of what will be presented in the subsequent verses.92 After the initial charge has been made, Jude begins to expound upon it.93 The momentum of the letter leads up to the Enoch citation in vv. 14–15 quite naturally. After the charge (v. 4), examples from history (unbelieving Israel, disobedient angels, and Sodom and Gomorrah) are then presented and likened to the ungodly of Jude’s day (vv. 5–8). Essentially, Jude is 89.  Wendland, ‘A Comparative Study of ‘Rhetorical Criticism’, 212. 90.  As noted by deSilva, deSilva, The Jewish Teachers of Jesus, James and Jude, 107, ‘The Book of Watchers has left a clear imprint on Jude’s construction of sacred history and cosmology’. 91.  Davids recognizes another possible inclusio with vv. 1 and 21 that may further suggest Jude’s use of this technique; see Davids, 2 Peter and Jude: A Handbook, 2. 92.  Watson, Invention, Arrangement and Style, 43; Charles, Literary Strategy, 40; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 40; Reese, Writing Jude, 23; Richard, Reading 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter, 255; Harrington, 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter, 181; Kistemaker, Peter and Jude, 397; Davids, 2 Peter and Jude: A Handbook, 6; D. Rudolf Knopf, Die Briefe Petri und Juda (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1912), 235. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 64, calls it ‘a topic sentence’. 93.  Watson, Invention, Arrangement and Style, 48–50. See also Charles, ‘Polemic and Persuasion’, 98.

68

Jude on the Attack

displaying the ways in which his opponents have gone off course and violated God’s natural order just as the Old Testament types did before them. As the opponents rely on their own dreams and visions they, in turn, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme God’s glory (a reiteration of the charge).94 A contrasting example is provided after this to show the failings of the ungodly ones (vv. 9–10) as opposed to the ‘moral superiority’ of Michael (v. 9).95 The evidence in vv. 5–10 makes two things clear to the opponents: (i) they are exactly like these Old Testament types (vv. 5–8); (ii) they are nothing like the holy servant Michael (vv. 9–10). Verses 11–13 denounce the opponents themselves with a series of impressive metaphors. The prophecy enters directly after this, the climax of the argument sealing the fate of the ungodly. The following six observations serve to show how these verses, with paralleled words and themes, might be perceived as the first and second brackets of Jude’s inclusio: (1) Verse 4 encompasses the phrase, οἱ πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι, referring to the people written about in the past, ones reserved for judgement. Verse 14 then opens with the word προεφήτευσεν, introducing a prophecy spoken in the past regarding the judgement of a rebellious people. This prophecy was attributed to Enoch ἓβδομος ἀπὸ ἀδάμ, an ancient figure. Jude’s use of προεφήτευσεν and the mention of Enoch, the seventh from Adam (an antediluvian figure), indicate that these prophetic statements were written in the past and unite the two verses. (2) In v. 4 the demonstrative pronoun τοῦτο (referring to ‘this judgement’) does not clearly have an antecedent as there is no mention of κρίμα prior to this. Thus, τοῦτο must point forward. Although BDF §290 suggests that this happens rarely, Runge disagrees, citing 1 Jn 4.9–10, 1 Jn 4.21, and Mt. 6.9 as examples. By using the demonstrative in this manner Jude attracts ‘extra attention to a target’, that being the judgement spoken of in vv. 14–15.96 The inclusio begins by alerting Jude’s audience to ‘this’ judgement; later identified in vv. 14–15 as the judgement prophesied by 94.  See 1 En. 99.6–8. 95.  Charles, ‘Polemic and Persuasion’, 99. Bauckham has compiled helpful evidence suggesting that Jude’s source for this story is indeed the Testament of Moses (Jude, 2 Peter, 67–76). J. Priest, ‘Testament of Moses’, in OTP 1:924, writes: ‘That the episode was contained in the lost ending to the Testament of Moses or in a cognate work, properly called the Assumption of Moses, is possible; but our present information does not warrant any positive conclusion’. 96.  Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 62. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 318, writes that the noun in this case is ‘postcedent’ and the pronoun is ‘proleptic’.



4. The Structure of Jewish Judgement Oracles

69

Enoch. This opening bracket of the inclusio, with its comment upon the crimes of the opponents, is in line with Libanius’ discussion of rationale (L3) and Cicero’s description of foul deeds (C5). (3) In v. 4 the ungodly are accused of denying the Lord (τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι). In v. 14, Jude modifies the Greek text of 1 En. 1.9, where God is the implied subject of ἔρχεται. Instead, Jude supplies κύριος as the subject of this prophecy, strengthening the link between the crime of rejecting the Lord in v. 4 and its punishment delivered by the Lord in vv. 14–15: Ἰδοὺ ἦλθεν κύριος ἐν ἁγίαις μυριάσιν αὐτοῦ, ποιῆσαι κρίσιν. Interestingly, the word κύριος is found throughout the inclusio in v. 5 and v. 9, intensifying the Lord’s role in judgement and unifying this literary unit.97 (4) An obvious connection is the use of the word ἀσέβεια in both v. 4 and v. 15. Inside the inclusio, the word is used once in v. 4 and three times in v. 15. This may be Jude’s way of intensifying that which was first mentioned in v. 4, a common practice in inclusio. Although the word is seen again in v. 18 (outside the inclusio), in this instance Jude is specifically directing his warning to the beloved, while v. 4 and v. 15 are both in reference to the judgement of the ungodly. In v. 4 it is made clear that these forms of ἀσέβεια are reserved for condemnation. Verse 15 pronounces this condemnation, revealing how it will take place and clearly connecting the ἀσέβεια in both instances. (5) The opponents in v. 4 are charged with perverting God’s grace (τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν χάριτα μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν) and denying Jesus (καὶ τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι). They are essentially being called to account for all their ungodly deeds and speech. In v. 15, the opponents are judged for all their deeds of ungodliness (πάντων τῶν ἔργων ἀσεβείς αὐτῶν) as well as for their ungodly talk (ὧν ἠσέβησαν ὧν ἐλάλησαν). Regardless of how one interprets these charges theologically, Jude shows a clear correlation between the initial crime and the reason for judgement. Both words and deeds will be judged.98

97.  See §2.3 for a discussion on the κύριος variant of v. 5. 98.  Interestingly, Jude’s use of μετατιθέντες in v. 4 is an unusual choice and may be an allusion to Gen. 5.24, where the LXX reads καὶ εὐηρέστησεν Ενωχ τῷ θεῷ καὶ οὐκ ηὑρίσκετο, ὅτι μετέθηκεν αὐτὸν ὁ θεός. One may have expected Jude to employ ἀλλάσσω or μετασχηματίζω to express the changing or altering of God’s grace, yet he selects μετατίθημι, ‘to put in another place’ (BAGD, s.v. μετατίθημι, 642). The writer of Hebrews also uses this word when referring to Enoch being taken up to heaven (Heb. 11.5). This is not to suggest that Jude was drawing upon Hebrews but rather to show the correlation between the word μετατίθημι and the figure of Enoch,

70

Jude on the Attack

(6) Finally, a strong indicator that v. 4 and vv. 14–15 act as an inclusio is that both verses depend on 1 Enoch, drawing upon words, phrases, and themes found in 1 En. 1–36. Through literary parallels and the phrase προεφήτευσεν δὲ καὶ τούτοις ἓβδομος ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ Ἑνὼχ λέγων in Jude 14, it is evident that Jude is explicitly citing 1 En. 1.9. However, there are four other allusions to this source in the opening bracket of the inclusio, some of which have already been touched on. In the first of these allusions Jude points his listeners to a time ‘long ago’ (πάλαι), when these ‘certain persons’ (τινες ἄνθρωποι) were ‘written about beforehand’ (προγεγραμμένοι) and likely predicted.99 It is probable that Jude’s audience (opponents included) may, now, have recalled the first chapter of 1 Enoch, which records a vision οὐκ εἰς τὴν νῦν γενεὰν διενούμην ἀλλὰ ἐπὶ πόρρω οὖσαν ἐγὼ λαλῶ (‘not for this current generation, but for one to come’, 1 En. 1.2 [author’s translation]).100 Secondly, Jude describes these ‘certain persons’ as ἀσεβείς, a key term for both Jude and 1 Enoch.101 1 Enoch frequently discusses the ungodly (1 En. 1.9; 2.1; 6.9; 22.13; 61.4, 15; 92.15; 93.11; 95.3; 103.11),102 and in Jude the word and its cognates appear three times in the inclusio and two times outside of it (vv. 4, 18). Thirdly, these ungodly persons have ‘changed’ God’s grace into ἀσέλγειαν, ‘debauchery’ or ‘licentiousness’, perverting divine goodness into an opportunity to satisfy themselves (BAGD, s.v. ἀσέλγειαν, 141,

of whom Jude specifically makes mention of in v. 14. Thus, the word μετατίθημι in v. 4 further hints at the coming reference to the figure of Enoch (the seventh from Adam). 99.  The word προγεγραμμένοι is a compound word, combining πρό, which, when understood in a temporal sense, means ‘before’, and γεγραμμένοι, meaning ‘having been written’. See M. R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, 2 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1911), 1:713. See also Rom. 15.4 and Eph. 3.3. 100.  Being a society that favoured oral education, Jude and his readers would have memorized parts of 1 Enoch, especially the opening chapter where the explicit citation is found. See Torleif Elgvin, ‘Qumran and the Roots of the Rosh Hashanah Liturgy’, in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. E. G. Chazon (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 62–67. Elgvin’s work is suggestive as to why Jude and his audience may have been closely familiar with the opening chapters of 1 Enoch. 101.  Joseph B. Mayor, ‘The General Epistle of Jude’, in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. R. Nicoll (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910), 256. 102.  While ἀσέβεια is a common word in many apocalyptic texts, it occurs in a concentrated manner in 1 Enoch: four times in the opening chapter, and 28 times elsewhere.



4. The Structure of Jewish Judgement Oracles

71

642).103 1 Enoch describes the Watchers as licentious, satisfying their impure (particularly sexual) desires (1 En. 6.1–2; 10.11; 15.4). Finally, Jude concludes v. 4 by declaring that the ungodly are guilty of τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι (‘denying the only master and our Lord Jesus Christ’). Here again echoes of 1 Enoch can be heard.104 In 1 En. 21.6 (οὗτοί εἰσιν τῶν ἀστέρων τοῦ οὺρανοῦ οἱ παραβάντες τὴν ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ κυρίου) it is shown that the offences of the Watchers are directed against the Lord (κύριος). These four allusions to 1 Enoch may have stimulated thoughts in the minds of the listeners, causing them to recall images from this prominent source, which repeatedly spoke of judgement and the effects of ungodliness. Jude is writing a letter to address an issue of considerable concern to him. The use of an inclusio device is conducive to this communication. Given that the letter was most likely read aloud, referring to the approaching judgement in v. 4 (the opening bracket of the inclusio) would have piqued the interest/dread/comfort of the listeners (both the faithful and the opponents), providing enough hints as to what is coming while leaving the closing bracket of the inclusio to illuminate the message more fully. As Breck suggests, the second bracket of the inclusio is indeed ‘more than’ the beginning and ‘rounds out or fulfils the major theme(s) of the passage as a whole’.105 This will be seen as the Enoch citation of vv. 14–15 is discussed in the following section. 4.3.1.3. Jude 5–10 (Comparisons and Past Examples) Several features in v. 5 indicate that this is a new literary unit. First, ‘the use of δέ represents the writer’s choice to explicitly signal that what follows is a new, distinct development in the story or argument’.106 Since δέ does not continue the reason for contending (as given in v. 4) and does not follow on from the γάρ clause but rather connects to the main verb of v. 3 (as it too is in the first person), this marks a transition to a new thought. Jude also inserts a ‘side-thought’ or a ‘metacomment’, as Runge

103.  See also 2 Pet. 2.7, interestingly used here in reference to Sodom and Gomorrah, and see Eph. 4.19 and 1 Pet. 4.3. 104.  Similarly, 1 En. 48.10 says, the Fallen Ones ‘have denied our Lord of Spirits and His Anointed one’. When assessing the Ge’ez text, it is evident that the root word used for ‘anointed one’ (መስሐ) is also used to describe ‘the Messiah’ or ‘the anointed king’. See Wolf Leslau, Comparative Dictionary of Ge’ez (Classical Ethiopic): Ge’ez–English, English–Ge’ez (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 2006), 363. 105.  Breck, The Shape of Biblical Language, 33. 106.  Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 31.

72

Jude on the Attack

calls it – ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας ὑμᾶς πάντα – to draw extra attention to the new material that is to follow.107 He suspends the discourse by expressing his desire for the community to remember that which they already know. Jude could have easily omitted this section and begun recounting Israel’s history; no doubt the audience would have recalled these events without being told to remember. There is also a change in tense, which often highlights the beginning of a new section.108 Finally, we note the presence of ὑμᾶς, a seemingly redundant pronoun that breaks the flow of the discourse, and in this case, marks the boundary of a new literary unit. There are some other minor markers throughout vv. 5–10 worth mentioning as they act as signposts throughout this section revealing how it fits together. In v. 6 τέ coordinates two clauses connecting two foundational stories from Israel’s history and the mythological example of angels. In this verse, Jude is compounding imagery regarding the angels’ disobedience. He also reserves the verbs in v. 5 and v. 6 until the end of the sentence, which has the pragmatic effect of highlighting the dreaded fate of these disobedient figures. ὡς of v. 7 points forward to the following verse, introducing an analogy which will soon be applied to the present context. There is a reversal of ideas – the angels first defiled the women, but now, the men are defiling the angels. τούτοις points back to the angels of v. 6 and σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, ‘other flesh’, is a reference to the angelic nature. In v. 8, μέντοι may be a ‘progressive particle’ expressing the importance or relevance of this thought to that which was previously mentioned. It follows an example or analogy and introduces a statement of its applicability to the present (in this case the analogy of v. 7). ὁμοίως μέντοι may then be translated ‘well likewise’, in which case this coordination of clauses is a direct application of v. 7. ‘These ones’ are being accused of the same offensive actions of Sodom and Gomorrah. The antecedent of οὗτοι (v. 8) is to be found in v. 4, ‘certain persons’. Here in v. 8, Jude refers to ‘these ones’ as ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι (‘dreamers’ or ‘sleepers’). After mentioning the blasphemy of angels (δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν) in v. 8, Jude is prompted to provide the example of Michael the archangel, the greatest angel who did not bring a blasphemous judgement on the lowest

107.  Ibid., 101; Stephen H. Levinsohn, Self-instruction Materials on NonNarrative Discourse Analysis (SIL International, 2011). Online: http://www-01.sil. org/~levinsohns/NonNarr.pdf. 106. 108.  Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 135.



4. The Structure of Jewish Judgement Oracles

73

of angels, Satan.109 To contrast the lesser and the greater (qol vehomer) is rabbinic in nature. The δέ of v. 10 creates contrast, perhaps translated ‘and yet’ or ‘but these ones’. There are also two counter examples in this verse negated by μέν…δέ (‘on the one hand…on the other hand’). Such examples, well-known to Jude’s audience, show that disobedience has never been tolerated. In addition, they are infamous stories in Israel’s history, helping Jude to avoid laborious explanatory work. By using contrast and comparisons from relevant historical examples, Jude is able to amplify his point, making clear that the opponents are worthy of judgement. This resembles Libanius’ elaboration by contrast (L4), comparisons (L5), and discussion of relevant examples from history (L6), and is also in line with Cicero’s comparisons (C4) and amplification (C2). 4.3.1.4. Jude 11–13 (Reproof) This unit commences with the cry (οὐαι), along with a shift to the aorist tense. The woe oracle (vv. 11–15) greatly intensifies the argument as the threat increases with the obvious reference to judgement. It is worth considering the effect that this interjection would have when read aloud.110 It is variously described as ‘a cry’,111 a ‘vowel sound of dark timbre’, and a reflex used to express ‘grief, pain or other emotional release’.112 Beginning with οὐαί is an effective approach to demand the attention of the listeners and build upon the previous section. Within this woe oracle, Jude briefly recalls three occasions of Israel’s unfaithfulness (with increasing severity) through Cain (see Gen. 4.3–8), Balaam (see Num. 22–24) and Korah (see Num. 16.1–3, 31–35) and associates them to the ungodly of his context. It is as if ‘these ones’ have already received their punishment along with Cain, Balaam and Korah. Once again, we see Cicero’s comparison (C4), and Libanius’ comparisons (L5) and discussion of relevant examples from history (L6). Notice that in vv. 12–13, for the first time since v. 4, Jude makes it clear that these persons are (physically) among the beloved (ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν) feasting with them. Here, the escalation continues with the use of six metaphors (vv. 12–13). They are called hidden reefs, selfish shepherds, waterless clouds, fruitless trees, wild waves, and wandering stars. The

109.  The archangel was so venerated that some communities were even charged with worshipping him. See Alan Cadwallader, Fragments of Colossae: Sifting Through the Traces (Hindmarsh: ATF, 2015), 196. 110.  Thurén, ‘Hey Jude!’, 454. 111.  Rossing, ‘Alas for Earth!’, 182. 112.  Janzen, Mourning Cry and Woe Oracle, 3.

74

Jude on the Attack

startling collection of images shows the opponents to be a destructive force,113 almost certainly making an impression as the letter was read aloud.114 By piling metaphor upon metaphor with cumulative effect, Jude builds a crescendo as he moves to his climax. The tirade is in line with Cicero’s description of foul deeds (C5), and discussion of circumstances surrounding the actions (C6). The case against the ungodly seems now to be at boiling point. 4.3.1.5. Jude 14–16 (Enoch’s Prophecy) In Jude 14, a new character (Enoch) is introduced. In this verse, he is said to have prophesied ‘to these ones’ (τούτοις). These verses have traditionally been understood as a continuation of Jude’s case against the ungodly. The Enoch citation has been called ‘the third proof’,115 ‘another paradigm’,116 an ‘extracanonical prediction’,117 ‘a fourth accusation’,118 ‘a fourth text’,119 ‘the last major example’,120 ‘an illustrative paradigm’,121 and a key part of Jude’s midrash.122 However, within Jude’s letter, the citation may have a greater purpose. Perhaps it should be understood as a prophetic declaration of certain condemnation in light of all the evidence presented. With the use of the word προεφήτευσεν, Jude confirms this to be a prophetic declaration (see also Mt. 1.23; 15.7; Mk 7.6; 1 Pet. 3.10) and stresses his certainty that the events are taking place in his time.123 The prophecy ‘clinches the matter’.124 There is nothing more to

113.  Thomas R. Wolthuis, ‘Jude and the Rhetorician: A Dialogue on the Rhetorical Nature of the Epistle of Jude’, CTJ 24 (1989): 129. 114.  Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 79, writes that the string of metaphors is ‘unusual in Jewish literature’. 115.  Watson, Invention, Arrangement and Style, 69; Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 24. 116.  Robert Harvey and Philip H. Towner, 2 Peter and Jude (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2009), 212. 117.  Wendland, ‘A Comparative Study of Rhetorical Criticism’, 211. 118.  Turner, Jude, 14. 119.  Green, Jude and 2 Peter, 101. 120.  Reese, 2 Peter and Jude, 62. 121.  Charles, Literary Strategy in the Epistle of Jude, 31. 122.  Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 100. 123.  Jeremy F. 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. James H. Charlesworth and Lee Martin McDonald (London: T&T Clark International, 2010), 113. 124.  Green, 2 Peter and Jude, 192.



4. The Structure of Jewish Judgement Oracles

75

be said about the fate of the false teachers. The use of prophecy at the peak of an argument is a device also used by Stephen in Acts 7.49–50, Paul in Rom. 3.10–18, and Jesus in Mt. 24.29. Here, ‘The citation serves as a confirmation of the threat of judgement with which v. 13 closes’.125 It is in vv. 14–15 that Jude explains his earlier comments regarding condemnation,126 which is now ‘finally fully explicated’ and fulfilled in the ungodly opponents.127 It is, as I have called elsewhere ‘the closing bracket of the inclusio’.128 The citation of an ancient authority was another common structural feature in persuasive discourse. It is firmly in line with Cicero’s reference to an authoritative source (C1), discussion of outcomes (judgement of the ungodly) (C3), and Libanius’ citation of an ancient authority (L7). Even though the inclusio finishes at v. 15, v. 16 seems to be a transitional verse picking up themes from vv. 5–15 and vv. 17–19. In v. 16, γογγυσταί and μεμψίμοιροι call to mind the unbelieving Israelites (v. 5). κατὰ τὰς έπιθυμίας έαυτῶν πορευόμενοι looks back to the disobedient angels, as well as Sodom and Gomorrah pursuing their unnatural desires (vv. 6–7), but also the scoffers predicted by the apostles, following their own ungodly passions (v. 18). τὸ στόμα αὐτῶν λαλεῖ ύπέροκα refers to the charge of blasphemy in v. 10 and hints at the ἐμπαῖκται in v. 18. θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα ὠφελείας χάριν reaffirms the accusation against those walking in the way of Cain for the sake of gain (v. 11), and points forward to the selfish character of the ungodly ones in v. 19, ψυχικοί (those who ‘follow their natural lust and appetites’)129 and πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες (‘devoid of the Spirit’ and therefore living unrestrained lives). Verse 16 marks the first occasion that Jude speaks of the opponents’ crimes in plain language without analogy or metaphor. It is a restatement of Cicero’s description of foul deeds (C5). Frighteningly, the charges of blasphemy, grumbling, boasting, and evil desires sound rather ordinary. The great enemies of Jude’s beloved are not murderers and thieves, but are prideful teachers. This misconduct possesses the power to shipwreck an entire community and to bring on the righteous judgement of the Lord.

125.  Knopf, Die Briefe Petri und Juda, 235. 126.  Kistemaker, Peter and Jude, 397. 127.  Wolthuis, ‘A Dialogue on the Rhetorical Nature of the Epistle of Jude’, 130. 128.  Robinson, ‘The Enoch Inclusio in Jude’, 205. 129.  Fritz Rienecker and Cleon L. Rogers, Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 809.

76

Jude on the Attack

4.3.1.6. Jude 17–19 (Prophetic Reminder) There is a clear change of direction at v. 17, as Jude speaks directly to the ἀγαπητοί (the first address of this kind since v. 3), marking a transition in the discourse from the actions and fate of the impious, back to the ὑμεῖς who are yet again told to μνήσθητε (‘remember’).130 μνήσθητε is an imperative command which marks and commences the beginning of the exhortation.131 In v. 19 Jude warns the beloved that they are in danger of being divided by the adversaries (C7, impact on the hearers). This was predicted by the apostles. Jude calls to mind these words, reminding them that trouble of this nature has been predicted and is thus no great surprise (C1, reference to an authoritative source).132 This teaching would not have been foreign to Jude’s hearers as similar warnings can be found elsewhere in contemporary writings (Mt. 24.11, 24; Acts 20.29–30; 1 Tim. 4.1–3; 2 Tim. 4.3–4). 4.3.1.7. Jude 20–23 (Instructions to the Beloved) The same phrase (ὑμεῖς δὲ ἀγαπητοί of v. 17) appears in v. 20, marking the beginning of another literary unit. The participles of v. 20 modify the exhortation specified in v. 21. ἑαυτοὺς ἐν ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ τηρήσατε (keep yourselves in the love of God) is the thesis statement of this section, marked by the use of an imperative. The phrases that follow (vv. 22–23) extend upon the thesis statement, expressing how the people are to fulfil this exhortation.133 Here Jude reflects yet another structural feature of persuasive discourse as he exhorts his readers to follow the advice laid out in the prologue (brief epilogue exhorting the reader to follow the advice set forth in the maxim [L8]).134 Jude 20–23 is broken up into two parts. Initially, Jude instructs the community, explaining how they are to keep

130.  Donelson, 1 & 2 Peter and Jude, 192. 131.  This parallels back to v. 5 where a cognate of the same verb is used. In v. 5, Jude’s audience was instructed to remember many aspects of their long tradition, but are now told to remember a more recent teaching given by the apostles. See Reese, 2 Peter and Jude, 64. 132.  According to Harrington, 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter, 219, it appears that the ‘scoffers’ held their own spiritual wisdom and superiority above that of the apostles and were perhaps sceptical of certain teachings such as the severity of the final judgement. 133.  Osburn, ‘Discourse Analysis and Jewish Apocalyptic in the Epistle of Jude’, 292. 134.  Libanius, Libanius’s Progymnasmata, 87



4. The Structure of Jewish Judgement Oracles

77

themselves secure in their own faith, while Jude 22–23 expresses how the beloved are to show mercy to others.135 4.3.1.8. Jude 24–25 (Doxology) Jude changes focus for the final time in v. 24 with the phrase τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ φυλάξαι ὑμᾶς. The discourse is now being addressed ‘to him’ who is able to guard the beloved and keep them in his love until the final day. ‘The pragmatic force of this doxology, as a final emotive appeal, is clear: those who align themselves with Jude’s teaching may know that they are on the right track, while those aligning themselves with “the opposition” must know that they are heading towards eternal destruction as vividly spelled out in vv. 4–16.’136 This closing portion of the letter functions much like a prayer that ‘serves to increase Jude’s ethos, exhibiting his concern that his audience not fail to see the consummation of their hopes’.137 It parallels Jewish liturgical practices, making Jude seem less like a traditional epistle and more like a homily or a sermon.138 Here Jude closes by reminding his audience that the same God introduced in the opening verse (who called, loved, and kept) is now able to guard and keep his people secure until the final day. According to Osburn, the reference to being guarded from falling pertains to protection from a ‘moral lapse’. As they stand before God’s glorious presence, they will be withstanding ‘the shaking of the earth at the advent of God’ (1 En. 1.5–7).139 Jude finishes with this image of final assurance, reminiscent of Cicero’s discussion of outcomes (C3). 4.4. Comparative Analysis In this comparison, it will be seen that Jude follows many of the conventions pertaining to Greco-Roman invective, particularly the positive/ negative strategy, the resemblance to structural phases outlined by Cicero and Libanius, and a noticeable rise in aggression and intensity as opposed to the outright anger typical of the prophets. The epistle’s rise in intensity, the presence of a Jewish woe oracle (vv. 11–15) and the use of an inclusio (from vv. 4–15) incorporated for authoritative effect, has Jewish parallels. 135.  See §2.3 for a detailed analysis of vv. 22–23, explaining my position on how these verses relate and how they can be understood. 136.  Joubert, ‘Persuasion in the Letter of Jude’, 87 137.  Watson, Invention, Arrangement and Style, 76. 138.  Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 119–21. 139.  Osburn, ‘Discourse Analysis’, 293.

78

Jude on the Attack

The epistle begins with a formulaic greeting (vv. 1–2), mirroring a typical Hellenistic letter (A to B). Watson demonstrates the way the epistle follows the structure of such letters, complete with quasi-exordium (vv. 1–2), exordium (v. 3), narratio (v. 4), probatio (vv. 5–16), peroratio (vv. 17–23), and quasi-peroratio (vv. 24–25).140 Whether or not one accepts these categories, there are at least parallels with the ‘praise and blame’ aspects of epideictic discourse (the overarching rhetoric to which invective belongs) as well as the ‘advice and rebuke’ aspects of deliberative rhetoric. Throughout the discourse, for example, Jude moves back and forth from positive language to negative language, depending on the subject at hand. He begins with a favourable address (vv. 1–3), before transitioning into a series of rebukes and accusations against the ungodly (vv. 4–16). This is followed by several warnings and reminders (v. 17–19), exhortations, and instructions to the beloved (vv. 20–23), before concluding with an exclamation of praise towards God (vv. 24– 25). Joubert describes Jude’s approach here as a ‘positive/negative presentation’ strategy.141 The called ones (v. 2) are presented in a positive manner, while the ungodly (v. 4) are seen as disobedient and rebellious (vv. 4–15). Jude not only refers to the addressees as ‘beloved’ (vv. 3, 17, 20), but also reminds them that they share in God’s love and protection (v. 24). The ungodly, on the other hand, will face inevitable and pending judgement (vv. 14–15, 23). In this regard, Watson and Joubert are correct in highlighting the structural parallels between Jude and epideictic and deliberative rhetoric. Jude’s structural stages are also reminiscent of many of the recommended phases in epideictic speech, as suggested by Cicero (Cic., Inv. 1.53) and Libanius (Lib., Max.):

Jude 1–2: praise (L1) Jude 3: paraphrase of the maxim (thesis statement) (L2) Jude 4: discussion of the rationale (cause for writing) (L3) Jude 5–10: elaboration by contrast (L4), comparisons (L5), discussion of relevant examples from history (L6), comparisons (C4), and amplification (C2) Jude 11: comparisons (C4/L5), and discussion of relevant examples from history (L6) Jude 12–13: description of foul deeds (C5), and discussion of circumstances surrounding the actions (C6) 140.  Watson, Invention, Arrangement and Style, 77–78. 141.  Joubert, ‘Persuasion in the Letter of Jude’, 79–80.



4. The Structure of Jewish Judgement Oracles

79

Jude 14–15: citation of an ancient authority (L7), reference to an authoritative source (C1), and discussion of outcomes (C3) Jude 16: description of foul deeds (C5) Jude 17–18: reference to an authoritative source (C1) Jude 19: (C7), impact on the hearers Jude 20–25: brief epilogue exhorting the reader to follow the advice set forth in the maxim (L8), and discussion of outcomes (C3) Whether Jude consciously made use of these phases is impossible to determine. However, given his likely familiarity with Greek rhetoric it is conceivable that he was aware of these persuasive strategies, or at the very least (given the internal logic of Greco-Roman invective) was writing instinctively. Finally, there is also a significant similarity between Jude’s overall progression and that found in Greco-Roman invective. It is important to note the placement of the attack within Jude’s letter. Jewish judgement oracles begin in an obvious and negative manner (Isa. 5.8; 10.1; 28.1; 29.2; Jer. 13.27; 23.1; Ezek. 16.1, 23; Amos 1.2, 6, 9, 11, 13; 2.1, 4, 6; Zeph. 2.1; 3.1; Hos. 7.13; 1 En. 94; 99). The prophets, though they aimed to persuade their audience to honour God, did not seek the audience’s approval in the same way as the Greek orators. The success of their pronouncement did not depend on the audience being convinced as prophecy came with the very authority of God. Even when the prophets were ostracized and rejected, the prospective judgement did not abate; the approval or disapproval of the audience could do nothing to change this. Thus, the prophets had no reservations about starting their message with outright anger. While some invectives do open abruptly (Dem., Meid. 1.1; Diog. 28.1; Cic., Cat. 1; ps.-Cic., Sal. 1; Plut., Cic. 1.1; Crates, Or. 7; Diog., Letter 1),142 many do not. Ovid’s Ibis is far less direct. The prologue begins placidly (‘until now, now that I’ve reached my fifties, all my Muse’s poetry has been harmless’) and it is not apparent from the opening lines that a fierce attack will follow. This is also true of the Cynic Epistles such as Apollonius’ Letter to Ptolemaeus, in which the attack is momentarily hidden by an apparently friendly greeting: ‘Apollonius to Ptolemaeus his father, greeting. I swear by Sarapis but for the fact that I am ashamed, you would never have seen my face; for you utter nothing but lies and your gods likewise, for they have plunged us into a deep mire in which 142.  Diogenes, ‘The Epistles of Diogenes’, in The Cynic Epistles, ed. Abraham J. Malherbe, SBL Sources for Biblical Study (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), 121.

80

Jude on the Attack

we may die’. New Testament examples can be found in Gal. 1.1–6 and Rev. 2.8–11, 12–17, 18–29. In each of these passages we find a customary greeting and a note of goodwill preceding a seemingly unexpected attack. As Stowers notes, in ‘good epistolary form’ they commence with praise and turn to blame.143 The same pattern surfaces in the epistle of Jude. Jude has followed a tradition found in Greco-Roman epistolary texts of censure, praise and blame, reproach and rebuke, and not the pattern of immediate rebuke seen in the Jewish judgement oracles. It is essential for Jude to persuade his audience, both to remain faithful to the truth and to reject the false teaching. He aims to get them onside with a kinder opening, building trust, and slowly escalating the discourse. From v. 3 onwards we observe a noticeable heightening of intensity as Jude’s argument builds. Jude’s passion rises and his imagery becomes more pointed (v. 10). The sentence structure is sharper (vv. 11–13) and more direct (vv. 14–15) as the inescapable judgement of the Lord is made clear. The writer also uses several structural markers to keep the discourse moving (ὡς, v. 7; ὁμοίως μέντοι, v. 8; μέν, δέ, vv. 8, 10, 22–23) and others to draw special attention to the words which follow (ὑπομνῆσαι, v. 5; οὐαι, v. 11; ἰδού, v. 14). Much of the rebuke (vv. 4–16), framed by what I have previously termed the Enoch inclusio (v. 4 to vv. 14–15), encompasses the idea of judgement and punishment. Jude brings his first accusation against these certain persons (who have denied Jesus as their master and Lord) in v. 4. It is here that he refers to ‘this judgement’, which, after a series of accusations and comparisons (vv. 5–13), is announced in vv. 14–15. Structurally, this feature coincides closely with Jewish judgement oracles (see Jer. 23; §4.1.1.2). In the prophetic writings, it was common for the prophets to use structural devices such as inclusio and chiasm to arrange their prophetic judgements (Hab. 3.3–7, 8–15; Joel 2.1–11; Mic. 1.8–16; 2.6–11; Nah. 1.2–6; Hos. 9.1–11.7).144 Within Jude’s inclusio, there is also the presence of a woe oracle (vv. 11–15), another feature of Jewish judgement speech. Jude 11–15 follows the format of a typical woe oracle. There is a woe-cry, along with an acknowledgment of the addressee (v. 11a), there are several accusations (vv. 11–13) framed using a string of comparisons and metaphors, transitional markers (v. 14a) preceding the judgement and, finally, the pronouncement itself (vv. 14b–15). The fact that the structure follows the woe oracle format so faithfully shows that Jude realized its power at this point of his letter. As he writes to Jewish 143.  Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, 81. 144.  See Robert B. Chisholm, Interpreting the Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990).



4. The Structure of Jewish Judgement Oracles

81

Christians, he knows that adding God’s authority to the message brings something that he alone could not. Switching to a recognized device such as a woe oracle would also have let his hearers know precisely what was coming as the structure of woe oracles was quite consistent. In Greco-Roman invectives, the discourse can also escalate to a point where a judgement is made. This often takes the form of a pronouncement of what the accused deserves at the hands of the city. Upon reaching the climax of the speech, the orator will make known the judgement that he sees appropriate. In this way, Jude differs from invective speech. Jude’s prophetic announcement is just that: prophetic. Using both the authority of God’s servant Enoch and God’s own words to formulate the pronouncement of sentence, Jude is less concerned about his own vindication and far more concerned with protecting God’s people and God’s honour. This is a feature common to judgement oracles, which typically focus on divine rather than human punishment and glory. It is important to note that the woe oracle is not an entirely new segment in Jude’s discourse, detached from the invective. Instead, following the conventions of invective, he has built a persuasive argument slowly and he reaches its pinnacle employing the device of a woe oracle. Looking at the epistle of Jude in its entirety reveals that the structure is largely comparable to the conventions of Greco-Roman invective. The positive/negative speech strategy, resemblance to the structural phases outlined by Cicero and Libanius, and a noticeable rise in aggression and intensity, as opposed to the outright anger typical of the prophets, are all typical structural features of Greco-Roman invective. Within the invective, vv. 4–15 closely reflects a prophetic inclusio and a typical Jewish woe oracle (vv. 11–15). Jude recognizes that his audience respects God’s authority more than any human court, and so his pronouncement of judgement is executed by means of prophetic convention.

Chapter 5 T he A i m of J ewi s h J ud g eme nt O r acle s , G rec o -R om a n I n ve cti ve s,

a n d t h e E p i s t l e of Jude

In this chapter I will explore the aim of Jewish judgement oracles, GrecoRoman invectives, and the epistle of Jude. In line with Greco-Roman invective, the primary objective of Jude’s letter is to alert the community to the threat of corruption and to encourage the majority to remain faithful. Jude’s secondary aim is also in line with invective as he seeks to shame and rebuke the opponents, both directly and indirectly. This secondary aim is reinforced by a technique from Jewish judgement oracles where it is made known that the punishment of the corrupt will come from God’s own hand. Again, I begin with a survey of Jewish judgement oracles (§5.1), Greco-Roman invectives (§5.2), and a case study from each. If the reader wishes to move straight to an analysis of Jude and my own comparative argument, this can be found in section §5.3–4. 5.1. The Aim of Jewish Judgement Oracles Determining the aim of a typical judgement oracle has troubled many Old Testament scholars.1 For writers such as Hvidt, ‘This type of prophecy never depicts a God who intends to harm his people. Rather, its scope is to throw light on the natural result of the chosen people’s 1.  For a more detailed discussion on this issue, see Gerhard F. Hasel, The Remnant: The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah, Andrews University Monographs 5 (Berrien Springs: Andrew University Press, 1972), 173–76; Austin Vanlier Hunter, Seek the Lord! A Study of the Meaning and Function of the Exhortations in Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah and Zephaniah (Baltimore: St Mary’s Seminary & University, 1982), 7–38; Johannes M. Schmidt, ‘Ausgangspunkt und Ziel prophetischer Verkündigung im 8. Jahrhundert’, VF 22, no. 1 (1977): 547–57; G. Fleischer, ‘Von Menschenverkäufern, Basschankühen und Rechisverkehrern’, BBB 74 (1989): 180–84.

5. The Aim of Jewish Judgement Oracles, Greco-Roman Invectives

83

conduct’.2 In other words, the result of God’s judgement is dependent on the repentance of God’s people, or lack thereof.3 However, in some instances, the pessimism of the prophets makes it difficult to believe that repentance is likely (or possible).4 For many oracles, there is ‘no indication that the prophets intended the announcements of punishment in a conditional sense’.5 On this view, judgement oracles are delivered to declare what has already been decided.6 A third interpretation lies somewhere in between these two, where one aim may be more dominant depending on the context but both aims can coexist.7 I will now analyse some examples as a way of shedding light on the apparent ambiguity, endeavouring to show the dominant aim in each passage. In the first two chapters in the book of Amos, the prophet delivers six oracles against the nations (Amos 1.3–5, 6–8, 9–10, 11–12, 13–15; 2.1–3) and brings a fierce warning against Judah (Amos 2.4–5) and Israel (Amos 2.6–16).8 It has been suggested that these first six oracles are ‘patterned after the war oracles’ (e.g. Isa. 7.39 and 1 Kgs 20.26–30),9 used to provide 2.  Niels Christian Hvidt, Christian Prophecy: The Post-Biblical Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 182. 3.  A famous example in favour of this theory is found in the book of Jonah. Despite Jonah’s resistance to preach to Nineveh, once the prophetic warning was proclaimed, God chose to withdraw his promised punishment. Here judgement is conditional and repentance is still an option. 4.  This pessimism is seen in Amos 2.6–12; 3.10; Hos. 5.4; Isa. 30.9; Jer. 13.35; 17.1 5.  George W. Ramsey, ‘Speech-Forms in Hebrew Law and Prophetic Oracles’, JBL 96, no. 1 (1977): 55. 6.  Tucker, Form Criticism of the Old Testament, 62. See also Byargeon, ‘Thus Saith the Lord’, 304. A similar structure can also be found in Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World, 96–97. Although the structure outlined by Aune concerns woe oracles, interestingly it follows the same basic structure as judgement speeches in general. 7.  Walter Houston, ‘What Did the Prophets Think They Were Doing? Speech Acts and Prophetic Discourse in the Old Testament’, in The Place Is Too Small for Us: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship, ed. Robert P. Gordon, SBTS 5 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 151. Even the word ‘judgement’ can be used in two senses – legal determination or punishment. This alone contributes to the rise in ambiguity. 8.  Given that non-Israelites did not have a covenant relationship with God, the oracles against the nations need to be assessed in a slightly different light to those against Judah and Israel. 9.  Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World, 92.

84

Jude on the Attack

divine assurance to the Israelites at the expense of their neighbours (e.g. Obad. 1–4; Joel 3.4–8; Isa. 13–23).10 These attacks aimed to crystalize the fate of the nations, making it clear that they cannot escape God’s punishment. The latter part of Amos 2 has a slightly different agenda. Here, God ‘will not relent because they [Judah] have rejected the law of the Lord’ (Amos 2.4). This oracle is no longer directed at the nations but against God’s own people. While some argue that these oracles are designed to jolt the guilty citizens into repentance, it would appear that the primary aim here is to make known what will happen to those who have rejected Yahweh and his rule.11 Throughout the book of Amos, Yahweh repeatedly uses the phrases ‘I will destroy’ and ‘I will send fire’, with only a glimmer of hope found in the central chapter, at which point the prophet advises the people to ‘seek God and live’ (Amos 5.4, 6). The harshness of Amos’ message, however, suggests that he does not expect the people of Israel to repent and survive the coming destruction.12 While repentance may result, the main purpose of these oracles is to proclaim Yahweh’s impending judgement. As Mamahit writes, ‘Upon hearing the verdict, the audience thus cannot escape or hide behind an excuse’.13 The judgement is coming. A similar pattern is found in Zeph. 2.8–11 and 3.1–9, where the possibility of hope is spoken of only in reference to the remnant.14 In Habakkuk 2 there is no call for repentance. Instead, the only thing 10.  Steven L. McKenzie and John Kaltner, The Old Testament: Its Background, Growth, & Content (Nashville: Abingdon, 2007), 216. See also John H. Hayes, Interpreting Ancient Israelite History, Prophecy and Law (Eugene: Cascade, 2013), 219–20. 11.  Hasel, The Remnant, 187; Adrian Schenker, ‘Gerichtsverkündigung und Verblendung bei den vorexilischen Propheten’, RB 93 (1986): 563–80. See Amos 1.4–5, 7–8, 10, 12, 14–15; 2.2–3, 5, 13–16. 12.  Victor H. Matthews, Social World of the Hebrew Prophets (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2001), 69. These passages have an explanatory role, making clear that Yahweh is justified in his plans to judge the people. Julius Wellhausen, Israelitische und jüdische Geschichete, 9th ed. (1958; repr., Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 107; Hans-Joachim Kraus, ‘Die prophetische Botschaft gegen das soziale Unrecht Israels’, EvT 16 (1955): 295–307. Amos 1.3–5, 6–8, 9–10, 11–12, 13–15; 2.1–3, 4–5, 13–16. 13.  Ferry Y. Mamahit and Pieter M. Venter, ‘Oracle Against Israel’s Social Injustices: A Rhetorical Analysis of Amos 2:6−8’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 66, no. 1 (2010): 11. 14.  See Jimmy J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville: John Knox, 1991), 201.

5. The Aim of Jewish Judgement Oracles, Greco-Roman Invectives

85

left to do is ‘mourn the destruction of their lives’.15 In many ways this passage reflects what could be classified as a typical judgement-speech. The mood is uncompromising; impending doom is proclaimed. A similar pattern is seen in The Book of Watchers (1 En. 12.4–6; 13.1–2; 15–16).16 The Watchers are condemned for sexual sin and are consequently cursed with rebellious giants for offspring. These oracles make known the direct relationship between a sinner’s misdeeds and the judgement that must follow.17 In Isaiah 28–34 oracles of judgement are intertwined with oracles of salvation, demonstrating two key aspects of God’s character – his mercy and wrath.18 In Isa. 29.13–14 Yahweh charges his people with insincere worship and, in response, decrees that he will cause wisdom to vanish from them. Yet, in Isa. 29.17–24, it is prophesied that a day will come when Israel will no longer be ashamed – ‘They will stand in awe of the God of Israel’ and will accept instruction. By having these two oracles side by side, Isaiah reveals to the hearer that God will punish some and save others; the dual nature of his character is shown. While judgement is unstoppable, not all will be caught up in it. Throughout the book of Ezekiel, judgement oracles are directed towards Jerusalem, Judah, and the nations without any apparent difference. As Block states, ‘To speak of the oracles against the nations as a distinctive genre is misleading. Ezekiel’s prophecies in this collection display no 15.  Kenneth L. Barker and Waylon Bailey, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah, NAC 20 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1998), 330. See also Isa. 5, 13–19, 28, 37, and 58 where oracles are delivered against Israel and against the nations with a similar lack of possibility for repentance. 16.  Karina Martin Hogan, ‘The Watchers Traditions in the Book of the Watchers and the Animal Apocalypse’, in The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Tradition, ed. Angela Kim Harkins, Kelley Coblentz Bautch, and John C. Endres (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014), 112. 17.  Loren T. Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108, Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 193. See also 1QS 3.15–17: ‘Before they existed he made all their plans…according to his glorious design without altering anything.’ See also 1QS 3.21–4.1; 11.11, 17–18. 18.  Judgement oracles: Isa. 28.14, 14–22; 29.1–4, 15–16; 30.1–17; 31.1–5; 33.1–4; 34. Salvation oracles: Isa. 28.5–6; 29.5–8, 17–24; 30.18–26; 31.6–9; 33.5–24. While these passages would not be classed as salvation-judgement oracles, they appear to bear a similar intent. During the postexilic period these two speech forms were at times fused together. However, as Claus Westermann, Prophetic Oracles of Salvation in the Old Testament (Westminster: John Knox, 1991), 75, argues, the salvation aspect may have been a later addition.

86

Jude on the Attack

functional or formal differences from his oracles of judgement against Judah/Israel’.19 In each oracle, Yahweh professes that his judgement is coming so that ‘they will know that I am the Lord’ (Ezek. 6.10; 12.15; 16.62; 20.20; 21.5; 22.16; 25.7, 11, 17; 26.6; 29.6; 30.8, 26; 33.29; 35.4, 9; 37.13, 28; 39.6, 22). Even though the sins of the people may vary,20 God’s motivation in bringing judgement is to reinstate reverence for his name’s sake.21 The threat of judgement is against all nations alike, as God’s jealousy and anger must be satisfied (Ezek. 16.38). In the opening chapters of Jeremiah, the oracles of judgement are contingent, meaning punishment could be averted were Israel to repent. As the prophet progresses, however, the judgements become irrevocable and are no longer used as a prompt for repentance.22 The difference may be that the oracles at the commencement of the book are addressed to Judah (and so are interspersed with numerous calls to repentance, as seen in Jer. 4.1; 15.19; 18.8; 36.3), whereas the oracles against the nations (Jer. 46–51) act more like a curse (filled with punishment and doom).23 Kessler notes that the oracles are ‘restated (using precisely the same form and vocabulary, though heightened in tendency) but with the intention to make them unequivocal announcements of judgement’.24 For example, in Jer. 36.3, there is a push for Israel to ‘turn from their evil ways’, but in Jeremiah 50–51, there is no call for repentance, merely the proclamation that punishment is coming (Jer. 50.31). In Jer. 23.5–8, he writes to the false shepherds and uses an oath formula to communicate the seriousness of his message. Verse 7 reads, ‘Look, the days are coming, by the life of the Lord’ – the writer affirming that this will happen. Judgement cannot be escaped. Therefore, the objectives of these oracles vary between the 19.  Daniel Isaac Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 3. 20.  In Ezek. 16.15–42, Israel is accused of sexual misconduct, idolatry, and offering up their children as sacrifices, while in Ezek. 25.12–15 Edom and Philistia are accused of taking vengeance against God’s people. 21.  Norman C. Habel, ‘The Silence of the Lands: The Ecojustice Implications of Ezekiel’s Judgement Oracles’, in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality, ed. Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton (Atlanta: SBL, 2004), 136. 22.  Martin Kessler, Battle of the Gods: The God of Israel Versus Marduk of Babylon: A Literary/Theological Interpretation of Jeremiah 50–51, SSN 42 (Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2003), 42. 23.  Martin Kessler, ‘The Scaffolding of the Book of Jeremiah’, in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence, ed. Martin Kessler (Warsaw: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 60. 24.  Kessler, Battle of the Gods, 42.

5. The Aim of Jewish Judgement Oracles, Greco-Roman Invectives

87

possibility of repentance and inevitable wrath; unlike Ezekiel, this may be due to a variation in audience.25 In summary, while the aim of any given judgement oracle can vary depending upon the audience and situation, all revolve around the common themes of judgement and reverence for God. In many cases, there is a pattern of God charging people with unlawful actions as well as the pronouncing of judgement. The aim, therefore, is to show that judgement for most (the remnant excluded) cannot be escaped. Although shame and repentance may indeed follow, it is not the primary aim of these oracles. Judgement will only be avoided by the remnant God promises to save. 5.1.1. Jeremiah 23.9–22 (Case Study, Part 2) The people of Israel had a covenant relationship with Yahweh. The appointed prophets served as heralds between ‘the divine suzerain’ and ‘the earthly vassal’, relaying the irrevocable words of Yahweh in light of the people’s rebellion.26 There were, however, some members of the community who were claiming this powerful position for themselves, relaying a message of their own hearts and not from the divine suzerain. Jeremiah, the appointed prophet, was called to rectify this. The aim of Jer. 23.9–22 is twofold: to rebuke the ungodly priests and prophets (vv. 12, 15, 19–20) as well as to deter the righteous from the path of wickedness (v. 16). In this text, the religious leaders are rebuked for adultery, idolatry, and for deceiving the community into a false sense of security (vv. 10–17). More specifically, in v. 14, the prophets of Jerusalem are rebuked for ‘strengthening’ the hands of evildoers, ‘that is, they support, endorse, and legitimate public policy that violates covenant’.27 This stands in contrast to Jer. 38.4, where the true prophet, Jeremiah, is commended for weakening the hands of evildoers. These accusations are used as evidence to legitimize the judgement proclamations brought in vv. 12, 15, and 19–20. After establishing the wrongdoings of the ungodly 25.  In another instance (Jer. 25), the aim is to demonstrate the universal judgement of God. Klaas A. D. Smelik, ‘An Approach to the Book of Jeremiah’, in Kessler, ed., Reading the Book of Jeremiah, 9, calls this chapter the ‘axis around which the entire book revolves’. Regarding both Jeremiah’s targets (Israel, Jer. 23.1–8; the nations, Jer. 25.30–38) the message is defiantly clear: the Lord’s vengeance will come. See Janzen, Mourning Cry and Woe Oracle, 73. 26.  Hetty Lalleman-deWinkel, Jeremiah in Prophetic Tradition: An Examination of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions (Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 75. 27.  Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah, 210.

88

Jude on the Attack

ones, it is announced that the Lord will punish them: ‘I will bring disaster upon them in the year of their punishment’ (v. 12); ‘I will feed them pain and will give them bitter water to drink’ (v. 15); and ‘the anger of the Lord will no longer turn back’ (v. 20). Interestingly, at no point in this passage is there a call for repentance, but only a proclamation of punishment. These oracles are used by Jeremiah to indicate that Yahweh’s judgement is irrevocable.28 Such passages are in line with Petersen’s theory that the oracles are written with a legal setting in mind and there is no court of appeal. He writes: ‘Yahweh decrees the fate of the party that has been indicted, whether it is the people of Israel, Judah or a foreign country’.29 We do, however, see an attempt to discourage the community from following the way of these false prophets. In v. 16 there is a slight change in mood as God speaks directly to the people, warning them not to be deluded by the false visions of the prophets. For those within the community, this is a message of deterrence. In these oracles, Jeremiah confirms that while sin will be punished, some can also be saved. For the false priest and prophets, coming judgement is certain, yet there is a hope for the community. 5.2. The Aim of Greco-Roman Invectives In the Greco-Roman world, invectives were often delivered in a public setting (a judicial prosecution, a public assembly, etc.) and used by the orator to magnify an opponent’s wicked character. The goal was to defame a known individual (or possibly a group), removing them from the community.30 Corbeill writes, ‘A recent study of litigation in the late Republic outlines the importance of avoiding disgrace (infamia) during this period and examines how rhetorical invective…helps effect such disgrace through the lowering of an opponent’s personal reputation (existimatio)’.31 Even if no judicial verdict was given, a successful invective would so thoroughly discredit an opponent that the audience

28.  Jeremiah has an undeniable awareness that judgement cannot be averted (see also Jer. 4.10). See Parke-Taylor, The Formation of the Book of Jeremiah, 84. 29.  David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 66–68. 30.  Severin Koster, Die Invektive in der Griechischen und Römischen Literatur (Hain: Beiträge zur Klassischën Philogie, 1980), 38–39, 354. See also David Marsh and Francesco Petrarca, Invectives (London: The President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2003), xi. 31.  Corbeill, Controlling Laughter, 24.

5. The Aim of Jewish Judgement Oracles, Greco-Roman Invectives

89

would conspire against him.32 These speeches were able to produce noticeable effects in the political and social arena. They had the ability to remould the moral and political landscape of a community by expelling immoral persons as well as encouraging others (often through the fear of similar shaming) not to follow them.33 The main aims seen throughout Greco-Roman invective can be broken into three groups: to persuade the public to take seriously the matter at hand; to shame an opponent and have them removed from the community; and to protect a community or city from further wrongdoing and deception. (a) Arousing Public Concern. Cicero’s four speeches as consul of Rome (Cat. 1–4) were aimed at exposing Catiline and protecting the city from alleged rebellion.34 In his first speech, Cicero pleads with the senate to expel Catiline from Rome. Though the decision would be unpopular, he hoped to protect the city from sedition. At the possible expense of his own reputation, Cicero seeks to rid Rome of any moral or physical danger (Cic., Cat. 1.22), because ‘the safety of Rome itself’ was at stake.35 In the second speech, though Catiline was now in exile, Cicero warns the co-conspirators that if anyone else ‘stirs in the city’ or attempts any design against the country, they too should fear the magistrates, the senate and the arms, who have been ‘appointed as the avengers of nefarious and convicted crimes’ (Cat. 2.12.27). Those who cultivate good for the city are welcome to stay but anyone else will be dealt with accordingly. Similar techniques can be found in Greek poetry, as seen in the iambic poem by Hipponax,36 where the author ‘seeks to protect the community’, 32.  As these speeches were often delivered in public, the orator’s task was to win over the audience (Cic., De Or. 2.178). 33.  Arena, ‘Roman Oratorical Invective’, 154. 34.  In 63 BCE, Catiline attempted to ensure his consulship through bribery. He and his associates were further charged with conspiracy to overthrow the government. For a discussion of the historical veracity of Catiline’s intentions and involvement in the conspiracy, see E. J. Phillips, ‘Catiline’s Conspiracy’, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 25, no. 4 (1976): 441–48. 35.  Craig, ‘Self-Restraint, Invective, and Credibility in Cicero’s First Catilinarian Oration’, 335–39. 36.  In the past this fragment (also known as fr. 0232.99) was attributed to Archilochus, as explored in David Cambell, Greek Lyric Poetry (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1982), 157. See also Andrea Rotstein, ‘Critias’ Invective Against Archilochus’, Classical Philology 102 (2007): 139. However, in recent times this text has been attributed to Hipponax, and now identified as Strasbourg Epode (fr. 115W/194 Dg). See also Tom Hawkins, Iambic

90

Jude on the Attack

portraying the opponent ‘as a matter of public concern’ (Strasbourg Epode, fr. 115 W/194 Dg).37 Likewise, in Cicero’s attack against Verres (the former governor of Sicily), he presents him as ‘anti-Roman’ and as having ‘a pernicious effect upon the entire Roman community and its allies’ (Cic., Ver. 1.1.56).38 His aim is to have Verres exiled due to his apparent contempt for everything Roman. He also encourages the judges not to be coerced into a dishonest decision regarding this man’s fate, and to bring order back to the senate (Ver. 1.1.43). As Arena suggests: ‘Even when the aim was to drive out the chosen target from the community, the cultural practice of invective to some extent…brought order’.39 This is seen in the concluding parts of Second Philippics, where Cicero alludes to the labour pains of the Roman people (Cic., Phil. 2.46.118), revealing his longing for ‘rebirth, rejuvenation and renewal of what had been the Roman republic’.40 (b) Exposing Wrongdoing. When attacking Piso, Cicero did not rely on a formal conviction, but rather looked to public opinion to charge Piso as a dishonest and violent man. The aim was to see him ‘brought low, and in constant fearful anticipation, an outcast forever’.41 Often abusive speech was aimed at publicly humiliating one’s opponent. To show his wicked character and to amplify his evil qualities, Piso is described as a violent murderer, one dabbling in bribery, defaulted loans, and extortion (Cic., Pis. 83–94).42 A similar technique is used in Against Vatinius, where the aim is to shame him, not in a legally binding way, but rather in a manner which would drastically change public opinion and render Poetics in the Roman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 63; Nancy Worman, Abusive Mouths in Classical Athens (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 25. 37.  Douglas E. Gerber, A Companion to the Greek Lyric Poets (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 69. Archilochus was also attacked for getting fat from words of hatred (Pind., Pyth. 2.52–6). For a discussion on Pindar’s invective against Archilochus, see Christopher G. Brown, ‘Pindar on Archilochus and the Gluttony of Blame (Pyth. 2.52–6)’, The Journal of Hellenic Studies 126 (2006): 36–46. 38.  See also Walter E. Spencer, ‘Verrines’, Illinois Classical Studies 35–36 (2010–11): 122. 39.  Arena, ‘Roman Oratorical Invective’, 157. 40.  Nancy Myers, ‘Cicero’s (S) Trumpet: Roman Women and the Second Philippic’, Rhetorical Review 22, no. 4 (2003): 337. 41.  MacKendrick, The Speeches of Cicero, 319. 42.  George A. Kennedy, Progymnasmata Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric (Leiden: SBL, 2003), 211.

5. The Aim of Jewish Judgement Oracles, Greco-Roman Invectives

91

his testimony against Sextius futile.43 As Middleton writes, ‘Instead of interrogating him [Vatinius] in the ordinary way, about the facts deposed in the trial, he [Cicero] contrived to tease him with a perpetual series of questions, which revived and exposed the iniquity of his factious tribune, and the whole course of his profligate life’.44 In civil lawsuits, the orator’s audience often played the judge. The more unworthy Cicero could make his opponent appear, the more likely he would be charged as guilty. From the outset, Cicero makes a broad (and sometimes distorted) assault on Piso’s Epicurean leanings. It indicates Cicero’s desire to appeal to the public since anti-Epicurean polemic was popular in the current philosophical literature.45 In the end, Cicero paints a destructive picture of Piso’s behaviour and succeeds in turning public opinion against him. In his own words, ‘I have wished to see you abject, despised, scorned by all the rest of the citizens; looking with despair on your prospects, and abandoned even by yourself’ (Cic., Pis. 1.99). Cicero not only desired to expose Piso’s criminality but also to have an impact on all Roman citizens who would now avoid such wrongdoing.46 In the duel speeches written by pseudo-Sallust and pseudo-Cicero, public opinion and the defence of one’s own honour is the key. In the Invective against Cicero, pseudo-Sallust attacks his opponent from all angles, painting him as a pure villain (3.6) and a public threat (1.2). In response, pseudo-Cicero aims not only to defend himself and clear his name, but also to show the public Sallust’s true character. Defending one’s own name (or that of another) was not uncommon in such speeches. In Pro Cluentio, invective is used by Cicero to defend Aulus Cluentius Habitus who was accused by his own mother of having poisoned his stepfather (Oppianicus).47 Within the scope of defence, Cicero not only 43.  The speech against Vatinius (56 BCE) is ‘an invective against a hostile witness delivered by a defending counsel in a highly political case’, according to Susan Treggiari, Roman Social History (London: Routledge, 2002), 80. 44.  Conyers Middleton, The Life of M. Tullius Cicero (London: Gilbert & Livingston, 1837), 286. For a similar viewpoint, see Andrew Lintott, Cicero as Evidence: A Historian’s Companion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 28. 45.  Phillip DeLacy, ‘Cicero’s Invective against Piso’, APA 72 (1941): 49. 46.  See also Cic., Phil. 2.45.115, where Cicero destroys Antony’s claim to the mantle of Caesar ‘by demolishing his motives, methods, character and political career’. See Lewis A. Sussman, ‘Antony as a Gloriosus in Cicero’s Second Philippic’, Scholia 3 (1994): 53. See also George A. Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972), 270–71. 47.  According to Powell, ‘Invective and the Orator’, 16, this speech is perhaps ‘the most colourful invective in the whole forensic corpus’.

92

Jude on the Attack

seeks to restore Cluentius’ reputation and have his charges dropped, but also aims at invalidating the accusations brought by the defendant’s mother (Sassia).48 (c) Protecting from Falsehood. Invective was also used to rebuke and protect from falsehood. Isocrates’ polemic, Against the Sophists, condemns the deceitful character of the sophists who were allegedly making a profit from teaching persuasive trickery (Isoc., Soph. 3). Isocrates wrote against them as an attempt to separate himself from the ἀγέλαιοι σοφισταί (the common or run-of-the-mill sophists).49 His invective was a plea for truth. He desired to guard his students from false teachings, and lead them in the wise ways of life. Isocrates also used invective to right a wrong. Many of his speeches (such as Against Callimachus, Against Lochites and Against Euthynus, all forensic in nature), were written, either to free a defendant of false charges or to recover funds that were owed (as in the case Against Euthynus).50 Isocrates, speaking on behalf of his companion Nicias, accuses Euthynus of withholding Nicias’ money (Isoc., Euth. 3). Nicias is portrayed as a victim of injustice. Isocrates comes to his defence and aims to collect what he is owed by attacking the credibility and character of Euthynus.51 5.2.1. Demosthenes, Against Meidias (Case Study, Part 2) The aim of this invective is primarily to defame and discredit Meidias. Demosthenes seeks to demonstrate that Meidias is a bully, a tyrant, and a public threat to the peace and safety of the Athenian public (Dem.,

48.  Cicero attacks Sassia and shows Cluentius’ stepfather to be guilty (Cic., Clu. 39–40, 48). See David R. Shackleton Bailey, ‘On Cicero’s Speeches’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 83 (1979): 250. 49.  John H. Freese, The Orations of Isocrates, vol. 1 (London: George Bell & Sons, 1894), 15. However, as noted by Livingstone, due to the broadness of this piece it is difficult to determine its exact desired effect; see Niall Livingstone, A Commentary on Isocrates’ Busiris (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 43. See also Patricia P. Matsen, Philip B. Rollinson, and Marion Sousa, eds., Readings from Classical Rhetoric (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1990), 43. 50.  Isocrates, On the Peace. Areopagiticus. Against the Sophists. Antidosis. Panathenaicus, trans. George Norlin, LCL 229 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929), 252. 51.  For a further discussion on this speech, see Richard C. Jebb, The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeus, vol. 1 (1893), 221.

5. The Aim of Jewish Judgement Oracles, Greco-Roman Invectives

93

Meid. 16).52 He not only brought physical harm to Demosthenes, but he has assaulted Demosthenes’ mother and sister (Meid. 77–82), committed extortion and murder (Meid. 102–22), and several other crimes against fellow citizens (Meid. 128–31). It is alleged that even his role in public office was a sham (Meid. 151–74). Demosthenes hopes to discredit Meidias’ character and justify the need for punishment. Demosthenes intended to establish that Meidias had not merely assaulted him physically, but he had also humiliated him before his fellow-citizens: ‘He treated my person with insolence [hybris]’ (Dem., Meid. 18). ‘I was assaulted by an enemy, who was sober, in the morning, doing it from hybris and not from wine, in the presence of a large number of both foreigners and citizens; and it was a sacred place’ (Meid. 74). To the Greeks, hybris had a legal meaning, denoting ‘When a criminal intended to dishonour the victim’ – a crime which the Athenians considered especially heinous.53 In a later part of this speech, while referring to the feud of Euaion and Boitos, Demosthenes explains that being physically struck is not the most serious matter (though it is serious), ‘but being hit with hybris’ (Meid. 21.72). It was this ‘insolent and insulting conduct towards another person’ which prompted Demosthenes’ attack.54 It was, thus, Demosthenes’ intention to show the audience that Meidias deserved punishment.55 In a later part of the speech, it becomes clear that Demosthenes desires that Meidias be exiled (or possibly sentenced to death). Alcibiades, he reasons, was exiled for far less (Meid. 143–50).56 Demosthenes not only desires to discredit his foe, but also have him removed or, at the very least, rejected by the community. 5.2.2. Ovid, Ibis (Case Study, Part 2) Ovid composes this text as his opponent (the pseudonymous Ibis) slandered his name and called him dishonest among peers. Ibis has also antagonized Ovid’s wife and refuses to let them live in peace (Ib. 1–13). He believes that this opponent is trying to hurt him even in exile, and 52.  Demosthenes, Demosthenes: Speeches 20–22, trans. Edward M. Harris (Austin: University of Texas, 2008), 83. See also Pearson, The Art of Demosthenes, 108. 53.  Worthington, Demosthenes of Athens and the Fall of Classical Greece, 158. 54.  MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator, 241. 55.  As Arena, ‘Roman Oratorical Invective’, 157, states: ‘Invective is an attempt by one member of the community to disgrace another in the eyes of the rest, arrogating for himself the right to act on behalf of the whole group’. 56.  Such invectives often brought about social change. Even if the person was not exiled, they would have lost much of their support. See ibid., 154.

94

Jude on the Attack

thus describes himself as having his wounds reopened (Ib. 13). This is a rather personal attack with the primary intent of clearing Ovid’s own name and shaming Ibis into remorse.57 Perhaps it was also written to deter this villain from any further slander.58 These themes are not uncommon in the genre. In the invective against Sallust (attributed to Cicero), a major portion of the text is spent defending his own name and attempting to restore his own honour before the public. In Martial’s epigram 10, the entire discourse hinges on the hope that the guilty party will be provoked to come forward and confess. Despite the high level of emphasis on death and torture in this text (Ib. 95–102, 16–172), the invective did not literally lead to the death or the torture of Ovid’s opponent. It did, however, aim at tarnishing his reputation. Like most invectives, there is an attempt at what van der Blom calls ‘character assassination’.59 In Ovid’s deeply personal text, he desires justice above all else; justice which exceeds punishment in this life. Before closing his speech, Ovid warns that ‘unless Ibis mends his ways, the poem will have been nothing but a short prelude to more potent curses to come’.60 But given that the text had been composed in exile, it is difficult to know whether it ever reached the recipient and achieved its aims. As Williams expresses, this text, along with the other exilic writings, has no tangible outcome. It achieves ‘nothing beyond the satisfaction of (pointless) revenge’.61 But it has, at the very least, provided Ovid an outlet and enabled him to pass the time in exile. 5.3. The Aim of the Epistle of Jude Jude’s aim is twofold. His primary and explicit aim is to compel the believers to contend for the faith (ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι τῇ ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστει, v. 3b; see also vv. 20–21). His second and indirect aim is to make clear to the opponents, hidden among the believers, that judgement is coming (vv. 4–15). This secondary aim also has the effect of galvanizing the believers: if they do not reject the false teaching of 57.  It seems Ovid may even want to be welcomed back into Rome. See Hawkins, Iambic Poetics in the Roman Empire, 62. 58.  Hermann F. Fränkel, Ovid: A Poet Between Two Worlds, Sather Classical Lectures 18 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1945), 151–52. 59.  Henriette van der Blom, ‘Character Attack and Invective Speech in Roman Republic: Cicero as Target’, in Character Assassination Throughout the Ages, ed. Martijn Icks and Eric Shiraev (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), 49. 60.  Volk, Ovid, 18. 61.  Williams, ‘Ovid’s Exil Poetry’, 243.

5. The Aim of Jewish Judgement Oracles, Greco-Roman Invectives

95

the opponents (or the opponents themselves), the same fate awaits them. Initially, I will examine the main aim. Then I will survey the secondary aim. Finally, I will compare the aim of Jude to that of Greco-Roman invective and Jewish judgement oracle. 5.3.1. Primary Aim Jude’s main thesis is found early in the epistle. He opens with a standard greeting and, after referencing his initial intentions (‘I was eager to write to you concerning our common salvation’, v. 3a), he is explicit in stating his present purpose: ἀνάγκην ἔσχον γράψαι ὑμῖν παρακαλῶν ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι τῇ ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστει (‘I find it necessary to write you and urge you to contend for the faith once passed down to the holy ones’, v. 3b).62 Jude signifies to his audience that he intended to bring a message concerning their ‘common salvation’ but instead delivers something more urgent, warning and compelling the readers ‘to fight for a faith that has come under attack from within’.63 By alerting them to this change (whether in fact it is a true change or only a literary technique),64 Jude magnifies the importance of the current message as well as the timely response that is required from the hearers.65 A distinction is made by Jude between this ‘original’ message περὶ τῆς κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας (‘concerning our common salvation’) and the new message, whereby the recipients are instructed to ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι τῇ ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστει. The difference between these two concepts is a matter of debate. Bauckham suggests that the former (περὶ τῆς κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας) is an ‘exposition of the content of the Christian gospel’, while the latter (ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι τῇ ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστει) is a call to defend

62.  That v. 3a contains Jude’s purpose in writing is widely agreed upon. See Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 40; Reese, 2 Peter and Jude, 23; Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 435; Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 42; Green, Jude and 2 Peter, 55; Kugelman, James and Jude, 85; Brosend, James and Jude, 7. 63.  Reese, 2 Peter and Jude, 23. 64.  A similar technique can be found in 1 Clement: ‘Because of the many recent events we have been delayed in shifting our attention to the points regarding which you consulted us’ (1 Clem. 1.1). Welborn argues that this opening sentence ‘is no more than an apologetic formula’ and a convenient way of establishing a sympathetic relationship between himself and his readers. See Laurence L. Welborn, ‘The Preface to 1 Clement: The Rhetorical Situation and the Traditional Date’, in Encounters with Hellenism: Studies on the First Letter of Clement, ed. Cilliers Breytenbach and Laurence L. Welborn (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 216. 65.  Painter and deSilva, James and Jude, 190–96.

96

Jude on the Attack

it.66 Bauckham (along with Schreiner and Green) suggests that Jude’s use of τῇ πίστει is not to be read in the traditional sense of ‘believing’ or ‘having faith’, but is instead a reference to ‘the message of gospel’,67 an idea also seen in Paul (Rom. 10.8, the word of the faith which we preach; Gal. 1.23, the one once persecuting us is now preaching the faith). In Bauckham’s view, τῇ πίστει is not a confessional formula or a set of doctrines, but rather the message of salvation through Jesus Christ. Rowston argues similarly, seeing the former (κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας) as the subject of a letter on a more general theme, and the latter a more specific message still related to the gospel.68 Green explores the first phrase (‘our common salvation’) as something concerning God’s redemptive acts and deliverances from the Exodus all the way to the ‘messianic salvation’ accomplished through Jesus Christ, and the latter as the message of this deliverance.69 Reese, on the other hand, concludes that to contend for the faith is both a way of life and a particular belief.70 For these commentators the two terms (σωτηρία and πίστις) are almost synonymous, meaning that although Jude originally desired to write a message regarding the ‘common salvation’, he instead felt the need to write urging the beloved to contend for the common salvation (i.e. ‘the faith’). In this case, the contrast is between ‘about’ (περὶ) and ‘contend for’ (ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι), meaning the ‘common salvation’ and ‘the faith’ are one and the same, that is, the gospel. But perhaps Jude’s distinction is greater than this, and the ‘common salvation’ and ‘the faith’ are not one and the same, but instead two separate ideas, either entirely discrete or referring to two aspects of an overarching theme. This is a notion I will now explore as I discuss Jude’s primary aim. First, I will argue that σωτηρία and πίστις are two intentionally distinct concepts. Salvation (σωτηρία) denotes deliverance, while faith (πίστις) should be understood as a pledge between two parties – as is seen in wider usage at the time. Second, it will be shown that this treaty language (the pledge) in Jude refers more specifically to the covenant made between God and his people – a covenant still relevant to Jude’s context and one worth contending for. Finally, piecing this all together, Jude directs his audience to contend for this faith (the pledge).

66.  Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 30. 67.  Ibid., 33; Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 435; Green, Jude and 2 Peter, 56. 68.  Douglas J. Rowston, ‘The Setting of the Letter of Jude’ (Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1971), 117 (cited by Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 30). 69.  Green, Jude and 2 Peter, 54. 70.  Reese, 2 Peter and Jude, 37.

5. The Aim of Jewish Judgement Oracles, Greco-Roman Invectives

97

5.3.1.1. σωτηρία and πίστις Instead of viewing σωτηρία and πίστις as interchangeable terms, each refers to a different aspect of the relationship with God and Jude’s audience. In the wider Greek usage κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας denotes ‘public security’ (Isoc., De Pace. 39; Xen., An. 3.2.32) and ‘common safety’ (Philo, Agr. 34.156; Isoc., Paneg. 4.85; Speech. 5.69; Xen., Hell. 2.4.20; IG II2 680.13; Samos 25.31; Syll. 21333),71 particularly against national enemies or, in Jude’s case, ‘as the people of God who stand against the hostile forces of the age’.72 σωτηρία was quite ‘widely adopted in primitive Christianity to refer to the eschatological deliverance, accomplished and to be fulfilled by God…through Jesus Christ’.73 For Jude, ‘common salvation’ is not only the physical deliverance experienced by his ancestors (as referenced in v. 5a), but also the salvation through Jesus of which he (a slave of Jesus Christ, v. 1) and the majority of his audience (the called ones who are beloved by God, v. 2) have become the beneficiaries. When Jude introduces the τῇ ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστει, he is talking about something quite different to κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας. In what follows I make a case for understanding πίστις as a pledge between two parties. Subsequently I will examine πίστις and metonymy, clarifying the multiple nuances of the term. I will then return to the distinction between σωτηρία and πίστις, which will be much easier to see in light of the preceding argument. (a) The Case for πίστις as a Pledge. Jude’s primary aim is to remind his audience to contend for τῇ πίστει or the treaty/pledge made with God. The lexica attest multiple meanings for the word πίστις. For example, BAGD gives ‘faithfulness/reliability’ (i.e. used of the recipient of trust – passive sense, see Hdt., Hist. 3.74; Epicurus, Ep. 1.19; 1 Cor. 13.13; BAGD, s.v. πίστις), ‘oath’, ‘pledge/bond’ (i.e. of the object that formally symbolizes a commitment between parties), and ‘trust/confidence/faith’ (i.e. used of a person’s trust in another – active sense, see Joseph., Apion 2.163).74 Once

71.  A similar idea can be found in the ship metaphor used by Dio Chrysostom, ‘All on board are well aware that the one hope of reaching port in safety lies in having the sailors on good terms with one another’ (Dio Chr., Or. 38.14; see also Or. 39.6). Even though the exact phrase τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας does not appear in this passage the sense of common safety is strong. For a discussion on this concept, see Chang, The Community, the Individual and the Common Good, 72. 72.  Green, Jude and 2 Peter, 54. 73.  Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 31. See also Lk. 1.77; Acts 13.26; 2 Cor. 6.2. 74.  LSJ., s.v. πίστις.

98

Jude on the Attack

combined with a definite article πίστις became ‘the faith’, ‘the pledge’, ‘the trust’, or ‘the guarantee’. Herodotus records a pledge made between two Arabian parties: ἐπιτελέσαντος δὲ τούτου ταῦτα, ὁ τὰς πίστις ποιησάμενος τοῖσι φίλοισι παρεγγυᾷ τὸν ξεῖνον ἢ καὶ τὸν ἀστόν, ἢν πρὸς ἀστόν ποιέηται. οἱ δὲ φίλοι καὶ αὐτοὶ τὰς πίστις δικαιεῦσι σέβεσθαι. When the man who makes the pledge commends the stranger (or the citizen, if citizen he be) to his friends, and they deem themselves bound to honour the pledge. (Hdt., Hist. 3.8.2)

In this excerpt, the one giving the pledge commends the stranger to his friends, and his friends hold themselves bound to honour the pledge (τὰς πίστις, Hdt., Hist. 3.8.1). Likewise, the Samians bound themselves by pledge (πίστιν) in their alliance with the Greeks (Hdt., Hist. 9.92). In the Life of Galba, soldiers are exhorted (παρακαλέω) to maintain their pledge of allegiance (πίστει) to the emperor (Plut., Gal. 14.3), and the Aetolians committed themselves without reservation to τὴν πίστιν (fides) of the Romans in 191 BCE (Polyb., Hist. 20.9.10).75 This pledge was to be made unconditionally, παρὰ δὲ Ῥωμαίοις ἰσοδυναμεῖ τό τ’ εἰς τὴν πίστιν αὑτὸν ἐγχειρίσαι καὶ τὸ τὴν ἐπιτροπὴν δοῦναι περὶ αὑτοῦ τῷ κρατοῦντι (‘For Romans to entrust oneself to a pledge and to cede power over to his victor is equivalent to surrendering at discretion’, Polyb., Hist. 20.9.12.) The Aetolians supposed that surrender would secure fair treatment at the hands of the Romans who would surely be ashamed to harm their prisoners. Instead, the Roman conception of fides offered them licence to treat the captives entirely as they pleased. Four years later, the Aetolians were surprised to discover what their new rulers truly meant by fides. For the Greeks, πίστις, translated as ‘good faith’, suggested that ‘one had a moral obligation with respect to those who had surrendered to [their] power’. In Greek mythology, pistis was the goddess of good faith and trust. The Roman equivalent was fides.76 Naturally, the Greeks 75.  For an excellent discussion of the relationship between Roman fides and Greek πίστις, see Sviatoslav Dmitriev, The Greek Slogan of Freedom and Early Roman Politics in Greece (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 237–42. See also Christian Strecker, ‘Fides – Pistis – Glaube: Kontexte und Konturen einer Theologie der “Annahme” bei Paulus’, in Lutherische und Neue Paulusperspektive: Beiträge zu einem Schlüsselproblem der exegetischen Diskussion, ed. Michael Bachmann, WUNT 182 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 223–50. 76.  As Cothenet observes, πίστις is obviously understood as fides quae crediture; see Cothenet, ‘La tradition selon Jude et 2 Pierre’, 409. Of course, as Frey adds, ἡ

5. The Aim of Jewish Judgement Oracles, Greco-Roman Invectives

99

might have assumed that the words carried a similar meaning, but this was not the case.77 On this understanding, both those who surrendered and those to whom surrender was given had duties to the other. For example, once the Plataeans had ‘put themselves under the protection of’ the Athenians (in 516 BCE according to Thucydides, Hdt., Hist. 6.108; see also Thuc., Hist. 3.68), ‘the Athenians had undergone many labours on their behalf’ (Hdt., Hist. 6.108). Amphipolis’ surrender to Athens was undertaken to secure the people’s safety (σωτηρία) as they assumed that their submission would merit some kind of protection.78 Likewise, when Iasus gave their oath (ὀμόσαι) to Ptolemy I (before he was king), their rights were to be preserved as long as they remained loyal to him.79 In return for Iasus’ allegiance, Ptolemy promised (ὀμνύω) to preserve the freedom of that city, stating in an oath (ὅρκια) that it would remain ungarrisoned and not subject to tribute, ἐλεύθερυς ὄντας καὶ αὐτόνομος καὶ ἀφρούρητος καὶ ἀφορολόγητος (I. Iasos 2.30).80 Though the word πίστις is not used explicitly here, an oath is given and, as Agamben notes, there is an ‘almost synonymous quality’ between faith and oath at this time.81 In a similar inscription (I. Iasos 3.3), Dmitriev interprets ὅρκια as ‘pistis’, presumably because the words were interchangeable.82 Such an agreement obviously depended on Iasus’ political obedience but, granting this, both parties had a duty to the other. In these instances, πίστις carries the sense of political protection or suzerainty and refers to a pledge or treaty. The pledge is binding and represents full allegiance to whomever it has been made. πίστις in Jude’s context is not restricted to the fides quae crediture. See Frey, Der Brief des Judas und der zweite Brief des Petrus, 59. 77.  Dmitriev, The Greek Slogan of Freedom, 241. A similar point is made by Agamben; see Giorgio Agamben, The Time That Remains: A Commentary on the Letter to the Romans, trans. Patrcia Dailey (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2005), 116. 78.  Dmitriev, The Greek Slogan of Freedom, 241. 79.  See also Richard A. Billows, Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State (London: University of California Press, 1990), 201; Roger S. Bagnall, The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions Outside Egypt, Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 4 (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 89–90. For the text of the Iasos Inscription, see G. Pugliese Carratelli, ‘Supplemento Epigrafico di Iasos’, Annuario 1 (1967–8): 437–45; Adalberto Giovannini, ‘Le traité entre Iasos et Ptolémée Ier et les relations entre les cités greques d’Asie Mineure et les souverains hellénistiques’, EA 37, no. 75 (2004): 75–79. 80.  See Giovannini, ‘Le traité entre Iasos et Ptolémée Ier’, 75, 77–79. 81.  Agamben, The Time that Remains, 116. 82.  Dmitriev, The Greek Slogan of Freedom, 241.

100

Jude on the Attack

(b) Metonymy and πίστις. The range in meanings is best explained by metonymy.83 One might conjecture that the word’s earliest meaning is to be found in its usage as ‘pledge/bond’ (of the object exchanged) but that through metonymy its meaning was extended in a bifurcated manner to the parties that gave and received the pledge respectively. The range of meanings, however, need not stop there. Since the giving and receiving of a pledge (object) was often accompanied by words (the oath), cultural practice could give rise to further metonymic extension. Thus, πίστις might stand for the words themselves or their conceptual content. The latter sense is apparent in Acts 6.7 (‘obedient to the faith’) and Gal. 1.23, when Paul speaks of preaching ‘the faith’ (see also Rom. 1.5; 16.26). Paul’s use is tied ‘to the juridical sphere…that is, where law, politics and religion become tightly interwoven’.84 The point is that all meanings can be concurrently in use and available to an author such that the specific meaning must be determined by context. (c) σωτηρία and πίστις: The Distinction Made Clearer. In Jude, ‘common salvation’ would refer to the overall redemptive acts performed by God, from Exodus to Jesus, and ἡ πίστις would here denote a specific aspect of that redemptive act, namely the covenant made between God and the Israelites as alluded in Jude 5. It seems more plausible that Jude would encourage his audience to contend for the faith (the trust made as a result of the deliverance) rather than the deliverance itself (accomplished by God). Jude makes an explicit distinction between the two ideas (faith and salvation), and this letter, originally intended to discuss the general themes of salvation, is now used to address a potential threat owing to false teaching and the absolute necessity for the beloved to contend for ἡ πίστις in light of this threat. This purpose is both restated and expanded upon in vv. 20–21, as Jude writes, ‘But you, beloved, build yourselves up in your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God; look forward to the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life’. Thus, as the epistle draws to a close the recipients are again encouraged to participate in activity associated with ἡ πίστις, which is now qualified as ‘the most holy’ faith. The phrase was surely distinct enough to signal a recapitulation of purpose to his audience.

83.  See Jeanette Littlemore, Metonymy: Hidden Shortcuts in Language, Thought and Communication (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015). 84.  Agamben, The Time that Remains, 116.

5. The Aim of Jewish Judgement Oracles, Greco-Roman Invectives

101

5.3.1.2. Treaty Language in Jude Given that I take πίστις to be a pledge between two parties, it must be asked why Jude makes use of the term. His reasons become apparent as the letter progresses and Jude makes an obvious allusion to Exodus 20, where God establishes a foundational agreement with Israel.85 I suggest that Jude is drawing on covenant language so as to emphasize his allegiance to the Lord and to encourage the faithful to uphold their agreement with God. The Jewish nature of the epistle has been well established, with multiple references to the Hebrew Bible showing a comfortable familiarity with the Scriptures on the part of his audience (v. 5, the Israelites’ deliverance from Egypt; v. 7, Sodom and Gomorrah; v. 11, Cain, Balaam, and Korah).86 The mention of the Israelite’s deliverance from Egypt in v. 5 would also have recalled the wider context of this event along with God’s requirements of the Israelite people. When Exodus was composed, most contemporary covenant texts were vassal treaties.87 The text and the structure of Exodus reflects the concept of covenant in Neo-Assyrian practice. Merrill, Rooker, and Grisanti identify six features common to such agreements: (1) preamble – the giver and recipients of the covenant are identified; (2) historical prologue – a reminder of the current relationship between the two parties; (3) stipulations/provisions – laws and obligations on the part of the vassal; (4) deposition – the document is placed in the temple of the vassal’s chief deity for period reading and re-learning (5) list of divine witnesses – the deities of both kings are named as witnesses; (6) blessings and curses – punishments for violating the terms of the treating are outlined as well as blessings for keeping them.88 Though this was an agreement between two unequal partners, each party had responsibilities to the other. ‘As the vassal must “love” his suzerain, so the suzerain is expected to “love” his vassal.’89

85.  Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1978), 243. 86.  According to Charles and Waltner, 1–2 Peter, Jude, 276: ‘[Jude] not only displays an astounding brevity but a thorough acquaintance with and calculated use of Jewish literary sources’. 87.  See David Noel Freedman and David Miano, ‘People of the New Covenant’, in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C. R. de Roo (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 7. 88.  Eugene H. Merrill, Mark Rooker, and Michael A. Grisanti, The World and the Word: An Introduction to the Old Testament (Nashville: B&H, 2011), 62. 89.  Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 269.

102

Jude on the Attack

Exodus 20, God’s covenant with Israel, encompasses many of these same elements: (1) preamble – Exod. 20.2a, ‘I am the Lord your God’; (2) historical prologue – Exod. 20.2b, ‘who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery’; (3) stipulation – Exod. 20.3–17, ‘You shall have no other gods before me’, and the subsequent commandments; (4) deposition – Exod. 24.4, 7, ‘And Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord…he took the sepher of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people’; (5) witnesses – Exod. 20.2, ‘I am the Lord your God’, Israel’s suzerain was also their God, the giver and witness to the covenant; (6) blessings and curses – Exod. 20.12, 24 and 20.5, 7 respectively. As Jude’s epistle progresses, he briefly alludes to some of these elements. They are not set out to reflect the order of Exodus 20, or even a Neo-Assyrian or Hittite treaty, but rather they add up to give the picture of a serious agreement that must be upheld. The allusions to Exodus 20 mirror the gravity of the new covenant made between Jesus, the Lord (κύριος), and ‘to those who are called’ (Jude 1).90 A ‘chiefly Palestinian Jewish-Christian audience’ would have had no trouble in picking up the hints.91 If πίστις is aimed at recalling the treaty of Exodus 20, it is in v. 3 that Jude begins the allusion. This πίστις is qualified with the following ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις. At one level, this may refer to the one-time death of Jesus (as mentioned also in Heb. 9.28),92 but more likely refers to the handing over or transmitting of the gospel. Bauckham and Schreiner interpret this faith as delivered by the apostles themselves, thus concerning the life of Jesus, and instructions regarding Christian conduct.93 As per their opinion, the apostles are the primary agents of distributing this message, a picture clearly given in the New Testament (2 Thess. 2.15; 90.  An allusion is an intentional reference to an element, passage, or theme in another text with a didactic purpose. Allusions will generally be a gathering of ideas and themes drawn from a larger portion of writing. For example, an allusion may be adapted from several chapters of the source as opposed to a single verse or clause. In saying this, allusions can point to a single phrase. These are often triggered by key words and in these instances the overall structure and vocabulary of the two texts will significantly differ. In other words, allusions do not directly quote but rather adapt texts, themes, and ideas, giving them a new meaning in their new context. See Danna N. Fewell, ed., Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 21. 91.  Charles and Waltner, 1–2 Peter, Jude, 276. 92.  Davids, 2 Peter and Jude, 5. 93.  Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 33; Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 435. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 33, also notes that these elements ‘should not be distinguished too sharply’.

5. The Aim of Jewish Judgement Oracles, Greco-Roman Invectives

103

1 Cor. 11.2; 2 Tim. 2.2). But Jude’s use of παραδοθείσῃ may also carry the sense of something less recent (e.g. Acts 6.14; Mk 7.13), that is, an age-old tradition of which Jude’s audience is a part (Deut. 4.9; 5.32–33; 6.1–7; 11.19). Boyarin reminds us that the line drawn between Jews and Christians is not one that necessarily existed at the beginning of the Common Era.94 From the language used by Jude, it is relatively clear that he is writing as a Jewish Jesus follower, to a community of Jewish Jesus followers.95 They were still Jewish – such an identity was not lost when they became members of the Jesus movement. The movement was a sect within the Jewish tradition, meaning that many of the Jewish practices remained fundamental to their identity96 (i.e. Acts 2.46, where church leaders spend ‘much time together in the Temple’ even after the emergence of the Jesus movement). These, then, are ‘Jesus Jews’.97 For ‘Jesus Jews’, the Exodus and the coming of Jesus, the Messiah, are part of the same story. The πίστις ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις does not begin with the apostles, though they are undoubtedly key witnesses and authorities. This πίστις also has roots going back to Abraham and Moses. For ‘Jesus Jews’, the God of the Exodus covenant and Jesus, the Messiah, are one and the same. This πίστις ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις was not something new, but rather the culmination of what was prophesied to the Jews all throughout the Hebrew Scriptures (Deut. 18.15; Isa. 7.14; 8.23–9.1; 53.5; Mic. 5.2). Therefore, when Jude speaks of the faith ‘once passed down to the holy ones’, although he may be referring to recent events concerning Jesus and the apostles, there is also an ancient heritage of which Jude’s audience is a part and would have been understood as one continuous story. The allusion then continues in vv. 4–5, where the opponents are accused of τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι (‘denying our only master and Lord, Jesus Christ’). This is likely an allusion to the preamble and, more importantly, the stipulation of Exod. 20.2a which states, Ἐγώ εἰμι κύριος ὁ θεός σου, ὅστις ἐξήγαγόν σε ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου ἐξ οἴκου δουλείας. οὐκ ἔσονταί σοι θεοὶ ἕτεροι πλὴν ἐμοῦ (‘I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of 94.  Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of Judeo-Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), 9. 95.  James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 51. 96.  Hershel Shanks, ed., Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism: A Parallel History of Their Origins and Early Development (Washington: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1992), 103. 97.  Boyarin, Border Lines, 23.

104

Jude on the Attack

the house of slavery. You shall not have any other gods besides me’). Jude reminds his audience that they have one Lord and Master, Jesus (preamble), to whom their allegiance is owed (stipulation). The opponents have denied the Master, something equally as serious as breaking the stipulations provided by the covenant in Exodus 20. δεσπότην also links back to Jude’s opening use of δοῦλος (v. 1). Jesus has now been introduced as δεσπότην καὶ κύριον (v. 4), which parallels the positions of vassal and suzerain respectively. The allusion continues in v. 5 when Jude explicitly calls the people to remember (Ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας ὑμᾶς πάντα) that the Lord once brought the Israelite’s out from Egypt (historical prologue). Such markers (ὑπομνῆσαι) are paramount to creating successful allusions.98 The phrases ὁ κύριος (‘the Lord’) and ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου (‘out of the land of Egypt’) are perfect matches of their counterparts in Exodus 20. Of course, ὁ κύριος now refers to Jesus, where it previously referred to God. There would be no doubt, then, as to where Jude was drawing their attention. Continuing, v. 5b outlines the consequences of breaking this covenant. It is an allusion to the curses attached to the covenant (blessings and curses).99 Those who did not believe were destroyed (τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν); this was the fate of those who were not ‘worthy of this trust’.100 5.3.1.3. Contend for the Faith Jude’s primary aim consists in urging his audience to contend (ἐπαγωνίζομαι) for the faith. This faith, I have argued, is a pledge between God and his people. They are to contend for this faith (or uphold this treaty) as breaking it would have serious consequences. ἐπαγωνίζομαι is a cognate of ἀγωνίζομαι, meaning ‘to fight’.101 In the New Testament, the latter appears in several passages (often as its cognate noun),102 while the former is found only in Jude 3.103 ἐπαγωνίζομαι does, 98.  As Judith M. Lieu, Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 62, writes, ‘ “[R]emembering” creates a history that provides a coherent continuity out of the discontinuities of all human experience; it not only explains the present but justifies it’. 99.  Freedman and Miano, ‘People of the New Covenant’, 7–16. 100.  LSJ., s.v. πιστεύω. 101.  E. Shauffer, ‘ἀγών’, in TDNT, 20–21. 102.  Lk. 13.24; 1 Thess. 2.2 (as a noun – a conflict, ἀγῶνι); Col. 1.29; 2.1 (as a noun– a struggle, ἀγῶνα); 1 Cor. 9.25; 2 Tim. 4.7 (as a noun – a fight, ἀγῶνα). 103.  A dative of advantage with reference to ‘the faith’ is also found in Phil. 1.27, though the word used there is συναθλοῦντες (‘to contend or struggle along with someone’). See BAGD, s.v. συναθλέω.

5. The Aim of Jewish Judgement Oracles, Greco-Roman Invectives

105

however, surface in some other contemporary texts. The first example concerns Fabius’ conquest of Tarentum, a city once taken by Hannibal. Τοῦτον δεύτερον θρίαμβον ἐθριάμβευσε λαμπρότερον τοῦ προτέρου Φάβιος, ὣσπερ ἀθλητὴς ἀγαθὸς ἑπαγωνιζόμενος τῷ Ἀννίβᾳ. Fabius celebrated a second triumph more splendid than his first, since he was contending with Hannibal like a good athlete. (Plut., Fab. 23.2)

This is a straightforward reference to military combat, where the verb ἑπαγωνιζόμενος maintains its literal (and more athletic) sense. The next two examples, however, have a metaphorical nuance. The first comes from Plutarch’s On Common Conceptions about Stoics. Here, Plutarch is questioning how the gods can be both immortal and face destruction, and whether it is senseless to pray to stars (who are in essence gods), who bring destruction on themselves. He writes: ἔτι τοίνυν ἐπαγωνιζόμενος ὁ Κλεάνθης τῇ ἐκπυρώσει λέγει τὴν σελήνην καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ἄστρα τὸν ἥλιον ἐξομοιῶσαι πάντα ἑαυτῷ καὶ μεταβαλεῖν εἰς ἑαυτόν. Furthermore, Cleanthes when contending for the [final] conflagration, says that the sun assimilates to itself the moon and all the rest of the stars and changes [them] into itself. (Plut., Comm. not. 1075d)

Plutarch uses ἐπαγωνιζόμενος as a verb to support or defend in debate. In the next example, the acquaintance of Numa and Pythagoras is in dispute. Various proofs of their association are offered: χωρὶς δὲ τούτων ἑτέροις ἔξωθεν ἐπαγωνίζονται τεκμηρίοις οἱ τὸν ἄνδρα τῷ ἀνδρὶ συνοικειοῦντες And apart from these (ordinances), those who associate the one man with the other contend with external proofs. (Plut., Num. 8.16)

Here, ἐπαγωνίζονται is used to connote the defence of the proposition that the men were associates by the further use of external proofs, that is, proofs based not on similarity of belief but acknowledged events. ἐπαγωνίζονται therefore often reflects the effort made by the subject in a noble task.104

104.  BAGD, s.v. ἐπαγωνίζομαι.

106

Jude on the Attack

In Jude, ἐπαγωνίζονται also has a metaphorical sense. Charles writes that this image ‘calls to mind a wrestling bout and implies that the Christians are presently engaged in an intense moral struggle over truth’.105 Precisely what this struggle concerns is taken up in the next part of the phrase, but here we see Jude deliberately setting the tone of action. The present case is similar to Plutarch’s usage of the word. The church is called to the corporate defence of something – to champion a worthy cause. Bauckham is right to observe that defence here also means to be on the offensive; to ‘promote the gospel’s advance and victory’.106 Jude is calling the beloved to unify in (active) defence of ἡ πίστις (‘the faith/trust’). 5.3.1.4. Summary of the Primary Aim Jude’s early mention of ἡ πίστις and subsequent allusions to Exodus 20 bring to light just how serious a matter it is to deny the Lord and Master, Jesus. This act of denial is tantamount to those Israelites who broke their covenant with God and were consequently destroyed. The command to have one God and no other is essentially broken by those who reject Jesus as Lord. For the sake of the believers, then, Jude strongly urges them to contend for their allegiance to Jesus and so to ensure their safety from the coming judgement. Further, while the denial of Jesus has disastrous impacts on the individual, it also has repercussions for the wider community of believers.107 Events in Israel’s history (such as the Exodus) demonstrate that Israel experienced salvation collectively as the ‘corporate covenant representatives of God’.108 When some disobey, they are collectively impacted (Num. 14.20–32). The religious and ethical obligation made on Israel demanded that they be corporately punished when the treaty with God was violated.109 It need not be the case that Jude construes salvation as necessarily corporate, but the community as a whole will still certainly be negatively affected by the false teaching and acceptance of it (Jude 11); individuals will be led astray and the community of faith will come undone. For Jude, the source of this great danger comes from those who have ‘slipped in’ (Jude 4) and are causing havoc among the believers (Jude 12–13). Jude is eager to awaken those within the community from 105.  Charles and Waltner, 1–2 Peter, Jude, 284. 106.  Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 32. 107.  See Steven Kepnes, The Future of Jewish Theology (West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2013). 108.  Brian J. Abasciano, ‘Corporate Election in Romans 9: A Reply to Thomas Schreiner’, JETS 49, no. 2 (2006): 353. 109.  Michael Wyschogrod, The Body of Faith: God in the People of Israel (New Jersey: Jason Aronson, 1989), xv.

5. The Aim of Jewish Judgement Oracles, Greco-Roman Invectives

107

this fog of deception so that they will not suffer. These τινες ἄνθρωποι constitute a very real and present danger to the community.110 Thus, the believers must reject the false teaching. On this, Joubert concludes: ‘Jude does not explicitly command them to reject the false teachers. Instead of opting for such an authoritative approach, he rather makes use of indirect persuasive strategies by relating the false teachers to some well-known types of sinful behaviour from the audience’s holy books, and by bringing the latter’s religious integrity and status constantly into play.’111 5.3.2. Secondary Aim112 Assuming that the epistle of Jude is a letter sent to an actual community of believers, it would have almost certainly been read aloud, allowing Jude to speak indirectly to the accused. As the fate of the ungodly ones is expounded to the believers as a warning device, it is also a chance for Jude to let the opponents know that their fate is sealed. In this way, although he is not physically present, Jude addresses both the believers and the ungodly and covers much ground in a brief letter. First, a few words on the identity of the opponents. In v. 4, Jude uses the rhetorical device of periphrasis or ‘non-naming’ while referencing these τινες ἄνθρωποι, who have παρεισέδυσαν within the community of believers.113 If Jude has specific opponents in mind, such a device would prove effective. As Marshall notes, periphrasis has five advantages: (i) it takes the place of naming persons who are well-known to the recipients (perhaps residing among them); (ii) it makes the opponents available for caricature; (iii) it allows comparisons to be made, usually per the conventions of praise and blame; (iv) it often facilitates a critical tone; (v) it shames the enemy.114 Thus, while using the phrase τινες ἄνθρωποι, Jude is not being ambiguous but is drawing a spotlight on his opponents, causing them to be shamed and, in turn, judged by the rest of the community.115 A similar technique can be found in Galatians, where Paul uses similar 110.  Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 41. 111.  Joubert, ‘Persuasion in the Letter of Jude’, 86. 112.  The argument in this section is adapted from Robinson, ‘The Enoch Inclusio in Jude’, 210–11. 113.  For a discussion on this device, see Laurence L. Welborn, An End to Enmity: Paul and the ‘Wrongdoer’ of Second Corinthians (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 228. 114.  Peter Marshall, Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul’s Relations with the Corinthians (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), 344. 115.  For a discussion on shame in ancient Israel, see Lyn M. Betchtel, ‘Shame as a Sanction of Social Control in Biblical Israel: Judicial, Political, and Social Shaming’, JSOT 49 (1991): 47–76.

108

Jude on the Attack

language to describe his opponents, τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς καὶ θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ (‘there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ’). Like Jude, Paul is not using a vague reference but a deliberate rhetorical device, ‘a rhetorical means of portraying the Judaizers as incognito persons, as shadowy characters, working, as it were, in the dark, as agitators prefer to do’.116 Even though Jude does not name the opponents who are threatening ἡ πίστις, he instead uses other features to identify them throughout his discourse.117 For example, in vv. 12–13, they are described as hidden reefs, selfish shepherds, waterless clouds, fruitless trees, wild waves, and wandering stars.118 Reese notes that these τινες ἄνθρωποι are members of the community to whom Jude is writing.119 They are not a separate group, but persons within the community. Commentators have suggested that they may be Gnostics,120 stoics,121 or itinerant preachers.122 Though we cannot know for sure, there are significant parallels between Jude’s opponents and the opponents described in the Enochic corpus, which may provide further insight into their identity. Reed’s study, Fallen Angels, identifies four major offenses of which the Watchers are accused: (1) they insult God through their words; (2) they affront him with their actions; (3) they misuse their authority; (4) they abuse their influence.123 Interestingly, we can identify a similar pattern in Jude’s case against his opponents. Initially, they have misused their words. The opponents of Jude are described as ‘blasphemers’ (vv. 8, 10), ‘grumblers’, and ‘complainers’ (v. 16), just as the Watchers also misuse their words, swearing ungodly oaths, binding themselves by curses (1 En. 6.4–5), teaching all forms of oppression and revealing heavenly secrets (1 En. 9.6–8). Secondly, the ungodly opponents are rebuked for their offensive actions. In Jude, these certain persons defile the flesh 116.  Du Toit, ‘Alienation and Re-Identification as Pragmatic Strategies in Galatians’, 285–86. 117.  Green, Jude and 2 Peter, 59. 118.  A dangerous force among the community. See Wolthuis, ‘Jude and the Rhetorician’, 129. 119.  Reese, 2 Peter and Jude, 24. 120.  Aichele, The Letters of Jude and Second Peter, 18. 121.  Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 31. 122.  Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 35. 123.  Annette Y. Reed, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 37–39.

5. The Aim of Jewish Judgement Oracles, Greco-Roman Invectives

109

(v. 8), walk in the way of Cain (v. 11), ‘foam out’ their own shameful action (v. 13), and walk in the way of their own lustfulness (v. 16). 1 Enoch states that the Watchers desired women (1 En. 6.2), took them as wives (1 En. 7.1), and, thus, defiled themselves through this practice (1 En. 9.8). Thirdly, the opponents misuse their influence. Jude 16 makes clear that the opponents show favouritism for selfish gain. In 1 Enoch, the people became corrupt (1 En. 8.3) through the influence of the Watchers, learning magic, sorcery (1 En. 7.1), astrology, and deception (1 En. 8.3), and because of their children (the giants or evil spirits), corruption fills the earth (1 En. 7.4–5). A final and major parallel between the Watchers and Jude’s opponents is that both abandoned positions of authority (1 En. 6.6 and Jude 11–13). It is important to identify just who the Watchers are in the context of 1 Enoch. Dale Martin argues that the Watchers are not demons or evil spirits, but rather angels who have now fallen because of their sinfulness.124 Demons, evil spirits, and fallen angels are identified as three separate beings (1 En. 19.1–2). This is significant given that Jude chooses to liken the ungodly to the fallen angels and not to demons or evil spirits (v. 6). The fundamental difference between these three figures is that the Watchers once held a position of godly authority, but have now abused it and stand in opposition to God. The evil spirits, however, emerged sinful (from birth), while the demons, whose origin is never made mention of, are likened to the gods of the nations and not angelic deities. Perhaps Jude uses this comparison because he knows his opponents have abused their position of authority, gone against the natural order, and now stand in opposition to God (vv. 11–13). It is possible, as seen through images such as ‘shepherds tending themselves’ and ‘hidden reefs at the love feast’ (v. 12), that Jude saw his opponents as people in positions of authority, but who abused that position through false teaching, ungodly actions, and poor influence.125 As a result, they now, too, stand in opposition to God, much like the fallen angels of 1 Enoch. Although Jude does not name his opponents he provides enough detail that it can be presumed that his readers would have recognized to whom he was referring,126 even though we are not ‘in that privileged position’.127

124.  Dale. B. Martin, ‘When Did Angels Become Demons?’, JBL 129, no. 4 (2010): 657. 125.  Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 11. 126.  Brosend, James and Jude, 170. 127.  Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 19.

110

Jude on the Attack

Taking these clues into account, it is likely that the opponents were teachers or influential leaders in the community, subtly leading the people astray. Jude is careful to warn the faithful of their corrupting influence and the dangers of following such teaching. But he also avails himself of the opportunity to announce the fate of these opponents and, indirectly, to make known the folly of their behaviour, the temporary nature of their success, and the resultant God-ordained judgement: the end has been decided. Using the examples of disobedient Israel (v. 5), the fallen angels (v. 6), Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding cities (v. 7), Cain, Balaam, and Korah (v. 11), Jude shows the opponents that rebellion brings destruction (ἀπώλεσεν, v. 5; φθείρονται, v. 10; ἀπώλοντο, v. 11) every time. The string of examples concludes with a quotation from 1 En. 1.9,128 an apocalyptic oracle which had ‘no conditional aspect to the threat of judgement, only the verdict which had already been predetermined by God’.129 Whatever position one takes on Jude’s own understanding of God’s sovereignty, it is clear that many contemporaries had a strong doctrine of historical determinism and God’s irrevocable purposes (the writers of 1 Enoch included).130 It is clear that Jude holds firmly that the elect are secure (vv. 1, 21, 24), and the ungodly are reserved for condemnation (vv. 4, 6, 7, 14). For the false teachers within the community, standing among the believers as the epistle was read, the message would have been quite clear: judgement is coming and ungodliness will be punished. 5.4. Comparative Analysis In this section, it will be argued that the aim of Jude shares several fundamental elements with Greco-Roman invective. Jude’s primary aim is to inspire the community to contend for the faith. This involves, first, alerting his hearers that a threat is present among them and, second, shaming and rebuking the opponents in order to have them removed from the community. Jude’s secondary aim is less direct. In his warning to the beloved, he makes known the judgement of God that will come for the opponents. In this regard, Jude reflects the aim of many Jewish judgement oracles. 128.  See Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World, 119, for a helpful analysis of 1 En. 1. 129.  Ibid., 114. 130.  See 1QS 3.15–17; 3.21–4.1; 11.11, 17–18; Markus Bockmuehl, ‘1QS and Salvation at Qumran’, in Justification and Variegated Nomism I: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, ed. D. A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien, and M. A. Seifrid, WUNT 2/140 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 396.

5. The Aim of Jewish Judgement Oracles, Greco-Roman Invectives

111

As discussed earlier, Jude’s primary and most direct aim is to compel the beloved to fight for τῇ πίστει (their full allegiance to Jesus Christ and the covenant promise passed down to them from their forefathers). Jude achieves this by first raising concerns and showing the community that a threat is present (v. 4). It appears from Jude’s tone that the community may not have been aware that they were even in danger (‘certain persons have slipped in among you’). In this regard, Jude follows the trend of several Greco-Roman invectives. Texts such as First Catiline, Against Piso, Against Verres, and Against Sophists are motivated by the reality that the community is unaware of the problem at hand. Cicero, for instance, goes to great measures to raise public concern in Against Verres, showing the community that the former governor of Sicily is not only fraudulent, but also is manipulating the judges. In Second Philippics, Cicero again uses his discourse to expose the true nature of his opponents in an attempt to protect the city from corruption. Like these invectives, Jude aims at alerting the community of the danger and raising public concern, so that these same faults may be avoided. When Jude exhorts the people to fight for the faith (v. 3), he is urging them to fight for truth and to avoid being deluded by the intruders who have perverted the grace God and denied Jesus as their Lord and Master (v. 4). His intent here has commonalities with speeches such as Against Sophists, a plea for truth and a fight against falsehood. In this text, Isocrates is deeply concerned about the false teaching that has infiltrated the community and is having a negative impact on his students. Orators of invective speech would often use their platform to warn the judges and the community not to be deluded by the slippery behaviour of the opponent in question. At various points, the people and the judges are encouraged to stand up and fight for justice. Jude also deters the beloved from following the ways of the false teachers, instead instructing them to build each other up in the most holy faith (v. 20). In the process of explaining these problems, Jude shames his opponents and exposes their true nature. By referring to these people as τινες ἄνθρωποι (‘certain persons’) who have παρεισέδυσαν (‘slipped in’, v. 4), Jude draws special attention to these adversaries. This is a renowned convention of praise and blame (see also Gal. 1.6; 2.4), and a technique used by Martial, Ovid, Isocrates, and Cicero. In Ep. 10.5, Martial shames an anonymous opponent. In doing so, he draws him out from the crowd. The same is true for Ovid’s Ibis. In this discourse, Ovid refuses to use his opponent’s name (Ib. 9), which raises suspicion. When Jude rebukes his unnamed group, he puts a spotlight on them, drawing them out, and shaming them for disguising themselves as faithful leaders (see Mk 14.18–19).

112

Jude on the Attack

Jude uses the body of his discourse (vv. 5–19) to build a case against the ungodly, listing crimes, making accusations, drawing comparisons, and suggesting a suitable punishment. The fundamental task in this portion of the epistle is to discredit the opponents, suggesting that they deserve retribution. In many Greco-Roman invectives, the case is made in a similar manner. For instance, in Against Meidias Demosthenes uses much of his discourse to present the crimes, accuse his opponent of past wrongs (creating a character profile), and show that Meidias deserves punishment. At the climax of his case against the opponents, Jude draws on a Jewish prophecy. In vv. 14–15, Jude demonstrates that the ungodly cannot escape God’s impending wrath, as shown in the quotation from 1 En. 1.9. In this, the epistle reflects almost every Jewish judgement oracle in its mention of God’s pronouncement of judgement. Jeremiah 23, for instance, presents a series of accusations to justify the judgement that is foretold at the end of each oracle (vv. 12–13, 14–15, 17–20). For the most part, Jewish judgement oracles were used explicitly to declare God’s coming judgement upon the ungodly (Amos 1–5; Isa. 28–34; Jer. 46–51; 1 En. 1.9). These judgements crystallized the fate of the wicked and provided divine assurance to the remnant of Israel (as seen in Amos 1–2 and Isa. 28–34). Jude demonstrates a similar intent as he applies a prophetic judgement to his context. While this is part of Jude’s aim (an aim also reflecting that of Greco-Roman invective, namely the shaming of the accused), he knows that the most authoritative method of discrediting his adversaries is to claim God’s judgement on them through a Jewish source (a technique in line with the prophets). In Jewish judgement oracles, the primary and, at times, exclusive aim is to proclaim Yahweh’s impending judgement and reinstate reverence for his name. Jude is motivated to write this letter to encourage the believers to hold firm to their covenant relationship with God, and not to be swayed by false teachers. Though Jude does bring a prophetic judgement (the ungodly will be punished, vv. 14–15), it is made very clear in v. 3 and then again in vv. 20–25 that Jude is addressing the beloved to alert them of a problem and strongly encourage them to combat this problem. The prophetic judgement in Jude serves the purpose of community reinforcement. In analysing the aim and intent of Jude’s epistle, I suggest that his purpose for writing is parallel to that of many Greco-Roman invectives. Jude’s primary concern is to alert those within the community that they are in danger of being led astray (and some may have already succumbed, vv. 22–23). He exhorts them to fight for τῇ ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστει (the covenant relationship that was handed down to them and is now

5. The Aim of Jewish Judgement Oracles, Greco-Roman Invectives

113

being tainted by the intruders). As with invective, Jude hopes to restore order to the community as the problems are made known and the false teachers are exposed. Further, Jude expects to discredit and shame the opponents, using an explicit citation and prophecy from 1 Enoch to seal his case. While this is still firmly in line with the purposes of invective, unlike the Greek orators who look to community opinion and judges, Jude completes his secondary aim by reference to God’s judgement.

Chapter 6

Themes in Jewish Judgement Oracles, Greco-Roman Invectives, and the Epistle of Jude

In this chapter I will examine themes appearing across Jewish judgement oracles, Greco-Roman invectives, and the epistle of Jude. First, I will present four themes common to Jewish judgement speech before turning to seven established themes found in Greco-Roman invective, and the five main themes of Jude. Though there are commonalities across all three texttypes, Jude is primarily interested in themes that concern Jewish tradition and religious obedience. This is done to address the perceived danger faced by the community by using familiar language for his primarily Jewish audience. Again, I begin with a survey of Jewish judgement oracles (§6.1), Greco-Roman invectives (§6.2), and a case study from each. If the reader wishes to move straight to an analysis of Jude and my own comparative argument, this can be found in section §6.3–4. 6.1. Themes in Jewish Judgement Oracles Here I outline four prominent themes of Jewish judgement oracles: social injustice, religious sins, sexual sins, and sins of excess. Interestingly, these themes are essentially a list of wrongdoings that have caused the judgement itself. (a) Social Injustice. Amos condemns Israel for several actions which had (a) detrimental impact(s) on the community. He rebukes those who ‘trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth’ (Amos 2.7)1 and who ‘sell the righteous for silver’ (Amos 2.6a) – an image used to describe dishonest judges who accept bribes and become the cause of corruption in the justice system.2 Condemnation is reserved for those who sell ‘the

1.  See also Amos 8.4–6; Isa. 5.8–20. 2.  See also Amos 5.12, which revisits the theme of corrupt judges.

6. Themes in Jewish Judgement Oracles

115

needy for a pair of sandals’ (Amos 2.6b) and use garments ‘taken in pledge’ (Amos 2.8) – the equivalent of stealing from the poor. When the people of God use their own people as objects of abuse, they are violating the law and abusing the covenant of Yahweh.3 Isaiah also rebukes the people of God for depriving the poor (Isa. 5.8), acting deceitfully (Isa. 5.18–21), accepting bribes (Isa. 5.23), making unjust laws, issuing oppressive decrees, and withholding justice (Isa. 10.1). Micah condemns corrupt business practices and associates them with ‘wicked scales and a bag of dishonest weights’ (Mic. 6.11).4 The writers of 1 Enoch scold sinners for ‘treading the lowly underfoot with their might’ (1 En. 96.5), while others accuse Israel of being oppressors (Zeph. 3.1; Isa. 10.1), destroyers (Isa. 33.1), tyrants (Zeph. 3.7–8), and persecutors of the righteous (1 En. 95.5–7). Sinners are accused of performing child sacrifices (Ezek. 16.20–21, 36), building their city with bloodshed (Hab. 2.8, 12), flourishing by unjust gain (Hab. 2.10), and requiting their neighbours with evil (1 En. 96.5; 99.11). They ‘do not know how to do right’ – thus, there is no justice in the land (Amos 3.10; see also Amos 1.1–2.1). (b) Religious Sins. Given the nature of Israel’s covenant relationship with Yahweh, it is not a surprise that religious transgressions are a recurring theme within the judgement oracles. While establishing his covenant with Israel, Yahweh decrees, ‘I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me’ (Exod. 20.2). There was an expectation that the Israelites would respond to God’s mercy by worshipping him alone. However, when this was not honoured, the people were charged with hypocrisy, idolatry, blasphemy, pride, and arrogance.5 In several prophetic oracles, Israel is accused of making an alliance with other gods and other nations (Isa. 30.1, 2; 31.1; Jer. 7.9; 36.5–8; Zeph. 3.1–8; Hos. 2.13; Ezek. 16.17, 36; 1 En. 99.14). This rejection of God is summed up by the writer of 1 Enoch, ‘Woe to you who drink water from every fountain, for suddenly you will be consumed and wither away

3.  Mamahit and Venter, ‘Oracle Against Israel’s Social Injustices’, 11. 4.  See also Amos 8.5–6. 5.  According to Matthews, apostasy, idolatry, and unfaithfulness to the covenant are the most prominent sins in the judgement speeches (see Jer. 1.16; Ps. 8.32–37; Hos. 4.12–13; Zeph. 1.4–6); see Matthews, Social World of the Hebrew Prophets, 120.

116

Jude on the Attack

because you have forsaken the fountain of life’ (1 En. 96.6).6 The theme of idolatry is explicit in the book of Hosea, displayed in Hosea’s union with Gomer, the prostitute. In this symbolic marriage, Gomer represents Israel and Hosea represents God, the long-suffering and faithful husband who laments over his sinful spouse.7 God repeatedly announces that he despises Israel’s sacrifices and their various festivals (Amos 5.21–24; Jer. 6.20). They are, in fact, an ‘abomination’ to him (Isa. 1.13), because they are done with hollow and insincere hearts. It is only with (‫ )חסד‬that these sacrifices can be acceptable to him (Mic. 6.6–8; Jer. 7.23). Yahweh rejects the worship of unrepentant Israel and instead reduces it to mere ‘noise’ (Amos 5.21–24). They are called boastful (Isa. 28.15), blasphemous (1 En. 96.7), deceptive (1 En. 99.12), arrogant, and puffed up (Hab. 2.4–5).8 Religious sins did not only concern Israel. The king of Assyria is said to have a proud heart (Isa. 10.5), while Moab and the Ammonites are accused of taunting the people of God (Zeph. 2.8). In this oracle, Yahweh promises to bring judgement against Moab as they have scoffed and boasted against Israel and have let pride fill their hearts (Zeph. 2.10).9 Oracles against foreign nations often mock their arrogance in attributing military success to their own abilities or more commonly to the strength of their gods. In Isaiah 40–55, we read that Yahweh used Cyrus, the Persian king, as his instrument to liberate the exiled people of Judah. Yet in the Babylonian accounts, this victory is attributed to Marduk, the ruler of the divine assembly, who ‘heard the people of Babylon when they cried out’, left his sanctuary, and ‘searched all the lands for a righteous ruler’, eventually finding and anointing Cyprus ‘as the ruler of all the earth’.10 (c) Sexual Sins. Sexual sins constitute a major theme. On a metaphorical level, Israel is often called a ‘whore’ (Ezek. 16.15, 16, 17, 20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 33, 34, 36; Hos. 1.2), an ‘adulterous wife’, and a ‘prostitute’ 6.  See also 1 Apol. 9 7.  Matthews, Social World of the Hebrew Prophets, 75. 8.  Even Jesus himself attacks the Pharisees by calling them ‘hypocrites’ (a refer­ ence to the incongruity of their speech and actions) six times in Mt. 23 (vv. 13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29). 9.  Similar themes can be found in Rev. 18.7 and Sib. Or. 5.162–78, where Babylon and Rome are rebuked for their pride and impious spirit. 10.  Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East, 3rd ed. (1991; repr., New York: Paulist, 2006), 194.

6. Themes in Jewish Judgement Oracles

117

(Ezek. 16.32) lusting after other gods. When idolatry and sexual sins are juxtaposed, it is a reflection of the ancient Jewish conception of moral impurity.11 From a more literal perspective, David is rebuked by the prophet Nathan for murder and for taking the wife of Uriah as his own wife (2 Sam. 12.10–12). Israel is rebuked for their lustful desires (Hab. 2.15), and the writers of 1 Enoch rebuke the angels for having sexual intercourse with the daughters of men (1 En. 6–19, an extension of Gen. 6.1–4).12 In the New Testament, John speaks of Babylon, the whore, and the maddening wine of her adulteries (Rev. 18.3). Later, the theme is taken up in the speech of Lucian, the Hellenistic satirist, against the one in Rome who has ‘committed his entire soul to pleasure’ (Luc., Nigr. 15).13 The theme of sexual sin is also addressed in the Sibylline Oracles, where Rome is yet again reprimanded for adultery and ‘illicit intercourse with boys’ (Sib. Or. 5.166).14 Later, in the writings of the church fathers, Irenaeus declares that his opponents are ‘slaves of lust’ (Ir., Adv. Haer. 5.8.4), while Justin Martyr accuses the emperor of being lured into ‘porneia and greed’ (Jus., 1 Apo. 1.14). (d) Sins of Excess. The theme of greed and excess is presented in Mic. 3.1–4, where Israel’s rulers are accused of gaining wealth at the expense of the poor. The metaphor of flesh being torn off their bones illustrates the length to which the ruling classes would go to further increase their wealth.15 In Habakkuk, Judah is accused of being greedy (Hab. 2.5),

11.  Jonathan Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 152. 12.  Proof of this connection can be found in Jub. 4.15, 22; 5.1; CD 2.17–19; T. Reu. 5.6–7; T. Naph. 3.5; 2 Bar. 56.10–14). For a discussion of the Watchers, see Kevin P. Sullivan, Wrestling with Angels: A Study of the Relationship Between Angels and Humans in Ancient Jewish Literature and the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 2004). 13.  It is believed that Lucian of Samosata was of a Semitic background and (along with Greek) spoke Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic. See Simon Swain, Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World, AD 50–250 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 299. 14.  See also Sib. Or. 3.590–600; Joseph., Apion 2.275; 4QpHosa-b; Philo, Virt. 34.182. 15.  In the book of Wisdom, the wicked discover on the last day that their arrogance and wealth has done them no good (Wis. 5.8), whereas the righteous, whom they oppressed, receive eternal glory (Wis. 5.15–16).

118

Jude on the Attack

becoming wealthy by extortion (Hab. 2.6), and of being gluttons and drunks. In the Qumran corpus, the greed of wicked priests was a serious concern and associated to ‘every sort of unclean impurity’ (1QpHab XII.9–10, 13).16 6.1.1. Jeremiah 23.9–22 (Case Study, Part 3) A major theme in the collective oracles of Jeremiah is false prophecy resulting in corrupt governance.17 Sweeney explains, ‘In short, Jeremiah debates with his contemporaries concerning the meaning of the Isaian tradition [that the remnant will be saved], and ultimately charges that those prophets, who understand it to mean peace in their time, must be considered false’.18 Jeremiah observed that the Babylonians were brought into power by Yahweh and used as a tool to subdue Judah.19 The false prophets, however, believed that Yahweh would deliver his people from the iron fist of Babylon. They produced visions from their own hearts and minds and, rather than warning the people of the impending judgement, they led the people astray, proclaiming that ‘it shall be well with you’ (Jer. 23.17; see also Jer. 4.10).20 Their message of false ‘peace’ (Jer. 4.9; 5.12;

16.  Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism, 70. See Isa. 5.8–30; 28.1, 3; 1 En. 96.5; Rev. 18.3; see also Lucian, Nigr. 15 for more examples. See also Brian S. Rosne, Greed as Idolatry: The Origin and Meaning of a Pauline Metaphor (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007). The writer of Proverbs warns against this, ‘How much better to acquire wisdom than gold’ (Prov. 16.16), a phrase often used to symbolize greed and idolatry. See Ellen Frankel and Betsy Platkin Teutsch, ‘Gold’, in The Encyclopedia of Jewish Symbols, ed. Ellen Frankel and Betsy Platkin Teutsch (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1992), 62. 17.  Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah, 211. 18.  See Marvin A. Sweeney, Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 84 (emphasis added). 19.  For a discussion on the invasion from the north (Jer. 4.5–8; 6.1–5, 22–26), see John Bright, Jeremiah, AB 21 (New York: Doubleday, 1965), lxxxvii; William L. Holladay, ‘The Years of Jeremiah’s Preaching’, in Interpreting the Prophets, ed. James Luther Mays and Paul J. Achtemeier (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 130–31; Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel, 163; Walter Brueggemann, ‘The Book of Jeremiah: Portrait of the Prophet’, in Mays and Achtemeier, eds., Interpreting the Prophets, 121. 20.  Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, 497. The idea of false peace or hope is connected to vanity or emptiness as seen in Eccl. 1.2. See F. B. Huey, Jeremiah, Lamentations: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scriptures, NAC 16 (Nashville: Broadman, 1993), 216; Willis, Jeremiah and Lamentations, 198.

6. Themes in Jewish Judgement Oracles

119

6.13; 14.13; 23.17) led others down the road of deception (Jer. 23.14).21 The people were encouraged in the way of immorality; ungodliness had spread throughout the land (Jer. 23.10, 14). Themes surrounding sexual and religious sins are also highlighted throughout Jeremiah 23. In v. 14, it is stated that ‘people are committing adultery’, a claim which could be literal or figurative (see Deut. 28.23–24; Isa. 24.6–7; Amos 4.7–8).22 The reference to Baal worship in the previous verse (Jer. 23.13) hints that the image of adultery is connected to idolatry, a symbol of Israel’s unfaithfulness to God.23 Though they brought offerings to Baal (the fertility god of the Canaanites),24 there is no rain, only severe barrenness in the land (v. 11). Now the entire country will face drought (Jer. 12.4; 14.1).25 Along with the prophets in v. 11, the priests are also rebuked for polluting God’s house (ὅτι ἱερεὺς καὶ προφήτης ἐμολύνθησαν καὶ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ μου εἶδον πονηρίας αὐτῶν). Jeremiah includes the priests in his accusation as they, too, are acting as godless leaders,26 defiling God’s house. God has declared them πονηροί (‘wicked’). Although the ‘wickedness’ mentioned here is rather vague (and may be associated to the adultery mentioned in v. 14, a metaphorical and religious unfaithfulness), it will bring divine judgement and destruction on the people just as it did for Sodom and Gomorrah.27

21.  See Robert P. Carroll, ‘The Polyphonic Jeremiah: A Reading of the Book of Jeremiah’, in Kessler, ed., Reading the Book of Jeremiah, 83. See also Thomas W. Overholt, The Threat of Falsehood, SBT (London: SCM, 1970). Falsehood is a central motif throughout the book of Jeremiah. The prophet is convinced that the entire royal establishment is a house of lies which will surely fall. 22.  In v. 10 of the MT, it is stated that the land is filled with ‘adulterers’ (see also Jer. 5.7–8). 23.  Although the word ‫‘( נאף‬adultery’), used also in Jer. 23.14, may be metaphorical here, in other parts of Jeremiah it is used in a more literal manner (e.g. Jer. 29.23). See Parke-Taylor, The Formation of the Book of Jeremiah, 81–82. 24.  Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, 493. 25.  Henry McKeating, The Book of Jeremiah, Epworth Commentaries (London: Epworth, 1998), 84. 26.  In these oracles, there is a blurred line between the priests and prophets; both are seen to be godless (vv. 11, 14). See Tiemeyer, ‘The Priests and the Temple Cult in the Book of Jeremiah’, 241. 27.  Parke-Taylor, The Formation of the Book of Jeremiah, 82; Tiemeyer, ‘The Priests and the Temple Cult in the Book of Jeremiah’, 240. See also Jer. 49.18; 50.40.

120

Jude on the Attack

6.2. Themes in Greco-Roman Invectives In Greco-Roman invectives, orators would often focus on whatever topics would best defame their opponents. It was left to their discretion as to which elements were important in the given context. The handbooks and modern commentators, however, have compiled the most commonly used of these. When determining whether a text (or part of a text) could be categorized as an invective, it is important to note the dominant themes. According to Rhet. Her. 3.6.10, one could praise or shame a chosen target by focusing on various loci, including external circumstances, physical attributes, or qualities of character.28 This list was expanded upon by Süss29 and Craig,30 respectively. For the sake of clarity, Table 3 combines the ten topics compiled by Süss, the seventeen loci from Craig, and the common themes as specified by the writer of Rhet. Her. to give seven categories that will be used in this study. The development of these seven categories are signified in Table 3 and subsequently expanded upon. Table 3. Common Themes Observed in Invective Craig (2004)

Rhet. Her. 3.6.10 a) External Circumstances

(1) Embarrassing family origins

b) Physical Attributes

(3) Physical appearance; (4) Eccentricity of dress

Süss (1920) 1. Servile heritage 2. Barbarian (non-Roman) 3. Non-élite occupation 8. Unusual appearance, clothing or demeanour

New Categories i. External circumstances

ii. Physical attributes

28.  See Cic., Part. Or. 82. See also Ilona Opelt, Die lateinischen Schimpfwörter und verwandte sprachliche Erscheinungen. Eine Typologie (Heidelberg: Winter, 1965), 181; Robin G. M. Nisbet, M. Tulli Ciceronis in L. Calpurnium Pisonem Oration (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961). 29.  Wilhelm Süss, Ethos: Studien zur älteren griechischen Rhetorik (Berlin: Teubner, 1910), 10. 30.  Christopher P. Craig, ‘Audience, Expectations, Invective, and Proof’, in Cicero the Advocate, ed. Jonathan G. F. Powell and Jeremy Paterson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 190–91.

6. Themes in Jewish Judgement Oracles c) Qualities of Character

(10) Sexual conduct (6) Hypocrisy in appearing virtuous; (9) Pretentiousness; (17) Oratorical ineptitude and impiety (8) Taking bribes; (12) Cowardice in war; (14) Aspiring to regnum or tyranny, often associated with vis (“violence”), libido, superbia (“arrogance”), and cruelties; (15) Cruelty to citizens and allies; (16) Plunder of private and public property (5) Gluttony and drunkenness, possibly leading to acts of cruelty and lust; (7) Avarice (greed) (2) Being unworthy of one’s family; (11) Hostility to one’s family; (13) Squandering one’s patrimony, or financial embarrassment in general

121

5. Non-standard sexual behaviour 7. Melancholy disposition

iii. Sexual misconduct iv. Speech

4. Thievery 9. Cowardice

v. Detrimental behaviour toward the city and its citizens

10. Bankruptcy

vi. Excessive habits

6. Estrangement from family and community

vii. Bringing shame to one’s family

(a) External Circumstances. A person’s external circumstance (i.e. lineage, ethnicity, and occupation) often lent them to criticism in Greek and Roman invectives. Both illustrious and lowly descent, for instance, were marked as key topics in censure by Rhet. Her. 3.13. Simply having a non-Roman background,31 or a lowly family origin (as noted by Suetonius in his 31.  Corbeill, ‘Ciceronian Invective’, 205. See also Robert Garland, The Eye of the Beholder: Deformity and Disability in the Graeco-Roman World, 2nd ed. (1995; repr., London: Bristol Classical, 2010).

122

Jude on the Attack

invective against Domitian) were easy ways to inscribe disgrace upon an opponent (Suet., Vesp. 1.1). There are several references in Demosthenes that make specific mention of an opponent being ‘slave-born’, regardless if it was true or not (Dem., Emb. 209, 210).32 Demosthenes stresses the slave-like characteristics of Aeschines, questioning whether his claim to citizenship is valid. In his speech, On the False Embassy, Demosthenes alludes twice to Aeschines’ father’s lowly occupation as a schoolteacher (διδάσκων δ᾽ ὁ πατὴρ γράμματα, Dem., Emb. 249, 281) and questions whether he is reputable given that he is the son of ‘such parents’ (Emb. 281). He also refers to Aeschines’ mother’s unusual religious practices (or ‘hocus-pocus’, Emb. 199).33 In reply, Aeschines calls Demosthenes a ‘nomad’ and a ‘barbarian’ (Aeschin. 2.78, 180; see also Cic., Vat. 14; Ver. 1.1.56; Alc., Heracl. 131), both of which allude to his poor upbringing and insinuate that as an outsider he would not have the citizens’ interests at heart.34 (b) Physical Appearance. In the Roman Empire, the physically unfortunate were often the subjects of ridicule. It is recorded that various emperors invited cripples, dwarfs, bald men, black men, fat men, the deaf, and the deformed to their banquets simply to promote laughter (Suet., Aug. 82; SHA, Heliogab. 29.3; Comm. 11.1).35 Given this peculiar cultural atmosphere, attacking physical characteristics in invective discourse seemed only natural. According to Corbeill, mocking a person’s physical appearance was an effective tool given that physical exterior was commonly thought to reflect the moral interior.36 Cicero remonstrates, ‘For those of you who do not know him, consider his face. Surely, 32.  Deborah Kamen, ‘Servile Invective in Classical Athens’, Scripta Classica Israelica 28 (2009): 43–56. 33.  See Andrew R. Dyck, ‘The Function and Persuasive Power of Demosthenes’ Portrait of Aeschines in the Speech “On the Crown” ’, Greece & Rome 32, no. 1 (1985): 42. 34.  See Kamen, ‘Servile Invective in Classical Athens’, 45. 35.  For a helpful insight into the general ridicule of deformities and disabilities in the Roman world, see Louise Gosbell, ‘The Parable of the Great Banquet (Luke 14.15–24), CBM and the Church – Churches as Places of Welcome and Belonging for People with Disability’, St Mark’s Review, no. 232 (2015): 109–22. See also Candida R. Moss and Joel S. Baden, Reconceiving Infertility: Biblical Perspectives on Procreation and Childlessness (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015), 2–7. 36.  Corbeill, ‘Ciceronian Invective’, 207. Corbeill, Controlling Laughter, 26, goes on to say, ‘A Roman located the responsibility for any deformity, regardless of its origin, solely in the person who bore that deformity’.

6. Themes in Jewish Judgement Oracles

123

Fannius’s very head and eyebrows, so closely shaven, seem to stink of evil and proclaim his strewed nature’ (Cic., QRosc. 20). He likens Vatinius to a serpent springing forth with an inflated neck and swollen throat (Cic., Vat. 4).37 He speaks of Piso’s hairy cheeks and discoloured teeth (Cic., Pis. 1).38 Domitian was also attacked for his appearance by both Pliny and Suetonius,39 who together painted an unattractive picture of their common foe (Pliny, Pan. 48.3–5; Suet., Dom. 4.4). Attacks on physical faults and deformities, however, were not to be made in isolation. Aristotle qualifies that an orator should only draw on such physical features as a second proof of character (Arist., Rhet. 1.9.32–33). In rhetorical invective, the mockery of physical deformities helped to disgrace an opponent and turn the audience to the side of the speaker. Physical appearance proved to be an effective topic as it not only exposed a person’s apparent moral faults but naturally brought an opponent low through embarrassment.40 For instance, in Alcaeus’ attack on Pittacus, he speaks of him trampling on his oaths with his ‘flat feet’ (Alc., fr. 129.22–23). The focal insult here is his lack of morality, and his flat feet serve as a happily coincidental depiction of his moral deformity. However, although the handbooks may have specified more honourable guidelines for the mention of physical peculiarities, in the public arena, with laughter and mockery as important tools-of-trade, insults often descended into the cruel and unjust. (c) Sexual Misconduct. In Greco-Roman invectives, sexual slander is a recurring theme. It was often used by orators to create community boundaries between insiders and outsiders, between the pure and the impure. As Wright Knust notes: ‘From ancient times until today, accusers have sought to undermine, embarrass, and even overthrow political leaders on the basis of their (real or alleged) sexual wrongdoing. Such charges do not appear only in the contentious realm of governmental power politics; sexual slander has also served as an important tool in the production of group boundaries.’41 As early as 650 BCE, poets like Archilochus used fables with graphic sexual narrative and direct verbal abuse to devastate

37.  See also Cic., Vat. 10. 38.  Cicero also speaks of the ‘jaws’, ‘sides’, and ‘strength’ of Antonius when criticizing his drunkard and shameful state (Cic., Phil. 2.63). 39.  For an examination of both these works, see Paul Roche, ed., Pliny’s Praise (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). 40.  Corbeill, Controlling Laughter, 24. 41.  Wright Knust, Abandoned to Lust, 1.

124

Jude on the Attack

their opponents.42 It was not until the first century BCE, however, when the emperor Augustus instituted a law forbidding adultery, that the theme truly flourished.43 During the Hellenistic period, orators drew upon images of lust, adultery, and sinful pleasure. In Against Piso, Cicero calls Piso a man involved in ‘reeking orgies’ (Cic., Pis. 22), ‘the adulterer with his own sister’ (Pis. 28), among whom there is no one ‘more licentious, nothing more lustful, nothing more base, nothing more wicked than this man’ (Pis. 66; see also Plut., Pomp. 2.45; Suet., Aug. 69; Hor., Od. 3.6).44 He also refers to men ‘in brothels, in scenes of adultery…who define evil by pain, and good by pleasure’ (Cic., Pis. 42). In a similar tone, Cicero exclaims in Second Philippics, ‘Oh the abominable profligacy of the man! Oh how intolerable is his impudence, his debauchery, and his lust!’ (Cic., Phil. 2.15; see also Cic., Ver. 1.14). Then there is Clodia, a woman presented by Cicero as a dangerous and devious seductress.45 In a patriarchal society it was not often that a woman was directly attacked. Insults against women (i.e. a lowborn mother or an adulterous sister) were often used to disgrace the true target, a man. Women were simply ‘caught in the crossfire’.46 This can be seen in pseudo-Sallust’s invective against Cicero, ‘I suppose your spirits are raised by the brilliance of your home, by a wife guilty of sacrilege and dishonour by perjury, by a daughter who is her mother’s rival’ (ps.-Sall., Cic. 2.2). In early Christian literature, Paul rebukes the people of Corinth for their sexual immorality (1 Cor. 5.1; 6.9–11, 18);47 a form that not even 42.  Gerber, A Companion to the Greek Lyric Poets, 69. It is alleged that Archilochus’ attack against Lycambes was so fierce it caused Lycambes to take his own life; see Christopher Carey, ‘Archilochus and Lycambes’, The Classical Quarterly 36, no. 1 (1986): 60. 43.  These laws are discussed in D 48.5.21.1, Papinian; D 48.5.24.1, Ulpian; D 48.5.25.1, Macer. 44.  A large portion of Catullus’ invectives were reserved for sexual misconduct. See Poems 15, 17, 21, 23, 25, 28, 29, 33, 37, 39, 40–42, 47, 54, 57–59, 67, 74, 78–80, 88–91, 94, 97, 98, 106, 108, 111–13. See Marilyn B. Skinner, ed., A Companion to Catullus (West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011). 45.  For Cicero’s portrayal of Clodia, see Alison Sharrock and Rhiannon Ash, Fifty Key Classical Authors (London: Routledge, 2002), 208. See also Cic., Cat. 2.23; Pro Flacco 34; Pis. 70; Phil. 2.99 for other examples of sexual accusations. In response, Cicero himself was insulted by his enemies and accused of sexual misconduct (Dio Cass., Rom Hist. 46.18.3–6) 46.  Tatum, ‘Invective Identities in Pro Caelio’, 172. 47.  See also Eph. 4.19; 1 Apol. 5; Did. 5.1.

6. Themes in Jewish Judgement Oracles

125

the pagans would tolerate (1 Cor. 51.1).48 In Revelation, the Son of God is against Thyatira for tolerating Jezebel, who by her teaching leads the people to sexual immorality and idol worship (Rev. 2.20). When orators attacked their opponents by charging them with sexual misconduct, they were relying on a ‘long-standing discursive strategy that would have been familiar to everyone’.49 (d) Speech. What flowed from a person’s mouth (os) indicated a person’s character, or lack thereof.50 The mouth was thus a ‘central metonymy for distinguishing between the upstanding Athenian citizen and the mercenary excesses of brutal or craven sophistic types’.51 Orators would highlight such things as shameless boasting, hypocrisy, polluted speech, deception, and impiety. Even as early as Greek comedies (in the sixth century BCE), the mouth served as a focal point in the denigration of a target. Plays depicted their villains as loud and brash talkers,52 brawlers who roar like torrents (Ar., Kn. 137), and hurricanes that lash the sea (Kn. 691). During the Hellenistic period, Demosthenes, in Against Meidias, reviles the tasteless and tactless boasts of his opponent (Dem., Meid. 66; 153; 169).53 Likewise, Cicero recounts the wicked speech of his enemies, making particular mention of their ‘shameless boastings’ (Cic., Pis. 1.2; Phil. 2.5; Ver. 1.8), ‘loud mouths’ (Ver. 1.19), ‘filthy language’ (Pis. 1.13), ‘rage’ (Vat. 4), ‘polluted breath’ (Pis. 1.20), and voices of conspiracy (Cat. 1.3).54

48.  Wright Knust, Abandoned to Lust, 52–53, observes that, ‘Sexualized invective became a key strategy for drawing boundaries between outsiders and insiders and also for enforcing insider sexual ethics’. 49.  Ibid., 6. See also Catharine Edwards, The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 47. 50.  For a detailed investigation of the mouth (os) particularly in the orations of Cicero, see Corbeill, Controlling Laughter, 102–27. In this chapter, Corbeill shows how the mouth was used by orators not only to mock an opponent but to highlight an opponent’s wickedness and vices. 51.  Nancy Worman, ‘Insult and Oral Excess in the Disputes Between Aeschines and Demosthenes’, AJP 125, no. 1 (2004): 8. 52.  Worman, Abusive Mouths in Classical Athens, 62. 53.  See Worman, ‘Insult and Oral Excess in the Disputes between Aeschines and Demosthenes’, 8. 54.  See also ps.-Cic., Sal. 1.1; ps.-Sall., Cic. 1.2, 3; 1 Cor. 4.18–21; 5.6; Jas 4.16.

126

Jude on the Attack

In Against the Sophists, Isocrates is troubled by the deceitfulness of the false teachers as they ‘dabble in disputation’ (Isoc., Soph. 22).55 Falsehood sounds a great alarm for orators like Isocrates as it was thought to cause others within the community to suffer based on the given lies (Isocrates, Soph. 1–2; see also Call. 4). The same theme appears centuries later in Cicero’s Against Piso, where he claims that Piso’s entire countenance has led men into error (Cic., Pis. 1) because of his dishonesty and deceitfulness, among other things (Cic., Pis. 66; see also Ver. 1.5). This is also an important theme in early Christian literature. The false prophets/ teachers are denounced by James (4.10), Peter (1 Pet. 5.6; 2 Pet. 2.13), the writer of the Didache (Did. 3.9), and the Epistle of Barnabas (Barn. 19.3) for similar crimes. A final element concerning speech is irreverence and impiety. In Martial’s epigram, his anonymous opponent is charged with ‘impious verse’ and bringing dishonour upon the noble and the matron (Ep. 10.5.1). Demosthenes writes against Androtion, that he deserves three counts of death for his blasphemy, sacrilege, impiety and other monstrous crime (Dem., Andr. 69). A few centuries later, Cicero labels both Piso and Catiline as impious (Cic., Pis. 1, 27; Cat. 1.23; 1.33), and states that they, too, deserve great punishment. Impiety can have religious connotations or refer to the misplacement of honour and societal respect. But impiety does not necessarily entail speech. For instance, Cicero charges Catiline ‘for bringing wicked fire upon the shrines and temples of the gods’ (Cic., Cat. 3.22), a physical act of irreverence and impiety. Often, however, impiety involves the misuse of one’s words either against a god, a leader; or another who is entitled to honour and respect. (e) Detrimental Behaviour Towards the City and Its Citizens. Cruelty (financial, physical, or otherwise) towards one’s fellow compatriots was a serious charge. Writers would often compare their subjects to known tyrants, labelling contemporary villains ‘as the heirs of those from previous generations’.56 It was often taken to great extremes, for example, Libanius’ attack on Philip: ‘While a tyrant is the worst of the evils amongst men, Philip is the worst of all tyrants’ (Lib., Prog. 3.1). Several writers liken their opponents to Sardanapallos,57 ‘the archetypal 55.  The false teachers claimed to have great wisdom and would pretend to have knowledge of the future (Isoc., Soph. 7), though this was nothing but falsified testimony. 56.  Flower, Emperors and Bishops in Late Roman Invective, 24. 57.  See Arist., Nic. Eth. 1095b; Alex. 330F; Theano to Euboule 22–25; Clem., Strom. 2.20.118.

6. Themes in Jewish Judgement Oracles

127

hedonistic, arrogant, thoroughly out-of-control tyrant, who focused on the delights of his body’.58 Cicero calls Verres a ‘tyrant of Asia and Pamphylia, the robber who deprived the city of its rights’ (Cic., Ver. 1.2; see also Cic., Off. 3.4.19; Att. 9.2; 13.2; 14.6.2; Phil. 2.85–87, 110, 116). In the Cynic Epistles, Crates rebukes the wealthy for their selfish and detrimental conduct: ‘You are guilty of treachery, you exercise tyranny and commit murder, and you perpetrate whatever other such things there are’ (Crates, Ep. 7).59 Pliny’s invective against Domitian reveals his cruelty towards citizens (Pliny, Pan. 48.3–5).60 In Cicero’s Pro Cluentio, Sassia is attacked for treating her own son ‘with the hatred and cruelty of an enemy’ (Cic., Clu. 12). (f) Excessive Habits. Images of gluttony, drunkenness, greed and the misuse of money fill the pages of Cicero’s orations. He speaks of Verres ‘committing his robberies of money’ (Cic., Ver. 1.5), boasting of his greed for money (Ver. 1.8),61 and committing acts of bribery (Ver. 1.36, 39). This concerned Cicero since greed instigated great corruption among authorities.62 He refers to himself as being among ‘the fumes of their gluttony and filthy behaviour’ (Cic., Pis. 1.13) and his opponents being ‘worn out with drunkenness and debauchery’ (Cic., Phil. 2.6). He speaks of Piso, a man who has never been seen sober (Pis. 22), who revels in drunkenness (Pis. 1.42), as a ‘glutton, born for his own belly, not for glory or renown’ (Pis. 1.41; see also Cat. 29.2, 10). Domitian is labelled as a glutton by Pliny (Pan. 49.6), and in Python Pindar uses the image of gluttony to illustrate Archilochus as ‘growing fat’ on his words of hatred (Pind., Pyth. 2.52). Isocrates also draws upon the same theme while accusing the false teachers of being corrupt, holding out their hands ‘for a trifling gain’ (Isoc., Soph. 4; see also Soph. 20). Suetonius says Domitian’s death is ‘a reward for his cruelty and greed’ (Suet., Vesp. 1.1), and pseudo-Sallust names Cicero ‘a bottomless gullet’ (ps.-Sall., Cic. 1.3).

58.  Annette B. Huizenga, Moral Education for Women in the Pastoral and Pythagorean Letters: Philosophers of the Household (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 150. 59.  Crates, ‘The Epistles of Crates’, in Malherbe, ed., The Cynic Epistles, 59. 60.  Similar charges are made in Cic., Clu. 12; Pis. 46, 56–57, 66, 83–94; Phil. 2.17; Cat. 1.1, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18; 2.3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 18; Dom. 5; Dem., Emb. 2. 61.  See also 1.17. 62.  Judith P. Hallett and Marilyn B. Skinner, Roman Sexualities (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), 103.

128

Jude on the Attack

(g) Bringing Shame to One’s Family or Community. In a shame–honour culture, an individual’s behaviour could impact their entire family or community.63 It is believed that Archilochus’ invective against Lycambes and his daughters brought such shame to his family that they eventually hung themselves.64 Unlike an unflattering family history (which was outside of one’s control), here the attack is against those who bring shame to their family or community. Such a situation was culturally intolerable. Maintaining honour was the responsibility of every member of the household.65 Catullus claims that Caesar squandered his good inheritance (Cic., Cat. 29), while Suetonius and Pliny claim that Domitian is unworthy of his own family (Pliny, Pan. 48.3–5; Suet., Vesp. 1.1). Cicero attacks Sassia by suggesting that she has been carried away by lust and that not even the shame she brings upon her family can stop her desires (Cic., Clu. 12–13). In Against Piso, Cicero attacks his opponent by highlighting the shame he has bought to his family (Cic., Pis. 53–54) and by specifically mentioning his unworthiness of the family lineage (Pis. 62). Cicero attacks Catiline by referencing the fear and hatred of his own parents (Cat. 1.17). 6.2.1. Demosthenes, Against Meidias (Case Study, Part 3) Three themes or loci are significant to Demosthenes’ argument in this text (Meid. 16–21). In this section, we read about detrimental behaviour to the community, improper speech, and bringing shame to one’s family or community. Demosthenes avails himself of the opportunity to represent his opponent as a venal, immoral bully.66 Meidias was a man of intimidation. He would use his tone and gestures to instil fear (Dem., Meid. 17–19) and his loud mouth to bully the commoner (Meid. 69, 135–36). A simple stare could evoke silence among spectators (Meid. 133). He was a threatening tyrant who had no respect for laws or customs, as seen in the case of Stato, who was stripped of his citizenship due to pressure and accusations 63.  Jon E. Lendon, ‘Roman Honor’, in The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World, ed. Michael Peachin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 390. 64.  Richard Rutherford, Classical Literature: A Concise History (Malden: Blackwell, 2005), 149. 65.  Thomas A. J. McGinn, ‘Roman Prostitutes and Marginalization’, in Peachin, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World, 657. 66.  Worthington, Demosthenes of Athens and the Fall of Classical Greece, 158.

6. Themes in Jewish Judgement Oracles

129

from Meidias (Meid. 69).67 Loud and insolent aristocrats like Meidias behaved ‘with arrogance and contempt not only toward their inferiors but also toward the laws that protect all citizens alike’.68 Athenians prided themselves on equal rights and free speech, but Meidias sought to return the republic to an older system where the commoner was abused for speaking out of turn and the aristocrats were free to speak loudly and at great length.69 This tyrant-like behaviour did not end there. Meidias also caused physical harm to Demosthenes, his mother, and his sister. Cruelty of this kind would clearly prejudice the jury against the accused. Assaulting a person at a religious festival was an especially disgraceful offense. Athenians had a great respect for the gods and such an act was seen to be truly disrespectful. Even Meidias’ friend and ally Eubulus avoided association with him after he disrupted the religious festival.70 The way Demosthenes portrays Meidias not only depicts him as a public menace, but it highlights the destructive manner in which he used his words. In Against Meidias, Demosthenes paints his opponent’s loud and powerful voice in a predominantly negative light. He is informally accused of impiety (Dem., Meid. 16, 74) and, in a later part of the discourse, of slander due to the abusive language he used towards Demosthenes’ mother and sister (Meid. 77–82).71 By highlighting that his position in office was a mockery, Demosthenes aims at bringing dishonour to this once-admired citizen. He is a disgrace to his countrymen as well as to his colleagues: ‘The insolence with which Meidias always treats everyone, I think it is well known to all of you and to the other citizens’ (Meid. 1).72 6.2.2. Ovid’s Ibis (Case Study, Part 3) Ovid focuses on Ibis’ unappealing external circumstances. For example, his birthday is the unluckiest of all days, falling on the anniversary of the Roman defeat at the River Allia on 18 July 387 BCE (also known 67.  Meidias is represented in this account as a man of gluttony and greed, two other common points of attack. See Worman, ‘Insult and Oral Excess in the Disputes between Aeschines and Demosthenes’, 10. 68.  Fredal, ‘The Language of Delivery and the Presentation of Character’, 260. 69.  Ibid., 262. 70.  As observed by Worthington, Demosthenes of Athens and the Fall of Classical Greece, 147, 156. See also P. G. Walsh, ed., Pliny the Younger Completed Letters (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 348. 71.  MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator, 248. 72.  Ibid., 246.

130

Jude on the Attack

as ‘black day’). On this day, none of the lucky planets such as Venus, Jupiter, Luna, or Mercury, shone at his birth, but only the unlucky Mars and Saturn (Ib. 211–16). This dishonourable birth, under hateful stars, is something ancient poets reflect upon often.73 It is also mentioned that his mother is immoral and promiscuous, which is presumably why his father is never mentioned. While dreaming up a punishment fit for such a wretched villain, Ovid focuses on the theme of physical impairment. He uses examples of those who are crippled and wounded (‘may you endure just as many wounds in your envenomed leg as Poeas’s son’), made blind (‘may you fumble at your trembling journey with a staff to guide you, deprived of sight’), and even castrated (‘may someone slice off your piece, as Saturn cut off those parts whence he had been created’).74 In the prologue, Ovid focuses on Ibis’ harmful behaviour, hoping to prove that such a man deserves no place in the community. Ibis is nothing but a bully, harassing and causing great misery to an innocent victim: [He] disturbs the wound of a man seeking peace, bandies my name about the forum: won’t let the companion of my marriage bed mourn the ruin of her living husband, without troubling her, and while I cling to the shattered fragments of my boat, he fights for the planks from my shipwreck: this robber, who ought to quench the sudden flame, looks for plunder here in the middle of the fire. He works so there might be no succour for an aged fugitive. (Ib. 13–21)

Ibis is behaving in a way that is detrimental to both Ovid and his wife. Not only is Ovid in exile, separated from his loved ones, but Ibis rubs salt in his wounds by dishonouring his name and causing further grief to his wife. There is much emphasis on death and torture in this text, seen in phrases such as, ‘people will applaud your death’ (Ib. 164), ‘may the cruel vulture tear your entrails’ (Ib. 170), ‘dogs will tear open your body’ (Ib. 171), as well as the funeral imagery from lines 95–102. Even in the case of death, there will be no one to mourn for this man; he is utterly rejected. It has been suggested that even the title Ibis taps into this idea of death, reflecting the colloquial meaning of the verb ire, ‘to go’, as in you will depart/die.75

73.  Helzle, ‘Ibis’, 188. 74.  Krasne, ‘The Pedant’s Curse’, 7. 75.  Hawkins, Iambic Poetics in the Roman Empire, 39.

6. Themes in Jewish Judgement Oracles

131

6.3. Themes in the Epistle of Jude Much of the epistle of Jude centres upon the misdeeds of the ungodly and the impact these misdeeds have upon them and on the community. At times these sinful acts are contrasted with the righteous acts of the beloved and their eternal security and hope. In this part of the study, five themes will be explored: (a) judgement; (b) rebellion; (c) improper speech; (d) sexual misdeeds; and (e) detrimental behaviour to the community. These will then be compared with the themes and loci of Greco-Roman invective and Jewish judgement oracles with the aim of identifying similarities and differences. (a) Judgement. From the opening, as Jude states his occasion for writing he makes mention of τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα, which has been reserved for the ungodly (v. 4), a theme central to the entire discourse. It resurfaces in vv. 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 24, with each verse reflecting various aspects of τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα. Throughout the epistle, there are three distinct facets to Jude’s conception of judgement: i. The Lord as judge (vv. 5, 6, 9, and 14–15) ii. The ungodly will be punished (vv. 6, 7, 11, and 13) iii. The elect will stand (v. 24) (i) The Lord as Judge. Jude repeatedly attributes judgement to the Lord. In v. 5 it is stated not only that those who did not believe were destroyed but that κύριος was the agent of this initial salvation and subsequent destruction. Jude could have simply described the sinful act (omitting the agent), but instead focuses our attention on the Lord (κύριος) as the agent of punishment.76 Verse 6 flows on from this, connected by τε. The angels, who did not honour their position, have been kept in eternal chains for the Great Day of Judgement. The subject of the verb τετήρηκεν (‘he has kept’) is inferred from v. 5 (i.e. κύριος), and this adds a further cohesive link between v. 5 and v. 6. The archangel Michael (v. 9), when disputing over the body of Moses, did not dare bring a blasphemous judgement (κρίσις) against the devil, but entrusts his censure to the Lord (ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι κύριος). Michael leaves to the Lord what belongs to him, namely, judgement. In 1 En. 1.9, where God is alluded to as the assumed subject

76.  There is a dispute over whether this verse originally had ‘the Lord’ or ‘Jesus’ as the subject. For a discussion on this textual variant, see §2.3.

132

Jude on the Attack

of ἔρχεται, he is now identified in Jude 14 as κύριος. Once again, Jude is emphasizing the role of the Lord in judgement, making explicit the subject of the verb. This repeated ascription of judgement to the Lord intensifies both the certainty of its coming and its inescapability for those who have been condemned.77 Imminent judgement is inferred from the past events (vv. 5, 6, 7, 11). Such events are used to provide concrete and historical proof that ungodly behaviour will not be tolerated. A day of final and future judgement is also mentioned (κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας).78 It is a time when God and his agent (his ‘Chosen One’, κύριος, or ‘the messiah’)79 will enact universal judgement on the living and the resurrected dead (1 En. 45.3; 51.1–3; 55.4; 91.7).80 Jude’s second focus on eschatological judgement is in keeping with Jewish apocalyptic tradition and confirms that judgement is not just confined to the past to be used as literary illustration, but a future event concerning all. Combined, these two conceptions convince his audience that the opponents are under ‘present judgement’.81 (ii) The Ungodly Will Be Punished. Jude’s references to judgement inevitably concern the ungodly. Such persons and their fate are mentioned in vv. 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14–15. Interestingly, in such a short discourse, Jude associates the punishment of the ungodly twice with fire (vv. 7, 23), twice with darkness (vv. 6, 13), and three times with destruction (vv. 5, 10, 11). In Jewish thought, fire was not only written about with negative connotations. It was also a symbol of God’s presence (Exod. 3.2; Num. 9.15). However, ‘in the Biblical world, fire is perhaps the most pervasive actual means as well as symbolic representation of corporate punishment and destruction’.82 Negative use may refer to the destruction of a city 77.  Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World, 114. 78.  Webb suggests that the Day of Judgement and the Day of the Lord are used in continuity in the Gospels and the letters of Paul. Jude’s focus is obviously on judgement. See Robert L. Webb, ‘Day of the Lord’, in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Development, ed. Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997), 265. 79.  Paolo Sacchi, Jewish Apocalyptic and Its History (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990), 118. 80.  See also Paul G. Mosca, ‘Day of Judgement’, in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, ed. B. M. Metzger and M. D. Coogan (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 156. 81.  Webb, ‘Day of the Lord’, 266 (emphasis added). 82.  Weston W. Fields, Sodom and Gomorrah: History and Motif in Biblical Narrative, JSOTSup 231 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 136.

6. Themes in Jewish Judgement Oracles

133

(common practice in the Hebrew Bible, see Num. 21.28; 31.10; Judg. 1.8; 2 Kgs 23.16; 25.9; Jer. 48.45). In the New Testament, the metaphorical use of fire is largely negative and pertaining to judgement (Mt. 3.12; 5.22; 25.41; Lk. 3.17; Rev. 14.10; 20.10).83 Jude’s first mention concerns the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, a non-metaphorical inferno. Of this incident, Fields writes: The description of the blazing destruction which befalls the wicked cities… is so extraordinary, so striking, so exceptional and complete, that subsequent biblical accounts of destruction by fire are likely to remind the audience of this ancient momentous destruction. No city is judged and destroyed by God in a more memorable way than Sodom when fire comes down on it like burning rain, leaving no survivors.84

Sodom and Gomorrah had, in fact, become a by-word for sexual sin, rebellion, and fiery judgement, and could be alluded to without being named. This is the case in Ben Sira 16.6–8, where the city is referenced only as ‘the people among whom Lot lived’, and Wis. 10.6, which speaks of the ‘Five Cities’. Sufficient knowledge of the story is etched firmly into the minds of Jewish readers. Thus, Jude’s illustrative use of the account serves as a frightening and comprehensive indictment. The second mention of fire comes in v. 23, where the faithful are instructed to snatch the waverers from it, σᾠζετε ἐκ πυρὀς ἁρπάξοντες. The fire here refers to eschatological judgement (see 1 En. 1.6) and is, therefore, probably metaphorical.85 In Jewish thought, darkness signified chaos (Gen. 1.2) and evil in opposition to God (Isa. 5.20). It is not, as Hunt states, simply the passive opposite of light (‘cosmic dualism’), but rather a vigorous hostility to God and his purposes.86 The Jews respond with fear to the resultant darkness

83.  Arthur G. Hebert, ‘Burn, Fire’, in A Theological Word Book of the Bible, ed. Alan Richardson (London: SCM, 1950–75), 39. In the New Testament, however, the presence of the Holy Spirit is often signified by and represented with fire (Mt. 3.11; Acts 2.3–4). 84.  Fields, Sodom and Gomorrah, 137. 85.  A possible third mention is largely indirect, though, for an audience with a rich knowledge of Jewish history, the implication and background would have been reasonably clear. Jude 11 states, τῇ ἀντιλογίᾳ τοῦ Κόρε ἀπώλοντο. He here alludes to Num. 16, where Korah’s rebellion is punished by the earth swallowing some (Num. 16.32) and a fire from heaven destroying others (Num. 16.35). 86.  Steven A. Hunt, ‘Light and Darkness’, in Martin and Davids, eds., Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, 657.

134

Jude on the Attack

following Jesus’ death (Gos. Pet. 5.15).87 Henderson suggests that similar ‘darknesses’ in Jewish history come with divine wrath (Deut. 28.28–29; Isa. 59.9–10; Amos 8.9).88 It is a popular metaphor in Jesus’ teaching used to describe the eternal darkness reserved for the ungodly (Mt. 8.12; 22.13; 25.30). In Jude, the angels have been kept in darkness (ὑπὸ ζόφον, v. 6) and the ungodly are reserved for the blackest darkness (ὁ ζόφος τοῦ σκότους, v. 13). This is a reference to eternal darkness as in Jesus’ parables, but also alludes both to a general hostility towards God and to a moral/ethical evil (1 Jn 2.9; 1 Tim. 6.15–16; Barn. 18.1; 20.1–2).89 Bauckham suggests rather poetically that the image of darkness is ‘a more appropriate fate for stars [v. 13]’, where the ‘misleading light of the false teachers will be extinguished in darkness forever’.90 Destruction is the third and final image. Jude uses morphemes of the term ἀπόλλυμι to reflect the ruin and complete destruction of those who either fail to trust God’s plan or who revolt against him by asserting their own authority. The Lord destroyed (ἀπώλεσεν) the unbelieving Israelites (v. 5) and the participants of Korah’s rebellion (ἀπώλοντο, v. 11). In v. 10, the ungodly are ruined/corrupted by their foolishness (ἐν τούτοις φθείρονται). The allusions within vv. 5 and 11 do not indicate the rebellious to be obvious enemies of God, but rather as outwardly belonging to the community of his people. In Numbers 14, God promises the Israelites that they will not enter Canaan due to their lack of faith. Numbers 26 records the fulfilment of this promise, where most Israelites (all aged twenty and above, apart from Joshua and Caleb) will die in the wilderness. Korah was a prominent Levite (Num. 16.1–2) who revolted against Aaron and Moses along with 250 leaders within the Israelite community. His challenging of Aaron and Moses’ leadership (God’s appointed ones) caused the earth to open up and consume the rebels. While referencing Korah’s rebellion (v. 11), Jude includes his own opponents (οὐαὶ αὐτοῖς) in the destruction (ἀπώλοντο), implying that they, too, are walking down a path leading to inevitable ruin.91 The aorist is used to convey utter certainty, although the destruction of the opponents has not yet taken

87.  In the Synoptics this reaction is not stated. 88.  Timothy P. Henderson, The Gospel of Peter and Early Christian Apologetics, WUNT 301 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 108. 89.  Hunt, ‘Light and Darkness’, 657–58. 90.  Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 90. 91.  Robert L. Webb and Peter H. Davids, eds., Reading Jude with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of Jude (London: T&T Clark International, 2009), 133.

6. Themes in Jewish Judgement Oracles

135

place.92 In general usage, ἀπόλλυμι has the literal meaning of ‘to cause or express destruction’, ‘perish/be ruined’ often in the context of battle (Ben Sira 10.3, an unwise king who destroyed his people; Hom., Il. 1.268, the destruction of the mountain-dwelling centaurs; Hom., Il. 5.758, the destruction of the Achaeans; Hdt., Hist. 1.34, the destruction of Atys by the head of an iron sword).93 ‘Destroy’ (ἀπόλλυμι) and ‘destruction’ (ἀπὠλεια) can refer to perfume wasted (ἀπὠλεια, Mk 14.4; Mt. 26.8), useless wineskins with holes (ἀπόλλυμι, Mk 2.22; Mt. 9.17; Lk. 5.37), and to a lost coin (ἀπόλλυμι, Lk. 15.9). Peter uses ἀπώλετο as he discusses the destruction of the world itself (2 Pet. 3.6). Moo writes that, leaving aside explicit judgement texts, the words do not mean destruction in the sense of ‘extinction’. Instead, ‘they usually refer to the situation of a person or object that has lost the essence of its nature or function’.94 In the New Testament, though, it is not simply a physical destruction, ‘but a hopeless destiny of eternal death’ (2 Pet. 3.7, 16).95 Porter writes that destruction is ‘consonant with and even consequential to what is said of divine wrath’.96 In this reading, ἀπόλλυμι refers to perishing, while ἀπὠλεια is the destruction that follows. Jude uses the image to convey a final destiny of loss, waste, and utter ruin. (iii) The Elect Will Stand. Contrary to the grim portrayal of destruction and doom that awaits the ungodly intruders, the spiritual security of the beloved is shown vividly in the masterfully constructed doxology.97 As described by Jude, the beloved ‘will not stumble’ (ἄπταιστος), but will instead ‘stand’ (στῆσαι) ‘with rejoicing’ (ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει) when presented before God (v. 24). Osburn sees this as an allusion to the apocalyptic image of judgement described in 1 Enoch.98 In 1 En. 1.5–6, God’s return is shown as an earth-shaking, mountain-melting, fear-evoking event. Both 92.  Rienecker and Rogers, Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, 807. See also B. J. Oropeza, Churches Under Siege of Persecution and Assimilation: The General Epistles and Revelation. Vol. 3, Apostasy in the New Testament Communities (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2012), 167. 93.  BAGD, s.v. ἀπόλλυμι, 115–16. 94.  Douglas J. Moo, ‘Paul on Hell’, in Hell Under Fire, ed. Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 105. 95.  A. Oepke, ‘apóllymi’, in TDNT, 67. 96.  Stanley E. Porter, ‘Wrath, Destruction’, in Martin and Davids, eds., Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, 1238–41. 97.  For a discussion of this, see Osburn, ‘Discourse Analysis and Jewish Apocalyptic in the Epistle of Jude’, 294. 98.  Ibid., 293–94.

136

Jude on the Attack

the sinners and the Watchers in this scene are described as trembling ‘with great fear’ before God. However, in Jude 24, the beloved are promised to stand and rejoice upon his return. The word ἄπταιστος can be used for a horse that is sure-footed and does not stumble (Xen., Hist. 1.6), of something which is infallible (‘untouched by struggle or error’, Plotinus, Enneades 5.3.17), or which will not fall (Sib. Or. 3.289).99 ἀγαλλιάσις has eschatological overtones ‘denoting the jubilation of God’s chosen people at His manifestation at the end’.100 Fundamentally, the image Jude paints is one of security and joy, in stark contrast to the images of fire, darkness, and destruction that await the ungodly upon their judgement.101 Judgement for the faithful is a time when God’s mercy will be shown to them. Jude expertly uses the theme of judgement both to condemn the wicked and encourage the beloved. (b) Rebellion. While the word ἀντιλογἰα, meaning ‘hostility, rebellion’,102 ‘quarrel, dispute’,103 only appears once in the epistle of Jude (v. 11), the concept arises at several points (vv. 4, 5, 6, 8, 11). Two aspects of rebellion are discussed: the rejection of Jesus as Lord and the rejection of rightful behaviour. In Jude’s opening charge against the ungodly (v. 4) both components are mentioned: the perversion of God’s grace (the rejection of rightful behaviour) and the denial of Jesus as the only Lord and Master (the rejection of Jesus as Lord). These offenses are then compared with the disobedient actions of well-known historical figures to magnify and clarify the charge. Dyrness has defined rebellion as wilfully turning ‘against a superior or an agreement’.104 This is a fitting definition for Jude’s context. To deny Jesus as Lord is to deny God himself (their superior) and the covenant relationship with him (their agreement). In v. 4, Jude uses over-specification to emphasize the magnitude of this sin. These certain persons are not only accused of denying Jesus but they are believed to be denying our only Lord and Master Jesus Christ (τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν). κύριος is repeatedly used by Jude 99.  LSJ., s.v. ἄπταιστος. 100.  Rienecker and Rogers, Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, 810; See also Rudolf Bultmann, ‘agalliáomai’, in TDNT, 4. 101.  On eschatological salvation in Jude, see Robert L. Webb, ‘The Eschatology of the Epistle of Jude and its Rhetorical and Social Functions’, BBR 6 (1996): 140–42. 102.  Rienecker and Rogers, Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, 806. 103.  LSJ., s.v. ἀντιλογἰα. See also Heb. 12.3. 104.  William A. Dyrness, Themes in Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1979), 106.

6. Themes in Jewish Judgement Oracles

137

(vv. 5, 9, 14). It refers to the one who saves and destroys rebellious Israel, has authority to rebuke the devil, and will one day come to judge. By making clear that Jesus is this κύριος, Jude emphasizes that the denial of him is all the more serious.105 δεσπότης implies ownership,106 alluding to the covenant made with Israel and God’s suzerain position. A rejection of this agreement is a serious violation and Jude associates the denial of Jesus, the δεσπότης, to such a crime. The theme is revisited in v. 8 when ‘these ones’ are described as ‘rejecting Lordship’, again essentially equating to the rejection of Jesus’ rule. Several scholars refute the assumption that this is a verbal denial of Jesus in a doctrinal sense and is instead based on their ‘antinomian lifestyle’, namely an ethical denial.107 For others, there exists evidence throughout Jude to suggest that this is a primitive version of Gnosticism whereby verbal denial also plays a significant role.108 Their implicit leadership role also suggests their false or misleading teaching might contribute to their rebellion.109 Jude also reminds his audience of several historical events regarding rebellious behaviour (vv. 5, 6, 11). First is the unbelief of the Israelites (μὴ πιστεύσαντας, v. 5). In Num. 20.12, the sin of God’s people is attributed to their lack of trust (‘because you did not trust’), and is described as rebellion (‘because you rebelled’) in Num. 20.24 and 27.14. The background of the story is found in Numbers 13–14, where the people respond to the reports of the Israelite spies with the ‘most overt rebellion against Moses and Aaron’.110 It spurs them into a violent outburst and they threaten to stone the appointed leaders. Their revolt is 105.  According to Bartholomä, ‘Did Jesus Save the People Out of Egypt?’, 156: ‘It seems reasonable to read Jude 5–7 as a vibrant portrayal of Christ as the pre-existent judge and thus as an implicit warning by which the readers are exhorted not to follow the men mentioned in v. 4 who had already made the mistake of rejecting the exalted Christ’. 106.  K. H. Rengstorf, ‘despótēs’, in TDNT, 145. 107.  Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 414; G. F. C. Fronmüller, The Epistles General of Peter with the Epistle of Jude, trans. J. Isidor Mombert, Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scripture (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2007), 78; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 40. 108.  Green, 2 Peter and Jude, 42. Others, such as Donelson, do not liken this denial to Gnosticism but instead reference the link in Jude between ‘theological disobedience and immorality’. See Donelson, 1 & 2 Peter and Jude, 176. This is a position also held by Green, Jude and 2 Peter, 240. 109.  See §5.3.2 for a discussion on the identity and possible leadership roles of the ungodly. 110.  George W. Coats, The Moses Tradition, JSOTSup 161 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 179.

138

Jude on the Attack

so pronounced that an entire generation is destined to die in the wilderness.111 When Jude mentions the people’s lack of trust (μὴ πιστεύσαντας, v. 5), then, he is actually referring to this rebellion. It is not, however, the only time that Aaron and Moses have their leadership contested. In Korah’s rebellion (alluded to in Jude 11), the Levities not only challenge Moses and Aaron’s office, but they unlawfully exalt themselves above the assembly (Num. 16.3).112 The crime is not simply a rejection of authority but, more seriously, a rejection of Yahweh; to rebel against the chosen one of Yahweh is to rebel against God himself, a sin bringing death.113 The angels are also condemned in v. 6 for not ‘[keeping] their own position’ and for ‘[abandoning] their proper dwelling’, a place assigned to them by God. Their sin was two-fold: they rebelled by setting their own agenda and they left their dwelling, resulting in a sinful encounter with the daughters of men (Gen. 6.1–4; 1 En. 6–11).114 It can be assumed that their sin was partially sexual as they are compared to Sodom and Gomorrah in the subsequent verse.115 Nevertheless, their greater sin (and Jude’s focus) is their refusal to obey God. Angels did not have the freedom to act outside God’s instructions and commands. Therefore, in this account, their refusal to keep both their position and their dwelling is a ‘violation of the cosmic order’.116 In Jewish apocalyptic literature, every act against the Law of Nature is rebellious chaos. The Testament of Naphtali speaks of the sin of the angels as breaking God’s ordained order: ‘Sun, moon and 111.  See also Timothy R. Ashley, The Book of Numbers, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 230–31; George W. Coats, The Murmuring Motif in the Wilderness Traditions of the Old Testament: Rebellion in the Wilderness (Nashville: Abingdon, 1968), 21–264. 112.  Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical Theological Commentary, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1974), 262. 113.  Ashley, The Book of Numbers, 80, 318. 114.  In Gen. 6.2, we read that the ‘sons of God’ took wives from the earth. This has commonly been interpreted to be the angels. For example, Josephus in Jewish Antiquities interprets the bene Elohim as ‘angels of God’ (Ant. 1.72–76). For an in-depth study on this topic, see Archie T. Wright, The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6.1–4 in Early Jewish Literature, WUNT 2 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). See also Harrington, 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter, 196. 115.  According to the Enoch tradition the angels not only lay with women but also taught men to use weapons, introduced them to witchcraft, taught them the bitter and sweet secrets of wisdom, and lured Eve to commit her first sin. See Bernard J. Bamberger, Fallen Angels: Soldiers of Satan’s Realm (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 2006), 19. 116.  Paul Heger, Challenges to Conventional Opinions on Qumran and Enoch Issues (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 160.

6. Themes in Jewish Judgement Oracles

139

stars do not change their order; so should you also not change the law of God by disorderliness of you deeds… In the same way also the Watchers changed the order of their nature’ (T. Naph. 3.4–5; see also 1 En. 15). This is a theme explored further in Jude 12–13, where the ungodly are likened to elements of nature abandoning the cosmic order.117 Likewise, by leaving their proper dwelling and going to be with the daughters of men, the angels displayed a ‘rejection of God’s established order’ and deliberate disobedience.118 For Jude, all rebellion is considered rebellion against God and his rule and order. (c) Improper Speech. As Jude builds his case against the ungodly, he mentions several forms of improper speech: blasphemy and dreaming (vv. 8–10), speaking harsh words against God (v. 15), grumbling (v. 16), complaining (v. 16), boasting (v. 16), and using flattery for selfish gain (v. 16). According to the book of Proverbs, the mouth can either be a source of wisdom (Prov. 10.31) or it can be a source of harm (Prov. 10.14; 11.9; 15.28; 18.7).119 In Jude’s context, the words of the ungodly cause nothing but hostility between them and God as well as disorder within the community.120 In v. 8, Jude calls his opponents ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι (‘dreamers’). This may be a reference to people who receive and communicate divine dreams, or it could simply mean ones who are ‘asleep to God’s judgement’.121 In itself, ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι is not necessarily a derogatory term. Dreaming and divination certainly had its place in Jewish tradition, as seen in the Hebrew Bible (Gen. 37.5; 40.5; Job 33.14–18; Dan. 7; Joel 2.28), historical texts such as Josephus (Ant. 2.75; 10.196, 198, 202, 217; Apion 1.207, 211, 294, 298, 312), and the Rabbinic writings (b. Ber. 55a–b). This practice was also widely accepted in Greek philosophy (Cic., Div. 1.5–6, 52–54). However, ‘in Jewish circles of the Second Temple Period, dreams could also be used as propaganda’,122 as seen in Jeremiah 23, where 117.  John Dennis, ‘Cosmology in the Petrine Literature and Jude’, in Cosmology and New Testament Theology, ed. J. T. Pennington and S. M. McDonough, JSNTSup 355 (London: T&T Clark International, 2008), 169. 118.  Webb and Davids, Reading Jude with New Eyes, 16. 119.  For an insightful chapter on ‘speech and silence’, see Riad Aziz Kassis, The Book of Proverbs and Arabic Proverbial Works (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 116–58. 120.  In an Arabic proverb, bad speech is viewed as nothing more than ‘urine’ (al-Maydani, 1.451). 121.  Rienecker and Rogers, Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, 805. 122.  Bart J. Koet, Dreams and Scripture in Luke–Acts: Collected Essays (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 25.

140

Jude on the Attack

we find a harsh polemic from the prophet Jeremiah rebuking dreamers (Jer. 23.27–28; 27.32; 29.8).123 These false prophets chant, ‘I have had a dream, I have had a dream’ but their visions and their words do not come from God. In fact, there is little endorsement of this practice among the prophetic writings themselves.124 In 1 Enoch, the rare word ἐνυπνίων is used in an overwhelmingly negative sense. Here, the dreams of the sinners are causing them to reject God as they ‘worship impure spirits and demons, and all kinds of idols’ (1 En. 99.6–8). Besides this, Artemidorus Daldianus, the renowned second-century writer on dreams, categorized ἐνυπνίον to mean ‘nightmare’, or ‘in sleep’.125 In this text, he distinguishes between messages from God (ὄνειρος) and dreams caused by one’s own psyche (Artem., One. 1.1).126 Jude, then, may either be saying that these people are asleep (a metaphor to describe them as spiritually dead) or associating them with the false prophets who masquerade as ones delivering a message from God while speaking lies. Given that in antiquity dreams were understood primarily as a divine communication with humanity,127 and that Jude is rebuking prominent figures who are leading the people astray, this is the most plausible meaning. In the same verse, Jude claims that these heretics, δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν. Against God, βλασφημία is ‘irreverent speech’ (Ezek. 35.12, LXX; Mt. 12.31; Rev. 13.6), but against man it is ‘defamation’ or ‘slander’ (Eph. 4.31; Dem., Phil. 4.10.36).128 Jude focuses on βλασφημία in vv. 8–10. He writes that these ones δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν (‘blaspheme glorious ones’, v. 8) and ὅσα μὲν οὐκ οἴδασιν βλασφημοῦσιν (‘blaspheme what they do not know’, v. 10), whereas Michael οὐκ ἐτόλμησεν κρίσιν ἐπενεγκεῖν βλασφημίας (‘does not dare to bring a blasphemous judgement’, v. 9). In the context, their βλασφημία is directed at something external to 123.  Bezalel Bar-Kochva, The Image of the Jew in Greek Literature: The Hellenistic Period, Hellenistic Culture and Society (California: University of California Press, 2010), 381. 124.  See Robert Karl Gnuse, Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus: A Traditio-Historical Analysis (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 116–17. 125.  Artemidorus, The Interpretation of Dreams: The Oneirocritica of Artemidorus, trans. Robert J. White, NCS (Park Ridge: Noyes, 1975), 7; Gnuse, Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus, 117–18. 126.  Koet, Dreams and Scripture in Luke–Acts, 29. 127.  Derek S. Dodson, Reading Dreams: An Audience-Critical Approach to the Dreams in the Gospel of Matthew (London: T&T Clark International, 2009), 1. 128.  LSJ., s.v. βλασφημία. See also Herbert Chanan Brichto, ‘Blasphemy’, in Encyclopedia Judaica, ed. Fred Skolnik and Michael Berenbaum (Detroit: Keter, 2007), 741–42.

6. Themes in Jewish Judgement Oracles

141

God (δόξας, ‘glories’ or ‘glorious ones’), so is perhaps better translated ‘slander’. There is evidence in early Jewish literature to suggest that δόξαι (‘glorious ones’) is a reference to angelic beings: the ‘glorious ones bow down to the Lord’ (2 En. 22.7), the ‘glorious ones’ are unlike the children of men (1QNoah frag. 3.3), and God is ‘the king of the glorious ones’ (1QJubb 8).129 Jude does not elaborate precisely on what it means to slander glorious ones or angelic beings, but at some level, this misdeed must relate to insulting or defaming them. A greater offense than slandering angels is to speak against God. In Jude 15, Enoch prophesied that the ungodly will be judged for all their ungodly words: περὶ πάντων τῶν σκληρῶν ὧν ἐλάλησαν κατ’ αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς (‘concerning all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him’, NRSV). To speak against God (or the gods) was punishable in most ancient cultures. Even otherwise tolerant societies such as ancient Athens punished Socrates for his unorthodox views regarding religion and the gods.130 With Job, the Jewish symbol for suffering and endurance, we find his wife urging him to ‘curse God and die’ (Job 2.9), or, as the Testament of Job recounts, ‘speak some word against the Lord’, so that he might die and put an end to his nightmare (T. Job. 24–25). Job refuses to oblige this request (Job 2.10; T. Job 26.5). To speak against God is no small offence. It was commanded that he who blasphemes the Lord shall be put to death and stoned by the congregation (Lev. 24.16; see also 1 Kgs 21.1–14). In Jude’s summarizing charge against the ungodly (v. 16), the opponents are called γογγυσταί (‘grumblers’) and μεμψίμοιροι (‘complainers’). This is probably an allusion to the murmuring motif of the Hebrew Bible (the lens through which the wilderness wanderings are viewed and remembered).131 The murmuring of the Israelites characterizes this aspect of their history and describes their resistance to Moses’ leadership and to God.132 Jude does not clearly identify what these people are grumbling about, but the prophecy of vv. 14–15 may point towards God (even if indirectly). In the same verse, Jude brings two more charges against the opponents, both relating to improper speech: τὸ στόμα αὐτῶν λαλεῖ

129.  For the Qumran manuscripts, see Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition, vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1997). 130.  Nicolas Walter, Blasphemy Ancient & Modern (London: Rationalist Press Association, 1990), 8. 131.  Childs, The Book of Exodus, 256. 132.  Thomas B. Dozeman, Exodus, Eerdmans Critical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 183.

142

Jude on the Attack

ὑπέρογκα (‘their mouth speaks boastful things’) and θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα ὠφελείας χάριν (‘they flatter for selfish gain’). The word ὑπέρογκος carries with it the connotation of being inflated or puffed up (Xen., Hist. 5.4.58). This can be seen in 2 Peter where this same word appears in the context of something being swollen but empty (2 Pet. 2.18). The opponents may have had much to say but it is nothing but empty talk. The final charge in this verse is that they ‘flatter others for selfish gain’ (θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα ὠφελείας χάριν). Jude uses an idiom (θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα) to express behaviour which is partial (see Prov. 18.5 LXX, θαυμάσαι πρόσωπον ἀσεβοῦς οὐ καλόν, οὐδὲ ὅσιον ἐκκλίνειν τὸ δίκαιον ἐν κρίσει). They exaggerate for their own ὠφελεία (‘advantage’, Isoc., Pan. 4.15.6; ‘gain’, 2 Macc. 8.20, LXX; ‘benefit’ (Isoc., Pan. 4.29.6). It is not a sin to speak well of someone (Prov. 31.28), but if a man speaks words of praise ‘with the intention of making some gain out of it, he is called a flatterer’.133 This is viewed as corrupt and deceitful (Pss. 5.9; 12.3; Prov. 20.19; 26.28; 28.23; 29.5). While the opponents may appear to be saying something of value, their words are used as a weapon of deceit. (d) Sexual Misdeeds. In the Hebrew Bible, sexual immorality is written about in both a literal and a metaphorical sense. It is often linked to idolatry (Deut. 12.1–5; Ps. 106.33–40), particularly in the prophetic writings (Isa. 1.10–11; Ezek. 6.9; Hos. 2.2; Amos 3.1–3) and is used to rebuke. In Psalm 106, the people’s sexual wrongdoings cause God to abandon them (Ps. 106.40). Throughout the epistle of Jude, the theme of sexual immorality is expressed several ways. Initially a past example is provided from the renowned Sodom and Gomorrah account (v. 7), then the opponents are accused of similar behaviour (vv. 8, 16, 18), and finally the beloved are warned to avoid the entanglement of sexual sin (v. 23). In v. 6, Jude alludes to the sexual sin of the angels, who left their proper dwelling and lay with the daughters of men (1 En. 6.1–3). In v. 7, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities are presented as an example 133.  Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, vol. 3 (New York: Cosmino, 2007), 1672. The subject is covered exhaustively by Plutarch in his How to Tell a Flatterer from a Friend. According to Plutarch, a flatterer is ever-changing to be the man he thinks will appeal to his victim (chs. 6–8); a flatterer labours to please rather than profit (chs. 22–23); a flatterer will seek to separate the victim from true friends by speaking ill of them (ch. 24). See Plutarch, Moralia. Vol. 1, The Education of Children. How the Young Man Should Study Poetry. On Listening to Lectures. How to Tell a Flatterer from a Friend. How a Man May Become Aware of His Progress in Virtue, trans. Frank Cole Babbitt, LCL 197 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927).

6. Themes in Jewish Judgement Oracles

143

of punishment (δεῖγμα) provoked by sexual misdeeds. It is recorded that they ἐκπορνεύσασαι (‘committed fornication’, see Gen. 38.24, LXX) and ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας (‘went after other flesh’). It can be assumed that this is an allusion to their lust for the angelic visitors (Gen. 18.16; see also Jub. 16.5–6; T. Levi 14.6).134 The sense is that just as the angels lusted after the daughters of men, so did the men of Sodom lust after the angels.135 As Sullivan explains, the link between these two parties is their inappropriate sexual desires and behaviour.136 Jude uses this example to indicate that the men’s sexual sin breaks God’s natural order since they lusted after what was forbidden to them.137 It is one of the most infamous accounts of sexual sin and needed no further explanation in a Jewish context. Jude’s opponents are charged with indulging in ungodly desires (perhaps sexual) on two separate occasions (vv. 16, 18). The first is in v. 16, where they are accused of behaving according to their own desires: κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας ἑαυτῶν πορευόμενοι. The second is within the prediction of the apostles (vv. 17–18), where it is prophesied that in the end times there will be scoffers who indulge in ungodly desires (ἔσονται ἐμπαίκται κατὰ τὰς ἑαυτῶν ἐπιθυμίας πορευόμενοι τῶν ἀσεβειῶν). The word ἐπιθυμία is not necessarily sexual. It can mean ‘passion’ (Thuc., Hist. 6.13.1; Jas 1.14), ‘desire’ (Hdt., Hist. 1.32; 2 Tim. 4.3; Jn 8.44), or ‘to long for’ (Thuc., Hist. 2.52.2; Rev. 18.14), each in a nonsexual sense. However, in some instances, ἐπιθυμία is certainly sexual (Eph. 4.22; 1 Thess. 4.5). In the context of Jude’s epistle, ἐπιθυμία most probably refers to sexual desire. In v. 8 the opponents are rebuked for defiling the flesh ‘in the same manner’ as Sodom and Gomorrah (ὁμοίως μέντοι καὶ οὗτοι ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι 134.  There are several positions taken concerning the meaning of ‘other flesh’. Bauckham believes Jude is referring to the angelic visitors. See Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 54. Kistemaker argues that the men of Sodom were not aware that the visitors were angels; their actual transgression was lusting after other men; see Kistemaker, Peter and Jude, 382. The main argument against this position states that homosexuality is not lusting after ‘other flesh’ but the same flesh; see Reese, Writing Jude, 28. A third position comes from Bailey who claims that their sin was ‘boorish hostility to foreigners’; see Derrick Sherwin Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (London: Archon, 1975), 75. 135.  See Wright Knust, Abandoned to Lust, 220. Kruger would refute this conclusion as he views the pronoun τούτοις as a referent to the ‘certain persons’ of v. 4, not to the angels of v. 6. See M. A. Kruger, ‘τουτοις in Jude 7’, Neot 27, no. 1 (1993): 131. 136.  Sullivan, Wrestling with Angels, 230–35 137.  See Wright Knust, Abandoned to Lust, 123.

144

Jude on the Attack

σάρκα μὲν μιαίνουσιν). In this verse, these dreamers are guilty of the same sins of the flesh as the lust-filled inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah.138 Their sin, therefore, is (at least, partly) sexual. In v. 16 and v. 18, they are ‘walking in’ or ‘indulging in’ (πορευόμενοι) their ‘own’ (ἑαυτῶν) ‘desires’ (ἐπιθυμίας). The description implies that they are satisfying the desires of the flesh; desires or lusts that give rise to the blindness of the mind.139 It is viewed as an all-consuming power which darkens clarity and overrides rightful behaviour. It deludes whoever allows it to take root. Perhaps this elucidates why the opponents are also called ‘dreamers’ (ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι) in v. 8; they have been deluded by their own sexual passions. In v. 23, Jude warns the beloved to have mercy on the ungodly, but their mercy is to be mixed with fear, hating even the garment stained with flesh (μισοῦντες καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένον χιτῶνα). This metaphor will be explored in greater detail in the subsequent section (§7.3.1), however, for the moment it should be noted that the beloved are exhorted to hate the garment stained with flesh. They are not to hate the sinner (in fact they are instructed to have mercy on the sinner), but instead are called to hate the stained garment (most likely a reference to sin and its polluting effects). The warning is to avoid the entrapments of sin, including sexual sin, as highlighted by the reference to ‘the flesh’ (τῆς σαρκὸς). σάρξ can represent flesh in several senses: ‘meat’ (Hom., Od. 9.293), the as body more generally (Mt. 24.22; Acts 2.31; Rom. 13.14), or as the physical order of things (1 Cor. 1.26; Phil. 3.3). It can further be used to symbolize the ‘fleshly nature’ (Epicurus, RS 18; Gal. 5.19). It is this sense that Jude is most likely referring to; the sinful nature, which acts out of all its affections and lusts.140 (e) Detrimental Behaviour to the Community. The final theme in Jude concerns behaviour having a negative impact on the community. Jude portrays the opponents as greedy (v. 16) and selfish leaders (v. 12a) who have taken the way of Cain, Balaam, and Korah (v. 11). In contrast, the beloved are encouraged to be merciful (vv. 22–23) and loving (vv. 20–21) companions, who are gravely concerned with the greater good of those around them. A case has already been made to suggest that the opponents are leaders or, at the very least, figures of influence within the community of believers (§5.3.2). If indeed these people possess prominent positions, 138.  Kruger, ‘τουτοις in Jude 7’, 127. 139.  Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 3, 1233. 140.  LSJ., s.v. σάρξ.

6. Themes in Jewish Judgement Oracles

145

their behaviour would have had significant impact through their sphere of influence. In v. 12, the reference to these ones (οὗτοι) as ‘hidden reefs at your love feasts’ (οἱ ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν σπιλάδες συνευωχούμενοι) suggests that their teaching as well as behaviour is covertly leading people astray.141 Their actions have the potential to shipwreck the entire body (a metaphor which will be explored further in §7.3.1). In the same verse, the ungodly ones are also accused of ‘shepherding themselves’ (ἑαυτοὺς ποιμαίνοντες). Leaders had responsibility to care for the people like a shepherd cares for the sheep. A negligent shepherd feeds and clothes himself but fails to tend to the needs of the flock (Ezek. 34.1–6).142 This may explain why they are likened to Balaam (who rushed after profit, v. 11),143 and why they are accused of flattering others for the sake of gain (v. 16). By the first century, Balaam was a widely vilified figure, particularly portrayed as a false teacher (Joseph., Ant. 4.6) and as a person of immense greed (Philo, Vit. Mos. 1.54–55).144 Even though he is not explicitly rebuked in Numbers 22–24 (the most prominent account), he is depicted in a negative manner in other passages for trying to curse Israel (Deut. 23.3–6; Josh. 24.9–10) and for providing unwise advice that caused Israelite men to sacrifice to other gods (Num. 31.16). It is this representation of Balaam that Jude surely has in mind when accusing his opponents of ‘abandoning themselves to Balaam’s error for the sake of gain’ (Jude 11, NRSV). In the same verse (v. 11), Jude also references the fact that these ones have ‘walked in the way of Cain’ (τῇ ὁδῷ τοῦ Κάϊν ἐπορεύθησαν). To accuse someone of walking in the way of Cain is to 141.  See George D. Kilpatrick, ‘Ἀγάπη as Love-Feast in the New Testament’, in Parola e spirito: Studi Onore di Settimio Cipriani, ed. C. C. Marcheselli (Brescia: Paideia, 1982), 157–59. 142.  Jonathan Gan, The Metaphor of Shepherd in the Hebrew Bible (Lanham: University Press of America, 2007), 70–71. 143.  Interestingly, in 𝔓72 there is a variant which replaces βαλαάμ for βαλαάκ. This may not have been a scribal error but a conscious decision, as suggested by Nicklas; see Tobias Nicklas, ‘Der “lebendige Text” des Neuen Testaments: Der Judasbrief in p72 (P.Bodmer VII)’, ASE 22 (2005): 215–16. As Thomas Scott Caulley demonstrates, Balak failed ‘in persuading Balaam to curse Israel. Rather, according to Num. 25.1–5 and Num. 31.16, the error of Balak was to take Balaam’s advice to entice Israel into sexual dissipation and the worship of idols’ (‘BALAAK in the 72 Text of Jude 11: A Proposal’, NTS 55, no. 1 [2009]: 77). 144.  There are a few exceptions to this, mainly found in Josephus, where he speaks positively of Balaam’s prophecies (Ant. 4.125, 156–158). In L.A.B. 18.10–12 it is recorded that Balaam repents because he was led astray by Balak.

146

Jude on the Attack

suggest that they harbour hate and jealousy in their hearts (which has the potential to lead to harmful actions), or that they are part of some form of Cainite movement. Epiphanius tells us of a group in the early church that venerated Korah, Cain, Esau, and Sodom. He writes: Cainites say that Cain is the scion of the stronger power and the authority above; so, moreover, are Esau, Korah and his companions, and the Sodomites. But Abel is the scion of the weaker power… [They] take pride in their kinship with Cain, the Sodomites, Esau and Korah. And these, they say, represent the perfect knowledge from on high. (Epiph. 38.1.2)145

Perhaps the leaders in Jude’s context also venerated these notorious figures. Alternatively, Jude may simply be making a statement about the opponents’ moral attitude towards their brothers and their God. In contrast, the beloved are instructed to keep themselves in the love of God, showing mercy as they await God’s mercy (vv. 20–23).146 ἐλεᾶτε is a command from the writer to have mercy or pity on the object.147 The command is not only to be commenced in the present but must also continue with no specified end-point. Commands like this tend to be specific commands as opposed to general policies (e.g. ‘love one another’, which would more often appear in the aorist tense).148 In other Jewish literature, the word ἐλεάω can either mean ‘pity’ (particularly in negative clauses, i.e. 4 Macc. 9.3) or ‘mercy’ (in positive clauses, Rom. 9.16; Prov. 21.26; 1 Clem. 13.2; 2 Clem. 1.7), with a few exceptions (Hermas, Vis. 1.3.2; Clem., Protrep. I). A text that bears resemblance to Jude and may shed light on its interpretation is 1 Clem. 13.2 ἐλεᾶτε ἵνα ἐλεήθητε (‘have mercy so that you may receive mercy’). Similarly, Jude 21 speaks of the believers receiving mercy, and vv. 22–23 commands the hearers to show mercy.149 Mercy is to be directed to διακρινομένους (‘those who contest/doubt/ test/separate’). Within the context of the New Testament, this word carries a few meanings: ‘doubting’, ‘wavering’, ‘judging’, or ‘contending’. In 145.  Epiphanius, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book 1 (Sections 1–46), trans. Frank Williams, 2nd ed., NHMS 63 (Leiden: Brill, 2009). 146.  Although this text has been categorized as a general epistle, the language and style implies that Jude is addressing a specific group of Jewish Christians and wants to instruct them on how to contend for the faith. See Jude 3, 5, 17. 147.  LSJ., s.v. ἐλεέω. 148.  Constantine R. Campbell, Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 70–2. 149.  Reese, 2 Peter and Jude, 70.

6. Themes in Jewish Judgement Oracles

147

the classical Hellenistic world, the middle/passive διακρινομένους meant ‘testing’, ‘contesting’, ‘disputing’, or ‘being separated’. Throughout other Jewish literature, διακρίνω is used to mean ‘to judge’ (Eccl. 3.18; Job 9.14; 21.22; Wis. 9.12; Zech. 3.7), or ‘distinguish/separate/divide’ (as seen in Philo, Op. Mund. 56.154; Plant. 36.147; Ezek. 34.17, 20 LXX). Within Jude’s own letter, the same usage is found in Jude 9, where the archangel Michael contests with the devil over the body of Moses. Since Jude has already utilized the Hellenistic form of this word in Jude 9, it seems plausible that he intends for διακρινομένους to bear the same meaning here.150 Understanding this as a simple middle clause, the phrase becomes, ‘have mercy on those even though they contest’. 6.4. Comparative Analysis In the epistle of Jude, there are five prominent themes: judgement, rebellion, improper speech, sexual misdeeds, and behaviour detrimental to the community. From a thematic perspective, there are several parallels between the epistle and Jewish judgement oracle and Greco-Roman invective. It should come as no surprise that Jude’s stance on judgement is remarkably Hebraic. Like many Jewish judgement oracles, the Lord is the judge (Jer. 23.12b, 15a, 16a; Ezek. 34.10a; Mic. 2.1–32; 2 Esd. 15.7, 9, 48) and only the elect will survive his impending punishment (Zeph. 3.9). In Greco-Roman texts, however, the deity is rarely the judge. Rather, it is the community, the council of judges, or the orator himself who is called to judge the guilty party (Cic., Pis. 43). In this respect, Jude differs from Greco-Roman invective. While he certainly seeks to change public opinion, the Lord, and only the Lord, is the judge (Jude 9). Punishment and rebellion (§6.3.a.ii) are also significant subjects in Jude’s epistle. The rebellion of those present and past has caused God to bring fire, darkness, and destruction on the rebellious. Once again, these are heavily Hebraic themes (Deut. 29.23; Isa. 29.6; 30.27–28; Jer. 23.12; 1 En. 1.6–7). Some of these themes do appear in Greco-Roman invectives. Ovid dreams up endless forms of punishment and torture for Ibis (Ib. 635–36), Martial speaks of his opponent exhausting all the fabled torments (Ep. 10.5), and Cicero declares that Catiline deserves great punishment (Cic., Cat. 3.22). However, Jude’s understanding of the 150.  For a helpful explanation on why διακρινομένους should be consistently translated throughout Jude using its classical/Hellenistic meaning, ‘dispute’ or ‘contest’, see Spitaler, ‘Doubt or Dispute’, 201–22.

148

Jude on the Attack

punishment of the wicked, like his conception of judgement in general, concerns God’s hand and not the community’s. This is not surprising if we assume that Jude is drawing directly on imagery from the Jewish tradition in most of these references to the punishment of the wicked (e.g. Jude 5, 6, 7, 11). Improper speech (slander, harsh words against God, grumbling/ complaining, boasting and flattery and deception) is a theme occurring in both invective and judgement oracles. For Jewish judgement oracles, this falls into the category of religious sins (hypocrisy, idolatry, blasphemy, pride, and arrogance). Yahweh rejects the worship of unrepentant Israel and instead reduces it to mere ‘noise’ (Amos 5.21–24). They are said to be boastful (Isa. 28.15), blasphemous (1 En. 96.7), deceptive (1 En. 99.12), arrogant, and puffed up (Hab. 2.4–5). They use perverted words (1 En. 99.2) and quarrel with their Maker (Isa. 45.9). Jude charges his adversaries with slander of angelic beings (v. 8) and the denial of Jesus (v. 4). In Greco-Roman invectives, destructive speech such as boasting, polluted and abusive talk, hypocrisy, deception, impiety, and slander is often associated with behaviour detrimental to the community and does not have a directly religious link. This, too, is a problem found in Jude, as the opponents are rebuked for grumbling, boasting, and using flattery for advantage (v. 16). Sexual misconduct and lustful desires were common topics for many attack speeches. In this respect, when writers attacked their opponents by charging them with sexual misconduct they were relying on a ‘longstanding discursive strategy that would have been familiar to everyone’.151 In the Jewish tradition, when prophets mentioned sexual misconduct (i.e. Israel the whore, Israel the adulterous wife), they were often speaking in metaphorical terms. In such passages, sexual sin was used to describe Israel’s idolatry in vivid and graphic terms. Just as these images of sexual misconduct were often metaphorical in Jewish judgement oracles, for Jude, the reference to Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 7) and the charge of polluting their own bodies (v. 8) is an illustration of rebellion. Behaviour detrimental to the community is a theme across both invectives and judgement oracles. In the epistle of Jude, the focus is on selfish leaders ‘shepherding themselves’ and leading the community astray like ‘hidden reefs’. They are fearless, taking the way of Cain, Balaam, and Korah, causing divisions in the community, and are devoid of the spirit. In Jewish literature, poor leadership is a major theme. This is seen particularly clearly in the case study from Jeremiah 23. In this passage, the image 151.  Wright Knust, Abandoned to Lust, 6.

6. Themes in Jewish Judgement Oracles

149

of poor leadership is created by mention of negligent shepherds, false prophets, and wicked priests. In Greco-Roman invective, the opponent is often described as a tyrant, a public menace, as cruel, a thief, and as someone committing extortion. Jude follows Jewish imagery to secure the most empathy from his audience. Some themes common in these texts are only partially present in the epistle of Jude. For example, in both Jewish judgement oracles and Greco-Roman invectives, excessive habits normally revolve around greed, gluttony, and drunkenness. While gluttony and drunkenness are not present in Jude, there is a hint of greed as the shepherds feed only themselves (v. 12). In invective speech, bringing disgrace to one’s family or community is a prominent focus. Jude does not shame his opponents in this way. Absent from Jude are accusations relating to external circumstances (slave-born, dishonourable parents, barbarian) and comments relating to physical appearance (swollen throat, hairy cheeks, lame or deformed). Unlike the Greek orators, Jude did not seek to mock his opponents, but instead focuses his attention on more serious and less superficial crimes. It should not come as a surprise that we find common themes across invectives, judgement oracles, and the epistle of Jude. By its very nature, polemic discourse is bound to reference an opponent’s improper actions and deserved punishment. What is interesting is that Jude’s discussion of rebellion, improper speech, sexual misdeeds, and behaviour detrimental to the community uses images and examples primarily drawn from Jewish sources and is tied to wrongdoings that a religious audience would understand as particularly serious. This focus on Jewish thematic content is part of Jude’s strategy, ‘for it is precisely the combination and intersection of shared presuppositions that most effectively persuade an audience’.152

152.  Judith M. Lieu, ‘Us or You? Persuasion and Identity in 1 John’, JBL 127, no. 4 (2008): 808.

Chapter 7

The Style of Jewish Judgement Oracles, Greco-Roman Invectives, and the Epistle of Jude

Style is the fashioning together of suitable words, phrases, clauses, sentences, and devices for the matter at hand.1 In this chapter, I examine the style of Greco-Roman invective, Jewish judgement oracles, and the epistle of Jude. First, I will survey stylistic devices across Jewish judgement oracles, before turning to an analysis of Jeremiah 23 to demonstrate both stylistic devices and the overall style of a specific text. To assess the overall style, I will make use of Hermogenes’ categories for harsh discourse (§7.1.1.2). The same pattern will be repeated for Greco-Roman invective, finishing with an analysis of Demosthenes’ Against Meidias and Ovid’s Ibis. It will be shown that Jude follows the overall style of Greco-Roman invective, creating unpredictable rhythmic patterns and a harsh tone throughout. Regarding stylistic devices, though the devices themselves are common to all three text-types, Jude draws the content of his quotations, allusions, and comparisons from Jewish sources. Again, I begin with a survey of Jewish judgement oracles (§7.1), Greco-Roman invectives (§7.2), and a case study from each. If the reader wishes to move straight to an analysis of Jude and my own comparative argument, this can be found in section §7.3–4. 7.1. The Style of Jewish Judgement Oracles The following four stylistic devices (metaphor, simile, parallelism, and marked emphasis) are commonly found across Jewish judgement speech.2 I will take each of these in turn. 1.  Cic., Inv. 1.7.9; Her. 1.2.3; Rhet. ad. Alex. 23. 2.  See David L. Petersen and Kent Harold Richards, Interpreting Hebrew Poetry, Old Testament Series (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992), 61–63. The categories have been selected by observing a number of oracles and noticing recurring stylistic patterns.

7. The Style of Jewish Judgement Oracles

151

(a) Metaphor. Metaphors frequently appear in judgement-speech as the prophets seek to stress the sin and downfall of Israel and the surrounding nations.3 Isaiah uses aspects of common overarching metaphors such as people are plants to showcase the twin themes of sin and judgement.4 In this metaphor, it is expected that crops will be fruitful, especially if they have been well-tended. However, as Isaiah demonstrates, despite the time and effort Yahweh has put into yielding a good crop (Isa. 5.1–7), the grapes of his vineyard (his people) are sour (see also Jer. 2.21; 24.5–7). This image reinforces the message that Israel is acting out of character.5 A variation is found in Amos 1 and Jer. 23.10, where the pastures are said to be mourning. Here, the very land is grieving over the disorder that sin has created (this metaphor will be revisited in §7.1.1). Animal imagery is also popular (i.e. people are animals) in these oracles. In Ezekiel 29, Pharaoh is depicted as a sea monster that God plans to catch and destroy (see also Ezek. 29.3). Likewise, Israel is rebuked throughout the prophetic writings as they are named ‘roaring lions’ and ‘evening wolves’ (Zeph. 3.3; Isa. 5.8–10). The metaphor of the roaring lion is also used several times in Jeremiah as ‘The lion is the enemy par excellence’.6 By using the same image for Israel and the surrounding nations, the writer makes clear that they are no different from their enemies. Interestingly, Yahweh is also given the qualities of a roaring lion (šāʾag) in Amos 1.2, where he is depicted as a dangerous beast on the prowl.7 In 1 Enoch the overarching metaphor community is a building is employed: ‘Woe to those who build unrighteousness and oppression and lay deceit as a foundation’ (1 En. 94.6), ‘Woe to those who build their houses with sin’ (1 En. 94.7; see also 1 En. 99.13; Jer. 6.12). In these

3.  Even though metaphors are not simply a literary device (they are in fact the very structure and framework through which we construct words and thoughts), they will be studied here under the category of style. 4.  On these various metaphorical targets and domains, see Zoltán Kövecses, Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, 2nd ed. (2002; repr., New York: Oxford University Press, 2010). 5.  See Matthews, Social World of the Hebrew Prophets, 87. 6.  See Foreman, Animal Metaphors and the People of Israel in the Book of Jeremiah, 108–9. 7.  Katherine M. Hayes, The Earth Mourns: Prophetic Metaphor and Oral Aesthetic (Leiden: SBL, 2002), 27. In a similar tone, but with the use of nature imagery, Israel is referred to as the ‘roaring seas’ (Isa. 5.8–20) and said to be ‘consumed by fire’ (Zeph. 3.8).

152

Jude on the Attack

verses, the building itself is weak and fragile, as the bricks are laid with deceit (see also Hab. 2.10–11). Israel is also rebuked by using sexual metaphors. The image of Israel as a prostitute, wife, or promiscuous woman is at the heart of the judgement oracles found in Jer. 2.1–4.4.8 In Ezekiel, Israel is called a ‘whore’ (Ezek. 16.15, 16, 17, 20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 33, 34, 36), an ‘adulterous wife’, and a ‘prostitute’ (Ezek. 16.32), a metaphor highlighting unfaithfulness to God. In Hosea, the prophet’s own experience of an adulterous wife is a symbolic representation of Israel’s relationship with God (Hos. 1.1–8). Many of these metaphors will be explored in greater detail in the case study from Jeremiah 23 (§7.1.1). (b) Similes. In Isaiah, Yahweh’s sentence is replete with similes.9 Isaiah writes that God’s judgement will be ‘like a break in a high wall’, ‘like the breaking of a potter’s vessel’ (Isa. 30.12–14), ‘like a storm of hail, a destroying tempest, like a storm of mighty, overflowing waters’ (Isa. 28.2), and that ‘like a bull’ he has brought down those who sat on high thrones (Isa. 10.12).10 In reference to the coming judgement, the prophet Amos also uses a couplet of similes, ‘I will make it like the mourning for an only son and the end of it like a bitter day’ (Amos 8.10b). These similes encompass both the idea of death and the end times. As with metaphors, difficult concepts such as judgement are made clearer to the hearer by using embodied experiences like a storm or the loss of a son.11 (c) Parallelism. Parallelism takes several forms in judgement oracles.12 Isaiah accentuates the grim fate of the ungodly, stressing that they have made a ‘covenant with death’ and ‘with Sheol we have an agreement’ (Isa. 28.15a).13 In the same verse, the violation of sin (falsehood) is stressed, ‘A lie is our refuge and falsehood our hiding place’ (Isa. 28.15b). Both these 8.  Angela Bauer, Gender in the Book of Jeremiah: A Feminist-Literary Reading, Studies in Biblical Literature 5, 2nd ed. (1999; repr., New York: Lang, 2003), 8. 9.  Wilfred G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques (Sheffield: JSOT, 1984), 114; Petersen, The Prophetic Literature, 66. 10.  Against Assyria it is written, ‘Tread them down like the mire of the streets’ (Isa. 10.6). 11.  Other examples of simile can be found in Isa. 5.8–10; Jer. 2.30; Hos. 6.4; Zeph. 2.9, 11, 13. See Foreman, Animal Metaphors and the People of Israel in the Book of Jeremiah, 108. 12.  Aaron Chalmers, Interpreting the Prophets (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2015). 13.  See also Hab. 2.5 – greedy as the grave, death is never satisfied.

7. The Style of Jewish Judgement Oracles

153

couplets are examples of synonymous parallelism, where similar thoughts reappear in different but equivalent words.14 Antithetical parallelism is seen in Isaiah 28, where the same image is used in two contrasting ways.15 Here, the prophet first refers to Israel’s glorious beauty, calling her the pride of Ephraim, a fertile valley, and a fading flower. This same imagery is used to describe Israel’s downfall, the flower trampled on the ground (Isa. 28.1–2; for other example of parallelism in Jewish judgement oracles, see Jer. 13.16–17; Amos 1.3, 6, 9, 11, 13; 2.1, 4, 6; Zeph. 1.13). (d) Marked Emphasis. In judgement speech, emphasis is often centred on exclamation, exaggeration, rhythm, and repetition. The woe-cry demonstrates exclamation.16 Woe oracles against Jerusalem are found in the Qumran literature (2QapProph 1.2; 4QapLama 1 i 4, 1 ii 1; 4QShirb 63 iii 4–5), in series in 1 Enoch (1 En. 94.6–95.7; 96.4–8; 98.9–99.2; 100.7–9), and with marked emphasis throughout the prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible (Isa. 5.9, 13; 10.3, 4; 28.2–4; 29.16; 30.3–5; 31.2–3; 45.9, 11; Jer. 22.15; Ezek. 13.1–6, 18–19; 34.2–4; Amos 6.2; Hab. 2.7, 8, 10, 13, 16; Mic. 2.3; Zeph. 3.3–4). In some instances, the woe-cry signifies the genuine frustration of the orator. For example, in the New Testament, Jesus exclaims ‘Woe to you’ seven times in Matthew 23, highlighting the seriousness of Jesus’ charge against the Pharisees (see also Rev. 18). The prophets also used sweeping statements and exaggerated claims to create emphasis: ‘all alike have broken the yoke’ (Jer. 5.1, 5), ‘There is no truth, no love and no knowledge of God in the land’ (Hos. 4.1). These generalizations are used to add emphasis (even though they may not be entirely literal).

14.  This form of parallelism is particularly common in Amos (i.e. 1.2a, 3, 6, 9, 11, 13; 2.1, 4, 6). For insight into these verses, see Louis Israel Newman, Studies in Biblical Parallelism: Part I. Parallelism in Amos (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1919). See also Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman, eds., Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1998), 22. 15.  These two forms of parallelism are the most widely accepted among scholars. Lowth identifies a third category known as synthetical parallelism; see Robert Lowth, Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, trans. G. Gregory, 4th ed. (1753; repr., London: Thomas Tegg, 1839), 211–13. Many scholars have moved beyond this broad form and now discuss several types of grammatical and semantic forms of parallelism, for example, introverted parallelism (a-b-b-a) and climactic parallelism (where an opening word or phrase is echoed in the subsequent lines). See Petersen and Richards, Interpreting Hebrew Poetry, 27–34. 16.  Gerstenberger, ‘The Woe-Oracle of the Prophets’, 250.

154

Jude on the Attack

In Hebrew poetry (and particularly judgement speech), rhythm – often marked by stressed syllables, loudness, pitch, or length – was a tool for emphasis.17 Rhythm is the distinct and noticeable pattern in discourse capable of repetition and variation.18 Hebrew poetry does not manifest rhyming but rather there is a marked emphasis on sound (see Ps. 22.3–4).19 In the same way, Hebrew poetry did not use a measurable and predictable rhythmical pattern,20 but rather possessed both ‘rhythmical regularity and variety’.21 An example of this is seen in Jer. 22.29, where we read the phrase, ‘O land, land, land, hear the word of the Lord’. The Hebrew reads, ʾereṣ ʾereṣ ʾāreṣ making the rhythm less predictable due to the ‘pausal form’ found in ʾāreṣ.22 It causes the hearer to pause, and is thus emphatic. In Isa. 24.19, we find a tri-colon, where each line possesses three accents, ‘The earth is utterly broken, the earth is torn asunder, the earth is violently shaken’. Repetition acts as a drum beating home the message. 7.1.1. Jeremiah 23.9–22 (Case Study, Part 4) We now turn to a sustained analysis of Jeremiah 23 to see how style is communicated across a specific text. First, we will survey the aforementioned stylistic devices before assessing the overall style using Hermogenes’ categories for harsh discourse.23 17.  Kirsten Nielsen, ‘Poetic Analysis: Psalm 121’, in Method Matters: Essays on the Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of David L. Petersen, ed. Joel M. LeMon and Kent Harold Richards (Atlanta: SBL, 2009), 294. For a discussion on rhythmic stress patterns in Hebrew Poetry, see also George B. Gray, Forms of Hebrew Poetry: Considered with Special Reference to the Criticism and Interpretation of the Old Testament (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2002), 157–85; Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 87. 18.  T. V. F. Brogan, ‘Rhythm’, in The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, ed. Alex Preminger and T. V. F. Brogan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 238. 19.  John H. Ste, ‘The Stylistics of Hebrew Poetry’, Calvin Theological Journal 9, no. 1 (1974): 17. 20.  Paul H. Fry, ‘Meter’, in Preminger and Brogan, eds., The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, 141. 21.  Petersen and Richards, Interpreting Hebrew Poetry, 38. This, of course, is not universally agreed upon. See Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 87. 22.  Petersen and Richards, Interpreting Hebrew Poetry, 45. 23.  It should be noted again that the approach taken here is heuristic. Even though the prophets would not have been writing with these categories in mind, this analysis is based on how the Greek reader would understand the Hebrew oracle in translation given the conventions of contemporary rhetoric.

7. The Style of Jewish Judgement Oracles

155

7.1.1.1. Jeremiah 23.9–22 (Stylistic Devices) I will analyse four fundamental literary devices in Hebrew poetry (metaphor, simile, parallelism, and marked emphasis) carried over into the Greek translation of Jeremiah. (a) Metaphor. There is a striking image in Jer. 23.10 of the land mourning.24 Agriculture played a significant role in Hebrew poetry.25 The land was a large part of the peoples’ livelihood and proved effective in metaphorical expressions both with a positive and negative tenor. In Jeremiah 23, the picture is of the earth responding to its situation with real emotions (i.e. mourning). In this verse the prophet uses metaphor (sin is drought), parallelism, and personification to create a vivid image of bareness: ‘the land mourns’ and ‘the pastures of the wilderness are dried up’. While the earth cannot literally grieve, the plants in the heat of the day with no water to replenish them do droop and shrivel. The verse then continues with the phrase ‘and their course has become evil and their strength is not’. As seen in v. 10, the imagery relates to water (or lack thereof). The ‘course’ mentioned may refer to a watercourse that has turned πονηρός (‘evil’ or ‘foul’) due to lack of flowing water. A watercourse itself cannot be πονηρός (‘evil’); rather it can be filthy if there is the absence of fresh water,26 and ἰσχύς (‘might/strength’) refers to the force of a flooding river, in this case absent. In Jer. 23.14, the prophet writes, ‘they walk in lies’. The expression highlights not only the deceptive behaviour of these false prophets but their overall rebellion, sinfulness, and unfaithfulness. To walk ‘in’ something generally involves time, space, and manner.27 As the metaphor is mapped, we see that each deceptive decision leads to a path of destruction. In Jer. 23.15 two more metaphors are used in reference to God’s judgement, ‘I will feed them with wormwood and give them poisoned water to drink’ (an echo of Jer. 9.14 and Amos 6.12). Dioscorides (a first-century physician) describes wormwood (Artemisia vulgaris) as the bitterest herb (De Materia Medica 512; see also Rev. 8.10–11).28 Wormwood was used

24.  This is a possible rehash of Jer. 14.1, where Judah is said to be mourning. 25.  Nili Samet, ‘On Agricultural Imagery in Biblical Description of Catastrophes’, Journal of Ancient Judaism 3 (2012): 2. 26.  In the MT, there is also a reference to ‘the curse’ in Jer. 23.10, which echoes Deut. 29.20–23. See Willis, Jeremiah and Lamentations, 197; Allen, Jeremiah, 264. 27.  For similar examples, see George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1980), 172–75. 28.  Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, 495.

156

Jude on the Attack

as a symbol for the bitter consequence of sin (in this case death). The second term (ὕδωρ πικρόν, translated ‘poisoned water’), means ‘waters of the head’ or ‘tears’ (a translation preferred by some scholars).29 These ingredients together create a picture of the bitter grief which will come upon the ungodly due to their rejection of God.30 In Jer. 23.19, a final metaphor is used to depict God’s coming as a storm and a whirling tempest bursting on the heads of the wicked. These were common images used in theophany passages to describe the coming of the Lord.31 In this, Yahweh is perceived as the universal judge of all the earth.32 Jeremiah may have chosen this image by way of contrasting Yahweh and Baal the ‘cloud rider’ who was also known as a storm-god (see also Amos 4.13; Mic. 1.3; Deut. 32.13).33 (b) Simile. The way of the religious leaders is associated with a ‘slippery road’ leading to ‘darkness’ (v. 12). This dark and slippery path as referenced in Jer. 23.12 is a symbol representing God’s threatened disaster. This interpretation is strengthened when considering the concluding judgement of this verse, ‘For I have brought upon them evil, in the year of their visitation, says the Lord’. The announcement confirms yet again that it is the Lord speaking and the Lord who is bringing this judgement. In v. 15, Judah and Jerusalem are likened to Sodom and Gomorrah. The indictment is not specific, though the reference to Sodom and Gomorrah may indicate sexual misconduct (as there is also a reference to adultery in vv. 10, 14). The image of Judah/Jerusalem as a prostitute, adulterous wife, or promiscuous woman is central to several passages throughout 29.  Peter C. Craigie, Page H. Kelley, and Joel F. Drinkard, Jeremiah 1–25, WBC 26 (Dallas: Word, 1991), 14. See also Daryn Lehoux, Astronomy, Weather, and Calendars in the Ancient World: Parapegmata and Related Texts in Classical and Near-Eastern Societies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 398–99. 30.  Huey, Jeremiah, Lamentations, 215. 31.  Alison Ruth Gray, Psalm 18 in Words and Pictures: A Reading Through Metaphor (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 79. See also Kirsten Nielsen, ‘Metaphorical Language and Theophany in Psalm 18’, in Metaphors in the Psalms, ed. Pierre Van Hecke and Antje Labahn (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 197–207. 32.  Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms, trans. Timothy J. Hallett (New York: Seabury, 1978), 208. 33.  Mark S. Smith and Wayne T. Pitard, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Vol. 2, Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU/CAT 1.3–1.4, VTSup 114 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 677.

7. The Style of Jewish Judgement Oracles

157

Jeremiah (particularly Jer. 2.1–4.4; 23.14).34 However, there may also be a slightly different focus in this verse. First, there is a parallel with the prophets and their ‘lies’ (v. 14), and, second, their behaviour is described as ἀνομήματα (‘lawless’, Jer. 23.13) and φρικτά (‘shocking’, Jer. 23.14).35 Thus, what is most likely under scrutiny is the people’s ‘destructive, disobedient, non-covenantal way of ordering every aspect of community life. The poet understands that perverted sexuality goes also with a general distortion of public life that touches every phase of economic and political policy.’36 A similar reference is made in Ezek. 16.48–52. Here the parallel to Sodom and Gomorrah is not used to highlight sexual sin, but rather pride and a lack of aid for the poor. Therefore, the indictment in Jeremiah ‘may also be a general accusation of disregard for Yahweh’s desire for justice and righteousness’.37 (c) Parallelism. In Jer. 23.9 we are informed that the prophet is deeply disturbed: ‘I have become like a drunkard, like one overcome by wine’. Here, Jeremiah is filled with anguish, fully aware that the false message of the prophets is leading the people of God towards destruction.38 Jeremiah has long been known as ‘the weeping prophet’ (Jer. 8.23; 9.17; 13.17),39 a tradition which may have begun in (his assumed association with) Lamentations.40 The two clauses describing a drunkard emphasize his stumbling grief.41 A couplet of parallels can also be found in v. 10, ‘the 34.  Bauer, Gender in the Book of Jeremiah, 8. For an in-depth discussion on Jer. 2.1–4.4, see Sharon Moughtin-Mumby, Sexual and Marital Metaphors in Hosea, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel, Oxford Theological Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 80–116. Other commentators, such as Allen, interpret this verse in more literal manner due to the juxtaposition with v. 14; see Allen, Jeremiah, 264. 35.  William R. Domeris, ‘When Metaphor Becomes Myth: A Socio-Linguistic Reading of Jeremiah’, in Troubling Jeremiah, ed. A. R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O’Connor, and Louis Stulman (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 258. 36.  Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah, 210. 37.  Ibid. 38.  Huey, Jeremiah, Lamentations, 213. 39.  Joseph M. Henderson, ‘Who Weeps in Jeremiah VIII 23 (IX 1)? Identifying Dramatic Speakers in the Poetry of Jeremiah’, VT 52, no. 2 (2002): 191. 40.  Mary Chilton Callaway, ‘The Lamenting Prophet and the Modern Self: On the Origin of Contemporary Readings of Jeremiah’, in Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Herbert B. Huffmon, ed. Louis Stulman and John Kaltner (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 51. 41.  Johann Peter Lange, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Jeremiah, Lamentations, trans. Philip Schaff, OTS 12 (New York: Charles Scribner & Co., 1871), 210.

158

Jude on the Attack

land mourns and the pastures of the wilderness are dried up’ and ‘their course has been evil and their might is not right’. Here, there are two parallels, the first associated with barrenness and the other with ungodliness. Once again these verses draw on metaphorical language. By having these two images side by side, the effect of sin is magnified.42 (d) Marked Emphasis. The first instance of marked emphasis make use of apposition and over-specification. In the phrase ‘my people Israel’, God emphasizes that the people of Israel belong to him, not the priests or the prophets (just as they did not belong to the shepherds at the commencement of the chapter, see Jer. 23.1–4). Again, in Jer. 23.14, we read, ‘They have strengthened the hands of evildoers so that they do not repent each one, they were to me all of them as Sodom and its inhabitants as Gomorrah’. By setting Sodom and Gomorrah apart in two separate clauses, Jeremiah creates emphasis. By stressing each individual (they do not repent each one), the prophet is being emphatic. This is compounded by the phrase ‘They were to me all of them as Sodom’. It is an inclusive statement – not one person is excluded. By using hyperbolic statements (‘no one’ and ‘all of them’), Jeremiah stresses the height of rebellion reached by the people. In this verse the accusation is not only against the prophets or priests, but seems to include the community more broadly (‘all of them’).43 Such a harsh claim leads naturally to the judgement announcement of v. 15. Repetition is another form of emphasis in the passage. The phrase ‘to the prophets’ is repeated three times (vv. 13a, 14a, 15a) in a rhythmic manner, building the discourse. Several verses in this passage have a strong sense of alliteration, assonance, and rhythm (see vv. 10, 12, 16). Given that Jeremiah’s prophecies would have been read aloud, the sound of his words were crucial to their effective communication. Jeremiah also creates emphasis through marked word order. This is seen in the phrase, ‘They are rendering a vision empty’. In placing the qualifying adjective at the end of the clause there is a rise and fall in the discourse as the orator begins describing the vision and then jolts the image with the word ‘empty’. Another emphatic statement can be found in v. 19. In this case, there is the use of the word ‘behold’, a type of exclamation commonly used in Jewish oracles to draw attention and mark the importance of the following pronouncement.44 42.  See also Jer. 23.13 and 14, 18 and 22 for other examples of this. 43.  See Parke-Taylor, The Formation of the Book of Jeremiah, 81–82. 44.  Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 91.

7. The Style of Jewish Judgement Oracles

159

7.1.1.2. A Word on Hermogenes’ Model To assess the overall style of various texts from different historical and literary contexts, an external framework is required. It is difficult to compare texts from differing cultures and periods. Therefore, each text will be evaluated and compared against an external criterion functioning as a heuristic control. The model of analysis offered by Hermogenes in Peri Ideon (Περὶ ίδεῶν) is well suited to this purpose.45 First, it is contemporary to the writings with which I am working, both chronologically and geographically. Second, it is a framework that does not assume genre or structure and can therefore be suitably applied to a diverse range of texts. Third, it is a method that is both broad and flexible. Hermogenes supplies a vast range of categories of style allowing for rich study of the nuances of a particular text in the real world and outside of the structures of the handbooks. It is important to note early on that the author of each text in question would not necessarily have used Hermogenes. My analysis of his criteria within each of my chosen texts is for the purpose of comparison.46 Hermogenes’ model will be used to analyse the three case studies (Jer. 23.9–22, Demosthenes’ Against Meidias, and Ovid’s Ibis) as well as the epistle of Jude. Although Hermogenes wrote his handbook (Περὶ ίδεῶν) in the second century CE (after the composition of most of the texts assessed in this study), his categories can help identify the techniques used by contemporary writers within the tradition of public oratory. In his own words: ‘I think that the types of style are perhaps the most necessary subject for the orator to understand, both what their characteristics are and how they are produced. This knowledge would be indispensable to anyone who wanted to be able to evaluate the style of others, either of older writers or of those who lived more recently’ (Hermog., Id. 213.1). The three original styles of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (elevated, plain, and middle, Dion., Hal. 27–30), also used by Quintilian (Inst. Or. 12.10.58) and slightly modified by Demetrius (elevated, graceful, forceful, 45.  Hermogenes, Hermogenes’ On Types of Style, trans. Cecil W. Wooten (Chapel Hill: UNC Press, 1987). Hermogenes of Tarsus was a Greek rhetorician who wrote his most acclaimed works in the late second century. He was praised for his dialectic skills from a very early age and even attracted the attention of the emperor, Marcus Aurelius, who came to see him perform. See Janet B. Davis, ‘Hermogenes of Tarsus’, in Classical Rhetorics and Rhetoricians: Critical Studies and Sources, ed. Michelle Ballif and Michael G. Moran (London: Praeger, 2005), 195–202. 46.  Manuals such as Hermogenes’ derived from observing what was practiced and thus what worked. In other words, the devices precede the manuals in societies such as Hermogenes’.

160

Jude on the Attack

and simple), were greatly expanded upon by Hermogenes in an effort to reflect the true flexibility and richness of discourse. These categories, at times interwoven and combined, reflect the fullness of communication (Hermog., Id. 215.19–216.16).47 Hermogenes describes seven overarching styles (clarity, grandeur, beauty, rapidity, character, sincerity, and gravity oratory, which is the combination of all styles, ‘used in some blended way with one another’, Per Id. 380.13–14) along with several sub-styles (purity, distinctness, solemnity, asperity, vehemence, brilliance, florescence, abundance, simplicity, sweetness, subtlety, modesty, and indignation), which are essentially stylistic categories in and of themselves. As Hermogenes allocates roughly equal space to both categories and sub-categories, I will also treat them equally here, without making any distinction between them. Of these twenty categories, seven relate to harsh language (asperity, vehemence, florescence, sincerity, abundance, rapidity, and indignation), and thus will be the focus of this section looking at polemical works. Asperity (τραχύτης), vehemence (σφοδρότης), and florescence (ἀκμή) are closely related and are used while reproaching and confronting a subject (Id. 254–64). The language of all three categories is harsh, reveals anger, is impatient, and is often figurative.48 Asperity and vehemence use short, succinct phrases and sounds that clash. Demetrius writes that harshness produces vehemence as if ‘jolted on rough roads’ (Demetr., Eloc. 246.2). Florescence is more flowing and pleasing – an effect which softens the blow of criticism. Rapidity (γοργότης) is seen when the orator is concise, uses quick responses, and shifts the audience attention from thought to thought (Hermog., Id. 312–14). Where rapidity is found, there is often a lack of conjunctions (asyndeton), which serves to hurry the narrative and create great speed. At times rapidity is combined with abundance (the exploration of many facets of the one subject, Ib. 278–296), a technique often seen in Demosthenes (Hermog., Id. 284). Sincerity (ἀλήθεια) convinces the hearer of spontaneity through emotion, and indignation (βαρύτης) deals with the anger of the speaker due to personal offense. In the following examples, I will illustrate how these categories function in existing polemical texts.

47.  Dudley Bailey, ed., Essays of Rhetoric (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965), 103. 48.  A. B. du Toit, ‘Galatians and the περὶ ίδεῶν λόγου of Hermogenes: A Rhetoric of Severity in Galatians 1–4’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 70, no. 1 (2014): 3.

7. The Style of Jewish Judgement Oracles

161

7.1.1.3. Overall Style of Jeremiah 23.9–22 As poets, ‘The prophets reached deeply into the storehouse of profane and religious lyrics’, and as thinkers they imitate the style of a speech before a judge (Isa. 3.13–15; Mic. 6.1).49 Although prose was important, poetry was by far the most well-established medium within the literary genre. As Brueggemann writes, ‘The poetic mode of prophetic speech is not accidental or incidental’.50 Poetry served the prophets well, enabling them to express their messages more vividly. The poetic tendencies of Jewish judgement oracles result in both a harsh and lyrical style.51 While there are certainly times when a prophet will use direct and biting phrases (as is characteristic of vehemence and asperity), very often judgement oracles are rich in poetic verse (as is characteristic of florescence). Florescence utilizes harsh language but delivers it in a more pleasing manner. This technique softens the blow of criticism and does not have the same callousness as one might expect in a text which employs an abundance of vehemence or asperity. While there is a combination of these techniques in Jer. 23.9–22, florescence is the dominant feature. We find florescence early on in v. 10: ‘[D]ue to these the land mourned, the pastures of the wilderness were dried up. And their course became evil.’ Though this verse is not positive, by employing figurative speech and parallelism, the negative imagery of the barren land is significantly less aggressive than one might expect from a direct confrontation of the hearers with their sins. This poetic and figurative verse is then followed by a more straightforward remark, ‘Because priest and prophet were defiled, and in my house I have seen their wickedness’ (v. 11). And in v. 12, the discourse transitions back to figurative speech, ‘Therefore let their way be to them like slipperiness in thick darkness, and they shall be tripped up and fall in it; for I will bring evil upon them in the year of their visiting’. Here the author uses a highly immersive simile to describe the moral downfall of the rebellious. Following on from these opening verses, the intensity begins to rise (vv. 13–14). In these two verses, the discourse is far more direct εἶδον ἀνομήματα (‘I saw lawless deeds’), ἑώρακα φρικτά (‘I have seen shocking things’). There are also four clauses with no conjunctions,

49.  Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, 28. See also Hermann Gunkel, ‘Die Propheten als Schriftsteller und Dichter’, in Die großen Propheten, ed. Hans Schmidt, Die Schriften des Alten Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917), xlv. 50.  Brueggemann, ‘The Book of Jeremiah’, 117. 51.  Abraham J. Heschel, The Prophets (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), 6–7.

162

Jude on the Attack

ἀντιλαμβανομένους χειρῶν πονηρῶν τοῦ μὴ ἀποστραφῆναι ἕκαστον ἀπὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ τῆς πονηρᾶς ἐγενήθησάν μοι πάντες ὡς Σοδομα (‘strengthening the hands of evildoers so that no one turns, each from his wicked way; all have become like Sodom to me’), giving the discourse rapidity. However, as the oracle moves into the judgement phase, though the language is severe, the discourse resembles florescence (v. 15) once again. Another common feature found in harsh discourse is the use of sincerity, a technique giving the impression of spontaneity and the appearance of emotion. Like many Jewish judgement oracles, the opening verse of this chapter, ‘Woe to the shepherds’ (Jer. 23.1), is obvious and direct (not characteristic of sincerity). However, v. 9 displays pronounced emotion (‘My heart was crushed; within me all my bones shook; I became like a crushed man’). In v. 18, the prophet uses a device known as rhetorical questioning, ‘For who has stood in the council of the Lord so as to see and to hear his word? Who has given heed to his word so as to proclaim it?’ Following this is an exclamation, ἰδοὺ σεισμὸς παρὰ κυρίου (‘Behold an earthquake of the Lord’). This exclamation (possibly spontaneous) jolts the audience through the vividness of the orator’s outburst and the directness of the exclamation (ἰδού). The final element appearing in harsh discourse is indignation, dealing with the anger of the speaker due to his own encounter of a personal offense. There is a sense of personal anguish in the opening verse, ‘My heart is crushed; within me, all my bones shook’. However, as the prophet indicates, this crushing feeling is a result of the Lord’s glory and the burden of responsibility that is associated with being a prophet. Jeremiah is fully aware that the sins of the people are against God, not against him. The indignation he feels is due to the weight of responsibility that comes with the message of judgement. 7.2. The Style of Greco-Roman Invectives It takes great dialectic skill to conjure an offensive image of a man without specifically naming him the villain. Orators were encouraged to construct their speeches using persuasive and stylized devices. It was not about relaying dry facts but rather enticing the audience into listening and agreeing with the orator. It has been reported that audiences would spontaneously applaud well-delivered prose.52 The failure or success of

52.  See Cic., De Or. 213–14. See also John Dryden, Discourse on Satire and Epic Poetry (Teddington: The Echo Library, 2007), 47; Catherine Steel, Roman Oratory, New Surveys in the Classics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 15;

7. The Style of Jewish Judgement Oracles

163

an invective speech would often depend not only on the veracity of the arguments but on the audience’s enjoyment of them as well. In his Art of Rhetoric Aristotle includes rhetorical devices, rhythm, amplitude, and syntax (Arist., Rhet. 3.1–12). According to Cicero, style includes rhythm, rhetorical questions, anaphora, asyndeton, apostrophe, exclamation, alliteration, assonance, wordplay, and metaphor.53 Not all of these categories, however, are best used to identify invective. With the help of MacKendrick’s work, Speeches of Cicero, the following section will focus on five key rhetorical devices that repeatedly appear within invective speech: metaphor, simile, comparison, bdelygmia (aggressive rants), and exclamation.54 To communicate one’s message it was common for orators of invective speech to make use of such techniques in a derogatory, inflammatory, or witty manner. As the handbooks illustrate, abusive speech often consisted of the above techniques in the form of blame and humour (see Arist., Poet. 48b37; Cic., De Or. 2.216–89; Quint., Inst. 6.3).55 Both the direct exploitation and the humorous mocking of an opponent, along with the organization of one’s insults, will now be explored with the aim of identifying invective speech in practice. In what follows I will broadly survey stylistic devices across GrecoRoman invectives before assessing two case studies where stylistic devices and overall style can be analysed in specific texts. (a) Metaphor. Orators were advised to use metaphor in their letters and speeches to tap into an audience’s imagination (Arist., Rhet. 3.2.1405b). In a brief moment, a speaker could create a vivid and exaggerated mental picture for the audience (Rhet. Her. 4.45). In invective, this might include directly denouncing an opponent by calling him a pirate (Cic., Pis. 58), a blockhead (Pis. 58), or a beast (Pis. 1). It could also be used to describe external circumstances whereby an opponent’s crimes are exposed, for example walls described as ‘silent witnesses to illustrious crimes’ (Cic., Clu. 15; Cael. 60; Cat. 1.6, 19). As noted by L’Hoir, this metaphor has Pernot, Rhetoric in Antiquity, 58. For many hearers, straightforward speech was seen to be insufficient (Arist., Rhet. 1404a1–10; 1415b1–5; 1417a32–35). 53.  As summarized by Cicero, Political Speeches: A New Translation by D. H. Berry, Oxford World’s Classics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), xxviii. 54.  MacKendrick, The Speeches of Cicero. 55.  See Nicolino Applauso, ‘Curses and Laughter: The Ethics of Political Invective in the Comic Poetry of High and Late Medieval Italy’ (The University of Oregon, 2010), 22; Charles E. Schutz, Political Humor: From Aristophanes to Sam Ervin (New Jersey: Associated University Press, 1977), 248.

164

Jude on the Attack

its roots in Attic tragedy and can be found in the plays of Aeschylus (Ag. 37–38) and Euripides (Hipp. 417–18).56 Many of the themes previously discussed (see §6.2) reappear in the form of metaphor. For example, sexual metaphors,57 metaphors relating to the mouth,58 and the theme of tyranny all resurface.59 Other popular metaphors include labelling a subject as a ‘pest’, a ‘beast’ (see Cic., Vat 4, 33; Pis. 1, 56; Cat. 2.2; Dom. 5; Clu. 40; Phil. 2.30), or a ‘monster’ (Pliny, Pan. 48.3; Cic., Off. 3.6.32; Pis. 21, 31).60 An extravagant example is found in Tacitus’ attack against Vitellus, in which he denounces his opponent for ‘feast[ing] his eyes’ on the dying body of Blaesus (Tac., Hist. 3.39).61 Derogatory metaphors were also drawn from nature. Orators would speak of their opponents as wild storms or terrible gales, drawing the connection between aggressive individuals and erratic and dangerous weather patterns. Vatinius is referred to as a ‘storm which was desolating the republic’ (Cic., Vat. 4, 33), while Piso is depicted as one of ‘the most terrible storms and billows of the republic’ (Pis. 20), a whirlpool, and rock endangering the republic (Pis. 41). Demosthenes portrays Philip as a great storm that cannot be tamed (Dem., Cor. 194), and Cicero calls Philip the ‘seed’ that caused ‘the most lamentable war’ (Phil. 2.55; see also Cic., Cat. 1.30).

56.  Cecil W. Wooten, Cicero’s Philippics and Their Demosthenic Model: The Rhetoric of Crisis (North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 1983), 27. For further discussion on these plays and on this metaphor, see Francesca Santoro L’Hoir, Tragedy, Rhetoric, and the Historiography of Tacitus’ Annales (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2006), 166–67. 57.  For example, a person’s mind could be ‘seduced’ (Cic., Clu. 13). See Amy Richlin, The Garden of Priapus: Sexuality and Aggression in Roman Humor (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 140. 58.  The use of this metaphor had largely negative implications in Cicero’s orations and was rarely used in a positive manner (Cic., Ver. 2.5.161; Dom. 26; Pis. 13, 63; Vat. 39; Phil. 2.68; 5.20; 11.5, 7). 59.  See Chang, The Community, the Individual and the Common Good, 66. Examples of this metaphor can be found in Plato’s Republic 488a–c and Cicero’s De Senectute 17. 60.  In another variation Cicero uses epidemic imagery of fatal plagues which have infiltrated and begun to destroy the whole republic (Cic., Cat. 1.30; Pis. 3). 61.  See also Elizabeth Keitel, ‘Feast Your Eyes on This: Vitellius as a Stock Tyrant (Tac. His 3.36–39)’, in A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography, ed. John Marincola, BCAW (West Sussex: Blackwell, 2011), 445.

7. The Style of Jewish Judgement Oracles

165

(b) Similes. In invective speech, similes and metaphors were thematically quite similar.62 For example, animal imagery appears in both. Cicero writes that some are like inhuman mischievous pests (Cic., Clu. 40), or crafty and cunning serpents (Vat. 4). Hipponax associates his opponent with a helpless dog (Strasbourg Epode, fr. 115W/194 dg, also known as Archil. fr. 0232.99). In other examples opponents are associated with weak, poor, and vulnerable figures who reside on the fringes of society. Piso is said to have a complexion much like that of a slave (Cic., Pis. 1),63 while Catiline is associated to a man with a severe disease (Cat. 1.31). With a rather repulsive image, pseudo-Cicero insults Sallust, comparing him to faeces ‘as into a sewer, a flood of all the vice had flowed’ (ps.-Cic., Sall. 6.18). (c) Comparison. Isocrates compares the sophists of his day to Homer. While Homer was renowned for his wisdom, the sophists, on the other hand, attempt to persuade young men with their empty promises of happiness and prosperity (Isoc., Soph. 2–3). The comparison here is with a supremely reputable figure, clarifying the intellectual impoverishment of Isocrates’ opponents who claim to know the future. By contrast, Cicero compares his opponents with like-minded figures to draw a negative comparison. He begins an oration by marvelling at Antonius’ lack of fear in imitating evil men, ‘But you…in order to appear more audacious than Catiline, more frantic than Clodius, have of your own accord attacked me with abuse’ (Cic., Phil. 2.2). In this invective, Cicero compares Antonius to two of his known enemies.64 Cicero elsewhere contrasts Piso to an upright man (the man the people thought they were electing) in an attempt to highlight his shortcomings. He concludes, ‘A Piso was elected but not the Piso you are’ (Cic., Pis. 2). (d) Bdelygmia. The term bdelygmia is used for tirades where the orator piles insult upon insult. Cicero uses this technique in many of his orations, especially as the intensity rises. He attacks Catiline, a man who

62.  See Wooten, Cicero’s Philippics and Their Demosthenic Model, 27. For Aristotle, similes were viewed as a ‘less pleasant’ version of metaphors (Arist., Rhet. 3.10.1411). In his own words, ‘It is more drawn out, and it does not say that it is that and so the mind does not think out the resemblance’ (Rhet. 3.10.1411). 63.  See also Phil. 3.15. 64.  See also Cic., Phil. 3.8–15. For a fuller discussion of this text, see Gesine Manuwald, ed., Cicero, Philippics 3–9: Commentary, vol. 2 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 346.

166

Jude on the Attack

is said to be ‘so active, so ready, so audacious, so crafty, so vigilant in wickedness, so industrious in criminal exploits’ (Cic., Cat. 3.16–17).65 At a pinnacle point during his speech against Verres, he calls him ‘the embezzler of the public funds, the petty tyrant of Asia and Pamphylia, the robber who deprived the city of its rights, the disgrace and ruin of the province of Sicily’ (Cic., Ver. 1.2). Against Philipp, he writes, ‘Oh the abominable profligacy of the man! Oh how intolerable is his impudence, his debauchery, and his lust!’ (Cic., Phil. 2.15). Here, Cicero scatters emphatic exclamation through the outburst, giving it even more energy and force. In a particularly powerful tirade against Vatinius, an attack so harsh it deserves quoting more extensively, he says: If no one beholds you without groaning, if no one mentions your name without cursing you, if men shun you, avoid you, and cannot bear to hear your name; if, when they see you, they shudder at you as an evil omen; if your relations disown you, and the men of your own tribe execrate you, and your neighbours dread you, and your connections are ashamed of you; lastly, if all your evil humours have left your odious face and settled in other places; if you are the object of general hatred to the people and the senate, and to all the tribes of the country; what reason can you have for wishing for the praetorship rather than for death? (Cic., Vat. 39)

Isocrates also makes use of the technique. When speaking of Xenotimus, he bursts into a list of crimes, ‘That falsifier of the laws, corrupter of our tribunals, vilifier of the authorities, and author of every evil’ (Isoc., Call. 11; see also Hipponax, Strasbourg Epode, fr. 115W/194 Dg or Archil., fr. 0232.99). (e) Exclamations. We find outbursts across Cicero’s writings: ‘Aye! Lo! Oh the incredible audacity! Oh the monstrous impudence! O wretched man!’ (Cic., Cat. 1.2; See also Clu. 15; Ver. 1.17; Phil. 2.4, 16; 3.8; 6.21). In Third Philippics Cicero uses emphatic exclamation to introduce a new point or to mark the beginning of a bdelygmia which is to follow (Cic., Phil. 3.8, 15, 18, 27). The two devices often go hand in hand (see also Ar., Kn. 1). As seen from the variety of examples above, exclamation can be used to start invective speech at a point of climax, or reflect an orator’s (oftentimes calculated) dismay.

65.  Other rants can be found in Cic., Cat. 1.18; Clu. 15; Pis. 56, 57.

7. The Style of Jewish Judgement Oracles

167

7.2.1. Demosthenes (Case Study, Part 4) As with our study of Jeremiah 23, we now turn to a sustained analysis of Demosthenes’ Against Meidias and Ovid’s Ibis to see how style is communicated across a specific text. First, I will survey the stylistic devices in Against Meidias before assessing the overall style using Hermogenes’ categories for harsh discourse. The same pattern will be repeated for Ibis. Ancient critics have long been intrigued by the style of Demosthenes.66 Orators such as Cicero believed that Demosthenes had mastered various styles recognized within ancient rhetorical tradition (Cic., Or. 13, 33). One of the first things which can be noticed in the writings of Demosthenes, particularly Against Meidias, is that the style is nowhere near as crude or aggressive as that of other orators such as Cicero. Fredal makes the case that Demosthenes’ speech needs to be bold and vehement without being overdone. If not, it will appear arrogant and overbearing, characteristics of his opponent, Meidias.67 Restraint could be helpful in such speeches as excessive vilification can cause harm to one’s case (Quint., 6.3.28–35).68 (a) Stylistic Devices. Demosthenes’ orations are laden with rhetorical questions, grammatical variations, emphatic statements, metaphors, and similes (Dem., Cor. 15.122, 153, 188, 287, 3222; 19.10, 60, 136, 189, 216, 259, 295). At times he orders his sentences in a somewhat unnatural manner, bringing the important information into focus (Meid. 1),69 using two words with similar meaning to add emphasis (Meid. 2), or placing an entire section in the form of question and answer (Meid. 98, 120, 148–49). Elsewhere, he brings up something he appears to have forgotten to mention (Meid. 110) only to bring this ‘forgotten’ information into focus once again. In section 16 Against Meidias Demosthenes draws upon military imagery to describe Meidias’ attack strategy: he ‘plotted to destroy’ the crowns (Meid. 16) in a ‘nocturnal raid’ (Meid. 16). Here, the image is 66.  Wooten, ‘Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Hermogenes on the Style of Demosthenes’, 576. 67.  Given that both men were powerful public figures, there was a risk of the jury viewing them in the same light. Demosthenes therefore had to guard against an overly aggressive approach. See Fredal, ‘The Language of Delivery and the Presentation of Character’, 264. 68.  Tatum, ‘Invective Identities in Pro Caelio’, 168. 69.  MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator, 401.

168

Jude on the Attack

of a carefully planned attack, executed in a surprising manner by troops upon their enemy. With the added reference to evening (‘nocturnal raid’), Demosthenes is able to show his opponent as devious and sly, doing his deeds in the shadow of the night. In the next section, we find a reference to ‘the fellow’s game’ (Meid. 17), an expression which reflects calculated strategy and scheming on the subject’s part. Through this, Demosthenes implies that Meidias has ‘played’ his fellow countrymen like pawns on a chessboard. To end section 19, Demosthenes speaks of the ‘daring crimes of this blackguard’ (Meid. 19). A blackguard is someone who acts unlawfully; he is a lowly scoundrel. The portrayal of Meidias as a criminal continues in section 20 as Demosthenes speaks of ‘his victims’ suffering in silence ‘because they were cowed by him and his self-confidence or by his gang of bullies’ (Meid. 20). Again, the victim and perpetrator image clearly portrays Meidias as the enemy. Demosthenes has drawn upon images of corrupt military strategy, plots, and attacks to represent Meidias as an untrustworthy tyrant who must be stopped. (b) Overall Style. This speech is written in such a way that it appears to be relaying actual facts (whether true or not). By beginning section 16 with a publicly witnessed event and avoiding cheap slanderous blows, Demosthenes builds credibility and is able to establish an apparently true account. Perhaps this is why Demosthenes uses a more restrained approach. He does not hold back in telling the court of Meidias’ crimes or insinuating that he deserves harsh punishment, but he avoids the aggressive name-calling that can be found in other ancient speeches of this same genre and would render his speech overly sensational. Additionally, and unlike other orators, Demosthenes uses a less poetic style and limits instances of florescence. His highest priority is clarity, resulting in short and simple sentences that are easy to follow (e.g. Dem., Meid. 17). The discourse contains more asperity and vehemence. He was fond of exclamation, but avoids wordplay, hiatus, and rough sounds.70 Demosthenes’ style, according to Hermogenes, is both rapid and abundant (Hermog., Id. 284–85). It is both emphatic and clear without boring the audience. This ‘fast-paced narrative’ can be seen in Against Meidias 16 as Demosthenes describes Meidias’ attempt to destroy the golden crowns:

70.  Wooten, ‘Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Hermogenes on the Style of Demosthenes’, 577.

7. The Style of Jewish Judgement Oracles

169

The sacred apparel – for all apparel provided for use at a festival I regard as being sacred until after it has been used – and the golden crowns, which I ordered for the decoration of the chorus, he plotted to destroy, men of Athens, by a nocturnal raid on the premises of my goldsmith. And he did destroy them, though not completely, for that was beyond his power. And no one can say that he ever yet heard of anyone daring or perpetrating such an outrage in this city.71

There are several short, sharp, and independent clauses. This gives the impression of rapid movement from one thought to another even though this entire section describes the one event (Meidias attempting to destroy the golden crowns). This same pattern can be found in section 17 as Demosthenes retells of Meidias’ corruption. As he describes the successful corruption of the trainer and the failed attempt to corrupt the flute-player, Demosthenes makes use of punchy phrases and clauses strung together in long sentences to create speed within the discourse without losing clarity. Although the section appears to be rapid and erratic, it is, in fact, quite clear, describing the one event in detail. We find a high level of indignation as Demosthenes reveals that he has been personally wronged by this opponent. Comments such as, ‘They knew I had suffered’ (Dem., Meid. 2), ‘[Meidias] robbed my tribe unfairly of the prize’ (Meid. 5), ‘I in person was stuck by him and insulted’ (Meid. 6), ‘I was the victim’, and ‘These were the crimes and brutalities which Meidias committed in connection with the festival against my fellowtribesmen and myself’ (Meid. 19) show Demosthenes taking a very personal approach. 7.2.2. Ovid, Ibis (Case Study, Part 4) We return for the final time to Ovid’s Ibis to discuss the style. Ovid primarily writes this speech on his own behalf in an attempt to gain personal retribution for his suffering. (a) Stylistic Devices. In the opening section of this poem, Ovid uses several metaphors to highlight and magnify his personal turmoil. Two images are worth noting. The first is an image that comes from the metaphorical concept emotional suffering is bodily suffering: ‘He, inexorably, disturbs the wound of a man seeking peace’ (Ib. 13–14). In this metaphor, Ovid’s emotional pain is a metaphorical extension

71.  Worthington, Demosthenes of Athens and the Fall of Classical Greece, 159.

170

Jude on the Attack

of physical pain, specifically a wound.72 If we map this metaphor, it becomes clear that even though Ovid does not have an open wound on his body, like a person with an injury, he is experiencing pain, feeling fragile and vulnerable, and requires time to heal. Exile would serve as the perfect recovery time, but he has not been provided the space to heal. In the second image, Ovid pictures himself as clinging to a broken boat while his opponent attempts to steal his final plank, ‘While I cling to the shattered fragments of my boat, he fights for the planks from my shipwreck’. Again, there is a connection between emotional suffering and physical suffering. Here, the metaphorical extension is one of desperation, sorrow, and adversity. The theme of the shipwreck or the ‘broken membra’ is also found in Tristia (‘refrain from breaking apart the pieces of my shaken raft’, Ovid, Tr. 1.2.1–2) and in the catalogue of Ibis (‘he held onto the shattered pieces of his raft’, Ib. 275).73 This image, as well as the poem’s overall invective tone, calls to mind the Strasbourg Epode (Hipponax., fr. 115W/194 Dg) and Horace’s Epode 10. Ovid is probably alluding to these passages. The fragment from Hipponax reads: And in Salmydessus may the top-knotted Thracians graciously take him in, naked, where he will carry out lowly tasks eating slave’s bread, seized by cold; and from the foam may he clutch heaps of seaweed, chattering his teeth, mouth down like a dog lying in helplessness. (Strasbourg Epode, fr. 115W/194 Dg)

And we should note also Horace’s Epode X: May a black Easterly scatter her broken oars, And ropes on a foaming sea: May a Northerly rise, one that shatters trembling Oaks on high mountain summits. (Ep. 5–8)

When compared to two sections from Ovid’s Ibis, the parallels become clear:

72.  For a clear exploration of this metaphor, see Dirk Geeraerts, ‘Cognitive Linguistics’, in A Companion to the History of the English Language, ed. Haruko Momma and Michael Matto (West Sussex: Blackwell, 2008), 623. 73.  Krasne, ‘The Pedant’s Curse’, 7.

7. The Style of Jewish Judgement Oracles

171

May hunger and cold be the causes of your death… [M]ay you be hurled alive into shrouded waters… [M]ay you be left naked on Achillean soil… [A]nd as the fierce ravage died by lightning and the waves, so may the waters that drown you be helped by fire. (Ib. 118, 126, 130, 142) Or as shipwrecked you ride the stormy sea, may you die on touching land, like Palinurus. As Diana’s guardian did to Euripides, the tragic poet may a pack of vigilant dogs tear you to shreds. (Ib. 593–96)

Ovid relies heavily upon intertextuality.74 By adopting historical accounts and mythical tales, he is able to dream up many elaborate forms of punishment. He uses each story by way of comparison to reflect the fate he sees fit for his own opponent. For example, Ovid expresses his desire for Ibis to ‘suffer pain as great as Philoctetes’ (Ib. 253), to be ‘blind as Tiresias’ (Ib. 263), have his genitals severed ‘as Saturn’ (Ib. 273), thrown ‘from a stony cliff’ as Thessalus (Ib. 286), torn to pieces like Pentheus (Ib. 531), ‘rent apart’ and ‘scattered in the woods by the hands of your family members, just as at Thebes the snake’s grandson was scattered’ (Ib. 531–32), or burnt ‘as Althaea’s son…as the new bride was ignited by the crown from Phasis, as the bride’s father caught fire and the house with her parent, as the blood was shed and spread over Hercules’ limbs may a destructive poison eat your body’ (Ib. 601–606). (b) Overall Style. In Ibis, Ovid uses his preferred style of elegiac couplets as opposed to Iambic metre, the more traditional style for invective poetry at that time.75 This poetic form was known for its rising and falling quality. In Ovid’s own words, ‘Let my work rise in six steps, fall back in five’ (Ovid, Amores 1.1.27). There is a rhythm throughout this piece that takes the audience on a long and tumultuous journey. Line after line, Ovid uses vehemence, asperity, florescence, indignation, and sincerity (the categories that Hermogenes identifies with harsh discourse) to rebuke his opponent. At the commencement of the poem, Ovid makes his personal indignation known. He repeatedly reinforces the message that he has been obligated to write this invective due to wrongs he has suffered: 74.  Ibid., 6. 75.  Helzle, ‘Ibis’, 184–85. The elegiac couplet is a poetic form used by Greek lyric poets. Each couplet consists of a hexameter verse followed by a pentameter verse. According to Hawkins, Iambic Poetics in the Roman Empire, 32: ‘Traces of the iambic mode can be found throughout Ovid’s poem that provide our earliest witness of post-Horatian iambic dissimulation.’

172

Jude on the Attack One person alone (and this itself is a great wrong) won’t grant me the title of an honest man. Whoever it is (for I’ll be silent still as yet about his name) he forces my novice hand to take up weapons. He won’t let me, a man banished to the frozen source of the north wind, hide myself away in exile: and he, inexorably, disturbs the wound of a man seeking peace, bandies my name about the forum: won’t let the companion of my marriage bed mourn the ruin of her living husband, without troubling her, and while I cling to the shattered fragments of my boat, he fights for the planks from my shipwreck: this robber, who ought to quench the sudden flame, looks for plunder here in the middle of the fire. He works so there might be no succour for an aged fugitive: ah, how much more he himself deserves my misfortune! (Ovid, Ib. 1–22)

This excerpt also provides evidence of the presence of sincerity in this text. Ovid’s personal anguish gives birth to authentic speech (Cic., De. Or. 2.196). Without this initial authenticity and explanation of personal suffering the speech would simply appear nasty and excessive. As I have said, such an appearance could turn the listener against him (Quint. 6.3.26). Another particularly striking feature in this opening is Ovid’s adamant avoidance of naming his opponent, ‘Whoever it is (for I’ll be silent still as yet about his name)’ (Ib. 9). This technique, known as periphrases, was often used to enhance the level of disgrace that the opponent felt. This pseudonymously named Ibis would have certainly been known by the audience but was not worthy of an honest mention. By not naming the target, the orator gains the advantage of speculation among the audience as they discuss theories about this anonymous figure. Interestingly, it has been suggested by Hawkins that Ibis is not an individual, but rather a symbol used to describe and attack Augustus’ Rome.76 In his words, ‘The Ibis highlights and laments the difference between the systems of royal patronage in Hellenistic Alexandria and contemporary Rome’.77 As the discourse progresses, there is evidence of a fierce and aggressive style (vehemence, asperity, and florescence). It is particularly noticeable throughout the catalogue: So that you may not be tortured without the examples of an earlier age, may your misfortunes be no lighter than the Trojans’, and may you endure just as many wounds in your envenomed leg as Poeas’s son, the heir of club bearing Hercules, endured. Nor may you be more lightly pained than he who drank at the hind’s udder and endured the armed man’s wound, the unarmed 76.  Hawkins, Iambic Poetics in the Roman Empire, 76. 77.  Ibid., 35.

7. The Style of Jewish Judgement Oracles

173

man’s aid; and he who fell headlong from his horse into the Aleïan fields, whose face was nearly the cause of his destruction. May you see just what Amyntor’s son saw, and may you fumble at your trembling journey with a staff to guide you, deprived of sight; and may you see no more than he who was guided by his daughter, each of whose parents experienced his iniquity. (Ovid, Ibis 251–63)

In this small excerpt we see an abundance of florescence. Each sentence is long and consists of several clauses, often joined together by the reoccurring phrase, ‘and may you’. The use of conjunctions, connective phrases, and the absence of breaks gives the hearer the impression of an unending attack. It is this relentlessness that has earned this section the name ‘grotesque’ by Fränkel.78 It is so gruesome that at times it even appears to be humorous. The discourse continues in this manner until line 274, where there is a slight shift in pace, ‘thus may someone slice off your piece’. At this point, for a time, the discourse becomes more direct and vehement before returning to its long-winded pattern. 7.3. The Style of the Epistle of Jude The style of Jude has been the focus of several works. Watson categorizes Jude within the middle style of Greek rhetoric, arguing that it exhibits a variety of figures of speech and is not simply ornate (a characteristic of the grand style), but facilitates invention.79 Others have taken a Jewish hermeneutical approach, comparing Jude to the traditional midrashic form.80 Others still note the calculated polemical strategy at work, creating a marked distance between the faithful and the unfaithful.81 Alternatively, Charles suggests a blend of the above techniques, recognizing the combination of both ‘Jewish traditional material and sheer rhetorical force’.82 My own suggestion, as will become clear, is closest to Charles. As with the previous case studies, after examining Jude’s stylistic devices, I will use the model of analysis offered by Hermogenes in Peri Ideon (περὶ ἰδεῶν) to assess the overall style. 78.  Fränkel, Ovid, 18, 154. 79.  Watson, Invention, Arrangement and Style, 79. 80.  Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter; Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity, 220–36. 81.  Darian Lockett, ‘Purity and Polemic: A Reassessment of Jude’s Theological World’, in Webb and Davids, eds., Reading Jude with New Eyes, 5–31; Richard, Reading 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter, 253. 82.  Charles, ‘Polemic and Persuasion’, 82.

174

Jude on the Attack

7.3.1. Metaphor Jude uses several metaphors throughout his discourse to describe the ungodly. They are referred to as hidden reefs, selfish shepherds, waterless clouds, fruitless trees, wild waves, and wandering stars. Metaphorical language is also used to describe impending judgement (ones snatched from the fire) and the effects of sin (the garment stained by flesh). Verse 12 contains an interesting metaphor referencing ‘reefs’ fellowshipping among the believers at their love feasts (οἱ ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν σπιλάδες συνευωχούμενοι). σπιλάδες are rocks or reefs, against which the ocean dashes (Hom., Od. 3.298, 5.401).83 It is a concealed object possessing the potential to cause a shipwreck. Among Greco-Roman writers, the metaphor of the ship (τό συμφέρον) often represented ‘a political body or the state as a whole’ (i.e. Pl., Resp. 342d).84 This metaphorical construction has its basis in the ‘part–whole’ concept outlined by Aristotle (Pol. 1279a 4–8), suggesting that leaders are to seek the best for the community of which they are a part. A leader should ‘contemplate the common good of those under his authority’ and, by extension, the citizens should consider how their actions will impact the whole community (Pol. 1279a4–8). On the contrary, ‘any part (or even political power) that abuses socio-political structure and injures the welfare of the whole can be banished from the whole’.85 Even though Jude does not specifically refer to a ship (only reefs), the metaphor has links to the image of poor leadership, ready to capsize the ship (or community) at any moment. The next metaphor is related to the previous one. In this same verse, the ungodly ones are accused of ‘shepherding themselves’ (ἑαυτοὺς ποιμαίνοντες). The term ποιμαίνω, meaning ‘to tend’, ‘herd’, ‘pasture’ or ‘shepherd’ (Hom., Od. 9.188; Il. 6.25; Pl., Tht. 174d), is used metaphorically for leadership (Pl., Lysis 209a).86 It relates to the idea that leaders and authority figures are called to tend to those under their care. The God of the Hebrew Bible is described as a shepherd (Pss. 23.1; 80.1), as is King Cyrus (Isa. 44.28) and, even outside the Scriptures, the Mesopotamian

83.  In this text Odysseus laments because he cannot cross the sea or he will surely be seized and dashed against the σπιλάς. 84.  Chang, The Community, the Individual and the Common Good, 65. 85.  Ibid., 66. 86.  Travis D. Trost, Who Should Be King in Israel? A Study on Roman Imperial Politics, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Fourth Gospel, Studies in Biblical Literature (New York: Lang, 2010), 59–60. See also Gan, The Metaphor of Shepherd in the Hebrew Bible, 70–71.

7. The Style of Jewish Judgement Oracles

175

god Shamash.87 A good shepherd will take care of the needs of every sheep (Jn 10.11), while a negligent shepherd feeds and clothes himself, failing to tend to the needs of the flock (Ezek. 34.1–6). The metaphorical expression used in Jude (these ones are ‘tending themselves’) implies that these leaders are selfishly caring for their own needs first and foremost at the expense of the flock (the community in question). The following three metaphorical expressions (vv. 12b–13a) are related to the idea that people are part of nature (‘nature’ is the source domain and ‘people’ are the target domain). In the first pair (waterless clouds and fruitless trees, v. 12), we read that evil people are flawed parts of nature. It is understood that rain brings life, drenching the soil, causing crops to grow, and food to result.88 The clouds are designed to facilitate this purpose. Per ancient thought, clouds served as buckets to deliver rain.89 Mesopotamian imagery refers to clouds as the ‘breasts of heaven’.90 However, waterless clouds (νεφέλαι ἄνυδροι) are not only useless entities that are blown along by the wind (ὑπὸ ἀνέμων παραφερόμεναι), but they result in a dry and barren land, essentially bringing death. As for the trees (δένδρα φθινοπωρινὰ ἄκαρπα δὶς ἀποθανόντα ἐκριζωθέντα), they are associated with harvest time. Although φθινοπωρινὰ is often translated as ‘autumn’, Mayor suggests that this is a compound word meaning ‘the concluding portion’ (φθίνουσα) of ‘late summer’ (ὀπώρα), a reference to harvest time.91 According to 1 En. 5.1, summer can be detected when all the trees are in full blossom: it is fruit for glorious honour. Harvest time brings food, sustenance, and nutrients. It is a source of business and income, and a cause for celebration linked to the festival of first fruits (Num. 28.26; Exod. 23.16).92 With barren crops, though, there is no food and no cause for celebration. For a person to be labelled as ‘flawed part

87.  See Daniel I. Bloch, The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology, ETSMS 2 (Jackson: Evangelical Theological Society, 1988), 56. 88.  See Douglas Hayhoe, ‘Surprising Facts about Soil, Students and Teachers: A Survey of Educational Research and Resources’, in Sustainable Agriculture Reviews, ed. Eric Lichtfouse (New York: Springer, 2013), 37–38. 89.  Luis I. J. Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World: A Philological and Literary Study, AnBib 39 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1970), 132. 90.  Wayne Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, MC 8 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1998), 262. 91.  See Mayor, ‘The General Epistle of Jude’, 268. 92.  J. Donald Hughes, Environmental Problems of the Greeks and Romans: Ecology in the Ancient Mediterranean, 2nd ed. (1994; repr., Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014), 37.

176

Jude on the Attack

of nature’, they are not only being called useless, but are being connected to barrenness and death. As for the wild waves (κύματα ἄγρια θαλάσσης ἐπαφρίζοντα τὰς ἑαυτῶν αἰσχύνας, v. 13a), they are not a flawed part of nature but rather a dangerous and reckless part of it. Wild waves are untameable, smashing against the rocks and preventing safe travel (Hom., Od. 3.298; 5.401). As per ancient thought, the sea stimulated fear as it was a place of chaos and dangerous boundlessness.93 In Greek mythology, θάλασσα (the personification of the sea) was largely related to danger (Hom., Il. 2.370), while Oceanus (the other water deity and the boundary between earth and Hades) represented death.94 These ungodly ones, then, are wild and reckless, causing spiritual as well as eternal damage to those they encounter. The metaphor also has an allegorical aspect as it describes the sea foaming up shame. The image here is that just as the sea washes up useless debris, the ungodly ones produce (‘foam up’) words or actions whereby they bring shame. A similar idea can be found in Isa. 57.20, where we read that ‘The wicked are like the tossing sea that cannot keep still; its waters toss up mire and mud’. In v. 13b, Jude compares the ungodly to wandering stars (ἀστέρες πλανῆται). The conceptual metaphor here is that people are planets, and, more specifically, rebellious people are rebellious planets. Ancient astronomers observed that amongst the thousands of consistent and uniform ‘lights’, there were five lights that would sometimes ‘wander off from a regular path and then double back’.95 It was this diversion from a fixed pattern that earned these objects the name πλανῆτες ἀστέρες (‘wandering stars’).96 This included the planets observable to the naked eye – Venus, Jupiter, Mars, Mercury, and Saturn (and at times included the sun and the moon).97 It was assumed that the behaviour and patterns of these ‘wandering stars’ could impact human conduct and destiny (Satire IX 32). In a 93.  Nicholas Purcell, ‘Tide, Beach, and Backwash: The Place of Maritime Histories’, in The Sea: Thalassography and Historiography, ed. Peter N. Miller (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2013), 93. 94.  Marie-Claire Anne Beaulieu, The Sea as a Two-way Passage Between Life and Death in Greek Mythology (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 2008), 12–17. 95.  Don Hainesworth, Understanding the Properties and Behaviour of the Cosmos: A Historical Perspective (Bloomington: Palibrio, 2011), 14. 96.  Kurt L. Noll, Canaan and Israel in Antiquity: A Textbook on History and Religion (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 15. 97.  David H. Kelley and Eugene F. Milone, Exploring Ancient Skies: A Survey of Ancient and Cultural Astronomy, 2nd ed. (2005; repr., New York: Springer, 2011), 36.

7. The Style of Jewish Judgement Oracles

177

rather obscure passage (P.Mich. III 149), we read that Jupiter governs the thighs, and consequently leads to homosexual activity.98 These wandering planets were powerful, possessing the ability to influence the entire cosmos. From an apocalyptic perspective, stars that varied from their regular orbits were associated with the disobedience of those within the heavenly ranks (1 En. 80.6). To be likened to a ‘wandering star’ is to be likened to an irregular, unpredictable entity with a powerful (and often negative) influence on the lives of those around them. Like wandering stars, the ungodly have been rebellious towards God’s order and are leading others astray. In religious texts, hell, or the place of eternal condemnation, is commonly linked to punishment, destruction, and banishment.99 It is from these ideas that many expressions relating to the afterlife are drawn. Jude uses the phrase ‘snatch them from the fire’ in v. 23. This thought stems from the conceptual metaphor of hell as a burning pit. The idea could relate to Gehenna, the burning place (Isa. 30.33; 66.24; Mt. 5.22, 29–30; 10.28; 18.9; 23.15, 33; Mk 9.44–48; Lk. 12.5). It has been suggested by some scholars that Gehenna was a garbage dump outside Jerusalem where the bodies of criminals were burnt,100 or more simply a place where enemies were destroyed by fire (see Isa. 30.29–33). Others believe Gehenna was known as a place where sacrificial offerings were made to pagan gods (Jer. 7.31–32; 32.35; 2 Kgs 23.10; 2 Chron. 28.3; 33.6) and, in turn, was understood to be ‘the entrance to the underworld’ (b. Erub. 19a; see also b. Ros. Has. 16b).101 This site is depicted in the New Testament as an unquenchable fire (Mk 9.43), an unreturnable place of pain (Lk. 16.19–31), and a fiery furnace where people weep and gnash their teeth (Mt. 13.42). The fire itself represents the judgement (Mt. 3.10; 5.22; 2 Thess. 1.7; Heb. 10.27), an image used elsewhere in Jude (v. 7). The concept may also be connected to Zech. 3.1–5, where the remnant of Israel is referred to as ‘a burning stick who are snatched from the fire’. The implication in Jude’s context is that while the fire itself is unquenchable, there may still be hope for those who are on their way 98.  Dominic Montserrat, Sex and Society in Græco-Roman Egypt (New York: Routledge, 1996), 207. 99.  Moo, ‘Paul on Hell’, 105. 100.  Neil Forsyth, The Satanic Epic (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), 201. For a clear description of Gehenna tradition, see Bradley Jersak, Her Gates Will Never Be Shut: Hope, Hell, and the New Jerusalem (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2009), 33–67. 101.  Lloyd R. Bailey, ‘Enigmatic Bible Passages: Gehenna: The Topography of Hell’, BA 49, no. 3 (1986): 190.

178

Jude on the Attack

but not yet consumed. As Davids suggests, this clause (σῷζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες) indicates that the beloved must have more than mere mercy on those who waver, ‘They are not to leave them the way they are, but to save them, by snatching them out of the fire’ (so that they will no longer waver and be in danger of eternal condemnation).102 The final metaphorical expression, ‘hating even the garment stained by flesh’ (μισοῦντες καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένον χιτῶνα), is a strange and vivid image. In this metaphor, clothing represents the state of holiness or purity. Spoiled clothing is a symbol for impurity and ungodliness. Grammatically, τὸν is classified as a ‘well-known article’,103 implying that the garment being referred to (although not mentioned elsewhere by Jude) is an image that would have been familiar to the audience. τῆς is a generic article, symbolizing the ‘fleshly nature’ (Epicurus, RS 18; Plut., Bio. 2.107f; Gal. 5.19).104 The imagery again directs us to the high priest Joshua. In Zech. 3.3–4, Joshua approaches the archangel wearing filthy garments ‘stained by corrupted flesh’. The removal of these filthy garments and the replacement of new garments symbolized forgiveness.105 On the Day of Atonement, the high priest is required first to bathe with water and then to put on the sacred garments.106 The bathing of the high priest was significant here as it was more thorough than any other day in the Jewish calendar. Usually, the high priest would be required only to wash his hands and feet. On this day, however, full immersion was essential and his plain white linen ‘signified holiness and a suitable, humble approach’.107 Purity concerns were central in Hebraic literature (Deut. 23.14; 28.27; Lev. 14.34; 2 Chron. 26.19; 1QSa; 4QDa-h; b. Bekh. 30b; y. Shab. 1.3), as a stain or blemish (σπίλος, Wis. 15.4; 2 Pet. 2.13; Joseph., Ant. 13.314; Jas 3.6) would render someone unholy and unable to enter God’s presence. As Lockett expresses, ‘When a text uses the terminology of purity, namely, labelling something dirty or impure, this

102.  Davids, 2 Peter and Jude, 36. 103.  Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 225. 104.  LSJ, s.v. σάρξ; The flesh (ἠ σάρξ) is often contrasted with the spirit (τὸ πνεῦμα) because the spirit serves God while the flesh is intrinsically self-centred and sinful. See Ole Davidsen, The Narrative Jesus: A Semiotic Reading of Mark’s Gospel (Oxford: Aarhus University Press, 1993), 284. This very contrast is made in Jude (vv. 15, 19, 20). 105.  Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 488. 106.  Samuel E. Balentine, ‘Day of Atonement’, in NIDB, 42. 107.  Leon Morris, The Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance (Leicester: InterVarsity, 1983), 70.

7. The Style of Jewish Judgement Oracles

179

is evidence of an underlying system of classification at work to order the author’s perception of the world’.108 Hating the garment stained with flesh means to hate the effects of sin and the impact it has in defiling a person. Such impacts render them socially and spiritually dirty, polluted and unclean.109 At this point, we might step back and make an observation regarding the use of metaphor so far. Jude uses metaphor to show the audience what these intruders look like and how their immorality is affecting the entire community. He draws parallels that highlight the selfishness of these false teachers and demonstrate the way their behaviour is not only unfruitful, but is also utterly poisonous. Jude’s metaphors help onlookers see more vividly how a person’s actions can negatively impact an entire community, and in this instance, can bring death (eternal death). The metaphors Jude employs are commonplace but used for a primarily religious end, speaking to the audience’s deep respect for God and desire to honour him. 7.3.2. Simile In v. 10, Jude rebukes the opponents for slandering things that they do not understand ‘like unreasoning animals’ (ὡς τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα). The word ἄλογος means ‘speechless’ (Isoc., Nic. 3.93), ‘senseless’ (Pl., Tht. 202b.6), or ‘without reason’ (Isoc., Antid. 15.10.9). Irrespective of their apparent visions, teachings, or wisdom, they are nothing but ‘brute animals’ (Democr. 164) controlled by instincts. In much of early Christian literature, animals are presented in a negative manner.110 From a philosophical perspective, the opinions vary within the ancient world, but the consensus was that animals lacked reason.111 Aristotle taught that while animals may have perception and even imagination, no animal has λόγος (Arist., De an. 428a), meaning they have no reason or argument. This idea can be found in Ps. 73.22, ‘as ignorant as a beast’, in 2 Pet. 2.12, ‘like unreasoning animals’, and in the writings of 1 Clement, where the rational being transgresses reason, disobeys God, and is rightly considered ‘irrational like

108.  Lockett, ‘Purity and Polemic’, 8. 109.  Bart J. Koet, ‘Purity and Impurity of the Body in Luke–Acts’, in Purity and Holiness, ed. M. J. H. M. Poorthuis and J. Schwartz (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 94–95. 110.  Janet E. Spittler, Animals in the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, WUNT 2 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 9. 111.  Anthony A. Long, Stoic Studies (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 141–42.

180

Jude on the Attack

the beasts of the earth’ (Clem., Paed. 1.13). Jude’s simile emphasizes that the slanderers are controlled by natural impulses lacking reason. Like the metaphors above, Jude uses this simile as an opportunity to bring shame to the opponents and humiliate them quite forcefully. 7.3.3. Intertextuality Texts often relate to the experiences and worldviews of their composer. Written works are a mosaic of other texts, ideas, and cultural settings.112 Few writers produce a text entirely independent of the world around them, but show traces of other texts.113 Intertextuality, then, can be detected by the presence of a distinct or well-known phrases or ideas directly adapted from one text to another.114 The same or similar vocabulary, clauses, structural patterns, and themes will be present (especially if they are unique to the original text).115 Intertextuality is the overarching category describing the way authors not only quote other texts but also allude to them. Without recognizing this interplay and studying it more closely, we risk missing the depth of meaning in any individual text. Jude was influenced by several Jewish sources (Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, 1 Enoch, and the Testament of Moses just to name a few) and relies heavily on collective memory (as was typical in this culture).116 Recent studies confirm that the intertwining of the Hebrew Scriptures into one’s own text was a common practice in the New Testament 112.  Fewell, Reading Between Texts, 29. 113.  See Craig A. Evans, ‘Intertextuality’, in Dictionary of New Testament Background, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Craig A. Evans, The IVP Bible Dictionary Series (Leicester: InterVarsity, 2000), 542; Jacques Derrida, ‘Living On: Border Lines’, in Deconstruction and Criticism, ed. Harold Bloom (New York: Seabury, 1979), 84; Steven Moyise, ‘Intertextuality and Historical Approaches to the Use of Scripture in the New Testament’, in Reading the Bible Intertextually, ed. Richard B. Hayes, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009), 23; Richard B. Hayes, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga, eds., Reading the Bible Intertextually (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009), xii. 114.  For example, Mk 1.11 references Ps. 2.7, Gen. 22.2 and Isa. 42.1 in close proximity, showing Mark’s dependence on these books. See Henry M. Shires, Finding in the Old Testament in the New (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 18. 115.  See Bartosz Adamczewski, Q or Not Q?: The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels (Frankfurt: Lang, 2010), 196, and The Gospels of the Narrative ‘We’: The Hypertextual Relationship of the Fourth Gospel to the Acts of the Apostles (Frankfurt: Lang, 2010), 34. 116.  Doron Mendels, Memory in Jewish, Pagan and Christian Societies of the Greco-Roman World (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 34.

7. The Style of Jewish Judgement Oracles

181

period.117 This has also been called midrash and the anthological style, respectively. It is when a writer makes use of a collection of scriptural references in order to present them as relevant to the present generation.118 To avoid confusion, intertextuality will be the focus and can be viewed as encompassing the above techniques. (a) Quotations. There are only two explicit quotations in the epistle of Jude. The first is found in vv. 14–15, where Jude cites from 1 En. 1.9. The second is found in v. 18 with the ‘words of the apostles’.119 The latter cannot be traced to any known text, making analysis difficult. Thus, Jude 18 cannot be assessed here, and only the quotation found in Jude 14–15 will be examined.120 117.  See Evans, ‘Intertextuality’, 542. A Christian author ‘may have been so familiar with large portions of the OT that its influence upon his writing may have been unconscious’, Shires, Finding in the Old Testament in the New, 17. This comment could also be applied to the use of other Jewish sources. 118.  Lim notes that these terms mean a vast amount of things to different scholars; see Timothy H. Lim, ‘The Origins and Emergence of Midrash in Relation to the Hebrew Scriptures’, in The Midrash: An Encyclopaedia of Biblical Interpretation in Formative Judaism, ed. Jacob Neusner and Alan J. Avery-Peck (Leiden: Brill Academic, 2004), 595. Bloch regards the anthological style as midrash; see Renée Bloch, ‘Midrash’, in Supplément an Dictionnaire de la Bible, ed. H. Cazelles (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1957), 1270–71. It is also thought that perhaps the anthological style was the precursor to midrashim, hence the overlap in style. See Kent Aaron Reynolds, Torah As Teacher: The Exemplary Torah Student in Psalm 119 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 28. See also David Instone Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis Before 70 CE, TSAJ 30 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 4; Roland E. Murphy, The Tree of Life: An Explanation of Biblical Wisdom Literature (New York: Doubleday, 1990), 84–85; Addison G. Wright, The Literary Genre of Midrash (New York: Alba House, 1967), 137. For examples, see CD 4.12–19; Heb. 7.1–10; Wis. 11–19. 119.  This was perhaps a saying or teaching passed down orally to those within the early church. For a discussion on the use of oral tradition in Jude, see Charles, Literary Strategy in the Epistle of Jude, 91–166. 120.  Ancient quotations differed greatly from modern practise. As Painter (Just James, 105) writes, until Eusebius ‘there was no expectation of exact quotations and the identification of sources. A source was a resource. Authors, including historians made their sources their own.’ Authors, often citing from memory, could combine differing versions, leave the original source unnamed, or use a quotation to point to a larger body of text. On ancient quotations see, Stanley E. Porter, ‘The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology’, in Early Christian Interpretations of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigation and Proposals, ed. C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997),

182

Jude on the Attack Table 4. A Comparison of Jude 14a–15 and 1 En. 1.9

Jude 14a (NA28) Jude 14a (NRSV) ἓβδομος ἀπὸ Ἀδáμ seventh from Adam 1 En. 60.8 (Ge’ez twenty-three MSS, 1906) 1 En. 60.8 (NRSV) ሳብዕ፡ አምኣዻም፡ seventh from Adam When consulting the Ge’ez it becomes clear that ሳብዕ translates as ‘seventh’, while አምኣዻም is a compound word combining the lexical form of ‘Adam’ (ኣዻም) and the word ‘from’ (አም) to form a single word translated ‘from Adam’. Jude 14b–15 (NA28) Ἰδοὺ ἦλθεν κύριος ἐν ἁγίαις μυριάσιν αὐτοῦ * ποιῆσαι κρίσιν κατὰ πάντων * καὶ ἐλέγξαι πᾶσαν ψυχὴν περὶ πάντων τῶν ἔργων ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν ὧν ἠσέβησαν καὶ περὶ πάντων τῶν σκληρῶν ὧν ἐλάλησαν * κατ’ αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς 1 Enoch 1.9 (Greek Codex Panopolitanus, 2001) ὃτι ἔρχεται σὺν ταῖς μυριάσιν αὐτοῦ [καὶ τοῖς ἀγιοις αὐτοῦ] ποιῆσαι κρίσιν κατὰ πάντων καὶ [ἀπολέσει πάντας τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς] καὶ ἐλέγξαι πᾶσαν σάρκα περὶ πάντων ἔργων τῆς ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν ὧν ἠσέβησαν καὶ σκληρῶν ὧν ἐλάλησαν [λόγων καὶ περὶ πάντων ῶν κατελάλησαν] κατ’ αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς 1 En. 1.9 (4 QEnc li-En.9) Jude 14b–15 (NA28) ]‫( קדישו את[רבו‬the myriads of his holy ones) ἁγίαις μυριάσιν αὐτοῦ ‫( ב]שרא על עובד[י‬flesh with regards to works) πᾶσαν ψυχὴν περὶ πάντων τῶν ἔργων ‫( רברבן ושין‬proud and hard) σκληρῶν ὧν ἐλάλησαν Key for the above table Bold text = exact parallel; underlined text = grammatical variant; dotted underline = substituted word; * = omitted text correlating to [square brackets]; solid underline = added text

Jude 14 uses προεφήτευσεν as a type of introductory formula, a marker employed when referring to prophets whose words had now been fulfilled in the present.121 The speaker of this prophecy is then introduced as Ἑνώχ. By naming the subject and using the verb προεφήτευσεν, Jude immediately alerts his audience to the use of an external source spoken 95; Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley, eds., As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture (Atlanta: SBL, 2008), 29; Christopher A. Beetham, Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 15. 121.  See Mt. 15.7; Mk 7.6; 1 Pet. 3.10.

7. The Style of Jewish Judgement Oracles

183

by Enoch the prophet. This is coupled with the phrase ἓβδομος ἀπὸ Ἀδάμ. Jude’s specification identifies which Enoch is being referenced. Citing a highly regarded historical figure adds weight to the argument. After using these three key markers, ‘he prophesied’, ‘Enoch’, and ‘the seventh from Adam’, Jude inserts λέγων to indicate the beginning of the explicit quotation from 1 En. 1.9.122 Jude’s usage of quotation is designed to bring an authoritative voice into the discourse, one which not only supports the argument, but also gives it prophetic and historical grounding. Since there is no shortage of judgement passages in the Hebrew Bible and Jewish literature in general, it is interesting that Jude chooses to use 1 En. 1.9 to predict the coming of the Lord in divine judgement. I offer six suggestions as to why this might be the case.123 First, 1 Enoch was an authoritative source. The discovery at Qumran of several apocalyptic works, 14 copies of 1 Enoch included, suggests that this literature was popular and circulating during this period.124 More copies of 1 Enoch were discovered than any other text except Deuteronomy.125 Thus, Jude was certainly not alone in his knowledge of 1 Enoch. Jewish communities during this period often read apocalyptic texts due to their eager desire to see God come to proclaim his final judgement, and put an end to their suffering.126 Another reason for its suitability is the strong associations the book of 1 Enoch held for the listeners. By borrowing themes and motifs from a well-known and accessible source such as 1 Enoch, Jude could rely on his audience’s familiarity with this text. When using catchwords and 122.  The only other passages from the Hebrew Bible which bear resemblance to certain phrases in Jude 14b–15 are Deut. 33.2, ‘He came with the ten thousand holy ones’, and Jer. 25.31, ‘he is entering into judgement with all flesh and the wicked’. However, given that these connect only with a small portion of Jude 14b–15, it is more likely that Jude was influenced by 1 En. 1.9 (see Table 4). 123.  These six suggestions have been adapted from Robinson, ‘The Enoch Inclusio in Jude’, 210–11. 124.  David S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (London: SCM, 1964), 29. 125.  According to Charles, most New Testament writers were familiar with 1 Enoch, as can be seen in their thought and diction; see Robert H. Charles, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (Jerusalem: Makor, 1912), ix. For example, it is likely that John was influenced by 1 En. 39.3 in Rev. 4.1–2, 1 En. 40.1 in Rev. 4.2–11, and 1 En. 10.12–13 in Rev. 20.1–3, 10. See also George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2001), 85. Hebrews 4.13 and 1 Pet. 3.19–20 may have also been shaped by 1 En. 9.5. 126.  See 4 Ezra 12.33–34 and T. Levi 18.14.

184

Jude on the Attack

phrases such as ‘ungodly’ (vv. 14–15), ‘the great day of judgement’ (v. 6), ‘wandering stars’ (v. 13), and ‘angels who did not keep their position’ (v. 6), Jude could assume that this would cause images to resonate in the minds of his listeners, potentially recalling language, themes, and narratives from 1 Enoch.127  The figure of Enoch was held in high regard. Jude commences this quotation by specifically referencing Enoch ἕβδομος ἀπὸ Ἀδάμ (‘the seventh from Adam’). By introducing Enoch as ἕβδομος ἀπὸ Ἀδάμ he emphasizes ‘the great antiquity of this prophecy which contributes to the aura of his respect for Enoch the righteous’.128 Using a citation from a historical and religious hero of the faith would have caused Jude’s listeners to take particular notice at the mention of his name. Also, being a number which symbolized perfection in Jewish tradition (seven), Jude underscores the authority of this source and this figure.129 Shared thematic concerns made 1 Enoch a useful resource for Jude to call upon. Jude is essentially warning his audience of God’s impending judgement and, specifically, the fate of the ungodly: God will condemn those who have gone astray (vv. 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17–19), and he will keep those who are faithful to the end (vv. 1, 20–23, 24). The opening of 1 Enoch presents a similar message regarding the final judgement: God will preserve the elect (1.8) and destroy the wicked (1.9). In both texts, this is the most prominent and repeated theme. Likewise, the word ἀσέβεια would have made the text appealing. ἀσέβεια, meaning ‘impiety’, ‘irreverence’, or ‘ungodliness’, describes ‘a lack of reverence for deity and hallowed institutions as displayed in sacrilegious words and deeds’.130 It appears repeatedly in both texts, describing a lack of reverence for deity and a violation of the proper order of things. Often when used in the New Testament ἀσέβεια expresses contempt for God and his will (Rom. 1.18; 4.5; 5.5; 11.24). Finally, there are significant parallels between Enoch’s opponents and Jude’s opponents. Both are accused of insulting God through their words, affronting him with their actions, misusing their authority, abusing their influence, and abandoning positions of authority (for a more detailed discussion of this see §5.3.2). 127.  As Duff notes, this was a common technique for writers whereby they would use familiar material, pre-empting the listener’s reaction; see Paul B. Duff, Who Rides the Beast? Prophetic Rivalry and the Rhetoric of Crisis in the Churches of the Apocalypse (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 72–73. 128.  Knopf, Die Briefe Petri und Juda, 235. 129.  Harvey and Towner, 2 Peter and Jude, 213. 130.  BAGD, s.v. ἀσέβεια, 141.

7. The Style of Jewish Judgement Oracles

185

(b) Allusions. In vv. 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 13, Jude alludes to stories from various Jewish writings. This is done to tap into ‘the knowledge and memory of the reader and by doing so to secure a resonant emotional effect’.131 Allusions are intentional ‘text-linking’ devices, generally pointing readers to an unnamed source in the hope of evoking a response from the audience. The more recognizable the allusion, the more effective it will be.132 If nothing is evoked in the reader’s mind, then the allusion has failed. Clearly, Jude selects the first three accounts (vv. 5–7), as they are familiar to the audience (εἰδότας ὑμᾶς πάντα) and would resonate well.133 Not only was the Exodus a fundamental reference point in the history of Israel,134 but the fallen angels and the sexual downfall of Sodom and Gomorrah were also familiar. Throughout these verses and beyond, when Jude alludes to Israel’s history, he writes in the aorist tense (vv. 5–7, 9, 11, and 17–18), while his own comments are in the present tense. The change in tense and the opening phrase, ‘I want to remind you’, together act as informal markers directing the reader’s attention to something they already know. This is an important signal for the use of an allusion. Jude’s command to remember (ὑπομνῆσαι) is particularly important given the significance of memory in both early education and the traditions of Jewish people.135 As Cribiore notes, early education was heavily concerned with nurturing the memory of a child,136 a trend similar in Jewish tradition (Deut. 11.18–19). For Israel, memory had a collective aspect and helped preserve the history of the people, regardless of whether the details could be verified.137 131.  Porter and Stanley, As It Is Written, 30; Fewell, Reading Between Texts, 21. 132.  Gian Biagio Conte, The Rhetoric of Imitation: Genre and Poetic Memory in Virgil and Other Latin Poets, trans. C. Segal (New York: Cornell University Press, 1986), 35. 133.  Duane F. Watson, ‘The Oral–Scribal and Cultural Intertexture of Apocalyptic Discourse in Jude and 2 Peter’, in The Intertexture of Apocalyptic Discourse in the New Testament, ed. Duane F. Watson, SymS (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 189. 134.  Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter, 1971), 6:1042. 135.  Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart, 179. 136.  Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind, 102, 67. For a discussion on the centrality of memorisation, see Walter J. Ong, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (London: Routledge, 1982, 2002), 57; Jocelyn P. Small, Wax Tablets of the Mind: Cognitive Studies of Memory and Literacy in Classical Antiquity (London: Routledge, 1997), 72–73. 137.  Mendels, Memory in Jewish, Pagan and Christian Societies of the GrecoRoman World, 34.

186

Jude on the Attack

The description given in Jude 6 regarding the angels under judgement contains many allusions to the treatment of the Watchers in 1 Enoch. 1 Enoch 6–11 describes a time when ‘the children of the heaven’ lusted after women on earth and came down to create children with them. These angels are then said to have ‘abandoned the high heaven, the holy eternal place’ (1 En. 12.4), a theme which is continued throughout 1 Enoch (1 En. 6–16; 18.14–16; 21.3–10; 64; 67.4; 69.8; 88.1–3; 90.23), and is central to the overall message (see also 2 Bar. 56.12–13). In this verse, Jude also uses the phrase ‘until the great day of judgement’, an unusual way of describing this event. It was more common at the time to write ‘the great day of our Lord’, but instead Jude uses the same rare phrase that appears in 1 Enoch three times (1 En. 10.6; 22.11; 84.4).138 It has been suggested that Jude 6 is pointing to Gen. 6.1–4, but these verses do not parallel Jude’s language in the same way that 1 Enoch does. Rather, it is most likely that 1 Enoch 12–16 is in fact an expansion of Gen. 6.1–4, explaining why there are slight echoes of the Genesis account within Jude. In v. 9, Jude alludes to the now-lost ending of the Testament of Moses: ὁ δὲ Μιχαὴλ ὁ ἀρχάγγελος, ὅτε τῷ διαβόλῳ διακρινόμενος διελέγετο περὶ τοῦ Μωϋσέως σώματος, οὐκ ἐτόλμησεν κρίσιν ἐπενεγκεῖν βλασφημίας ἀλλὰ εἶπεν, Ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι κύριος. He uses the archangel Michael as an honourable example of rightful conduct. Despite his heavenly authority, he did not presume the role of God. Michael in this illustration is an example of a powerful figure acting humbling before God, a stark contrast to the foolishness of the false teachers who proudly boast and blaspheme angelic beings.139 Jude 12–13 outlines the shameful and selfish actions of the ungodly, comparing them to waterless clouds, fruitless trees, raging seas, and wandering stars, all of which are doomed for eternal destruction. Jude may draw his inspiration for this section from a number of sources. In particular, 1 En. 2.3–5.1 describes the ‘signs of winter’ as the earth being filled with water, clouds, dew, and rain, whereas the ‘signs of summer’ are described as a time of fruitful harvest, both of which appear to be in 138.  The adjective ‘great’ was originally lost in the Greek and Ethiopic versions of 1 En. 10.12, but is now found in 4Q, the Aramaic fragment. This choice of phrasing points strongly to the literary dependence upon 1 Enoch (see also 1 En. 13.1; 14.4; 54.3–5; 56.1–4; 88.1). Although at times Jude uses different vocabulary to 1 Enoch, it is clear that the same ideas (‘bind’, ‘darkness’, ‘until the day of great judgement’, and ‘forever’) are present in 1 En. 10. 139.  See Watson, ‘The Oral–Scribal and Cultural Intertexture of Apocalyptic Discourse’, 190.

7. The Style of Jewish Judgement Oracles

187

direct contrast to the image painted by Jude. In 1 En. 5.2–3, we read that the sea (along with all of creation) should carry out God’s work and not alter it in any way, and 1 En. 80.6 references ‘stars that have wandered’, two metaphors relating to Jude 13. Thus, Jude most likely adapts images from 1 En. 2.1–5.4 and 80.2–8 to show that these persons have strayed from a path of obedience.140 Intertextuality can also be observed in v. 5 at the mention of disobedient Israel (a parallel to Num. 13–14; 20.12, 24, 26; 27.4; see §6.3), v. 7 with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (an allusion to Gen. 19), and v. 11 with three allusions to Cain (Gen. 5.1–4; see §6.3), Balaam (Num. 22–24; 31.16; Deut. 23.3–6; Josh. 24.9–10; see §6.3) and Korah (Num. 16.1–3; see §6.3). Given the time previously spent on these allusions (§6.3), a further discussion is not required. In these verses, Jude is using familiar material to build his case against his opponents, showing the listeners what is at stake if one rejects God. This is motivational information, provided to encourage the hearers to obey ‘by pointing out certain consequences that might occur if a command is or is not heeded’.141 Through persuasion, ‘the exhorter appeals to the reasoning logic of the recipient [and] seeks to convince’.142 (c) Comparison. Many of these instances have been previously dealt with elsewhere (§6.3 and §7.3), and will simply be listed here. In v. 8, we read that ‘in like manner, these ones defile their bodies, reject authority and slander glorious beings’. The comparison here is to Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding cities (see Gen. 19). Another explicit comparison is made in vv. 9–10. Unlike the archangel Michael, who did not blaspheme 140.  In Hultin’s view, 1 En. 2.1–5.4 and 80.2–8 are the most probable source points for Jude. 1 Enoch speaks of all four nature metaphors and parallels Jude in content and sense, making 1 Enoch a more closely fitting allusion. See Hultin, ‘Jude’s Citation of 1 Enoch’, 114. On this point, see also D. R. Jackson, Enochic Judaism (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 17; Gerhard Krodel, The General Letters: Hebrews, James, 1–2 Peter, Jude, 1–2–3 John, Proclamation Commentaries (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 102. However, 1 Enoch is not the only text which speaks of these nature elements. For instance, Prov. 25.14 parallels Jude 12, ‘like clouds and wind without rain is a man who boasts of a gift he does not give’, while Zeph. 2.4, ‘Ekron shall be uprooted’, Sib. Or. 3.778, ‘wild waves of the sea’, and Wis. 12.24. ‘raging waves’ that have ‘gone astray’, all parallel Jude 13. 141.  Mary J. Breeze, ‘Hortatory Discourse in Ephesians’, Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics 5, no. 4 (1992): 315. 142.  Levinsohn, Self-instruction Materials on Non-Narrative Discourse Analysis, 20.

188

Jude on the Attack

the devil, these ones blaspheme what they do not understand. The final comparison is stated in v. 11. They (the opponents) have walked in the way of Cain (Gen. 4.3–8), Balaam (Num. 22–24), and Korah (Num. 16.1–3, 31–35). 7.3.4. Marked Emphasis The ancient world was primarily an oral society.143 Although originally recorded by scribes,144 the letters of the New Testament were intended to be read aloud.145 Messengers were used to deliver these documents and were then required to dictate the contents to the intended audience.146 This oral aspect is significant when analysing the style of a text. Elements such as flow, rhythm, marked word order, and exclamation are better understood if they are practised and observed from an auditory perspective.147 Three of these features will now be explored: rhythmical patterns, exclamation, and marked word order. (a) Rhythmical Patterns. Thurén’s suggestion that Jude is designed to be read aloud is supported by v. 11, where the the exclamation (οὐαί) is surrounded by sentences with corresponding sounds (οὗτοι – οὐαί – οὗτοι).148 There are several other rhythmical patterns which are better experienced from an auditary perspective. In Jude’s description of the fruitless trees (v. 12), he makes use of five neuter nominatives (δένδρα – φθινοπωρινὰ – ἄκαρπα – ἀποθανόντα – ἐκριζωθέντα) all ending with the 143.  See Ong, Orality and Literacy, 140; Whitney Shiner, ‘Memory Technology and the Composition of Mark’, in Performing the Gospel: Orality, Memory and Mark, ed. Richard A. Horsley, Jonathan A. Draper, and John M. Foley (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 153–54. 144.  Hezser, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, 255. 145.  William A. Graham, Beyond the Written Word: Oral Aspects of Scripture in the History of Religion (Cambridge: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1987), 40. 146.  See Hezser, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, 254–55. See also Casey W. Davis, Oral Biblical Criticism: The Influence of the Principles of Orality on the Literary Structure of Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, JSNTSup 172 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 11; Paul J. Achtemeier, ‘Omne Verbum Sonat: The New Testament and the Oral Environment of Late Western Antiquity’, JBL 109, no. 1 (1990): 12–15. Both of the above texts stress the significance of dictation from composer to scribe in the aural delivery of letters. 147.  See Jeffrey E. Brickle, Aural Design and Coherence in the Prologue of First John, LNTS 465 (London: T&T Clark International, 2012), 6. 148.  Thurén, ‘Hey Jude!’, 454.

7. The Style of Jewish Judgement Oracles

189

vowel sound ‘ah’ to beat out the rhythm of the phrase. In v. 12, Jude makes use of three negative terms (ἀφοβως, ἄνυδροι, ἄκαρπα), creating some valuable alliteration. In v. 13, describing the motion of the wild waves, he uses a trio of three syllable words – κύ-μα-τα ἄγ-ρι-α θα-λά-σσης – leading to the longer description, ἐ-πα-φρι-ζον-τα, of shame ‘foaming out’. While depicting the wandering stars (ἀστέρες πλανῆται), a run of single- and double-syllable words speed up the rhythm of the discourse (οἷς ὁ ζόφος τοῦ σκότους εἰς) just prior to the solemn picture of eternal condemnation (αἰῶνα τετήρηται). There are some other significant verses within the discourse with rhythmical forms. The first is found in v. 8. When describing the dreamers, Jude writes that these ones: σάρκα μὲν μιαίνουσιν κυριότητα δὲ ἀθετοῦσιν δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν

The pattern is rather obvious (object – conjunction – present 3rd personal plural verb). The mirrored word order, the μέν – δέ – δέ construction and the repeated ουσιν ending establishes continuity within the clauses. The next example can be found in v. 11. Here, Jude is comparing the ungodly ones to three historical figures. They have: τῇ ὁδῷ τοῦ Κάϊν ἐπορεύθησαν καὶ τῇ πλάνῃ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ μισθοῦ ἐκεχύθησαν καὶ τῇ ἀντιλογίᾳ τοῦ Κόρε ἀπώλοντο

Again, the pattern is clear (dative subject – genitive object – 3rd person plural aorist) and the effect is similar to that found in v. 8. There are a few other examples of alliteration found in vv. 9 and 10: διαβόλῳ διακρινόμενος διελέγετο (v. 9); οὗτοι δὲ ὅσα μὲν οὐκ οἴδασιν βλασφημοῦσιν ὅσα (v. 10); and τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα (v. 10). These patterns create continuity, showing which elements belong together. (b) Exclamation. There are two examples of exclamation in Jude’s brief text. The first is found in v. 11. As the epistle intensifies, Jude inserts a ‘woe-cry’ (οὐαὶ αὐτοῖς). Beginning with οὐαί is an effective way to draw the attention of the listeners and build upon the previous thoughts. οὐαί is a cry,149 a sound of grief and emotional anguish.150 Within this woe 149.  Rossing, ‘Alas for Earth!’, 182. 150.  Janzen, Mourning Cry and Woe Oracle, 3.

190

Jude on the Attack

oracle, Jude briefly recalls three occasions of Israel’s unfaithfulness (with increasing severity) through Cain, Balaam, and Korah, then continues with the nature metaphors (vv. 12–13) before launching into the prophetic judgement (vv. 14–15). The second example can be found in v. 14. Jude begins his quotation with ἰδού (a variation from the Greek text of 1 En. 1.9, from which he quotes; see Table 4). Bauckham has suggested that Jude was influenced by the Aramaic reading here, ‫ארי‬, ‘behold’.151 However, such a suggestion is problematic as the Aramaic text is a reconstruction and does not appear in the available fragments.152 Additionally ἰδού had already established itself within the idiom of New Testament writers, no doubt through their acquaintance with the LXX. Nonetheless, by inserting ἰδού, Jude is alerting his hearers that something important is to follow. (c) Marked Word Order. Another interesting feature in the epistle is the way Jude chooses to order his discourse. When rebuking the opponents, Jude suspends the use of the verb by first describing the object (something positive or commonly respected) before revealing the negative action of the opponents. This is seen in v. 4b, τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι (‘the only master and our Lord Jesus Christ they deny’). Similarly, in v. 5 when describing the Exodus, the main verb is suspended, τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν (‘later those who did not believe he destroyed’). Jude also uses exclamation and commands to create emphasis (ὑπομνῆσαι, v. 5; οὐαί, v. 11; ἰδού, v. 14b) and draw special attention to the words that follow. 7.3.5. Overall Style The first categories for consideration are asperity and vehemence. Even though the writer of On the Sublime combines these two forms (30.1), Hermogenes draws a distinction. According to Hermogenes, the difference between these two styles is that one is directed to inferior opponents (vehemence), whereas the other is directed to superiors (asperity). Jude is writing as a leader against other leaders (or influential members within the faith community). Perhaps this explains why he only uses vehemence

151.  Richard J. Bauckham, ‘A Note on a Problem in the Greek Version of 1 Enoch i.9’, JTS 32, no. 1 (1981): 136. 152.  See Józef T. Milik, ed., The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), 186.

7. The Style of Jewish Judgement Oracles

191

occasionally (the harsher of the two).153 The audience would not have expected an open and bitter attack (vehemence) upon influential figures, so Jude keeps convention by addressing them mainly through asperity. An abundance of vehemence may have been read by his audience as disrespect and served to discredit the entire message. This could also explain why Jude allows the intensity to build and does not begin with the same aggression and frustration that he seems to reach at points in the discourse. Again, he is wisely bringing his audience with him instead of risking alienation through over-aggression. For asperity or vehemence to appear in a text, the author must openly reproach the target (Hermog., Id. 255.1). Jude openly blames his opponents in v. 4: ‘For certain persons, whose condemnation was written about long ago, have crept in among you, godless ones perverting the grace of God into a license for immorality and denying the only Lord and Master Jesus Christ’.154 This commences Jude’s attack; an attack which becomes progressively more intense as the discourse advances. In a harsh speech, it is expected that there will be harsh thoughts delivered in a harsh manner, often metaphorical in nature (Hermog., Id. 258.7–8; 262.9). For example, in v. 10 Jude compares his opponents to ‘unreasoning animals’ (ὡς τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα), who are being destroyed (φθείρονται) by their instincts (φυσικῶς). Associating someone with an animal is severe in itself, but extending the metaphor to a senseless animal being destroyed by animal instincts is clearly worse. Such metaphorical language can also be found from vv. 12–13 in Jude’s nature metaphors. Phrases such as ‘the blackest darkness which has been reserved for them forever’ are particularly potent (characteristically of vehemence) and do not hold back (Hermog., Id. 262.3–7). The lack of rhetorical niceties reminds us, as Hermogenes stresses, that vehemence should not be toned down (Id. 262.3–7). This style of speech is designed to ‘stir up anger’ (Id. 223.14),155 which is evidently the case for Jude as the intensity rises (vv. 11–16) and ideally stimulates a similar reaction in the recipients.

153.  Again, I am not suggesting that Jude himself was explicitly aware of vehemence at this point in his letter, but only that this technique is noticeable here. 154.  The Greek reads: Παρεισέδυσαν γάρ τινες ἄνθρωποι οἱ πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα ἀσεβεῖς τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν χάριτα μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι. 155.  Lindberg notes that it is this ‘stirring up’ of emotion that links vehemence and asperity to sincerity; see Gertrud Lindberg, ‘Hermogenes of Tarsus’, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, ed. Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Iaase (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997), 2016.

192

Jude on the Attack

In true invective style, Jude’s insults are strung together, one after the other, in a rapid fashion.156 Such outbursts can be found at the height of Jude’s argument. For example, in v. 8, Jude hastily lists three of the opponents’ offenses. He links these three short, sharp accusations with the μέν, δέ, δέ construction, giving the discourse a sense of rapidity. In v. 11, Jude lists another three accusations as he likens the ungodly to three rebellious leaders (Cain, Balaam, and Korah). This is followed by six more insults (vv. 12–13). The string of offenses in vv. 8–13 is designed to rattle the opponents before the devastating Enoch prophecy (vv. 14–15). Two other rants are found in v. 16 and v. 19. In v. 16, Jude lists five accusations (οὗτοί εἰσιν γογγυσταὶ μεμψίμοιροι κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας ἑαυτῶν πορευόμενοι, καὶ τὸ στόμα αὐτῶν λαλεῖ ὑπέροκα, θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα ὠφελείας χάριν) with little explanation and only one conjunction, and in v. 19 he lists three offenses with no conjunctions (οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες, ψυχικοί, πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες). By listing one fault after another, with no breath or pause, Jude is rhetorically beating his opponents. He is creating tension in the arena by constructing a volatile atmosphere. At other times, Jude uses several clauses to speak of the same offense (v. 15), an example of abundance. In v. 15, Jude (with the help of 1 Enoch) professes that the Lord is coming ‘to execute judgement on all, and to convict everyone of all the deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him’. While short punchy phrases are expected in rapid and vehement discourse, longer and more poetic clauses are characteristics of florescence. In v. 12a, Jude uses an evocative image of the intruders at a community gathering, stealthily causing havoc. Likewise, clauses such as ‘they are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind’ (v. 12b), though certainly not complimentary, are far more poetic, and thus are in line with florescence.157 This is followed by a description of the reckless sea (v. 13a), a highly poetic image that moves beyond metaphor to allegory. It is a more lyrical clause than the previous verse (v. 12c). Jude also appears to switch between these categories: v. 8 – rapidity and vehemence; v. 10 – abundance and sincerity; v. 11 – rapidity and vehemence; v. 12a – florescence; v. 12b – florescence; 12c – abundance 156.  This is known also a bdelygmia, which is a litany of abuse or a series of critical descriptions or attributes. See Andrew Potter, ‘Interactive Rhetoric for Online Learning Environments’, Internet and Higher Education 7 (2004): 190. 157.  Lindberg also links vehemence with invective; see Lindberg, ‘Hermogenes of Tarsus’, 2015.

7. The Style of Jewish Judgement Oracles

193

and asperity due to the lack of conjunctions; v. 13a – florescence; v. 13b – vehemence; vv. 14b–15 – abundance and vehemence; v. 16 – rapidity and asperity; and v. 19 – rapidity and vehemence. By changing the rhythm and technique, Jude creates inconsistent metric patterns common to a harsh style of writing (Hermog., Id. 259.19–23; 263.18–22). There are potential parallels here with the forcible style (δεινός) as it, too, requires vehemence. As Demetrius explains, the forcible style resembles ‘combatants dealing blows at close quarters’ (Demetr., Eloc. 274.4–6).158 While referring to harsh language, Hermogenes notes that the most effective sounds are those which clash and grate on the ear, along with sounds difficult to pronounce (Hermog., Id. 259.19–23). Dionysius of Halicarnassus, in his general treatise On Literary Composition, calls the latter ‘voiceless letters’ (τ, θ, φ, ψ, Comp. 14, 16). At various points in Jude’s discourse, such words arise, μετατιθέντες (‘exchange’, v. 4), φθείρονται (‘destroyed’, v. 10), and τετήρηται (‘kept’, v. 13). Each of these contain several ‘voiceless’ letters, causing the orator to slow down and add stress due to over-pronunciation. Clashing consonants make a stronger impression and reinforce a brutal message.159 Such words and sounds are found in Jude, particularly as the intensity elevates. Two key instances are ἐξεχύθησαν (‘poured out’, v. 11) and ψυχικοί (‘unspiritual’, v. 19), utilizing brash consonants, while the phrase φθινοπωρινὰ ἄκαρπα (‘fruitless trees’, v. 12b) is harsh and difficult to pronounce due to voiceless letters and an opening consonant cluster (φθ). Sincerity is a technique connected to spontaneous discourse aroused by emotion. It offers the appearance of authenticity. In the case of anger, this can result in nonsensical phrases, producing unexpected word order (Hermog., Id. 358). It is seen particularly in Jude 10: ‘Yet these men slander what they do not know, and what things they do know by instinct like unreasoning animals, are the very things that destroy them’ (οὗτοι δὲ ὅσα μὲν οὐκ οἴδασιν βλασφημοῦσιν ὅσα δὲ φυσικῶς ὡς τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα ἐπίστανται ἐν τούτοις φθείρονται). Jude appears to be overtaken by 158.  Force, however, is most closely associated with the grand style, a style which, as noted by Watson, is not used by Jude; see Watson, Invention, Arrangement and Style, 79. 159.  Margaret E. Lee, ‘A Method for Sound Analysis in Hellenistic Greek: The Sermon on the Mount as a Test Case’ (Th.D. diss., Melbourne College of Divinity, 2005), 75. On this point, Brickle comments that given the highly inflected nature of the Greek language which allows for considerable flexibility, when ‘cacophonous or dissonant auditory transitions’ are used they often ‘serve to reinforce a text’s unpleasant semantic implications’; see Brickle, Aural Design and Coherence in the Prologue of First John, 27.

194

Jude on the Attack

his agitation and frustration and, as a result, spurts out a sentence that is somewhat contorted and difficult to comprehend grammatically. A ‘spontaneous outburst’ also occurs in the following verse (οὐαὶ αὐτοῖς, v. 11). Jude is conveying his utter dismay at the situation before him. Similar emotions appear to be driving the subsequent verses (vv. 11–13), where Jude piles metaphor upon metaphor. According to Hermogenes, sincerity is also related to a ‘sudden attack’ (Hermog., Id. 355.7–11), one which appears to be unannounced. At the commencement of Jude’s epistle, there is little (if any) indication that the address will result in the rebuke of certain members of the community (vv. 1–2). It is not until v. 3 that Jude suddenly alerts his readers that he intended to write one message, but that necessity forced him to write another. This launches him into the attack. The sudden change is typical of sincerity. The final category which Hermogenes links to harsh language is indignation (Hermog., Id. 364.1–366.21). In this category, the writer feels that he has been personally wronged by the opponent and needs to re-establish his own honour while simultaneously bringing down his opponent. The technique does not seem to appear in Jude’s discourse. Although Jude is concerned for the needs of his recipients and may feel wronged on their behalf, and certainly wants to strip the opponents of their power, he does not seek to elevate his own status in the process. The focus is never Jude’s personal honour but Jesus’. By using the model of Hermogenes, we can gain a fuller understanding of Jude’s harsh style. A text cannot be restricted to one broad style (e.g. plain, middle, or grand). However, as seen through the eyes of Hermogenes, a combination of registers is an authentic reflection of human discourse and certainly illuminates the varied tones in Jude’s epistle. 7.4. Comparative Analysis In this chapter, we have seen how the writer of the epistle of Jude is able to bring together poetic beauty, rapidity, and harsh criticism into one discourse. In broad and general terms, it is difficult to know if Jude’s inspiration has come from Jewish judgement oracles or GrecoRoman invective. Both forms tend to be poetic, harsh, metaphorical, and involve the use of comparisons and intertextuality. With the assistance of Hermogenes and his categories, some of these parallels and nuanced variants become slightly clearer and more distinguishable. However, a superficial or even significant resemblance to Hermogenes is not the goal

7. The Style of Jewish Judgement Oracles

195

of my analysis. It may be a good start, but it is not conclusive. After all, Jewish judgement oracles may also have similarities with Hermogenes’ characterization of harsh style and this does not therefore make them invectives. Hermogenes categories are merely the lens through which a comparison of Jude with Greco-Roman invective and Jewish judgement oracles can be made. To discover where Jude’s style might have taken influence, we must see to what degree Jude resembles Greco-Roman invective and Jewish judgement oracles. As these two texts are almost incomparably dissimilar, this will be done through comparison to a neutral third party in Hermogenes. 7.4.1. Stylistic Devices For Jude, metaphor is utilized to magnify the corrupt character of the ungodly and, in particular, the way their actions have had a negative impact on the community as a whole. The intruders are described as hidden reefs and selfish shepherds, a vivid way of presenting them as negligent leaders. The ungodly are also described as waterless clouds and fruitless trees, a metaphor aimed at representing them as a flawed part of nature that ultimately brings bareness and death. They are called reckless and unpredictable, like the wild waves of the sea and the wandering stars. Metaphor is also used to describe judgement, ‘ones snatched from the fire’, as well as the reason for judgement – ‘the garment stained by flesh’. These metaphors have a possible variety of sources. In Jewish judgement oracles, there is a strong emphasis on agricultural imagery, as seen in Jeremiah 23, where the land mourns and the watercourse is dried up (see §7.1.1). Metaphorical language is used throughout judgement oracles to show that Israel (like barren or rotten trees) is acting unnaturally and is essentially useless (Isa. 5.1–7; Jer. 2.21; 24.5–7). This is comparable to the nature imagery which Jude relies upon in v. 12. The opponents are compared to fruitless trees and waterless clouds. Like the parallels drawn in Jewish judgement oracles between the land and death, Jude draws a similar parallel, implying that these fruitless leaders are causing death (eternal death). While the imagery pertaining to the land is probably of Jewish origin, the references to the sea have a remarkably Greco-Roman essence (Hom., Od. 3.298; 5.401). Even though Isa. 57.20 has parallels with Jude 13, it cannot be overlooked that the opponents of invective discourse are often described as terrible storms (Cic., Vat. 4, 33; Pis. 20; Dem., Cor. 194), the ‘foaming sea’ (Hor., Ep. 10.5–8), ‘rocks’ endangering the republic (Cic., Pis. 41), and persons involved in shipwrecks (Ovid, Ib. 275; Hipponax., fr. 115W/194 Dg). Thus, when Jude speaks of the wild waves of the

196

Jude on the Attack

foaming sea (v. 13), and the hidden reefs (v. 12), he may be drawing on Greco-Roman conflict discourse.160 However, when referring to negligent shepherds (in this same verse), it is almost certain that Jude is drawing on a familiar Hebraic image (Ezek. 34.1–6; Jer. 23.1–4). The same can be assumed for Jude’s metaphorical expression concerning to the garment stained by flesh (μισοῦντες καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένον χιτῶνα). The imagery directs us to the high priest Joshua (Zech. 3.3–4), a metaphor drawing on common imagery pertaining to purity and impurity (σπιλόω, Wis. 15.4; 2 Pet. 2.13; Joseph., Ant. 13.314; Jas 3.6). Jude’s reference to wandering stars is more difficult to tie down. Even though the Enochic corpus makes mention of wandering stars (1 En. 80.6), the reference appears outside The Book of Watchers and it is therefore difficult to know whether Jude would have been aware of it.161 Jude could have drawn the metaphor from Greco-Roman literature (Juv., Satire IX 32; P.Mich. III 149), where the stars were of great importance. The same can be said for Jude’s reference to ‘unreasoning animals’ (ὡς τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα). A similar idea is found in Ps. 73.22, ‘as ignorant as a beast’, and in Greco-Roman literature (Arist., De an. 428a; Clem., Paed. 1.13). However, often, animal imagery in Jewish judgement oracles was used to describe the people or even Yahweh as dangerous beasts in acts of judgement (Zeph. 3.3; Isa. 5.8–10; Jer. 2.21; Amos 1.2). Though this is also true of invectives (Cic., Vat 4, 33; Pis. 1, 21, 31, 56; Cat. 2.2; Dom. 5; Off. 3.6.32; Clu. 40; Phil. 2.30; Pliny, Pan. 48.3), animal imagery was often used in a far more degrading manner (Strasbourg Epode, fr. 115W/194 Dg, also known as Archil., fr. 0232.99). The source of the metaphorical expression relating to fire is also debatable (vv. 7, 23). Jude is most likely drawing upon the metaphorical concept that judgement is a burning stick (Zech. 3.1–5), and that hell is a burning pit (Isa. 30.33; 66.24; Mt. 5.22, 29–30; 10.28; 18.9; 23.15, 33; Mk 9.44–48; Lk. 12.5). These are overt religious concepts that the audience would have been expecting. However, in ancient thought and Greek mythology there was also the understanding that the fiery place was ‘the entrance to the underworld’ (b. Erub. 19a; see also b. Ros. Has. 16b). The variety of metaphorical influences amplifies the original speculation that Jude was influenced by both Jewish judgement oracles and Greco-Roman invective. 160.  See Alcaeus poem in Denys L. Page, ed., Lyrica Graeca Selecta, Oxford Classical Texts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 123–24. Isaiah 57.20 also speaks of the wicked as ‘the tossing sea that cannot keep still; its waters toss up mire and mud’. 161.  It is believed that this was a later addition and so it is difficult to know if Jude would have been aware of this passage.

7. The Style of Jewish Judgement Oracles

197

As discussed above, there are also several examples of marked emphasis in Jude. The first is the use of the exclamation ὀυαί. Even though the exclamation ‘woe’ does appear in invective discourse (Cic., Cat. 1.2; see also Clu. 15; Ver. 1.17; Phil. 2.4, 16; 3.8; 6.21), there is a stronger correlation between this particular exclamation and traditional woe oracles where the ὀυαί is the defining feature. In Jude, the exclamation is followed by several accusations and an explicit announcement of judgement from the prophet Enoch. There is also the use of the word ‘behold’ prior to the judgement, an exclamation that is commonly used in Hebraic speech to attract attention and mark the importance of the following pronouncement (see Jer. 23.19). Stylistically, and coupled with the direct quotation from Enoch, this is in line with traditional woe oracles. Finally, we note Jude’s use of intertextuality. There are marks of literary relationship throughout the epistle in allusions to the Exodus (Jude 5a and Exod. 20); disobedient Israel (Jude 5b and Num. 13–14; 20.12, 24, 26; 27.4); rebellious angels (Jude 6 and 1 En. 12.4); Sodom and Gomorrah (Jude 7 and Gen. 19); Michael the archangel (Jude 9 and Ass. Mos.); Cain (Jude 11 and Gen. 5.1–4); Balaam (Jude 11 and Num. 22–24; 31.16; Deut. 23.3–6; Josh. 24.9–10); Korah (Jude 11 and Num. 16.1–3); and Enoch (Jude 14–15 and 1 En. 1.9). Like Jude, the prophets relied on Israel’s collective memory, including popular Jewish motifs and stories from Israel’s history to persuade and warn (Jer. 23.10, 13–14; Zech. 9.3–4). Intertextuality, however, is featured prominently in invectives such as Ovid’s Ibis where a host of references to mythical and historical figures are used to detail the fate of Ovid’s anonymous foe (Ib. 253, 263, 273, 286, 531–32, 601–606). In this we see that, while the content of Jude’s literary parallels is clearly Jewish, the technique of intertextuality is not unfamiliar in Greco-Roman invective. Jude also makes use of both ‘lesser’ and ‘greater’ comparisons to attack his opponents. In v. 8 the opponents are compared to the rebellious angels (who defile their bodies and reject authority) and the rebellious people of Sodom and Gomorrah (who dishonour glorious beings). In vv. 9–10 Jude contrasts the opponents’ immoral behaviour with the upright behaviour of the archangel Michael. We see a similar pattern in Jewish judgement oracles where the ungodly are compared to Sodom and Gomorrah, the apex of wickedness (Jer. 23.13–14) and contrasted with the stork and the turtledove (Jer. 8.7; see also Isa. 1.3). Of course, Cicero, too, compares his opponents to vilified figures (Cic., Phil. 2.2) and Isocrates contrasts the sophists with Homer, a man renowned for his supreme wisdom and intellect (Isoc., Soph. 2–3).162 162.  See also Cic., Cat. 1.3.

198

Jude on the Attack

However, although both Greco-Roman invective and Jewish judgement oracles make use of intertextuality, the content of Jude’s comparisons, allusions, and quotations is primarily Jewish, drawing on stories and texts which were familiar to his audience. 7.4.2. Overall Style In the epistle of Jude, we not only witness sincerity throughout the discourse (particularly as the intensity rises, vv. 10, 11, 12–13, 14) but we also see a prime example in the opening verses. The text moves from a seemingly traditional and encouraging introduction (v. 1–2), to an expression of comradery (v. 3), before pivoting to vilification (v.  4). There is little evidence from the greeting alone that a harsh rebuke will follow. Yet, in vv. 3b–4, the tone of the epistle takes a sudden turn. Du Toit notices a similar pattern in Galatians, commenting that when a writer composes a text with the aim of influencing the audience, ‘introductory sections function on the pragmatic level to create a positive climate between sender and recipient’.163 Other examples of this include Apollonius’ letter to Artemas (P.Oxy. 36.2783), Pathermuthis’ letter to Theon (P.Oxy. 10.1348), Helene’s letter to her brother Petechon (P.Oxy. 7.1067), Crates letter to Hipparchia (Crates, Ep. 32), a mother’s letter to her son (SB 3.6264),164 described elsewhere as a ‘spontaneous outpouring of indignant phrases’,165 and Seneca’s letter to Lucilius (Sen., Ep. 99), in which he ‘turns traditional consolatory topics into rebukes’.166 A similar effect is also found in Jude. He accentuates their common bond, emphasizing their mutual purpose and salvation before rebuking the opponents. Jewish judgement oracles, by contrast, are far more predictable. They do not possess the element of surprise as the opening phrase is often a direct assault and not a greeting preceding the attack (Isa. 5.8; 10.1; 28.1; 29.2; Jer. 13.27; 23.1; Ezek. 16.1, 23; Amos 1.2, 6, 9, 11, 13; 2.1, 4, 6; Zeph. 2.1; 3.1; Hos. 7.13; 1 En. 94; 99). As discussed, the primary objective of judgement oracles was the proclamation of judgement and such a message was rarely softened. In this regard, Jude appears to be following a common Greco-Roman tradition related to letters of blame. 163.  Du Toit, ‘Alienation and Re-Identification as Pragmatic Strategies in Galatians’, 282–86. 164.  Sabine R. Huebner, The Family in Roman Egypt: A Comparative Approach to Intergenerational Solidarity and Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 146. 165.  Roger S. Bagnall and Raffaella Cribiore, Women’s Letters from Ancient Egypt, 300 BC–AD 800 (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2006), 282. 166.  Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, 135.

7. The Style of Jewish Judgement Oracles

199

A technique in Greco-Roman invective that does not appear in Jude or in Jewish judgement oracles is indignation. Orators such as Demosthenes, Cicero, and Ovid are driven by their personal anguish and hardship (or, at least, what is presented as such). For example, Demosthenes commences Against Meidias by speaking of his own affliction (21.1–5) and by detailing the attack made upon him, ‘I in person was struck by him and insulted… I was the victim’ (21.6, 7). The same is true for Ibis. Ovid is motivated by his own personal tribulation and is highly concerned about clearing his name and seeking retribution (Ib. 1–18). In the opening lines, he makes his personal indignation extremely clear, expressing how his anonymous opponent will not grant him ‘the title of an honest man’, or leave him in peace while he is banished in exile (see Ovid, Ib. 1–10). Jude and the prophets of the Hebrew Bible do not seem to have this same motivation. They bring their judgement on God’s behalf. For Jude, it is not his personal honour that is at stake but rather the honour of his Lord, Jesus Christ. In this sense, Jude is more in line with the prophets than the orators of invective speech who are seeking personal reckoning. If we step back to examine the epistle in its entirety, we see that Jude employs many of the techniques that Hermogenes associates with harsh style in close succession: vehemence (vv. 4, 8, 11, 13b, 15, 19), asperity (vv. 16, 18), rapidity (v. 8, 11, 16, 19), abundance (vv. 10, 12c, 15), and florescence (v. 12a, 12b, 13a). He employs the μέν, δέ, δέ construction on three occasions (vv. 8, 10, 22–23) and presents his argument with bdelygmia (vv. 8, 10, 11, 12–13, 16, 19) to create the feeling of speed and movement. The tone of Jude’s discourse is neither predictable nor repetitive. Staggered throughout the discourse, Jude takes time to retell of Israel’s past (vv. 5–7, 9), remind the people of prophetic sayings (vv. 14–15), and use immersive and poetic imagery (vv. 12a, 12b). This pace and tenor of the epistle constantly shifts. A similar style is found in Ovid’s Ibis. The prologue begins with sincerity (Ib. 1–9) and indignation (Ib. 8, 10), followed by a combination of rapidity, abundance, and florescence (Ib. 10–19). Ovid strings together ten clauses in the one sentence with only two conjunctions. In the midst of this we find highly poetic imagery used to solicit empathy (‘disturbs the wound’, ‘cling to the shattered fragments of my boat’). A more direct attack on Ibis makes use of vehemence (Ib. 22–24, 29–30), followed by a description of peace and reconciliation (Ib. 31–42), and a return to florescence as he recommences his case against the opponent (Ib. 43–52). This is typical of invective (see also Cic., Cat. 1.1.1–2.10; Pis. 1), where orators flowed in and out of short and sharp, biting phrases and long, flowing clauses with a high level of bdelygmia.

200

Jude on the Attack

In contrast, in Jer. 23.9–20 vehemence (vv. 11, 13–14, 16–17) and florescence (vv. 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18–20) are dominant, with only the one occasion of rapidity in v. 14. This is representative of Jewish judgement oracles more broadly where stable rhythmic movements were typical.167 There is predictability in oracles such as those in Amos 1–2, where each oracle contains parallelism, repetition and a ‘balanced structure’, making the stylistic patterns highly uniform.168 These texts were renowned for their lyric and poetic quality (florescence), and possessed a regular rhythm and flow consistent with Hebrew poetry. Unlike Jude and Greco-Roman invective with their patchwork of various and shifting techniques, the broad texture of Jewish judgement oracles resembles the lyric quality of poetry. Given that Hermogenes was primarily describing Classical and Hellenistic invective when forming these categories, Jude’s employment of six of the seven techniques suggests an affinity with invective (although Greco-Roman invectives make wide use of the full seven, employing personal indignation on behalf of the speaker where Jude does not). We notice two central differences between Jude and Jewish judgement oracles through this comparison to Hermogenes. First, the prophets primarily begin in an overtly negative manner and do not employ sincerity (false or otherwise) in their opening remarks. Second, following the conventions of Hebrew poetry, the primary technique in these oracles is florescence. This is rather unlike Jude, who alternates between asperity, vehemence, rapidity, and florescence to create unpredictable rhythmic patterns and a harsh tone throughout. In summary, Jude’s style is influenced by both Jewish judgement oracles and Greco-Roman invective. The use of Hermogenes’ categories reveals Jude’s close association with the style of many invectives. Within the boundaries of harsh discourse, both tend to switch between categories, altering the pace and tone to create harsh sounds through inconsistent rhythms and surprising turns (Hermog., Id. 259.19–23; 263.18–22). While the use of stylistic devices is common across all the aforementioned texts, Jude constructs his metaphors, similes, and allusions with Jewish content.

167.  Heschel, The Prophets, 6–7. 168.  Jack R. Lundbom, ‘The Lion Has Roared: Rhetorical Structure in Amos 1.2–3.8’, in Milk and Honey: Essays on Ancient Israel and the Bible in Appreciation of the Judaic Studies Program at the University of California, San Diego, ed. Sarah Malena and David Miano (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 65–66.

Chapter 8

Conclusion

This investigation commenced with a discussion of previous scholarship, and, in particular, the many instances where commentators have made mention of Jude’s polemical style and overt Jewish and Hellenistic influences. Though these broad assumptions are widely agreed upon, I note that the challenge is to illuminate more specifically the Greek, Jewish, and polemical elements in the epistle. I argue for Greco-Roman invective and Jewish judgement oracles as the specific genres Jude may have drawn upon in his composition. These are viable candidates due to their obvious polemical nature and their Greco-Roman and Jewish origins respectively. To determine whether Jude draws potential influence from either of these genres, I surveyed a wide range of Greco-Roman invectives and Jewish judgement oracles (focusing on a few in more detail) in order to compare and contrast the structure, aims, themes, and style with those of the epistle of Jude.1 Structurally, Jude contains many features that are recognized characteristics of Greco-Roman invective. The beginning of the epistle, for example, utilizes the praise and blame pattern. Jude begins in a positive manner but the tone of the discourse quickly shifts to a fierce rebuke against the opponents (v. 4). After the rebuke, Jude restates his purpose for writing, which is to urge the beloved to protect themselves from these infiltrators. By creating a divide between the community as a whole (ἀγαπητοι, ‘the beloved’, vv. 3, 17, 20) and the opponents who are corrupting the community (οὗτοι, ‘these ones’ or ‘the others’, vv. 8, 10, 11, 12, 16, 19), Jude forms a common bond with the audience, contrasting that with the behaviour of the intruders. Also appearing in Jude are the structural phases recommended by Cicero and Libanius. 1.  In a longer study, it would be ideal to examine a wider range of case studies from Greco-Roman invective and Jewish judgement oracles. The model of my analysis for Jer. 23, Demosthenes’ Against Meidias, and Ovid’s Ibis could be applied to further examples.

202

Jude on the Attack

In the epistle we find: praise (vv. 1–2); a thesis statement (v. 3); a discussion of the rationale (v. 4); elaboration by contrast and comparison (vv. 5–10), a discussion of relevant examples from history (vv. 5–7, 9, 11), amplification (vv. 5–11), a description of foul deeds (vv. 12–13), the circumstances surrounding the foul deeds (v. 12), a citation from an ancient authority (vv. 14–15) and an authoritative source (vv. 17–18), a discussion of outcomes (vv. 15, 24–25), the impact on the hearers (vv. 19, 22), and a brief epilogue exhorting the reader to follow the advice set forth in the maxim (vv. 20–25). Finally, regarding structure, there is a noticeable rise in aggression and intensity rather unlike the outright anger the prophets communicate on behalf of God. At the climax of this, vv. 4–15 closely reflects a prophetic inclusio and a typical Jewish woe oracle (vv. 11–15). While the climax makes use of a Jewish text, the use of an authoritative source is recommended by the Greek handbooks and takes place within the structure of invective. Not only does Jude’s structure resemble a Greco-Roman invective but so, too, does his aim. Jude uses the epistle to alert his audience of a threat among them (vv. 3–4), firmly encouraging the people to fight for their covenant relationship with God. This is his primary and most direct aim. He compels the beloved to fight for τῇ πίστει (their full allegiance to Jesus Christ and the covenant promise passed down to them from their forefathers). In the process, Jude publicly defames the opponents by referring to them as τινες ἄνθρωποι (‘certain persons’) who have παρεισέδυσαν (‘slipped in’, v. 4) and explicitly charges them for perverting God’s grace and denying Jesus as Lord. As is seen across many GrecoRoman invectives, Jude wishes to expose the true nature of his opponents and protect the community from corruption. Jude achieves this, however, by reminding the people of their covenant relationship with the Lord and not simply through the exaggerated (and often very personal) ridicule of his opponents, as is common to invective. To describe this covenant relationship, Jude uses Jewish narrative and allusions, motivating the people to take action because of their close bond with their history.2 This is another instance where the epistle follows the form of Greco-Roman invective but employs Jewish content to flesh out the details. While Jude’s structure and aim are both aligned to Greco-Roman invective, he draws upon Jewish traditions for many of his themes. His case against the ungodly, for example, uses concepts and imagery that are primarily Hebraic in nature. Jewish judgement oracles are written to proclaim God’s impending judgement and make known the consequences 2.  Reese, 2 Peter and Jude, 104.

8. Conclusion

203

of sin. The Lord is the judge and only the elect will survive his wrath. Jude’s view of judgement is closely aligned with this. The climactic phase in his discourse is a direct quotation from the prophet Enoch proclaiming the imminent judgement of the Lord and punishment for the ungodly. Jude’s exploration of the other themes is also strikingly Jewish. When discussing rebellion, he speaks of the fallen angels, Korah, and Balaam. His denouncement of sexual misconduct makes reference to Sodom and Gomorrah. Though the themes of irreverent speech, boasting, deception, falsehood, lust, greed, and the misconduct of power all certainly appear in invective texts (forming the backbone of polemical works), Jude’s exploration and illustration of these themes makes specific use of Jewish history and tradition. Finally, we turn to style. Using Hermogenes’ categories, I argue that Jude’s discourse closely resembles Greco-Roman invective. In the opening verses, we find sincerity as the text takes a seemingly unexpected turn from v. 3 to v. 4. Invective often shifts to a rebuke following the customary greeting (P.Oxy. 7.1067; 10.1348; 36.2783; Crates, Ep. 32; Sen., Ep. 99). Jewish judgement oracles, by contrast, commence with an immediate accusation or rebuke (Jer. 23.1). In true invective style, the flow of Jude’s epistle moves from short, sharp, succinct phrases (vv. 11, 16, 19) to long and more poetic clauses (vv. 12b, 13). The rapid and abundant tone mirrors invective, as is Jude’s use of bdelygmia. We find various tirades concerning the opponent’s irreverent attitude (v. 8), foolish conduct (vv. 10–13), and worthless chatter (v. 16). The technique is commonly seen across Demosthenes (Meid. 16–17), Ovid (Ib. 1–42), and Cicero (Vat. 39). Unlike the Greek orators, however, Jude does not reference personal indignation as he does not defend his own honour; any exasperation displayed is on behalf of Jesus Christ. Here we see religious outlook shaping the message. In terms of quotations, allusions, comparisons and metaphors, Jude relies on material from Jewish history (e.g. the Exodus, the fallen angels, Sodom and Gomorrah, Cain, Korah, and Balaam) for content. He also directly quotes 1 Enoch to clarify his pronouncement of judgement (vv. 14–15), demonstrating through an authoritative source that the ungodly cannot escape God’s impending judgement. Images such as, ‘the garment stained by flesh’ (v. 23), the opponents ‘shepherding themselves’ (v. 12), the ‘waterless clouds’ (v. 12), and the trees unable to produce fruit (v. 12) are all strongly Hebraic. Several metaphors, similes, and other stylistic devices do bear Greek influence. The mention of ‘hidden reefs’ and ‘wild waves foaming out their shame’ are Greek themes, perhaps drawn from the popular sea motif, as seen in Horace’s Ep. 10, Ovid’s

204

Jude on the Attack

Ibis, and Homer’s Od. 3.298 and 5.401. Other images such as ‘wandering stars’, ‘unreasoning animals’, and ‘snatching them from the fire’ are found in both Greco-Roman invectives and Jewish judgement oracles, emphasizing the original speculation that Jude was influenced by both worlds. It has been clearly shown through the preceding analysis that Jude shares commonalties with both of these polemical forms. Though it is impossible to prove direct causation, the correlation between Jude, Greco-Roman invectives, and Jewish judgement oracles is striking. Taken together, I suggest that the above research reveals Jude to be a Jewish invective. The form (structure, aims, and style) of the epistle is typical of a Greco-Roman invective, while the discourse is filled with Jewish content (themes and stylistic devices), drawing on Israel’s heritage for the benefit of his primarily Jewish audience. The epistle is an invective as it aims to expose a corrupt minority and to persuade the faithful to contend for the truth. Structurally, Jude exhibits a clear praise and blame strategy, intentionally dividing the audience. Stylistically, Jude follows the texture of invective, constantly altering the pace and tenor of his discourse to maintain the attention of the audience. The epistle is Jewish as the majority of themes, stories, metaphors, allusions, and quotations are drawn from Hebraic sources. This fusion was not an uncommon practice. Gruen comments, ‘Jews managed to buy into Hellenic conventions and twist them to Jewish ends… They preferred to appropriate the best in Hellenic culture and make it their own.’3 Aware of a serious threat to a fledgling Christian community, Jude calls upon Jewish history and Greek rhetorical techniques to awaken the believers and to overthrow the opponents. Jude’s Jewish invective is a remarkable fusion of Greek and Jewish polemical texts compelling the beloved to ‘contend for the faith’.

3.  Eric S. Gruen, Diaspora. Jews Amidst Greeks and Romans (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002), 231.

B i b l i og r a p h y

Abasciano, Brian J. ‘Corporate Election in Romans 9: A Reply to Thomas Schreiner’. JETS 49, no. 2 (2006): 351–71. Achtemeier, Paul J. ‘Omne Verbum Sonat: The New Testament and the Oral Environment of Late Western Antiquity’. JBL 109, no. 1 (1990): 3–27. Adamczewski, Bartosz. The Gospels of the Narrative ‘We’: The Hypertextual Relationship of the Fourth Gospel to the Acts of the Apostles. Frankfurt: Lang, 2010. ———. Q or Not Q?: The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels. Frankfurt: Lang, 2010. Adamson, James B. The Epistle of James. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976. Agamben, Giorgio. The Time That Remains: A Commentary on the Letter to the Romans. Translated by Patricia Dailey. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2005. Aichele, George. The Letters of Jude and Second Peter: Paranoia and the Slaves of Christ. PGNT. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012. Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament. Vol. 4, The Epistle to the Hebrews, the Catholic Epistles of St. James and St. Peter, the Epistles of St. John and St. Jude and the Revelation. London: Deighton, Bell & Co., 1871. Allen, Joel S. ‘A New Possibility for the Three-Clause Format of Jude 22–3’. NTS 44 (1998): 133–43. Allen, Leslie C. Jeremiah: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008. Applauso, Nicolino. ‘Curses and Laughter: The Ethics of Political Invective in the Comic Poetry of High and Late Medieval Italy’. The University of Oregon, 2010. Arena, Valentina. ‘Roman Oratorical Invective’. Pages 149–60 in A Companion to Roman Rhetoric. Edited by William Dominik and Jon Hall. Malden: Blackwell, 2007. Arie, Edrel. ‘The Diaspora in the Hellenistic Period’. Pages 13–14 in Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora: Origins, Experiences, and Culture. Edited by M. Avrum Ehrlich. Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio, 2009. Aristophanes. Acharnians. Knights. Translated by Jeffery Henderson. Loeb 178. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. Aristotle. Art of Rhetoric. Translated by John H. Freese. Loeb 193. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926. Aristotle, Longinus, and Demetrius. Poetics. Longinus: On the Sublime. Demetrius: On Style. Translated by W. Hamilton Fyfe Stephen Halliwell, Doreen C. Innes, and W. Rhys Roberts. Revised by Donald A. Russell. Loeb 199. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995. Artemidorus. The Interpretation of Dreams: The Oneirocritica of Artemidorus. Translated by Robert J. White. NCS. Park Ridge: Noyes, 1975. Ashley, Timothy R. The Book of Numbers. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

206 Bibliography Aune, David E. Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Bagnall, Roger S. The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions Outside Egypt. Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 4. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Bagnall, Roger S., and Raffaella Cribiore. Women’s Letters from Ancient Egypt, 300 BC– AD 800. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006. Bailey, David R. Shackleton. ‘On Cicero’s Speeches’. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 83 (1979): 237–86. Bailey, Derrick Sherwin. Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. London: Archon, 1975. Bailey, Dudley, ed. Essays of Rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965. Bailey, Lloyd R. ‘Enigmatic Bible Passages: Gehenna: The Topography of Hell’. BA 49, no. 3 (1986): 187–91. Balentine, Samuel E. ‘Day of Atonement’. Pages 42–45 in NIDB. Bamberger, Bernard J. Fallen Angels: Soldiers of Satan’s Realm. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 2006. Bar-Kochva, Bezalel. The Image of the Jew in Greek Literature: The Hellenistic Period. Hellenistic Culture and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010. Barilli, Renato. Rhetoric (trans. Giuliana Menozzi). THL 63. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989. Barker, Kenneth L., and Waylon Bailey. Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah. NAC 20. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1998. Bartelt, Andrew H. The Book Around Immanuel: Style and Structure in Isaiah 2–12. BJS 4. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996. Bartholomä, Philipp F. ‘Did Jesus Save the People Out of Egypt? A Re-Examination of a Textual Problem in Jude 5’. NovT 50, no. 2 (2008): 143–58. Barton, John. Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study. London: Westminster John Knox, 1984. Batten, Alicia J. ‘The Letter of Jude and Graeco-Roman Invective’. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 70, no. 1 (2014): 1–7. Bauckham, Richard J. The Jewish World around the New Testament. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. ———. Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1990. ———. Jude, 2 Peter. WBC 50. Waco: Word, 1983. ———. ‘A Note on a Problem in the Greek Version of 1 Enoch i.9’. JTS 32, no. 1 (1981): 136–38. Bauer, Angela. Gender in the Book of Jeremiah: A Feminist-Literary Reading. Studies in Biblical Literature 5. 2nd ed. 1999. Repr., New York: Lang, 2003. Beaulieu, Marie-Claire Anne. The Sea as a Two-way Passage Between Life and Death in Greek Mythology. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 2008. Beetham, Christopher A. Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Benton, John. Slandering Angels. Darlington: Evangelical Press, 1999. Berlin, Adele. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983. Betchtel, Lyn M. ‘Shame as a Sanction of Social Control in Biblical Israel: Judicial, Political, and Social Shaming’. JSOT 49 (1991): 47–76.

Bibliography

207

Betz, Hans D. The Sermon on the Mount: Including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5.3–7.27 and Luke 6.20–49). Hermeneia: A Critical & Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Bigg, Charles. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902. Billows, Richard A. Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State. London: University of California Press, 1990. Birdsall, J. Neville. ‘The Text of Jude in p72’. JTS 14, no. 2 (1963): 394–99. Black, Matthew, ed. Apocalypsis Henochi Graece. PVTG 3. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. A History of Prophecy in Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983. Bloch, Daniel I. The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology. ETSMS 2. Jackson: Evangelical Theological Society, 1988. Bloch, Renée. ‘Midrash’. Pages 1265–79 in Supplément an Dictionnaire de la Bible. Edited by H. Cazelles. Paris: Libraire Letouzey et Ané, 1957. Block, Daniel Isaac. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Blomberg, Craig L. From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts Through Revelation. Nashville: B&H, 2006. Boccaccini, Gabriele. Middle Judaism: Jewish Thought 300BCE to 200CE. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Bockmuehl, Markus. ‘1QS and Salvation at Qumran’. Pages 381–414 in Justification and Variegated Nomism I: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. Edited by D. A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien and M. A. Seifrid. WUNT 2/140. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Bonner, Stanley F. Education in Ancient Rome. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977. Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of Judeo-Christianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. ———. Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash. Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature. 2nd ed. 1990. Repr., Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994. Bray, Gerald L., ed. James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture 11. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000. Breck, John. The Shape of Biblical Language: Chiasmus in the Scriptures and Beyond. New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1994. Breeze, Mary J. ‘Hortatory Discourse in Ephesians’. Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics 5, no. 4 (1992): 313–47. Brewer, David Instone. Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis Before 70 CE. TSAJ 30. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Brichto, Herbert Chanan. ‘Blasphemy’. Pages 741–42 in Encyclopedia Judaica. Edited by Fred Skolnik and Michael Berenbaum. Detroit: Keter, 2007. Brickle, Jeffrey E. Aural Design and Coherence in the Prologue of First John. LNTS 465. London: T&T Clark International, 2012. Bright, John. Jeremiah. AB 21. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1965. Brogan, T. V. F. ‘Rhythm’. Page 238 in The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Edited by Alex Preminger and T. V. F. Brogan. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Brosend, William F. James and Jude. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Brown, Christopher G. ‘Pindar on Archilochus and the Gluttony of Blame (Pyth. 2.52–6)’. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 126 (2006): 36–46.

208 Bibliography Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Studies in International Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Brueggemann, Walter. ‘The Book of Jeremiah: Portrait of the Prophet’. Pages 113–29 in Interpreting the Prophets. Edited by James Luther Mays and Paul J. Achtemeier. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. ———. A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Bultmann, Rudolf. ‘agalliáomai’. Pages 4–5 in TDNT. Busto, Sáiz, and José Ramon. ‘La Carta de Judas a la Luz de Algunos Escritos Judíos’. Estudios Bíblicos 39 (1981): 83–105. Byargeon, Rick. ‘Thus Saith the Lord: Interpreting the Prophetic Word’. Pages 301–15 in Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture. Edited by Bruce Corley, Steve W. Lemke and Grant I. Lovejoy. Nashville: B&H, 1996. Cadwallader, Alan. Fragments of Colossae: Sifting through the Traces. Hindmarsh: ATF, 2015. ———. ‘Greeks in Colossae: Shifting Allegiances in the Letter to the Colossians and its Context’. Pages 224–41 in Attitudes to Gentiles in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by David C. Sim and James S. McLaren. LNTS 499. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013. Callan, Terrance. ‘Use of the Letter of Jude by the Second Letter of Peter’. Bib 85 (2004): 42–64. Callaway, Mary Chilton. ‘The Lamenting Prophet and the Modern Self: On the Origin of Contemporary Readings of Jeremiah’. Pages 48–62 in Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Herbert B. Huffmon. Edited by Louis Stulman and John Kaltner. London: T&T Clark International, 2004. Cambell, David. Greek Lyric Poetry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. London: Heinemann, 1982. Campbell, Constantine R. Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008. Carey, Christopher. ‘Archilochus and Lycambes’. The Classical Quarterly 36, no. 1 (1986): 60–67. ———. ‘Epideictic Oratory’. Pages 236–52 in A Companion to Greek Rhetoric. Edited by Ian Worthington. Oxford: Blackwell, 2007. Carr, David M. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Carratelli, G. Pugliese. ‘Supplemento Epigrafico di Iasos’. Annuario 1 (1967–8): 437–45. Carroll, Robert P. ‘The Polyphonic Jeremiah: A Reading of the Book of Jeremiah’. Pages 77–86 in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence. Edited by Martin Kessler. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999. Carter, Kelly. ‘Jude, 2 Peter, Richard J. Bauckham’. Leaven 2, no. 2 (1992): 45–46. Catullus. Catullus, Tibullus and Perviglium Veneris. Translated by F. W. Cornish, J. B. Postgate and J. W. Mackail. Loeb 6. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962. Caulley, Thomas Scott. ‘BALAAK in the 72 Text of Jude 11: A Proposal’. NTS 55, no. 1 (2009): 73–82. Chalmers, Aaron. Interpreting the Prophets. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2015. Chang, Kei Eun. The Community, the Individual and the Common Good: ‘To Idion’ and ‘To Sympheron’ in the Greco-Roman World and Paul. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013.

Bibliography

209

Charles, J. Daryl. ‘Jude’s Use of Pseudepigraphical Source-Material as Part of a Literary Strategy’. NTS 37, no. 1 (1991): 130–45. ———. ‘Literary Artifice in the Epistle of Jude’. ZNW 82, no. 1–2 (1991): 106–24. ———. Literary Strategy in the Epistle of Jude. Scranton: University of Scranton Press, 1993. ———. ‘Polemic and Persuasion: Typological and Rhetorical Perspectives on the Letter of Jude’. Pages 8–108 in Reading Jude with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of Jude. Edited by Robert L. Webb and Peter H. Davids. London: T&T Clark International, 2008. ———. ‘ “Those” and “These”: The Use of the Old Testament in the Epistle of Jude’. JSNT 38 (1990): 109–24. ———. ‘The Use of Tradition-Material in the Epistle of Jude’. BBR 4 (1994): 1–14. Charles, J. Daryl, and Erland Waltner. 1–2 Peter, Jude. BCBC. Scottdale: Herald, 1999. Charles, Robert H. The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch. Oxford: Clarendon, 1912. Chester, Andrew, and Ralph P. Martin. The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Chiappetta, Michael. ‘Historiography and Roman Education’. History of Education 4, no. 4 (1953): 149–56. Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus: A Critical Theological Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1974. Chisholm, Robert B. Interpreting the Minor Prophets. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990. ———. ‘Structure, Style and the Prophetic Message: An Analysis of Isaiah 5:8–30’. Pages 40–50 in Vital Biblical Issues: Examining Problem Passages of the Bible. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1994. [Cicero]. Rhetorica ad Herennium. Translated by Harry Caplan. Loeb 403. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1954. Cicero. Against Catiline. Translated by C. D. Yonge. The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero. London: Henry G. Bohn, 1856. ———. Against Piso. Translated by C. D. Yonge. The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero. London: George Bell & Sons, 1891. ———. Against Vatinius. Translated by C. D. Yonge. The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero. London: George Bell & Sons, 1891. ———. Cicero’s Letters to Atticus. Translated by David R. Shackleton Bailey. Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. ———. On Invention: The Best Kind of Orator. Topics. Translated by H. M. Hubbell. Loeb 386. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1949. ———. On the Orator: Books 1–2. Translated by E. W. Sutton and H. Rackham. Loeb 348. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1942. ———. Political Speeches: A New Translation: A New Translation by D. H. Berry. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. ———. The Verrine Orations. Vol. 1, Against Caecilius. Against Verres, Part 1; Part 2, Books 1–2. Translated by L. H. G. Greenwood. Loeb 221. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928. Coats, George W. The Moses Tradition. JSOTSup 57. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. ———. The Murmuring Motif in the Wilderness Traditions of the Old Testament: Rebellion in the Wilderness. Nashville: Abingdon, 1968. Cohn, Haim H. ‘Slavery’. Page 1655 in Encyclopedia Judaica. Edited by Cecil Roth and Geoffrey Wigoder. Jerusalem: Keter, 1972.

210 Bibliography Collins, John J. Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on the Jewish Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Rule. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Comfort, Philip W. The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992. Conte, Gian Biagio. The Rhetoric of Imitation: Genre and Poetic Memory in Virgil and Other Latin Poets. Translated by C. Segal. New York: Cornell University Press, 1986. Corbeill, Anthony. ‘Ciceronian Invective’. Pages 197–218 in Brill’s Companion to Cicero. Edited by James M. May. Leiden: Brill, 2002. ———. Controlling Laughter: Political Humor in the Late Roman Republic. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. Cothenet, Edouard. ‘La tradition selon Jude et 2 Pierre’. NTS 35 (1989): 407–20. Cozunsen, Bert. ‘A Critical Contribution to the Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti: Jude and Hesiod’. Pages 79–110 in The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World. Edited by L. V. Rutgers, P. W. van der Horst, H. W. Havelaar and L. Teugels. Leuven: Peeters, 1998. Craig, Christopher P. ‘Audience, Expectations, Invective, and Proof’. Pages 187–213 in Cicero the Advocate. Edited by Jonathan G. F. Powell and Jeremy Paterson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Craigie, Peter C., Page H. Kelley, and Joel F. Drinkard. Jeremiah 1–25. WBC 26. Dallas: Word, 1991. Crates. ‘The Epistles of Crates’. Translated by Ronald F. Hock. Pages 53–89 in The Cynic Epistles. Edited by Abraham J. Malherbe. SBL Sources for Biblical Study. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977. Cribiore, Raffaella. Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973. Danker, W. Frederick, ed. A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. 1957. Repr., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Davids, Peter H. 2 Peter and Jude: A Handbook on the Greek Text. BHGNT. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2011. ———. The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude. PNTC. Edited by D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Davids, Peter, and R. L. Webb, eds. Reading Jude with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of Jude. London: T&T Clark International, 2008. Davidsen, Ole. The Narrative Jesus: A Semiotic Reading of Mark’s Gospel. Oxford: Aarhus University Press, 1993. Davis, Casey W. Oral Biblical Criticism: The Influence of the Principles of Orality on the Literary Structure of Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians. JSNTSup 172. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Davis, Janet B. ‘Hermogenes of Tarsus’. Pages 194–202 in Classical Rhetorics and Rhetoricians: Critical Studies and Sources. Edited by Michelle Ballif and Michael G. Moran. London: Praeger, 2005. Deissmann, Adolf. Light from the Ancient East. Translated by Lionel R. M. Strachen. 2nd ed. 1923. Repr., New York: George H. Doran, 1927. DeLacy, Phillip. ‘Cicero’s Invective Against Piso’. APA 72 (1941): 49–58. Demosthenes. Demosthenes: Speeches 20–22. Translated by Edward M. Harris. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2008.

Bibliography

211

———. Orations 21–26: Against Meidias. Against Androtion. Against Aristocrates. Against Timocrates. Against Aristogeiton 1 and 2. Translated by J. H. Vince. Loeb 299. Vol. 3. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935. Dennis, John. ‘Cosmology in the Petrine Literature and Jude’. Pages 157–77 in Cosmology and New Testament Theology. Edited by J. T. Pennington and S. M. McDonough. JSNTSup 355. London: T&T Clark International, 2008. Denniston, John D. The Greek Particles. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Derrida, Jacques. ‘Living On: Border Lines’. Pages 62–142 in Deconstruction and Criticism. Edited by Harold Bloom. New York: Seabury, 1979. deSilva, David A. The Jewish Teachers of Jesus, James and Jude: What Earliest Christianity Learned from the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Desjardins, Michel. ‘The Portrayal of the Dissidents in 2 Peter and Jude: Does It Tell Us More About the “Godly” than the “Ungodly”?’ JSNT 30 (1987): 89–102. Diogenes. ‘The Epistles of Diogenes’. Translated by S. J. Benjamin Fiore. Pages 91–183 in The Cynic Epistles. Edited by Abraham J. Malherbe. SBL Sources for Biblical Study. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977. Dmitriev, Sviatoslav. The Greek Slogan of Freedom and Early Roman Politics in Greece. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Dodson, Derek S. Reading Dreams: An Audience-Critical Approach to the Dreams in the Gospel of Matthew. London: T&T Clark International, 2009. Doering, Lutz. Ancient Jewish Letters and the Beginnings of Christian Epistolography. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Domeris, William R. ‘When Metaphor Becomes Myth: A Socio-Linguistic Reading of Jeremiah’. Pages 244–62 in Troubling Jeremiah. Edited by A. R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O’Connor and Louis Stulman. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Donelson, Lewis R. 1 & 2 Peter and Jude: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2010. ———. ‘Gathering Apostolic Voices: Who Wrote 1 and 2 Peter and Jude?’ Pages 11–26 in Reading 1–2 Peter and Jude: A Resource for Students. Edited by Eric F. Mason and Troy W. Martin. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. Dozeman, Thomas B. Exodus. Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Dryden, John. Discourse on Satire and Epic Poetry. Teddington: The Echo Library, 2007. Du Toit, A. ‘Alienation and Re-Identification as Pragmatic Strategies in Galatians’. Neot 26, no. 2 (1992): 279–96. ———. ‘Galatians and the περὶ ίδεῶν λόγου of Hermogenes: A Rhetoric of Severity in Galatians 1–4’. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 70, no. 1 (2014): 1–10. Duff, Paul B. Who Rides the Beast? Prophetic Rivalry and the Rhetoric of Crisis in the Churches of the Apocalypse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Dyck, Andrew R. ‘The Function and Persuasive Power of Demosthenes’ Portrait of Aeschines in the Speech “On the Crown”.’ Greece & Rome 32, no. 1 (1985): 42–48. Dyrness, William A. Themes in Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1979. Edwards, Catharine. The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Elgvin, Torleif. ‘Qumran and the Roots of the Rosh Hashanah Liturgy’. Pages 62–67 in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by E. G. Chazon. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

212 Bibliography Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Elliott, Robert C. The Literary Persona. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982. Ellis, E. Earle. The Making of the New Testament Documents. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ———. Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity: New Testament Essays. WUNT 18. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1978. Elmer, Ian J. Paul, Jerusalem and the Judaisers: The Galatian Crisis in Its Broadest Historical Context. WUNT 258. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Epiphanius. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book 1 (Sections 1–46). Translated by Frank Williams. NHMS 63. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Evans, Craig A. ‘Intertextuality’. Pages 541–52 in Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Craig A. Evans. The IVP Bible Dictionary Series. Leicester: InterVarsity, 2000. Eybers, Ian H. ‘Aspects of the Background of the Letter of Jude’. Neot 9 (1975): 113–23. Fewell, Danna N., ed. Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992. Fields, Weston W. Sodom and Gomorrah: History and Motif in Biblical Narrative. JSOTSup 231. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. Finnegan, Ruth. Literacy and Orality: Studies in the Technology of Communication. Oxford: Blackwell, 1988. Fleischer, G. Von Menschenverkäufern, Basschankühen und Rechtsverkehrern. BBB 74. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum, 1989. Flower, Richard. Emperors and Bishops in Late Roman Invective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Forbes, Christopher. ‘Christian Inspired Speech and Hellenistic Popular Religion’. NovT 28, no. 3 (1986): 257–70. ———. ‘Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Paul’s Boasting and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric’. NTS 32 (1986): 1–30. Foreman, Benjamin A. Animal Metaphors and the People of Israel in the Book of Jeremiah. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Forsyth, Neil. The Satanic Epic. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003. Frankel, Ellen, and Betsy Platkin Teutsch. ‘Gold’. Page 62 in The Encyclopedia of Jewish Symbols. Edited by Ellen Frankel and Betsy Platkin Teutsch. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1992. Fränkel, Hermann F. Ovid: A Poet Between Two Worlds. Sather Classical Lectures 18. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1945. Fredal, James. ‘Language of Delivery and the Presentation of Character: Rhetorical Action in Demosthenes’ Against Meidias’. Rhetorical Review 20, no. 3/4 (2001): 251–67. Freedman, David Noel, and David Miano. ‘People of the New Covenant’. Pages 7–26 in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C. R. de Roo. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Freese, John H. The Orations of Isocrates. Vol. 1. London: George Bell & Sons, 1894. Frey, Jörg. Der Brief des Judas und der zweite Brief des Petrus. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2015. ———. ‘The Epistle of Jude Between Judaism and Hellenism’. Pages 309–30 in The Catholic Epistles and Apostolic Tradition. Edited by Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr and Robert W. Wall. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009.

Bibliography

213

Fronmüller, G. F. C. The Epistles General of Peter with the Epistle of Jude. Translated by J. Isidor Mombert. Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scripture. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2007. Fry, Paul H. ‘Meter’. Pages 141, 172–76 in The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Edited by Alex Preminger and T. V. F. Brogan. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Fuchs, Eric, and Pierre Reymond. La Deuxième épître de Saint Pierre; L’épître de Saint Jude. Genève: Labor et Fides, 1988. Gan, Jonathan. The Metaphor of Shepherd in the Hebrew Bible. Lanham: University Press of America, 2007. Garland, Robert. The Eye of the Beholder: Deformity and Disability in the Graeco-Roman World. 2nd ed. London: Bristol Classical Press, 2010. Geeraerts, Dirk. ‘Cognitive Linguistics’. Pages 618–29 in A Companion to the History of the English Language. Edited by Haruko Momma and Michael Matto. West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Gerber, Douglas E. A Companion to the Greek Lyric Poets. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Gerdmar, Anders. Rethinking the Judaism–Hellenism Dichotomy: A Historiographical Study of Second Peter and Jude. CBNTS. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2001. Gerstenberger, Erhard. ‘The Woe-Oracle of the Prophets’. JBL 81, no. 3 (1962): 249–63. Giovannini, Adalberto. ‘Le traité entre Iasos et Ptolémée Ier et les relations entre les cités greques d’Asie Mineure et les souverains hellénistiques’. EA 37, no. 75 (2004): 69–85. Glasson, Thomas F. Greek Influence in Jewish Eschatology: With Special Reference to the Apocalypses and Pseudepigraphs. London: SPCK, 1961. Gnuse, Robert Karl. Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus: A TraditioHistorical Analysis. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Goodman, Martin. Judaism in the Roman World. Collected Essays. London: Brill, 2007. Gosbell, Louise. ‘The Parable of the Great Banquet (Luke 14:15–24), CBM and the Church – Churches as Places of Welcome and Belonging for People with Disability’. St Mark’s Review, no. 232 (2015): 109–22. Graham, William A. Beyond the Written Word: Oral Aspects of Scripture in the History of Religion. Cambridge: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1987. Gray, Alison Ruth. Psalm 18 in Words and Pictures: A Reading Through Metaphor. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Gray, George B. Forms of Hebrew Poetry: Considered with Special Reference to the Criticism and Interpretation of the Old Testament. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2002. Green, Gene L. Jude and 2 Peter. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Green, Michael. 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary. TNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Greenlee, J. Harold. An Exegetical Summary of Jude. 2nd ed. 1999. Repr., Dallas: SIL International, 2012. Gruen, Eric S. Diaspora. Jews Amidst Greeks and Romans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002. Gunkel, Hermann. ‘Die Propheten als Schriftsteller und Dichter’. Pages xxvi–lxxii in Die großen Propheten. Edited by Hans Schmidt. Die Schriften des Alten Testaments. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917. Gunther, John J. ‘The Alexandrian Epistle of Jude’. NTS 30, no. 4 (1984): 549–62. Haag, Istvan, Stephen Llewelyn, and Jack Tsonis. ‘Ezekiel 16 and its use of Allegory and the Disclosure-of-Abomination Formula’. VT 62, no. 2 (2012): 198–210.

214 Bibliography Habel, Norman C. ‘The Silence of the Lands: The Ecojustice Implications of Ezekiel’s Judgment Oracles’. Pages 127–40 in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality. Edited by Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton. Atlanta: SBL, 2004. Hainesworth, Don. Understanding the Properties and Behaviour of the Cosmos: A Historical Perspective. Bloomington: Palibrio, 2011. Hallett, Judith P., and Marilyn B. Skinner. Roman Sexualities. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997. Harrill, James Albert. The Manumission of Slaves in Early Christianity. HUT 32. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Harrington, Daniel J. 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter. Sacra Pagina. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2003. Harris, Edward M. ‘Demosthenes’ Speech Against Meidias’. HSCP 92 (1989): 117–36. Harris, Murray J. Colossians and Philemon. EGGNT. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010. Harris, William V. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989. Harvey, Robert, and Philip H. Towner. 2 Peter and Jude. Downers Grover: InterVarsity, 2009. Hasel, Gerhard F. The Remnant: The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah. Andrews University Monographs 5. Berrien Springs: Andrew University Press, 1972. Hawkins, Tom. Iambic Poetics in the Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Hayes, John H. Interpreting Ancient Israelite History, Prophecy and Law. Eugene: Cascade, 2013. Hayes, Katherine M. The Earth Mourns: Prophetic Metaphor and Oral Aesthetic. Leiden: SBL, 2002. Hayes, Richard B., Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga, eds. Reading the Bible Intertextually. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009. Hayhoe, Douglas. ‘Surprising Facts About Soil, Students and Teachers. A Survey of Educational Research and Resources’. Pages 1–40 in Sustainable Agriculture Reviews. Edited by Eric Lichtfouse. New York: Springer, 2013. Hebert, Arthur G. ‘Burn, Fire’. Page 39 in A Theological Word Book of the Bible. Edited by Alan Richardson. London: SCM, 1950–75. Heger, Paul. Challenges to Conventional Opinions on Qumran and Enoch Issues. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Heiligenthal, Roman. Zwischen Henoch und Paulus. Studien zum Theologiegeschichtlichen Ort des Judasbriefes. TANZ 6. Tübingen: Francke, 1992. Helm, David R. 1 and 2 Peter and Jude: Sharing Christ’s Sufferings. Preaching the Word. Wheaton: Crossway, 2008. Helzle, Martin. ‘Ibis’. Pages 184–93 in A Companion to Ovid. Edited by Peter Knox. BCAW. West Sussex: Blackwell, 2009. Henderson, Ebenezer. The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, and That of the Lamentations, Translated from the Original Hebrew with a Commentary, Critical, Philological, and Exegetical. London: Hamilton, Adams & Co., 1851. Henderson, Joseph M. ‘Who Weeps in Jeremiah VIII 23 (IX 1)? Identifying Dramatic Speakers in the Poetry of Jeremiah’. VT 52, no. 2 (2002): 191–206. Henderson, Timothy P. The Gospel of Peter and Early Christian Apologetics. WUNT 301. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.

Bibliography

215

Hengel, Martin. ‘Jakobus der Herrenbruder – der erste Papst?’ Pages 71–104 in Glaube und Eschatologie. Festschrift für Werner Georg Kümmel zum. Edited by Erich Gräßer and Otto Merk. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1985. ———. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period. Vol. 1, Texts. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2003. Hermogenes. Hermogenes’ On Types of Style. Translated by Cecil W. Wooten. Chapel Hill: UNC, 1987. ———. ‘On Ideas of Style’. Pages 561–79 in Ancient Literary Criticism: The Principal Texts in New Translation. Edited by Donald Andrew Russell and M. Winterbottom. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. Heschel, Abraham J. The Prophets. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Hezser, Catherine. Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine. TSAJ 81. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Hiebert, D. Edmond. Second Peter and Jude: An Expositional Commentary. Greenville: Unusual Publications, 1989. Hock, Ronald F. ‘Paul and Greco-Roman Education’. Pages 198–227 in Paul in the GrecoRoman World. Edited by J. Paul Sampley. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2003. Hogan, Karina Martin. ‘The Watchers Traditions in the Book of the Watchers and the Animal Apocalypse’. Pages 107–20 in The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Edited by Angela Kim Harkins, Kelley Coblentz Bautch and John C. Endres. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014. Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1–25. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. ———. ‘The Years of Jeremiah’s Preaching’. Pages 130–42 in Interpreting the Prophets. Edited by James Luther Mays and Paul J. Achtemeier. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Horace. Horace, Odes and Epodes. Translated by C. E. Bennett. Loeb 33. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968. Horine, Steven. ‘A Study of the Literary Genre of the Woe Oracle’. CBTJ 5 (1989): 74–97. Horowitz, Wayne. Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. MC 8. 1st ed. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1998. Houston, Walter. ‘What Did the Prophets Think They Were Doing? Speech Acts and Prophetic Discourse in the Old Testament’. Pages 133–53 in The Place Is Too Small for Us: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship. Edited by Robert P. Gordon. SBTS 5. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995. Huebner, Sabine R. The Family in Roman Egypt: A Comparative Approach to Intergenerational Solidarity and Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Huey, F. B. Jeremiah, Lamentations: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scriptures. NAC 16. Nashville: Broadman, 1993. Hughes, J. Donald. Environmental Problems of the Greeks and Romans: Ecology in the Ancient Mediterranean. 2nd ed. 1994. Repr., Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014. Huizenga, Annette B. Moral Education for Women in the Pastoral and Pythagorean Letters: Philosophers of the Household. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Hultin, Jeremy F. ‘Jude’s Citation of 1 Enoch: From Tertullian to Jacob of Edessa’. Pages 113–28 in Jewish and Christian Scriptures: The Function of ‘Canonical’ and ‘Non-Canonical’ Religious Texts. Edited by James H. Charlesworth and Lee Martin McDonald. London: T&T Clark International, 2010.

216 Bibliography ———. ‘The Literary Relationships Among 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude’. Pages 27–46 in Reading 1–2 Peter and Jude: A Resource for Students. Edited by Eric F. Mason and Troy W. Martin. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. Hunt, Steven A. ‘Light and Darkness’. Pages 657–59 in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997. Hunter, Austin Vanlier. Seek the Lord! A Study of the Meaning and Function of the Exhortations in Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah and Zephaniah. Baltimore: St Mary’s Seminary & University, 1982. Hvidt, Niels Christian. Christian Prophecy: The Post-Biblical Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Isocrates. On the Peace. Areopagiticus. Against the Sophists. Antidosis. Panathenaicus. Translated by George Norlin. Loeb 229. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929. Jackson, D. R. Enochic Judaism. London: T&T Clark International, 2004. Jaeger, Werner. Demosthenes der Staatsmann und Sein Werden. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963. James, Montague R. The Second Epistle General of Peter and the Epistle of Jude. CGTSC 19. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912. Janzen, Waldemar. Mourning Cry and Woe Oracle. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972. Jebb, Richard C. The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeus, Vol. 1. 1893. Jehne, Martin. ‘Blaming the People in Front of the People: Restraint and Outbursts of Orators in Roman Contiones’. Pages 111–24 in Praise and Blame in Roman Republic Rhetoric. Edited by Christopher Smith and Ralph Covino. Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales, 2011. Jerome. ‘Lives of Illustrious Men’. Pages 823–966 in NPNF: Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, and Rufinus. Edited by Philip Schaff. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1892. Jersak, Bradley. Her Gates Will Never Be Shut: Hope, Hell, and the New Jerusalem. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2009. Job, John Brian. Jeremiah’s Kings: A Study of the Monarchy in Jeremiah. SOTSMS. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006. Joseph, Simon J. ‘ “Seventh from Adam” (Jude 1:14–15): Re-examining Enochic Traditions and the Christology of Jude’. JTS 64, no. 2 (2013): 463–81. Joubert, Stephan J. ‘Language, Ideology and the Social Context of the Letter of Jude’. Neot 24 (1990): 335–49. ———. ‘Persuasion in the Letter of Jude’. JSNT 58 (1995): 75–87. Kalimi, Isaac. The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Kamen, Deborah. ‘Servile Invective in Classical Athens’. Scripta Classica Israelica 28 (2009): 43–56. Kassis, Riad Aziz. The Book of Proverbs and Arabic Proverbial Works. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Keating, Daniel A. First and Second Peter, Jude. Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture. Grand Rapids: Baker Academy, 2011. Keel, Othmar. The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms. Translated by Timothy J. Hallett. New York: Seabury, 1978. Keitel, Elizabeth. ‘Feast Your Eyes on This: Vitellius as a Stock Tyrant (Tac. His 3.36–39)’. Pages 441–53 in A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography. Edited by John Marincola. BCAW. West Sussex: Blackwell, 2011.

Bibliography

217

Kelley, David H., and Eugene F. Milone. Exploring Ancient Skies: A Survey of Ancient and Cultural Astronomy. 2nd ed. 2005. Repr., New York: Springer, 2011. Kelly, John N. D. The Epistles of Peter and of Jude. BNTC. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1969. Kennedy, George A. The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972. ———. The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World: 300 B.C–A.D. 300. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972. ———. Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1980. ———. New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984. ———. Progymnasmata Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric. Leiden: SBL, 2003. Kepnes, Steven. The Future of Jewish Theology. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2013. Kessler, Martin. Battle of the Gods: The God of Israel Versus Marduk of Babylon. A Literary/Theological Interpretation of Jeremiah 50–51. SSN 42. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2003. ———. ‘The Scaffolding of the Book of Jeremiah’. Pages 57–66 in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence. Edited by Martin Kessler. Warsaw: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Kilpatrick, George D. ‘Ἀγάπη as Love-Feast in the New Testament’. Pages 157–62 in Parola e spirito: Studi Onore di Settimio Cipriani. Edited by C. C. Marcheselli. Brescia: Paideia, 1982. Kistemaker, Simon J. Exposition of James, Epistles of John, Peter, and Jude. NTC. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996. ———. Peter and Jude. NTC. Grand Rapids: Evangelical Press, 1987. Klawans, Jonathan. Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Knight, Jonathan. 2 Peter and Jude. New Testament Guides. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995. Knoch, Otto. Der erste und zweite Petrusbrief. Der Judasbrief. RNT. Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1990. Knopf, D. Rudolf. Die Briefe Petri und Juda. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1912. Koet, Bart J. Dreams and Scripture in Luke–Acts: Collected Essays. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. ———. ‘Purity and Impurity of the Body in Luke–Acts’. Pages 93–106 in Purity and Holiness. Edited by M. J. H. M. Poorthuis and J. Schwartz. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Koster, Severin. Die Invektive in der Griechischen und Römischen Literatur. Hain: Beiträge zur Klassischën Philogie, 1980. Kövecses, Zoltán. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. 2nd ed. 2002. Repr., New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Krasne, Darcy. ‘The Pedant’s Curse: Obscurity and Identity in Ovid’s Ibis’. Dictynna 9 (2012): 1–42. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. ‘Die prophetische Botschaft gegen das soziale Unrecht Israels’. EvT 16 (1955): 295–307. Krodel, Gerhard. The General Letters: Hebrews, James, 1–2 Peter, Jude, 1–2–3 John. Proclamation Commentaries. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Kruger, M. A. ‘τούτοις in Jude 7’. Neot 27, no. 1 (1993): 119–32. Kruger, Michael J. ‘The Authenticity of 2 Peter’. JETS 42, no. 4 (1999): 645–71.

218 Bibliography Kubo, Sakae. ‘Jude 22–23: Two-division Form or Three?’ Pages 239–53 in New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis. Edited by Eldon Gay Epp and Gordon D. Fee. Oxford: Clarendon, 1981. Kugelman, Richard. James and Jude. NTM 19. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1980. Kuyvenhoven, Rosalie. ‘Jeremiah 23.1–8: Shepherds in Diachronic Perspective’. Pages 1–36 in Paratext and Megatext as Channels of Jewish and Christian Traditions: The Textual Markers of Contextualization. Edited by A. A. den Hollander, Ulrich B. Schmid and Willem Frederik Smelik. Jewish & Christian Perspectives. Leiden: Brill, 2003. L’Hoir, Francesca Santoro. Tragedy, Rhetoric, and the Historiography of Tacitus’ Annales. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980. Lalleman-deWinkel, Hetty. Jeremiah in Prophetic Tradition: An Examination of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions. Leuven: Peeters, 2000. Landon, Charles. A Text-Critical Study of the Epistle of Jude. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Lange, Johann Peter. A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Jeremiah, Lamentations. Translated by Philip Schaff. OTS 12. New York: Charles Scribner & Co., 1871. Lausberg, Heinrich. Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: die Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft. Munich: Hueber, 1960. Lawlor, George L. Translation and Exposition of the Epistle of Jude. Nutley: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1972. Leaney, Alfred R. C. The Letters of Peter and Jude. CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Lee, Margaret E. ‘A Method for Sound Analysis in Hellenistic Greek: The Sermon on the Mount as a Test Case’. ThD diss., Melbourne College of Divinity, 2005. Lehoux, Daryn. Astronomy, Weather, and Calendars in the Ancient World: Parapegmata and Related Texts in Classical and Near-Eastern Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Lendon, Jon E. ‘Roman Honor’. Pages 377–403 in The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World. Edited by Michael Peachin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Leslau, Wolf. Comparative Dictionary of Ge’ez (Classical Ethiopic): Ge’ez–English, English–Ge’ez. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 2006. Levine, Lee I. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005. Levinsohn, Stephen H. Self-instruction Materials on Non-Narrative Discourse Analysis. SIL International, 2011. Online: http://www-01.sil.org/~levinsohns/NonNarr.pdf. Libanius. Libanius’s Progymnasmata: Model Exercises in Greek Prose Composition and Rhetoric. Translated by Craig A. Gibson. Writings from the Greco-Roman World. Atlanta: SBL, 2008. Lieu, Judith M. Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. ———. ‘Us or You? Persuasion and Identity in 1 John’. JBL 127, no. 4 (2008): 805–19. Lim, Timothy H. ‘The Origins and Emergence of Midrash in Relation to the Hebrew Scriptures’. Pages 595–612 in The Midrash: An Encyclopaedia of Biblical Interpretation in Formative Judaism. Edited by Jacob Neusner and Alan J. Avery-Peck. Leiden: Brill Academic, 2004.

Bibliography

219

Lindberg, Gertrud. ‘Hermogenes of Tarsus’. Pages 1979–2062 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt. Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Iaase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Lindenberger, James M. Ancient Aramaic and Hebrew Letters. 2nd ed. 1994. Repr., Atlanta: SBL, 2003. Lintott, Andrew. Cicero as Evidence: A Historian’s Companion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Litfin, Duane. St. Paul’s Theology of Proclamation, 1 Corinthians 1–4 and Greco-Roman Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Littlemore, Jeanette. Metonymy: Hidden Shortcuts in Language, Thought and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Livingstone, Niall. A Commentary on Isocrates’ Busiris. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Lockett, Darian. ‘Objects of Mercy in Jude: The Prophetic Background of Jude 22–23’. CBQ 77 (2015): 322–36. ———. ‘Purity and Polemic: A Reassessment of Jude’s Theological World’. Pages 5–31 in Reading Jude with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of Jude. Edited by Robert L. Webb and Peter H. Davids. London: T&T Clark International, 2008. Long, Anthony A. Stoic Studies. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Louw, Johannes P. ‘A Discourse Reading of Ephesians 1.3–14’. Pages 308–12 in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Jeffery T. Reed. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Lowth, Robert. Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews. Translated by G. Gregory. 4th ed. 1753. Repr., London: Thomas Tegg, 1839. Lucas, Richard C., and Christopher Green. The Message of 2 Peter and Jude. Bible Speaks Today. Leicester: IVP Academic, 1995. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric. 2nd ed. 1975. Repr., Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997. ———. ‘The Lion Has Roared: Rhetorical Structure in Amos 1.2–3.8’. Pages 65–76 in Milk and Honey: Essays on Ancient Israel and the Bible in Appreciation of the Judaic Studies Program at the University of California, San Diego. Edited by Sarah Malena and David Miano. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007. MacArthur, John. 1, 2, 3 John and Jude. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007. MacDowell, Douglas. Demosthenes the Orator. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. MacKendrick, Paul. The Speeches of Cicero. London: Duckworth, 1995. Maier, Paul L. Eusebius: The Church History. Translated by Paul L. Maier. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007. Malherbe, Abraham J. Ancient Epistolary Theorists. SBL Sources for Biblical Study 19. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Mamahit, Ferry Y., and Pieter M. Venter. ‘Oracle Against Israel’s Social Injustices: A Rhetorical Analysis of Amos 2.6–8’. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 66, no. 1 (2010): 1–11. Manuwald, Gesine, ed. Cicero, Philippics 3–9: Commentary, Vol. 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Marrou, Henri I. A History of Education in Antiquity. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1982. Marsh, David, and Francesco Petrarca. Invectives. London: The President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2003.

220 Bibliography Marshall, Peter. Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul’s Relations with the Corinthians. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. Martial. Epigrams. Vol. 2, Books 6–10. Translated by David R. Shackleton Bailey. Loeb 95. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993. Martin, Dale. B. Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. ———. ‘When Did Angels Become Demons?’ JBL 129, no. 4 (2010): 657–77. Martin, Ralph P., and Andrew Chester. The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter and Jude. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Martínez, Florentino García, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition, Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Mathews, Mark D. ‘The Literary Relationship of 2 Peter and Jude: Does the Synoptic Tradition Solve this Synoptic Problem?’ Neotestamentica 44, no. 1 (2010): 47–66. Matsen, Patricia P., Philip B. Rollinson, and Marion Sousa, eds. Readings from Classical Rhetoric. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, 1990. Matthews, Victor H. Social World of the Hebrew Prophets. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2001. Matthews, Victor H., and Don C. Benjamin. Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East. 3rd ed. 1991. Repr., New York: Paulist, 2006. Mayor, J. B. ‘The General Epistle of Jude’. Pages 209–78 in The Expositor’s Greek Testament. Edited by W. R. Nicoll. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910. Mayor, J. B. The Epistle of St. Peter and St. Jude. ICC. 2nd ed. 1907. Repr., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2004. Mbuvi, Andrew. ‘Review of George Aichele, The Letters of Jude and Second Peter: Paranoia and the Slaves of Christ’. RBL 6 (2015). Online: http://www.bookreviews.org. McCarthy, Dennis J. Treaty and Covenant. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1978. McCartney, Dan G. James. Grand Rapids: Baker Academy, 2009. McCruden, Kevin B. ‘2 Peter and Jude’. Pages 596–612 in The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament. Edited by David E. Aune. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. McGinn, Thomas A. J. ‘Roman Prostitutes and Marginalization’. Pages 643–59 in The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World. Edited by Michael Peachin. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. McKane, William. Jeremiah 1–25. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986. McKeating, Henry. The Book of Jeremiah. Epworth Commentaries. London: Epworth, 1998. McKenzie, Steven L., and John Kaltner. The Old Testament: Its Background, Growth, & Content. Nashville: Abingdon, 2007. McKnight, Scot. ‘2 Peter’. Pages 1504–11 in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Edited by James D. G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. ———. ‘Jude’. Pages 1529–34 in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Edited by James D. G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Mendels, Doron. Memory in Jewish, Pagan and Christian Societies of the Greco-Roman World. London: T&T Clark International, 2004. Merrill, Eugene H., Mark Rooker, and Michael A. Grisanti. The World and the Word: An Introduction to the Old Testament. Nashville: B & H, 2011. Middleton, Conyers. The Life of M. Tullius Cicero. London: Gilbert & Livingston, 1837. Milik, Józef T., ed. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976.

Bibliography

221

Montserrat, Dominic. Sex and Society in Græco-Roman Egypt. New York: Routledge, 1996. Moo, Douglas J. 2 Peter, Jude. The NIV Application Commentary. Edited by Terry Muck. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. ———. ‘Paul on Hell’. Pages 91–109 in Hell Under Fire. Edited by Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004. Morris, Leon. The Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance. Leicester: InterVarsity, 1983. Mosca, Paul G. ‘Day of Judgment’. Pages 156–57 in The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Edited by B. M. Metzger and M. D. Coogan. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Moss, Candida R., and Joel S. Baden. Reconceiving Infertility: Biblical Perspectives on Procreation and Childlessness. Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2015. Moughtin-Mumby, Sharon. Sexual and Marital Metaphors in Hosea, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Moyise, Steven. ‘Intertextuality and Historical Approaches to the Use of Scripture in the New Testament’. Pages 23–32 in Reading the Bible Intertextually. Edited by R. B Hays, S. Alkier, and L. A. Huizenga. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009. Müller, Peter. ‘Der Judasbrief’. ThR 63 (1998): 267–89. Murphy, Roland E. The Tree of Life: An Explanation of Biblical Wisdom Literature. New York: Doubleday, 1990. Myers, Nancy. ‘Cicero’s (S) Trumpet: Roman Women and the Second Philippic’. Rhetorical Review 22, no. 4 (2003): 337–52. Neusner, Jacob, and William Scott Green, eds. Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996. Newman, Louis Israel. Studies in Biblical Parallelism: Part I. Parallelism in Amos. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1919. Neyrey, Jerome H. 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 37C. New York: Doubleday, 1993. ———. ‘The Form and Background of the Polemic in 2 Peter’. JBL 99, no. 3 (1980): 407–31. Nickelsburg, George W. E. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2001. Nicklas, Tobias. ‘Der “lebendige Text” des Neuen Testaments: Der Judasbrief in p72 (P.Bodmer VII)’. ASE 22 (2005): 203–22. Nielsen, Kirsten. ‘Metaphorical Language and Theophany in Psalm 18’. Pages 197–207 in Metaphors in the Psalms. Edited by Pierre Van Hecke and Antje Labahn. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. ———. ‘Poetic Analysis: Psalm 121’. Pages 293–310 in Method Matters: Essays on the Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of David L. Petersen. Edited by Joel M. LeMon and Kent Harold Richards. Atlanta: SBL, 2009. Nisbet, Robin G. M. M. Tulli Ciceronis in L. Calpurnium Pisonem Oration. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961. Noll, Kurt L. Canaan and Israel in Antiquity: A Textbook on History and Religion. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013. Novokhatko, Anna A. The Invective of Sallust and Cicero. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. Oepke, A. ‘apóllymi’. Page 67 in TDNT.

222 Bibliography Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London: Routledge, 1982, 2002. Opelt, Ilona. Die lateinischen Schimpfwörter und verwandte sprachliche Erscheinungen. Eine Typologie. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1965. Oropeza, B. J. Churches Under Siege of Persecution and Assimilation: The General Epistles and Revelation. Apostasy in the New Testament Communities 3. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2012. Osburn, Carroll D. ‘Discourse Analysis and Jewish Apocalyptic in the Epistle of Jude’. Pages 287–319 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis. Edited by David Alan Black. Nashville: Broadman, 1992. ———. ‘The Text of Jude 22–23’. ZNW 63 (1972): 139–44. Osiek, Carolyn A., and David L Balch. The Families in the New Testament World: Households and House Churches. Family, Religion, and Culture Series. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Overholt, Thomas W. The Threat of Falsehood. SBT. London: SCM, 1970. Page, Denys L., ed. Lyrica Graeca Selecta. Oxford Classical Texts. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. Painter, John. Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition. Edinburgh: First Fortress, 1999. Painter, John, and David A. deSilva. James and Jude. Paideia. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012. Parke-Taylor, Geoffrey H. The Formation of the Book of Jeremiah: Doublets and Recurring Phrases. SBL Monograph Series. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. Paulsen, Henning. Der zweite Petrudbrief und der Judasbrief. KKNT 12. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. Pearson, Birger A. ‘Review of Invention, Arrangement, and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter, by Duane Frederick Watson’. JBL 109, no. 1 (1990): 164–66. Pearson, Lionel. The Art of Demosthenes. Meisenheim am Glan: Anton Haig, 1976. Pernot, Laurent. Rhetoric in Antiquity. Translated by W. E. Higgins. Washington: The Catholic University Press of America, 2005. Petersen, David L. The Prophetic Literature: An Introduction. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Petersen, David L., and Kent Harold Richards. Interpreting Hebrew Poetry. Old Testament Series. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992. Peterson, David G. The Acts of the Apostles. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Phillips, E. J. ‘Catiline’s Conspiracy’. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 25, no. 4 (1976): 441–48. Phillips, John. Exploring the Epistle of Jude: An Expository Commentary. The John Phillips Commentary Series. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004. Pliny. Letters: Books 1–7. Translated by Betty Radice. Loeb 55. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969. Plutarch. Moralia, Vol. 1, The Education of Children. How the Young Man Should Study Poetry. On Listening to Lectures. How to Tell a Flatterer from a Friend. How a Man May Become Aware of His Progress in Virtue. Translated by Frank Cole Babbitt. Loeb 197. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927. Poirier, John C. ‘The Linguistic Situation in Jewish Palestine in Late Antiquity’. JGRChJ 4 (2007): 55–134.

Bibliography

223

Porter, Stanley E. ‘The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology’. Pages 79–97 in Early Christian Interpretations of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigation and Proposals. Edited by C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. ———. ‘Wrath, Destruction’. Pages 1238–41 in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997. Porter, Stanley E., and Andrew W. Pitts. ‘Paul’s Bible, His Education and His Access to the Scriptures of Israel’. JGRChJ 5 (2008): 11–12. Porter, Stanley E., and Christopher D. Stanley, eds. As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. Atlanta: SBL, 2008. Potter, Andrew. ‘Interactive Rhetoric for Online Learning Environments’. Internet and Higher Education 7 (2004): 183–98. Powell, J. G. F. ‘Invective and the Orator: Ciceronian Theory and Practice’. Pages 1–23 in Cicero on the Attack. Edited by Joan Booth. Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales, 2007. Price, Randall. Searching for the Original Bible. Eugene: Harvest House, 2007. Priest, J. ‘Testament of Moses’. Pages 919–26 in vol. 1 of OTP. Purcell, Nicholas. ‘Tide, Beach, and Backwash: The Place of Maritime Histories’. Pages 84–108 in The Sea: Thalassography and Historiography. Edited by Peter N. Miller. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2013. Quintilian. The Orator’s Education. Vol. 4. Books 9–10. Translated by Donald A. Russell. Loeb 127. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002. Rajak, Tessa. ‘The Synagogue within the Greco-Roman City’. Pages 143–53 in Jews, Christians and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue: Cultural Interaction in the Greco-Roman Period. Edited by Steven Fine. London: Routledge, 1999. Ramsey, George W. ‘Speech-Forms in Hebrew Law and Prophetic Oracles’. JBL 96, no. 1 (1977): 45–58. Reed, A. Y. Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Reed, Annette Y. Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Reese, Ruth Ann. Writing Jude: The Reader, the Text and the Author in Constructs of Power and Desire. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Reese, Ruth Anne. 2 Peter and Jude. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Rengstorf, K. H. ‘despótēs’. Pages 145–46 in TDNT. Reynolds, Kent Aaron. Torah as Teacher: The Exemplary Torah Student in Psalm 119. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Richard, Earl J. Reading 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Reading the New Testament 12. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2000. Riches, John. The World of Jesus: First Century Judaism in Crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Richlin, Amy. The Garden of Priapus: Sexuality and Aggression in Roman Humor: Sexuality and Aggression in Roman Humor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Rienecker, Fritz, and Cleon L. Rogers. Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980. Roberts, Jimmy J. M. Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: John Knox, 1991.

224 Bibliography Robinson, Alexandra M. ‘The Enoch Inclusio in Jude: A New Structural Possibility’. JGRChJ 9, no. 7 (2013): 196–212. Robinson, Alexandra, Stephen Llewelyn, and Blake Wassell, ‘Showing Mercy to the Ungodly and the Inversion of Invective in Jude’. Forthcoming in NTS. Robinson, John A. T. Redating the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976. Roche, Paul, ed. Pliny’s Praise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Rosne, Brian S. Greed as Idolatry: The Origin and Meaning of a Pauline Metaphor. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Rossing, Barbara R. ‘Alas for Earth! Lament and Resistance in Revelation 12’. Pages 180–92 in The Earth Story in the New Testament. The Earth Bible 5. Edited by Norman C. Habel and Vicky Balabanski. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001. Rotstein, Andrea. ‘Critias’ Invective Against Archilochus’. Classical Philology 102 (2007): 139–54. Rowston, Douglas J. ‘The Most Neglected Book in the New Testament’. NTS 21 (1975): 554–63. ———. The Setting of the Letter of Jude. PhD diss. Louisville: Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1971. Runge, Steven E. Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2010. ———. Philippians: A Visual Textual Guide. High Definition Commentary. Bellingham: Lexham, 2011. Russell, David S. The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic. London: SCM, 1964. Rutherford, Richard. Classical Literature: A Concise History. Malden: Blackwell, 2005. Ryken, Leland, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman, eds. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1998. Ryou, Daniel Hojoon. Zephaniah’s Oracles Against the Nations: A Synchronic and Diachronic Study of Zephaniah 2.1–3.8. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Sacchi, Paolo. Jewish Apocalyptic and Its History. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990. Safrai, Shemuel, and M. Stern, eds. The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, Vol. 2. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1976. Safrai, Shmuel. ‘Education and the Study of the Torah’. Pages 945–70 in The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, Vol. 2. Edited by Shmuel Safrai and Menahem Stern. CRINT. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1987. Samet, Nili. ‘On Agricultural Imagery in Biblical Description of Catastrophes’. Journal of Ancient Judaism 3 (2012): 2–14. Schäfer, Arnold D. Demosthenes und seine Zeit. Beilagen: Leipzig, 1858. Schenker, Adrian. ‘Gerichtsverkündigung und Verblendung bei den vorexilischen Propheten’. RB 93 (1986): 563–80. Schmidt, Johannes M. ‘Ausgangspunkt und Ziel prophetischer Verkündigung im 8. Jahrhundert’. VF 22, no. 1 (1977): 65–82. Schreiner, Thomas R. 1, 2 Peter, Jude. NAC 37. Nashville: B&H, 2003. Schutz, Charles E. Political Humor: From Aristophanes to Sam Ervin. Rutherford: Associated University Press, 1977. Schwartz, Seth. Imperialism and Jewish Society 200 BCE to 640 CE. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Shanks, Hershel, ed. Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism: A Parallel History of Their Origins and Early Development. Washington: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1992.

Bibliography

225

Sharrock, Alison, and Rhiannon Ash. Fifty Key Classical Authors. London: Routledge, 2002. Shauffer, E. ‘ἀγών’. Pages 20–21 in TDNT. Shead, Andrew G. ‘Jeremiah’. Pages 469–86 in The T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Edited by James K. Aitken. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Shiner, Whitney. ‘Memory Technology and the Composition of Mark’. Pages 147–65 in Performing the Gospel: Orality, Memory and Mark. Edited by Richard A. Horsley, Jonathan A. Draper, and John M. Foley. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006. Shires, Henry M. Finding the Old Testament in the New. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974. Sidebottom, Ernest M. James, Jude and 2 Peter. NCB. London: Thomas Nelson, 1967. Skinner, Marilyn B., ed. A Companion to Catullus. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Small, Jocelyn P. Wax Tablets of the Mind: Cognitive Studies of Memory and Literacy in Classical Antiquity. London: Routledge, 1997. Smelik, Klaas A. D. ‘An Approach to the Book of Jeremiah’. Pages 1–12 in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence. Edited by Martin Kessler. Warsaw: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Smelik, Willem. ‘Code-switching: The Public Reading of the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek’. Pages 123–51 in Was ist ein Text? Alttestamentliche, ägyptologische und altorientalistische Perspektiven. Edited by Ludwig Morenz and Stefan Schorch. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Smith, Mark S., and Wayne T. Pitard. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Vol. 2, Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU/CAT 1.3–1.4. VTSup 114. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Sourvinou-Inwood, Christiane. Tragedy and Athenian Religion. Oxford: Lexington, 2003. Spencer, Walter E. Verrines. Illinois Classical Studies 35/36 (2010–11). Spitaler, Peter. ‘Doubt or Dispute (Jude 9 and 22–23): Rereading a Special New Testament Meaning Through the Lens of Internal Evidence’. Biblical Studies on the Web 87 (2006): 201–22. Spittler, Janet E. Animals in the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles. WUNT 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Stadelmann, Luis I. J. The Hebrew Conception of the World: A Philological and Literary Study. AnBib 39. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1970. Ste, John H. ‘The Stylistics of Hebrew Poetry’. Calvin Theological Journal 9, no. 1 (1974): 15–30. Steel, Catherine. Roman Oratory. New Surveys in the Classics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Stowers, Stanley K. Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. Strange, John. ‘Herod and Jerusalem: The Hellenization of an Oriental City’. Pages 91–113 in Jerusalem in Ancient History and Tradition. Edited by Thomas L. Thompson. London: T&T Clark International, 2003. Strecker, Christian. ‘Fides – Pistis – Glaube: Kontexte und Konturen einer Theologie der “Annahme” bei Paulus’. Pages 223–50 in Lutherische und Neue Paulusperspektive: Beiträge zu einem Schlüsselproblem der exegetischen Diskussion. Edited by Michael Bachmann. WUNT 182. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Stronstad, Roger. The Prophethood of All Believers: A Study in Luke’s Charismatic Theology. London: Sheffield Academic, 2003. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. 1 Enoch 91–108. Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007.

226 Bibliography Sullivan, Kevin P. Wrestling with Angels: A Study of the Relationship Between Angels and Humans in Ancient Jewish Literature and the New Testament. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Süss, Wilhelm. Ethos: Studien zur älteren griechischen Rhetorik. Berlin: Teubner, 1910. Sussman, Lewis A. ‘Antony as a Gloriosus in Cicero’s Second Philippic’. Scholia 3 (1994): 53–83. Swain, Simon. Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World, AD 50–250. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Sweeney, Marvin A. Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Tatum, W. Jeffrey. ‘Invective Identities in Pro Caelio’. Pages 165–79 in Praise and Blame in Roman Republic Rhetoric. Edited by Christopher Smith and Ralph Covino. Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales, 2011. Taylor, Nicholas H. Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem: A Study in Relationships and Authority in Earliest Christianity. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992. Thompson, John A. The Book of Jeremiah. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Thurén, Lauri. ‘The General New Testament Writings’. Pages 587–607 in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 300 B.C–A.D. 400. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ———. ‘Hey Jude! Asking for the Original Situation and Message of a Catholic Epistle’. NTS 43 (1997): 451–65. Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia. ‘The Priests and the Temple Cult in the Book of Jeremiah’. Pages 233–64 in Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah. Edited by Hans M. Barstad and Reinhard Gregor Kratz. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. Treggiari, Susan. Roman Social History. London: Routledge, 2002. Trost, Travis D. Who Should Be King in Israel? A Study on Roman Imperial Politics, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Fourth Gospel. Studies in Biblical Literature. New York: Lang, 2010. Tucker, Gene M. Form Criticism of the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. Turner, J. D. Jude: A Structural Commentary. New York: Edwin Mellen, 1996. van der Blom, Henriette. ‘Character Attack and Invective Speech in Roman Republic: Cicero as Target’. Pages 37–58 in Character Assassination Throughout the Ages. Edited by Martijn Icks and Eric Shiraev. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. Van Seters, John. ‘Creative Imitation in the Hebrew Bible’. In CSBS Presidential Address. Alberta: Canadian Society of Biblical Studies, 2000. Veltri, Giuseppe. Libraries, Translations, and ‘Canonic’ Texts: The Septuagint, Aquila and Ben Sira in the Jewish and Christian Traditions. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Vincent, M. R. Word Studies in the New Testament. 2 vols. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1911. Vinson, Richard B., Richard F. Wilson, and Watson E. Mills. 1 and 2 Peter, Jude. Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2010. Volk, Katharina. Ovid. Blackwell Introduction to the Classical World. West Sussex: WileyBlackwell, 2010. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. ———. ‘Jude: Introduction, Argument, and Outline’. New Testament: Introductions and Outlines 26 (2015). Online: www.bible.org. ———. ‘Second Peter: Introduction, Argument, and Outline’. New Testament: Introductions and Outlines 22 (2015). Online: www.bible.org.

Bibliography

227

Walser, Georg A. Jeremiah: A Commentary based on Ieremias in Codex Vaticanus. Leiden: Brill, 2012. ———. ‘Translating the Greek Text of Jeremiah’. Pages 353–62 in XIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Edited by Melvin K. H. Peters. Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Atlanta: SBL, 2008. Walsh, P. G., ed. Pliny the Younger Completed Letters. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Walter, Nicolas. Blasphemy Ancient & Modern. London: Rationalist Press Association, 1990. Wasserman, Tommy. The Epistle of Jude: Its Text and Transmission. CBNTS 43. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2006. Watson, Duane F. Invention, Arrangement and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter. SBL Dissertation Series 104. Atlanta: SBL, 1988. ———. ‘The Letter of Jude’. Pages 473–99 in The New Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by L. E. Keck et al. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998. ———. ‘The Oral–Scribal and Cultural Intertexture of Apocalyptic Discourse in Jude and 2 Peter’. Pages 187–214 in The Intertexture of Apocalyptic Discourse in the New Testament. Edited by Duane F. Watson. SymS. Leiden: Brill, 2002. ———. ‘The Three Species of Rhetoric and the Study of the Pauline Epistle’. Pages 25–47 in Paul and Rhetoric. Edited by J. Paul Sampley and Peter Lampe. New York: T&T Clark International, 2010. Watson, Duane F., and Alan J. Hauser. Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: A Comprehensive Bibliography with Notes on History and Methods. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Watson, Wilfred G. E. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. Webb, Robert L. ‘Day of the Lord’. Pages 264–67 in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Development. Edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997. ———. ‘The Eschatology of the Epistle of Jude and its Rhetorical and Social Functions’. BBR 6 (1996): 139–51. ———. ‘The Use of “Story” in the Letter of Jude: Rhetorical Strategies of Jude’s Narrative Episodes’. JSNT 31, no. 53 (2008): 53–87. Webb, Robert L., and Peter H. Davids, eds. Reading Jude with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of Jude. London: T&T Clark International, 2009. Welborn, Laurence L. An End to Enmity: Paul and the ‘Wrongdoer’ of Second Corinthians. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. ———. ‘The Preface to 1 Clement: The Rhetorical Situation and the Traditional Date’. Pages 197–216 in Encounters with Hellenism: Studies on the First Letter of Clement. Edited by Cilliers Breytenbach and Laurence L. Welborn. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Wellhausen, Julius. Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte. 9th ed. 1958. Repr., Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. Wendland, Ernst R. ‘A Comparative Study of “Rhetorical Criticism”, Ancient and Modern: With Special Reference to the Larger Structure and Function of the Epistle of Jude’. Neot 28, no. 1 (1994): 193–228. Westermann, Claus. Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech. Cambridge: John Knox, 1991. ———. Prophetic Oracles of Salvation in the Old Testament. Westminster: John Knox, 1991. White, John L. ‘The Ancient Epistolography Group in Retrospect’. Semeia 22 (1981): 1–14.

228 Bibliography Wilder, Terry L., J. Daryl Charles, and Kendell Easley. Faithful to the End: An Introduction to Hebrews Through Revelation. Nashville: B&H Academic 2007. Williams, Gareth. The Curse of Exil: A Study of Ovid’s Ibis. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 1996. ———. ‘Ovid’s Exil Poetry: Trista, Epistulae ex Ponto and Ibis’. Pages 233–48 in The Cambridge Companion to Ovid. Edited by Philip Hardie. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Willis, Timothy M. Jeremiah and Lamentations. The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin: College Press, 2002. Winter, Sara C. ‘Notes and Observations on Jude 22–23: A Note on the Text and Translation’. HTR 82, no. 2 (1994): 215–22. Wisse, Frederik. ‘The Epistle of Jude in the History of Heresiology’. Pages 133–43 in Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts in Honour of Alexander Böhlig. Edited by M. Krause. Nag Hammadi Studies. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Witherington, Ben. Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2007. Wolthuis, Thomas R. ‘A Dialogue on the Rhetorical Nature of the Epistle of Jude’. CTJ 22 (1987): 126–34. ———. ‘Jude and Jewish Traditions’. CTJ 22 (1987): 21–45. ———. ‘Jude and the Rhetorician: A Dialogue on the Rhetorical Nature of the Epistle of Jude’. CTJ 24 (1989): 126–34. Woolf, Gregg. ‘Writing Poverty in Rome’. Pages 83–99 in Poverty in the Roman World. Edited by M. Atkins and R. Osborne. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Wooten, Cecil W. Cicero’s Philippics and Their Demosthenic Model: The Rhetoric of Crisis. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1983. ———. ‘Cicero and Quintilian on the Style of Demosthenes’. A Journal of the History of Rhetoric 15, no. 2 (1997): 177–92. ———. ‘Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Hermogenes on the Style of Demosthenes’. AJPh 110, no. 4 (1989): 576–88. Worman, Nancy. Abusive Mouths in Classical Athens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. ———. ‘Insult and Oral Excess in the Disputes between Aeschines and Demosthenes’. AJPh 125, no. 1 (2004): 1–25. Worthington, Ian. Demosthenes of Athens and the Fall of Classical Greece. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Wright, Addison G. The Literary Genre of Midrash. New York: Alba House, 1967. Wright, Archie T. The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6.1–4 in Early Jewish Literature. WUNT 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Wright Knust, Jennifer. Abandoned to Lust. New York: Columbia University Press, 2006. Wyschogrod, Michael. The Body of Faith: God in the People of Israel. Northvale: Jason Aronson, 1989. Ziegler, Joseph, ed. Septuaginta. Band 15: Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Jeremiae. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976.

I n d ex of R ef er e nce s Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament Genesis 1.2 133 4.3–8 188 5.1–4 187, 197 5.24 69 6.1–4 117, 138, 186 6.2 138 18.16 143 18.19 30 19 187, 197 22.2 180 37.5 139 38.24 lxx 143 40.5 139 Exodus 3.2 132 20 101, 102, 104, 106, 197 20.2 102, 103, 115 20.3–17 102 20.5 102 20.7 102 20.12 102 20.24 102 23.16 175 24.4 102 24.7 102 Leviticus 1–.5 71 1.3 71 1.4–5 103

1.4 71 1.5 104 1.14–15 71 1–5–10 71 1.12 174 14.34 178 24.16 141 Numbers 9.15 132 13–14 137, 187, 197 14 134 14.20–32 106 16 133 16.1–3 73, 187, 188, 197 16.1–2 134 16.3 138 16.31–35 73, 188 16.32 133 16.35 133 20.12 137, 187, 197 20.24 187, 197 20.26 187, 197 21.28 133 22–24 145, 187, 188, 197 22.24 73 26 134 27.4 187, 197 27.14 137 28.26 175 31.10 133 31.16 145, 187, 197

Deuteronomy 4.9 103 5.32–33 103 6.1–7 103 6.7 30 11.18–19 185 11.19 103 12.1–5 142 18.15 103 23.3–6 145, 187, 197 23.14 178 28.23–24 119 28.27 178 28.28–29 134 29.20–23 155 29.23 147 32.13 156 33.2 183 Joshua 24.9–10

145, 187, 197

Judges 1.8 133 2.8 8 2 Samuel 12.10–12 117 1 Kings 7.10–12 41 13.30 33, 34 19.10 41 20.26–30 83 21.1–14 141

230

Index of References

2 Kings 23.10 177 23.16 133 25.9 133 2 Chronicles 26.19 178 28.3 177 33.6 177 Job 2.9 2.10 9.14 21.22 33.14–18

141 141 147 147 139

Psalms 2.7 180 5.9 142 8.32–37 115 12.3 142 22.3–4 154 23.1 174 73.22 179 80.1 174 106 142 106.33–40 142 106.40 142 134.1 8 Proverbs 10.14 139 10.31 139 11.9 139 15.28 139 16.16 118 18.5 lxx 142 18.7 139 20.19 142 21.26 146 22.6 30 25.14 43, 187 26.28 142 28.23 142 29.5 142 31.28 142

Ecclesiastes 1.2 118 3.18 147 Isaiah 1.3 197 1.4 41 1.10–11 142 1.24 34 2.5 42 2.6 115 2.8 115 3.12 41 3.13–15 161 5 42, 85 5.1–7 151, 195 5.8–30 118 5.8–20 114, 151 5.8–10 151, 152, 196 5.8 34, 41, 79, 115, 198 5.9 42, 153 5.11 34, 41 5.13 42, 153 5.18–21 115 5.18 34, 41 5.20 34, 41, 133 5.21 41 5.22 41 5.24 42 7.14 103 7.39 83 8.23–9.1 103 8.23 115 10.1 34, 41, 79, 115, 198 10.3 42, 153 10.4 153 10.5 116 10.12 152 13–23 84 13–19 85 17.12 34 18.1 34 24.6–7 119 24.19 154

28–34 85, 112 28 85 28.1–33.1 42 28.1–2 153 28.1 40, 79, 118, 198 28.2–4 153 28.2 152 28.3 118 28.5–6 85 28.14–22 33, 85 28.14 85 28.15 116, 148, 152, 153 29.1–4 85 29.2 41, 79, 198 29.5–8 85 29.6 147 29.13–14 33, 41, 85 29.15–16 85 29.15 34, 41 29.16 42, 153 29.17–24 85 30.1–17 85 30.1 41, 115 30.2 115 30.3–5 42, 153 30.9 83 30.12–14 33, 152 30.18–26 85 30.27–28 147 30.29–33 177 30.33 177, 196 31.1–5 85 31.1 34, 41, 115 31.2–3 42, 153 31.6–9 85 33.1–4 85 33.1 34, 115 33.5–24 85 34 85 37 85 40–55 116 42.1 180 44.28 174 45.9 34, 41, 153 45.10 34, 41

231 45.11 42, 153 49.3 8 53.5 103 56 46 57.20 43, 176, 195, 196 58 85 59.9–10 134 66.24 177, 196 Jeremiah 1.12 149 1.16 115 1.19 41 2.1–4.4 152, 157 2.21 151, 195, 196 2.30 152 4.1 86 4.5–8 118 4.9 118 4.10 88, 118 5.1 153 5.5 153 5.7–8 119 5.12 118 6.1–5 118 6.12 151 6.13 119 6.20 116 6.22–26 118 7.9 115 7.23 116 7.31–32 177 8.7 197 8.23 157 9.14 155 9.17–18 34 9.17 157 12.4 119 13.16–17 153 13.17 157 13.27 41, 79, 198 13.35 83 14.1 119, 155 14.13 119 15.15 41

Index of References 15.19 86 16.11–13 41 17.1 83 18.8 86 22.13 34, 41 22.15 42, 153 22.18 33, 34, 42 22.29 154 23 38, 40, 42, 46, 80, 119, 139, 148, 152, 154, 167, 195 23.1–8 87 23.1–4 46, 158, 196 23.1 41, 79, 162, 198, 203 23.2 42 23.5–8 46, 86 23.7 86 23.9–40 46 23.9–22 38, 42, 44, 46, 47, 87, 118, 154, 155, 159, 161 23.9–20 200 23.9–12 46 23.9 44, 46, 47, 157, 162 23.10–17 87 23.10–12 47, 48 23.10–11 47, 48 23.10 44, 119, 155–57, 161, 197 23.11 44, 119, 161 23.12 44, 47, 48, 87, 88, 147, 156, 158, 161 23.13–15 46–48 23.13–14 47, 48, 161, 197 23.13 44, 119, 157, 158

23.14–20 23.14

45 48, 87, 119, 155–58 23.15 47, 48, 87, 88, 147, 155, 156, 158, 162 23.16–22 46–48 23.16–20 48 23.16–18 47 23.16 49, 87, 88, 147, 158 23.17–18 48 23.17 118, 119 23.18 48, 49, 162 23.19–22 47, 48 23.19–20 49, 87 23.19 156, 158, 197 23.20 88 23.21–22 46 23.22 48, 49, 158 23.23–32 46 23.27–28 140 23.33–40 46 24.5–7 151, 195 25 87 25.30–38 87 25.31 183 26.20–23 41 27.32 140 29.8 140 29.10–11 41 32.35 177 34.5 33 36.3 86 36.5–8 115 38.1–26 41 38.4 87 46–51 86, 112 48.45 133 49.18 119 50–51 86 50.31 86 50.40 119

232 Ezekiel 3.22–27 41 6.9 142 6.10 86 12.15 86 13.1–6 153 13.4 42 13.18–19 153 13.18 34, 42 16 41 16.1 79, 198 16.15–42 86 16.15 116, 152 16.16 116, 152 16.17 115, 116, 152 16.20–21 115 16.20 116, 152 16.22 116, 152 16.23 41, 79, 198 16.25 116, 152 16.26 116, 152 16.28 116, 152 16.29 116, 152 16.32 117, 152 16.33 116, 152 16.34 116, 152 16.36 115, 116, 152 16.48–52 157 16.62 86 20.20 86 21.5 86 22.16 86 25.7 86 25.11 86 25.12–15 86 25.17 86 26.6 86 29 151 29.1–10 41 29.3 151 29.6 86 30.8 86 30.26 86 33.29 86 34 46

Index of References 34.1–6

145, 175, 196 34.2–4 153 34.2 34, 41 34.10 41, 147 34.17 lxx 147 34.20 lxx 147 35.4 86 35.9 86 35.12 lxx 140 37.13 86 37.28 86 39.6 86 39.22 86 Daniel 4.1 63 6.25 63 7 139 Hosea 1.1–8 152 1.2 116 2.2 142 2.13 115 4.1 153 4.12–13 115 5.4 83 6.4 152 7.13 41, 79, 198 9.1–11.7 41, 80 Joel 2.1–11 41, 80 2.28 139 3.4–8 84 Amos 1–5 112 1–2 112, 200 1.1–2.1 115 1.2 41, 79, 151, 153, 196, 198 1.3–5 83, 84 1.3 153 1.4–5 84

1.6–8 1.6

83, 84 41, 79, 153, 198 1.7–8 84 1.9–10 83, 84 1.9 41, 79, 153, 198 1.10 84 1.11–12 83, 84 1.11 41, 79, 153, 198 1.12 84 1.13–15 83, 84 1.13 41, 79, 153, 198 1.132 153 1.14–15 84 2 42, 84 2.1–3 83, 84 2.1 41, 79, 153, 198 2.2–3 84 2.4–5 83, 84 2.4 41, 79, 84, 153, 198 2.5 84 2.6–16 83 2.6–12 83 2.6 41, 79, 114, 153, 198 2.7 114 2.13–16 84 3.1–3 142 3.2 41 3.10 83, 115 4.1–2 41 4.7–8 119 4.13 156 5 42 5.1–16 42 5.4 84 5.6 84 5.12 114 5.16 34 5.18 34, 41 5.21–24 116, 148 6.1 41

233

Index of References

6.2 153 6.11–12 41 6.12 155 8.4–8 41 8.4–6 114 8.9 134 8.10 152 Obadiah 1–4

84

Jonah 1.9 8 Micah 1.3 156 1.8–16 41, 80 2.1–32 147 2.1–3 41 2.1 34, 41 2.3 42, 153 2.6–11 41, 80 3.1–4 117 5.2 103 6.1 161 6.6–8 116 6.11 115 7.13 41 Nahum 1.2–6 3.1 Habakkuk 2 2.4–5 2.5 2.6

41, 80 41

42, 84 116, 148 117, 152 33, 34, 41, 118 2.7 153 2.8 115, 153 2.9 34, 41 2.10–11 152 2.10 115, 153 2.12 41, 115 2.13 153 2.15 41, 117

2.16 2.19 3.3–7 3.8–15 45.9

42, 153 41 41, 80 41, 80 148

Zephaniah 1.4–6 115 1.13 153 2.1 40, 79, 198 2.4 187 2.5 33 2.8–11 41, 84 2.8 116 2.9 152 2.10 116 2.11 152 2.13 152 3.1–9 84 3.1–8 115 3.1 34, 40, 41, 79, 115, 198 3.3–4 153 3.3 42, 151, 196 3.5 42 3.7–8 115 3.8 151 3.9 147 Zechariah 3.1–5 3.3–4 3.7 9.3–4 11.17

177, 196 43, 178, 196 147 197 34, 42

Malachi 1.6 8 New Testament Matthew 1.23 74 3.10 177 3.11 133 3.12 133 5.22 133, 177, 196

5.29–30 177, 196 6.9 68 8.12 134 9.17 135 10.28 177, 196 12.31 140 13.42 177 13.55 8 15.7 74, 182 18.9 177, 196 18.33 16 22 31 22.13 134 23 34, 116, 153 23.13–36 42 23.13 116 23.15 116, 177, 196 23.23 116 23.25 116 23.27 116 23.29 116 23.33 177, 196 24.11 76 24.22 144 24.24 76 24.29 75 25.30 134 25.41 133 26.8 135 27.56 8 Mark 1.11 180 2.22 135 6.3 8 6.4 41 7.6 74, 182 7.13 103 9.43 177 9.44–48 177, 196 14.4 135 14.18–19 111 15.40 8

234

Index of References

Luke 1.77 97 3.17 133 5.37 135 6.16 8 6.24–26 42 10.13–14 42 11.42–52 42 12.5 177, 196 13.24 104 15.9 135 16.19–31 177

1 Corinthians 1.26 144 4.18–21 125 5.1 124 5.6 125 6.9–11 124 6.18 124 9.25 104 11.2 103 12.28 14 13.13 97 51.1 125

John 8.44 143 10.11 175 14.22 8

2 Corinthians 6.2 97

Acts 2.3–4 133 2.31 144 2.46 103 6.7 100 6.14 103 7.49–50 75 7.52 41 13.26 97 15.12–29 8 20.29–30 76 Romans 1.5 100 1.7 63 1.18 184 3.10–18 75 4.5 184 5.5 184 8.18 64 8.22 64 8.24 64 9.16 146 10.8 96 11.24 184 13.14 144 15.4 70 16.26 100

Galatians 1.1–6 80 1.1 7 1.6 111 1.19 9 1.23 96, 100 2.4 111 2.9 9 2.12 9 5.19 144, 178 Ephesians 3.3 70 4.19 71, 124 4.22 143 4.31 140 Philippians 1.27 104 3.3 144 Colossians 1.29 104 2.1 104 1 Thessalonians 2.2 104 4.5 143

2 Thessalonians 1.7 177 2.15 102 1 Timothy 4.1–3 6.15–16

76 134

2 Timothy 2.2 103 4.3–4 76 4.3 143 4.7 104 Hebrews 4.13 183 7.1–10 181 9.28 102 10.27 177 11.5 69 12.3 136 James 1.14 3.6 4.10 4.16

143 178, 196 126 125

1 Peter 3.10 74, 182 3.19–20 183 4.3 71 5.6 126 2 Peter 1.5 10 1.12 10 2.1 10 2.4 10 2.6 10 2.7 71 2.10–11 10 2.12 10, 179 2.13–17 10 2.13 126, 178, 196 2.18 142

235

Index of References

3.2–3 10 3.6 135 3.7 135 3.14 10 3.16 135 3.18 10 1 John 2.9 4.9–10 4.21

134 68 68

Jude 1–5 60 1–3 32, 64, 78 1–2 19, 37, 59, 60, 62, 67, 78, 194, 198, 202 1 15, 67, 97, 102, 110, 184 2–21 65 2 16, 63, 78, 97 3–23 59 3–4 58–60, 62–65, 198, 202 3 10, 15, 19, 37, 59, 64, 65, 67, 76, 78, 80, 94, 95, 102, 104, 111, 112, 146, 194, 198, 201–3 4–19 32, 37 4–16 77, 78, 80 4–15 60, 62, 63, 65, 67, 77, 78, 94, 202 4 7, 16, 19, 37, 59, 63–70, 72, 73, 78, 80, 107, 110, 111, 131,

136, 143, 148, 190, 191, 193, 198, 199, 201–3 5–19 23, 25, 59, 112 5–16 78, 19, 59 5–15 75 5–13 67, 80 5–11 202 5–10 60, 62, 68, 72, 78, 202 5–8 67, 68 5–7 21, 22, 37, 59, 60, 137, 185, 199, 202 5 3, 10–12, 15, 16, 21, 69, 72, 75, 76, 80, 97, 100, 101, 110, 131, 132, 134, 136–38, 146, 148, 185, 187, 190, 197 6–18 61 6–7 75 6 4, 10, 21, 22, 72, 109, 110, 131, 132, 134, 136–38, 142, 143, 148, 184–86, 197 7 10, 21, 72, 80, 101, 110, 131, 132, 142, 148, 177, 184, 185, 187, 196, 197 8–16 60 8–13 59, 192

8–11 59 8–10 139, 140 8–9 10 8 14, 15, 37, 65, 72, 80, 108, 109, 136, 139, 140, 142–44, 148, 192, 197, 199, 201 9–10 68, 187, 197 9 16, 22, 37, 68, 69, 131, 137, 140, 147, 185, 186, 189, 197, 200, 202 10 10, 14, 15, 37, 65, 73, 75, 80, 108, 110, 132, 134, 140, 179, 189, 191–93, 198–201 11–16 191 11–15 34, 40, 73, 77, 80, 81, 202 11–13 10, 37, 60, 62, 68, 73, 80, 109, 194 11 21, 32, 34, 41, 59, 65, 75, 78, 80, 101, 106, 109, 110, 131–34, 136–38, 144, 145, 148, 184, 185, 187–90, 192–94, 197–203

236 Jude (cont.) 12–13 59, 73, 78, 106, 108, 112, 139, 175, 186, 190–92, 198, 199, 202 12 43, 65, 109, 144, 145, 175, 184, 185, 187–89, 192, 195, 196, 199– 203 13–14 200 13 4, 43, 75, 109, 131, 132, 134, 176, 184, 185, 187, 189, 192, 193, 195, 196, 199, 203 14–16 59, 60, 62, 65, 74 14–15 3, 15, 16, 22, 37, 43, 66–70, 75, 78–81, 112, 131, 132, 141, 181–84, 190, 192, 193, 197, 199, 202, 203 14 68–70, 74, 80, 110, 131, 137, 182, 190, 198, 200 15 69, 75, 131, 139, 141, 184, 192, 199, 200, 202 16–17 200

Index of References 16

15, 21, 37, 65, 75, 79, 109, 139, 141–45, 148, 184, 192, 193, 199, 201, 203 17–23 19, 59, 78 17–20 112 17–19 59, 60, 62, 75, 78, 184 17–18 10, 79, 143, 185, 202 17 11, 21, 59, 63, 65, 76, 78, 146, 200, 201 18–20 200 18 21, 37, 69, 70, 75, 142– 44, 181, 199 19–25 62 19 15, 37, 65, 75, 76, 79, 192, 193, 199, 201–3 20–25 32, 37, 79, 112, 202 20–23 14, 60, 62, 63, 76, 78, 146, 184 20–21 14–16, 59, 94, 100, 144 20 59, 63, 65, 76, 78, 111, 201 21 21, 67, 110, 146 22–23 3, 11, 12, 15, 16, 59, 76, 77, 80, 112, 144, 146, 199 22 202 23 78, 132, 142, 144, 177, 196, 203

24–25

19, 59, 60, 62, 77, 78, 202 24 10, 15, 77, 78, 110, 131, 135, 136, 184 25 10 Revelation 2.8–11 80 2.12–17 80 2.18–29 80 2.20 125 4.1–2 183 4.2–11 183 8.10–11 155 8.13 42 12.12 42 13.6 140 14.10 133 18.3 117, 118 18.7 116 18.10–19 42 18.14 143 20.1–3 183 20.10 133, 183 Apocrypha 2 Esdras 15.7 41, 147 15.9 41, 147 15.14–18 41 15.14 41 15.48 41, 147 16.1–11 42 Wisdom of Solomon 3.1–4 43 5.8 117 5.15–16 117 9.12 147 10.6 133 11–19 181 12.24 187 15.4 178, 196

237 Ecclesiasticus 2.14 42 10.3 135 16.6–8 133 2 Maccabees 3.26 15 4.9 28 8.20 lxx 142 11.18 15 12.24 15 15.12 15 Pseudepigrapha 1 Enoch 1–36 70 1 110 1.2 70 1.5–7 77 1.5–6 135 1.6–7 147 1.6 133 1.9 3, 22, 43, 69, 70, 112, 131, 181–84, 190, 197 2.1–5.4 187 2.1 70 2.5–5.1 186 5.1 175 5.2–3 187 6–19 117 6–16 186 6–11 138, 186 6.1–3 142 6.1–2 71 6.2 109 6.4–5 108 6.6 109 6.9 70 7.1 109 7.4–5 109 8.3 109 9.5 183 9.6–8 108 10 186 10.6 186

Index of References 10.11 71 10.12–13 183 12–16 186 12.4–6 85 12.4 186, 197 13.1–2 85 13.1 186 14.4 186 15–16 85 15 139 15.4 71 18.14–16 186 19.1–2 109 21.3–10 186 21.6 71 22.11 186 22.13 70 39.3 183 40.1 183 48.10 71 51.1–3 132 54.3–5 186 55.4 132 56.1–4 186 60.8 182 61.4 70 61.15 70 64 186 67.4 186 80.2–8 187 80.6 177, 187, 196 84.4 186 88.1–3 186 88.1 186 90.23 186 91.7 132 92.15 70 93.11 70 94 41, 79, 198 94.6–95.7 42, 153 94.6 151 94.7 151 95.3 70 95.5–7 115 96.4–8 42, 153

96.5 115, 118 96.6 116 96.7 116, 148 97.7–10 42 98.9–99.2 153 98.9–16 42 99 41, 79, 198 99.2 148 99.6–8 68, 140 99.11 115 99.12 116, 148 99.13 151 99.14 115 100.7–9 153 103.11 70 2 Baruch 56.10–14 117 56.12–13 186 78.2 63 2 Enoch 22.7

141

3 Maccabees 6.29 15 4 Maccabees 4.12 15 7.1 15 7.18–19 43 9.3 146 16.25 43 4 Ezra 12.33–34

183

Jubilees 4.15 117 4.22 117 5.1 117 16.5–6 143 Letter of Aristeas 301–22 43

238

Index of References

Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 18.10–12 145 Sibylline Oracles 3.289 136 3.590–600 117 3.778 187 5.162–78 41, 116 5.166 117 Testament of Job 24–25 141 26.5 141 Testament of Levi 14.6 143 18.14 183 Testament of Naphtali 3.4–5 139 3.5 117 Testament of Reuben 5.6–7 117 Dead Sea Scrolls 1QJubb 8 141 1QNoah Frag. 33

141

1QS 3.15–17 3.21–4.1 11.11 11.17–18

85, 110 85, 110 85, 110 85, 110

1QpHab XII.9–10 118 XII.13 118 2QapProph 1.2 153

4Q 185.9

42

Legatio ad Gaium 210 30

4QShirb 63 iii 4–5 153

De opificio mundi 56.154 147

4QapLama 1 i 4 153 1 ii 1 153

De plantatione 36.147 147

CD 2.17–19 117 4.12–19 181 Mishnah Aboth 5.12 31 Erubin 19a

177, 196

Rosh Hashanah 16b 177, 196 Babylonian Talmud Bekorot 30b 178 Berakot 55a–b 139 Tosefta Talmud Ketubbot 13.35c 31 Megillah 3 31 Shabbat 1.3 178 Philo De agricultura 34.156 97

Quis rerum divinarum heres sit

2.7 8

De virtutibus 34.182 117 De migratione Abrahami

1.54–55 2.25–45

145 43

Josephus Antiquities 1.72–76 138 2.75 139 4.6 145 4.125 145 4.156–158 145 10.196 139 10.198 139 10.202 139 10.217 139 12.109 44 13.314 178, 196 15.7.1 32 20.263 31 Apion 1.207 139 1.211 139 1.294 139 1.298 139 1.312 139 2.163 97 2.204 30 2.275 117 17 30

239 Life 7–9 31 War 1.7 28 2.17.3 28 2.164 43 Early Christian Literature 1 Clement 1.1 95 13.2 146 2 Clement 1.7 146 Augustine De Civitate Dei Contra Paganos 15.23 1 18.38 1 Barnabas 18.1 134 19.3 126 20.1–2 134 Didache 3.9 126 5.1 124 Epiphanius 38.1.2 146 Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica 2.1.2 8 2.23.4–7 9 3.19.1–3.20.8 9 4.22.4 9 Hermas Similitudes ix.31.3–5 42

Index of References Visions 1.3.2 iv.2.6

146 42

Aristotle Alex. 330F 126

Gospel of Peter 5.15 134

De Anima 428a

Irenaeus Adversus Haereses 5.8.4 117

Nicomachean Ethics 1095b 126

Jerome Commentarius in Epistolam ad Titum 1.12 1 De viris illustribus 4 1, 2 Justin First Apology 1.14 117 5 124 Classical Literature Aeschines 2.78 122 2.180 122 3.52 53 Aeschlyus Agamemnon 37–38 164

Poetics 48b37

179, 196

163

Politics 1279a4–8 65, 174 The Art of Rhetoric 1.3.1358b.3–5 35 1.3.1358b.3 34 1.3.1358b.5 35 1.3.1359a 35 1.9.32–33 123 2.1.25 8, 64 3.1–12 163 3.2.1405b 163 3.10.1411 165 3.14.6–7 8, 64 3.19.1 8, 64 1404a1–10 163 1415b1–5 163 1417a32–35 163

Alcaeus Heracles 131 122

Rhetoric to Alexander 1.1421b.17–23 35 1.1421b.7 34 3.1425b.36–39 35 1436a.33–37 8, 64

fragments 129.22–23 123

Theano to Eubole 22–25 126

Aristophanes Knights 1 166 137 125 691 125

Artemidorus Daldianus Oneirocritica 1.1 140

240 Catullus Poems 6 15 17 21 23 25 28 29 33 37 39 40–42 54 57–59 67 74 78–80 88–91 94 97 98 108 111–13

Index of References

124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124

Cicero Epistulae ad Atticum 2.1.3 30 9.2 127 13.2 127 14.6.2 127 Pro Caelio 6 37 31–34 35 60 163 In Catilinam 1–4 89 1 79 1.1 127 1.1.1–2.10 199 1.2 166, 197 1.3 125, 197 1.6 163 1.10 127

1.13 127 1.15 127 1.17 127, 128 1.18 127, 166 1.19 163 1.22 89 1.23 126 1.30 164 1.31 165 1.33 126 2.2 164, 196 2.3 127 2.4 127 2.6 127 2.8 127 2.9 127 2.12 127 2.18 127 2.23 124 3.16–17 166 3.22 126, 147 2.12.27 89 29 128 29.2 127 29.10 127 Pro Cluentio 12–13 128 12 127 13 164 15 163, 166, 197 39–40 92 40 164, 165, 196 48 92 Pro Cluentio 1.31.141 34, 35 2.81.333–85.349 34 2.82.333–36 35 2.178 89 2.196 172 De senectute 17 50, 164

De divinatione 1.5–6 139 1.52–54 139 De domo sua 5 127, 164, 196 26 164 De inventione rhetorica 1.53 49, 55, 78 1.5.7 34, 35 1.7.9 150 2.177–78 36 2.177 36 2.4.12 35 2.51.155–56 35 De officiis 3.4.19 127 3.6.32 164, 196 De oratore 2.216–89 163 13 167 33 167 213–14 162 Partitiones oratoriae 82 120 Orationes Philippicae 2.1 51 2.2 165, 197 2.4 197 2.6 127 2.14 166 2.15 51, 124, 166 2.16 166, 197 2.17 127 2.30 164, 196 2.45.115 91 2.46.118 90 2.55 164 2.63 123 2.65 52

241 2.68 164 2.85–87 127 2.99 124 2.110 127 2.116 127 3.8–15 165 3.8 166, 197 3.15 166 3.18 166 3.27 166 5.20 164 6.21 166, 197 11.5 164 11.7 164 In Pisonem 1 51, 123, 126, 164, 165, 196, 199 1.2 125 1.13 125, 127 1.20 125 1.41 127 1.42 127 1.99 91 2 165 3 164 12 51 13 164 20 164, 195 21 164, 196 22 124, 127 27 126 28 124 31 164, 196 41 164, 195 42 51, 124 43 51, 147 46 127 53–54 128 56–57 127 56 51, 164, 166, 196 57 166 58 163 62 128

Index of References 63 66

164 124, 126, 127 70 124 83–94 90, 127 99 51 Pro Flacco 34 124 Pro Roscio comoedo 20 123 In Vatinium 1 51 4 123, 125, 164, 195, 196 10 123 14 122 17 51 24 51 33 164, 195, 196 39 51, 164, 166, 203 In Verrem 1.1.43 1.1.56 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.14 1.17

90 90, 122 127, 166 126, 127 125, 127 124 127, 166, 197 1.19 125 1.36 127 1.39 127 2 51 2.5.161 16414 51 15 51 36 51 43 51

Clement of Alexandria Paedagogus 1.9.76.1–81.2 36 1.13 180, 196 Protrepticus I 146 Stromateis 2.20.118 126 Crates Epistle 7 127 32 198, 203 Orations 7 79 Demosthenes Against Androtion 69 126 On the Crown 15.122 167 15.153 167 15.188 167 15.287 167 15.3222 167 19.10 167 19.136 167 19.189 167 19.216 167 19.256 167 19.295 167 19.60 167 194 164, 195 On the False Embassy 2 127 199 122 209 122 210 122 249 122 281 122

242 Against Meidias 1 129, 167 1.1 79 2 167, 169 5 169 6 169 13–18 53 15 55 16–21 54, 128 16–17 203 16 93, 129, 167, 168 16.8–9 53 17–19 55, 128 17 53, 55, 168, 169 17.12 53 18 93 18.6–7 56 18.8–9 53 18.10 53 19 168, 169 20 55, 168 21 54, 55 21.1–5 199 21.5 56 21.6 199 21.7 199 21.72 93 66 125 69 128, 129 70 54 74 93 77–82 93, 129 98 167 102–22 93 110 167 118 54 120 167 128–31 93 133 128 135–36 128 143–50 93 148–49 167 151–74 93 153 125

Index of References 169 125 174 129 Philippics 4.10.36 140 201 54 Demetrius De Elocutione 211.18–22 36 246.2 160 274.4–6 193 288.4–19 36 292.21–24 36 Democritus 164 179 Dio Cassius Roman History 46.18.3–6 124 Orations 38.14 97 39.6 97 Diogenes 28.1 79 Letter 1 79 Dionysius of Halicarnassus On Literary Composition 14 193 16 193 27–30 159 First Letter to Ammaeus 4 53 Dioscorides De Materia Medica 512 155

Epicurus Epistualae 1.19 97 Ratae Sententiae 18 144, 178 Euripides Hippolytus 417–18 164 Hermogenes Per Id. 254–64 160 284 160 312–14 160 380.13–14 160 Περὶ ὶδεῶν 17 55 213.1 159 215.19– 216.16 160 223.14 191 255.1 191 258.7–8 191 259.19–23 193, 200 262.3–7 191 262.9 191 263.18–22 193, 200 284–85 168 355.7–11 194 358 193 364.1– 366.21 194 Herodotus Histories 1.32 143 1.34 135 3.8.1 98 3.8.2 98 3.74 97 6.108 99 9.92 98

243 Hesiod Theogony 188–200 715–33

Index of References

4 4

Hilary of Poitiers Commentarius in Psalmum 132.3–6 1 Homer Iliad 1.268 135 2.370 176 5.758 135 6.25 174 Odyssey 3.298 5.401 9.188 9.293

174, 176, 195, 204 174, 176, 195, 204 174 144

Horace Epode 10 203 10.5–8 170, 195 Odes 3.6

124

Isocrates Antidosis 15.10.9 179 Against Callimachus 4 126 11 166 Against the Sophist 1–2 126 2–3 165, 197 3 92 4 127

7 126 20 127 22 126 On the Peace 39 97 Against Euthynous 3 92 Nicocles 3.93 179 Panegyricus 4.85 97 4.15.6 142 4.29.6 142 Speeches 5.69 97 Juvenal Satires IX 32

176, 196

Libanius The Exercise in Maxim 3.1 53 Prog. 3.1 126 Longinus On the Sublime 30.1 190 Lucian Encomium of Demosthenes 5.1 53 Nigrinus 15

117, 118

Martial Epigram 10.5 52, 111, 147 10.5.1 126 10.9 52 Ovid Amores 1.1.27 171 Ibis 1–250 56, 58 1–248 56 1–42 203 1–22 57, 172 1–18 199 1–13 93 1–10 199 1–9 199 1–6 58 9–22 58 9 111, 172 8 199 10–19 199 10 57, 199 13–21 130 13–14 169 13 94 16–172 94 22–36 58 22–24 199 29–30 199 31–42 199 43–52 199 53–58 56 95–102 94, 130 118 171 126 171 130 171 137 58 142 171 164 130 170 130 171 130 173 171

244

Index of References

Ovid, Ibis (cont.) 211–16 130 249–642 56 251–75 57 251–63 173 251–638 56 251–636 58 253 171, 197 263 171, 197 273 171, 197 274 173 275 170, 195 278–296 160 286 171, 197 531–32 171, 197 531 171 569–70 56 571–72 56 593–96 171 601–606 171, 197 635–36 147 Tristia 1.2.1–2 170 Pindar Python 2.52–56 90 2.52 127 Plato Lysis 209a

174

Respublica 342d 174 488a–c 50, 164 Theaetetus 174d 174 Pliny the Younger Panegyricus 48.3–5 128 48.3 164, 196 48.35 123 49.6 127

Plotinus Enneades 5.3.17 136 Plutarch Bio. 2.107f 178 Cicero 1.1 79 On Common Conceptions about Stoics 1075d 105 Demosthenes 12 53 Fabius Maximus 23.2 105 Gabla 14.3

3.4.12–15 34 3.4.15 35 3.8.1–6 35 6.3 163 6.3.26 172 6.3.28–38 167 12.10–58 159 Rhetorica ad Herennium 1.1.2 36 3.6.10–3.7.15 36 3.6.10 36, 120 3.6.12 36 3.7.15 36 3.13 121 4.45 163 Seneca Epistles 75.6–7 36 99 198, 203

Numa 8.16 105

Scriptores Historiae Augustae Heliogabalus 29.3 122

Pompey 2.45

Commodus 11.1 122

98

124

Polybius Histories 20.9.10 98 20.9.12 98 Ptolemy I. Iasos 2.30 99 3.3 99 Quintilian Institutio Oratoria 1.4.11 30 2.21.23 34 3.3.14–15 34 3.14.16 35 3.4.6–16 35

Strabo The Geography of Strabo 14.5.13 31 Suetonius Divus Augustus 69 124 82 122 Domitianus 4.4 123 Vespasianus 1.1 122, 127, 128

245 Tacitus Histories 3.39

Index of References

164

Thucydides Histories 2.52.2 143 3.68 99 6.13.1 143 Xenophon Anabasis 3.2.32 97 Hellenica 2.4.20

97

Histories 1.6 136 5.4.58 142 Pseudo Sallust Cicero 1 79 1.1 51, 64, 125 1.2 91, 125 1.3 125, 127 2.2 124 3.6 91 6.18 165

Pseudo Demetrius Epistles 3–9 36 Papyri Michigan Papyrus Collection III 149 177, 196 Oxyrhynchus Papyri 7.1067 198, 203 10.1348 198, 203 36.2783 198, 203 Inscriptions AP 27 no. 33 27 30/31 no. 34 27 38 no. 31 27 no. 47 27 no. 50 27 Inscriptionae Graecae II2680.13 97 Samos 25.31 97

SB 3.6264

198

Strasbourg Epode fr. 15W/ 194 Dg 89, 90, 165, 166, 170, 195, 196 Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum 21333 97

I n d ex of A ut hor s

Abasciano, B. J. 106 Achtemeier, P. J. 188 Adamczewski, B. 180 Adamson, J. B. 103 Agamben, G. 99, 100 Aichele, G. 3, 9, 108 Alford, H. 23 Alkier, S. 180 Allen, J. S. 12, 14, 15 Allen, L. C. 48, 155, 157 Applauso, N. 163 Arena, V. 35, 89, 90, 93 Arie, E. 43 Ash, R. 124 Ashley, T. R. 138 Aune, D. E. 33, 41, 48, 83, 110, 132 Baden, J. S. 122 Bagnall, R. S. 99, 198 Bailey, D. 160 Bailey, D. R. 92 Bailey, D. S. 143 Bailey, L. R. 177 Bailey, W. 85 Balch, D. L. 7 Balentine, S. E. 178 Bamberger, B. J. 138 Bar-Kochva, B. 140 Barilli, R. 36 Barker, K. L. 85 Bartelt, A. H. 66 Bartholomä, P. F. 12, 137 Barton, J. 66 Batten, A. J. 23, 26 Bauckham, R. J. 2, 6, 9, 11, 13, 18, 19, 21–23, 28, 43, 59, 66–68, 74, 77, 95– 97, 102, 106–9, 134, 137, 143, 173, 190 Bauer, A. 152, 157 Beaulieu, M.-C. A. 176 Beetham, C. A. 182 Benjamin, D. C. 116 Benton, J. 14 Berlin, A. 158

Betchtel, L. M. 107 Betz, H. D. 31 Bigg, C. 11, 24 Billows, R. A. 99 Birdsall, J. N. 13 Blenkinsopp, J. 47, 118 Bloch, D. I. 175 Bloch, R. 181 Block, D. I. 86 Blomberg, C. L. 21 Boccaccini, G. 28 Bockmuehl, M. 110 Bonner, S. F. 29 Boyarin, D. 22, 103 Bray, G. L. 1 Breck, J. 66, 71 Breeze, M. J. 187 Brewer, D. I. 181 Brichto, H. C. 140 Brickle, J. E. 188, 193 Bright, J. 118 Brogan, T. V. F. 154 Brosend, W. F. 24, 95, 109 Brown, C. G. 90 Brown, P. 65 Brueggemann, W. 46, 87, 118, 157, 161 Bultmann, R. 136 Busto, S. 21 Byargeon, R. 41, 48, 83 Cadwallader, A. 29, 73 Callan, T. 2, 10, 11 Callaway, M. C. 157 Cambell, D. 89 Campbell, C. R. 146 Carey, C. 35, 124 Carr, D. M. 31, 185 Carratelli, G. P. 99 Carroll, R. P. 119 Carter, K. 22 Caulley, T. C. 145 Chalmers, A. 152 Chang, K. E. 50, 97, 164, 174



Index of Authors

Charles, J. D. 1, 2, 13, 17–19, 21–24, 59, 65, 67, 68, 74, 101, 102, 106, 173, 181, 183 Chester, A. 23, 24 Chiappetta, M. 29 Childs, B. S. 138, 141 Chisholm, R. B. 33, 41, 42, 80 Coats, G. W. 137, 138 Cohn, H. H. 7 Collins, J. J. 42 Comfort, P. W. 13 Conte, G. B. 185 Corbeill, A. 30, 36, 37, 51, 52, 56, 88, 121–23, 125 Cothenet, E. 10, 98 Cozunsen, B. 4 Craig, C. P. 31, 89, 120 Craigie, P. C. 156 Cribiore, R. 29, 185, 198 Cross, F. M. 101 Davids, P. H. 3, 14, 15, 18–20, 59, 67, 74, 95, 102, 109, 134, 139, 178 Davidsen, O. 178 Davis, C. W. 188 Davis, J. B. 159 DeLacy, P. 91 Deissmann, A. 6 Dennis, J. 139 Denniston, J. 14 Derrida, J. 180 deSilva, D. A. 2, 7–9, 21, 63, 64, 67, 95 Desjardins, M. 24 Dmitriev, S. 98, 99 Dodson, D. S. 140 Doering, L. 27, 63 Domeris, W. R. 157 Donelson, L. R. 14, 15, 24, 76, 137 Dozeman, T. B. 141 Drinkard, J. F. 156 Dryden, J. 162 Du Toit, A. 65, 108, 160, 198 Duff, P. B. 184 Dyck, A. R. 122 Dyrness, W. A. 136 Easley, K. 2, 18, 24 Edwards, C. 125 Elgvin, T. 70

247

Ellingworth, P. 24 Elliott, R. C. 7 Ellis, E. E. 21, 22, 59, 66, 173 Elmer, I. J. 9 Evans, C. A. 180, 181 Eybers, I. H. 24 Fewell, D. N. 102, 180 Fields, W. W. 132, 133 Finnegan, R. 37 Fleischer, G. von 82 Flower, R. 30, 31, 36, 126 Forbes, C. 18, 30, 33 Foreman, B. A. 46, 151, 152 Forsyth, N. 177 Frankel, E. 118 Fränkel, H. F. 94, 173 Fredal, J. 53, 129, 167 Freedman, D. N. 101, 104 Freese, J. H. 92 Frey, J. 4, 10–12, 18, 22, 23, 28, 59, 99 Fronmüller, G. F. C. 137 Fry, P. H. 154 Fuchs, E. 18 Gan, J. 145, 174 Garland, R. 121 Geeraerts, D. 170 Gerber, D. E. 90, 124 Gerdmar, A. 10, 21 Gerstenberger, E. 33, 153 Giovannini, A. 99 Glasson, T. F. 4 Gnuse, R. K. 140 Goodman, M. 43 Gosbell, L. 122 Graham, W. A. 188 Gray, A. R. 156 Gray, G. B. 154 Green, C. 59 Green, G. L. 2, 20, 24, 59, 74, 95–97, 108, 137 Green, M. 21 Green, W. S. 9 Greenlee, J. H. 12, 13, 15 Grisanti, M. A. 101 Gruen, E. S. 204 Gunkel, H. 161 Gunther, J. J. 24

248

Index of Authors

Haag, I. 38 Habel, N. C. 86 Hainesworth, D. 176 Hallet, J. P. 127 Harrill, J. A. 7 Harrington, D. J. 14, 15, 18–20, 24, 67, 76, 138 Harris, E. M. 53 Harris, M. J. 63 Harris, W. V. 38 Harvey, R. 74, 184 Hasel, G. F. 82, 84 Hauser, A. J. 32 Hawkins, T. 89, 90, 94, 130, 171, 172 Hayes, J. H. 84 Hayes, K. M. 151 Hayes, R. B. 180 Hayhoe, D. 175 Hebert, A. G. 133 Heger, P. 138 Heiligenthal, R. 23 Helm, D. R. 59 Helzle, M. 56, 58, 130, 171 Henderson, E. 46, 47 Henderson, J. M. 157 Henderson, T. P. 134 Hengel, M. 9, 18, 28, 30 Heschel, A. J. 161, 200 Hezser, C. 4, 37, 188 Hiebert, D. E. 10 Hock, R. F. 31 Hogan, K. M. 85 Holladay, W. L. 47, 48, 118 Horine, S. 34 Horowitz, W. 175 Houston, W. 83 Huebner, S. R. 198 Huey, F. B. 118, 156, 157 Hughes, J. D. 175 Huizenga, A. B. 127 Huizenga, L. A. 180 Hultin, J. F. 10, 11, 74, 187 Hunt, S. A. 133, 134 Hunter, A. V. 82 Hvidt, N. C. 83 Jackson, D. R. 187 Jaeger, W. 53 James, M. R. 24 Janzen, W. 33, 34, 73, 189

Jebb, R. C. 92 Jehne, M. 50, 51, 64 Jersak, B. 177 Job, J. B. 47 Johnson, M. 155 Joseph, S. J. 24 Joubert, S. J. 20, 25, 63–65, 77, 78, 107 Kalimi, I. 66 Kaltner, J. 84 Kamen, D. 122 Kassis, R. A. 139 Keating, D. A. 13, 14, 24 Keel, O. 156 Keitel, E. 164 Kelley, D. H. 176 Kelley, P. H. 156 Kelly, J. N. D. 2, 11, 24 Kennedy, G. A. 28–34, 59, 90, 91 Kepnes, S. 106 Kessler, M. 86 Kilpatrick, G. D. 145 Kistemaker, S. J. 10, 14, 67, 75, 143 Klawans, J. 117, 118 Knight, J. 25 Knoch, O. 63 Knopf, D. R. 67, 75, 184 Knust, J. W. 19, 25, 32, 123, 125, 143, 148 Koet, B. J. 139, 140, 179 Koster, S. 88 Kövecses, Z. 151 Krasne, D. 58, 130, 170, 171 Kraus, H.-J. 84 Krodel, G. 187 Kruger, M. A. 143, 144 Kruger, M. J. 2 Kubo, S. 12, 13 Kugelman, R. 6, 9, 95 Kuyvenhoven, R. 46 L’Hoir, F. S. 164 Lakoff, G. 155 Lalleman-deWinkel, H. 87 Landon, C. 13, 15, 21, 24 Lange, J. P. 157 Lausberg, H. 29 Lawlor, G. L. 1 Leaney, A. R. C. 10 Lee, M. E. 193

Lehoux, D. 156 Lendon, J. E. 128 Leslau, W. 71 Levine, L. I. 43 Levinsohn, S. H. 72, 187 Levinson, S. C. 65 Lieu, J. M. 104, 149 Lim, T. H. 181 Lindberg, G. 191, 192 Lindenberger, J. M. 27 Lintott, A. 91 Litfin, D. 31, 32 Littlemore, J. 100 Livingstone, N. 92 Llewelyn, S. 16, 38 Lockett, D. 13, 15, 173, 179 Long, A. A. 179 Longman, T. 153 Louw, J. P. 60 Lowth, R. 153 Lucas, R. C. 59 Lundbom, J. R. 41, 49, 200 MacArthur, J. 24 MacDowell, D. 53, 93, 129, 167 MacKendrick, P. 49, 90, 163 Maier, P. L. 1 Malherbe, A. J. 4, 36, 127 Mamahit, F. Y. 84, 115 Manuwald, G. 165 Marrou, H. I. 29 Marsh, D. 88 Marshall, P. 107 Martin, D. B. 7, 109 Martin, R. P. 23, 24 Martínez, F. G. 141 Mathews, M. D. 10, 11 Matsen, P. P. 92 Matthews, V. H. 84, 115, 116, 151 Mayor, J. B. 10, 70, 175 Mbuvi, A. 3 McCarthy, D. J. 101 McCartney, D. G. 8 McCruden, K. B. 24 McGinn, T. A. J. 128 McKane, W. 47, 48 McKeating, H. 119 McKenzie, S. L. 84 McKnight, S. 1, 2 Mendels, D. 180, 185

Index of Authors

249

Merrill, E. H. 101 Miano, D. 101, 104 Middleton, C. 91 Milik, J. T. 190 Mills, W. E. 14 Milone, E. F. 176 Montserrat, D. 177 Moo, D. J. 2, 17, 59, 135, 177 Morris, L. 178 Mosca, P. G. 132 Moss, C. R. 122 Moughtin-Mumby, S. 157 Moyise, S. 180 Müller, P. 6 Murphy, R. E. 181 Myers, N. 90 Neusner, J. 9 Newman, L. I. 153 Neyrey, J. H. 10, 13, 15, 18–20, 22, 27, 59, 67, 108 Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 183 Nicklas, T. 145 Nielsen, K. 154, 156 Nisbet, R. G. M. 120 Noll, K. L. 176 Novokhatko, A. A. 20, 30, 49 Oepke, A. 135 Ong, W. J. 185, 188 Opelt, I. 120 Oropeza, B. J. 135 Osburn, C. D. 13, 60, 63, 76, 77, 135 Osiek, C. A. 7 Overholt, T. W. 119 Page, D. L. 196 Painter, J. 2, 7–9, 63, 64, 95, 181 Parke-Taylor, G. H. 47, 88, 119, 158 Paulsen, H. 4, 59, 63 Pearson, B. A. 19 Pearson, L. 53 Pernot, L. 29, 163 Petersen, D. L. 33, 150, 152–54 Peterson, D. G. 88 Petrarca, F. 88 Phillips, E. J. 89 Phillips, J. 1, 2 Pitard, W. T. 156 Pitts, A. W. 31

250

Index of Authors

Poirier, J. C. 37 Porter, S. E. 31, 135, 181, 182, 185 Potter, A. 192 Powell, J. G. F. 35, 36, 91 Price, R. 1, 2 Priest, J. 68 Purcell, N. 176 Rajak, T. 43 Ramon, J. 21 Ramsey, G. W. 83 Reed, A. Y. 108 Reese, R. A. 3, 6, 7, 14, 21, 67, 74, 76, 95, 96, 108, 143, 146, 202 Rengstorf, K. H. 137 Reymond, P. 18 Reynolds, K. A. 181 Rhiannon, A. 124 Richard, E. J. 59, 67, 173 Richards, K. H. 150, 153, 154 Riches, J. 9 Richlin, A. 164 Rienecker, F. 75, 135, 136, 139 Roberts, J. J. M. 84 Robinson, A. M. 16, 65, 66, 75, 107, 183 Robinson, J. A. T. 10 Roche, P. 123 Rogers, C. L. 75, 135, 136, 139 Rollinson, P. B. 92 Rooker, M. 101 Rosne, B. S. 118 Rossing, B. R. 34, 73, 189 Rotstein, A. 89 Rowston, D. J. 17, 96 Runge, S. E. 7, 68, 71, 72 Russell, D. S. 183 Rutherford, R. 128 Ryken, L. 153 Ryou, D. H. 41 Sacchi, P. 132 Safrai, S. 31, 37 Samet, N. 155 Schäfer, A. D. 53 Schenker, A. 84 Schmidt, J. M. 82 Schreiner, T. R. 12, 13, 21, 23, 95, 96, 102, 137, 178 Schutz, C. E. 163 Schwartz, S. 37

Shanks, H. 103 Sharrock, A. 124 Shauffer, E. 104 Shead, A. G. 44 Shiner, W. 188 Shires, H. M. 180, 181 Sidebottom, E. M. 1 Skinner, M. B. 124, 127 Small, J. P. 185 Smelik, K. A. D. 87 Smelik, W. 37 Smith, M. S. 156 Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 53 Sousa, M. 92 Spencer, W. E. 90 Spitaler, P. 15, 18, 147 Spittler, J. E. 179 Stadelmann, L. I. J. 175 Stanley, C. D. 182, 185 Ste, J. H. 154 Steel, C. 162 Stowers, S. K. 36, 63, 80, 198 Strange, J. 28 Strecker, C. 98 Stronstad, R. 66 Stuckenbruck, L. T. 85 Sullivan, K. P. 117, 143 Süss, W. 120 Sussman, L. A. 91 Swain, S. 117 Sweeney, M. A. 118 Tatum, W. J. 50, 124, 167 Taylor, N. H. 9 Teutsch, B. P. 118 Thompson, J. A. 46, 47, 118, 119, 155 Thurén, L. 11, 17, 59, 73, 188 Tiemeyer, L.-S. 47, 119 Tigchelaar, E. J. C. 141 Towner, P. H. 74, 184 Treggiari, S. 91 Trost, T. D. 174 Tsonis, J. 38 Tucker, G. M. 33, 83 Turner, J. D. 59, 74 van der Blom, H. 94 Van Seters, J. 32 Veltri, G. 43 Venter, P. M. 84, 115



Index of Authors

Vincent, M. R. 70 Vinson, R. B. 14 Volk, K. 56, 94 Wallace, D. B. 11, 15, 68, 178 Walser, G. A. 44 Walsh, P. G. 129 Walter, N. 141 Waltner, E. 2, 13, 17, 21, 59, 101, 102, 106 Wassell, B. 16 Wasserman, T. 3, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 24 Watson, D. F. 2, 3, 18–20, 25, 32, 34, 35, 59, 63, 66, 67, 74, 77, 78, 173, 185, 186, 193 Watson, W. G. E. 152, 154 Webb, R. L. 21, 132, 134, 136, 139 Welborn, L. L. 95, 107 Wellhausen, J. 84

251

Wendland, E. R. 24, 59, 67, 74 Westermann, C. 33, 41, 85, 161 White, J. L. 6 Wilder, T. L. 2, 18, 24 Wilhoit, J. C. 153 Williams, G. 56, 58, 94 Willis, T. M. 48, 118, 155 Wilson, R. F. 14 Winter, S. C. 12, 13 Wisse, F. 23 Witherington, B. 13, 25 Wolthuis, T. R. 21, 23, 59, 74, 75, 108 Woolf, G. 52 Wooten, C. W. 53, 55, 164, 165, 167, 168 Worman, N. 90, 125, 129 Worthington, I. 53, 93, 128, 129, 169 Wright, A. G. 181 Wright, A. T. 138 Wyschogrod, M. 106