Jude's Alleged Use of Pseudonymous Sources

     Jude refers to a prophecy of "Enoch, the seventh from Adam" (vv. 14-15), and a similar passage is found in the Jewish pseudepigraphical work The Book of Enoch (a.k.a. Ethiopic Enoch or I Enoch), leading many to conclude that Jude quoted from this non-canonical source (viz. I Enoch 1.9, with possible allusion to 60.8; 93.3).

     It is important to note, however, that Jude does not suggest his information came from anything Enoch had supposedly written (i.e. Enoch is not cited as "scripture"). Even if it is presumed that The Book of Enoch (whomever the author/s) was a contemporary work from which Jude may have quoted, remember also Paul’s practice of sometimes using quotes from secular literature to illustrate or emphasize a point (cf. Acts 17:28; 1 Corinthians 15:33; Titus 1:12) and the inadvertent prophecy made by Caiaphas (John 11:49; 18:14). In other words, Jude simply recognized that what was said by Enoch had turned out to be an accurate description in view of the immoral conduct of certain false teachers. As demonstrated in Paul’s teachings, referencing a true statement from an extrabiblical source does not legitimize the entire work, does not lend credence to everything the work might prescribe, does not imply divine inspiration of the work, and does not suggest that the work should be inserted into the Bible.
     Nevertheless, it is of interest that The Book of Enoch is not included among the books of the Apocrypha that were written during the third to first centuries BC. The Greek text was known from at least the mid-second century AD (and onwards) to the author of the Epistle of Barnabas (4.3; 16.5-6), Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 4.16.2), Justin Martyr (Apol. 2.5), Clement of Alexandria (Eclogae prophetice 2), Tertullian (On Female Dress 2), and Origen (De Principiis 8). Tertullian, who was familiar with both the prophecy in Jude (Idol. 15; Apol. 22) and writings ascribed to Enoch (On Female Dress 2), does not connect the former to the latter.
     Aramaic fragments of the work have been discovered in Qumran, mostly in Cave 4 (see J. T. Milik, Books of Enoch). While fragment 4Q204 (4QEn_c) has presumptuously been identified as the passage from which Jude quoted (cf. R. H. Charles, Book of Enoch 274-75), this tiny scrap of parchment only has about sixty letters in four broken lines, a number of which are indiscernible, with merely seven words that can be deciphered conclusively. When compared to other major texts of this section of I Enoch, only one word ("harsh") is found to be in common with the Greek version. In studies comparing this fragment and Jude’s quotation (e.g. C. D. Osburn, "Christological Use of I Enoch" 334-41), the standard text that tends to be used is not 4Q204 itself but Milik’s supplemented reconstruction of the text! There is no compelling evidence showing a clear literary parallel with Jude’s quoted prophecy.
     Furthermore, there is a conspicuous absence among these Qumran fragments of significant portions of I Enoch’s current content, not the least of which is 37-71 (Similitudes), which can readily be dated in the third century AD (J. T. Milik, Books of Enoch 89-98) and not prior to the late first- or early-second century AD (cf. J. H. Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 89), with apparent allusion to passages in the Gospels of Matthew and John (see J. D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making xxxix n. 81, 77-78, 297 nn. 75-82).
     The extant Book of Enoch (discovered in 1773) is actually a conglomeration of fragments of various authorship, and the date(s) of these writings are uncertain. If the ancient Jews and the Christians of the New Testament era had known of these writings, they apparently did not consider them canonical. Because The Book of Enoch, in its current form, contains numerous parallels to passages in the New Testament (at least forty-nine passages from sixteen different New Testament books), it is not improbable that Jude’s epistle was the primary source from which the writer(s) of The Book of Enoch borrowed the prophecy in question. Jude may have received knowledge of Enoch’s prophecy through divine revelation or oral tradition, but since Jude does not provide any more information, speculation is futile.
     Jude’s account of the dispute over the body of Moses (v. 9) is purportedly based on another pseudepigraphical work, namely the Assumption of Moses (a.k.a. the Testament of Moses). However, Jude does not attribute his information to any particular source. The Assumption of Moses is of uncertain date and authorship, and the only extant portion of it is a sixth-century AD fragmentary Latin manuscript that was discovered in the mid-nineteenth century. Since no surviving portion of this work contains the passage in question, and since similar words are found in Zechariah 3:1-2, the element of divine revelation notwithstanding, it is just as likely that the material came from a common source or tradition rather than having been the result of literary dependency.
--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Epistle of Judas, Why Argue Over the Body of Moses?, Collection & Canonization NT Part 1, Collection & Canonization NT Part 2, Biblical Inspiration

Biblical Authorship: Challenging Anti-Conservative Presuppositions (Part 2 of 4)

Duccio di Buon insegna, Christ Taking Leave of the Apostles

Assumption # 2: "The earliest stages of the Christian movement were necessarily simplistic and unsophisticated, requiring several decades for Christian theology and church organization to gradually develop."

     This assumption is rooted in modern evolutionary thinking that arbitrarily identifies teachings and practices that seem more "developed" as later, and equates "simpler" with earlier. Since, for example, the epistles of 1 Timothy and Titus describe the established position of overseers (elders) and thus exhibit a refined form of church organization, the authorship references cannot be taken at face value if the documents are seen as having been composed during a later period in the development of the church, after the lifetime of Paul.

     Long before the Christian era, the intellectual and technological genius of the Egyptians, the Chinese, the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, and many other ancient civilizations is demonstrated in their remarkable advances in engineering, mathematics, physics, astronomy, agriculture, metalworking, architecture, navigation, and a host of other complex disciplines. But when the multinational Christian movement appeared on the scene in the first-century Greco-Roman world, we are expected to believe that it consisted of a bunch of ragtag imbeciles void of intellect and competence. In reality, the ancient church across the Roman empire included highly educated people, skilled writers, government officials, military leaders, theologians, doctors, businesspeople, and those among society’s elite (cf., e.g., Pliny the Younger, Ep. 10.96). Is it realistic to conclude that these early believers were incapable of resourcefulness and proficiency, at least until a greatly extended period of time had elapsed?
     The bottom line is that Christianity professes to be a divinely revealed religion. Granted, the complete revelation did not come all at once and special gifts and duties were necessary in the formative years to grow the church from infancy to maturity (cf. Romans 12:4-8; 1 Corinthians 12:4-31; Ephesians 4:11-16). Nevertheless, within the first three decades of the Christian movement, during the lifetimes of all the conventional New Testament authors, "advanced" theological insights and organizational structure were already evident in the undisputed writings of Paul (Romans 1:16–11:36; Philippians 1:1; 2:5-11; et al.). Thus, on the basis of doctrinal matters, with the probable exception of the Johannine writings, there is no convincing reason to insist that other New Testament documents, whose authorship is challenged, must have been written considerably later.
     The book of Acts clearly demonstrates that early on in the history of the church a developed organizational structure was in place (11:30; 14:23; 15:6; 20:17). If the historical integrity of Acts is then called into question or the book is dated much later to accommodate this information, biased assumptions have given place to circular reasoning.
--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Biblical Authorship Part 1, Biblical Authorship Part 3, Biblical Authorship Part 4, Authorship of NT Gospels, Authorship of Luke-Acts

Biblical Authorship: Challenging Anti-Conservative Presuppositions (Part 1 of 4)

     Who wrote the books of the Bible? Whether divine guidance is conceded or not, all agree that human beings were involved in the production and transmission of the sacred writings. On the "fundamentalist" end of the spectrum, as long as God is recognized as the primary author, human instrumentality is of little consequence. On the opposite end, the legitimacy of the biblical record can be more easily challenged if orthodox attributions are discredited.

      In many scholastic circles there appears to be a general aversion to accepting or even considering conventional authorial appellations, including the self-claims of the texts. But alternative judgments based on conjectural argumentation, unwarranted assumptions, circular reasoning, and excessively complicated redaction and compilation theories manifest a strong appearance of grasping at straws. A number of significant variables must be ignored or trivialized in order for the opposing position to seem credible (to be discussed).
     When a biblical text does not fit into the restrictive mould of a critic’s rigid presuppositions, it is immediately called into question. Even though a circumstantial case may be articulated in such a way that seems reasonable and persuasive, how does it measure up to the scrutiny of hard evidence and basic common sense?

Assumption # 1: "Because pseudepigraphy (literary forgery) was widespread in the Greco-Roman world, pseudonymity (false attribution) must have been an acceptable literary practice and thus common among early Christians."

     It is an enormous leap to conclude that the prevalence of pseudonymous writings in antiquity implies that the practice was morally accepted. In fact, the ancients were just as concerned about literary integrity as modern man with his "copyright mentality." When spurious works were detected, they were denounced and rejected as forgeries. While anonymity was fairly common in Jewish and early Christian writings, it is nothing short of deceptive for a writer to have appended another’s name to his work without authorization, purporting that the ideas, personal details, and authoritative directives were from a well-known historical figure rather than himself. Since the Romans, the Greeks, and the Jews were extremely careful to maintain the authenticity of their literary collections (spurning all pseudepigraphical documents), why would anyone suppose that the followers of Christ were any less scrupulous? The fact of the matter is, no Christian writings that were known to be spurious were ever accepted as genuine in the early church (cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.12.3). This is especially true of apostolic letters, as the deceitful practice of epistolary pseudepigrapha was decisively condemned. Therefore, to casually label certain biblical documents as literary forgeries is out of place, prejudicial, and without solid justification.
--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Biblical Authorship Part 2, Biblical Authorship Part 3, Biblical Authorship Part 4, Authorship of NT Gospels