Truth
On
Tough
Texts
ISSUE 7–
February/2006
Does Jude
Quote from Pseudepigraphal Literature?
Jude 6, 9,
14-15
IN OUR LAST
TWO ISSUES, WE EXAMINED
the identity of the
“sons of God,” as referred to in Genesis 6:2 and 4, and
the bearing that Jude 6 has upon this question. We also
mentioned the origin of the view that teaches that the
“sons of God” were fallen angels who intermarried with
human women, namely, that Jude based his text on
Pseudepigraphal literature. As mentioned there,
Pseudepigraphal (false writings) books were those books
rejected by everyone as being part of the canon of
Scripture. These books claim Biblical authors, but are
full of religious fancy and magic from 200 B.C. to A.D.
100.
With that in mind, as
scholars have studied the Epistle of Jude, the question
has often been raised whether Jude is actually
referencing such literature in verses 6, 9, 14, and 15.
Incredulously, the tendency has actually been to lean in
the direction of the affirmative—that Jude, indeed,
relies heavily on this literature.
In this article,
therefore, I wish to submit that Jude does not
quote, refer to, or otherwise
rely on Pseudepigraphal literature. In a very real
sense, this issue lies at the very core of the whole
debate about the identity of the “sons of God.” Are we
to think that an inspired writer actually relied on
pagan literature? Is that what Bible believing
Christians should defend? For those readers who still
lean toward the “Fallen Angel Theory,” or who are still
undecided on the whole issue, I pray that what follows
will demonstrate the serious consequences of viewing
Jude as in any way relying on pagan
literature.
Jude
6
“And the angels which kept
not their first estate, but left their own habitation,
he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness
unto the judgment of the great day.”
Since we dealt at
length in the last two issues of TOTT with the question of what angels are being
referred to here, we will not repeat that material. What
we are concerned with here is that some believe that
Jude is, as one commentator puts it, “making use of the
APOCRYPHAL Book of Enoch”
(emphasis added).
The first thing we
must note about the above statement is the use of the
word “apocryphal.” The Book of Enoch, as well as
the Assumption of Moses (which we will encounter
later) are not apocryphal books. They are
pseudepgraphal books. There is, in fact, a
vast difference between the
two. Rene Pache provides a good summary of the
Apocrypha:
The word Apocrypha is the
name given to the Jewish religious books of obscure
origin (apocrypha, meaning “secret, hidden”);
these were late books (between the second century B.C.
and the first, or even the second century after Christ),
which were never included in the Hebrew canon. They had
no place in the Masoretic text and were not interpreted
by any Targum [Aramaic paraphrases of the Old
Testament]. According to the general opinion of the
Jews, the prophetic voice died with Malachi. After that,
which they called “the seal of the prophets,” they
estimated that no other inspired writings appeared.
Josephus declared this expressly (Against Apion
I. 8); and even the book of I Maccabees stresses it
(9:27; 14:41).[i]
While the Apocrypha is
considered to have some historical value
(especially 1 Maccabees), as a whole it is not
reliable enough to be considered authentic Scripture.
Even in light of the evidence, the Roman Catholic Church
canonized the Apocrypha at the Council of Trent
(1546) “in an obvious polemic action against
Protestantism.”[ii]
This brings us to the
Pseudepigrapha (literally, “false writings”). Here is an
excellent summary by one scholar of Biblical
Introduction:
The Pseudepigrapha books
are those books which are distinctly spurious and
unauthentic in their overall content: While they claim
to have been written by Biblical authors, they actually
express religious fancy and magic from the period
between 200 B.C. and A.D. 200. In Roman Catholic circles
these books are known as the Apocrypha, a term not to be
confused with an entirely different set of books known
in Protestant circles by the same name . . . ; although
at times Protestants have referred to these same books
as the “wider Apocrypha,” or “Apocalyptic Literature.”
Most of these books are comprised of dreams, visions,
and revelations in the apocalyptic style of Ezekiel,
Daniel, and Zechariah.[iii]
The same scholar adds that
these books are those that were “rejected by all”; that
is, no one would seriously contend for their
authority.[iv]
So, there is a great
difference between the Apocrypha and the
Pseudepigrapha. The former has some value while
the latter has none. It is, therefore,
erroneous to say Jude is “making use of the
apocryphal Book of Enoch,” when, in fact, the
book in question is pseudepigraphal, not apocryphal.
Why then would Jude
base his writing on such mystical and obviously pagan
literature? As we pointed out in our previous studies,
the “Fallen Angel Theory” of Genesis 6 was first
recorded in the Book of Enoch and some believe
that Jude is referring to that book. As we observed, the
Greek arche is used for “estate” and means
“sovereignty, dominion, or elevated position.” One Greek
scholar says, “Arche is used in the Book of
Enoch (12:4) of the watchers (Angels) who have
abandoned the high heaven and the holy eternal place
and defiled themselves with women,” which is
supposed to lead us to believe that one Greek word that
happens to be used in both places “proves” that Jude is
quoting the Book of Enoch (a
book which has been proven to be full of magic,
mysticism, and pagan beliefs). Wow! That is quite a
leap, indeed!
Some teachers argue
at this point that there is no difference between saying
that Jude refers to the Pseudepigrapha and Paul quoting
some heathen poets. Now, Paul did indeed do that; he
quoted Aratus (Acts 17:28), Menander (I Cor. 15:33), and
Epimenides (Tit. 1:12). Basically, this would be like a
preacher today saying that a statement by
Shakespeare illustrates a Biblical principle. That would
be a valid illustration. But may we submit: it is far
different to say that Shakespeare illustrates a
Biblical principle than to say we shall base our
interpretation, or even our writing, of
Scripture on what Shakespeare said. When Paul quotes a
Greek poet, he does not base truth upon what the poet
said; rather he merely illustrates God’s Truth. But to
say that Jude quotes a pseudepigraphal book, and to say
he bases what he writes on that information, is to say
that Jude bases Truth on what
some pagan wrote.
May we also submit,
it does no good at this point to say, “Well, God just
controlled how much material Jude quoted.” As we’ll
see later, the damage to inspiration has already been
done.
Jude
9
“Yet Michael the
archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed
about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a
railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke
thee.”
It has been
conjectured that the story of Michael contending
with the Devil is taken from the pseudepigraphal book
Assumption of Mosis (i.e., Moses). Origen
(c. 185-c. 254) has been credited with being the first
one to offer this view. He maintained that a book was in
existence in his time called The Assumption of
Moses, but commentator Albert
Barnes brings out a devastating
observation:
There can be no reasonable
doubt that such a book as Origen refers to, under the
title of The Assumption of Moses, was
extant [in existence] in his time, but
that does not prove by any means that it was extant
in the time of Jude, or that he quoted it. There is,
indeed, no positive proof that it was not
extant in the time of Jude, but there is none that
it was; and all the facts in the case will be met by the
supposition that it was written afterwards, and
that the tradition on the subject here referred to by
Jude was incorporated into it.[v]
In other words,
there is no way of knowing exactly when this
pseudepigraphal book was penned. Some insist that Jude
quoted from this book, but who is to say that this
unknown author didn’t quote from Jude? Moreover, as Barnes points out, there is more
reason to believe the latter than there is the
former.
Jude
14-15
“And Enoch also, the
seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold,
the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To
execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are
ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they
have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches
which ungodly sinners have spoken against
him.”
Once again, some
maintain that Jude here quotes from the Book of
Enoch. But let us compare the above quotation (KJV)
with that of the Book of Enoch:
Behold he comes with ten
thousands of his saints, to execute judgement upon
them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all the
carnal, for everything which the sinful and ungodly have
done and committed against him.(1:9).[vi]
While one writer
makes the ridiculous statement, “Jude quotes almost
verbatim” from the Book of Enoch, who can honestly say that those two are the
same? Commentator Maxwell Coder points out a serious
difference:
It is interesting to note
that the unknown writer of the [pseudepigraphal] Book
of Enoch revealed his ignorance of the truth by
making Enoch say: “[He comes with ten thousands of his
saints] to execute judgment on them . . .” Jude knew
better than this. His epistle does not contain the error
that the Lord will come to visit judgment on His
people.[vii]
We should also add
that, like verse 9, there is no proof that this spurious
book even existed in Jude’s day. In fact, as William
MacDonald submits in his excellent Believer’s Bible
Commentary (quoting William
Kelly):
[The Book of Enoch]
has every mark of having been written subsequent to the
destruction of Jerusalem [and therefore after Jude’s
Epistle was written], by a Jew who still buoyed himself
up with the hope that God would stand by the
Jews.[viii]
As with verse 9
there is far more reason to think that the Book of
Enoch was copied from Jude than
vice versa.
“How, then, would
Jude have learned of this ancient prophecy?” one might
ask. By verbal inspiration! And to even
ask such a question
demonstrates one’s doubt of that very doctrine and his
reliance upon human reason.
It should be crystal
clear, therefore, that saying Jude quoted from the
Book of Enoch is not only an “unwarranted
assumption,”[ix] but that it’s also a
statement that leaves one in a completely indefensible
position. The facts simply do not warrant such a
view.
Correlation
Finally, perhaps one might
wonder, “Why take the time and space to argue
pseudepigraphal origins in Jude’s writing? Why is this a
big deal?”
The reason is this:
To allow the view that Jude quoted from the
Pseudepigrapha does damage to the doctrine of the
inspiration of Scripture. We are
not saying that those who hold the pseudepigraphal view
are deliberately trying to undermine inspiration.
On the contrary, this view is held by some solid
evangelical teachers. But we must maintain that
this view “waters down” or, at the very least, detracts
from supernatural, verbal inspiration. Proponents of
this view at times seem to try and “harmonize” these
false books with inspiration by offering a caution such
as this:
It should be noted
that Jude’s use of this quotation from the Book of
Enoch [referring to Jude 14-15] does not vouch for the
reliability of the entire Book of Enoch. The same
is true of . . . The Assumption of
Moses from which Jude may have
taken the information about Michael contending with
Satan. This specific information is accurate, but Jude’s
use of it does not guarantee the reliability of the rest
of the book.
The first problem
with such a statement is that the information given in
these pseudepigraphal books is NOT accurate. Second, even if the information were
accurate, who would (or could) trust these books anyway,
especially an inspired writer?
At any rate, the
statement above, and others like it, is a compromise for
the sake of “being scholarly.” At first appearance the
“pseudepigraphal view” seems scholarly; it
appeals to the logical mind. But on close examination,
this view is not scholarly,
rather a compromise of Scripture.
Furthermore, we
submit that the aforementioned quote presents an
inconsistency in inspiration.
If God has given all other Scripture by revealing to the
writer what He wanted written, then why did God allow
the writer to quote from books that are mystical and
clearly pagan in origin? These books contradict and
violate Scripture at every turn. Why would God want
to allow His Perfect Word to be based on such
literature? We ask again, is this really what we want to
defend?
We offer this
analogy: a particular statement from the Book of
Mormon might be true, but an
evangelical writer would hardly quote from it. Why?
Because of association! We would in no way want to
associate ourselves with apostasy. Likewise, we
cannot fathom God associating Himself with these
mystical, apostate writings. We’ll end with these words
from Maxwell Coder:
Those who love the Word of
God and trust it implicitly need not fear that any
attack upon Jude will succeed in showing that he took
any part of his epistle from such a
volume.[x]
From whence, then, did
Jude get his information? FROM GOD!
Dr.
J. D. Watson
Pastor-Teacher
Brace bible Church
Q and A
Q: Just want to express my thanks for the papers of
TOTT. As you are aware, our day is colored with
either totally wrong interpretations of great Scriptural
truths or those that are just partially right. It is
indeed a very dangerous time of deception (Matt. 24:4).
There is one verse (in Rom. 12:2) I am seriously
looking at: “that good, and acceptable, and perfect,
will of God.” My question: Is Paul referring to
three degrees of spiritual reality, or is he using three
words to define one thing—or both?
EC
A: Thanks so much for the support and question. We
cherish every letter we receive.
I’m not sure what you mean by “three degrees of
spiritual reality,” but the phrase in question is, of
course, the last one in the verse and is, therefore,
Paul’s conclusion concerning the thoughts of verses 1
and 2.
So, what is the result of (1) presenting
ourselves entirely to God, (2) not being conformed
(molded) to this world, and (3) being transformed by the
renewing of our minds by the Word of God? The answer is
clear: these three things equip us to know the will of
God, that is, as John Gill writes, “not the secret will
of God, which cannot be searched into, proved, and
known, till time and facts discover it, but the revealed
will of God, both in the law, as in the hands of
Christ.” In other words, by these three things we will
know the will of God as revealed in His
Word.
In the context of your question, then, Paul is
“defining” one thing: how to know God’s will. As one
writer puts it, “Only by such sanctifying renewal is the
Christian made sufficiently sensitive to ‘prove’
(discern) the behavior that is God’s will in each
situation” (The Reformation Study Bible). William
MacDonald puts it very well in his excellent
Believer’s Bible Commentary:
“Here, then, are the three keys for knowing God’s will.
The first is a yielded body, the second a separated
life, and the third a transformed mind.”
Further, Paul wants us, therefore to rest assured
that God’s will is always “good” (agathos, a
broad term meaning benevolent, profitable, useful,
beneficial, excellent, virtuous, and suitable),
“acceptable” (euarestos, pleasing and pleasant),
and “perfect” (teleios,
complete, mature, full grown).
NOTES
[i]
Rene Pache, The Inspiration And Authorty Of
Scripture (Chicago: Moody Press,
1971), p. 171-2.
[ii] Norman L. Geisler
and William E. Nix, A General Introduction To The
Bible, Revised and Expanded
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p.
269.
[v] Albert Barnes,
Barnes Notes On The New Testament, One Volume Edition (Grand Rapids: Kregal
Publications, 1974), p. 1516..
[vi] Ibid, p. 1519,
quoting Chapter 2 of Biblical
Repository, Vol. 15, p. 86.
[vii] Maxwell S. Coder,
Jude: The Acts Of The Apostates.
Everyman's Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1958), p.
91.
[viii] William Kelly,
“Lectures on the Epistle of Jude,” The Serious
Christian, Vol. I (Charlotte, NC: Books for
Christians, 1970), as cited in William MacDonald,
Believer’s Bible Commentary
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), p.
2343.
