Jewish and Christian Scriptures

The Function of "Canonical" and

"Non-Canonical" Religious Texts

Edited by

James H. Charlesworth
Lee M. McDonald

.~
t&t clark
JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN TEXTS IN CoNTEXTS
AND RELATED STUDIES

SERIES

Executive Editor
James H. Charlesworth

Editorial Board of Advisors

Motti Aviam, Michael Davis, Casey Elledge, Loren Johns,
Amy-Jill Levine, Lee McDonald, Lidia Novakovic, Gerbern Oegema,
Henry Rietz, Brent Strawn

...
112 Jewish and Christian Scriptures

27. The possible exception is 4QpaleoGen-Exod1 frg. 1. See Strawn, "Excerpted

Manuscripts at Qumran," pp. 139-40 n. 131; and c( also the previous note on
4QDeutj.
28. Note that if 4QRP included the entire Torah, it would have been 25 meters long
(White Crawford, "4Q364 & 365," pp. 217-8 n. 3). Pragmatic considerations
would seem to argue against such a long scroll (the longest scroll yet discovered,
llQT, is 8 meters long), as do the admittedly later rabbinic injunctions (b. B. Bat.
JunE's CITATION oF 1 ENocH
14a). In this light, it seems just as likely that 4QRP did not cover the entire Torah
seriatim, but only selectively, interpretively, or thematically. Again, see Strawn, Jeremy Hultin
"Excerpted Manuscripts at Qumran," pp. 139-40 n. 131.
29. C( Falk's pithy phrasing: "We might say that as the moon does not rob from
the sun, such texts can extend the authority of Scripture without necessarily
aiming to rival or replace it" (Parabiblical Texts, p. 16); c( also H. Najman,
"Torah of Moses: Pseudonymous Attribution in Second Temple Writings," in The The Epistle of Jude's use ·of 1 Enoch presented a peculiar challenge for
Interpretation of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity: Studies in Language ancient Christians as they sought to determine the extent and nature of their
and Tradition (ed. C. A. Evans; JSPSup 33; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, sacred writings. Jude's citation of 1 Enoch was appealed to in support of the
2000), pp. 202-16; and Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic value of Enochic literature (and, by extension, in defense of reading other
Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (JSJSup 77; Leiden: Brill, 2003), p. 44. If "non-canonical" writings), but it was also cited as a reason to reject the Epistle of
viable, this kind of scenario has much to say back to Ulrich's position (see note Jude. By examining how ancient Christians responded to Jude's use of 1 Enoch,
27 above). we have an opportunity to observe what sorts of issues they felt were at stake as
30. C( the paradox articulated by Elledge, namely, that "rewriting is an immense
they debated the authority of various ancient texts. We will see that they were
form of praise for the scriptural passages being rewritten and does attest to the
alternately concerned with authenticity (which writings are really from Enoch?),
traditional authority of many present-day canonical books .... [And yet the]
with content (are the teachings contained in Enochic writings consistent with
same authors ... who praised our present-day canonical texts equally found them
Christian belief?), and with Jewish opinions about the extent of the canon. 1
in desperate need of harp1onization, supplementation, expansion, and contem-
Jude 14--15 quotes the words of lEn 1:9 as a prophecy from the antediluvian
porization by means of (so-called) non-canonical sources that were also highly
man who was "seventh from.Adam." That such a claim could be understood
regarded."
31. Exegetical motifs contained within these documents may not have failed, however. literally in the ancient world is nicely demonstrated by Tertullian, who concerns
See Kugel, In Potiphar's House. himself with such concrete problems as how Enoch's teachings could have
32. As Elledge notes. This dichotomy is not infrequently encountered. See, e.g., survived the flood. Such serious and literal commitment to Enochic authorship
Ulrich, "The Qumran Biblical Scrolls," p. 73; Ulrich, "The Absence of 'Sectarian left no easy solution for those Christians who wanted to grant authority to the
Variants' in the Jewish Scriptural Scrolls Found at Qumran," in Herbert and Tov, "Apostle"2 Jude's epistle but not to the extant writings attributed to Enoch. For
Bible as Book, pp. 179-95, here p.l80. The danger, of course, with the opposite such Christians, Jude's citation of Enoch presented a problem far more acute
perspective is to be guilty of "canonical" anachronism. Kugel seems to skirt such than did the passing references in other NT texts to pagan "prophets" (Titus
a charge because he delineates early and later types of exegetical activity. 1:12), "poets" (Acts 17:28), or proverbs (1 Cor 15:33), 3 for 1 Enoch is explicitly
33. Falk, Parabiblical Texts, p. 21. cited as prophecy, 4 and the content, language, imagery, and eschatology of the
34. Falk, Parabiblical Texts, pp. 24--25. entire epistle of_ Jude are clearly indebted to 1 Enoch. 5
35. Cf S. W Crawford, "Reworked Pentateuch," in EDSS 2:775; and Strawn, The influence of 1 Enoch on Jude can be briefly summarized:
"Excerpted Manuscripts at Qumran," pp. 139-40.
I
j
i
1) Jude cites lEn 1:9 to demonstrate that it had been prophesied that "the
Lord" (here understood as Christ) would come to judge the ungodly. The
quotation is introduced as a prophecy in precisely the language Matthew uses
j; to cite Isaiah (Mt 15:7). 6 This is, in fact, the only formal citation in the Letter of
Jude. 7 Furthermore, Enoch is identified in no casual way, as though Jude were
1.l' merely citing a convenient passage; rather, Enoch is designated as "the seventh
i
t:

r 113
t\
(~i
L'
114 Jewish and Christian Scriptures
from Adam," and thus given a special place as an antediluvian figure who spoke
at a symbolic8 point in the created order, a man who lived before the flood, amidst
the immoral generation that, for Jude, corresponds to his own. 9
2) Jude 6 makes reference to the fall of the angels as a paradigmatic sin. Such
a reference need not depend directly on 1 Enoch, for Gen 6: 1-4 was itself widely
interpreted as referring to the Fall of the Watchers (see below); but lEn 6--16
was the earliest and most influential version of this mythic event, 10 and Jude's
description evinces enough terminological similarities to 1 Enoch that we may
safely presume that this was his source.
3) In Jude 12-13 the opponents are depicted as "waterless clouds, fruitless
trees, wild waves, wandering stars"-images apparently drawn from lEn 2:1-5:4
and lEn 80:2-8. 11
Other allusions to Enochic language and motifs have been detected in Jude, 12
but the current examples are sufficient to demonstrate that "1 Enoch 1-5 aJ:!d
related passages in the Enoch literature lie at the foundation of Jude's exegetical
work." 13
The Status of 1 Enoch Among Jews and Christians
There is widespread scholarly agreement that Enochic writings were held in very
high regard by many segments of ancient Judaism and Christianity. The authori-
tative character of Enochic writings in pre-Rabbinic Judaism can be seen in their
literary influence, for instance on Jubilees and on the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs. 14 Copies of Enoch have been found in multiple caves at Qumran, 15 and
other texts from Qumran make use of Enochic literature or themes. 16 In short,
the Qumran library exhibits a "proliferation of Enochic and quasi-Enochic
material." 17 Finally, it should be noted that if 1 Enoch was indeed translated into
Greek by Jews (rather than by 'christians), 18 we have evidence of a readership
among Greek-speaking Jews.
The influence of the Enochic Book of the Watchers can also be seen in the
fact that the Fall of the Watchers was the dominant Jewish interpretation of
Gen 6:1-4 from the second century BCE until the middle of the second century
CE. 19 It should be noted that, despite the prevalence of this interpretation for
hundreds of years, in the second century CE there was a "widespread reaction
in Judaism against the interpretation of bene Elohim as angels." 20 Rabbinic texts
strongly reject an angelic interpretation of Gen 6: 1-4, but they were also clearly
aware of such an interpretation. R. Simeon b. Yohai cursed anyone who thought
the bene Elohim were actually "sons of God": in his view, the expression meant
"sons of judges."21 The targumim, in fact, reflect Simeon's opinion, for they
translate "sons of God" as "sons of the nobles" or "sons of the judges."22 And
although the LXX probably originally had "sons of God" at Gen 6:2 (altered in
some manuscripts to "angels of God" 23), this was later rendered by Symmachus
Jude's Citation of 1 Enoch 115
as "sons of the powerful" and by Aquila as "sons of the gods."24 Thus these
second-century Greek translations were quite similar to the targumim; and it is
the translations of Symmachus and Aquila that are cited by Christians, such as
Cyril and Augustine, to defend their own euhemeristic interpretations of Gen
6:1-4.25
Just. as the Fall of the Watchers myth was rejected by the Rabbis, Enoch
himself was demoted in rabbinic writings, 26 and there is a striking absence of
references to Enochic literature. 27 But this represents a marked change from the
high status of Enochic writings prior to the second century CE.
If we turn to Christian literature, we find a consistently high opinion of
Enochic literature, especially at the end of the first and throughout the second
century.28 First Clement 20 (ca. 96 CE) seems to depend on lEn 2-5. The
Apocalypse of Peter (early second century CE) is clearly dependent on I Enoch,
including the Book of Parables. 29 More strikingly, the Epistle of Barnabas (late
first or early second century CE) cites Enoch in the same way it cites other
biblical authorities, using the expression "it is written" (Barn 4:V0; 16:6) and "as
scripture says" (16:5). 31
In the later second century, both Athenagoras and Irenaeus treat the Fall of
the Watchers as something taught by the "prophets," thus apparently including
1 Enoch among the biblical prophets. Athenagoras, in his Embassy for the
Christians written CE 176--180, refers to the angels' "yielding to fleshly desires"
and begetting "the so-called giants" (Leg. 24; cf. lEn 15:3), claiming that he is
reporting .only what "the prophets have declared. " 32 Similarly, Irenaeus reads Gen
6 in light of 1 Enoch, 33 and he states that the Fall of the Watchers is something
taught by the Holy Spirit through the prophets. 34 Irenaeus also says that Enoch
was sent by God to announce judgment to the fallen angels (Adv. Haer. 4.27 .2);
he refers to Azazel in connection with magical arts and astrology (Adv. Haer.
1.15.6); and he shows knowledge of the details of 1 Enoch in Demonstration of
the Apostolic Preaching (Epid. 18). 35
Clement of Alexandria's high estimation of Enoch is evident from the fact
that he included it in his Excerptsfrom the Prophets. In commenting on Daniel,
Clement says that Daniel "agrees with Enoch, who has said, 'I saw all matter"'
(Eel. 2.1). 36 Clement also uses a reference to lEn 7:1-8:3 to clarify passages from
the Psalms (Eel. 53.4). 37 In his Adumbrationes in epistolas canonicas, Clement
cites Jude 14 and states, "By these words he validates the prophecy" (his verbis
prophetam comprobat; Stahlin, ed., Clemens Alexandrinus 3:208).
At the end of the second century, Tertullian makes significant use of
Enoch and addresses for the first time Christian doubts about its authenticity. 38
Tertullian himself harbored no doubts whatsoever about Enoch's authority. In
his Apology he says that the Fall of the Watchers was something taught in "our
sacred books" (apud litteras sanctas; Apol. 22). In On Idolatry he refers to Enoch
"prophesying" (praedicens; 4.2) that the fallen angels would draw people to
idolatry, and he proceeds to quote a version of lEn 99:6--7 as Enoch's threat to
116 Jewish and Christian Scriptures
idolators (Idol. 4.3). 39 Later in the same work he claims that the Holy Spirit was
speaking through Enoch, the "oldest prophet" (Idol. 15.6).40 Tertullian's most
extensive comments about Enoch come in Cult. fem. 1.3.41 Having discussed
the angelic origin of cosmetics, Tertullian acknowledges two reasons that some
might not accept Enoch as an authority on these matters: First, "because it is
not admitted into the Jewish canon (quia nee in armarium Iudaicum admittitur)";
second, because "having been published before the deluge, it could not have
safely survived that world-wide calamity" (ANF 4:15). Tertullian addresses both
objections. As for surviving the flood, Tertullian notes that Noah could have
remembered (and later recorded) the teachings of his great-grandfather; or, alter-
natively, Noah could have rewritten them "under the spirit's inspiration (potuit ...
in spiritu rursus reformare),"just as Ezra was inspired to rewrite the Bible after it
had been destroyed during the exile. As for the fact that Enoch was not a part of
the Jewish canon, Tertullian claims that the Jews probably rejected Enoch-just
as they had other scriptures-because Enoch spoke of Christ. Tertullian finds
it plainly absurd that Christians should follow the Jewish decision about what
prophetic books to read, for if Enoch spoke of Christ, then his writing pertain
"to us," and all writings suitable for edification are divinely inspired (Cult. fem.
3.3; cf. 2 Tim 3:16). Last of all Tertullian notes that "Enoch possesses a testimony
in the Apostle Jude" (Enoch apud Iudam apostolum testimonium possidet).
Following Tertullian in Carthage, Cyprian also attributes the art of cosmetics
to "sinning and apostate angels" (Hab. virg. 14). It is possible that Cyprian may
simply be following Tertullian; his independent knowledge of 1 Enoch cannot
be demonstrated conclusively_42 The treatise Against Novatian, falsely ascribed to
Cyprian, quotes lEn 1:8-9 as scripture (sicut scriptum est; 16.5); since the citation
includes a phrase not found in Jude 14-15, this likely represents an independent
use of 1 Enoch. 43
If Tertullian gives us our first evidence that some Christians had misgivings
about the status of 1 Enoch, Origen's various references suggest growing doubts
about Enochic literature. Based on Origen's five references to Enochic writings,
it appears that he "considers them to be the authentic products of the patriarch
and cites them as Scripture; however, he also indicates that others in the church
do not hold this opinion." 44 So for instance, in De Principiis, Origen calls Enoch
a "prophet," and he refers to 1 Enoch when adducing scriptural evidence for a
theological point. 4sBut later, in his Commentary on John, he expresses some reser-
vation. In explaining the etymology of "Jordan" he appeals to lEn 6:6, but adds
a caveat: "as it is written in the Book of Enoch, if it is right to take that book
as holy" (c'l TUJ <j>IAov rrapaoexea8at WS" aytov TO ~~~Atov [Comm. Jo. 6.217]).
Similarly, in his Homilies on Numbers, Origen praises Enoch's "many secrets and
mysteries" but adds that "since these booklets do not appear to have authority
among the Jews, for the moment we should postpone appealing to those
matters that are there mentioned as an example. " 46 Whereas Tertullian brushed
aside Jewish opinion, Origen cites it as reason to delay referring to Enochic
Jude's Citation of 1 Enoch 117
texts. Finally, in his Contra Celsum, Origen responds to Celsus's claim that the
Incarnation was not unique even by Christian standards, since the angels had
previously come, only to be "cast under the earth in chains" (Cels. 5.52). Origen
replies that Celsus "has misunderstood what is written in the book of Enoch,"
and adds that "the books titled 'Enoch' are not generally held to be divine by the
churches" ( Cels. 5.54).47 Several scholars have noted that there is a disceinable
trajectory to Origen's references to Enoch.48 In his earliest work, he cited Enoch
alongside scripture; later he noted that there were some reservations among Jews;
and ultimately, when on the defensive about the Fall of the Watchers, he claimed
that the acceptance of Enoch was a minority Christian position.49
Whereas Tertullian and Origen mention Christians who have doubts about
1 Enoch, we have extant from the fourth century the emphatic rejection of
Enoch by leaders such as Athanasius, Augustine, and Jerome. 50 In arguing that
apocryphal texts were the invention of the Melitians, Athanasius singled out
the Book of Enoch, denying the possibility that it could have been composed
by Enoch because "no Scripture existed before Moses. " 51 Although we do not
know whether or how Athanasius rationalized his acceptance of Jude, which
was in his NT canon, and his rejection of Enoch, we know that he did have to
address this sort of question, for he says that heretics seized upon 1 Cor 2:9,
which they claimed was a citation of the Ascension of Isaiah, to defend their use
of apocryphal writings. In Athanasius' view, the heretics had themselves inserted
Paul's words from 1 Corinthians into their own apocryphal creation to give it
an air of legitimacy. That line of argumentation would have been much more
difficult in the case of Jude 14-15, since Jude names Enoch as his source.
Like Athanasius, Augustine recommended Enoch be rejected; but he attempted
to address the problem presented by Jude's citation: "We cannot deny that Enoch,
the seventh from Adam, left some divine writings, for that is asserted by the Apostle
Jude in his canonical epistle. But it is not without reason that these writings have
no place in that canon of Scripture which was preserved in the temple of the Hebrew
people ... for their antiquity brought them under suspicion, and it was impossible to
ascertain whether these were his genuine writings" (Civ. 15.23). Augustine elsewhere
acknowledges Enoch as an ancient prophet-"Doesn't the canonical epistle of the
apostle Jude declare that he prophesied?" (Civ. 18.37-38)52-but he notes that there
is no reliable way to have his authentic writings; he cites as an analogy the fact
thatthe book of Kings mentions books that were no longer extant (Civ. 18.38).
The writings of the prophets before Abraham "could not be held as authoritative
either among the Jews or among us" because "their extreme antiquity" made them
liable to tampering (Civ. 18.38). At the heart of the problem for Augustine was
the fact that "it is uncertain whether [such writings] are genuine" (Civ. 18.38).
Augustine upheld Jude's testimony-Enoch must have prophesied-but urged that
the Enochic literature, which Jews had not canonized, was to be rejected.53
We have now seen that Jude's citation of Enoch allowed Tertullian to defend
Enoch, and it forced Augustine to give an explanation for his own rejection of
 Jewish and Christian Scriptures
118
Enoch. What Tertullian and Augustine have in common is their acceptance of
Jude as an authority. But others apparently argued that rather than accepting
Enoch, the church should reject Jude because it cited Enoch. So Jerome reports:
"Jude the brother of James left a short epistle that is reckoned among the seven
catholic epistles. Because he therein quotes from the apocryphal book of Enoch, it
is rejected by many. Nevertheless, through age and use, it has gained authority
and is reckoned among the Holy Scriptures" (Vir. ill. 4).
For his part, Jerome did not want Christians to read Enoch. He disliked
apocryphal books, and he rejected the myth of the Watchers as something
recorded in "some apocryphal book" (legimus in quodam libro apocrypha [Brev.
Ps. 132.3; PL 26:1293]). As for Jude's citation of Enoch, Jerome argues that it
belongs in the category of Paul's occasional citations of Greek poets: it says
nothing about the value of the work in which it was found. But Jerome is aware
that some claimed that the entire book of Enoch should be received among the
Church's scriptures because "the Apostle Jude" had given it testimony. 54
Jude's Citation of Enoch as an Argument for Reading
the Apocrypha
For Athanasius, Jerome, and Augustine, apocryphal writings were to be avoided
because they were thought to be the spurious (or adulterated) works of heretics.
55
But the very process of delimiting a canon of sacred texts that were to be used
to the exclusion of the apocrypha actually created a new opportunity for those
Christians who defended the continued use of the apocrypha. 56 Those who
wanted to use apocryphal works could and did continue to appeal to Jude's
citation of Enoch, a citation made all the more rhetorically potent as the status
of the canonical books was elevated. For instance, Priscillian, bishop of Avila
(executed ca. 386), was able to mount a vigorous defense of the use of apocryphal
57
books precisely because there were canonical books such as Jude that cited them.
Priscillian asks a straightforward question: "Did the apostles of Jesus Christ ...
read from outside the canon?" 58 Although he cites multiple canonical references
to non-canonical books or episodes, Priscillian's "star witness" 59 is, in fact, Jude,
whom he calls "the twin of the Lord. " 60 In short, Priscillian claims, the canonical
scriptures and the apocrypha stand or fall together: either scripture lied when it
cited them, or the apocrypha contain some truth (Lib.fid. 49.29-50.5). Priscillian
in fact turns the tables on his "orthodox" opponents by claiming that it is not
those who use the apocrypha but rather their opponents who fail to honor the
testimony of scripture: "If it is ... believed among the apostles, that he [Enoch]
is a prophet," then why is it not an outrage and falsehood when "a prophet who
preaches God is condemned?" (Lib.fid. 45.9-13). 61
This is a simple argument, but it is-rather difficult to counter, and it was to
have a long life. In the seventh century, Jacob of Edessa wrote to a presbyter and
Jude's Citation of 1 Enoch 119
stylite name John, for J<;>hn had heard that there was no writing (or scripture)
before Moses. Jacob attributes this claim to Athanasius and his effort to suppress
apocryphal books. Jacob says that in making such a claim, Athanasius wrongly
condemned Enoch, since Enoch was cited by Jude (Jacob of Edessa, Epistle 13.2). 62
The argument is still heard a millennium and a half later. In recent years, James
Charlesworth has asked, in a manner reminiscent of Priscillian: "How can
Christians discard as insignificant, or apocryphal, a document that is ... quoted
as prophecy by an author who has been canonized?" 63 Also in recent years, Cory
Anderson, from a Mormon perspective, has studied Jude's use of 1 Enoch to
raise questions about Joseph Smith's knowledge of 1 Enoch in Smith's Book
of Moses. 64 And it would be parochial to discuss 1 Enoch as though it were a
foregone conclusion that Enoch had once for all been excluded from ~cripture by
Christians, for in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, 1 Enoch is canonical, 65 having
been translated with other scriptures in the fourth century. 66
Observations
I would like to make a couple of observations about the intertwined fates of Jude
and 1 Enoch. Concerning the increasing skepticism Christians seem to have held
toward 1 Enoch, Annette Yoshiko Reed has pointed out that from Tertullian
to Origen to Jerome one can chart a changing estimate of the Jewish ~'canon."
"Whatever the attitudes towards 'the book(s) of Enoch' in the writings of earlier
Christians, their absence from the Jewish canon now [in the fourth century]
suffices to shed doubt on their value for use within the church."67 Whereas men
such as Justin Martyr and Tertullian accused the Jews of adulterating scripture to
obscure Christological prophecies, Origen was inclined to take the Jewish form of
biblica~ text (witness his textual work in the Hexapla) and the Jewish extent of the
canon very seriously, and he was correspondingly more cautious about 1 Enoch,
despite the fact that he personally believed it to be authentic and valuable. It even
appears that Origen's reservations about Enoch increased after he moved from
Alexandria to Caesarea and became more aware of the Jewish canon.68 When
we come to Jerome, the champion of hebraica veritas, Jude's citation of Enoch
would seem to count against Jude rather than in favor of Enoch. 69 The Jewish
opinion seems increasingly weighty in the eyes of Christians.7° It would thus seem
that the "ways" were perhaps not quite as "parted" as we sometimes imagine.
It has been argued that Enoch fell out of favor because of the myth of the
Watchers. 71 Such an assessment is not fully correct, for the Fall of the Watchers
was still widely accepted until the end of the third century, 72 well after our first
evidence for doubts about 1 Enoch. In fact, in the third century, only Julius
Africanus mentions that the "sons of God" in Gen 6 may refer to the sons of
Seth-and even he is open to the possibility that the passage refers to fallen
angels. 73 It is only in the fourth century that we find Didymus and Alexander
 Jewish and Christian Scriptures
120
of Lycopolis proposing allegorical interpretations of Gen 6:1-4, and only with
Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine, Theodoret, Philaster, and Cyril of Alexandria
do we find a clear position in favor of the view that "sons of God" meant
righteous humans. 74
In conclusion: when fourth- and fifth-century Christian leaders insisted ever
more strongly on the distinction between canonical and apocryphal texts, they
included in the former category the little Epistle of Jude. Somewhat ironically,
the very invention of the canon served to amplify the significance and force of
Jude's citation of 1 Enoch. It is striking, in this regard, that Barnabas's citations
of 1 Enoch are nowhere mentioned in defense of 1 Enoch (or in defense of
Jude). Thus it appears that the very creation of a "closed" canon created a sort
of "wormhole" that connected the canon itself to those apocryphal texts that a
strictly delimited list of sacred books was meant to keep out.
Notes
1. It should be said at the outset that Jude's use of a ··non-canonical" text seems to
have drawn rather less comment among the fathers than modem scholars might
have expected. Although he slightly undervalues the evidence, Schelkle notes mit
Recht: "Die alte Exegese befasst sich mit Jud. 14 kaum. Da und dort wird der
Vers lediglich kurz paraphrasiert," in K. H. Schelkle, "Der Judasbrief bei den
Kirchenvatem," in Abraham Unser Vater: Juden und Christen im Gespriich uber die
Bibel (ed. 0. Betz, M. Hengel, and P. Schmidt; Leiden: Brill, 1963), pp. 405-16,
here p. 415.
2. Among patristic authors, Jude is more often referred to as an "apostle" than as
"brother of James" or "brother of the Lord." But by any of these appellations,
he is designated as an authoritative figure.
3. This is likely the status of the line from Menander which Paul cites here. As the
notion of a closed canon ultimately took shape, some Christians were bothered
not only by biblical citations of extracanonical works, but even by biblical
passages that presupposed knowledge of events recorded outside the canon. For
instance, Origen, commenting on Mt 27:11, alludes to interpreters who rejected
2 Timothy because of its reference to Jannes and Jambres (2 Tim 3:8; Comm.
ser. Matt. 117; 250.7-9). Similarly, when commenting on Mt 13:57, Origen
suggests that some may not believe that Isaiah was sawn apart because the story
was found in an apocryphal book (Comm. Matt. 10.18). For further references
and discussion, see W A. Adler, "The Pseudepigrapha in the Early Church," in
The Canon Debate (ed. L. M. McDonald and J. A. Sanders; Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson, 2002), pp. 211-28.
4. Jude's use of the Assumption of Moses will not be considered in this paper, but it
does raise a similar set of questions. Perhaps because Jude merely made reference
to an episode described by the Assumption of Moses-and did not cite the
Assumption as a textual authority-this reference drew less attention in antiquity.
Jude's Citation of 1 Enoch 121
That said, merely referring to characters or events described in "non-canonical"
books could be troubling to some Christians, as Origen's comments about Jannes
and Jambres and the death of Isaiah make clear (see previous footnote). Jude's
reference to the dispute between the archangel Michael and the devil (Jude 9) was
recognized in antiquity as coming from the Assumption of Moses, and Didymus
reports that his use of this work led to objections against Jude (Epistolam Beati
Judae apostoli enarratio [PG 39 .1815]). In fact, Clement of Alexandria used Jude
9 to defend the authority of the Assumption of Moses in much the same way that
Tertullian and others used Jude to support 1 Enoch. Quotiug Jude 9, Clement
writes hie confirmat assumptionem Moysi, "this confirms the Assumption of
Moses" (Adumbrationes in Ep. Jud. 9 [GCS 17, pg. 207]). (As Adler has noted,
Clement's expression may mean simply that Jude "corroborates [the account
in] the Assumption of Moses" or even that Jude "confirms" that "Moses was
assumed [into heaven]" (Adler, "Pseudepigrapha," p. 217 n. 31). On the complex
issue of Jude's source here, see R. J. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in
the Early Church (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990), pp. 235-80. It would be inter-
esting to know how Athanasius reconciled his acceptance of Jude and his virulent
rejection of the Assumption of Moses.
5. Whether or not Jude would have considered Enochic writings "canonical" has
often been debated among modern commentators. Probably it is anachronistic
even to pose the question in this language. Charlesworth has proposed that "If
Jude had anything like a closed canon, it might have included 1 Enoch .... But it
is improbable that Jude had a closed canon; perhaps he had an open canon with
inspired writings like Enoch, on the fringes" in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha
and the New Testament (SNTSMS 54; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1985), p. 74. Bauckham argues that Jude may in fact have known of a "closed"
canon, and yet, on the model of 4 Ezra 14, he may have recognized other books as
genuinely inspired and perhaps even more important than the publicly recognized
canon (Jude and the Relatives, pp. 229-30). Cf. the comments of Bo Reicke: "It
is clear that Jude regarded this writing [1 Enoch] as inspired. In fact, due to its
presumed antiquity, First Enoch is placed on an even higher level than the Old
Testament prophets," in The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude (AB 37; Garden
City, N.Y: Doubleday 1964), p. 209, emphasis added. On the status of holy books
and the question of a "canon" in ancient Judaism, cf the judicious essays of J.
J. Collins, "Before the Canon: Scriptures in Second Temple Judaism," in Old
Testament Interpretation: Past Present ait.d Future: Essays in Honor of Gene M.
Tucker (ed. J. L. Mays, D. L. Petersen and K. H. Richards; Nashville: Abingdon,
1995), pp. 225-41, and J. C. Reeves, "Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism," in
Living Traditions of the Bible: Scripture in Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Practice
(ed. J. E. Bowley; St. Louis: Chalice Press, 1999), pp. 63-84.
6. That Jude has not used an expression such as "it is written" can hardly be taken
as evidence that he does not value Enoch as an authoritative writing, pace, e.g.,
D. J. Moo, The NJV Application Commentary: 2 Peter and Jude (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1996), pp. 272-4. Modem commentators have also attempted to
122 Jewish and Christian Scriptures
minimize Jude's apparently high appraisal of 1 Enoch by arguing that he has
cited something that was valued by his opponents. C£ l D. Charles, "Jude's Use
of Pseudepigraphical Source-Material as Part of a Literary Strategy," NTS 37
(1991): 130-45, here pp. 133-4; Charles, '"Those' and 'These': The Use of the
Old Testament in the Epistle of Jude," JSNT 38 (1990): 109-24 (especially p.
112 and p. 119 n. 4); Charles, Literary Strategy in the Epistle of Jude (Scranton:
University of Scranton Press, 1993), pp. 132-60; R. Beckwith, The Old Testament
Canon of the New Testament Church (London: SPCK, 1985), p. 402; E. M. B.
Green, 2 Peter Reconsidered (London: Tyndale, 1961), p. 32; W M. Dunnett,
"The Hermeneutics of Jude and 2 Peter: The Use of Ancient Jewish Traditions,"
JETS 31 (1988): 287-92. For older efforts to distance Jude from 1 Enoch, see
T. Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament (trans. 1M. Trout, et aL; 3 vols.; 3rd
ed.; New York: Scribner's, 1909), 2:287.
7. A Vogtle, Der Judasbrief/Der 2. Petrusbrief (EKK; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 1994), p. 71. The text of Jude's citation has been the subject of
several detailed studies. In addition to the commentaries, c£ M. Black, "The
Maranatha Invocation and Jude 14, 15 (I Enoch I:9)," in Christ and the Spirit
in the New Testament (ed. B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1973), pp. 189-96; C. D. Osburn, "The Christological Use of
1 Enoch i.9 in Jude 14, 15," NTS 23 (1976-1977): 334---41; R. 1 Bauckham, "A
Note on a Problem in the Greek Version of I Enoch i.9," JTS 32 (1981): 136-8;
B. Dehandschutter, "Pseudo-Cyprian, Jude and Enoch: Some notes on 1 Enoch
1:9 ," in Tradition and Re-interpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature
(ed. 1 W van Henten, et aL; FS 1 C. H. Lebram; StPB 36; Leiden: Brill, 1986),
pp. 114-20; E. Mazich, '"The Lord Will Come with His Holy Myriads': An
Investigation of the Linguistic Source of the Citation of 1 Enoch 1,9 in Jude
14b-15," ZNW94 (2003): 276-81.
8. So Wolfgang Schrage notes that Jude mentions Enoch's position as "seventh"
to emphasize the "uralten ~nd mysteriosen Charakter der Weissagung," in 'Der
Judasbrief', in Die 'Katholischen' Briefe: Die Briefe des Jakobus, Petrus, Johannes
und Judas (ed. H. Balz and W Schrage; NTD 10; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and
Ruprecht, 1973), p. 228. Even naming Enoch "the seventh" gives another clue
that Jude relied on the writings of Enoch, for although Gen 5:1-24 and 1 Chr
1:1-3 provide genealogical information sufficient for a reader to know that Enoch
was "seventh," Enoch is explicitly named "seventh from Adam" in lEn 60:8 (and
"seventh" at lEn 93:3; c£ Jub 7:39). On the significance of the "seventh" position,
c£ Schelkle, "Judasbrief," p. 163; l M. Sasson, "A Genealogical 'Convention'
in Biblical Chronology," ZAW 90 (1978): 171-85. On the widespread motif of
discovering wisdom from primeval texts (often inscribed on stones or pillars), cf
M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine During
the Early Hellenistic Period (trans. 1 Bowden; 2 vols.; 2nd ed.; Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1974), 1.241-2.
9. A further ~dication of Jude's high estimation of 1 Enoch is the fact that the
content of what Jude quotes-the impending divine judgment against the
Jude's Citation of 1 Enoch 123
impious-is abundantly attested in the HB (c£ Deut 33:2; Jer 25:31; Zech 14:5;
Isa 66:15-16; Dan 7:10, 25-26). l C. VanderKam demonstrated in detail that
Enoch's theophany (lEn 1:3b-7, 9) is thoroughly biblical in its motifs and even
its vocabulary, in "The Theophany of Enoch I 3b-7, 9," VT23 (1973): 129-50. If
there were nothing especially authoritative for Jude about Enoch, these biblical
references could have availed. C£ A. Schlatter, Die Kirche Jerusalems vom Jahre
70-130 (Gutersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1896), p. 82.
10. It is worth noting that when Origen responds to Celsus's reference to the myth
of the Watchers, Origen addresses the status of 1 Enoch in the church. In other
words, he virtually presupposes that 1 Enoch was the source of this myth.
11. C. D. Osburn, "1 Enoch 80:2 (67:5-7) and Jude 12-13," CBQ47 (1985): 296-303;
Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives, pp. 190-201.
12. F. H. Chase actually proposed Enochic parallels for 15 of Jude's 25 verses, in
"Jude, Epistle of," A Dictionary of the Bible (ed. l Hastings with J. A. Selbie; 5
vols.; New York: Scribners, 1902), 2:801-2.
13. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives, p. 226; cf p. 140: ''Arguably 1 Enoch 1-5
was Jude's most fundamental source in constructing the exegetical section of
his letter ... " Osburn likewise calls 1 Enoch "a point d'appui for Jude's epistle"
("Christological Use," p. 340). Cf the list of passages cited by Zahn, Introduction,
2:288.
14. L. VanBeek, "1 Enoch among Jews and Christians: A Fringe Connection?" in
Christian-Jewish Relations Through the Centuries (ed. S. E. Porter and B. W R.
Pearson; JSNTSup 192; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), pp. 93-115, here pp.
98-99.
15. See J. T. Milik, ed., The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1967); G. WE. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on
the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1-36, 81-108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress,
2001), pp. 76-78; and P. W Flint, "The Greek Fragments of Enoch from Qumran
Cave 7," in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection (ed.
G. Boccaccini; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), pp. 224-33.
16. VanBeek, "1 Enoch," pp. 96-97; A. Y. Reed, Fallen Angels and the History of
Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 95-101. One famous example is the
Genesis Apocryphon, on whose use of 1 Enoch, see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, p. 76.
17. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, p. 77.
18. So E. W Larson, The Translation of Enoch: From Aramaic into Greek (JSJSup
53; Leiden.: Brill, 1997), who proposes the translation took place between 150 and
50 BCE. C£ the similar findings of J. Barr, ''Aramaic-Greek Notes on the Book
of Enoch," JSS 24 (1979): 179-92. M. Black tentatively suggested the translation
was made by Christians; M. Black with J. C. VanderKam and 0. Neugebauer,
The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch: A New English Edition (SVTP 7; Leiden: Brill,
1985), p. 4. But if 7Q4, 8, 11-13 are fragmentary manuscripts of Enoch (as
argued by Flint), then there exists concrete evidence of pre-Christian Greek
editions of Enoch.
124 Jewish and Christian Scriptures
19. SoP. S. Alexander, "Targumim and Early Exegesis of 'Sons of God'," JJS 23
(197'l): 60-71, here p. 61, who summarizes emphatically: "In fact, all our surviving
sources, though differing, of course, in detail, are unanimous on this point." A
possible exception might be detected in Sir 16:7, where the Hebrew "princes of
old" could represent a non-mythological interpretation of the account from
Genesis. If Sirach meant to demythologize the account, his grandson and trans-
lator undid his efforts, for he rendered the phrase "the ancient giants."
20. Alexander, "Targumim," p. 62.
21. Gen. Rab. 26.5. Further evidence of a second-century date for the Jewish rejection
of the "sons of God" interpretation can be found in Justin Martyr's Dial. 79,
where Trypho says that Christian expositions that claim that "angels sinned and
apostatized from God" are "mere contrivances" and "blasphemies" (Alexander,
"Targumim," p. 62). · it is interesting that for Tertullian, Priscillian, Jerome, and Augustine, it was
22. Alexander, "Targumim"; G. G Stroumsa, Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic
Mythology (NHS 24; Leiden : E. J. Brill, 1984), pp. 129-30; Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan evinces knowledge of some elements of the Enochic tradition, naming
the Nephilim of Gen 6:1-4 Shemihazai and Azael.
23. Alexander, "Targumim," p. 63; Stroumsa, Another Seed, pp. 126-7.
24. By which Aquila meant either "sons of the idols" or "sons of the judges"
(Alexander, "Targumim," pp. 64-65).
25. Augustine, Civ. 15.23; Cyril is discussed in L. R. Wickham, "The Sons of
God and the Daughters of Men: Genesis VI 2 in Early Christian Exegesis," in
Language and Meaning: Studies in Hebrew Language and Biblical Exegesis (ed.
J. Barr; OtSt 19; Leiden: Brill, 1974), pp. 135-47, here pp. 146-7; cf Reed, Fallen
Angels, pp. 217-!8.
26. Reed, Fallen Angels, p. 139, notes that both Gen. Rab. 25.1 and Tg. Onq. Gen 5:24
claim Enoch died a normal death. On the other hand, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
does have Enoch taken to heaven, and in fact identifies him as "Metatron, the
great scribe"! For the exiguous evidence of rabbinic familiarity with 1 Enoch, cf
Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, p. 81. On the possibility that the author of Pirqe de Rabbi
Eliezer knew 1 Enoch, cf A. Urowitz-Freudenstein, "Pseudepigraphic Support
of Pseudepigraphical Sources: The Case of Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer," in Tracing
the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of the Jewish Pseudepigrapha (ed. J. C. Reeves.
SBLEJL 6; Atlanta: Scholars, 1994), pp. 35-:-53.
27. The reason for this silence is not clear. Reed (Fallen Angels, p. 141) notes that
m. Ifag. 2.1 prohibited speculation about "what is above, what is below, what
is before, what is after"; cf Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, p. 82. J. J. Collins notes that
the calendrical teaching of 1 Enoch would have been unacceptable to the rabbis
("Before the Canon," p. 239).
28. The early Christian reception of Enochic writings is surveyed by H. L. Lawlor,
"Early Citations from the Book of Enoch," Journal of Philology 25 (1897):
164-225; R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), 2.180-4; J. C. VanderKam, "1 Enoch, Enochic
Motifs, and Enoch in Early Christian Literature," in The Jewish Apocalyptic
Jude's Citation of 1 Enoch 125
Heritage in Early Christianity (ed. J. C. VanderKam and W Adler; Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1996), pp. 33-101; VanBeek, "1 Enoch"; and Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, pp.
82-108.
29. Lawlor, "Early Citations," pp. 172-6; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, p. 87.
30. Here Enoch is cited alongside references to Daniel, Exodus, and Isaiah.
31. VanderKam, "1 Enoch," pp. 37-40. Identifying the exact source for Bamab~s'
references remains a problem. Lawlor notes that the citation at Bam 4:3' is
"not even a free quotation of anything in our Book" ("Citations," p. 172). The
references in Barn 16 appear to be a summary of lEn 89:45-77 and 91:13 (so
VanderKam, who surveys the various proposals ("1 Enoch," pp. 37-40). It is
worth noting that Barnabas is itself found among the books of the NT in Codex
Sinaiticus and is cited as "scripture" by Clement of Alexandria and Origen. Thus
Jude's use of Enoch, not Barnabas's, that presented itself as an issue, suggesting
that, despite the greater length (and some might say the greater theological
sophistication) of Barnabas, Jude had apparently become the more authoritative
source.
32. Cf VanderKam, "1 Enoch," pp. 41-42; Lawlor, "Early Citations," p. 177.
33. Discussed by VanderKam, "1 Enoch," pp. 42-43.
34. Adv. Haer. 1.2. In his account, Irenaeus uses the same verb for "transgressing"
(rrapa[3alvcu) as does lEn 106:13-14; cf Adv. Haer. 4.16.2; 4.36.4. Cf Lawlor,
"Early Citations," pp. 195-7; VanderKam, "1 Enoch," pp. 42-43.
35. VanderKam, "1 Enoch," pp. 42-43.
36. Cf lEn 19:3, and the discussion in Lawlor, "Early Citations," p. 182 and
VanderKam, "1 Enoch," pp. 44-45.
37. The details of the citation are discussed by VanderKam, "I Enoch," pp. 45-46.
Clement makes creative use of the Fall of the Watchers in his discussion of Greek
philosophy (Strom. 5.1.10); see R. J. Bauckham, "The Fall of the Angels as the
Source of Philosophy in Hermias and Clement of Alexandria," VC 39 (1985):
313-30.
38. The only earlier evidence that might betray some unease with 1 Enoch might be
2 Peter, which retains the content of Jude 6 (the Fall of the Watchers), but omits
the explicit reference to Enoch. Schelkle goes so far as to speak here of one book
"demythologizing" another (Petrusbriefe, Judasbrief, p. 221). But given Enoch's
popularity in the second century, it is rather unlikely that concerns with the
boundary of the canon motivated the author of 2 Peter to omit any reference to
Enoch.
39. The details of these references are treated by VanderKam, "1 Enoch," pp. 48-50.
40. Idol. 15.6: "Therefore the Holy Spirit, foreseeing this from the beginning,
predicted through the intermediary of the oldest prophet, Enoch, that even
entrances were to become objects of superstition." Further citations of Enoch
have been detected in Res. 32; cf VanderKam, "1 Enoch," pp. 53-54.
41. In addition to the passage to be discussed presently, cf Cult.fem. 2.10: the angels
provoked the anger of God "as Enoch says."
126 Jewish and Christian Scriptures
42. Lawlor adduces reasons to believe that Cyprian drew directly from a Greek
version of Enoch ("Early Citations," pp. 179, 213); Nickelsburg (1 Enoch, p. 89)
is less certain.
43. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, p. 90. Dehandschutter believes that the quotation may be
taken from Jude ("Pseudo-Cyprian, Jude and Enoch," p. 120 n. 36).
44. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, J>:/90.
45. Prine. 4.4.8, citing lEn 21:1 and lEn 19:3. There is mention made of Enoch in
Prine. 1.3.3, and it is possible that here Origen refers to Enoch as among the
"holy writings" (scripturis sanctis). See VanderK.am, "1 Enoch," p. 55.
46. sed quia lihelli ipsi non videntur apud Hebraeos in auctoritate haberi interim nunc ea
quae ihi nominantur; ad exemplum vocare differamus (Hom. Num. 28; PG 12:802).
47. It is worth noting that Enoch must have been well enough known among
Christians for Celsus to cite this as a Christian belief.
48. Lawlor, "Early Citations," pp. 203-4; VanderKam, "1 Enoch," pp. 54-59; Reed,
Fallen Angels, p. 204.
49. Before jumping ahead to Athanasius and Augustine, we might note in passing
that in the late third century, Anatolius of Alexandria, bishop of Laodicea, cited
"the Book of Enoch" concerning the calendar (Paschal Canon 5; Nickelsburg,
1 Enoch, p. 92). For other evidence of later use of Enoch in Egypt, see B. A.
Pearson, "Enoch in Egypt," in For a Later Generation: The Transformation of
Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity (ed. Randal A. Argall,
et aL; Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity, 2000), pp. 216-31.
50. Other explicit rejection of Enoch can be adduced from this time. The Apostolic
Constitutions (6.16) include warnings against the "apocrypha" written in the
names of biblical figures including Enoch; such books are "ruinous and inimical
to the truth" (Kat EV TOll; 1TaAaiOl5 OE TIVES auveypa~av ~~~.Ala am)Kpu¢a
Mcuae(J.)(;, Kat 'Evox, Kat 'AoaJ...I,'Haalou Te Kat ~auto, Kat 'H.Aia, Kat Tc3v Tptc3v
1TaTtapxc3v, <f>6op01TOia, Kat TI]t:; CxAT)6eta<:; ex8pa).
51. Cf. the discussion in D. Brakke, "Canon Formation and Social Conflict in
Fourth-Century Egypt: Athanasius of Alexandria's Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter,"
HTR 87 (1994): 395-419, here pp. 412-3.
52. For modem versions of Augustine's argument-that Enoch did prophesy, that
Jude quoted genuinely this prophecy which had been passed along, and that this
genuine prophecy was·later incorporated into the apocryphal book 1 Enoch-cf.
the literature cited by Schelkle, "Judasbrief," p. 164 n. 1.
53. Bede would seem to mimic Augustine's arguments. He states categorically that Enoch
is considered apocryphal-not because a patriarch's words should be disdained,
but because the book is simply pseudonymous. He also notes that it contains the
implausible myth of the Watchers. Bede is also aware that Jude was rejected for
having quoted an apocryphal book. But in his view, Jude took a quotation from an
apocryphal book, and the quotation was "transparent to true light and bright truth"
(PL 93: 129A; P. R. Jones, The Epistle of Jude as Expounded by the Fathers-Clement
of Alexandria, Didymus of Alexandria, the Scholia of Cramer's Catena, Pseudo-
Oecumenius, and Bede [ISR 89; Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 2001], pp. 120-1).
Jude's Citation of 1 Enoch 127
54. In his Commentary on Titus (PL 26.608C), Jerome states: Qui autem putant
to tum librum debere sequi eum qui libri parte usus sit, videntur mihi et apocryphum
Enochi, de quo Apostolus Judas in Epistola sua testimonium posuit, inter ecclesiae
scripturas recipere. As Lawlor notes, Jerome "plainly regards this argument as
a reductio ad absurdum" ("Early Citations," p. 220 n. 2). Jerome's view has a
modem advocate in Beckwith, Old Testament Canon, pp. 403-5.
55. On early Christian treatment of "apocryphal" and pseudepigraphical texts, cf.
Robert A. Kraft, "The Pseudepigrapha in Christianity," in Reeves, Tracing the
Threads, pp. 55-86; Adler, "Pseudepigrapha." On Athanasius, in particular, cf.
Brakke, "Canon Formation," pp. 412-3. The notion that apocryphal texts were
the work of heretics goes back to the time of Hegesippus (Eusebius, Hist. eccl.
4.22.9) and Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 1.12.1), although such an idea did not originally
necessitate rejecting Enoch, which, as was noted above, Irenaeus seems to have
valued.
56. Adler, "Pseudepigrapha," p. 228. Men such as Origen and Priscillian of Avila
freely granted that heretics may have forged some texts and tampered with
others, but noted that this merely necessitated care on the part of the Christian
interpreter. For Origen's reservations about Jewish and heretical invention and
adulteration of texts, cf. Adler, "Pseudepigrapha," pp. 218-9, 221 n. 52. Origen
cites as his hermeneutical principle the words of the Apostle Paul, "Test all things,
and hold to that which is good" (1 Thess 5:21; Comm. ser. Matt. 28 (on Mt 23:37)).
57. V. Burrus, "Canonical References to Extra-Canonical 'Texts': Priscillian's Defense
of the Apocrypha," SBLSP 29 (1990): 60-67; A. S. Jacobs, "The Disorder of
Books: Priscillian's Canonical Defense of Apocrypha," HTR 93 (2000): 135-59;
Henry Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila: The Occult and the Charismatic in the Early
Church (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), pp. 24-25, 77-85.
58. Priscillian, Lib. fid 44.10-12: Videamus ergo, si apostoli Christi Iesu magistri
nostrae conversationis et vitae extra canonem nillegerunt. (I cite the text and trans-
lation from Jacobs, "Disorder.")
59. To borrow the wording of Jacobs.
60. Lib.fid 44.12-19: Ait luda apostolus clamans ille didymus domini ...
61. The irony here is that Priscillian may not even have known any book of Enoch;
so Lawlor, "Early Citations," pp. 222-3.
62. W Wright, "Two Epistles of Mar Jacob, Bishop of Edessa," Journal of Sacred
Literature and Biblical Record, n.s. 10 (1867): 430-60, here p. 430. In the ninth
century, George Syncellus defended his own use of Enoch and Jubilees by citing
passages such as 1 Cor 2:9, which was believed to quote an apocryphal work.
George Syncellus did not, however, mention Jude. ''And this is from the First
Book of Enoch concerning the Watchers, even if it is necessary that especially
the more unsophisticated should not heed apocrypha wholeheartedly, insofar
as they contain some strange material, out of line with ecclesiastical teaching,
and have been adulterated by Jews and heretics. Nevertheless blessed Paul
occasionally used some passages from apocrypha, as when he says... [citations of
1 Cor 2:9; Gal6.15; Eph 5.14; etc. follow]," quoted in W Adler and P. Tuffin, The
128 Jewish and Christian Scriptures

Chronography of George Synkellos: A Byzantine Chronicle of Universal History

from the Creation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 36. That George
Syncellus later cites 2 Pet 2:4-7 rather than Jude 14 to prove that the NT authors
knew 1 Enoch suggests that he was unaware of Jude. On the use of 1 Enoch
by Christian chronographers, see W. Adler, "Berossus, Manetho, and '1 Enoch'
in the World Chronicle of Panodorus," HTR 16 (1983): 419-42; and W. Adler,
"Jacob of Edessa and the Jewish Pseudepigrapha in Syriac Chronography," in
Reeves, Tracing the Threads, pp. 143-71, here pp. 145-6.
63. Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha, p. 74.
64. C. D. Anderson, "Jude's Use of the Pseudepigraphal Book of 1 Enoch" Dialogue:
A Journal of Mormon Thought 36 (2003): 47-64.
65. R. W. Cowley, "The Biblical Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church Today,"
Ost 23 (1974): 318-23.
66. M.A. Knibb, "Christian Adoption and Transmission of Jewish Pseudepigrapha:
The Case of I Enoch," JSJ 32 (2001): 396-415, here p. 413; on the reception of
Enoch in Ethiopia, see Nickelsburg, I Enoch, pp. 104-8.
67. Reed, Fallen Angels, p. 205.
68. Reed, Fallen Angels, p. 204.
69. Even Augustine, who was no great champion of hebraica veritas, was unwilling to
doubt the basic rightness of the books the Jews kept at the Temple.
70. When R. Heiligenthal comments that 1 Enoch was rejected by Chrlstians because
of its Jewish origin, he would seem to have the situation precisely backwards:
"Der 1Hen selbst wurde offenbar sowohl von Juden wegen seiner Messianologie
als auch von Christen wegen seiner jiidischen Herkunft abgelehnt," in Zwischen
H enoch und Paulus: Studien zum theologiegeschichtlichen Ort des Judasbriefes
(TANZ 6; Tiibingen: Francke, 1992), p. 63 n. 4.
71. So VanBeek: ''After the second century CE .·.. I Enoch was condemned due to its
position on the carnal lust of heavenly beings. The main reason for the decline
of the use of I Enoch is its explicit terms about the actions of the angels in Gen.
6.1-4" ("1 Enoch," p. 111).
72. The interpretation of Gen 6:1-4 as the fall of the Watchers was dominant
throughout the second and third centuries, having representatives in Papias,
Justin Martyr, Tatian, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Bardaisan,
Tertullian, Heracleon, Hegemonius, Epiphanius, Commodian, Cyprian, the
Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, and Lactantius (who may have known 1 Enoch).
Specific references can be found in Bauckham, "Fall of the Angels," p. 327 n. 17.
73. Julius Africanus, Chronography (apud Syncellus); for text and discussion, see
Stroumsa, Another Seed, pp. 126-7 and VanderKam, "1 Enoch," pp. 80-81. The
Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.29 also interprets Gen 6:1-4 as a story about
"righteous men."
74. Bauckham, "Fall of the Angels," p. 316; L. R. Wickham, "Sons of God." ·
Klijn notes that Syriac Christians arguing for a Sethian interpretation betray a
knowledge of the rabbinic "sons of judges" interpretation (cited by Reed, Fallen
Angels, p. 223).
REsPoNSE ·To JEREMY HULTIN's "JunE's
CITATION OF 1 ENOCH"
Leslie W. Walck
Professor Jeremy Hultin has written on an interesting and important topic, the
reception and authority of Jude and of 1 Enoch, and the interconnectedness of
their reception or rejection in what came to be the canon of Scripture.
His survey of ancient literature is representative and wide-ranging. He notes
that in early Judaism and early Christianity, Enochic literature was accepted and
valued. For instance, in Qumran, multiple copies of 1 Enoch existed; moreover,
several documents made use of Enochic literature or themes.
In the 2nd century CE, Hultin notes, 1 Enoch was rejected by the Rabbis
due to its apocalyptic character. 1 Enoch's acceptance in Christian literature
continues into the 3rd century CE and Hultin mentions pre-eminent representa-
tives who valued it, especially Tertullian.
Origen is highlighted as one who stood at the "beginning of the end" of the
acceptance of 1 Enoch, since at first he spoke highly of it, then later admitted it
was n~t universally accepted, and still later argued against its acceptance. Soon
Athanasius, Augustine and Jerome explicitly reject 1 Enoch, partly due to its
exclusion from what Judaism considered sacred literature, and also partly due
to its apocalyptic character. Interestingly, Augustine and Jerome acknowledge
Enoch as a legitimate prophet, as proclaimed by Jude, but they reject Enochic
literature as suspect due to its supposed antiquity.
But then, Hultin interestingly points out, some in that same era, notably
Priscillian, argue that since Jude is canonical, so 1 Enoch should also be considered
authoritative. "Canonical scripture and apocrypha stand or fall together: either
scripture lied when it cited them, or the apocrypha contain truth." This appears
to be a strong argument for Hultin, as he notes that Jude's canonicity raised the
stakes for 1 Enoch as well. It is ironic that one book made it into the canon, while
the other did not. I think it would be interesting to hear more about the possible
dynamics at work in the acceptance of one and rejection of the other.
My sense is that Professor Hultin is right in noting that the apocalyptic nature
of 1 Enoch was instrumental in its rejection. Apocalyptic literature is helpful

129
I·
130 Je1t1ish and Christian Scriptures

a nd reassuring to people in distress, especially in their being oppressed by the

authorities. But as Christianity became m o re a nd more part of the main stream
a nd as it experienced Jess oppression, the role of apocalyptic literature lessened
a nd its he lpfulness declined.
I believe there is a lso a theological factor in the rejection of 1 Enoch. In a n age
when apocalyptic literature was popular because it was a source of hope that evil
oppressors would eventually receive their just rewards, it was a lso attractive to believe
that the source of evil is extra-terrestria l. Human sin derived from fallen watchers, as
1 Enoch portrays. As Clu-istianity became less oppressed, however, huma n agency
in sin, as a result of ethical choices, becom es more meaningful. In other words, 1
Enoch's theodicy fell out of favor and cont ributed to 1 Enoch's rejection.
I wonder if a nother factor was a lso at work in the rejection of 1 Enoch,
especially from the Jewish perspective, and thus derivatively in the Christian
camp as well. I wonder if calendrical concerns militated against the acceptance of
1 Enoch. Writings in Qumra n, including the Psalms Scroll a nd the T hanksgiving
H ymns, promoted a sola r cale ndar whic h 1 Enoch a lso reflected. This was in
contrast to the cult in Jerusalem that used a )uni-solar calendar. The different
cale ndars offset feasts and holy days. Competing calendars thus had disruptive
effects, since holy d ays a nd their prescribed rituals did not m atch up and so each
g roup deemed the rituals of the other jnvalid. A breakdown of relationships
between the divine and humanity was believed to ensue, which in turn resulted
in a de facto exclusion and condemnation of the other. We can think especially
of the comments in Pesher H abbakuk on the Teacher of Rig hteousness and the
wicked priest, where the wicked priest cam e to upset a nd confuse the Teacher of
Righteousness, but did it on a day that the Teacher of Righteousness believed was
the Sabbath. I f calendrical concerns were prominent, the Jerusalem cult excluded
those who followed a solar calendar, a nd with them the works promoting the
sola r calendar. Thus once the Roman conquest took place a nd the community in
Qumran was destroyed 1 Enoch would have fallen o ut of use in the group that
survived the conquest, i.e. the cult in Jerusalem, a nd so it was eventua lly excluded
from what came to be the H ebrew Bible. T his avenue may be worth pursuing.
T he Book of Jude, it can be assumed, was never of a ny inte rest to the Jewish
community, but at the same time was of g reat interest to Christians for its
trinitarian fo rmulations, thus meeting the criteria for acceptance by Christians,
despite its use of no n-biblical sources. '
All in all, H ultin is to be commended for his concise and pithy paper a nd for
the insights he sha res.

Note
I. D. F. Watson, "The Letter of J ude," The New Inte1preters Bible (12 vols.; Nashville:
Abingdon, 1994-2004), vol. 12, pp. 473- 500, here p. 493.