Not
Giving Heed to Jewish Fables (1)
Background
[Note : This file was put together
by the previous editor of Tidings recovering the articles as they were
originally formatted 2001, some typos will have been reintroduced into the text
in this process. If anyone wants to proofread and correct, then please do so.]
We sometimes think of the first century as
being a doctrinal golden age when believers did not have to deal with all the
false ideas circulating in our own day. Maybe we are even slightly jealous that
the first believers were blessed not only to have the inspired apostles, but
also to be spared the inventions of later centuries.
This
view of the first century church is largely true when it comes to doctrines
that are specifically New Testament in their origin, e.g. teaching about the
nature of Christ, baptism into him, and his church. Yes, there were those in
the early church who had wrong ideas about Christ, but the apostles did not
have to deal with the Trinity [1], nor did the next several generations. For
example, the very earliest post-apostolic documents such as Clement (c.90 AD)
and the Apostle’s Creed (c. 150 AD) could just as well have been written by
Christadelphians, yet by the time of the Nicean Creed (325 AD) a statement such
as Paul’s “there is one mediator between man and God, the man Jesus Christ” (1
Tim. 2:5) would be heresy. Likewise the early church did not have to deal with
infant baptism (the Didache c. 120 AD, clearly specifies adult baptism), nor
until Constantine’s conversion (337AD) were compromises of church and state a
problem.
False
doctrine pre-NT
But
this view is not true of the state of other doctrines which did not originate
in the New Testament. While it took little more than 100 years for the
specifically New Testament doctrines to start being corrupted, the first
principles of Bible teaching found in the Old Testament had already been
suffering this process for centuries. False teachings about the immortality of
the soul, the flight of the soul to paradise or hell on death, dualism (one God
of good, one demi-god of evil), belief in demons, witchcraft, astrology, and so
on, were all flourishing long before Christendom arrived on the scene.
Indeed,
we can trace doctrinal decline right back to the words of the serpent “thou
shaft not surely die” (Gen. 3:4). Throughout the Old Testament from Cain, via
the golden calf, to the high places and the groves of Israel and Judah, we find
a never-ending struggle against false teaching. If the Israelites were so
doctrinally corrupt under the leadership of men like Moses, David, Hezekiah,
Josiah and Ezra, it shouldn’t be a surprise to us that in the 300 year “gap”
between Old and New Testaments, when the land was largely under the rule of,
and settled by, pagans, things would go from bad to worse.
Consequently when Christ was bom, it was into a world with as much
false doctrine as the world of today. The Gospel was not solely corrupted by
Hellenism after the ascension of the Lord, because the process had already been
at work in Judaism since long before Alexander the Great brought the culture of
Hellenism to the middle east. In fact it is not really even correct to use the
term “Hellenism” of the problem we are addressing here. Most of the false
doctrines we will look at predate the Greeks.
Jewish
myths
We tend to think of mythology in
association with Greece or Rome, but the starting point of this series is
Paul’s warning to Titus not to give heed to “Jewish fables” (Titus 1:4). This
word “fables” in the AV (“myths” in most versions, mythos in Greek) is used five times in the New
Testament. In one of these instances, Paul warns of myths which will come (II
Tim. 4:4), which we might assume from our knowledge of subsequent church
history would be pagan myths, but the other four uses (I Tim. 1:4, 4:7; Tit.
1:4; II Pet. 1:16) speak of myths already present and which the context
strongly indicates are myths introduced from popular Judaism.While it is
disturbing to realize these myths are so resilient, it may at least encourage
us that the problems we face in a world full of myths, legends and false
doctrine is a condition not unknown to the apostles, nor to our Lord himself.
So
what do we know about these Jewish myths? Did Paul mean myths as a body of
literature like the myths of Greece or Rome, or just individuals telling
foolish stories? Do they survive today? And even if they do, why are they of
any interest to us?
Until
quite recently very little was known at all but thanks to some major
rediscoveries and the work of scholars like C. Tischendorf [2] and R.H. Charles
[3], we now know quite a lot about the Jewish myths Paul was referring to. They
were never an independent body of literature like the myths of Greece and Rome,
because the Jewish authors had some basic limits set on their imagination by
the Bible (e.g. there can be no polytheism in Jewish myth), but popular Judaism
had its mythology back then no less than Christianity has its myths today. Not
all of the Jewish myths survive today, any more than all of Greek and Roman myth
survives, and we have lists of banned books (either banned by the rabbis or by
Christian bishops) which show that a good number of them have perished without
trace. Nevertheless enough have survived to have a reasonable picture of the
Jewish myths Paul was referring to.
The
basis on which this series will proceed is primarily “know thine enemy.” We are
not interested in the myths themselves, but rather in how an understanding of
what the Lord and the apostles were contending against can help us better understand
the New Testament text.
God
willing this series will continue as follows:
1.
Background
2.
Abraham
and Hades
3.
Jannes
and Jambres
4.
Enoch
in Peter and Jude (part 1)
5.
Enoch
in Peter and Jude (part II)
6.
Michael,
the Devil, and the body of
Moses
It is worth introducing the main
sources which will appear and reappear in the series.
Josephus
[4] and Philo
[5]. While we read Josephus for the history, Antiquities
of the Jews also shows us some of the mythology believed by a
well educated Pharisee (e.g. the magic legends concerning Solomon). Philo of
Alexandria also refers to many popular myths.
The
Old Testament Apocrypha — as found between Old and New
Testaments of Catholic Bibles [6]. Much of the Apocrypha is not “myth”: for
example the Wisdom
of Sirach, and the “history” of Maccabees. A more typical example
of Paul’s “Jewish myths” is to be found in the Book of Tobit which, with its stories about angels
and demons, is very much representative of what people in Jesus’ day believed.
Tobit is essential reading for any understanding of the popular demon belief
described in the gospels.
The Dead Sea Scrolls (“DSS”)
— discovered in 1948 at Qumran [7]. The Scrolls have the disadvantage of coming
from one particular religious community, which was probably not typical of
pre-70 AD Judaism, but many of the books in their library are simply copies of
the religious bestsellers of their day — and these fill in gaps in our
knowledge of Jewish myth.
The OT Pseudepigrapha (“OTP”) - meaning “falsely signed writings” [8]. This loose body of
literature has some overlap with Dead Sea Scrolls and Apocrypha. In some ways
it is the worst of all the sources available to us because by their very nature
many of these pseudepigraphic books are deliberate fakes and forgeries, often
pretending to be the work of a Bible figure such as Moses or Enoch.
Pseudepigraphic books characteristically expand straightforward events in the
Old Testament into the purest pulp fiction, with liberal doses of heaven and
hell, angels and demons, soul journeys and so on. But it is exactly because
these works are the worst that they are also our best source for the “Jewish
myths” we are searching for.
Rabbinical writings —
Mishnah
[9], Talmuds [10] and Midrash [11]. While the rabbis made a conscious effort to
clean up Judaism doctrinally after the disasters of 70 AD and the Bar Khokba
revolt, much of the mythological material survived the rabbis’ best efforts.
Health warning
A
good overview of all the above sources is found in a book by Craig Evans [12]
which gives a straight account of the sources available. However a warning
needs to be issued on most other books about this material. Most writers on the
Apocrypha, Dead Sea Scrolls and Pseudepigrapha don’t have any respect for the
Bible as the inspired word of God. While that shouldn’t stop us making our own
first hand studies of source material, commentaries written on these works can
be every bit as corrosive to faith in the Scriptures as are modern commentaries
on the Bible books themselves. It would be tragic if misdirected inquiry into
these Jewish myths had the opposite effect that Paul and Peter intended in
addressing them.
Inspiration vs. non-inspiration
As
we proceed in this series, one of the consistent recurring themes will be to
show how the New Testament writers demonstrate the authority and inspiration of
Scriptures by contrast with the Jewish myths. It is therefore no coincidence
that the famous proof verses for the inspiration of Scripture (II Tim. 3:14-17;
II Pet. 1:16-21) occur in immediate proximity to specific Jewish legends (about
which more later). This should not be a surprise: if God’s word were the only
authority competing for the mind of man — which would not be the case even if
the Bible were the only book in print — inspiration would be a non-issue. On
the contrary, it is the competing presence of alternatives, be they myths,
man-made religions, science or philosophy, which makes it necessary to distinguish
between inspired and non-inspired, between truth and lies, the divine genuine
item and human imitations. The doctrine of inspiration in II Timothy 3:14-17
and II Peter 1:16-21 is not a theoretical description of the mechanism by which
the Bible was written; it is in-stead a practical challenge to all other |
messages and media.
Therefore
the contact points with “Jewish myth” in the New Testament are points of
combat.
The
main purpose of this series is firstly to strengthen our belief and confidence
in the inspiration of Scripture, meaning all Scripture, even those 1
embarrassing mentions of “third heaven,” “deaf mute demons,” and 1
“angels that sinned” that can raise , doubts. This can only be done by '
uncovering the myth, and letting the arguments of the New Testament I writers
disprove them.
Although it is not the function of this series to serve as a kind
of “Wrested Scriptures” on Jewish fables, it will be a sad theme of the
articles that most of these myths are only mentioned in the New Testament j
with the aim of refuting them, yet in popular Christianity mere mention has
been taken as proof of the myth, because of superficial reading and disregard
of context. In some ways this I is
not surprising: if stories of soul journeys, magic, demons, and fallen angels
are absent in the Old Testament but to be found in Jewish myth, those who are
predisposed to believe in such things will naturally be drawn to the parts of
the New Testament where these myths are dealt with.
Steven
Cox, Hyderabad, India
[1]
Griffiths,
Triads and
Trinity, University of Swansea, A. Buzzard Trinity
[2]
W.
Whiston, reprint Hendrickson 1993
[3]
C.
Younge, reprint Hendrickson 1993
[4]
C.
Tishchendorf, Apocalypses
Apocryphae, Leipzig
[5]
RH
Charles’ main work was his edition of the Pseudepigrapha Oxford 1910, but this
has now been superseded by Charlesworth below
[6]
Jerusalem
Bible.
[7]
G
Vermes,Complete
Dead Sea Scrolls in English Penguin
[8]
J.
Charlesworth, Old
Testament Pseudepigrapha 2 vols. Doubleday 1983
[9]
Danby,
Oxford 1933
f 10] Soncino
edition, see also Ginzberg below
[11]
These
sources are difficult to access (due to lack of translations and modern
editions) but many Midrash are indexed in the notes in volumes to Louis
Ginzberg’s mammoth Legends
of the Jews 7 vols. 1938 reprinted John Hopkins 1999
Craig Evans, Non-canonical Writings and NT Interpretation Hendrickson 1992
One
of the main concerns of the survey waBIbBIBLE
STUDY
Not
Giving Heed to Jewish Fables (2)
|
S |
ome take exception to
Jesus using a false idea of the Pharisees as the basis for his teaching. But it
should be noted that the truth or falsity of the story in a parable is
immaterial. The lesson conveyed through the story is the intended point” (R.
Abel, Wrested
Scriptures, pg. 107).
Bro. Ron Abel’s treatment of Luke
16:19-31 is in many ways the starting point for this series of articles. In
evidence of the above, Wrested
Scriptures pp. 107-108 footnotes a passage from Whiston’s edition
of Josephus, A
Discourse to Greeks Concerning Hades, which bears an uncanny
resemblance to Luke 16. Unfortunately, the resemblance is so uncanny because
the passage is based on Luke 16. The author is not Josephus but the 4th Century
Bishop Hippolytus. At some point, a copying error confused the names and the
mistake was not discovered until recently.
In
any case, although attribution of the Discourse turns out to be wrong, Bro. Ron
Abel’s instinct about the Jewish myth origins of Luke 16 turns out to be right.
Evidence
from surviving Jewish texts of the period show that what is described in Luke
16:19-30 is drawn from popular first century teachings concerning a division in
the underworld between the fires of Hades and the paradise where Abraham and
other patriarchs dwelt:
1.
While
the NIV has “to Abraham’s side,” the literal AV rendering “to the bosom of
Abraham” is better. The “Bosom of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” (papyrus Preisigke
Sb2034:11), was a specific concept in contemporary popular belief.[1]
2.
Jewish
martyrs believed that: “After our death in this fashion Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob will receive us and all our forefathers will praise us” (4 Maccabees
13:17 in J.H. Charlesworth, The
OT Pseudepigrapha, Doubleday 1983).
3.
Other
early Jewish works describe paradise as being separated from the fires by a
river (not substantially different from the chasm of Luke 16). In one
apocryphal work this river could be crossed only in an angelic boat: “You have
escaped from the abyss and Hades, you will now cross over the crossing place...
then he ran to all the righteous ones, namely Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Enoch,
Elijah and David” (Apocalypse
ofZephaniah 9:2. Charlesworth op.cit.).The same first century
Jewish work also shows the popular belief concerning the role of Abraham as
intercessor for those in torment in the fiery part of Hades: “As they looked at
all the torments they called out, praying before the Lord Almighty saying, ‘We
pray you on behalf of those who are in all these torments so you might have
mercy on all of them.’ And when I saw them, I said to the angel who spoke with
me, ‘Who are they?’ He said ‘Those who beseech the Lord are Abraham and Isaac
and Jacob’” (Apoc.
Zeph. I
I:l~2).
4.
In
another work, Abraham causes some of the dead to return from Hades to life
“Then Abraham arose and fell upon the earth, and [the Angel of] Death with him,
and God sent a spirit of life into the dead and they were made alive again” (Testament of
Abraham ‘A’ 18:11).
From the above it should be clear
that the picture of the Underworld given by Christ is not Christ’s own picture,
nor drawn from the Old Testament, but from popular Jewish beliefs.
As Ron Abel comments above, when
dealing with Luke 16 as “wrested scripture” the truth or falsity of the story
in a parable is immaterial. Furthermore, there are other arguments presented in
Wrested
Scriptures which should show an unbiased inquirer that the story
was never meant to be taken as a factual description of the underworld.
But
is Luke 16 a parody of the myth? Does it just refer to the myth or does it show
the myth to be wrong?
For our purpose in this series,
which is concerned with the attitude of the New Testament to Jewish myths, the
falsity of the story is highly material. The above texts prove that Christ used
popular ideas, but we have not yet proved that the Lord’s parable is in any way
critical of these beliefs. Many people, even when provided with the historical
context, would simply assume that Christ shared the beliefs found in the Apocalypse of
Zephaniah, and so on, and was supporting the teaching. It is not
enough to show a connection with Jewish myth, we must also be able to
demonstrate that the attitude to these myths was negative.
2.
This
we can do. There are several signs in the text that a vein of irony runs
through the parable: 1The “everlasting habitations” where the
steward’s new friends wait for him in 16:9 provide a link to the everlasting
habitation which receives the rich man in 16:23. Again the point for us is that
there is a heavy negative spin on the afterlife expectations of both the
steward and the Pharisees. The stage is being set for the next parable.
3.
When
Christ puts the word “father” for Abraham in the mouth of the rich man (v. 27),
it is despite his own command to call no man “father” and the warning of John
the Baptist about Jewish reliance on their ancestry in Luke 3:8. If we consider
Jesus’ dialogue with the scribes and Pharisees in John 8:31-59, we can see that
Christ is being critical of the rich man’s beliefs to rely on his ancestry for
favored treatment. Popular Jewish beliefs contain this same element — “Our
father Abraham” is a common phrase in the Mishnah (e.g. Aboth 3:12, 5:2,3,6,19, 6:10 Taanith
2:4,5 etc.).
5.
The
purple and fine linen worn by the rich man is a clear reference to priestly
garments (Ex. 39:2,24,29) which would suggest a personification of the
priesthood. In addition, the mention of “my father’s house” by the rich man
(16:27) and “five brethren” (16:28) would make it clear to any first century
listener that the target of this parable is none other than the high priest
himself. The rich man is Caiaphas, and the rich man’s five brethren are his
five brothers-in-law: Eleazar, Jonathan, Theophilus, Matthias, and the younger
Annas. Josephus records, “Now the report goes, that this elder Annas (Caiaphas’
father- in-law) proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons, who had all
performed the office of a high priest to God, and he had himself enjoyed that
dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high
priests...” (Antiquities,
book XX, ch.9, section i, p. 423). While singling out powerful individuals like
this is not uncommon in the Old Testament prophets, Christ’s placing of
Caiaphas into this parable is unique in the New Testament. While modern
sensibilities are squeamish about the idea that Christ could use parody, irony,
even sarcasm, the fact is that the Old Testament prophets did so freely.
Therefore, this is an acceptable form of rebuke in the Bible. Familiarity with
the style of the Old Testament prophets should lead us to accept the use of
irony in rebuke (cp. Isa. 14:13 and Ezk. 28:2 with Matt. 11:23). [2]Most
importantly; the fate of the rich man after death, despite his priestly robes
and high religious position, does more than invalidate the rich man’s (and the
Pharisees’) contempt for the common people (John 7:49). Having the unclean
beggar take the priest’s place in Abraham’s bosom invalidates the whole
structure of the religious establishment’s belief.5
6.
Caiaphas
was a Sadducee and we do not know enough about the beliefs of the Sadducees to
be sure to what extent they shared the popular view of Abraham in the
underworld. One could argue that this is not relevant as the audience was
composed of Pharisees, but the NT shows such keen awareness of the differences
between the two groups (Matt. 22:23; Acts 23:8) that we should be aware of this
aspect. If a distinction is drawn between Pharisee and Sadducee belief in the
parable it may be in the mention of angels, 16:22, and the predisposition of Annas
and his family to deny the resurrection in 16:31 (not just of the Lazarus in
the parable and the historical Lazarus, and ultimately of Christ too). As such
the Lord is using Pharisee belief to reprove Sadducee belief. Yet we hardly see
any sign of this having been done to please the Pharisees. In fact, the
shocking start of the parable with a beggar whose sores are licked by the dogs
being taken to the lap of Father Abraham — thereby making Abraham himself
unclean — would be most offensive to the sensibilities of the Pharisees (cf. G.
Stemberger, Jewish
Contemporaries of Jesus 1995 pp 75-82). And there is no evidence
that when it came to the reality of resurrection (either of Lazarus or Christ)
the Pharisees were any more disposed to accept the consequences of their
doctrine than the Sadducees. The bottom line then is that the parable contains
criticism of the characteristic beliefs of both groups which included the
description of the journey of two souls to a divided underworld.
7.
Note
also how Lukel6:26, “neither can they pass,” contradicts Apocalypse of
Zephaniah 9:2 quoted above. This direct contradiction with the NT
text is one evidence that Apoc.
Zeph., unlike Hippolytus’ “Discourse concerning Hades,” is
independent of Luke 16. It is also further evidence that Luke 16 does not
condone popular beliefs regarding the bosom of Abraham.
Lessons for
us
So what can we say in conclusion?
First, that the story of Abraham
in the underworld is drawn on Jewish mythology. Second, that the parable shows
signs of parody by which the popular belief is brought into disrepute. A third
conclusion might be that the reason Christ couched the parable in this way was
because it was so effective in exposing the falseness of “the doctrine of
Pharisees and Sadducees.”
Now take a step back.
It is hoped that the above
historical background was interesting. It may even be helpful. But before
losing sight of the forest for the trees, we need to remember that the parable
is not just a political cartoon attacking a Jewish high priest. The story of
the rich man and Lazarus is first and foremost a lesson that can be understood
by anyone from Sunday School onwards. The real fable being debunked is the
ancient myth that religious respectability is any kind of guarantee of favor
with God. The truly disturbing thing about Luke 16:19-31 is not the traces of
Jewish myth, nor the difficulty that the parable presents for us in study and
preaching, but that these parables were preserved for our spiritual benefit, to
warn us as individuals. There is a danger that if we solely concern ourselves
with the application of Christ’s parables to others (either others in the first
century or others today) the day might come when the Lord turns to us and
repeats his rebuke:
And he said unto them “YE ARE THEY
which justify yourselves before men...” (16:15).
Certainly the first-century
application to Jewish teachers and their myths is important, but what is the
twenty-first century application? Hopefully not to ourselves.
Steven
Cox, Hyderabad, India
1
Kiddushin72b
and Ekah 1:85 are cited in L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, republished John Hopkins 1998,
Vol. 5, p. 269.
2
This
argument would strengthen further if comparison of the Galilee and Bethany
anointings could show that Simon the Leper of Matt. 26:61-13 had, prior to the
onset of his uncleanness, once been Simon the Pharisee of Luke 7:36-50. The
Pharisees would then be listening to a parable about a reversal of fortunes for
Caiaphas their “boss” and Simon the leper, a disgraced ex-colleague.
!
If this is not the case (returning to item 3) then Christ has just confirmed
the rich man’s faith in Abraham as father of the righteous in the underworld,
and contradicted his own words in Matt. 23:9.
Not Giving Heed to Jewish Fables (3)
Jannes and Jambres
What does “Three kings carrying gifts”
suggest to us7 Obviously the birth of our Lord, even though every
Chnstadelphian child knows full well that the Magi were not kings, and the
Bible does not say there were three of them
How many recognize the names Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthasar7
Maybe some parts of the English speaking world are now more familiar with
Rudolf, Donner and Blitzen, but the names of the three kings have a long
tradition in Europe
Try
a similar question what did “Jannes and Jambres” (II Tim 3 8) suggest to
Timothy7
The
way the question is put may sound strange Normally the question is phrased like
this “Jannes and Jambres are not mentioned in the Old Testament, so how did
Paul know their names7” To which the answer will immediately come
back “He was inspired ” End of discussion Fine, let us say that Paul was
verbally inspired to add this detail to Exodus 7 22, but that doesn’t help
answer our question above How did Timothy know what Paul was talking about9
Inspiration, literally the breath
of God m the mouths of the prophets, may produce material that is difficult for
us to understand, and often we have to simply accept this in faith To accept
our own limitations, however, is one thing, while to say that Paul wrote things
in a personal epistle that were meaningless to his own son m the faith is quite
another The unsatisfactory nature of such a solution is underlined by the fact
that this chapter of II Timothy contains the New Testament’s clearest argument
on inspiration (3 16) We are told there of the power of inspired scripture to
make wise, teach, reprove, correct and instruct (II Tim 3 15-17) None of this
occurs if scripture does not mean something to the hearer
As
it happens we can be fairly certain that Timothy already had heard of Jannes
and Jambres before Paul named them in his epistle His hearing had been much in
the same way that many of us have heard of Gaspar, Melchior and Balthazar (or
at least Rudolf, Donner and Blitzen)
The
key to the Jannes and Jambres puzzle is not to be found in history but in
geography — not in Exodus but in Ephesus Consider why Timothy was m Ephesus
“As
I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may
command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer, nor to devote
themselves to myths ” (I Tim 1 3, NIV)
That word “myths,” or “fables” in
the KJV, is the same word used for the Jewish fables discussed m the previous
articles So what were these myths and false doctrines that Timothy was under
instruction from Paul to suppress9
Obviously
there would have been more than one myth and more than one false doctrine The
letter to the Ephesians, along with I and II Timothy and Rev 2 1-7, show that
Ephesus had more than one problem For Jannes and Jambres, the key is m Acts 19,
the chapter which describes how the church at Ephesus was founded
Acts
19 17-19 describes how a large number of magicians burnt their magic books and
joined the ecclesia The value of the scrolls burnt m Acts 19 19 indicates that
these ex-sorcerers were either very numerous or very rich (cf II Tim 6 17)
Either way they would have had considerable influence in the Ephesian church
Note that apparently both Greek and Jewish magicians were converted The
prohibitions of Leviticus 19 31, 20 6 should have meant there was no such thing
as a “Jewish sorcerer” but, in fact, all the sorcerers of Acts are Jews Simon
the Samaritan in Acts 8 9, Elymas Bar-Jesus in Acts 13 8, and the seven sons of
Sceva in Ephesus
By
the first century, there was a thriving tradition of sorcery among the Jews
This can be seen not just from physical evidence, such as magical inscriptions
on pottery, etc , but also from extensive literary evidence Among those magical
traditions were the Jews’ own magical myths And among those were myths
concerning the magicians of Exodus 7
1
Dead Sea Scrolls
“Moses and Aaron arose with the help of the Prince of Lights, while Belial
raised up Yohannah (Jannes) and his brother” (6Q15 3 and CD5 17b-19)
2
Pliny
(1C) cites as famous Jewish magicians Moses, Jannes and “Lotapes” (a copying
error for Jambres[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
HN 30 2 11) Lucius Apuleius (2C) also mentions Moses and Jannes as Jewish
magicians (Apologia 2 90) Numemus (2C) mistakenly recounts that Jannes and
Jambres were able to reverse all the plagues that God sent upon Egypt (Eusebius
PE 9 8)
3
In
Testament of
Solomon, a 1st- 2nd century compendium of Jewish magic and demon
lore, Abezethibou, the demon of the Red Sea, confesses to Solomon that “I am
the one whom Jannes and Jambres called to their aid I am the adversary of
Moses” (T Sol 25 4 )
4
The Confession of Jannes and
Jambres (Charlesworth Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Vol II, 427-42), tells
of the death of Jannes and his mother after opposing Moses, and the repentance
of Jambres after Jannes returns from Hades to warn him against the evils of
magic worship of the golden calf (Yal Reu , cf Midr Tanh)
From these sources, it is clear that the tradition is independent
of II Timothy 3 8, and the names of both Jannes and Jambres were known not only
to Timothy, but also to others in Ephesus before Paul put pen to parchment
Jannes, Jambres not biblical names
Yet
Paul appears to confirm a non- scriptural tradition So had this historical
snippet been transmitted since the time of Moses correctly9 Were the
names Jannes and Jambres m fact the real historical names of Pharoah’s wizards9
The
answer has to be a firm “No ” For a start, Exodus 7 does not say that there
were two, and only two, wizards any more than Matthew 2 says that there were
three, and only three, kings Secondly, one cannot make reference to the names
“Jannes and Jambres” without also making reference to the legends associated
with them — any more than one can innocently use “Gaspar, Melchior and
Balthazar” without associatmg the wise men with medieval legends about the
three kings Thirdly, and most importantly, these names are not without
significance It is immediately obvious that Jannes (Yohannah
would be the Hebrew equivalent to the Greek Jannes) is a Jewish, not Egyptian,
name, and it likewise is possible that Jambres derives from the Hebrew root for
“rebellion” (cf Strongs # 4784) In using these names Paul is not just supplying
names to Exodus 7, but supplying the inference, totally lacking in Exodus, that
Moses’ opponents were fellow Jews
Of course, the magicians of Exodus 7 may well have been renegade
Jews, and it would fit well with what we know of the opposition to Moses if
they were; but as this information is not found in Exodus, it still does not
explain why Paul thought that this was a good illustration to give to Timothy
and the uninspired ex-sorcerers at Ephesus.
Continuing struggle in Ephesus
We
can see from II Timothy 1:17 Paul had visitors from Ephesus who certainly would
have carried news from Timothy, including news of Timothy’s success or
otherwise in fulfilling the charge to keep control of false teaching and
“fables.” If Timothy had any success at all, it was only moderate, for Ephesus
still had plenty of problems with “profane and vain babblings” (I Tim. 6:20
repeated II Tim. 2:16) and “foolish and unlearned questions” (II Tim. 2:23).
Further, when Paul gives Timothy leave from Ephesus, it is not with any comfort
that the job is finished, but that things would go from bad to worse (cf. II
Tim. 3:6-9, 4:3,15).
One thing that particularly catches our attention, only nine
verses after the mention of “Jannes and Jambres,” is Paul’s comment that the
Ephesians “shall be turned unto fables” (II Tim. 4:4 KJV, the Greek mythos
again). How can it be that Paul, within the space of a few verses, can first
refer to a non-biblical tradition, then speak of inspiration, and finally warn
that the church will “turn aside to myths” (4:4, NIV)? Isn’t this inconsistent?
We
now need to try and weave these loose ends together. What follows is an
explanation that is similar in approach to the Rich Man and Lazarus problem considered in the last
article.
We
know that the church in Ephesus contained a number of exsorcerers, probably
including among them some like Simon in Acts 8 who found it difficult to make a
clean break with their past. If the version of the myth found in Confession of
Jannes and Jambres (source 4 above) was current in Ephesus, it
would say that Jambres repented and survived which might have been of
considerable comfort to some of the ex-sorcerers. Paul then could have used the
reference to warn and encourage.
The trouble with this explanation is that II Tim. 3:7 makes it
clear that both Jannes and Jambres were never able to acknowledge the truth,
and 3:8 says they were rejected. It is difficult to see how this could be
encouraging. It also doesn’t fit the Lukel6 pattern that, when the New
Testament makes use of Jewish myth, the use is negative.
Taking
the lead from 3:7, it appears that the version of the myth Paul was referring
to was the one found in the Rabbinical literature (source 5 above) where Jannes
and Jambres convert, but are not able to acknowledge the truth and are
eventually destroyed. This
would fit with II Tim. 3:9, “but they shall proceed no further, for their folly
shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.”
This little phrase “as theirs also
was” is important. It is the second allusion to Jannes and Jambres as
individuals and requires that Timothy, and the Ephesian ex-sorcerers, knewnot
just their names, but exactly how their folly was manifest Exodus 9 11 supplies
the one certain answer — that the boils were upon the magicians and they could
not stand before Moses But if the Jewish magicians at Ephesus knew the full
version of the myth, the lesson would only be stronger — for the folly of
Jannes and Jambres in the Rabbinic version of the myth was manifest by their
destruction
Bringing
the above explanation to the text we can paraphrase a reading as follows
“Timothy,
you have done your best to correct the fable tellers in Ephesus, but as
according to the very fables that these men like to use, the magicians Jannes
and Jambres were always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth, and
your problem people are just the same ”
In
other words, they were condemned out of their own mouths, or rather, out of
their own myths - “deceiving and being deceived” (3 13)
We
have seen this before in Luke 16 19-31 The Pharisees and Caiaphas were caught
by Christ in the net of what they believed and taught We can’t prove that
anyone at Ephesus was using the myth of Jannes and Jambres to teach in the way
that the Pharisees used the myth of Abraham in the underworld But we do know
that there were magicians at Ephesus, we know there was a problem with myths
there, and we know that there were men who wouldn’t make a clean break with
their past And we know that before exhorting Timothy to the virtues of
scripture (II Tim 3 10-17), Paul precedes with a condemnation of false teachers,
3 1-9
Thus
Jannes and Jambres are mentioned where they belong, in the context of false
teaching, not in the context of inspired scripture What better way for Paul to
illustrate what is inspired than by showing the consequences of playing with
that which is not9
Steven Cox, Hyderabad, India
Not
Giving Heed to Jewish Myths (4)
In
July , 1932, Bro. W. H. Boulton published an article in The Testimony
Magazine (pp. 214-218), entitled the “The Book of Enoch,” in
which he argued that the words of “Enoch” recorded in Jude 14 were not the
words of the Enoch of Genesis but were from The Book of Enoch (I En. 1:9), one of the oldest
Jewish pseudepigrapha. At the time this was difficult to accept, as the oldest
Greek manuscript of The
Book of Enoch dated only to the 8th century, and Bro. Boulton’s
argument was weakened by the fact that I En.l:9 could, it was argued, have been
copied from Jude 14 rather than vice versa.
In 1948,
however, seven Aramaic copies of I Enoch surfaced among the Dead Sea Scrolls
(4Q201-2,204-12) including the words of “Enoch” found in Jude 14. These Aramaic
copies are considerably older than Jude (some possibly 200 years earlier), so
it appears Bro. Boulton was right after all.
Enoch and the angels that sinned
The
Book of Enoch is an imaginative expansion on the sons of God and daughters of
men in Genesis 6:1. The story goes as follows:
In
the days of Enoch’s father, Jared, a group of 200 angels led by the archangels
Shemihazah and Azazel descend onto the earth where they take human wives and father a race of giants, or
Titans. These angels are sometimes also called the “Watchers” — the reference
being to the watchman of a city who abandons his post. For this sin, Shemihazah
and his followers are bound in Tartarus to await judgment for 70 generations.
Azazel is separately punished for having taught mankind various secret arts.
The 200 angels ask Enoch to make intercession on their behalf, but Enoch’s
requests are refused. The angels’ children, the giants, cause havoc on the
earth, but then they are drowned in the flood. In the Dead Sea Scrolls Book of the
Giants, these children of the angels, led by their leaders Ohiyah
and Mahawi, also ask Enoch to make intercession on their behalf. God decrees
that the spirits of the giants shall survive to torment mankind and they become
a new class of beings, the demons, one of the most powerful of whom is
Asmodeus. The giants’ human mothers also survive and become Sirens.
The
key event, the fall of the rebel angels, is described as follows in 1 Enoch 6:1:
“And
it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were
bom unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of
the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: ( ‘Come,
let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.’
And Shemihazah, who was their leader, said unto them: ‘I fear ye will not
indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty
of
a great sin.’ And they all answered him and said: ‘Let us all swear an oath, and
all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to , do
this thing.’ Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual
imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred” (I Enoch 6:1-6,
translated by R.H. Charles, 1912).
In the time of Christ, the Book of Enoch
was a bestseller. The book was so popular that it spawned a small library of
derivative literature: Jubilees,
Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs, II Enoch, III Enoch, and so on.
Although | there are variations in later Enochic literature, the above quote is
from the oldest and basic form of the Watchers legend, and is the version with
which - the Jewish Christians addressed by Peter and Jude would probably have
been I familiar — even if not all Jews
accepted it as fact [1]. For example, it was rejected by the pre-AD
70 Pharisee author known as Pseudo-Philo (Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 3:1), by Rabbi Simeon
Ben Yohai {Bereshith
Rabbah , 26:5),
and by Trypho, the Jew who argued with Justin Martyr (Dialogue
1:79:1). Not to mention that it was rejected by the Lord Jesus himself (Mark 12:25).
“The seventh from Adam”
.
There will no doubt be some who feel uneasy about Jude’s having quoted I from
a pseudepigraphical book. The immediate response is to point out that . Jude
identifies Enoch as “Enoch the seventh from Adam.” The phrase, “The seventh
from Adam,” does not come from Genesis but from I Enoch 60:8. In other words,
we are now not dealing with one quote of I Enoch but two (I En. 1:9 and I En.
60:8). In fact, there are as many as 30 quotes from and allusions to I Enoch
found in I & II Peter and Jude.
It may be argued that the words
are the genuine words of Enoch which survived as an oral tradition, were
preserved in I Enoch, and then used selectively by Jude. This is impossible for
four reasons:
1.
How
did an oral tradition from before the flood survive without ever having been
written down?
2.
I
Enochl:9 is an integral part of I Enoch 1:3-9, which is a midrash (expansion)
on the blessing of Moses in Deuteronomy 33:2. We cannot reasonably isolate one
phrase of I Enoch 1:3-9 and claim it came from an oral tradition that pre-dates
Moses. Comparison with Deut. 33:2 will show the origins of both I En. 1:9 and
Jude 14.
3.
As
mentioned above, there are 30 more references to Enoch in I & II Peter and
Jude. If we have Jude isolating one phrase of oral tradition then how do we
explain the origin of the 29 other references?
4.
It
is in the interest of every Christadelphian that the quote should be from the Book of
Enoch, and not the Genesis Enoch, because it is an integral part
of Jude’s rebuttal of the Jewish myth of the “angels that sinned” which is at
the core of the Book
of Enoch and a major concern of II Peter and Jude. If we deny
Jude’s use of Book
of Enoch here, we have to find an alternative explanation for the
“angels that sinned” verses in II Peter 2:4 and Jude 6.
Reason 4 will not carry as much
weight with many readers as reasons 1-3. That is because there is already a
popular alternative solution to the “angels that sinned,” namely identifying
them with Korah, Dathan and Abiram of Numbers 16:31-33. But how satisfied are
we really with this? Does it meet the usual standards we require for an
explanation of a difficult passage? Even if we can convince ourselves, this
will rarely convince a determined fallen angel believer - not least because
Korah is mentioned in Jude 11 separately from the “angels that sinned.” Perhaps
we should explore another solution, particularly if that other solution is the
one used by Jude. It also allows the language to keep the obvious sense; the references
to “angels that sinned” or “angels which kept not their first estate” and were
“delivered into chains of darkness” can be taken as referring to literal angels
consigned to literal chains in literal darkness — or rather mythical literal
angels consigned to mythical chains in mythical darkness.
In
the second part of this article (January, God willing) it is proposed that the
way Jude answers myths of “angels that sinned” is to use the Book of Enoch
s own inconsistencies to show the falsity of the story. Jude’s
use of I En. 1:9 is important because while most of the Book of Enoch
concerns angels sinning, I En. 1:9 is the only verse he could have chosen that
speaks of angels coming to judge man - and in Jude’s context he means certain
men teaching myths about fallen angels in particular.
But first we need to put Jude to
one side and look at Peter. Jude 18 quotes II Peter 3:3, and is the only quote
of one epistle by another. The proof that Jude quotes Peter and not vice versa
is demonstrated by comparing the following:
Peter writes, “there were false
prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall
bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them” (II Peter
2:1).
Jude writes, “it was needful for
me to write to you ... for there are certain men crept in unawares .. .denying
the only Lord God and our lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 3-4).
Peter
and Jude are obviously addressing the same problem — the same group of false
teachers — but with one difference — Peter uses the future tense, Jude the past
tense. This means, as Jude makes clear in Jude 17, that the apostles “used to
say” (suggesting that Peter was already dead when Jude wrote, cf. II Pet. 1:13)
that the false teachers would come, but now the false teachers had arrived.
Jude is basically a reminder and update of the lessons of II Peter. In fact, if
we think of Jude as III Peter we will not go far wrong.
After the normal greetings, II
Peter quickly comes to the subject of false teaching. When Peter says: “we did
not preach cunningly devised fables” (II Pet. 1:16), the word, again, is
“myths” — the same problem Timothy had atEphesus, and Titus on Crete The fact
Peter needed to say this implies there were others who did “follow cleverly
invented stories” (II Pet 1 16 NIV) This sets the scene well for the references
to such “cleverly invented stories” which follow in chapter 2
The same is true of Peter’s claim
“We have also a more sure word of prophecy” (II Pet 1 19) The immediate
question that is raised is, “more sure than what?” While the statement is an
important proof verse for the inspiration of the New Testament, it is also an
admission that other people with a less sure word of prophecy were circulating
Again the presence of references to I Enoch in the next chapter indicates that
the “less sure word of prophecy” was Enoch’s
Between these two statements on
the reliability of the apostolic message (II Pet 1 16-19), Peter gives a
lengthy description of the transfiguration This is probably a deliberate
contrast of Peter’s real experience as a witness of Christ’s glory and hearer
of God’s words “on the mountain,” and the reported experience of Enoch as a
witness of angelic glory and hearer of God’s words on “the mountain the point
of whose summit reached to heaven” (Enoch 17 1) Peter raises this as the first
stage in his argument to point out his first- person witness with Christ on the
mountain when the Lord was shown the Kingdom In contrast, the false teachers
were not on any mountain with Enoch when he was, allegedly, shown the heavens
The verse following “the more sure
word of prophecy” is also important “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of
the scripture is of any private interpretation” (II Pet 1 20) Again the
existence of rival teachings is implied The Book of Enoch, and associated Jewish apocalyptic
literature, does contain writing about the future, but in New Testament times
prophecy was understood concerning both the past and the present So Peter’s
comments are not limited to future “prophecies” but include all areas of
teaching This means that his following comment refers to all the Bible, not
just the prophecy books “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of
man but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (II Pet
121)
II Peter 1 16-21 is the most
extended defense of inspiration in the New Testament In total it suggests that
Peter was facing a major challenge to the inspiration of the scriptures and the
authority of apostles All of this is confirmed as we enter the next chapter
“In
their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up” (II
Pet 2 3)
We
will consider how Peter answers those teachers and their stories in January
[1] It is possible that Josephus
is also to be counted as one of those who did not believe the Enoch myth and
that his mention of “angels of God” in Antiquities 1 3 1 (earliest manuscript
8th century) has suffered the same alteration from “sons of God” at Christian
hands as the Septuagint in Genesis 6 1, or even to “fit” the Christian versions
of the Septuagint (the erasure in LXX A is ignored by BDB Hebrew Lexicon, BAGD
Greek Lexicon, and even the Cambndge LXX, but it is therenevertheless). If one
compares the context of what Josephus wrote about the “perversion of the
posterity of Seth” and his non-mythical comment that “these men did what
resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants” (AJ 1:3:1) and his
comment on the pre-flood generation “but let no one inquire into the deaths of
these men” (AJ 1:3:4) and that Enoch died (AJ 9:2:2), it becomes likely that
Josephus, who as a Pharisee could hardly fail to have heard the Enoch myths,
did not accept them.
Steven
Cox, Hyderabad, India
Not
Giving Heed to Jewish Myths (5)
|
I |
N
November’s article (Tidings,
p. 420), the source evidence was presented that, firstly, Peter and Jude faced
the problem of false teachers spreading myths, and secondly that the “angels
that sinned” described by Peter and Jude are specifically rooted in the Book of Enoch
and its associated traditions.
In this article, it is intended to
show, thirdly, that the way in which Peter and Jude address the false teachers
is to convict them out of their own mouths. This is the same approach we
applied in previous articles to the Abraham in the Underworld, and Jannes and
Jambres stories (Tidings,
7/2000, p. 256; 9/ 2000, p. 336). Again the objective is not just to prove that
these “wrested scripture” passages are drawn from uninspired material (rather
than the Old Testament), but also to show that the treatment of these myths in
scripture is negative.
Peter and
Jude - an immediate reply to the Enochites
If
we were going to look for a negative comment by Peter and Jude, where should we
look for it? The obvious answer is immediately before and imme- i diately after
their references to “angels that sinned.” Rule number one of Bible | study is:
always read the context. Yet most Christian readers of the “angels that sinned”
read only the angels-flood-Sodom sequence in II Peter 2:4-8 (or the
Sinai-angels-Sodom in Jude vv. 5-7) without noticing what precedes and i
follows.
We already saw how Peter precedes
his mention of angels that sinned (II Pet. 2:4) with “exploit you with stories
that they have made up” (2:3 NIV).
1
This is a perfect lead-in to an argument of logical fallacy: “If God did not
spare angels when they sinned...if this is so then the Lord knows how to rescue
godly men from trials and hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment” (II '
Pet. 2:4,9 NIV).
Peter’s argument was picked up by
Bro. Ron Abel: “Why bother to chain i these angels if, as one Jehovah’s
Witnesses publication contends, they can still ‘exercise dangerous power over
men and women’?” (Wrested
Scriptures p. ! 180,
lc)
1
This was the best answer to the “angels that sinned” myth in Peter’s time,
I
and it is still the best answer today. If the “angels marrying” part of the Book of Enoch
is true, then why not the part about the angels having been chained , in
Tartarus by the archangel Raphael? If they are chained in Tartarus, then, as
Peter says in 2:9, they aren’t a threat to anyone are they?
Of course people are very
imaginative and will find ways around Peter’s argument. Jehovah’s Witnesses
will usually assert that there “must have been” other falls, and other angels
(“the ones that got away”). The response to Peter’s point was more
sophisticated in his day: it was then said that, “True, the Book of Enoch
has the angels in chains, but the immortal spirits of their giant offspring
survived the flood to become the demons of New Testament times.” But neither of
these “explanations” is an answer to Peter’s fundamental point which is — even
if Enoch is true, the book itself shows that God knows how to deliver the godly
from temptation, thus He is not subjecting the godly to such a trial (2:9).
This is one of the clearest verses against angelic, or diabolic, temptation in
the New Testament.
It
is interesting that Jude, despite following Peter almost word for word in this
section, chooses to omit Peter’s comment on “stories they have made up.”
Instead, Jude inserts a new example, the destruction of many of the children of
Israel in Sinai (Jude 5). Perhaps Jude wanted to include a specifically
historical example for the benefit of those under the influence of the false
teachers, or perhaps he was echoing I Corinthians 10:5. Either way the lesson
which Jude supplies, which the examples of Sodom and the flood do not, is how
even the elect may also be punished if they go astray.
Blaspheming
against celestial beings
The main argument against the
false teachers and the Book
of Enoch is found in the sections immediately following mention
of the angels that sinned.
(A)
Jude
8, II Peter 2:10 — the false teachers blaspheme celestial beings.
(B) Jude 9, II Peter 2:11 — but angels, although much greater (than
the teachers), do not dare bring an accusation against such (celestial) beings.
(C) Jude 10, II Peter 2:12 — so the false teachers, and the Book of
Enoch, blaspheme things they do not understand (or beings they do
not know).
In
the parallel verses labeled (A) above, heavenly powers are mentioned twice in
different words “government” and “dignities” (KJV), or “authority” and
“celestial beings” (NIV). These words are literally “dominion” and “glories” in
Greek, and both are associated with heavenly things.
Elsewhere
in the New Testament, “dominion” is always associated with heavenly
“principalities and powers” (Eph. 1:21; Col. 1:16). “Dignities” literally means
glories. Like “dominion,” it is a rare term and is used in this sense only by
Peter and Jude in the New Testament. In I Peter 1:11, Peter uses the plural
form in regard to the future glories of Christ. In the Greek Old Testament, the
word describes the glory surrounding God: “Who is like unto thee among the gods
O Lord? Who is like unto thee, glorified in holiness, marvellous in glories
(plural), doing wonders?” (Exo. 15:11).
It
is also used in this sense in other first-century Jewish literature: Philo, On the
Special Laws 1.45 writes, “Moses said .. I am not able to bear
the visible appearance of your form but I ask you that I may behold the glories
(plural) that are around you.” In Test Judah 25:2 we read, “And the Lord blessed Levi;
the Angel of the Presence blessed me; the powers of glories (plural) blessed
Simeon, the heaven blessed Reuben; the earth blessed Issachar...”
That “dominion” and “glories” mean more than just human
dignitaries is confirmed by Peter’s next verse: “Whereas angels, which are
greater in might and power (i.e. greater than the false teachers) bring not
railing (i.e. “slanderous”) accusations against them” (i.e. against the
glories)” (II Pet. 2:11).
These
verses, parallel in II Peter and Jude, are the key to understanding both
letters. Both writers state twice that the false teachers were slandering
celestial beings, namely angels. “Slander” implies two conclusions: (a) that
they were accusing the glories of wrongdoing, (b) that their accusations were
unfounded. Surprisingly the obvious impact of the verses, that the false
teacher’s allegations were lies, is often glossed over.
The
impact of what Peter and Jude are saying is clearer in the NIV: “This is
especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and
despise authority. Bold and arrogant these men are not afraid to slander
celestial beings; yet even angels, although they are stronger and more
powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the
presence of the Lord” (II Pet. 2:10-11 NIV). And Jude 8 reads: “In the very
same way these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander
celestial beings.”
If the allegations (specifically
of angels having sex with women) were “slanderous accusations," then it
can hardly be used as proof that the accusations were true. If the “slander”
consisted of allegations that angels rebelled, descended to earth and fathered
demons, then Peter and Jude’s evidence must be taken to mean that no such thing
happened, and that it is not acceptable to believe or teach such things in the
church.
It
would be possible to go on in detail but the above arguments — the immediate
context before and after the “angels that sinned” passages should be enough to
prove our objective in this series — that the reference to the Jewish fable is negative.
Parallels of
II Peter and Jude
Following is a summary of the
parallel sections of II Peter and Jude:
1.
II
Peter 2:1-3: Setting the scene of false teachers “among the people” who
“exploit you with stories they have made up” (// Jude 4).
2.
Jude
5: Example of Jewish apostasy at Sinai.
3.
II
Peter 2:4: An ironic example from I Enochl0:4 using “angels that sinned” as one
of the examples of punishment due to false teachers // Jude 6.
4.
II
Peter 2:5-8: More, and better, examples taken from the Old Testa- 1
ment. Obviously Peter does not consider that an example taken from the
Book of Enoch
is sufficient to prove his point (// Jude7a).
5.
II
Peter 2:9: Logical fallacy of first example (I Enoch 10:4). There is nothing to
fear from “angels that sinned” if God has already reserved the angels “to the
day of judgment” parallel “vengeance of eternal fire” (// Jude7b refers to I
Enoch 21:7 where the fallen stars are chained in “a great fire that was burning
and flaming”).
6.
II
Peter 2:10: Contradiction of I Enoch 6:1-8:4. Bible teaching on angels: anyone
teaching that angels sinned is “speaking evil of dignities” (KJ V),
“blaspheming glories” (Greek), “slandering celestial beings” (NIV) (// Jude 8).
7.
II
Peter 2:11: Contradiction of I Enoch 9:1-11. Despite claims of the Book of
Enoch, angels, specifically Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, and Raphael,
never
t
accused anyone, not least “dignities” or “glories” (// Jude 9).
8.
II
Peter 2:12: Conclusion regarding I Enoch 6-10: the false teachers don’t know
what they are talking about (// Jude 10).
9.
II
Peter 2:13: Warning of the results of this teaching. False teachers “shall
perish in their own corruption” (// Jude 10 “in those things they corrupt
themselves”).
10.
II
Peter 2:14-16: Rebuke of false teachers taken from Old Testament using example
of Balaam (//Jude 11 using Cain, Balaam, Korah).
11.
II
Peter 2:17: Rebuke of false teachers taken from 1 Enoch. Peter’s three
references to Enoch (“dry springs” I Enoch 48:1,96:6; “waterless clouds” I
Enoch 18:5,41:4-5,100:11-12; “eternal darkness”) are expanded in much greater
detail by Jude 12-15 taking language used in Enoch about false shepherds of
Israel (“trees without fruit” I Enoch 80:3; “plucked up” I En. 83:4; “raging
waves” I En.l01:3-5).
Jude uses language about “angels
that sinned” and applies it to the false teachers. In I Enoch 21:3 the “stars”
are fallen celestial beings, but (and here’s the rub) in Jude 13 the “wandering
stars” are false teachers who teach myths from the Book of Enoch. The word
“wanderer” however is drawn from Hosea 9:17 not Enoch and likewise the image of
the dead tree connects with Hosea 9:16. This may be to emphasize that Judel2-15
really concerns Ephraim rather than fallen angels.
12.
II
Peter 2:18-22: The dog returns to its vomit. In five verses, Peter five times
repeats the theme that these false teachers were returning to their old
beliefs. This five times emphasis is clearly important. Each time Peter is
underlining that the teachers were reverting to their origins — an argument
which only makes sense in this context if these were not Greek, but Jewish
origins such as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (// Jude 16 “murmurers” harks
back to his theme of Sinai and the wishing to return to Egypt again. This is
the only use of the word in the New Testament).
13.
II
Peter 3:1-2: Reminder of the authority of scripture. Note that Peter cites the
prophets demonstrating the authority of Old Testament over I Enoch (e.g. II
Pet. 1:21) (// Jude cites the apostles, demonstrating the authority of New
Testament over I Enoch).
Stephen
Cox, Hyderabad, India
Footnote.
Other New Testament passages relevant lo the “angels that sinned,” which need
to be underlined in any discussion of the subject, include Mark 12:24-25, Luke
20:35-36 and Heb. 1:14. All these verses can only be written with an eye to the
same popular Jewish myths, or there was no need to state the obvious. Perhaps
the most relevant is the “angels, and authorities and powers being made subject
to him” (I Peter 3:22). This may well be Peter’s first answer to the Enoch
myth.
Not Giving Heed to Jewish Myths (6)
Michael, the Devil, and the Body of Moses
|
J |
ude 9
is difficult to understand on more than one count: it lends itself to
supporting the idea of the devil as a person and seems to arbitrarily alter the
words of Zechariah 3:2. The verse reads:
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 (Jude 9).
In
the previous article (Tidings,
1/2001, p. 9) this verse was shown to be parallel to Peter: "Angels
do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings (other angels) in the
presence of the Lord" (II Pet.2:l 1). In that article it was
reasoned that Peter alludes to a current Jewish myth taken from I Enoch 9:1,
and exposes the myth to be erroneous by way of challenging those who were using
the myth to upset some in the ecclesia. In his reference, Jude changes “angels”
to “Michael” and “such beings” to “the devil” and adds reference to “the body
of Moses.”
What is Jude referring to? In the
following articles, Bro. Steven considers three possibilities, settling on
Zechariah 3 as by far the most likely source. First he considers possible
reference to the Enoch legend and rejects that possibility because there is no
reference to “the devil” or “the body of Moses.” He then looks at The
Assumption of Moses and shows good reasons for rejecting this as
the solution. Next month, Lord willing, Bro. Steven will build his case for
taking Zechariah 3 as the answer.
1.
Considering
the Enoch myth
The
introduction of Michael at this point is relevant because, according to the
Enoch legend, it was none other than Michael who was the leader in bringing the
accusation against the fallen angels to God:
And then Michael, Uriel, Raphael,
and Gabriel looked down from heaven and saw much blood being shed upon the
earth, and all lawlessness being wrought upon the earth. And they said one to
another: “The earth made without inhabitant carries the voice of their cryings
up to the gates of heaven. And now to you, the holy ones of heaven, the souls
of men make their suit, saying, 'Bring our cause before the Most High.' ” And
they said to the Lord of the ages: "Lord of lords, God of gods, King of
kings, and God of the ages, the throne of Thy glory standeth unto all the
generations of the ages, and Thy name holy and glorious and blessed unto all
the ages! Thou hast made all things, and power over all things hast Thou: and
all things are naked and open in Thy sight, and Thou seest all things, and
nothing can hide itself from Thee. Thou seest what Azazel hath done, who hath
taught all unrighteousness on earth and revealed the eternal secrets which were
preserved in heaven, which men were striving to learn: And Shemihazah, to whom
Thou hast given authority to bear rule over his associates. And they have gone
to the daughters of men upon the earth, and have slept with the women, and have
defiled themselves, and revealed to them all kinds of sins. And the women have
borne giants, and the whole earth has thereby been filled with blood and
unrighteousness" (I En. 9:1-10, translated by R.H. Charles, 1912).
So,
according to I Enoch 9:1-10, it was Michael who accused Shemihazah and Azazel,
but according to Jude, Michael “would not dare to bring a slanderous
accusation,” even against the devil himself. In other words, the story of
Michael making an accusation against the angels in Enoch is false, and if the
story of the accusation is false then so is the story of the angels’ sin.
The above explains why Jude chose
to substitute “Michael” for Peter’s more general “angels,” but it doesn’t
explain the mention of the devil and the body of Moses. The devil, Satan, does
not appear in Enoch, and cannot be identified with Shemihazah and Azazel, the
leaders of the 200 rebel angels. Therefore there must be another reference to
Michael and the devil elsewhere. The remaining two possible sources are:
2
-
The Assumption of Moses
3
-
Zechariah 3
2.
The
Assumption of Moses
Many of today’s popular
commentaries, such as M. Green (Tyndale 1968), N. Hillyer (Paternoster 1992),
J.N.D. Kelly (Blacks 1969), and D. Lucas & C. Green (IVP 1995), all take it
for granted that Jude is quoting from a Jewish source called The
Assumption of Moses which describes how Michael had a dispute
with the devil over the burial of Moses.
Michael
the undertaker of the righteous
The
one strong piece of evidence in favour of this outside The
Assumption of Moses itself is the fact that Michael is credited
in Jewish myth as being the angel who buries the body and escorts the soul to
paradise. This Michael does with Adam, Abel and Eve in Life of Adam
(Vita Adae) and again with Abraham in Testament of Abraham.
Both
these traditions are old enough to have been well-known in Jude’s day, but in
any case it is only a logical extension from the superstition that the angels
transported the dead to be with Abraham (as Luke 16) to the belief that, when
someone as important as Adam, Abraham or Moses died, an angel as important as
Michael would be needed to perform the burial and collect the soul. (Philo adds
to Deuteronomy 34:6 that Moses was buried by celestial beings [Vita Mosis 2:3].
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
on the same passage records that the angels buried Moses four miles away from
where he died. In a Falasha legend the three gravediggers are Michael, Gabriel
and Zagzagel [Ginzberg, Vol. 6, p.952 cites Faitlovich, Mota Musa 9-20].)
What would
the devil want with a body?
Undermining
this possible source, however, is the fact that the genuine Jewish sources
above are all missing the key element of Jude 9 — a dispute. In none of these
Jewish sources does the devil ever make an attempt to steal the bodies of Adam,
Abraham or Moses. In fact, only in Life of Adam is there even mention of the devil and
once Adam is dead the devil’s interest in him is finished.
There are a few cases of angel
disputes in Jewish myth. In the Dead Sea Scrolls two angels dispute over Moses’
father Amran (Q4 Amran). In a first- century legend it is Satan, not God as in
Exodus 4:24, who tries to kill Moses but is prevented by an angel {Jubilees
48:5). In later Rabbinic legend, Michael brought a ram but Satan wanted Isaac
to be sacrificed (Yal.
Rub.43:3). But in each of these examples Amran, Moses and Isaac
are alive, not dead, and Satan is trying to kill them, not gain their bodies.
There are also half a dozen fragments of Moses legends in the Dead Sea Scrolls,
but again none of them shows any link to Jude 9.
Early
Christian evidence
Suspiciously,
the dispute between Michael and the devil featured in The Assumption
of Moses survives only in Christian quotations, and there is a
small mountain of Christian evidence on the subject. Most of this consists of a
long list of churchmen, including the anonymous “scholiast on Jude,” Clement of
Alexandria, Didymus the Blind, Origen, Gelasius and Severus of Antioch, all of
whom note The
Assumption of Moses or “an apocryphal book” in connection with
Jude 9, but are unable to quote from it except by hearsay.
There are also some Christian
sources which have preserved legends fitting Jude 9, such as the Byzantine Palaea
Historica, the Slavonic Life of Moses, Pseudo-Oecumenius and
Catenae, but all of these contain the phrase “the Lord rebuke you,” which is
obviously drawn from Jude. Therefore they are suspect as being after Jude, not
before it, and are likely false attempts to explain Jude. They also all lack
the references to Deuteronomy 34 that would be found in a genuine Jewish
midrash on the burial of Moses. [Footnote 1]
The Testament
of Moses
In
order to give the Christian evidence some credibility, the commentaries assure
us that Assumption
of Moses is the “lost ending” of a surviving Jewish text - Testament of
Moses. But anyone taking the trouble to read this text
(Charlesworth Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Vol.l p. 919-934), will find the
claim very unlikely indeed. Testament
of Moses is a fairly sober fiction concerning Moses’ farewell to
Joshua. It contains no reference to either the devil or angels, and tacking the
Christian fragments on to the end of this book just makes their non-Jewish
origins all the more obvious.
In conclusion, the Assumption of
Moses can be consigned to the trash can. This is not being done
because of squeamishness about myths, but because the evidence is
contradictory, hearsay, and verbally dependent on Jude 9. It all “fits’’ too
well to be convincing (a bit like the so-called Josephus Discourse on Hades
mentioned in connection with Luke 16 in the second article of this series).
None of the Christian evidence has support, or even parallels, in any Jewish
material. Comparing the evidence for Assumption of Moses with the very strong evidence
for Enoch, one can’t help thinking that apologists for the devil have been a
little too eager to jump on a flimsy bandwagon.
Conclusion
Having
examined the evidence for The
Assumption of Moses and found it wanting, that leaves only the
option of Zechariah as the probable background for Jude 9. We examine that
consideration next month, Lord willing.
Steven
Cox, Hyderabad, India
[Footnote
1] While one much-cited scholar, (Bauckham 1983), has argued that the Greek
vocabulary in Palaea
Historicae suggests
that it is independent of Jude 9 and must be drawn from a Jewish source, the
differences are no more than one would expect from a Byzantine fiction based on
Jude 9. For example, “the Lord rebuke you” in Jude is epitimesaisoiKurios,
while Palaea
Historicae has
epitima se
Kurios, diabole. The difference is nothing more than a minor
grammatical change driven by the sentence structure. And so on for other
examples. This is hardly proof that a genuine Jewish source underlies the
Christian evidence.
BIBLE
STUDY
Not
Giving Heed to Jewish Myths (7)
Michael, the Devil, and the Body of Moses (2)
In this series, Bro. Steven has demonstrated that Jewish fables
current in the first century created problems in the early ecclesias. Peter and
Jude in particular have these extra-biblical writings in mind when they allude
to wrong ideas influencing the brethren into evil thinking and conduct. An
understanding of these myths brings alive some of the phrases used by Peter and
Jude so that we are better able to follow the discussion in these epistles.
In the
previous article, Bro. Steven began a consideration of 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. "
He now completes that
consideration, suggesting that an understanding of Jude’s quote of Zechariah
3:5 is easier in light of the Jewish myths which were troubling his readers.
|
JUDE'S USE of the phrase, “The
Lord rebuke thee” is an obvious quote of Zechariah 3:5, which is the only
place in the Old Testament the phrase occurs. We note further that in the
Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint, LXX) used by Jude’s readers, “devil” (diabolos)
occurs rather than “Satan.” This reconfirms that it is Zechariah to whom Jude
is referring. |
Nevertheless, there is still the
niggling feeling that more is going on in Jude 9 than a straight quote of
Zechariah. It is possible that there is a third alternative which we have been
overlooking.
Sometimes the solutions to the most difficult problems are the
simplest. The answer that fits best is the one that has been under one’s nose.
The suggestion we would advance is that Jude’s words are not based on Zechariah
3 itself, but on a wresting of Zechariah 3 current among his opponents — the
Enochites.
Michael pulling Joshua from the furnace
Consider
first a rabbinic legend which could be very relevant to Jude 9 — the story of
Ahab and Zedekiah. In the legend, these two false prophets at the court of
Nebuchadnezzar were put in the furnace together with Joshua. Michael retrieved
Joshua the priest from the fire but his clothes were singed by standing too
close to the false prophets. (L. Ginzberg, Vol.7 p. 426 cites Sanhedrin93a,
PK25:165a. TanB:3:7).
This
legend of Ahab and Zedekiah is likely nothing more than a fantastic attempt to
explain Zechariah 3 and the “filthy garments” which prevented Joshua, the high
priest, from serving in the tabernacle. The legend was no doubt created by
someone with no understanding of the historical roots of Zechariah’s
parable-prophecy - the opposition to Joshua’s work of rebuilding the temple as
recorded in Ezra 4-6. But there are two interesting points to be drawn.
The
first is that it is “Michael” who is credited with being the angel involved in
saving Joshua — something not mentioned in Zechariah 3. This could explain that
the puzzling addition of Michael’s name to Jude’s use of Zechariah 3 might not
just be due to imagination on the part of Jude, but imagination on the part of
Jewish teachers he was countering.
The second point is that it
illustrates just how a later Jewish audience, distant from the historical
background of Zechariah as amplified in Ezra, could misunderstand the
parable-prophecy and take it literally. Having taken it literally they then
invented a story to “fill in the gaps” much in the same way Christians later
invented the “Assumption of Moses” story (April, 2001) to fill in the gaps in
Jude 9.
Evidence for “wrested Zechariah”
The
legend of Ahab and Zedekiah is the first piece of evidence in support of this
third option for Jude 9. The fact that documentary evidence for the legend is
found in at least three Jewish sources proves that misuse of Zechariah 3 by
people with an active imagination is no recent phenomenon. Long before any
Jehovah’s Witness or hell-fire evangelical wrested Zechariah 3, generations of
Jewish fallen-angel believers had also been at work on the prophecy.
The
second piece of evidence is the way Jude uses other Old Testament material. He
treats Sinai (v.5), Sodom (v.7), Cain, Balaam and Korah (v. 11) without adding
to the Old Testament record. Yet when he comes to Zechariah 3, he suddenly, and
gratuitously, adds in the name “Michael.” Our usual interpretation of Jude 9
tends to turn a blind eye to this, but the trouble is that the more you ignore
the name, the more it sticks out like a sore thumb. In fact it sticks out twice
over, because it is not only an obvious addition to the Old Testament version,
but also a glaring addition to Jude’s primary source, Peter (11 Pet. 2:11).
The
third piece of evidence is that uncomfortable phrase “body of Moses.” The
absence of any mention of “Joshua” in Jude’s version of the angelic dispute
shows that “body of Moses” is in some way a substitute for Joshua. Anyone who
denies this has to explain why Jude deleted Joshua and introduced Moses’ corpse
into a dispute where the other two parties (the angel and the devil) remain the
same as in Zechariah 3:1. But the question for us is why Jude created a problem
where none existed, by not simply writing “Joshua.”
(Some
readers may object that “body” here can be identified with the priesthood on
the grounds that soma
— the Greek word translated “body” — can also mean “slave” [R. Abel Wrested
Scriptures p. 182; H.A. Whittaker Those Difficult Passages p.70]. So Joshua, the
priest, was the “slave” of Moses in that he was enslaved by the law given
through Moses. The first problem with this is the lack of any Old Testament
evidence using such a vocabulary in reference to the priests, and the second
that the linguistic case for this use of soma in the singular is extremely weak [Footnote
1].)
The fourth piece of evidence in favour
of the “wrested Zechariah” theory is the strongest. If we make the logical
assumptions that the wresting of Zechariah in Jude verse 9 is connected with
the Enoch before (Jude v. 6) and after (vv. 12-15) the evidence suddenly falls
into place. Commentators usually make no effort to relate the likely mythical
references in verse 9, with the evident references in verses 6, 12-15 to Enoch.
They seem to think Jude is just throwing out examples from Jewish mythology at
random. But if we see Jude 9 as part of Jude’s struggle with the Enochites, it
ceases to be a separate problem and becomes an integral part of his argument
showing Enoch to be non-inspired.
The
proposed solution to Jude 9 is this:
1.
We
know that Jude is primarily concerned with problems predicted earlier by Peter.
In particular Jude was concerned with the growth of a belief in fallen angels
within the church. The first half of Jude’s letter is largely requoting,
emphasising and expanding upon what Peter had written (II Pet. 2) but which was
apparently being ignored by the believers.
2.
It
is also clear that in the intervening period between Peter’s last letter and
Jude’s the problem had increased, and the battle lines had been drawn. Peter
wrote in warning to the whole ecclesia(II Pet. 2:1), but Jude writes only to
one party in the ecclesia (Jude 3-4), urging them to “earnestly contend for the
faith.”
Sadly this verse has become one of those cliche verses, like
“strengthening the things that remain,” which are so frequently quoted out of
context, that they begin to lose their meaning. Jude’s words are not a license
to be contentious. In the original context, to “earnestly contend for the
faith” meant to persist inside an ecclesia, where some members were not only
actively teaching full-blown devil belief, but “turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the
only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ" (Jude 4), with the
objective of saving as many as possible (see Jude 22-23 in a modern
translation). Contentiousness will only achieve the opposite result.
3.
Now
let’s put the shoe on the other foot and consider the position of the false
teachers. We can see they had some following because Jude says
they had succeeded in dividing the ecclesia (Jude 19, apodiorizontes
which means “who create divisions” rather than “who separate themselves” KJV).
The divisions were not yet a clear break, however, as both sides were still
breaking bread with each other (Jude 12). It may not have been clear exactly
who supported whom, and there would, as always, have been a large number of
undecided (which explains the caution advised in Jude 22-23). If the ecclesia
was divided, it means that those loyal to the memory of Peter were still
putting
up
stiff resistance. They were probably able to counter the fallen-angel teachers
with the very same verses and reasoning from the Old Testament which
Christadelphians use today.
4.
Imagine
for a moment that you were a false
teacher preaching “angels that sinned.” Some of the ecclesia have
already accepted the authority of the Book of Enoch, but those loyal to Peter
say the book is a fake. The undecided (Jude 22) demand evidence from the Old
Testament. You, false teacher, have a problem.
Not
everyone, by any means, accepts your assertion that “Sons of God” in Genesis 6
are angels. It is likely that the Gospel of Luke was already widely distributed
by the late ‘60s AD (II Cor. 8:18; I Tim.5:18 cf. Lukel0:7), and any claims
about Genesis 6 will be immediately countered by Luke 20:36, where “sons of
God" is defined by Christ as believers, rather than angels
who marry (both KJV and NIV are inaccurate here; the Greek is huioi
“sons,” not teknoi
“children”).
You,
false teacher, can refer to I Chron. 21:1, where the diabolos (Septuagint)
stood up against David, but the Peter-loyalists will immediately turn to the
parallel account in II Sam. 24:1. You can try Job, but even if the diabolos
(Septuagint again) is understood to be an angel, he is obviously neither in
rebellion against God, nor in conflict with the other angels. In fact, in the
entire Old Testament, the only example of conflict angel versus angel you can
find is the one used for the purpose of arguing the existence of the devil
today — Zechariah 3:1.
In short, it doesn’t take much
imagination to suppose that the Enochites would try to shore up their story
with Zechariah 3:1. It’s simply the only verse in the whole Old Testament that
could be used.
5.
Now
we can explain Jude’s mention of the diabolos Although neither the Devil nor Satan
feature in Enoch, neither do angels named Shemihazah or Azazel feature in the
Old Testament [Footnote 2], But if the false teachers were to introduce a
wrested interpretation of Zechariah 3, it now makes sense for Jude to respond
using the language of the Greek Old Testament used in the ecclesia — diabolos
not Shemihazah.
6.
Jude’s
mention of Michael is now easily explained. We saw earlier (the furnace story)
that Jewish teachers placed Michael in Zechariah 3. Even without that legend as
evidence, it is no great leap for the false teachers, in a desperate search for
scriptural support, to turn the struggle of Michael vs. Shemihazah in Enoch,
into Michael vs. the devil in Zechariah. Admittedly this is a reconstruction
based on educated guesswork, but if anyone objects, let him find another verse
in the Old Testament which can be wrested so easily to support Enoch. And if we
reject this reconstruction of events, then how do we explain Jude having added
Michael into the Zechariah narrative? Yes, he was forced to make more direct
use than Peter of I Enoch 9 by naming Michael as the accuser, but he was also
attempting to reclaim Zechariah 3. If we can imagine that the verse was being
wrested, we can certainly agree that Jude would “earnestly contend” against
this. He was doing exactly what any Christadelphian would do today when faced
with a wrested scripture (it’s no coincidence that the very phrase “wrested
scripture” comes from II Pet. 3:16 — immediately after Peter’s rejection of
fallen angels).
7.
By
tackling Zechariah 3:1 head-on, Jude achieved two things. Firstly, if the
teachers were going to claim that the verse supported I Enoch 9 regarding
fallen angels, then it would backfire on them. They quoted Zechariah? Fine, but
let them see that the “Michael” in Zechariah does no accusing; in fact, he does
not even rebuke. Instead of what the false teachers had expected, quoting
Zechariah 3 in fact achieves the opposite and shows that I Enoch 9 is false.
Secondly,
and perhaps more importantly, Jude turns Zechariah’s parable back to the
prophet’s original intent. Everything we know about Zechariah shows us that he
was not only concerned with fighting false teaching, but also concerned with
practical — what we would call pastoral — issues. The first time we hear of
Zechariah it is as a bricklayer (Ezra 5:11), and with him worked 150 men, all
of them “earnestly contending” to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem (Ezra 8:11).
There is a lesson for us here. It’s all too easy to concentrate on
the necessary but negative (such as exposing a wrested interpretation), and to
neglect to follow this up with the positive (such as aftercare of those who get
damaged by wrested teaching). Jude could have dealt with Zechariah 3:1 in Jude
9 and left it at that. But he didn’t. After dealing with misuse of Zechariah 3
he returns to the same chapter to remind the Peter loyalists not to get so
carried away in the battle with false teaching that they forgot the needs of
the weakest (Jude 22-23, compare Zech. 3:2-4). Jude was exhorting them to
“build” themselves up (Jude 20, compare Zech. 1:16, 3:7,4:9).
8.
We
have now explained all of Jude 9 except for one thing - “the body of
Moses.”
In
an earlier article we saw that although the “wanderer stars” in Jude 13
primarily refers to the “fallen stars” chained up in the underworld prison-
house of Enoch (I En.l8:14, 21:1-10), the word “wanderer” can only be found in
an Old Testament description of Jewish errorists (Hosea 9:17), and Jude is
casting the false teachers themselves in the role of the fallen angels. He is
turning the myth on its head, and then throwing it back at those who teach it.
If Jude does that in verse 13 he
could be doing it in verse 9 as well. In verse 9, he is likely recasting the
false teachers as Zechariah’s Satan. This fits the context perfectly, as both
the previous verse (v. 8), and the one following (v. 10), are not about the
devil but about the false teachers. The “body of Moses” that Jude would be referring
to would be Jewish
Christians (I Pet. 1:1), who were in danger of “returning like a
dog to its vomit” (II Pet. 2:22). This would explain why Jude does not simply
write “Joshua,” and also why it is “the body of Moses” rather than “body of
Christ.”
Jude and Ezra
The
clincher in favour of this argument is that it gives Jude and his readers the
credit for knowing their Bibles. While fallen-angel believers both in Jude’s
day, and our own, are drawn to Zechariah 3 like bees to a honey-pot, the way
that Jude departs from the text of Zechariah does not show ignorance (as the
commentaries assume), but rather, that he is going deeper than just Zechariah,
right down to the events in Ezra which underlie the prophecy. It is likely that
the “accuser” (Hebrew, satari)
in Zechariah 3:1 is to be identified with the “accusation” (Hebrew, sitnah)
in Ezra 4:6. If this is so, then Jude expected his readers to understand that
the diabolos
accusing Joshua was human. If they knew their Bibles well enough to identify
the diabolos
of Zechariah 3 as Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, Rehum and Shimshai (Ezra
4:1-24), they also had enough intelligence to identify the diabolos
of Jude 9 with the false teachers.
This
argument is stronger still if we revise our assumption that “Joshua” in Zechariah
3 represents the priesthood. Following the thinking of Hebrews 5, the high
priest might better represent the people. In this case, the absence of “Joshua”
from Jude 9 is explained by seeing, as we already have done, that Zechariah was
primarily concerned not with the priests, but with the wellbeing of their
flock. Our parallel would then have: “Judah and Benjamin” (Ezra 4:1) — “Joshua
the high priest” (Zech. 3:1) — Jewish Christians (Jude 9). By using the phrase
“body of Moses,” Jude is acknowledging the existence of the myths,
acknowledging the wresting of Zechariah, but directing his audience away from
this back toward the accusers of Israel in Ezra.
Steven
Cox, Hyderabad, India
[Footnote
1] The name Azazel in I Enoch is based on the word “scapegoat” in Lev 16
8,10,26, and, as a result, the Good News and Jerusalem Bibles have “Azazel” in
the O T text I mention this only because modern Enochites, of whom there are
plenty, delight in these verses But it’s clearly an anachronism to translate
Leviticus according to much later Rabbinic legends which says more about the
translators than the text From the geographical information in I Pet 1 1, and
the correlation between Jude (vs 5,7,9,11,13,23) and the Greek Old Testament,
it seems unlikely that the recipients of the letters would have been familiar
with the Hebrew text of Leviticus In the Septuagint, the scapegoat is simply
rendered apompaios,
meaning “something carrying away evil ”
[Footnote 2] Romans 6 6
illustrates that “body of sin” and “slave of sin” are different Rev 18 3 (KJV)
is not a good example because it is probably meant to be taken as a phrase
“bodies and souls of men” (see NiV) Better evidence is from the Septuagint
Abraham’s “bodies of the house” (Gen 36 6) and the “90 bodies” sold by Nicanor
(II Mac 8 11) or better still from commercial papyri “wages for bodies” (P
Cairo Zen 1 59027 2, BC258) The problem is that with a couple of ambiguous
exceptions in the papyri (P Hib 1 54 20, BGU 1 187 12), most of these instances
are evidence for “bodies” (somata),
a use which appears to be common only in the plural If the distinction seems
strange, consider the English word “spectacles” which exists only in the plural
.
The
following articles were not published: the 1 Corinthians charismatic material was
published in a Hyderabad booklet Tongues of Angels. The 2 Corinthians material
can be found on BibleQ net.
BIBLE
STUDY
Not Giving Heed to Jewish Myths (8)
Tongues of Angels and the Therapeutae – Charismatic Alexandrian Jewish context
in Corinth
In this series, Bro. Steven has demonstrated that Jewish fables
current in the first century created problems in the early ecclesias. Peter and
Jude in particular have these extra-biblical writings in mind when they allude
to wrong ideas influencing the brethren into evil thinking and conduct. An
understanding of these myths brings alive some of the phrases used by Peter and
Jude so that we are better able to follow the discussion in these epistles.
BIBLE
STUDY
Not Giving Heed to Jewish Myths (9)
Third Heaven, Satan as an angel of light - Testament of Adam content in 2
Corinthians
In this series, Bro. Steven has demonstrated that Jewish fables
current in the first century created problems in the early ecclesias. Peter and
Jude in particular have these extra-biblical writings in mind when they allude
to wrong ideas influencing the brethren into evil thinking and conduct. An
understanding of these myths brings alive some of the phrases used by Peter and
Jude so that we are better able to follow the discussion in these epistles.
.