...since the whole of Jude 6 is almost certainly a loose summary/paraphrase of 1 Enoch 12:4, 10:4 and 10:6 respectively.
Even commentators who think Jude 6 includes an allusion to 1 Enoch don't think "the whole of Jude 6" is indebted to 1 Enoch. For instance, Davids says:
These angels had their own proper spheres of authority (arche), which was also a commonplace of Jewish literature and Christian teaching, going back at least to the interpretation of Deut 32:8 in Greek translation of the OT…This interpretation is also found in the intertestamental literature (Jub. 2:2; 5:6), [and] the Dead Sea Scrolls (49).
Where is the temporary prison where the fallen angels are imprisoned?…It is probably the second heaven location that is reflected in 1 Pet 3:19-20…Very likely this refers to Christ's proclamation of triumph to the fallen angels upon his ascension through the various heavens to the throne of God" (51).
Conversely, Green points out that:
The exact expression Jude uses to describe the place where the angels are bound was used repeatedly in classical literature [Aeschylus; Euripides; Quintus Smyrnaeus; Homer; Sibyline oracles] (70).
So your attribution is quite questionable and reductionistic.
This seems to be the default view of those who dislike the connection (directly or indirectly) to Gen 6. But the parallels with 1 Enoch (see above) are far too pronounced to make this a plausible referent.
At best, you only have half a verse which parallels 1 Enoch, and I don't see that the Enochian parallels are more pronounced than the OT parallels (Isa 14; Isa 22:21-22; Ezk 28; cf. Judges 5:20; Deut 32:8).
If anything, these OT precedents are far more specific in terms of a revolt in heaven/fall from heaven than Gen 6:1-4. In that regard it would make more sense to think Jude 6 is alluding to passages like these rather than 1 Enoch.
and Jude's paraphrase of 1 Enoch 1:9 in Jude 14-15 makes it clear that he has 1 Enoch well in mind as he pens this letter.
Actually, that's a problematic comparison. If he feels free to quote 1 Enoch in vv14-15, why would he merely allude to 1 Enoch in v9?
Besides, this particular class of angels is said to be "bound" with everlasting chains and "kept" in darkness (literally, "under gloom" or "the under-gloom" or "gloom of the underworld"). Peter's parallel is even more explicit: "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell (tartarus), and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness darkness to be kept until the judgment ..." (2 Pet 2:4). Since we know by the NT witness that demons in general (and Satan in particular) roam the earth freely, then Jude (and by extension, Peter) cannot here be referring to the general population of fallen angels--demons in general have clearly not yet been "cast into tartarus," but these particular angels have. As an aside, Peter almost certainly has this same class of angels in mind in 1 Pet 3:19-20 when he refers to "the spirits now in prison, who formerly did not obey when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared."
I think you're getting carried away with the imagery. I don't think that refers to a subclass of fallen angels. Rather, I think that's a picturesque metaphor for divine restraint. Fallen angels have a divinely restricted field of action.
Keep in mind, too, that all fallen angels are doomed to face eschatological judgment. Not just a subclass thereof.
Not sure what is to be gained exegetically by introducing a non-sourced common Jewish belief when we have a known, concrete referent readily available in 1 Enoch
That begs the question.
I think iii)b) can be dismissed on contextual grounds. Whatever else Jude may think of 1 Enoch, he doesn't treat this particular story as a mere passing reference. Rather, he states he wants to "remind" his readers of things they already "fully know" (or should know) about God's judgment on the disobedient, and he clearly wants them to take heed to it. He references three events to support that point, the first and third of which are events they'd clearly "know" from Scripture. It would be incongruous for Jude to cite two OT events (both of which he presumably believes actually occurred), only then to sandwich in between them a mere myth that does not rise to the same level of authority and which he believes didn't actually occur.
i) To begin with, your own position commits you to sandwiching an apocryphal work (1 Enoch) between two canonical (i.e. Pentateuch) works. How does that avoid elevating 1 Enoch to the level as the Pentateuch?
ii) Assuming that he alludes to 1 Enoch in v6, he may simply be borrowing some evocative imagery (assuming that 1 Enoch would resonant with Jude's target audience). We need to distinguish the historical event from its symbolic or poetic depiction. As I already noted, Jude may be using mythopoetic imagery from Classical Greek literature to depict the Netherworld. That doesn't mean he's invested in this particular picture-language. It's just idiomatic phraseology. Figurative word-pictures.
iii) We already have OT passages which employ astronomical imagery to represent a moral or politically downfall. And we have the notion of territorial spirits in Deut 32:8 and Dan 11. The raw materials are there for Jude to harvest.
Having said this, I think he in fact DOES allude to the angels cohabitation with women, albeit indirectly. In verse 7 we are told that Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities "“in the same way as these” indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh."
That depends on the intended level of the comparison. You're assuming it has to be sexual. But it can just as well (or better) be comparing two groups (fallen angels, homosexuals) who transgress their appointed roles, but do so in different ways. Both rebel against the roles to which they've been assigned by God. Like the false teachers, Jude is comparing them to, their OT counterparts both spurn divine authority. The analogy needn't be any more specific than that.
Why should this be significant? He summarizes the story from 1 Enoch, which makes that association explicit, and he's made it clear that his readers are already "fully aware" of that story. What need does he therefore have to relay the story in detail?
You're assuming that he takes for granted whatever he omits, because he's merely "summarizing" his source material. Although that's sometimes how an editor engages a primary source, an editor may also be selective because he doesn't accept the primary source in toto. Take "details" like 200 angels descending on Mt. Hermon. Do you think Jude is committed to that detail (among others)?
every single instance of the phrase “sons of God” that occurs in the OT refers to angels, not men
That's a very dubious claim:
i) To begin with, it's precarious to cite a linguistically isolated source like Job (whose Hebrew is idiosyncratic) to construe the usage in Genesis. Our first recourse should be to Pentateuchal usage. And in Pentateuchal usage, divine fatherhood/sonship is employed metaphorically (e. g. Exod 4:22-23; Deut 14:1; cf. 1:31; 8:5; 32:6). I think it best to construe Gen 6:2,4 in the same figurative sense. That's a more reliable semantic and conceptual frame of reference than Job or the Psalter.
ii) Although Davidic kingship may use divine fatherhood/sonship language (e.g. 2 Sam 7:14; Ps; Ps 89), David was human, not angelic. The same considerations apply to other passages (e.g. 82:6).
if “sons of God” simply refers to the “godly line of Seth” (as is commonly asserted)
i) I haven't taken that position. Rather, as I've said elsewhere: that suggests someone like Nimrod (Gen 10:8-12). Indeed, both passages employ the same designation (gibbor [10:8-9]; gibborim [6:4]). Of course he's postdiluvial, but he's the type of individual that 6:4 is referring to. Explorers. Conquerors. Warrior-kings. Founders of ancient empires.
ii) Even assuming (ex hypothesi) that fallen angels would lust after women, why would they bother to marry them? Why not just seize them as concubines?
Why did this union result in offspring that were giants?
i) How the "sons of God" are related to the Nephilim is syntactically ambiguous. Are they offspring or contemporaries?
ii) You seem to be alluding to Num 13:33. But that's hyperbolic. Moreover, we'd expect the Nephilim to perish in the Flood.
Steve: “Even commentators who think Jude 6 includes an allusion to 1 Enoch don't think "the whole of Jude 6" is indebted to 1 Enoch. For instance, Davids says:”
ReplyDeleteNo doubt OT parallels can be found for Jude 6 (not surprising since 1 Enoch itself is steeped in OT imagery). Kistemaker (Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and the Epistle of Jude, NTC) was among the first to point out that what Jude writes in v. 6 is a summary paraphrase of select passages in 1 Enoch, and I’m inclined to agree with him:
1 Enoch: “(12:4) [The angels] have abandoned the high heaven, the holy eternal place.… (10:4) Bind Azaz’el hand and foot (and) throw him into the darkness! (10:6) … that he may be sent into the fire on the great day of judgment.”
Jude 6: “(a) And the angels who did not keep their position of authority but abandoned their own home. (b) These he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains (c) for judgment on the great Day.”
I’m also glad to see that Davids makes the same connection with 1 Pet 3:19-10 as I do.
Steve: “Conversely, Green points out that: “The exact expression Jude uses to describe the place where the angels are bound was used repeatedly in classical literature [Aeschylus; Euripides; Quintus Smyrnaeus; Homer; Sibyline oracles] (70).” So your attribution is quite questionable and reductionistic.”
I don’t see how your conclusion follows from Green’s point. Green himself does not conclude this, and, in fact, he subscribes to the same view of Jude 6 that I’ve already posited (viz., an allusion to the story in 1 Enoch). Interestingly, he even cites Bauckham for support, who notes that the phrase “sons of God” in Genesis 6 was universally understood not as men but angels until the until mid-2nd-cent A.D. in Judaism, and the fifth century A.D. in Christianity. In any case, the use of a phrase that is also used in Greek literature is not the same as relying on those Greek writers *conceptually*. Conceptually, he is quite clearly relying on Genesis 6 as informed by 1 Enoch.
Steve: “At best, you only have half a verse which parallels 1 Enoch, and I don't see that the Enochian parallels are more pronounced than the OT parallels (Isa 14; Isa 22:21-22; Ezk 28; cf. Judges 5:20; Deut 32:8). If anything, these OT precedents are far more specific in terms of a revolt in heaven/fall from heaven than Gen 6:1-4. In that regard it would make more sense to think Jude 6 is alluding to passages like these rather than 1 Enoch.”
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this point. I think the allusion to 1 Enoch is clear throughout the entire verse (as I’ve shown in Kistemaker’s comparison of the two above). And I don’t see the motif of Jude as “falling from heaven” (or falling from positions of authority, or any other version of that), because although the “arche” language of v. 6 may lend itself to that idea in the case of the angels, that theme just doesn’t so readily apply to the other two examples Jude cites (the Exodus and Sodom and Gomorrah -- what “positions of authority” did the men of Sodom fall from?).
Steve: “Actually, that's a problematic comparison. If he feels free to quote 1 Enoch in vv14-15, why would he merely allude to 1 Enoch in v9?”
Not sure I’d characterize something like that as “problematic.” Jude is not woodenly obliged to follow a single pattern in his writing style. V. 6 is a summary while vv. 14-15 is a quotation. Do we conclude that since the writer of Hebrews sometimes quotes from the Pentateuch and sometimes just alludes to it, that it’s thereby problematic to conclude he’s using the same source material in each case?
Steve: “I think you're getting carried away with the imagery. I don't think that refers to a subclass of fallen angels. Rather, I think that's a picturesque metaphor for divine restraint. Fallen angels have a divinely restricted field of action.”
ReplyDeleteThat works for concepts like “bound” and “kept”; not so much for phrases like “cast into Tartarus.” Let’s face it. If this phrase were referring to unbelievers instead of angels, and we were in conversation with an annihilationist, would either of us be willing to argue this is just a metaphor for divine restraint?
Steve: “Keep in mind, too, that all fallen angels are doomed to face eschatological judgment. Not just a subclass thereof.”
I get that, which is why I agree that if the language were confined to “bound” and “kept,” a better argument could be made that this refers to the impending judgment of fallen angels based on their general rebellion. I think you have a larger problem with the phrase “cast into Tartarus.”
Steve: “i) To begin with, your own position commits you to sandwiching an apocryphal work (1 Enoch) between two canonical (i.e. Pentateuch) works. How does that avoid elevating 1 Enoch to the level as the Pentateuch?”
Keep in mind, I’m positing the view that Jude is alluding directly to Genesis 6 *as informed by* 1 Enoch. He’s referring to OT events in all three cases. Hence, it’s a Pentateuch sandwich no matter how it’s sliced (pun intended).
Steve: “ii) Assuming that he alludes to 1 Enoch in v6, he may simply be borrowing some evocative imagery (assuming that 1 Enoch would resonant with Jude's target audience). We need to distinguish the historical event from its symbolic or poetic depiction. As I already noted, Jude may be using mythopoetic imagery from Classical Greek literature to depict the Netherworld. That doesn't mean he's invested in this particular picture-language. It's just idiomatic phraseology. Figurative word-pictures.”
Figurative word-pictures that signify what exactly? The NT writers most certainly adopted Hellenistic language and made it their own in communicating the faith (there’s no such thing as “biblical greek”). But they did not adopt conceptual language apart from a corresponding reality that was firmly based in Christian truth. I confess, I am uncomfortable with the notion that we can take positive statements made by a biblical writer about events he asserts actually “happened” (especially events that are “sandwiched” between two other OT events—do we conclude that Jude is likewise not invested in those?) and relegate them to the realm of idiomatic phraseology. Are you comfortable with that?
Steve: “iii) We already have OT passages which employ astronomical imagery to represent a moral or politically downfall. And we have the notion of territorial spirits in Deut 32:8 and Dan 11. The raw materials are there for Jude to harvest.”
Context has to decide how we read this. Imagery is imagery—apocalyptic literature is filled with it. But in the present case, Jude relates at least two OT events that he asserts happened (and that we agree did in fact happen in the history of man). In between those, he relates the “angels” event. So, if v. 6 is an allusion to 1 Enoch, then it’s precarious to assume he wants us to view it in a different way than the other two events. And it’s just as precarious to assume Jude is invested in the first and third events, but not the one in between.
Steve: “That depends on the intended level of the comparison. You're assuming it has to be sexual. But it can just as well (or better) be comparing two groups (fallen angels, homosexuals) who transgress their appointed roles, but do so in different ways. Both rebel against the roles to which they've been assigned by God. Like the false teachers, Jude is comparing them to, their OT counterparts both spurn divine authority. The analogy needn't be any more specific than that.”
I concede this reading is a possibility. It’s just not as tight as mine : )
Steve: “You're assuming that he takes for granted whatever he omits, because he's merely "summarizing" his source material. Although that's sometimes how an editor engages a primary source, an editor may also be selective because he doesn't accept the primary source in toto. Take "details" like 300 angels descending on Mt. Hermon. Do you think Jude is committed to that detail (among others)?”
ReplyDeleteIt’s actually 200 in my translation, but no. Nor do I think he’s committed to the notion that the offspring were 450 feet tall. What I think we can be certain he’s committed to is: (1) these angels did not keep their “beginning state” (arche), (2) they “abandoned” their “oiketerion” (used only once elsewhere in the NT where it refers to our “heavenly body” -- 2 Cor 5:1-4), (3) they were arguably involved in a sexual sin (the connection with “sarkos heteras” in v. 7), and (4) as a result they are now being “kept” in bonds in the “undergloom” (into which 2 Peter insists they have been “cast”) for the day of judgment. Every other detail is up for grabs.
Steve: “To begin with, it's precarious to cite a linguistically isolated source like Job (whose Hebrew is idiosyncratic) to construe the usage in Genesis. Our first recourse should be to Pentateuchal usage. And in Pentateuchal usage, divine fatherhood/sonship is employed metaphorically (e. g. Exod 4:22-23; Deut 14:1; cf. 1:31; 8:5; 32:6). I think it best to construe Gen 6:2,4 in the same figurative sense. That's a more reliable semantic and conceptual frame of reference than Job or the Psalter.”
Your point is a fair one, and the concept of sonship is an important one in Scripture. I think it’s essential to consider the literary genre of the passages where the phrase occurs, but we have to establish usage first. None of your points overturns the fact that the phrase itself is not used in any of the passages you cite. It’s used only in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 and Gen 6. IF you agree that it refers to angels in the three instances in Job, and IF you agree that it occurs in the Pentateuch only in Genesis 6, then I’d ask the following: (1) Is it possible that, as literarily detached as Job may be from Genesis, this particular phrase signifies the same thing in both cases? After all, as idiosyncratic as the Hebrew in Job may be, it’s still Hebrew, and the usage in Job sets a precedent for elsewhere. (2) Is it possible that the reason none of the other Pentateuchal passages you cite uses the same phrase found in Genesis is because they’re referring to two different things?
Steve: “I haven't taken that position. Rather, as I've said elsewhere: that suggests someone like Nimrod (Gen 10:8-12). Indeed, both passages employ the same designation (gibbor [10:8-9]; gibborim [6:4]). Of course he's postdiluvial, but he's the type of individual that 6:4 is referring to. Explorers. Conquerors. Warrior-kings. Founders of ancient empires.”
So, the “sons of God” were the mighty men? What exactly was the sin in their taking “daughters of men” as wives? How is this connected with God’s displeasure in Gen 6:3?
Steve: “Even assuming (ex hypothesi) that fallen angels would lust after women, why would they bother to marry them? Why not just seize them as concubines?”
I don’t have a good answer for that, and I’m not prone to speculating beyond what I can confirm, but I’ll make a suggestion. Marriage in the OT was not a ceremony. It was the act of a male and a female coming together in sexual union (the “two becoming one flesh,” as it were). Hence, Rebekah became Isaac’s wife when she entered his tent (Gen 24:67). I think Paul supports this idea in 1 Cor 6:16 where he warns us that sleeping with a prostitute results in our becoming one flesh with her. Hence, in Gen 6, the phrase “they took as their wives” is a euphemism for copulation.
Steve: “i) How the "sons of God" are related to the Nephilim is syntactically ambiguous. Are they offspring or contemporaries?”
ReplyDeleteWhat is the point of calling attention to the Nephilim in this context if they were mere contemporaries? It’s difficult to miss the connection between the Nephilim and the union between the sons of God and the daughters of men: “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.” This union is portrayed as the event that triggered the first appearance of the Nephilim.
Steve: “ii) You seem to be alluding to Num 13:33. But that's hyperbolic. Moreover, we'd expect the Nephilim to perish in the Flood.”
Hyperbole doesn’t preclude the existence of very large people (such as those in Num 13 and even the case of Goliath). Nephilim simply means “giant.” There are obviously “giants” even today, though they are certainly not the result of the same kind of union as Genesis 6 records. And the author of Genesis 6 accounts for these types of giants that would come later (“and also afterward”). But the primary referent to “Nephilim” still appears to be the offspring of the union between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men.” The inclusion of “Nephilim” in this passage makes no sense apart from recognizing this connection.