Interpretive Options and Implications

As far as Jude’s use of apocryphal and/or extra-biblical sources are concerned, four general and—to some extent—overlapping ‘interpre-tive options’ can be identi¿ed.¹⁶⁴ First, a number of interpreters judge Jude’s use of apocryphal and/or extra-biblical sources negatively, although they differ regarding the reasons for and the weight assigned to this judgment. Luther and Tyndale both note Jude’s use of extra-biblical material as one argument among others in Jude’s disfavor; the dif¿culty is not so much the particular text or tradition behind Jude 9 or 14-15 but the fact that Jude has used a text or testimony outside Scripture. Neither Luther nor Tyndale considers this suf¿cient reason, in and of itself, to reject the epistle or to question its canonical author-ity. Erasmus and Cajetan, by contrast, censure Jude speci¿cally and solely for his use of the Apocrypha. While Erasmus voices reserva-tions concerning the authenticity and contents of the book of Enoch, Cajetan censures the unquali¿ed way in which Jude assigns authority to an apocryphal prophecy. Both Erasmus and Cajetan consider that Jude’s use of apocryphal sources calls the apostolic authority of his epistle into question.

163. Ridley, Exposition, H2a-H2b.

164. For the term ‘interpretive option’, I am indebted to Gene L. Green, Jude &

2 Peter (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, MI:

Bakerm 2008), pp. 26ff.

The second interpretive option is the most common in the early Reformation, namely, Jude’s use of apocryphal and/or extra-biblical sources can be explained and defended, even if the sources themselves are suspect. Interpreters on all sides of the Reformation observe that Jude is not the only New Testament author to cite extra-biblical texts or traditions. If Paul can cite non-scriptural sources, why can’t Jude?

Jude’s use of the Apocrypha is compared to Paul’s quotation of pagan authors (Pellikan), in particular, the saying attributed to Epimenides in Titus 1.12 (Erasmus, Catharinus, Bullinger). The naming of Jannes and Jambres¹⁶⁵ in 2 Tim. 3.8 demonstrates that Paul, too, could and did provide extra-biblical detail (Luther, Ridley, Catharinus). Such parallels imply that Jude has simply selected an appropriate saying or speci¿c details from a non-biblical source, without approving the source itself. Closely associated with this argument is the distinction between the particular saying(s) cited by Jude, on the one hand, and the apocryphal source from which it is cited, on the other. Bullinger makes such a distinction with his vivid metaphor of ‘gold out of manure’; Catharinus also draws a sharp contrast between true saying and apocryphal source. Another variation on this theme is the emphasis on the pious, good, and godly character of the particular sayings which Jude has chosen to cite (Tyndale, Pellikan, Bullinger).

It is also possible that Jude was using sources read and approved by his intended audience (Bullinger).

The third interpretive option is the af¿rmation, to some extent, of the sources per se. Some exegetes (Lefèvre, Pellikan, Catharinus) argue against making too sharp a distinction between writings which were approved as canonical, on the one hand, and those which were rejected as ‘apocryphal’, that is, false or unworthy, on the other. Even if Jude’s extra-biblical sources were excluded from the Jewish or Christian canon, that exclusion did not necessarily mean that these ‘apocryphal’

books could not have been read and valued by Jews or Christians at that time. That which is apocryphal in one period is not necessarily unknown in another. A surprising number of interpreters assume or defend the authenticity of the prophecy ascribed to Enoch (Luther, Pellikan, Calvin, Ridley) and posit its preservation in writing (Lefèvre, Catharinus) or transmission as an oral tradition (Luther, Calvin).

165. These names are spelled in various ways during the sixteenth century; the

¿rst as Iannes, Iannis, and Jannes; the second as Jambres, Jambre, Mambris, and Mambre.

A ¿nal interpretive option is deference to higher authority. Both Lefèvre and Catharinus stress Jude’s apostolic status and condemn those who would dare to criticize an apostle of Christ. It is the inclu-sion of these sayings in a canonical epistle written by an apostle, and not their origin, which is decisive. Lefèvre takes this line of argument further, insisting that to criticize Jude is, in effect, to criticize the Holy Spirit who was speaking through the apostles. Ridley applies this reasoning to Paul and, by implication, to Jude; Calvin likewise attri-butes Enoch’s prophecy to the Spirit. Catharinus appeals to eccle-siastical authority, maintaining that the issue of Jude’s apocryphal sources is a closed case, for the church has already recognized the epistle as true Scripture.

These four interpretive options resist any attempt to attach neat confessional labels (Roman Catholic, Protestant, Lutheran, or Reformed). In the early Reformation, Jude’s sharpest critics (Erasmus and Cajetan) and staunchest defenders (Catharinus, Lefèvre) are all found within Roman Catholic ranks. The most heated exchange concerning Jude’s use of apocryphal sources is not inter-confessional, as one might expect, but intra-confessional, between fellow Domini-cans Cajetan and Catharinus. Of course, the epistle of Jude in general and Jude 9 and Jude 14-15 in particular offer exegetes ample opportunity to castigate their Roman Catholic or Protestant opponents.

Luther, for example, applies Enoch’s denouncement of end-time false teachers directly to the pope and his priests.¹⁶⁶ Ridley’s entire expo-sition is directed against the bishop of Rome and his ‘pseudeapostles’.

Catharinus names Luther, Oecolampadius, Zwingli and Calvin as examples of the ‘wandering stars’ (Jude 13) who will face the divine judgment prophesied by Enoch.¹⁶⁷

The various ways in which early Reformation interpreters evaluate Jude’s use of apocryphal and/or extra-biblical sources both reÀect and illumine issues regarding authority: the authority of Scripture, tradi-tion, the church, and the church fathers. Protestant interpreters defend or explain Jude’s use of extra-biblical traditions by demonstrating that

166. WA 14:84.26ff.; LW 30:211; cf. Enarrationes 161a. Jude is ‘nothing more than an epistle directed against our clerics—bishops, priests, and monks’ (WA 14:75.19-20; LW 30:203; cf. Enarrationes 155a).

167. Comm. Jude 13, p. 646. Preston (‘Catharinus’ Commentary’, p. 219), posits that Catharinus’ exposition of Jude ‘is less a commentary than a polemic against heretics’.

they are, in some sense, biblical. Even if the sayings or sentences cited by Jude are not found elsewhere in Scripture, they are nevertheless consistent with scriptural narrative and doctrine (Tyndale, Bullinger, Ridley, Calvin). The emphasis laid by Protestant authors on the authority of Scripture is hardly surprising; more striking is the way in which they allow for, even welcome, extra-biblical tradition, oral or written, within the unity and continuity of God’s word. The quoted prophecy of Enoch is valued not only for its content but for its antiquity (Calvin); it witnesses to the fact that God’s word has always been proclaimed to the world (Luther, Pellikan, Bullinger). At the same time, the true, God-inspired tradition found in Jude 9 and 14-15 is de¿ned and af¿rmed over against false Roman Catholic tradition (Calvin, Ridley).

This emphasis on the proclamation of God’s word from the very beginning of the world offers a glimpse of the larger debate about the respective authority of Scripture and church.¹⁶⁸ The willingness of Protestant exegetes (such as Bullinger) to af¿rm Enoch’s prophecy may well be prompted, at least in part, by the principle that Scripture takes priority over the church, both in time and in authority.¹⁶⁹ Catharinus, by contrast, declares that Scripture is approved not by Scripture, but by the church; earlier doubts concerning Jude’s use of the Apocrypha and the authority of his epistle are a matter of historical record, but no longer relevant, because the ‘spirit of the church has prevailed’.

Sixteenth-century opinions concerning Jude’s sources illustrate another debate regarding authority: how much weight should be given to the witness of the church fathers in general and Jerome in particu-lar? The way in which Jerome’s testimony regarding Jude is accepted, without question, as authoritative is striking, nowhere more so than in Cajetan’s exposition. Even as Catharinus challenges Cajetan’s deference to Jerome, he refutes Cajetan not by dismissing Jerome altogether, but by setting out his own correct interpretation of On Illustrious Men 2. An impressive number of Protestant interpreters

168. See George H. Tavard, Holy Writ or Holy Church: The Crisis of the Protestant Reformation (London: Burns & Oates, 1959).

169. Stephens (‘The Authority of Scripture’, pp. 47-48) notes Bullinger’s argument in The Authority of Scripture (1538) that the word of God, spoken or written, is older and greater than the church, refuting those who hold that ‘the Church existed for 2449 years before scripture began with Moses’.

(Karlstadt, Luther, Ridley, Pellikan, Calvin) also approach Jude and his sources in Jerome’s company, as it were. The diversity of sixteenth-century opinions concerning Jude and his sources reÀects both the ambivalence of Jerome’s chapter on Jude—which could be cited as evidence of Jude’s rejection or acceptance—as well as the wide range of patristic opinion concerning Jude’s sources (from Jerome to Tertullian).

Lastly, what implications, if any, does Jude’s use of apocryphal sources have for the canonical status of his epistle? None of those interpreters considered here rejects the epistle of Jude outright, even if they judge Jude’s sources to be suspect. One distinction is imme-diately apparent, between those interpreters (Erasmus, Karlstadt, Cajetan, Luther and Tyndale) who assign less weight or authority to the epistle of Jude than to other New Testament books, and those who do not. One must be careful not to explain Jude’s lower status solely in terms of his use of apocryphal sources, however. Both Erasmus and Cajetan classify the epistle as less apostolic and of less authority, respectively, but this judgment arguably owes as much, if not more, to their reading of Jerome as to their exposition of Jude. Although Luther considers Jude to be of lesser rank compared to the ‘chief books’ of the New Testament, Jude’s use of extra-biblical sources is not decisive in this consideration. One should note that a number of other Protestant reformers likewise assign Jude a second-class status within the canon, without making explicit mention of his use of apocryphal or extra-biblical sources.¹⁷⁰ A number of interpreters (Calvin, Ridley) take note of the way in which Jude’s use of extra-biblical sources has led to rejection in the past and doubt in the present; they then proceed to af¿rm Jude’s place in the canon without placing any restriction on the epistle’s authority.

170. Johannes Brenz in Contiones aliquot de sacramentis (1527) classi¿es Jude, together with James and Revelation, among those New Testament books which, while they are not rejected or condemned, do not teach on their own authority; Jude is therefore in the same category as the Old Testament books of Tobit, Judith, and Susannah and Bel(!). Johannes Oecolampadius likewise declares that all 27 books of the New Testament are to be received, but at the same time ‘we do not compare (con-feramus) the Apocalypse, along with the Epistles of James and Jude, and 2 Peter and the two later epistles of John, with the rest’. Epistolarum libri quattuor (Basel, 1536), p. 31.

As far as Reformation exposition of Jude and evaluation of his sources is concerned, this study sketches a beginning and raises ques-tions for further research. The interpretation of extra-biblical texts and traditions concerning Enoch, Moses, and Michael here in Jude could be supplemented by early-sixteenth-century exegesis of texts such as Gen. 5.18-24, Deuteronomy 34, and Rev. 12.7. The reception history of both the book of Enoch and the Ascension of Moses in the second half of the sixteenth century, that is, from the writings of Guillaume Postel and Sixtus of Siena through Joseph Juste Scalinger’s 1606 publication of excerpts from 1 Enoch (from the Chronology of George Syncellus),¹⁷¹ remains to be written. The later Reformation has also produced an impressive number of largely neglected commentaries on Jude.¹⁷² Finally, Jude’s canonical authority and the reasons for its af¿rmation or quali¿cation could be examined within the broader context of other disputed New Testament books.

Abbreviations

CEBR Peter G. Breitenholz and Thomas Brian Deutscher (eds.), Contem-poraries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation (3 vols.; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003) CWE Collected Works of Erasmus (86 vols. [planned]; Toronto: University

of Toronto Press, 1969–)

LW Luther’s Works (55 vols.; St. Louis: Concordia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1955–86)

OER The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation (4 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996)

PL J. P. Migne (ed.), Patrologia cursus completus (Series Latina, 221 vols.; Paris: Migne, 1844–64)

WA D. Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe (65 vols.;

Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1883–1966)

WA/DB D. Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe: Deutsche Bibel (12 vols.; Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1906–61)

171. See Hessayon, ‘Og King of Bashan’, p. 31.

172. To mention a few: Nicolas Hemmingius, Commentarii in utramque Epistolam Petri Apostoli, et in vnam Ivdæ (1556); Theodore Beza, Novum Jesu Christi Domini nostri Testamentum latine (1559); Victorinus Strigel, Hypomnemata in omnes epistolas Paulis et aliorum apostolorum et in Apocalypsin (1565);

Gerhardus Lorich, Bibliae totius brevius (1563).

© The Author(s), 2014. Reprints and Permissions:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/JournalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0951820714528628

http://JSP.sagepub.com

The Ethiopic ‘AndΩmta’ Commentary on Ethiopic Enoch 2 (1 Enoch 6–9)

RALPH LEE

Holy Trinity Theological College, PO Box 31244, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Abstract

The little-studied corpus of biblical commentary material in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes a commentary on the book of Enoch. The commentary tradition reÀects the outlook of seventeenth-century Gondar, the then capital of Ethiopia, although it undoubtedly contains much older material. Enoch is an important book in the Ethiopian tradition, with its theology underpinning the interpretation of many other books. This article presents a translation of the commentary on Enoch 6–9, the fallen angels, and the related commentary on Ps. 82(81).7. The commentary views the fallen angels as holy men who fell into temptation, and reÀects the strongly ascetic outlook of Ethiopian Christianity. The commentary on Psalm 82 includes reference to a story found in the Midrash ha-Gadol on Genesis raising the question of the inÀuence of Jewish commentary material on the Ethiopian tradition.

Keywords:1 Enoch, AndΩmta, Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church, fallen angels, Psalm 82.

Background

The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church has a tradition of com-mentary on biblical books and other patristic texts known as ģŠĽƘų, andΩmta. The name derives from the Amharic ģŠĽƘ, andΩm, ‘and one’, an abbreviation for the phrase ‘there is one who says’, which is

180

used to introduce contrasting interpretations (Cowley 1983: 3). The commentaries on canonical texts give explanations for each verse, giving ¿rst the Ge‘ez text known as ũĞƁƑŠŵ ĪƟ, yäliqawnt zär, ‘the scholars’ text’, which is often referred to as just the zär or nΩbab. This is followed by an often colloquial translation into Amharic called ĪŮĄ, zäyΩbe; and then a commentary or ŵƟǶƗ, tΩrg^wame, in the form of ŔŰų, ­atäta, explanations; ųƜĚ, tarik, illustrative stories; and ŋƃČ, ÓΩqs, quotations. Sometimes textual variations are discussed, known as ģąśŵ, abnät, although they are not always referred to with this name, and are often introduced with the phrase ‘and one says’ as in the commentary on Eth. En. 2.4 (1 En. 6.3) below. Stylistically the commentary is often framed in the form of a question, introduced by a phrase like Ăĝ, bilu, ‘if one says/asks…’ Extensive commentary will often come at the end of a group of verses (Cowley 1983: 5). The biblical text used in the andΩmta is closest to the four-volume litho-graphed Ge‘ez and Amharic Bible, known as the Haile Selassie Bible, printed in 1927 E.C.¹ (Anonymous 1927 E.C.; Cowley 1974: 320).

In the introduction to the commentary on the Pauline Epistles there is an explanation of the exegetical techniques used throughout the AndΩmta Corpus (Cowley 1977). The interpretation opens with a colloquial Amharic translation, often with alternatives that may reÀect textual variants. Other techniques employed include: grammatical analysis that also offers a discussion of alternative punctuation; clari¿-cation of ambiguous or unclear Ge‘ez words; treatment of homo-phones or situations where gemmination of a consonant alters the meaning; elucidation of the meaning through poetical rearrangement;

the supplying of words implied in the text; identi¿cation of other biblical passages with similar meaning; an explanation of important details that might not be understood well by the listener; a retelling of related biblical stories; an attempt to reconcile the meaning with other apparently contradictory biblical passages while often appealing to diverse authorities; and an explanation of the mystery or hidden mean-ing of the text, frequently utilizmean-ing the classical Ethiopic ‘wax and gold’ method for conveying meaning (Cowley 1971: 9-20). Although

1. E.C. = ‘Ethiopian Calendar’, which starts on the 11th of September in the Gregorian Calendar, and on the 12th of September in the year before a Gregorian leap year. It has 12 lunar months, and one of 5 or 6 epagomenal days. The current year is 2006, which started on the 11th of September, 2013.

181 not articulated in the explanation in the Pauline Epistles, the andΩmta interpretations frequently employ typology, and may utilize diverse authorities to show that there is agreement over particular matters. The corpus interprets prophecy as having signi¿cance in the historical period in which it was spoken, with true ful¿lment in Christ; in addi-tion, it may also provide further meanings (Cowley 1983: 48-53).

These methods serve a much wider purpose, namely, to illustrate the

‘true’, that is received, meaning of a text, and to resolve any dispute over its meaning. Notwithstanding such attempts to streamline interpretation, the commentaries often cite mutually exclusive views, and often make little attempt to resolve them.

According to Ethiopian tradition, the Old Testament books came to Ethiopia at the time of Menelik I, in the tenth century BCE, when, according to the account in the Ethiopian national epic, the Ěąƚ śƅǗŵ, KΩbrä NägäĞt, the Ark of the Covenant, came to Ethiopia along with cohorts of Israelite priests, and the nation converted to Judaism.² Tradition also claims that the commentary tradition started at this time, as the books were translated into Ge‘ez (Cowley 1983:

23). There are some rare Ge‘ez commentaries similar to the andΩmta, but there is, for instance, no Tigrinya tradition; nonetheless it seems logical that the commentary became necessary as Ge‘ez ceased to be widely spoken. All of the internal evidence of the AndΩmta Corpus, through its use of:

language, historical references to named Ethiopian emperors, other refer-ences to Ethiopian history, Ethiopian geographical referrefer-ences, Ethiopian teachers named in the commentary, general outlook, and MS evidence, conclusively demonstrates that the Gondar kingdom is the temporal and geographical provenance of the de¿nitive formulation of the Andԥmta Corpus. (Cowley 1983: 23)

Despite claims about the antiquity of the AndΩmta tradition, there is no direct evidence of its earlier development. It seems in any event likely that the tradition substantially pre-dates the Gondar kingdom. Further-more, according to Ethiopian tradition it was by an imperial decree of 1674 E.C. that the andΩmta commentaries were committed to writing, a point that is consistent with Cowley’s conclusion regarding the Gondar Kingdom (Yohannes 2000 E.C.: 187-88).

2. A critical edition of the Ge‘ez text of this work was published by Bezold, and an English translation is also available (Bezold 1909; Budge 2004).