Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T02:50:01.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kyrios Jesus as the Angel of the Lord in Jude 5–7

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

JArl Fossum
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this article I shall discuss a subject which, to my knowledge, has never been considered before – namely, whether Jude 5–7 presents Jesus as the Angel of the Lord. A final solution to the vexed problem of the varia lectio (or variae lectiones) in v. 5 is not of paramount importance in the following pages, for even if it could be agreed that (ò) κύρως was the original reading, it would have to be explained why a copyist could feel able to substitute ΊησοṺς for ‘Kyrios’. Some see ‘Jesus’ as the result of a mere ‘transcriptional oversight (―KC being taken for ―IC)’, but text-critical conjectures are to be dismissed if a reading can be given a reasonable meaning, and the same principle would have to apply to an assumed substitution.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , April 1987 , pp. 226 - 243
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1] (Ό) θεóς is rather poorly attested. However, Spitta, F., Der zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas (Halle a. S.: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1885) 324Google Scholar, conjectured that the original read ―OC and that an indistinctly written Theta gave rise to the readings ―IC and ―KC as well as to the right construal θεóς. Grundmann, W., Der Brief des Judas und der zweite Brief des Petrus (THKNT 15; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1974) 33Google Scholar, n. 30, finds this conjecture ‘worthy of consideration’. Spitta supported his conjecture on the reading õ θεός in the parallel in Pet 2. 4, but he held Jude to be dependent upon 2 Pet, whereas it is now generally agreed that the relationship is to be explained the other way round.

Since P72 reads θες Χριστóς, Kubo, S., P72 and the Codex Vaticanus (StudDoc 27; Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1965) 141Google Scholar, argues that the original reading was theos. But Kubo exagger ates the importance of this papyrus, which contains many errors; cf. Schelkie, K. H., Die Petrus-briefe. Der Judasbrief (HTKNT 13/2; Freiburg-Basel-Vienna: Herder, 1961) 144.Google Scholar

[2] Metzger, B. M. et al. , A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London & New York: United Bible Societies, 1971) 726. See alreadyGoogle ScholarKnopf, R., Die Briefe Petriund Judä (Meyer 12; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1912) 221.Google Scholar Metzger and A. Wikgren, who dissent from the majority of the Editorial Committee of the United Bible Societies, consider it a possibility that F. J. A. Hort was right ‘that the original text had only, and that OTIO was read as ♯OTIIC and perhaps as ♯OTIKC’ (‘Notes on Select Readings’, in Westcott, B. F. and Hort, F. J. A., The Text of the New Testament in the Original Greek [2 vols.; Cambridge: MacMillan, 1881] 2. 106).Google Scholar Both RSV and The Complete Bible. An American Translation (1923 and reprints) represent this conjecture. However, already Spitta, Der zweite Brief des Petrus 323–4, launched a convincing criti cism of Hort.

[3] With regard to Jude 5, see Harris, J. Rendel, Testimonies 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1920) 51–2.Google Scholar On the carefulness with which text-critical conjectures must be employed, see Metzger, B. M., The Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1964) 182–5.Google Scholar

[4] Adv by 1.21. So also Kellett, E. E., ‘Note on Jude 5’, ExpTim 15 (1903/1904) 381.Google Scholar Cf. EBmg.

[5] Kelly, J. N. D., A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude (Black's New Testament Commentaries; London: Black, 1969) 255.Google Scholar

[6] Black, M., ‘Critical and Exegetical Notes on Three New Testament Texts’, Apophoreta. Festschrift für Ernst Haenchen (BZNW 30; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1964) 45.Google Scholar

[7] Didymus, De Trin 1.19; Origen, in Spitta, MS, Der zweite Brief des Petrus 323Google Scholar, is palpably wrong that Didymus, writing κύριος,ΊησοṺς was interpreting the reading ‘Kyrios’; this author, like Origen, who reads likewise, obviously worked from an exemplar which had ‘Jesus’.

[8] Comm in Epist ad Gal 1.2, ad 2.16. Here Jerome is associating Jude 5 with John 12.41. See also Epist 46, Paul et Eust ad Marcell 7, where Jerome emphatically denies that ‘Jesus’ is Joshua. It is incomprehensible that Spitta, , Der zweite Brief des Petrus 323Google Scholar, also reckons that Jerome worked from a ‘Kyrios’ exemplar, for this father reads simply ‘Jesus’ in his quotations of Jude 5. Spitta also refers to a catena ad V. 7 which says that μόνος δεπότης δ κύριος ΊησοṺς Χριοτς (Catenae Graecorum Patrum in Novum Testamentum [8 vols.; ed. Cramer, J. A.; Oxford: 1840Google Scholar; reprinted Hildesheim: Olm, 1967] 8. 158) led the people out of Egypt through Moses, but this phrase is taken from v. 4.

[9] 1 Cor 10. 4. In v. 9 (var. lect.) Paul says that some of the desert generation tempted ‘Christ’. He alludes to Num 21. 5–6, where, however, we read that ‘the people spoke against God and Moses’.

[10] 12. 41. The Evangelist probably includes the future glory of the Son in the prophetic vision. According to Heb 11. 26 and 1 Pet 1. 11, the godly under the old dispensation knew about the future suffering and exaltation of Christ.

[11] Dial 120.3. However, Osburn, C. D., ‘The Text of Jude 5’, Bib 62 (1981) 107–15Google Scholar, is wrong that ‘the view that Jesus has saved the people out of Egypt and subsequently destroyed those who did not remain faithful is frequently observed to be a common feature in second-century literature’ (112), for the latter act is never attributed to Jesus.

[12] E.g., Wand, J. W. C., The General Epistles of St. Peter and Sr. Jude (Westminster Commen taries; London: Westminster, 1934) 201Google Scholar; Kelly, Commentary 255; Cantinant, J., Les Épîtres de Saint Jacques et de Saint Jude (Sources Bibliques; Paris: Gabalda, 1973) 302Google Scholar; Fuchs, E. and Reymond, P., La deuxième épître de Saint Pierre. L'épitre de Saint Jude (CNT, deuxième série 13b; Neuchâtel and Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1980) 162.Google Scholar Cf. already Knopf, , Briefe 221.Google Scholar

[13] Philo, Leg all 11.86. Cf. Det pot ins 118. For a full discussion of the ‘accompanying rock-well’ motif, see Horsley, R., ‘Paul and the Pneumatikoi First Corinthians investigated’ in Terms of the Conflict between two Different Religious Mentalities (Diss.; Harvard, 1970) 226–50.Google Scholar

[14] Tosefta, Meg 4.41; Bab. Kidd 49a.

[15] On the above, see McNamara, M., Targum and Testament (Shannon: Irish University, 1972) 48–9, 99.Google Scholar

[16] Targum to Isa 6. 5, however, says that Isaiah saw ‘ of the King of the worlds’, and so it might be asked whether John represents the Son as the Shekinah. In later Jewish mysti cism, ‘Shekinah’ could be used interchangeably with the ‘Kabod’ as the name of the divine mani festation upon the heavenly throne. Thus, in Ma'aseh Merkabah, R. Akiba, a type of the mystics who peformed heavenly journeys and beheld the Glory, says:‘[…] I gazed upon the Shekinah and saw everything that they do before His throne of glory] (§ 32, at the beginning, in Scholem, G. G., Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition [New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1960] 115Google Scholar). In this connection it may also be noted that the Samaritan theologian Marqah, referring explicitly to the floor of sapphire stone under the feet of the ‘God of Israel’ in Exod 24. 10, speaks of the ‘throne for His Kabod’ (The Samaritan Liturgy [ed. Cowley, A. E., Oxford: Clarendon, 1909] 25Google Scholar, line 15). To Marqah, the Kabod is identical with the Angel of the Lord; see my The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord (Wissenschaft liche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1/36; Tübingen: Mohr, 1985) 223–5.Google Scholar In the Pseudo Cyprianic treatise De Centesima 216, the Son is said to be the first among the angels and the ‘Lord Sabaoth’ whom Isaiah saw. Cf. the Jewish tradition that ‘Sabaoth’ is the name of an angel; see Origen, Comm in Joh 1.31 and further the literature cited by 3. Barbel, , Christos Angelos (Theophaneia 3; Bonn: Peter Hanstein Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1941) 193, n. 57.Google Scholar

[17] Young, F. W., ‘A Study of the Relation of Isaiah to the Fourth Gospel’, ZNW 46 (1955) 215–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar, has shown that the vision of Isaiah gave rise to much speculation already in pre-Christian times.

[18] Goodenough, E. R., The Theology of Justin Martyr (Jena: Frommansche Buchhandlung, 1923) 114–15Google Scholar, 141–7, 155–9, 168–73. Cf. Trakatellis, D. C., The Pre-Existence of Christ in the Writings of Justin Martyr (HTR, Harvard Dissertations in Religion 6; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976) 60–77, 85.Google Scholar

[19] Barbel, , Christos Angelos 52–63.Google Scholar

[20] Trakatellis, , Pre-Existence 61Google Scholar, n. 20 (continued from the preceding page).

[21] See below, p. 235.

[22] 56.22.

[23] Gen 19. 24 interpreted Christologically appears in different contexts in Dialogue, Justin's, and Bousset, W. (Jüdisch-Christlicher Schulbetrieb in Alexandria und Rom [FRLANT 23; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1915] 308)Google Scholar has suggested that this text belonged to a collection of Messianic proof-texts circulated by early Christian teachers. If this is right, Jude or his copyist may have based himself upon such a collection of testimonia.

A tradition preserved in Bab. Sanh 38b relates that a min argued before R. lshmael ben Yosi (170–200 C.E.) that Gen 19. 24 should read ‘from Him’ instead of ‘from the Lord’. The min thus reserves the Tetragrammaton for God's agent appearing on earth.

[24] 56.4. Cf. the similar statement in § 10.

[25] Actually the first of the three quotations of this verse in the chapter; see 56.12.

[26] Gen 19. 18.

[27] Vv. 17–22 have probably been inserted later. Although the one addressed by Lot originally was understood to be God himself, the context makes him one of the two angels who went to Sodom; see vv. 1, 13. Thus the consonant text should be read dōnā ‘my lord’, and not dōnāy, ‘(my) Lord’. A copyist has understood the Hebrew consonants as dōnāy, ‘ ‘my lords’, for v. 19 says that Lot spoke ‘to them’. Compare that the LXX, Peshitta, and Vg have both angels addressing Lot in v. 17. But Lot is speaking with a single person in vv. 19–22.

[28] Vv. 21–22. Cf. v. 13, where the two angels say: ‘[the Lord] has sent us to destroy it’.

[29] Gen. R. 51.2.

[30] Moore, G. F., Judaism 1 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1927Google Scholar; reprinted New York: Schocken, 1971) 403.

[31] 10.9.

[32] This is a name of the angel Metatron in 3 Enoch; see below, n. 65.

[33] Migr Abr 173.

[34] Somn 1.85.

[35] In an adaptation of Sarah's words in Gen 18. 12, Philo construes the ‘lord’ as the Logos, the chief of the three ‘men’ speaking to Abraham: ‘[…] she laughed in her mind and said: “Not yet has happiness befallen me until now, but my Lord, the divine Logos (ò δ κύριóς), is greater”’ (Leg all 111.218).

[36] The min discussing with R. Ishmael ben Yosi also found only one Lord, even the divine agent, in the verse.

[37] 10. 6–8; adapting the translation in APOT I.

[38] For the merger of Wisdom with the figure of the Logos and the principal angel – as well as other intermediaries – in different Hellenistic Jewish quarters, see Talbert, C. H., ‘The Myth of a Descending-Ascending Redeemer in Mediterranean Antiquity’, NTS 22 (1976) 426–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[39] E.g., 1 Enoch chs. 6–16, passim; 18. 11–19. 3; ch. 21; 2 Bar 56. 12–13; Jub 4. 15;5. 1–6; CD 2. 18–21; 1QapGen 2. 1, 16; 2 Enoch ch. 7; ch. 18. Cf. T Reub 5. 6; T Naph 3. 5; Josephus, Ant 1.3.1. See further the late texts cited by Spitta, , Brief 327.Google Scholar

[40] A summary of 10. 4–6 is found in 88.1, where, however, the angel punishing Azazel is unnamed.

[41] In 9. 1 they are named as Michael, Uriel, Raphael and Gabriel. In 40.9 and 71.8–9, Phanuel is substituted for Uriel. In ch. 20 we have the concept of the seven archangels. Cf. 90.21.

[42] Azazel (6.8, Asael) is represented as the first of the fallen angels in ch. 8; 10.4, 8; 13.1. Shemyaza is the chief in 6.3, 7; 69.2.

[43] I have followed the group of Greek fragments which reads ‘bind’ in v. 11. The Ethiopic text reads ‘tell’. On v. 12, ‘for seventy generations under the hills of the earth’, see Knibb, M. A., ed. and trans. (in consultation with Ullendorf, E.), The Ethiopic Book of Enoch (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1978) 2.Google Scholar 89. In 88.3 there is a summary of the text where, however, the agent punishing the fallen angels is anonymous.

[44] In 88.1 the chief offender is ‘bound’ and cast into an ‘abyss’ which is ‘narrow, and deep, and dark’. In v. 3 the fallen angels are ‘bound’ and thrown ‘into a chasm of the earth’.

[45] E.g., Schelkle, , Petrusbriefe 164Google Scholar; Kelly, , Commentary 276Google Scholar; Black, M., ‘The Maranatha Invocation and Jude 14, 15 (1 Enoch 1:9)’, Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: Studies in Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule (ed. Lindars, B. and Smalley, S. S.; London: Cambridge University, 1973) 194Google Scholar; Vanderkani, J., ‘The Theophany of Enoch i 3b–7, 9’, VT 23 (1973) 148Google Scholar; Osburn, C., ‘The Christological Use of I Enoch 1.9 in Jude 14, 15’, NTS 23 (1977) 337CrossRefGoogle Scholar (as opposed to his later work, ‘Text’, Osburn here espouses the reading ‘Kyrios’ in v.5). Cf. also Sidebottom, E. M., James, Jude and 2 Peter (The New Century Bible, New Edition; London: Nelson, 1967) 90Google Scholar; Fuchs, and Reymond, , Épître 174.Google Scholar

[46] V. 1c apparently does not belong to the original, but its insertion does effect the kind of identity between YHWH/Kyrios in v. 1b and the ‘Angel of the Covenant’ which is characteristic of the relation between God and the Angel of the Lrd in the older parts of the Bible. That the ‘Angel of the Covenant ’ in v. 1c in actual fact has to be understood as the Angel of the Lord may be in ferred by the help of Judg 2. 1–5, where the conclusion of the covenant between God and Israel is ascribed to the Angel of the Lord. The name ‘Angel of the Covenant’ may also allude to the idea known from later sources that the Law was given by an angel. Cf. below, n. 74. The punitive function of the Angel of the Lord will be dealt with forthwith.

[47] This is implied by the NT identification of John the Baptist as the eschatological Elijah and Christ's forerunner, for Mal 4.5 identifiesthe ‘angel‘ or ‘messenger’ surveying the way of the ‘Lord’∔‘Angel of the Covenant’ as Elijah. Robinson, J. A. T., ‘Elijah, John and Jesus: An Essay in Detection’, NTS 4 (1957/1958) 263–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar, arguing that it was Jesus who was originally seen as the eschatologi cal Elijah, says that ‘in the prophecy as we now have it, and as the men of the New Testament read it, this coming one is subsequently identified as ‘Elijah the prophet’ (Mal. iv.5)’ (264); but this is wrong. In the prophecy as we now have it, the ‘Lord’/‘Angel of the Covenant’ is described as coming (the verbs used are ᾕκω and ἔρχομαο) to judge the people, whereas the ‘angel’ or ‘messen ger’ in 3.la and Elijah in 4.5–6 are described as being sent (έξαποστέλλω, άποσλλω) by God in order to ‘survey the way before’ him, ‘before the great and glorious Day of the Lord comes’, lest the Lord should ‘come and smite the earth grievously’. This was also as the men of the New Testament read it: in Matt 11. 10 = Luke 7. 27 and Mark 1.2 (cf. Mark 9. 12 = Matt 17. 11; Luke 1. 17), Mal 3. la is referred to the Baptist, while Matt 3. 11–12 = Luke 3. 16–17 and Matt 11. 3 = Luke 7. 19 (cf. Mark 1. 7; John 1. 15, 26) identify Jesus with the Lord/Angel ‘coming’ to judgement in Mal 3.lb–.3, 5; 4.1. But see Matt 11. 14. In the Jewish sources which depict Elijah as God's own forerunner and thus as a Messianic figure, the prophet – although he in his historical life was known to have destroyed his enemies by bringing down fire from heaven (1 Kings 1. 10, 12; Sir 48.3; Luke 9. 54; cf. Rev 11. 5) – does not seem to be represented as an eschatological judge with reference to Mal ch. 3 and 4.1; see the sum mary of the sources by Jeremias, J., ‘Ηλ(ε)ιας’, TDNT 2 (1964 and reprints) 931–4, 939–40.Google Scholar It appears to be correct that there once existed an Elijah Christology, for there has been produced evidence to the effect that the Gospel of John has used, but played down, a source identifying Jesus with the eschatological Elijah; see of late Martyn, J. L., ‘We have found Elijah’, Jews, Greeks and Christians. Essays in Honor of William David Davies (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 21; ed. Hamerton-Kelly, R. and Scroggs, R.; Leiden: Brill, 1976) 181–219.Google Scholar But the judicial function of Christ does not come into view in this layer of tradition.

[48] The authors who think that the Lord in v. 14 is Jesus point to Matt 25. 31 (cf. 16. 27; Mark 13. 26–27 = Matt 24. 30–31) and 2 Thess 1. 7–8 (cf. 1 Thess 4. 16). The first passage teaches that the Son of Man shall come with his angels to judge men, and this figure could easily have been fused with the ‘Lord’/‘Angel’ described as ‘coming‘ to judgement in Mal 3.lb–c. Dan 7. 13 repre sents the ‘one like a son of man’ as ‘coming’ (έρχóμενος) with the clouds, and this being would seem to be conceived of as a judge being seated by the side of God (v. 9, ‘thrones’). Furthermore, v. 10a and v. 11 speak of a river of fire in which God's enemy is going to be annihilated, and the Christology referring Mal 3.1b–3, 5 and 4.1 to Jesus actually states that he will ‘baptize’ with fire. In 2 Thess 1. 7–8 the ‘Lord Jesus’ who is expected to come from heaven with his angels is said to be going to destroy his enemies with fire. Cf. Justin, 1 Apol 52.3. For the Son of Man as the prin cipal angel, see below, n. 72.

[49] 1 Cor 10. 10. This statement is made right after it has been said that those who tempted ‘Christ’ were destroyed by serpents; cf. above, n. 9. A commentator who thinks that Paul had Num ch. 14 in mind is Grosheide, F. W., Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953) 225.Google Scholar

[50] The tradition is obviously old, for Ezekiel the Tragedian, who lived in the second pre-Christian century, speaks of the ‘Destroyer’ as the ‘fearful (δεωóς) angel’ (Exagoge 156).

[51] Fossum, , Name 225–6.Google Scholar

[52] If ἄχλον is to be emended to άγγελονinstead of χόλον.

[53] The Angel of the Lord is carrying out a punitive function also in 2 Sam 24. 16 and 2 Kings 19. 35.

[54] E.g., Aland, K. et al. , ed., The Greek New Testament (3rd ed.; Stuttgart: The United Bible Societies, 1975) 832Google Scholar; Fuchs, and Reymond, , Epître 163.Google Scholar

[55] So RSV, The Holy Bible (New York International Bible Society; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973Google Scholar, reprinted 1978), The Prophets. A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures (2nd ed.; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1978)Google Scholar, as well as the majority of the older exegetes. Rashi takes the ‘Angel of the Presence’ to be Michael. In Jub 1.29 the ‘Angel of the Presence’ is said to have gone ‘before the host of Israel’, an expression which obviously alludes to Exod 14. 19; 23. 20; 32. 34; 33. 2. The Angel in Jubilees is probably Michael; see below, n. 74.

Isa 63. 9 may also be read as a polemic against the idea that it was a ‘messenger’ () and ‘angel’, and not God's own ‘Presence’, that saved the people. Duhm, B., Das Buch Jesaia (Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 3/1; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1914) 436Google Scholar, who chooses this interpretation, takes the Divine ‘Presence’ as an equivalent to the Angel of the Lord. The Angel of Exodus and God's ‘Presence’ are charged interchangeably with the function of leading the Israelites in Exod 32. 34; 33. 2, 14–15.

[56] Cf. Eccles 5. 6, where the LXX has changed ‘God's Angel’, before whom man has to render account, to ‘God's Presence’.

[57] Goldin, J., ‘Not By Means of an Angel and not By Means of a Messenger’, Religions in Antiquity. Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough (Studies in the History of Religion: Supplements to Numen 14; ed. Neusner, J.; Leiden: Brill, 1968) 412–24.Google Scholar

[58] The Passover Haggadah (ed. Glatzer, N. N.; New York: Schocken, 1953) 36.Google Scholar

[59] This term, a Persian loanword, occurs frequently in Mandaic as an equivalent of originally ‘messenger’, but having taken on the connotation of ‘liberator’, ‘deliverer’, ‘saviour’, and often used of the guide of the spirit leaving earthly life; see Nöldeke, Th., Mandäische Grammatik (Halle a. S., 1875; reprinted Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964) 418, n. 1.Google Scholar

[60] Sanh 38b.

[61] Dial 75.1.

[62] Num 13. 16.

[63] Josh 5. 13–15. This figure is apparently the Angel of the Lord; cf. v. 13 with Num 22. 23, and v. 15 with Exod 3. 5.

[64] Dial 62.4–5. Cf. 61.1.

[65] Metatron is called in 3 Enoch 12.5; 48[C].7; [D] 1. The Scriptural reference is Exod 23. 21.

[66] This identification is found not only in Migr Abr 174, but also in De agr 51, where the Scriptural passage is applied to the Logos in his function of being the ‘viceroy’ of God leading the ‘hallowed flock’ of the heavenly bodies whose courses regulate cosmic life.

[67] E.g., Prov 8. 1; Sir 1.6; 24.1; Wis 7.22; Bar 3.20.

[68] For a summary of the Wisdom myth, see Bultmam, R.The Gospel of John (translated from the 1964 edition [ the Supplement of 1966’ under the editorship of Beasley-Murray, G. R.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1971) 22Google Scholar, with bibliographical references in n. 6. Cf. also U. Wilckens, ‘σοφιακτλ, Judaism', C., TDNT 7 (1971, reprinted 1975) 508–9.Google Scholar

[69] V. 4b.

[70] Exod 13. 21. Cf. Num 14. 14; Deut 1. 33; 9. 3.

[71] It should also be noted that Cyprian, Test ad Quir 2.5, substantiates his opinion that Jesus is both ‘angel’ and ‘god’ by referring to, inter alia, Exod 13. 21 (‘the Lord’ leading the Israelites out of Egypt in a Pillar of Cloud and File) as well as Exod 23. 20–21, for the bishop of Carthage may here be adapting a tradition of his Jewish opponents; see d'Alès, A., La théologie de Saint Cyprien (Bibliothèque de théologie historique; Paris: Beauchesne, 1922) 50–53.Google Scholar

[72] Vita Mos 1.166. In Quis rer div her 201–206 Philo closely associates – and even would seem to identify – the Cloud and the Logos, the ‘archangel’.

For the image of an angel being veiled in a cloud, see also Rev 10. 1. Victorinus of Pettau, the first exegete of the Latin Church, takes this angel to be the same as the ‘Angel of the Great Counsel’ in LXX Isa 9. 5. This is a name of the Messiah, and Victorinus thus identifies the angel in Rev 10. 1 as Christ. This may be a justifiable identification, for the angel is described with colours from the picture of the ‘one like a son of man’ in 1. 13–16. If the correct translation of ἄλλος ἄλλεος in Rev 14. 15 is ‘another angel’, and not ‘another, an angel’, the ‘one like a son of man’ in v. 14 would by implication be regarded as an angel. (If vv. 15–17 are an interpolation, it appears that even the original document held the ‘one like a son of man’ to be an angel. In order to avoid this conclusion, we would have to translate ‘another, an angel’ in v. 18 and regard the ‘angel’ in v. 19 as another interpolation.) The ‘one like a son of man’ in Dan 7. 13 is probably no one else than the angel Gabriel, who occupies a prominent position elsewhere in the book; see Fossum, , Name 279, n. 61.Google Scholar

[73] Ch. 73. The identification of the Angel being welded with the Pillar as Michael is also found in the Acts of Andrew and Matthias ch. 30.

[74] It is possible that the ‘Angel of the Presence’ who is said to have gone ‘before the host of Israel’ in Jub 1.29 is Michael, since this angel also is held to have vouchsafed a special revelation to Moses on Mt. Sinai. For Michael being ascribed with the latter function, see Lueken, W., Michael (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1898) 18–19Google Scholar; cf. 105. In his book on the archangel Michael in Judaism and Christianity, Lueken does not cite Aphraates’ Tract on Fasting, where the angel in Exod 23. 20–21 and Josh 5. 14 is identified as Michael. It is generally accepted that Jewish Chris tian – and ultimately Jewish – influence is conspicuous in this author.

[75] Talbert, ‘Myth’, does not notice Sir's association of Wisdom with the Pillar/Angel of the Lord.

[76] 10.15, 17–19; adapting the translation in APOT I.

[77] The Bible attributes the destruction of the Egyptian army at the Sea ‘to God; see Exod 14. 24–15. 10, 19, 21. However, the oldest rabbinic refutations of the heresy characterized by the phrase ‘two powers (in heaven)’ suggest that the description of YHWH as a ‘man of war’ in Exod 15. 3 was fundamental for the heretical derivation of the second power; see Segal, A. F., Two Powers in Heaven (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 25; Leiden: Brill, 1977) 33–47, 52–9.Google Scholar In Samaritanism the Glory, that is, the Angel of the Lord, is credited with the annihilation of the Egyptian army; see Memar Marqah III.5 and the discussion by Fossum, , Name 227–8.Google Scholar

[78] Cf. vv. 17 and 21, ‘our Lord Jesus Christ’, and v. 25, ‘Jesus Christ, our Lord’.

[79] It is true that ‘Kyrios’ always appears with the article when it is accompanied by the words ‘Jesus Christ’, whereas the article before ‘Kyrios’ in v. 5 is probably secondary. However, as pointed out by Hanson, A. Tyrrell, Jesus Christ in the Old Testament (London: SPCK, 1965)Google Scholar, who thinks that even if ‘Jesus’ is not the original reading, ‘it may well be a correct gloss’ (137), the two other occurrences of ‘Kyrios’ without the article are in quotations, viz, in vv. 9 and 14. Moreover, as has been seen above, the Kyrios in v. 14 is apparently the Son.

Accepting the reading ‘Kyrios’, Zahn, Th., Einleitung in das Neue Testament (2 vols.; Leipzig: Deichert, 1899) 2. 82–3Google Scholar, 89, was able to interpret this as a name of Jesus by taking τò δεύτερον to refer to a second act of destruction, namely that of Jerusalem, and assuming that the first as well as the second act of punishment (with their respective preceding acts of redemption) had been effected by the same ‘Lord’, even Jesus. For a refutation of Zahn's laborious exegesis, see Maier, F., ‘Zur Erklarung des Judasbriefes (Jud 5)’, BZ 2 (1904) 396–7.Google Scholar Some commentators– e.g. Schelkie, Petrusbriefe 154, n. 2 – think that the reading ‘Jesus’ may imply that the destruction of Jerusalem is hinted at, but – even if this might be right – the origination of the reading cannot be explained by this construal. It is generally agreed that τò δεύτερον means ‘the next time’, ‘afterwards’.

Bigg, C., The Epistle of St. Peter and St. Jude (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1901 and reprints)Google Scholar, who chooses the reading ‘Kyrios’, says: ‘By “the Lord” is no doubt meant Christ’ (328). He refers to 1 Cor 10. 4, 9, where, however, the Son is not called ‘Kyrios’. Hanson, Tyrrell, Jesus Christ 137–8Google Scholar, refers to Heb chs. 3–4 as well as to 1 Cor ch. 10; but, even if we would be justified in taking Heb 3. 3, 6 to mean that the Son was ‘envisaged as active’ in the events of the wilderness period in a similar way to what is the case in 1 Cor ch. 10, it must be pointed out that the author of Hebrews does not call the Son ‘Kyrios’ in this context. Grundmann, Brief 33, also considers it possible that ‘Kyrios’ in Jude 5 denotes the pre-existent Son.

[79] Metzger and Wikgren, in Metzger, et al. , Commentary 726.Google Scholar The reading was espoused by J. J. Griesbach in the second half of the eighteenth century and adopted by K. Lachmann in his edition of 1831. The first and second edition of the Greek New Testament of the United Bible Societies also represent this reading.

[81] Metzger, et al. Commentary 726.Google Scholar

[82] In the previous century, there were some scholars who defended the reading ‘Jesusτ by explaining τò δεύτερον as alluding to a second deliverance, namely that through Jesus, and άπώλεσεν as referring to the ensuing destruction of Jerusalem. For a refutation of this exegesis, see Spitta, , Brief 320.Google Scholar Cf. also above, n. 79.

[83] Wohlenberg, D. G., Der erste und zweite Petrusbrief und der Judasbrief (Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 15; Leipzig: Deichert, 1915) 291Google Scholar, asserts that ‘Kyrios’ can be explained as an interpretation of the reading ‘Jesus’, which faultily might have been taken to denote Joshua. But in that case we should expect ‘Kyrios Jesus’, as is read by both Didymus and Origen; see above, n. 7.

[84] Several months after this article was submitted, Professor Martin Hengel directed my attention to a fragmentary papyrus text published by Benoit, P., ‘Fragment d'une prière contre les esprits im purs?’, RB 58 (1951) 549–65.Google Scholar A conscientious rendering and translation of this text, the first part of which appears to be related to Jude 5–6, would entail a comprehensive grammatical discussion which cannot be undertaken here. However, a summary of the general contents of the beginning of the text might not be tedious.

The text begins by urging God to send the angel who led the people through the desert and later appeared to Joshua. Then the prayer mentions the fate of the fallen souls, alluding to the passages from 1 Enoch ch. 10 which have been quoted and discussed above, p. 232. As considered by Benoit, it would not seem entirely impossible that it is even the Angel of Exodus who is regarded as the one who has thrown the sinners into the abyss. In any case, the prayer collocates the rescue of the people out of Egypt by the Angel of the Lord and the flinging of the evil ones into the underworld, an act which was known to have been performed by the chief angel. The papyrus may thus be taken as further evidence to the effect that Jude 5–7 regards Jesus as the Angel of the Lord, since Jude concomitantly accred its Jesus with the acts of delivering the people out of Egypt and imprisoning the evil angels.