HistoricalChristian.Faith

Does the Epistle of Jude’s learned, Palestinian pesharim-style exegesis support the letter’s authenticity — that it was written by Jude the Lord’s brother?

Type: historical / literary-critical argument (off-timeline) · Assessment: contested — Richard Bauckham’s study shows that Jude 4–19 is an elaborate, formal piece of Jewish scriptural exegesis in the manner of the Qumran thematic pesharim: a four-“text”-plus-interpretation structure, houtoi (“these are…”) demonstrative-explanation formulae, catchword (gezerah shawah) technique, a christological modification of the quoted text (supplying kyrios as the subject of 1 Enoch 1:9), and a probable translation of 1 Enoch from the Aramaic — all marks of first-century Palestinian Jewish Christianity, in a letter written while the apostles still lived. That the letter is early and Palestinian is well-grounded and widely granted. But Bauckham’s payoff — “Evidently Jude the Lord’s brother was one such skilled exegete” — presupposes the authenticity it is offered to establish: a skilled Palestinian Jewish-Christian pseudepigrapher could imitate the same learned exegesis, so the evidence fixes the letter’s milieu more securely than its author, and the authorship of Jude is a genuinely disputed question. And even granting authenticity, the point is neutral between the Helvidian and Epiphanian readings and does not by itself touch Mary’s virginity · argued from Richard Bauckham

Related arguments: the authenticity of Jude — see also Does Jude’s knowledge of the obscure Palestinian Testament of Moses support the letter’s authenticity? · Does Jude’s christological vocabulary (the title despotēs) support the letter’s authenticity? · Does the Lukan genealogy’s origin in Jude’s circle support the letter’s authenticity? Across the aisle, the very verse this exegesis turns on — 1 Enoch 1:9, which Jude christologizes and quotes at Jude 14–15 — is weighed as a canon datum on the Old Testament canon (did Jude’s quoting Enoch as prophecy leave the canon open?) and as a reception datum on the Nephilim (was 1 Enoch received as Scripture?).

The claim

The whole literal-kinship case for the brethren rests, in part, on the letter of Jude being a real artifact from within Jesus’ own family: its author names himself “brother of James” (Jude 1), and a genuine Jude who could write that is a real member of the family group the Gospels name — James, Joses, Jude, Simon (Mark 6:3). So the letter’s authenticity — whether it was really written by Jude the Lord’s brother, or is a later pseudepigraph — bears on the brethren question. And here Richard Bauckham — himself holding the perpetual virginity on the Epiphanian reading — mounts an argument from the letter’s literary character.

Jude 4–19 is a formal work of learned Jewish exegesis. Though the point “has been rarely recognized,” Bauckham argues, Jude’s letter “contains a peculiarly elaborate and interesting example of formal exegesis of Scripture in the style of the Qumran pesharim.” The central section (vv 4–19) is not, “as it has so often seemed to modern readers, mere undisciplined denunciation, but a very carefully composed piece of scriptural commentary”: a sequence of four “texts” — three Old-Testament types (vv 5–7), a woe-oracle of three more (v 11), the prophecy of 1 Enoch 1:9 (vv 14–15), and a prophecy of the apostles (vv 17–18) — each followed by an interpretation identifying the false teachers as those to whom the “text” refers, exactly as the thematic pesharim (4QFlorilegium, 11QMelchizedek) comment on a collection of texts on a common theme.¹

The formulae, techniques, and text-forms are those of a trained Jewish exegete. Each interpretation is introduced by a demonstrative formula with houtoi (“these are…,” vv 8, 10, 12, 16, 19), matching the “demonstrative explanations” of the Qumran pesharim and of apocalyptic vision-interpretation, with close New-Testament parallels at Galatians 4:24 and 2 Timothy 3:8 — a usage Bauckham judges “in both respects not idiosyncratic but traditional.” The commentary is bound together by catchword links (the rabbinic gezerah shawah), and the one formal quotation, 1 Enoch 1:9, is modified to embody the interpretation: Jude most probably supplies kyrios as its subject — absent in the other versions — so that the verse speaks of the parousia of Christ, “a christological interpretation, which makes clear Jude’s understanding of… the parousia of Jesus Christ.”²

The setting is Palestinian, and early. Jude, Bauckham argues, most probably knew and translated 1 Enoch 1:9 not from the extant Greek but “from the Aramaic” — the language of the Qumran fragments of Enoch (4QEn^c) — which points to “some circles of apocalyptic Jewish Christianity in Palestine during the New Testament period, before [1 Enoch] became popular in the church at large from the end of the first century onwards.” And the letter is written during the lifetime of the apostles: in vv 17–18 Jude “looks back… not… to the time of the apostles as such, but simply to the time when apostles founded the churches to which he is writing.” The learned method is a native competence, not a borrowed veneer: “Like the authors of the pesharim, he was skilled in the exegetical methods of his time and place.”³

On this foundation Bauckham reaches his conclusion:

The letter of Jude contains probably the most elaborate passage of formal exegesis in the manner of the Qumran pesharim to be found in the New Testament… Such exegesis must have flourished especially in the early Palestinian church, where Jewish Christian leaders, in order to justify, to explain and to develop their faith in Jesus the Messiah, studied and expounded the Scriptures with the exegetical techniques available to them in their religious culture. Such exegetical work and the skilled exegetes who produced it will have played a major part in the early development of Christian theology. Evidently Jude the Lord’s brother was one such skilled exegete.

— the letter’s learned, demonstrably Palestinian character taken as evidence for its authenticity, and so against the pseudepigraphy reading.⁴ The interpretation weighed here is the one these data are adduced to support: the Epistle of Jude’s learned, Palestinian pesharim-style exegesis shows that it was really written by Jude, the brother of James and of the Lord — a genuine artifact from within Jesus’ family — and not a later pseudepigraph.

What the argument establishes

1. The letter is a learned, formal work of Jewish scriptural exegesis. This much is the chapter’s solid result, and it is largely independent of who wrote the letter. Bauckham’s analysis — the four-“text” structure, the transition-markers (change of tense; the houtoi formulae), the catchword technique, the christological handling of the Enoch quotation — is detailed and closely paralleled from the Qumran material, and it decisively overturns the older impression of Jude as “mere undisciplined denunciation.” Whoever wrote Jude was trained in a specific, recognizable method of Jewish commentary.

2. That method fixes the letter early, and in Palestine. The thematic pesharim are “almost the only extant examples of formal exegesis… from the Palestinian Judaism of New Testament times,” and the closest analogues to Jude’s formulae and techniques are found there. The probable use of 1 Enoch in Aramaic — before the work’s late-first-century Greek translation and while it was still a Palestinian, not a diaspora, possession — and the letter’s writing within the apostles’ own generation together locate it in first-century Palestinian Jewish Christianity. This is the strong core, and it is granted even by many who doubt the letter’s authenticity: a late, Hellenistic, Gentile-Christian forgery is not what the exegesis looks like. The argument genuinely rules that class of hypothesis out.

What it does not establish

3. Learned Palestinian exegesis fixes the milieu, not the man. Here the argument outruns its evidence. That the letter is an early, Palestinian, Jewish-Christian pesher shows the kind of person and circle that produced it; it does not show that the person was Jude the Lord’s brother in particular. A skilled Palestinian Jewish-Christian exegete of the next generation — writing in the name of a revered member of the Lord’s family — could produce exactly this learned commentary, since he would be drawing on the same living exegetical culture. Bauckham’s closing sentence, “Evidently Jude the Lord’s brother was one such skilled exegete,” is therefore a step beyond what the chapter demonstrates: it reads as a conclusion, but it is a conditional inference — sound if the letter is authentic, and offered in a study that argues authenticity on other grounds (its survey of the pseudepigraphy debate; the author’s conspicuous refusal of the title “brother of the Lord”), but not something the exegetical evidence establishes on its own. The learned character of the letter weighs toward authenticity by removing the objection that Jude is too Hellenistic or too late to be genuine; it does not, by itself, carry the author’s identity. And the authorship of Jude is a genuinely disputed question in the scholarship, on which Bauckham himself notes there is no settled agreement.

4. Even granting authenticity, it is neutral for the doctrine. Suppose the argument succeeds and the letter is Jude’s own. Like its companion literal-kinship arguments, it fixes only that Jude was a real brother of James and reputed brother of the Lord — a flesh-and-blood member of the family group — not whose son he was. On the Helvidian reading he is Mary’s own later son; on the Epiphanian reading he is Joseph’s son by a former wife, Jesus’ elder stepbrother; and on both he is a genuine brother of James and reputed brother of the Lord, fully capable of writing the letter. So authenticity presses against any picture of the brethren as unreal or merely figurative, but it lends the perpetual virginity no direct weight and says nothing of Mary’s childbearing.

Assessment

Contested. The argument has two parts, and they fare differently. Its foundation — that Jude 4–19 is an elaborate, formal work of Palestinian Jewish exegesis in the manner of the Qumran pesharim, written early and probably drawing on 1 Enoch in Aramaic — is well-grounded, detailed, and widely accepted; it is close to a settled result, and it genuinely excludes the picture of Jude as a late, Hellenistic, Gentile forgery. But the conclusion the argument is offered for — that this establishes the letter’s authorship by Jude the Lord’s brother — does not follow from the exegetical evidence alone: the learned, Palestinian character fixes the letter’s milieu more securely than its author, and a skilled Palestinian Jewish-Christian pseudepigrapher fits that milieu as well as the historical Jude does. Authorship of Jude is a genuinely disputed question, strong scholars ranged on both sides, and Bauckham’s payoff line — “Evidently Jude the Lord’s brother was one such skilled exegete” — presupposes the authenticity it is adduced to prove rather than demonstrating it. Weighed honestly, the exegetical datum is positive but not decisive evidence for authenticity: it removes a leading objection without settling the identity of the author. Because the reading it serves — the letter’s authenticity — is itself unresolved on the wider evidence, with no clear winner, the honest verdict is contested.

Two limits keep the finding modest for this doctrine, and both are limits on what is shown. First, the argument bears on the letter’s authenticity, and touches Mary’s virginity only at second hand — through the reality of a Jude who could name himself “brother of James.” Second, even at full strength it is neutral between the Helvidian and Epiphanian readings, so it decides nothing between the three literal readings of the brethren. What it does contribute — the same anchor the grandsons of Jude and the married-missionary brothers of 1 Corinthians 9:5 supply — is that the Lord’s brethren, and the letter one of them left, belong to real first-century Palestinian history, not to a figure of speech; the choice among the readings, and so the perpetual virginity itself, is left to be settled on other grounds.

Sources