QUESTION VI. Whether Enoch wrote any book, and whence [Jude] drew the prophecy of his which Jude cites — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

LatineEnglish

QUESTION VI. Whether Enoch wrote any book, and whence [Jude] drew the prophecy of his which Jude cites.¹

QUAESTIO VI. Utrum Henoch librum aliquem scripserit, et unde prophetiam eius quam citat Iudas deprompserit.

Sexto loco, de scriptis Henoch illud disputandum est, utrum Henoch librum aliquem scripserit. Nam si aliquid ille scriptum reliquit, sine dubitatione omnium scriptorum quicumque post conditum orbem fuerunt antiquissimum ac primum fuisse eum fateri necesse est. Disputandi autem ea de re occasionem viris doctis dedit Sanctus Iudas Apostolus in sua epistola canonica, commemorans prophetiam quandam Henoch quam ille creditur litteris consignatam ad posteros transmisisse. Quaeritur igitur unde nam Iudas illam prophetiam Henoch cognoverit et exprompserit? An ex aliquo eius libro qui tempore Iudae extaret, sive canonico sive apocrypho? An ex sola traditione? An illud vaticinium, caeteris mortalium incognitum sibíque uni revelatione Dei patefactum, Iudas Ecclesiae publicavit suáque auctoritate firmavit?

In the sixth place, concerning the writings of Enoch, this must be disputed: whether Enoch wrote any book. For if he left anything written, we must without doubt confess him to be the most ancient and the first of all writers whosoever were after the founding of the world. The occasion for disputing on this matter was given to learned men by Saint Jude the Apostle in his canonical epistle, when he mentions a certain prophecy of Enoch which Enoch is believed to have committed to writing and transmitted to posterity. It is asked, then, whence Jude knew and brought forth that prophecy of Enoch: from some book of his that was extant in Jude's time, whether canonical or apocryphal? From tradition alone? Or did Jude publish to the Church and confirm by his own authority that oracle, unknown to the rest of mortals and disclosed to himself alone by a revelation of God?²

Pervulgata opinio est prophetiam illam quam citat Iudas depromptam fuisse ex libro quodam apocrypho nomine Henoch praenotato, qui olim extabat et circumferebatur. Quid sit autem Scriptura apocrypha, his verbis declarat Augustinus in capite 23 libri 15 de Civitate Dei: Omittamus, inquit, earum Scripturarum fabulas quae apocryphae nuncupantur, eo quòd earum occulta origo non claruit Patribus, a quibus usque ad nos auctoritas veracium Scripturarum certissima et notissima successione pervenit. In his autem apocryphis, etsi invenitur aliqua veritas, tamen propter multa falsa nulla est canonica auctoritas. Sic Augustinus. Librum autem illum Henoch apocryphum saepe citant Origenes et Procopius Gazaeus. Origenes quidem in ultima homilia super librum Numerorum testatur Henoch scripta quaedam prophetica posteris reliquisse, è quibus Iudas Apostolus testimonium illud de extremo iudicio deprompserit. In illis autem scriptis continebantur multa, partim vera partim fabulosa, velut de nominibus et occultis virtutibus stellarum, de gigantibus ex Angelorum commixtione cum mulieribus procreatis, deniq; de extremo iudicio. Legendus est Origenes in 28 homilia in Numeros et in tomo 6 Commentariorum in Evangelium Ioannis. Ferebatur olim vetustissimum, ut videbatur, volumen cui titulus erat Testamentum duodecim Patriarcharum, saepe ab Origene et Procopio citatum, cui multa ex libro Henoch inferebantur vaticinia, verbi

It is the common opinion that the prophecy which Jude cites was drawn from a certain apocryphal book entitled with the name of Enoch, which of old existed and was in circulation. But what apocryphal Scripture is, Augustine declares in these words, in chapter 23 of book 15 of the City of God: 'Let us pass over the fables of those Scriptures which are called apocryphal, because their hidden origin was not clear to the Fathers, from whom the authority of the truthful Scriptures came down to us by a most certain and well-known succession. In these apocrypha, although some truth is found, yet on account of many false things there is no canonical authority.' Thus Augustine. Now that apocryphal Book of Enoch is often cited by Origen and Procopius of Gaza. Origen indeed, in his last homily on the book of Numbers, attests that Enoch left to posterity certain prophetic writings, from which Jude the Apostle drew that testimony about the last judgment. In those writings were contained many things, partly true and partly fabulous -- such as about the names and hidden powers of the stars, about the giants procreated from the mingling of Angels with women, and finally about the last judgment. Origen is to be read in homily 28 on Numbers and in tome 6 of the Commentaries on the Gospel of John. There was once in circulation a very ancient volume, as it seemed, whose title was The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, often cited by Origen and Procopius, into which many oracles were inserted from the Book of Enoch -- for instance,³

verbi gratia, de iis quae filiis ac nepotibus Patriarcharum eventura erant, de mundi Salvatore ab Hebraeis occidendo, de futura Hebraeorum captivitate perpetua, et per omnes gentes dispersione. Sanctus Hieronymus in libro de Ecclesiasticis scriptoribus, ubi scribit de Iuda, narrat epistolam Iudae propterea non fuisse à multis olim receptam, quòd in ea citaretur testimonium Henoch ex libris apocryphis depromptum. Idem super 1 capite Epistolae ad Titum dicit Iudam, citando testimonium Henoch ex libro apocrypho, non totum librum illum probasse, sed illud duntaxat testimonium quod verum esse compertum ipsi erat. Non igitur, quia liber ille apocryphus erat, omnia quae in ipso erant censenda erant apocrypha; nec, quia testimonium citatum à Iuda verum erat, consequens fuit totum illum librum fuisse verum. Non enim liber aliquis dicitur apocryphus quod omnia in eo sint apocrypha, sed quia multa sint eiusmodi. Similia Hieronymo super illo Iudae loco scribit Beda. Dionysius Carthusianus super illo ipso loco ait Iudam non citasse librum Henoch, sed prophetiam Henoch, quae licet in eo libro contineretur, eam tamen ipse (Deo sibi revelante) sciebat prophetico spiritu ab Henoch fuisse editam: sicut Mosem narrare multa Adami, Cain, Lamech et aliorum dicta, quae ab illis esse prolata divinitus ei fuerat patefactum.

for instance, of the things that would befall the sons and grandsons of the Patriarchs, of the world's Savior to be slain by the Hebrews, of the future perpetual captivity of the Hebrews and their dispersion among all nations. Saint Jerome, in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers, where he writes about Jude, relates that Jude's epistle was for that reason not received of old by many, because in it is cited a testimony of Enoch drawn from apocryphal books. The same author, on chapter 1 of the Epistle to Titus, says that Jude, in citing Enoch's testimony from an apocryphal book, did not approve the whole book, but only that testimony which he had ascertained to be true. Therefore, not because that book was apocryphal were all the things in it to be judged apocryphal; nor, because the testimony cited by Jude was true, did it follow that the whole book was true. For a book is not called apocryphal because everything in it is apocryphal, but because many things in it are of that kind. Bede writes things similar to Jerome upon that passage of Jude. Dionysius the Carthusian, on that very passage, says that Jude cited not the book of Enoch but the prophecy of Enoch, which, although it was contained in that book, he nonetheless (God revealing it to him) knew to have been uttered by Enoch by a prophetic spirit -- just as Moses relates many sayings of Adam, Cain, Lamech, and others, which it had been divinely disclosed to him had been uttered by them.⁴

Tertullianus in libro de Habitu mulierum, occurrens iis qui negabant librum illum Henoch (si fuisset ante diluvium scriptus ab Henoch) post diluvium ad posteros salvum pervenire potuisse, ostendit non esse id incredibile. Nam vel Noë in arca ipsum conservavit, vel diluvio abolitum, deinde Spiritu sancto illustratus, redintegravit: quemadmodum Sacra volumina, quae Chaldaico Ierusalem excidio et incendio perierant, posteà per Esdram instaurata sunt. Censet autem Tertullianus non esse abiiciendam illius libri Henoch auctoritatem. Apponam hic verba Tertulliani, quae sic habent: Scio Scripturam Henoch, quae hunc ordinem Angelis dedit, non recipi à quibusdam, quia nec in armarium Iudaicum admittitur. Opinor, non putaverunt illam, ante cataclysmum editam, post eum casum orbis omnium rerum abolitorem salvam esse potuisse. Si ista ratio est, recordentur pronepotem ipsius Henoch fuisse superstitem cataclysmi Noë, utique domestico nomine et hereditaria traditione audierat, et meminerat de proavi sui apud Deum gratia et de omnibus praedicatis eius: cum Henoch filio suo Mathusalae nihil aliud mandaverit quàm ut notitiam eorum posteris suis traderet. Igitur sine dubio potuit Noë in praedicationis delegatione successisse; vel quia et alias non tacuisset, tam de Dei conservatoris sui dispositione quàm de ipsa domus suae gloria. Hoc si non tam expedite haberet, illud quoque assertionem Scripturae illius tueretur: proinde potuit abolefactam eam violentia cataclysmi, in spiritu rursus reformare: quemadmodum et Hierosolymis Babylonica expugnatione deletis omne instrumentum Iudaicae litteraturae per Esdram constat restauratum. Sed cùm Henoch eadem Scriptura etiam de Domino praedicarit, à nobis quidem nihil omnino reiiciendum est quod pertinet ad nos. Et legimus omnem Scrip-

Tertullian, in his book On the Attire of Women, meeting those who denied that that book of Enoch (if it had been written by Enoch before the flood) could have come down safe to posterity after the flood, shows that this is not incredible. For either Noah preserved it in the ark, or, it having been destroyed by the flood, Enoch, afterward illumined by the Holy Spirit, restored it -- just as the Sacred volumes, which had perished in the Chaldean overthrow and burning of Jerusalem, were afterward restored through Ezra. Tertullian judges, moreover, that the authority of that book of Enoch is not to be cast off. I shall set down here the words of Tertullian, which run thus: 'I know that the Scripture of Enoch, which assigned this rank to the Angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish cupboard [canon]. I suppose they did not think that it, published before the cataclysm, could have survived safe after that catastrophe which destroyed all things of the world. If that is the reason, let them remember that Noah, Enoch's great-grandson, survived the cataclysm; and surely by household name and by hereditary tradition he had heard, and remembered, of his forefather's grace with God and of all his preachings -- since Enoch charged his son Methuselah with nothing else than that he should hand on the knowledge of these things to his posterity. Therefore without doubt Noah could have succeeded to the delegation of the preaching; or, because he would not otherwise have kept silence, both about the disposition of God his preserver and about the glory of his own house. If it were not so readily held, this too would defend the assertion of that Scripture: accordingly it could, when destroyed by the violence of the cataclysm, be reformed again in the spirit -- just as, when at Jerusalem all the records of Jewish literature had been destroyed in the Babylonian conquest, it is agreed they were restored by Ezra. But since Enoch, in that same Scripture, preached also concerning the Lord, nothing at all that pertains to us is to be rejected by us. And we read that all Scrip-⁵

pturam aedificationi habilem divinitus inspirari. À Iudaeis posteà iam videri propterea reiectam, sicut et caetera ferè quae Christum sonant. Nec utique mirum hoc, si Scripturas aliquas non receperunt de eo locutas, quem et ipsum coram loquentem non erant recepturi. Eo accedit quòd Henoch apud Iudam Apostolum testimonium possidet. Sic Tertullianus. Sanctus Augustinus scripsisse Henoch aliqua de rebus divinis affirmat, et cur scripta eius in canonem Sacrarum Scripturarum non sint relata satis probabilem causam reddit. Sic enim scribit in libro 15 de Civitate Dei capite 23: Scripsisse nonnulla divina Henoch illum septimum ab Adamo negare non possemus, cum hoc in epistola canonica Iudas Apostolus dicat. Sed non frustra non sunt in eo canone Scripturarum qui servabatur in templo Hebraei populi succedentium diligentia sacerdotum. Cur autem hoc? nisi quia ob antiquitatem suspecta fidei iudicata sunt, nec utrum haec essent quae ille scripsisset poterat inveniri, non talibus proferentibus qui ea per seriem successionis reperirentur ritè servasse. Unde illa quae sub eius nomine proferuntur, et continent istas de gigantibus fabulas quòd non habuerint homines patres, rectè à prudentibus iudicantur non ipsius esse credenda. Sicut multa sub nominibus et aliorum Prophetarum, et recentiora sub nominibus Apostolorum, ab haereticis proferuntur: quae omnia sub nomine apocryphorum, ab auctoritate canonica diligenti examinatione remota sunt. Sic Augustinus.

ture apt for edification is divinely inspired. It is now seen to be rejected by the Jews for that reason, like nearly everything else that sounds of Christ. Nor indeed is this to be wondered at, if they did not receive certain Scriptures that spoke of him whom, even speaking in person, they were not going to receive. To this is added that Enoch possesses a testimony with Jude the Apostle.' Thus Tertullian. Saint Augustine affirms that Enoch wrote some things concerning divine matters, and gives a sufficiently probable reason why his writings were not entered into the canon of the Sacred Scriptures. For he writes thus in book 15 of the City of God, chapter 23: 'That Enoch, that seventh from Adam, wrote some divine things we could not deny, since Jude the Apostle says this in his canonical epistle. But not without reason are they absent from that canon of Scriptures which was kept in the temple of the Hebrew people by the diligence of the succeeding priests. And why this? except that on account of their antiquity they were judged suspect as to trustworthiness, nor could it be found whether these were the things he had written, since they were not brought forth by such persons as would be found to have duly preserved them by a succession. Whence those things which are brought forth under his name, and which contain those fables about the giants (that they did not have men for fathers), are rightly judged by the prudent not to be believed his. Just as many things are brought forth by heretics under the names of other prophets also, and more recent ones under the names of the Apostles: all of which, under the name of apocrypha, have been removed from canonical authority by diligent examination.' Thus Augustine.⁶

Similem habet idem sententiam in eiusdem operis libro 18 capite 38, ad hunc modum scribens: Quid Henoch septimus ab Adam? nonne etiam in canonica epistola Apostoli Iudae prophetasse praedicatur? cuius scripta ut apud Iudaeos et apud nos in auctoritate non essent, nimia fecit antiquitas, propter quam videbantur habenda esse suspecta, ne proferrentur falsa pro veris. Nam et proferuntur quaedam quae ipsorum esse dicuntur ab eis qui pro suo sensu passim quod volunt credunt: sed ea castitas canonis non recepit. Non quod eorum hominum qui Deo placuerunt reprobetur auctoritas, sed quod ista esse non credantur ipsorum. Nec mirum debet videri quod suspecta habeantur quae sub tanta antiquitatis nomine proferuntur, et reliqua. Hactenus sunt verba Augustini.

The same author has a similar view in book 18 of the same work, chapter 38, writing in this manner: 'What of Enoch, seventh from Adam? Is he not, even in the canonical epistle of the Apostle Jude, declared to have prophesied? whose writings, that they should not have authority among the Jews and among us, their too-great antiquity brought about, on account of which they seemed to be held suspect, lest falsehoods be brought forth for truths. For there are also brought forth certain things which are said to be theirs by those who, according to their own fancy, believe here and there whatever they wish: but the purity of the canon has not received them. Not that the authority of those men who pleased God is rejected, but that these things are not believed to be theirs. Nor should it seem strange that things brought forth under the name of so great an antiquity are held suspect,' and so on. Thus far are the words of Augustine.⁷

Michael Medina libro 6 de recta in Deum fide capite 24 opinatur prophetiam illam Henoch citatam à Iuda non fuisse libro aliquo expressam vel litteris consignatam, sed sola traditione apud Iudaeos custoditam, et velut per manus à maioribus ad posteros traductam. Namque nec tempore Bedae nec Augustini, vel etiam ante aut post, fuisse aliquem librum Henoch etiam apocryphum, magno putat ille argumento esse quòd Gelasius Papa, qui distinctione 15 quae incipit, Sancta Romana Ecclesia, subtiliter ac diligenter omnes libros apocryphos recensuit atque reiecit, nullum de libro Henoch verbum fecit. Verùm Medinae contradicunt vetustissimi gravissimique Patres, Hieronymus, Augustinus, Origenes, Tertullianus, Beda, aliíque quàm plurimi, à quibus liber Henoch, ut id temporis vulgatus, non solùm nominatur sed etiam citatur; nec credere necesse est omnes libros apocryphos qui illo tempore fuerunt aut notos fuisse Gelasio, aut ab eo in illa cen-

Michael Medina, in book 6 On Right Faith in God, chapter 24, is of the opinion that that prophecy of Enoch cited by Jude was not set forth in any book or committed to writing, but was kept by tradition alone among the Jews, and, as it were, handed down by hand from the elders to posterity. For that neither in the time of Bede nor of Augustine, nor even before or after, was there any book of Enoch, even apocryphal, he thinks a great argument to be that Pope Gelasius, who in distinction 15 (which begins, 'The Holy Roman Church') subtly and diligently reviewed and rejected all the apocryphal books, made no mention of a book of Enoch. But the most ancient and most weighty Fathers contradict Medina -- Jerome, Augustine, Origen, Tertullian, Bede, and very many others -- by whom the book of Enoch, as being at that time in circulation, is not only named but even cited; nor is it necessary to believe that all the apocryphal books which existed at that time were either known to Gelasius, or by him removed in that cen-⁸

suram comprehensos. Non desunt qui existiment librum Henoch fuisse tempore Apostoli Iudae integrum atque incorruptum, sed eum posteà multis aspersum et contaminatum fabulis atque erroribus, quasi apocryphum reiectum esse ab Ecclesia; siquidem etiam canonibus et constitutionibus Apostolorum aliísque libris supradicto loco memoratis à Gelasio, constat similem accidisse calamitatem. Sed quid ego sentiam exponam breviter. Equidem reor tempore Iudae Apostoli nullum fuisse librum Henoch. Si enim fuisset, haud dubiè fuisset valde nobilis celebérque apud Iudaeos, tum propter auctoris antiquitatem et famam, tum quòd in eo libro res admodum memorabiles et admirabiles continerentur: quapropter aliquam eius libri mentionem reperiremus apud Philonem aut Iosephum, diligentissimos atque curiosissimos Antiquitatum Iudaicarum scriptores. Sed fit mihi vero simillimum, iam mortuis Apostolis, haereticos varios libros sub eorum nominibus (partim de rebus veris, partim de falsis et fabulosis confictos) ab ipsis evulgasse: captáque occasione ex historia Michaelis altercantis cum diabolo, et ex prophetia Henoch commemorata à Iuda Apostolo, libros de rebus eiusmodi quasi antiquitus scriptos publicasse.

-sure comprehended. There are not lacking those who think that the book of Enoch was, in the time of the Apostle Jude, whole and uncorrupted, but that afterward, spattered and contaminated with many fables and errors, it was rejected by the Church as apocryphal; since indeed it is agreed that a similar calamity befell even the canons and constitutions of the Apostles, and the other books mentioned in the aforesaid place by Gelasius. But let me set forth briefly what I myself think. I for my part judge that in the time of the Apostle Jude there was no book of Enoch. For if there had been, it would doubtless have been very noble and celebrated among the Jews, both on account of the author's antiquity and fame, and because in that book very memorable and admirable matters would be contained: wherefore we should find some mention of that book in Philo or Josephus, most diligent and most curious writers of Jewish Antiquities. But it seems to me most like the truth that, the Apostles being now dead, heretics circulated various books under their names (partly fashioned about true matters, partly about false and fabulous ones); and, seizing occasion from the history of Michael contending with the devil, and from the prophecy of Enoch mentioned by Jude the Apostle, published books about matters of this kind as though anciently written.⁹

Nec facilè adducor ut credam Apostolum Iudam prophetiam illam Henoch ex aliquo libro apocrypho, vel etiam non apocrypho qui tamen canonicus non esset, petere voluisse: non enim plus fidei haberet quàm liber unde sumpta esset. Cum autem Iudas simpliciter appellet eam prophetiam Henoch, certissimum proculdubio fuit Iudae et illam fuisse prophetiam et auctorem illius fuisse Henoch, quod ille aliter quàm per revelationem divinam certò scire non potuit. Ad quos autem epistolam illam scripsit Iudas, iis nota esse potuit illa prophetia vel ex libro aliquo probatae apud ipsos fidei, vel ex antiqua et pervulgata traditione, vel ex sola Iudae Apostoli narratione, propter cuius auctoritatem de eius prophetiae veritate nullo modo dubitassent.

Nor am I easily led to believe that the Apostle Jude wished to derive that prophecy of Enoch from some apocryphal book, or even a non-apocryphal one that was nonetheless not canonical: for it would have no more credit than the book from which it was taken. But since Jude simply calls it the prophecy of Enoch, it was without doubt most certain to Jude both that it was a prophecy and that its author was Enoch -- which he could not know for certain otherwise than by divine revelation. And to those to whom Jude wrote that epistle, that prophecy could have been known either from some book of approved trustworthiness among them, or from ancient and widespread tradition, or from the narration of Jude the Apostle alone, on account of whose authority they would in no way have doubted the truth of that prophecy.¹⁰

Translator’s notes

Sixth quaestio of the disputation on Enoch: on the writings ascribed to Enoch and the Enoch prophecy cited in Jude 14-15. ↩
If Enoch left any writing, he must be the most ancient of all writers. The occasion is Jude (Jude 14-15), who in his canonical epistle cites a prophecy of Enoch believed transmitted in writing. The question: whence did Jude know it -- from some book extant in his day (canonical or apocryphal), from tradition alone, or by revelation to Jude alone? ↩
Marginal glosses: 'The common opinion'; 'What apocryphal Scripture is, according to Augustine'; 'Origen and Procopius often cite the Book of Enoch'; 'The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs.' The common view: Jude's prophecy came from an apocryphal book titled 'Enoch' once in circulation. Augustine (City of God XV.23) defines apocryphal Scripture: writings whose hidden origin was unknown to the Fathers, containing some truth but, because of much falsehood, no canonical authority. Origen (last homily on Numbers; hom. 28 on Numbers; tome 6 on John) and Procopius often cite the Book of Enoch, containing things partly true, partly fabulous -- the names and hidden powers of the stars, the giants born from angels mingling with women, and the last judgment. A very ancient volume, the 'Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs,' drew many prophecies from the Book of Enoch. Continues on the next page (catchword 'verbi'). ↩
Marginal refs: 'Blessed Jerome, vol. 1'; 'vol. 9'; 'Bede, vol. 5, on Genesis 2, 3 & 4.' (Continuing the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs:) it foretold things to befall the Patriarchs' descendants, the Savior slain by the Hebrews, and their perpetual captivity and dispersion. Jerome (De viris illustribus, on Jude) reports that Jude's epistle was for a time not received because it cites Enoch from apocryphal books; on Titus 1 he says Jude approved not the whole apocryphal book but only the true testimony. A book is called apocryphal not because all in it is false but because much is; hence a true cited testimony does not make the whole book true. Bede writes similarly; Dionysius the Carthusian holds Jude cited not the book but the prophecy of Enoch, which Jude knew by revelation to be genuinely Enoch's (as Moses knew divinely the sayings of Adam, Cain, and Lamech he records). ↩
Marginal gloss: 'Tertullian's words about the book of Enoch.' Tertullian (De cultu feminarum I.3) defends the book's survival: either Noah preserved it in the ark, or, destroyed by the flood, Enoch restored it by the Holy Spirit -- as Ezra restored the Scriptures lost in the Chaldean burning of Jerusalem. His quoted words: the Scripture of Enoch is rejected by some as not in the 'Jewish cupboard' (canon); but Noah, Enoch's great-grandson, could have preserved and handed on the preaching (Enoch charged Methuselah to transmit it), or Enoch could have restored it 'in spirit' after the flood, as Ezra restored the Jewish records. Since Enoch there prophesied also of the Lord, nothing pertaining to us is to be rejected. Continues on the next page (catchword 'pturam'). ↩
Marginal gloss: 'Augustine gives the reason why the book written by Enoch is not reckoned among the canonical books.' Tertullian concludes (2 Tim 3:16, 'all Scripture apt for edification is divinely inspired'); the Jews reject it as they reject nearly all that speaks of Christ; and Enoch's testimony stands with Jude. Then Augustine (City of God XV.23): Enoch, seventh from Adam, wrote divine things (as Jude says), but they are rightly absent from the canon because their great antiquity made them suspect and no sure succession preserved them; the writings under his name (with the fables of the giants) are not to be believed his -- like the many pseudonymous prophetic and apostolic books heretics circulate, all removed from canonical authority as apocrypha. ↩
Augustine, City of God XVIII.38: Enoch, seventh from Adam, is said in Jude's canonical epistle to have prophesied; but his writings lacked authority among Jews and Christians because their too-great antiquity made them suspect (lest falsehoods pass for truth). The 'purity of the canon' did not receive them -- not that the authority of these God-pleasing men is rejected, but that the writings are not believed genuinely theirs. ↩
Marginal gloss: 'Michael Medina is refuted.' Michael Medina (De recta in Deum fide VI.24) held the Enoch prophecy Jude cites was never in any book but preserved by oral tradition among the Jews; his chief argument: Pope Gelasius (Decretum, dist. 15, 'Sancta Romana Ecclesia') carefully reviewed and rejected all apocryphal books yet said nothing of a Book of Enoch. But the most ancient Fathers -- Jerome, Augustine, Origen, Tertullian, Bede, and many others -- not only name but cite the Book of Enoch as then in circulation; nor need all the apocrypha of that time have been known to or listed by Gelasius. Continues on the next page (catchword 'sura'). ↩
Marginal gloss: 'The author's opinion: that a Book of Enoch did not exist in the Apostles' times.' Some think the Book of Enoch was whole in Jude's day but later corrupted with fables and rejected as apocryphal (as befell even the apostolic canons Gelasius lists). Pererius's own view: there was no Book of Enoch in Jude's time -- else it would be famous among the Jews and mentioned by Philo or Josephus. Rather, after the Apostles died, heretics circulated books under ancient names, taking occasion from the story of Michael disputing with the devil (Jude 9) and the Enoch prophecy Jude cites. ↩
Pererius doubts Jude drew the prophecy from any non-canonical book (it would then have no more authority than its source). Since Jude simply calls it 'the prophecy of Enoch,' Jude was certain both that it was a prophecy and that Enoch was its author -- knowable only by divine revelation. His readers could have known it from a book of approved authority among them, from ancient tradition, or from Jude's own narration, whose authority removed all doubt. ↩