سلسلة اقتباسات العهد الجديد من التراث الشفهي و كتب الابوكريفا

[محمد سني 1989]

الجزء الاول : رسالة يهوذا 1: 14- 15 (نبوءة اخنوخ)

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

نقرا من رسالة يهوذ الاصحاح الاول (الترجمة العربية المشتركة):
14وأنبأَ عَنهُم أخْنوخُ سابِــــــعُ الآباءِ مِنْ آدَمَ حينَ قالَ: «اَنظُروا! جاءَ الرّبّ معَ أُلوفِ قِدّيسيهِ
15ليُحاسِبَ جميعَ البَشَرِ ويَدينَ الأشرارَ جميعًا على كُلّ شَرّ فَعَلوهُ وكُلّ كَلِمَةِ سُوءٍ قالَها علَيهِ هَؤُلاءِ الخاطِئونَ الفُجّارُ».

نقول : ان نبوءة اخنوخ هذه غير موجودة في جميع العهد القديم و لكنها مقتبسة من سفر اخنوخ الاول
نقرا من سفر اخنوخ الاول الاصحاح الاول :
9. And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of ⌈His⌉ holy onesTo execute judgement upon all,
And to destroy ⌈all⌉ the ungodly: And to convict all flesh
Of all the works ⌈of their ungodliness⌉ which they have ungodly committed,
And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners ⌈have spoken⌉ against Him.
http://www.bahaistudies.net/asma/enoch1c.pdf

و قد اعترف بهذا الاقتباس جماعة من اباء الكنيسة في القرون النصرانية الاولى و ان كاتب رسالة يهوذا اقتبس النص من سفر اخنوخ الابوكريفي :

نقرا من قاموس الكتاب المقدس :
(( ويقول كاتب سفر أخنوخ أن " ابن الإنسان " كان موجودا قبل خلق العالم أنظر ص 48: 2 و 3 وأنه سيدين العالم أنظر ص 69: 27 وأنه سيملك على الشعب البار أنظر ص 62: 1 - 6.ويقتبس كاتب رسالة يهوذا في عددي 14 و 15 سفر أخنوخ ص 1: 9. وكذلك يوجد لبعض الأقوال الخاصة بأواخر الأيام في العهد الجديد ما يقابلها في سفر أخنوخ. وقد اقتبس بعض الآباء في العصور المسيحية الأولى بعض أقوال هذا السفر. ومن بين هؤلاء جاستن الشهيد وأرينيوس وأكليمندوس الإسكندري وأوريجانوس.
ولكن قادة المسيحيين فيما بعد أنكروا هذا الكتاب ورفضوه. ومن بين هؤلاء يوحنا فم الذهب وأغسطينوس وجيروم أو أورينيموس. ولم يعتبر اليهود أو المسيحيون هذا الكتاب ضمن الأسفار القانونية. ))
https://st-takla.org/Full-Free-Copti...A/A_121_1.html

و اعترف بهذاالاقتباس نقاد و مفسري الكتاب المقدس :

نقرا من تفسير ادم كلارك :
Enoch also, the seventh from Adam - He was the seventh patriarch, and is distinguished thus from Enoch, son of Cain, who was but the third from Adam; this appears plainly from the genealogy, Ch1 1:1 : Adams Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalaleel, Jered, Henoch or Enoch, etc. Of the book of Enoch, from which this prophecy is thought to have been taken, much has been said; but as the work is apocryphal, and of no authority, I shall not burden my page with extracts. See the preface.
Perhaps the word προεφητευσε, prophesied, means no more than preached, spoke, made declarations, etc., concerning these things and persons; for doubtless he reproved the ungodliness of his own times. It is certain that a book of Enoch was known in the earliest ages of the primitive Church, and is quoted by Origen and Tertullian; and is mentioned by St. Jerome in the Apostolical Constitutions, by Nicephorus, Athanasius, and probably by St. Augustine

https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/clarke/jde001.htm

نقرا من PULPIT COMMENTARY :
Near the beginning of that remarkable specimen of ancient apocalyptic literature, the Book of Enoch (chapter 1:9), we find these words, "And behold, he comes with myriads of the holy, to pass judgment upon them, and will destroy the impious, and will call to account all flesh for everything the sinners and the impious have done and committed against him" (Schodde's rendering). This is the passage which Jude quotes. He does so, however, with some modification; for the original, as we now have it, does not contain any reference to the "hard speeches" of the men of impiety. The book itself has had a singular history. Some acquaintance with it is discovered as early as the 'Epistle of Barnabas,' the 'Book of Jubilees,' and the 'Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs.' It was freely used by the Fathers of the first five centuries. Though never formally recognized as canonical, it was in great esteem, largely accepted as a record of revelations, and regarded as the work of Enoch. It disappeared after Augustine's time, the only traces of its existence being some references to it in the writings of Syncellus and Nicephorus.
https://biblehub.com/jude/1-14.htm

ونقرا من الترجمة الرهبانية اليسوعية في هامش الصفحة 789 :
(( (17) استشهاد شبه حرفي بنص اخنوخ 1/ 9 اليوناني))


file:///Users/MacbookPro/Downloads/المقدس الطبعة اليسوعية (2).pdf

وقد حاول بعضهم النفي قائلين ان الاقتباس لم يتم من سفر اخنوخ و لكن من تراث شفهي يهودي موجود حينها (و هذا بطريقة او اخرى يثبت حجية بعض التراث الشفهي على الاقل و ان هناك حقا خارج العهد القديم ايضا ) :

نقرا من GILL'S EXPOSITION OF THE ENTIRE BIBLE :
that Enoch wrote a prophecy, and left it behind him in writing, does not appear from hence, or elsewhere; the Jews, in some of their writings, do cite and make mention of the book of Enoch; and there is a fragment now which bears his name, but is a spurious piece, and has nothing like this prophecy in it; wherefore Jude took this not from a book called the "Apocalypse of Enoch", but from tradition; this prophecy being handed down from age to age; and was in full credit with the Jews, and therefore the apostle very appropriately produces it; or rather he had it by divine inspiration, and is as follows:
saying, behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints; by the
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/jude/1-14.htm

و نقرا من Matthew Poole's Commentary
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam; either to distinguish him from Enoch the son of Cain, or to show the antiquity of the prophecy.
Prophesied; he doth not say wrote, and therefore from hence it cannot be proved that there was any such book as Enoch’s prophecies, received by the Jews as canonical Scripture; but rather some prophecy of his delivered to them by tradition, to which here the apostle refers, as a thing known among them; and so argues against these heretics from their own concession, as Jude 1:9. So here; q. d. These men own the prophecy of Enoch, that the Lord comes to judgment, &c., and they themselves are in the number of those ungodly ones, and they to whom the prophecy is to be applied.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/jude/1-14.htm

و لكن مع هذا فان النقاد ردوا هذه الفرضية ايضا - فرضية ان الاقتباس لم يتم من سفر اخنوخ و لكن من تراث شفهي موجود في زمان كتابة الرسالة- و اكدوا ان نص رسالة يهوذا 14 و 15 يعد اقتباسا مباشرا من سفر اخنوخ االاصحاح الاول العدد التاسع و انه على عكس ما يدعيه البعض فانه كان موجودا و معروفا حتى قبل زمان المسيح عليه الصلاة و السلام بمائة سنة

نقرا من Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
14. And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these …] The words that follow are almost a verbal quotation from the Apocryphal Book of Enoch. As that work had probably been in existence for a century before St Jude wrote, and was easily accessible, it is more natural to suppose that he quoted here, as in previous instances, what he thought edifying, than to adopt either of the two strained hypotheses, (1) that the writer had received what he quotes through a tradition independent of the Book of Enoch, that tradition having left no trace of itself in any of the writings of the Old Testament, or (2) that he was guided by a special inspiration to set the stamp of authenticity upon the one genuine prophecy which the apocryphal writer had imbedded in a mass of fantastic inventions
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/jude/1-14.htm

هذا وصلى الله على سيدنا محمد و على اله وصحبه وسلم

[محمد سني 1989]

الجزء الثاني : رسالة يهوذا 1: 9 (مخاصمة ميكائيل عليه السلام ابليس على جثة موسى عليه الصلاة و السلام)

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

نقرا من رسالة يهوذا الاصحاح الاول : 9 (الترجمة العربية المشتركة)
9معَ أنّ ميخائيلَ رَئيسَ الملائِكَةِ، لمّا خاصَمَ إبليسَ وجادَلَهُ في مَسألَةِ جُثّةِ موسى، ما تَجَرّأَ أنْ يَدينَ إبليسَ بِكلِمَةٍ مُهينَةٍ، بَلْ قالَ لَه: «جَزاكَ اللهُ!»

نقول : ان هذه القصة و هي قصة مخاصمة ميكائيل عليه السلام لابليس على جثة موسى عليه الصلاة و السلام غير موجودة في جميع العهد القديم و هي قصة مقتبسة اما من كتاب ابوكريفي من القرن الاول اسمه صلاة موسى او ارتفاع موسى (Assumption of Moses) و اما من التراث الشفهي اليهودي .

و اعترف بهذا الاقتباس نقاد و مفسري الكتاب المقدس :
نقرا من الترجمة الرهبانية اليسوعية الصفحة 766 في مقدمة المؤلف لرسالة يهوذا :
((تبدو هذه البيئة متصلة اتصالا وثيقا بالاندية التي نشا فيها الادب الرؤيوي منذ القرن الثاني قبل الميلاد و التي خلفت مؤلفات امثال كتاب اخنوخ و ارتفاع موسى ووصايا الاباء الاثني عشر. وقد استشهد الكاتب بكلام من كتاب اخنوخ الايتان (14 و 15) بالحرف الواحد، و استعمل كتاب ارتفاع موسى او وثيقة مماثلة له (الاية 9). ))



و نقرا كذلك في هامش رقم 12 في الصفحة 789 في التعليق على العدد 9 :
(( ركريا 3/ 2 ورد هذا الخصام بين ميخائيل و الشيطان في الادب الرؤيوي اليهودي، ربما في ((ارتفاع موسى)) في اوائل القرن الاول من عصرنا ))


file:///Users/MacbookPro/Downloads/المقدس الطبعة اليسوعية (3).pdf

نقرا من PULPIT COMMENTARY :
What is meant, then, is that Michael restrained himself, leaving all judgment and vengeance even in this case to God. But what is the case referred to? The Targum of Jonathan, on Deuteronomy 34:6, speaks of Michael as having charge of the grave of Moses, and there may be something to the same effect in other ancient Jewish legends (see Wetstein). But with this partial exception, there seems to be nothing resembling Jude's statement either in apocryphal books like that of Enoch or in the rabbinical literature, not to speak of the canonical Scriptures. Neither is the object of the contention quite apparent - whether it is meant that the devil attempted to deprive Moses of the honour of burial by impeaching him of the murder of the Egyptian, or that he sought to preserve the body for idolatrous uses such as the brazen serpent lent itself to, or what else. The matter, nevertheless, is introduced by Jude as one with which his readers would be familiar. Whence, then, comes the story? Some have solved the difficulty by the desperate expedient of allegory, as if the body of Moses were a figure of the Israelite Law, polity, or people; and as if the sentence referred to the giving of the Law at Sinai, the siege under Hezekiah, or the rebuilding under Zerubbabel. Others seek its source in a special revelation, or in some unrecorded instructions given by Christ in explanation of the Transfiguration scene. Herder would travel all the way to the Zend-Avesta for it. Calvin referred it to oral Jewish tradition. Another view of it appears, however, in so early a writer as Origen, viz. that it is a quotation from an old apocryphal writing on the Ascent or Assumption of Moses, the date of which is much disputed, but is taken by some of the best authorities (Ewald, Wieseler, Dillmann, Drummond) to be the first decade after the death of Herod. This is the most probable explanation; and Jude's use of this story, therefore, carries no more serious consequences with it than the use he afterwards makes of the Book of Enoch.
https://biblehub.com/jude/1-9.htm

و نقل مفسرو الكتاب المقدس ان القصة كان لها تاثيرا شفهيا كبيرا حتى وجدت في القرون اللاحقة قصص مشابهة في مدراش يلكوت و مدراش التثنية رباه
نقرا من تفسير ادم كلارك لرسالة يهوذا 1: 9
(( Let it be observed that the word archangel is never found in the plural number in the sacred writings. There can be properly only one archangel, one chief or head of all
....the angelic host. Nor is the word devil, as applied to the great enemy of mankind, ever found in the plural; there can be but one monarch of all fallen spirits
Disputed about the body of Moses - What this means I cannot tell; or from what source St. Jude drew it, unless from some tradition among his countrymen. There is something very like it in Debarim Rabba, sec. ii., fol. 263, 1: "Samael, that wicked one, the prince of the satans, carefully kept the soul of Moses, saying: When the time comes in which Michael shall lament, I shall have my mouth filled with laughter. Michael said to him: Wretch, I weep, and thou laughest. Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy, because I have fallen; for I shall rise again: when I sit in darkness, the Lord is my light; Mic 7:8. By the words, because I have fallen, we must understand the death of Moses; by the words, I shall rise again, the government of Joshua, etc." See the preface.
Another contention of Michael with Satan is mentioned in Yalcut Rubeni, fol. 43, 3: "At the time in which Isaac was bound there was a contention between Michael and Satan. Michael brought a ram, that Isaac might be liberated; but Satan endeavored to carry off the ram, that Isaac might be slain."
The contention mentioned by Jude is not about the sacrifice of Isaac, nor the soul of Moses, but about the Body of Moses; but why or wherefore we know not. Some think the devil wished to show the Israelites where Moses was buried, knowing that they would then adore his body; and that Michael was sent to resist this discovery.
https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/clarke/jde001.htm

بل ان اباء الكنيسة كاكليمندس السكندري واورجانوس ذكرا ان القصة ماخوذة من كتاب صلاة موسى
نقرا من كتاب المدخل الى العهد الجديد للقس فهيم عزيز الصفحة 761 (اثناء الحديث عن مضمون رسالة يهوذا):
(( اما قصة الملاك ميخائيل و ابليس فلم يرد ذكرها في كتب معروفة و ان كان اكليمندس السكندري يقول انها جاءت في كتاب صلاة موسى Assumption of Moses))



file:///Users/MacbookPro/Downloads/md5l_ll_3hd_el_gdid.pdf

نقرا من Expositor's Greek TestamentJude 1:9. ὁ δὲ Μιχαὴλ ὁ ἀρχάγγελος. The term ἀρχ. occurs in the N.T. only here and in 1 Thessalonians 4:16. The names of seven archangels are given in Enoch. The story here narrated is taken from the apocryphal Assumptio Mosis, as we learn from Clem. Adumbr. in Ep. Judae, and Orig. De Princ. iii. 2, 1. Didymus (In Epist. Judae Enarratio) says that some doubted the canonicity of the Epistle because of this quotation from an apocryphal book.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/jude/1-9.htm

نقرا من Meyer's NT Commentary
ὅτε τῷ διαβόλῳ κ.τ.λ.] This legend is found neither in the O. T. nor in the Rabbinical writings, nor in the Book of Enoch; Jude, however, supposes it well known. Oecumenius thus explains the circumstance: λέγεται τὸν Μιχαὴλ … τῇ τοῦ Μωσέως ταφῇ δεδιηκονηκέναι· τοῦ γὰρ διαβόλου τοῦτο μὴ καταδεχομένου, ἀλλʼ ἐπιφέροντος ἔγκλημα διὰ τὸν τοῦ Αἰγυπτίου φονον, ὡς αὐτοῦ ὄντος τοῦ Μωσέως, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μὴ συγχωρεῖσθαι αὐτῷ τυχεῖν τῆς ἐντίμου ταφῆς. According to Jonathan on Deuteronomy 34:6, the grave of Moses was given to the special custody of Michael. This legend, with reference to the manslaughter committed by Moses, might easily have been formed, as Oecumenius states it, “out of Jewish tradition, extant in writing alongside of the Scriptures” (Stier).[28] According to Origen (περὶ ἀρχῶν, iii. 2), Jude derived his account from a writing known in his age: ἈΝΆΒΑΣΙς ΤΟῦ ΜΩΣΈΩς.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/jude/1-9.htm

و نقرا من Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
9. Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil …] It is obvious, from the manner in which St Jude writes, that he assumes that the fact to which he refers was familiar to his readers. No tradition, however, precisely corresponding with this statement is found in any Rabbinic or apocryphal book now extant, not even in the Book of Enoch, from which he has drawn so largely in other instances (Jude 1:6; Jude 1:14). Œcumenius indeed, writing in the tenth century, reports a tradition that Michael was appointed to minister at the burial of Moses, and that the devil urged that his murder of the Egyptian (Exodus 2:12) had deprived him of the right of sepulture, and Origen (de Princ. iii. 2) states that the record of the dispute was found in a lost apocryphal book known as the Assumption of Moses, but in both these instances it is possible that the traditions may have grown out of the words of St Jude instead of being the foundation on which they rested. Rabbinic legends, however, though they do not furnish the precise fact to which St Jude refers, shew that a whole cycle of strange fantastic stories had gathered round the brief mysterious report of the death of Moses in
Deuteronomy 34:5-6, and it will be worth while to give some of these as shewing their general character.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/jude/1-9.htm

وقد حاول البعض ان ينكر فكرة الاقتباس من كتاب صلاة موسى بل انكر البعض فكرة الاقتباس اساسا حتى من التراث اليهودي الشفهي ، زاعمين ان النص الذي ذكره يهوذا هو وحي من الروح القدس !!!!!
و للرد على مثل هذه الساذجة نقرا من Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
It is clear from these extracts that there was something like a floating cycle of legendary traditions connected with the death of the great Lawgiver, and it is a natural inference that St Jude’s words refer to one of these then popularly received. It is scarcely within the limits of probability that anything in the nature of a really primitive tradition could have been handed down from generation to generation, through fifteen hundred years, without leaving the slightest trace in a single passage of the Old Testament; nor is it more probable to assume, as some have done, that the writer of the Epistle had received a special revelation disclosing the fact to him. His tone in speaking of the fact is plainly that of one who assumes that his readers are familiar with it.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/jude/1-9.htm

هذا وصلى الله على سيدنا محمد و على اله وصحبه وسلم