0:0† ^I hold that Daniel Wallace’s explanation of Jude being dependent on 2nd Peter is the best theory, with 2nd Peter being written near Rome shortly before Peter’s martyrdom near the end of Nero’s reign. Jude was written after the martyrdom or dispersion of the emissaries, and he was battling an eschatological but licentious heresy that arose among Christians in Asia Minor. The destination of his letter appears to have been a port city, probably Ephesus, and he appears to be unaware that John had recently arrived there. See Wallace.
1:9ᵅ ^Zech 3:2. The citation of what was said proves beyond a doubt that the reference is to Zech. 3:2, because this is the only canonical source the quotation could have come from. But in that place the argument is not about the literal body of Mōshēh. It is about the future of Israel. Probably the best explanation that I have seen absolving Jude of appealing to an erroneous folk tradition or apocryphal source is that “body of Mōshēh” is in fact a code phrase for Israel, and indeed the argument in Zech. 3:2 was about the future of Israel symbolized by the dirty garments of the high priest. The coded phrase was used because Jude most likely wrote during the first Jewish Revolt from a location in Italy to a location in Asia Minor (as suggested by Daniel B. Wallace). Jude, therefore, could not openly talk about the restoration of Israel. So he talks about the “body of Mōshēh” the same way Pauline assemblies would talk about the “body of Mĕssiah.” Without this explanation, the case for the canonicity of Jude is difficult to defend. But it does require recognizing that Michael and the messenger of Yăhwēh are one and the same person, and that would explain why the explanation is not more often given. The alternatives require us to look away from Zechariah 3:2 as the explanation for the quote. The only viable alternative is that the words were edited into Jude’s text later. If this is the case, then the probability increases that vs. 14-15 were also edited into the text. The weakness of this explanation is that Jude appears to have other literary dependencies on pseudo-Enoch, which would then need explaining. It is preferable to retain Jude as canonical, but only so long as it is clear that pseudepigraphical sources are not being endorsed. The other allusions to Enoch, then, would then be part of Jude’s strategy of turning the work against the false teachers. Jude has often been criticized for the Michael and Enoch passages, and regarded as non-canonical.
1:15† ^There was an apocryphal book of Enoch written by a false prophet unknown to us that many Christians and Jews regarded as accurate, and some still do. The words, “the seventh from ’Adam” are not Jude’s, but they are from the book of Enoch as well as the quotation following the introductory word, “saying.” Jude may be absolved from endorsing the false Enoch if we suppose, 1. The false teachers whom he is discussing used pseudo-Enoch in their teaching. 2. Jude was familiar with the book (perhaps from before his conversion), and by means of sarcasm incorporates elements from the book into his rebuke. In particular the section he quotes contradicts their licentious doctrine. So he is showing his audience how to use the book against them. It seems likely that the false teachers often cited the book as “the seventh from ’Adam”, and that the name ‘Ḥanōḳ’ has been added by Jude or an early scribe to explain or expand the reference. This explanation, or one like it, has to suffice to preserve the canonicity of Jude. There is no way that he can be considered canonical if he in any way endorses what has come down to us as the book of pseudo-Enoch.
1:25ᵅ ^The reading here is according to the Majority Text.