The Meaning of the Motif of Michael the Archangel’s Dispute with the Devil (Jude 9). A Socio-Rhetorical Perspective

Dorota Katarzyna Muszytowska

Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie, Wydział Nauk Humanistycznych , Poland
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5873-382X


Abstract

The purpose of this article is to analyze the persuasive functions of the Archangel Michael motif in the Letter of Jude 9 and examine how the laconic reference serves argumentation in the letter and how it affects the recipients.

We used methods of interpretation in the field of socio-rhetoric according to the interpretation model of V. R. Robbins adapted to the needs of this study: rhetorical analysis, intertextual relations and analysis of the pivotal values of the first-century Mediterranean world.

The analyzes lead to the conclusion that the condensed form of the allusion to the Archangel Michael motif makes it possible to refer to the crisis of the addressees simultaneously on many levels. It serves positive argumentation based on the ethos, uses the strength of the rich interpretation tradition of the motif and is the key to the proper implementation of the answer in the mechanism challenge-riposte and defining the threat to community identity.

Keywords:

Letter of Jude 9, Archangel Michael, exemplum, socio-rhetoric, intertextuality, honor and shame

Bauckham Richard, Jude, 2 Peter, WBC 50 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan 1983).

Bauckham Richard, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church (Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1990).

Batten Alicia, “Brokerage: Jesus as Social Entrepreneur”, w: eds. D. Neufeld, R. E. DeMaris, Understanding the Social World of the New Testament (London – New York: Routledge 2010) 215-228.

Brosend William. F., James and Jude (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2004).

Busata Sandra, “Honor and Shame in the Mediterranean”, Antropos 2/2 (2006) 75-78.

Charles Daryl J., “‘Those’ and ‘These’: The Use of the Old Testament in the Epistle of Jude”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38 (1990) 109-124.

Charles Daryl J., “Literary Artifice in the Epistle of Jude”, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wisenchaft 82 (1991) 106-124.

Charlesworth James H., ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (New York: Doubleday 1983).

Chester Andrew, and Ralph P. Martin, The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1994).

Clifford Richard J., Wisdom, New Collegeville Bible Commentary 20 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press 2013).

Crook Zeba, “Honor, Shame, and Social Status Revisited”, Journal Biblical Literature 3 (2009) 591-611.

Davids Peter H., The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2006).

deSilva David A., Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity. Unlocking New Testament Culture (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press 2000).

Desjardin Michael, “The Portrayal of the Dissidents in 2 Peter and Jude: Does It Tell Us More About the ‘Godly’ than the ‘Ungodly’?”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30 (1987) 89-102.

Drummond A., “Early Roman Clients”, w: Patronage in Ancient Society, ed. A. Wallace-Hadrill (London: Routledge 1989) 89-115.

Elliott John H., “Patronage and Clientage, w: ed. R. L. Rohrbaugh, The Social Science and New Testament Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 1996) 144-155.

Green Gene L., Jude and 2 Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 2008).

Harrington Daniel J., Jude and 2 Peter, Sacra Pagina 15 (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press 2003).

Hiebert D. Edmond, “An Exposition of Jude 3-4”, Biblioteca Sacra April-June/1985, 142-151.

Joubert Stephan J., “Facing the Past. Transtextual Relationships and Historical Understanding in the Letter of Jude”, Bibische Zeitschrift 42 (1998) 56-70.

Joubert Stephan J., “Language, Ideology, and the Social Context of the Letter of Jude”, Neotestamentica 24/2 (1990) 335-349.

Kee Howard C., „The Terminology of Mark’s Exorcism Stories”, New Testament Studies 14 (1968) 232-246.

Kręcidło J., Honor i wstyd w interpretacji Ewangelii. Szkice z egzegezy antropologicznokulturowej (Warszawa: Verbinum 2013).

Lausberg Heinrich, Retoryka literacka. Podstawy wiedzy o literaturze (Bydgoszcz: Wydawnictwo Homini 2002).

Lawrence Louise J., “’For Truly, I Tell You, They Have Received Their Reward’ (Matt 6:2). Investigating Honor Precedence and Honor Virtue”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 64 (2002) 687-702.

Mickiewicz Franciszek, List Świętego Judy, Drugi List Świętego Piotra, NKB/NT XVIII (Częstochowa: Edycja Świętego Pawła 2018).

Meyers Carol M., and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai. Zachariah 1-8. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Garden City – New York: Doubleday & Company 1987).

Moo Douglas J., 2 Peter and Jude, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan 1996).

Neufeld Dietmar, and Richard E. DeMaris, eds., Understanding the Social World of the New Testament (London – New York: Routledge 2010).

Nickelsburg George W. E., Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1972).

Nickelsburg George W. E., 1 Enoch 1. A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1 – 36; 81 – 108 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press 2001).

Neyrey Jerome H., Render to God: New Testament Understandings of the Divine (Minneapolis: Fortress 2004).

Neyrey Jerome H., and Eric C. Stewart, eds., The Social World of the New Testament. Insights and Models (Peabody: Baker Academic 2008).

Petersen D. L., Haggai and Zechariah 1-8: A Commentary (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press 1984).

Pilch John J., and Bruce J. Malina, Biblical Social Values and Their Meaning. A Handbook (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers 1993).

Pitt-Rivers Julian A., “The Place of Grace in Anthropology”, Journal of Ethnographic Theory 1/1 (2011) 423-450. (Reprint z J. A. Pitt-Rivers, “Postscript: the place of grace in anthropology”, w: Honor and Grace in Anthropology, eds. J. G. Peristiany and J. Pitt-Rivers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1992) 215- 246).

Robbins Vernon K., Exploring the Texture of Texts. A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation (New York: Bloomsbury Academic 1996).

Rohrbaugh Richard L., The Social Science and New Testament Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 1996).

Rowston Douglas J., “The Most Neglected Book in the New Testament”, New Testament Studies 21 (1975) 554-563.

Saller Richard P., Personal Patronage Under the Early Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1982).

Stewart E. C., “Social Stratification and Patronage in Ancient Mediterranean Societies”, w: eds. D. Neufeld, R. E. DeMaris, Understanding the Social World of the New Testament (London – New York: Routledge 2010) 201-214.

Stuhlmueller Carroll, Rebuilding with Hope: A Commentary on the Books of Haggai and Zechariah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans – Edinburg: The Handsel Press 1988).

Watson Duane F., Invention, Arrangement, and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter (Atlanta: Scholars Press 1988).

Webb Robert L., „The Eschatology of the Epistle of Jude and Its Rhetorical and Social Functions”, Bulletin for Biblical Research 6 (1996) 139-151.

Webb Robert L., “The Use of ‘Story’ in the Letter of Jude: Rhetorical Strategies of Jude’s Narrative Episodes”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31/1 (2008) 53-87.

Wolters Al, Zechariah (Leuven: Peeters 2014).

Download

Published
2020-05-17


Muszytowska, D. K. (2020). The Meaning of the Motif of Michael the Archangel’s Dispute with the Devil (Jude 9). A Socio-Rhetorical Perspective. The Biblical Annals, 10(4), 677–706. https://doi.org/10.31743/biban.9602

Dorota Katarzyna Muszytowska  d.muszytowska@uksw.edu.pl
Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie, Wydział Nauk Humanistycznych https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5873-382X



License

  1. Pursuant to the Act on Copyright and Related Rights of February 4, 1994, the Author of the publication grants to the Publisher of the journal „The Biblical Annals” e a non-exclusive and royalty-free license to use the Work submitted for publication, without time and territorial restrictions in the following fields of use:
    a) record the Work and copy it by means of any technique (including printing and electronic recording) on all known data carriers (including IT, electronic and polygraphic), and in all IT systems (in particular those available online);
    b) enter the Work into computer memory, disseminate the Work and its copies, as well as market the Work and its copies;
    c) publicly perform, replay, display and screen the Work, as well as lend, rent and lease the Work and its copies;
    d) make available, market and disseminate the Work and its copies via IT networks, and in particular via the Internet, including the promotion or advertising of the Work, the journal or the Publisher.
  2. The Author shall further grant his/her consent for the Publisher to use and dispose of derivative works.
  3. The Publisher may sublicense the work.
  4. Third parties may use the articles and other materials containing the Works, or developed on the basis of the Works in line with the model Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (also referred to as CC BY 4.0).