Biblical Hebrew Forum

["A Becker" <ABecker AT nerdshack.com>]

Rolf Furuli wrote:

“Charles translated from Ethiopic manuscripts while he also had an eye on
the Greek text. Nonetheless, in his 1913 translation he wrote in a footnote
that Jude quoted Enoch. His only *evidence* was that the Greek and Ethiopic
texts were similar to Jude 1:14 and he *assumed* the existence of a text of
Enoch containing these words which was older than Jude.”

 

It is as you say that Charles “*assumed* the existence of a text of Enoch
containing these words which was older than Jude.” This is because the
evidence pointed to the existence of a Semitic original from which the Greek
text was translated for 1 Enoch, which in turn served as the basis for the
Ethiopic, even before manuscripts of 1 Enoch turned up among the Dead Sea
Scrolls. This was the “scholarly consensus” when he made his translation and
he *assumed*, based on the Greek translation and it’s early quotation by
Jude, that the original contained the words as well.

 

Rolf Furuli continues:

“Today the situation is not very different.”

 

Actually the situation is very different today because not only do the Dead
Sea Scrolls confirm that the Greek text is a translation from a Semitic
original, but one manuscript, 4Q204 (4QEn[c]), contains part of the text
quoted by Jude. It preserves the following:

 

4Q204, col. 1 lines 15-17

 

15 (1:9) [… RBW])T WDY#W[HY …]

16 [… B]#R) (L (WBD[Y …]

17 […] RBRBN WQ#YN […]

 

15 (1:9) [when he comes with the myri]ads of [his] holy ones [to carry out
the sentence against everyone; and he will destroy all the wicked]

16 [and he will accuse all fl]esh for [all their wicked] deed[s which they
have committed by word and by deed]

17 [and for all their] arrogant and wicked [words which wicked sinners have
directed against him. (2:1) Observe]

18 all the dee[ds and obse]rve the works of [the] he[avens and the
luminaries which do not alter their courses]

-F. García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition

 

I included line 18 in the English which has chapter 2 verse 1 so you can see
it’s placement in the manuscript is the same as the Greek and Ethiopic
witnesses. This manuscript has been dated to the last third of the 1st
century B.C.E. which is older than the earliest MS of Jude, P72 (P. Bodmer
VIII) c. 300 C.E. However, you no doubt meant to say “we have no manuscript
with Enoch 1:9 that clearly *predates the composition of Jude*” which
Jehovah’s Witnesses date to about 65 C.E. (see "All Scripture Is Inspired of
God and Beneficial," p. 12). In that case, 1 Enoch 1:9 still predates Jude
14. Further, 1:9 is indivisible from Chapter 1 and Chapter 1 is attested in
the oldest of the Enoch MSS from Qumran, 4Q201 (4QEn[a]), which is dated to
the first half of the 2nd century B.C.E.

 

Rolf Furuli wrote:

“To the best of my knowledge, we have no manuscript with Enoch 1:9 that
clearly is older than manuscripts of Jude. BTW, beware of "scholarly
concensus"; this may only be educated guesses as in the case of Charles,
Jude, and Enoch.”

 

I’m glad to have increased your knowledge about this issue. No doubt it will
be helpful to you in the book on 1 Enoch that you’re working on which I
understand is currently in preparation. BTW, thanks for the advice to
everyone on "scholarly concensus" [sic]. But consensus in itself is nothing
to worry about if that consensus gives the most reasonable explanation to
the available evidence. Fortunately, the “educated guesses,” based on the
available evidence which was considered critically, in this instance proved
to be right on the money.

 

Anthony