Contra Richard Bauckham et al., who argue that the quote from 1 Enoch represents Jude’s own independent translation from the Aramaic, Jörg Frey argues that such
. . . arguments are not compelling and in view of the very fragmentary
Aramaic text much must remain speculative:
a) In the introductory ἰδού Jude differs from P (ὅτι) and agrees with
the Ethiopic text and Pseudo-Cyprian, and R. H. Charles already regarded this
variant as original;344 thus א רֲֵי or א רֲֵי האָ would be reconstructed in
Aramaic, which could be rendered as ὅτι ἰδού and thus explain both textual
variants. However, it is by no means necessary to assume that the author of
Jude produced his own translation.
b) The aorist ἦλθεν, which differs from P (ἔρχεται), is usually
translated in the present (“he comes”) and explained as a literal rendering of
a Semitic perfectum propheticum. But this phenomenon is rarely attested in the
Aramaic text, and יהיבת in Dan 7:27, which is usually cited as the only
evidence, is dubious, since יהב is not an imperfect. A participle אתה (whose
consonants accord with the perfect) could be conceivable in Aramaic and explain
the translation with ἔρχεται as well as ἦλθεν. But this translation-Aramaism
also need not come from the author of Jude.
c) The phrase ἐν ἁγίαις μυριάσιν αὐτοῦ differs significantly from P (σὺν
ταῖς μυριάσιν αὐτοῦ καὶ ταῖς ἁγίαις αὐτοῦ), whereby the ἐν appears to be a
rather schematic rendering of an Aramaic .ב The significantly longer textual
form in P, which differs from all other witnesses, possibly derives from a
combination of two early Christian interpretations of Zech 14:5.
d) At the end of the quotation the Aramaic text is unfortunately
extremely fragmentary. The reference to “proud and harsh” ( רברבון וקשין )
words in 4Q204 1 I, 17 corresponds with 1 En. 5:4 (Eth. and P), and in
Jude, which mentions only “harsh” words (τῶν σκληρῶν), could be incorporated
substantively in v. 16 (ὑπέρογκα). But this also does not imply an independent
translation, but rather at most attests to the author’s intense connection to
the Enoch tradition.
Some of the peculiarities of the quotation in Jude 14-15 appear to be
determined by a deliberate interpretation by the author. Thus the subject
κύριος could have been introduced by the author himself, rendering the
depiction of the theophany a prophecy of the Parousia of Christ. The phrase καὶ
ἐλέγξαι πάντας τοῦς ἀσεβεῖς, which should be preferred to the reading καὶ ἐλέγξαι
πᾶσαν ψυχήν offered in NA27 and in the ECM (= NA28), shortens the text of the
Aramaic and Ethiopic traditions and of P, bringing the focus of the statement
onto the ἀσεβεῖς whose condemnation the author is proclaiming. Bauckham himself
admits at the end of his argument “that Jude knew the Greek version,” and thus
cannot rule out the possibility that the text of P (from the sixth century) is
a further development of the Greek translation used by the author of Jude, or
that the translator of this version was a Christian who knew Jude. An independent
translation of the Aramaic by the author of Jude himself therefore cannot be
demonstrated. The explanation that he drew on a Greek version of Enoch that was
available to him (and does not agree with the text in P) is still the most
plausible option.
The author has modified the tradition that he inherited and connected
it with his own intended message. This was useful to him because the judgment
of the impious is expressed here strikingly and in a way that summarizes other
theophanic statements in the OT, and “the theophany/christophany is announced
with an explicit reference to the involvement of the angels.” The author’s
modifications to the quotation are instructive. First, where the logical agent
God (1 En. 1:3) is not explicitly identified in the tradition, the
author introduces the subject κύριος, which has no equivalent in the Aramaic,
Greek, or Ethiopic Enoch traditions. Since in the present context κύριος is to
be interpreted in reference to Christ, whose Parousia the author sees as
announced here, in the adaptation there is a shift in the grammatical subject.
In addition, it is striking that the focus on the impious (ἀσεβεῖς) is
strengthened, where in the Ethiopic and Greek texts the mention of the impious
brings the proclamation of judgment to an impressive close.361 This emphasis
could also be the reason for incorporating the quotation, which thus presents
the most striking argument in the series of statements about the judgment of
the ‘impious’ that has been “written down long ago” (v. 4). Here the author
shortens the text of 1 En. 1:9 such that not “all flesh” but only the
impious are convicted in view of their impious deeds and harsh words. There is
no reference to ἐλέγχειν with respect the righteous (i.e., the addressees)—they
are not mentioned again until v. 21, when it is said that they can expect
“mercy” at Christ’s Parousia. Thus the form of the statement quoted by Jude,
more systematically than in 1 En. 1, first speaks of the judgment of
“all flesh” and then of the conviction of all the impious in view of their
deeds and words, while—like in the Vorlage—ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς, “impious
sinners,” stands poignantly at the end. (Jörg Frey, The Letter of Jude and
the Second Letter of Peter: A Theological Commentary [trans. Kathleen Ess;
Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2018], 125-27)
