November 26, 2010 - 11:56pm | by Ian W. Scott
Text Status and Contents: 

All of the extant Greek and Latin evidence for 1 Enoch is represented here. The Aramaic fragments are included through chapter 8. One Ethiopic manuscript (p) is now included for the "Book of the Watchers" (chapters 1-36). The Syriac and Coptic fragments still await encoding. For print editions of the remaining evidence not included here, see the bibliography below. Note that proofreading of the Aramaic and Greek text published here is still ongoing, and we have so far had to correct several errors in the transcription of the Qumran Aramaic fragments (see below). Use with caution until further notice.

Default Text: 

The default text presented here is the fragmentary Greek text which has survived in eight witnesses (see below). Many passages are only preserved in Greek by a single manuscript. Where two witnesses overlap, the more complete text has been chosen as the default, while the other extant text is offered in the apparatus. This does not indicate that the Greek text in the apparatus is judged to be inferior in the readings which it does provide. Rather the editors have simply attempted to provide the fullest possible Greek text as the default. Latin evidence and the Aramaic fragments (linguistically speaking the closest to the "original" text) are represented in the apparatus.

Manuscripts: 

Greek Witnesses

MS Label Full Name Print Edition
7QEnoch 7QpapEn gr (7Q4, 8, 11-14) M. Baillet, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux, Les "petites grottes" de Qumrân (DJD III; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965), 144-145, pl. XXX.
POxy2069 Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 2069 P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri XVII (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1927), 6-8. Reprinted in Denis, Fragmenta, 233-34.
CB185 Chester Beatty 185 C. Bonner and H. C. Youtie, The Last Chapters of Enoch in Greek (SD 8; London/Philadelphia, 1937). Reprinted (and confirmed by autopsy) by M. Black, ed., Apocalypsis Henochi Graece (PVTG 3; Leiden: Brill, 1970).
V1809 Città del Vaticano, Bibl. Apost. Vatic., vatic. gr.1809, f. 216v J. Gildemeister, "Ein Fragment des griechischen henoch," Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 9 (1855): 621-24. Reprinted in M. Black, ed., Apocalypsis Henochi Graece (PVTG 3; Leiden: Brill, 1970).
Gizeh Cairo Papyrus 10759 | Codex Panopolitanus | Codex Gizeh | Akhmim fragements R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912), 273-304; M. Black, ed., Apocalypsis Henochi Graece (PVTG 3; Leiden: Brill, 1970).
Gizeh2 duplicate section of Cairo Papyrus 10759 | Codex Panopolitanus | Codex Gizeh | Akhmim fragements R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912), 273-304; M. Black, ed., Apocalypsis Henochi Graece (PVTG 3; Leiden: Brill, 1970).
Syncellus apud Georgius Syncellus, Chronographia G. Dindorf, Georgius Syncellus et Nicephorus Constantinopolitanus. (Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae 20-21; Bonn, 1829). Reprinted in R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912), 273-304; M. Black, ed., Apocalypsis Henochi Graece (PVTG 3; Leiden: Brill, 1970).
Jude Jude 14-15  

Aramaic Witnesses

4Q201 4QEnoch a ar A. Lukaszewski, "Chrestomathy" in "The Value of Qumran Aramaic for Addressing the New Testament Aramaic Problem" (Ph.D. diss., University of Saint Andrews, 2004). Used by permission. See also J. T. Milik, with the collaboration of M. Black, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976). (For a list of disagreements between Lukaszewski and Milik, see the "Disagreements" section below.)
4Q202 4QEnoch b ar
4Q204 4QEnoch c ar
4Q205 4QEnoch d ar
4Q206 4QEnoch e ar
4Q207 4QEnoch f ar
4Q208 4QEnastr a ar
4Q209 4QEnastr b ar
4Q210 4QEnastr c ar
4Q211 4QEnastr d ar
4Q212 4QEn g ar
4Q247 4QApocalypse of Weeks?

Latin Witnesses

Tertullian 1En 99 apud Tertullian, De idolatria 4,3.22-38. A. Reifferscheid and G. Wissowa, eds., Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera, Pars 1 (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 20; Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1890), 33. Reprinted by J. T. Milik, with the collaboration of M. Black, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), 79. See also J. H. Waszink and J. C. M. van Winden, Tertullianus: De idolatria: Critical Text, Translation and Commentary (Supplements to Vigilae christianae 1; Leiden/New York: Brill, 1987), 28.
BL Brit. Libr., Ref. 5 E XII, fol. 79v-80r M. R. James, Apocrypha Ancedota (T&S 2.3; Cambridge, 1893), 146-150, 186.
Print Editions: 

Ethiopic

The primary publication of the Ethiopic evidence for 1 Enoch is currently:

 

  • M. Knibb, The Ethiopic book of Enoch : A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments. Oxford: Clarendon, 1978.

Greek

Print sources for individual witnesses are listed above. The primary print publications since 1900 which have compiled the Greek evidence are:

  • M. Black, with J. C. VanderKam, "Appendix B: Apocalypsis Henoch graece: Addenda et Corrigenda," in The Book of Enoch or First Enoch: A New English Edition with Commentary and Textual Notes (SVTP 7; Leiden: Brill, 1985), 419-422.
  • Denis, Concordance, 818-24.
  • M. Black, Apocalypsis Henochi graece, with A.-M. Denis, Fragmenta pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt graeca una cum historicorum et auctorum Iudaeorum hellenistarum fragmentis (PVTG 3; Leiden: Brill, 1970).
  • R. H. Charles. The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch, Edited from Twenty-Three MSS, together with the Fragmentary Greek and Latin Versions (Anecdota Onoxiensia [Semitic Series] 11; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906), 3-75, 175-177.
  • ** Does not include Syncellus Greek fragments.

Aramaic

The primary print editions of the Qumran Aramaic fragments are:

  • A. Lukaszewski, "Chrestomathy," in The Value of Qumran Aramaic for Addressing the New Testament Aramaic Problem (Ph.D. diss., University of Saint Andrews, 2004).
  • ** In general Lukaszewski's transcription is more conservative than that of Milik. Lukaszewski tends to consider fewer letters to be visible in the manuscript fragments and does not reconstruct large gaps. His transcription also contains some errors; see below for a list of those found and corrected to date.
  • F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 1.220-221, 398-445, 494-495, 2.1062-1071, 1148-1149.
  • J. A. Fitzmyer and D. J. Harrington, A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (Second Century B.C. —Second Century A.D.) (Biblica et orientalia 34; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978).
  • M. Knibb, with the assistance of E. Ullendorff, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978).
  • J. T. Milik, with the collaboration of M. Black, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976).
  • ** The editio princeps for the Aramaic evidence, including extensive critical discussion and photographic plates. Offers extensive reconstructions of the long lacunae which are left empty in Lukaszewski's transcription. For a list of disagreements between Lukaszewski's transcription and Milik's edition, see the "Disagreements" section below.

Latin

Print sources for individual witnesses are listed above. See also:

  • Denis, Concordance latine, 628-29.
  • W. Lechner-Schmidt, Wortindex der lateinisch erhaltenen Pseudepigraphen zum Alten Testament (Texte und Arbeiten zum Neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 3; Tübingen: Francke, 1990), 239-40.
  • G. F. Diercks, Novatiani opera (Corpus christianorum, Series latina 4; Turnhout: Brepols, 1972), 150.
  • R. H. Charles, The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch, Edited from Twenty-Three MSS, together with the Fragmentary Greek and Latin Versions Anecdota Onoxiensia [Semitic Series] 11; Oxford: Clarendon, 1906), 219-22.

Syriac

The Syriac fragment of 1 Enoch 6:1-7 is printed in:

  • S. P. Brock, "A Fragment of Enoch in Syriac," JThSt 19 (1968), 626–631
  • J. B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche jacobite d'Antioche (Brussels reprint, 1963), 1166–1199.

Coptic

The Antinoë Coptic fragment, covering 1En 93:3–8, is printed in:

  • S. Donadoni, Acta Orientalia 26 (1960): 197–202.

 

For further bibliography see DiTommaso, Bibliography, 355-430.

Corrections to Previous Versions: 

Corrections to Lukaszewski's Aramaic Text

The following errors have been found to date in Lukaszewski's transcription of the Qumran Aramaic fragments. Each of these has been corrected in the OCP edition.

4Q201 (4QEna) col. 2, line 1 (2:1) At the opening of this line Lukaszewski's transcription is missing a square bracket to define the beginning of the first reconstructed section. His transcription reads וׄלׄא֯ …בס]ר֯כׄן. This should undoubtedly be amended to read וׄלׄא֯ […בס]ר֯כׄן.
col. 2, line 1 (2:2) Mid-way through line 1 Lukaszewski offers the non-sensical transcription ‏…]לאחר]נהׄ It would seem that an extra square bracket has been inserted and that Lukaszewski's intent is represented by the corrected reading ‏…לאחר]נהׄ
4Q204 (4QEnc) col. 1, line 1 (1:9) In line 16 Lukaszewski's transcription reads ‏. . .עוב[די ב]שרא על This is very different from Milik's transcription of this line, which reads ‏[ . . . ב]שרא על עובד[י . . .] An examination of Milik's photograph of the fragment (plate IX) confirms that Lukaszewski's transcription must be an error.
In line 17 Lukaszewski's transcription does not record the gap which precedes the surviving characters.

Disagreements between Lukaszewski and Milik

4Q201 (4QEna) col. 1, line 3 (1:2) Milik and Lukaszewski agree here that the final extant characters of the line are ‏כלה. Where Milik reads this as a complete word, however, Lukaszewski takes it as part of a longer word which (reconstructed) would read ‏כלה[ון.
col. 1, line 5 (1:3) At the end of the legible text in line 5, Milik reads a partially legible מ and reconstructs the word ‏מ[דורה. Lukaszewski does not read the מ which forms the basis for this reconstruction.
col. 1, line 6 (1:4) At the end of the legible text in line 6 Lukaszewski reads the letters גבור and reconstructs the word to read גבור[תה. Milik, however, reads the letters as גברו (inverting the waw and resh) and so reconstructs the word as גברו[תה. The poor preservation of the final letter in this line (which is missing the left end of the stroke) makes it difficult on a cursory reading to judge which is correct.
col. 1, line 7 (1:5) At the beginning of line 7 (frag. a) Milik reads a partially legible ת which he takes to be the end of the word קצו]ת. Lukaszewski agrees with this reconstruction, but does not read the ת at all.
col. 1, line 8 (1:5) At the end of line 7 (frag. b) Milik reads the letters ויזו. Lukaszewski only reads the initial ו as surviving in any legible form. Both, however, agree in reconstructing the word as ויזועון.
col. 2, line 1 (2:1) In line 1 Milik reads the word בסרכן and treats the letters as all (partially) visible. Lukaszewski's transcription treats the initial letters בס as completely illegible and reconstructed.
col. 2, line 2 (2:2) Here Milik reads לא]חרנה. Lukaszewski takes the letters חר as also being illegible and entirely reconstructed.
col. 2, line 4 (2:3) Milik and Lukaszewski agree that the second word of this line should be מטרה. Where Milik transcribes all of the letters as at least partially legible, however, Lukaszewski treats the initial מט as completely missing and reconstructed.
col. 2, line 5 (3:1) After the word מן at the opening of line 5, Milik reads three more words as at least partially legible: ארבעת עסר עילני[ן. Lukaszewski does not transcribe any of these letters.
col. 2, line 5 (3:1) Where Milik transcribes the word דעליהן, Lukaszewski omits the ד entirely and treats the ע as a reconstructed letter.
col. 2, line 6 (3:1) Where Milik reads the letters in the word דתרתין as all being partially visible, Lukaszewski transcribes the initial ד as a reconstruction.
col. 2, line 6 (3:1) Lukaszewski transcribes the word שנין as entirely reconstructed, while Milik transcribes the same letters as at least partially visible.
col. 2, line 7 (4:1) Milik treats the words טלל ומסתרין as at least partially visible, while Lukaszewski reads all but the final letters ין as reconstructed.
col. 2, line 8 (4:1) Lukaszewski treats the words ועל כפיה as entirely reconstructed, while Milik reads ו[ע]ל [כפ]יה..
col. 2, line 8 (4:1) Milik transcribes the word עפרה as legible, while Lukaszewski transcribes the letter פ as a reconstruction.
Copyright: 

The text of the Greek and Latin witnesses to 1 Enoch transcribed in the OCP is in the public domain. The text of the Aramaic fragments is in the public domain except for any and all reconstructions (text within square brackets), which are used here by permission of A. Lukaszewski and may not be re-used or reproduced without his express consent. Before using this or other OCP texts for another purpose, please click on the "copyright and permissions" link below to read the policy on re-use and re-publication.