heiser 2 re nickelsburgtextsenoch

8/13/2019 Heiser 2 Re NickelsburgTextsEnoch

1/14

George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch: a Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch(ed. Klaus Baltzer;Hermeneiaa Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2001).Page 1. Exported from Logos Bible Software, 11:22 AM January 28, 2014.

2.0. Texts and Manuscripts

The recent editions of 1 Enoch by Knibb and Uhlig provide detailed discussions of the textual history of 1

Enoch and its component parts. The present section updates these discussions, fills in some lacunae, and

provides information otherwise necessary for the purposes of this commentary.

2.1. Aramaic Texts

2.1.1. Aramaic the Original Language?

Since the Ethiopic version of 1 Enoch was first introduced to the West at the beginning of the nineteenth

century, scholars have almost universally acknowledged that the Ethiopic version derives from a Greek

translation of a Semitic original, although they have debated whether that original was in Hebrew or

Aramaic. The discovery of the Qumran Aramaic Enoch MSS. makes it virtually certain that Aramaic wasthe language in which chaps.136,the Book of Giants, and chaps.72107were composed, although the

authors may have drawn on some Hebrew sources. Whether the Book of Parables (chaps.3771)and

chap.108were composed in Hebrew or Aramaic is less certain, since no Aramaic fragments of either

section were found at Qumran.

2.1.2. Manuscripts

The Qumran Aramaic Enoch fragments divide into three groups. Seven MSS. preserve various parts of

chaps.136,8590,and91107.Four MSS. contain only the Book of the Luminaries (chaps.7282)and

related calendrical material. Nine Aramaic MSS. contain parts of the Book of Giants, hitherto known only

from Manichaean sources. Since all of the fragments have been published, it is necessary here only to

summarize the relevant information.

2.1.2.1. 1 Enoch136,85107

4QEna(4Q201); DSSC,80; Milik,Enoch, 14063; Stuckenbruck, DJD 36:37.

Fragments from five of six columns containing 1 Enoch110and perhaps12.Milik dates the MS. tothe first half of the second century B.C.E., but suggests that aspects of its orthography and theconfusion of letters may indicate that it was copied from a MS. dating from the third century at thevery least.

4QEnb(4Q202); DSSC,8081; Milik, Enoch, 16478.

Fragments from four of six columns containing 1 Enoch510and14.Many of the fragments arevery small, containing only (parts of) a word or two, whose placement is uncertain. Milik dates thehand to the middle of the second century B.C.E. Its orthography is classical and relatively full,


2/14


and the careless original has been corrected by the same scribe against a better MS., perhaps onesimilar to 4QEna.

4QEnc(4Q204); DSSC,81; Milik, Enoch, 178217.

Fragments from eleven of an indeterminate number of columns. Extant fragments include parts of

chaps.16,10,1315,18,3132,3536,together with89,104107,and the Book of Giants. Milikdates the fine and careful hand to a professional and skillful scribe from the last third of the first

century B.C.E.

4QEnd(4Q205); DSSC,81; Milik, Enoch, 21725.

Fragments from five columns that contain parts of chaps.22,2527,and89.On the basis of physicalarrangement and orthography, Milik concludes that this is a more or less contemporary copy of4QEnc.

4QEne(4Q206); DSSC,81; Milik, Enoch, 22544.

Fragments from eight columns that contain parts of chaps.2022,2829,3134,as well as8889and a fragment of the Book of Giants. Milik dates the MS. to the first half of the first century B.C.E.

4QEnf(4Q207); DSSC,81; Milik, Enoch, 24445.

A single fragment containing parts of five lines preserving a bit of86:13.Milik dates it to 150125B.C.E.

4QEng(4Q212); DSSC,82; Milik, Enoch, 24572.

Fragments of five columns (only two letters from col. 1) corresponding to91:1094:2.Cross dates

the semi-cursive script 501 B.C.E.; Milik prefers the middle of the century.

2.1.2.2. The Book of the Luminaries (Chaps.7282)

4QEnastra(4Q208); DSSC,81; Tigchelaar and Garca Martnez, DJD 36:10431.

Fragments from several columns of the first leaf of the scroll. They contain a calendar thatsynchronizes the movements of the sun and the moon, a rsum of which is found in73:174:9.Milik likens the script to one identified by Cross as 175125 B.C.E., but dates it to the late third orearly second century B.C.E. on the basis of similarities to other scripts that Cross places in the thirdor early second century.

4QEnastrb(4Q209); DSSC,8182; Milik, Enoch, 274, 28789, 29396; Tigchelaar and GarcaMartnez, DJD 36:13271.

Fragments from several columns, containing parts of the synchronistic calendar, as well as

material corresponding to 1 Enoch7679and82.Milik dates the Herodian hand to the early yearsof the first century C.E.


3/14


4QEnastrc(4Q210); DSSC,82; Milik, Enoch, 28788, 292.

Fragments from three passages in two columns, corresponding to 1 Enoch76and78.Milik datesthe late Hasmonean hand to the middle of the first century B.C.E.

4QEnastrd(4Q211); DSSC,82; Milik, Enoch, 29697.

Fragments of three columns near the end of the scroll, containing material about the season ofwinter, which belonged at the end of a long section on the seasons, which has been apocopated in 1Enoch and ends abruptly at82:20.Milik dates the MS. to the second half of the first century B.C.E.

2.1.2.3. The Book of Giants

Stuckenbruck identifies nine MSS. of the Book of Giants.

1QGiantsa(1Q23); DSSC,21; Stuckenbruck, Giants,4359; idem, DJD 36:4966.

Thirty-one fragments, only one of which contains more than one or two words.

1QGiantsb(1Q24); DSSC,2122; Stuckenbruck, Giants,5963; idem, DJD 36:6772; DJD 31:1947.

Eight small fragments.

2QGiants (2Q26);DSSC, 36; Stuckenbruck, Giants, 6366; idem, DJD 36:7375.

One fragment with a few words from four lines.

4QGiantsa(4Q203); DSSC,81; Stuckenbruck, Giants,66100; idem, DJD 36:841; Puech, DJD 31:1718.

Thirteen fragments, one preserving a good part of thirteen lines, some others containing severalwords from several lines. Milik believes this was part of 4QEncand dates it in the last third of thefirst century B.C.E. (see above).

4QGiantsb(4Q530); DSSC,140; Stuckenbruck, Giants,100141; Puech, DJD 31:1947.

Twenty fragments containing a fair amount of text. Cross suggests a date 10050 B.C.E.

4QGiantsc(4Q531); DSSC,140; Stuckenbruck, Giants,14177; Puech, DJD 31:4994.

Substantial amount of text preserved on forty-eight fragments, some of considerable size.According to Stuckenbruck, the script combines features of both early and mid-to-late Herodianhands, that is, 30 B.C.E.50 C.E.

4QGiantsd(4Q532); DSSC,140; Stuckenbruck, Giants,17885; Puech, DJD 31:95104.

Six fragments with little continuous text.

4QGiantse(4Q556); DSSC,143; Stuckenbruck, Giants,18591; Puech, DJD 31:10511 (as 4Q533).


4/14


Seven small fragments with little continuous text

4QGiantsf(4Q206 23); DSSC,81; Stuckenbruck, Giants,19196; idem, DJD 36:4248; Puech, DJD31:11115 (as 4Q533).

Three small fragments, originally published as part of 4QGiantse, which Milik believes were part of

4QEneand which he dates to the first half of the first century B.C.E.

6QGiants (6Q8); DSSC, 152; Stuckenbruck, Giants, 196213; idem, DJD 36:7694.

Thirty-three papyrus fragments, one preserving a good part of five lines of text. Cross suggests adate 501 B.C.E.

The precise codicological relationship of the Book of Giants to the MSS. of the Enochic corpusremains uncertain in my view. Although Milik is correct in assigning 4QGiantsato the same MS. as4QEnc, there is no hard evidence as to where it might have been located on the MS., and as I arguebelow, there is warrant for expecting and believing that the account of Enochs cosmic journeys had

an ending that described his return to earth (3.1.2.2).

2.1.3. Implications

The manuscript data summarized here suggest that the Qumran Scrolls provide a significant body of

material for the textual criticism of 1 Enoch. Milik claims that 50 percent of the Book of the Watchers is

covered, 30 percent of the Astronomical Book, 26 percent of the Book of Dreams, and 18 percent of the

Epistle of Enoch. In fact, as Knibb has calculated, the preserved text covers the equivalent of only 196 of

the 1,062 verses of the Ethiopic text (one-fifth), and if one counts actual preserved letters, it preserves

considerably less than one-fifth of the text. Nonetheless, as I shall indicate below (2.8), the Aramaic

fragments are of invaluable text-critical help for sections of 1 Enoch where the Aramaic is substantially

preserved. In addition, the fragments help us to reconstruct the literary shape of the early stages of the

Enochic tradition (see3.1.13). They also indicate the considerable importance of the Enoch material for

the Qumran community (see6.2.6).

2.2. Greek Version

Approximately 28 percent of 1 Enoch has been preserved in fragmentary texts of a Greek translation of

the Aramaic original.

2.2.1. The Book of the Watchers (Chaps.1

36)2.2.1.1. The Akhmim Manuscript (Codex Panopolitanus)

This Greek MS. of the fifth or sixth century C.E. was discovered in 1886/87 in a grave in the Coptic

cemetery at Akhmim (Panopolis), Egypt, and was published in editions by Bouriant (1872) and Lods

(1872, 1873). It contains incomplete texts of the Gospel of Peterand theApocalypse of Peter,followed by


5/14


the text of 1 Enoch19:3()21:9(), and then, without even the break of a space, by

another complete text of 1 Enoch1:132:6a.The inclusion of the Book of the Watchers and of the two

Petrine writings in one codex is not surprising, given the evident relationships between the two traditions

(see6.3.6.4)and the texts common interest in journeys to the realm of the dead. Perhaps the codex was

compiled and deposited in the grave by analogy to the Egyptian practice of burying a copy of the Book of

the Dead.

The incomplete text of19:321:9is almost identical with the corresponding part of thefollowing, fuller text of the Book of the Watchers. Agreements, often in error, between these Greektexts and the Ethiopic version over against the Greek fragments of Syncellus (see2.2.1.2)indicatethat Gand Ederive from a common archetype. This MS., however, has its own unique readings, bothlonger and shorter than E. In general, however, it corresponds quite closely to Eand the

corresponding material preserved in G.

2.2.1.2. The Chronography of George Syncellus

Some fragments of the Book of the Watchers have also been preserved in the ofGeorge Syncellus, composed at the beginning of the ninth century C.E., on the basis of the fifth-century

chronographic works by Pandorus and Annianus. The preserved sections of 1 Enoch in Gare:6:19:4;

8:410:14;15:816:1(ed. Dindorf, 2023, 4246, 4647). One section has no precise parallel in 1 Enoch.

These fragments, which Scaliger first called to the attention of scholars in 1658, provided theonly textual evidence for 1 Enoch in the West before the publication of the Ethiopic version and theonly substantial piece of text of the Greek Enoch before the publication of the Akhmim MS. (see2.2.3).

Overall, the text preserved by Syncellus is superior to that of the Akhmim MS., but it has its own

unique incorrect readings as well as additions that reflect the interests of the chronographer(s).

2.2.2. Fragments of the Book of the Luminaries and the Animal Vision

Fragments 3 and 1 of the fourth-century Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 2069, published by Hunt in 1927, have

been identified by Milik as containing bits of 1 Enoch77:778:1;78:8;85:1086:2;87:13.

2.2.3. An Excerpt from the Animal Vision (Codex Vaticanus Gr. 1809)

A Greek text of 1 Enoch89:4249was written into the margins of an eleventh-century tachygraphic

manuscript discovered by Mai in the Vatican Library and published by him in 1844. Gildemeister

deciphered the text and published it together with some comments in 1855. The text is introduced as Anexcerpt from the book of Enoch (), is followed by some brief comments

identifying some of the animals in the vision, and concludes with the remark that the vision described

human history in this (symbolic) manner from Adam to the consummation ().

2.2.4. The Epistle of Enoch (Chester BeattyMichigan Papyrus)


6/14


The preserved leaves of this fourth-century Greek papyrus codex contain the text of 1 Enoch 97:6107:3,

together with all but the last few lines of theHomily on the Passionby Melito of Sardis, and three

fragments of a Pseudo-Ezekiel text. An estimate of the original size of the codex suggests that it contained

the whole of the Epistle of Enoch plus the story of Noahs birth (chaps.91or92107). The collection of

three texts may have been assembled to serve a polemical or apologetic purpose. Bonner published the

Enoch text with copious notes in 1937, and the plates followed in 1941 in Kenyons edition with anintroduction. Important comments on the text followed in articles by Jeremias, Torrey, and Zuntz.

The product of a careless scribe, this papyrus is marred by more than three dozen omissions,often sizable ones, many of them caused by homoioteleuton. Otherwise, aside from a fewcorruptions (usually of single words) and a number of spelling errors, it appears to be quite reliablein the material it reproduces. At one point (98:45)it contains an extensive double reading thatindicates somewhere in the tradition behind this MS. a collation against a second MS. that may havehad independent access to the Aramaic.

2.2.5. Date and Provenance

Although the Chester BeattyMichigan Papyrus provides a fourth-century terminus ad quem for the

Greek translation of at least the Epistle of Enoch, the wide usage of the Book of the Watchers by the

Greek and Latin fathers of the second to fourth centuries indicates a much earlier date for at least the

Book of the Watchers, and the writings of Tertullian suggest that he knew a large part of the corpus (see

6.3.2.616). References to the work in Greek in the Epistle of Barnabasindicate 13538 C.E. as a

terminus ad quem (see6.3.2.3), and the quotation of1:9inJude 1415* and the use of Enochic material

in Revelation indicate that the translation was in place by the end of the first century (see6.2.78).

Parallels in the Wisdom of Solomon (see6.2.7)suggest that the Greek is the product of a Jewish

translator who worked before the turn of the era. In such a case, its provenance would have been circles

that found compatibility between sapiential and apocalyptic traditions (see5.1.1.23,6.2.7).

2.3. Latin Quotations and References to 1 Enoch

Several quotations of 1 Enoch and references or allusions to its contents have been preserved in the Latin

language. A ninth-century Latin MS. includes an extract from the story of Noahs birth (106:118)in a

collection of four passages about the great sins of great sinners and their great punishments. Pseudo-

Cyprian (Ad Novatianum) quotes1:9(see6.3.11), and inDe idol.4,Tertullian quotes99:67,ascribing

the text to Enoch the prophet (see6.3.2.9). Other Latin fathers allude to the story of the watchers or its

motifs (see6.3.2.8,10,16,17). While these quotations and allusions might attest a Latin version of the

Book of Enoch, the evidence is slim and far from compelling.

2.4. A Coptic Fragment of the Apocalypse of Weeks

The fragment of a two-columned sixth/seventh-century Coptic MS., discovered in 1939, preserves the text

of a small part of the Apocalypse of Weeks,93:3b4a+5ab(recto) and6c7a+8cd(verso). Whether the


7/14


MS. contained only an extract from 1 Enoch, viz., the Apocalypse, or the whole Epistle is uncertain. A

verbatim correspondence between the Coptic and the Aramaic of93:3cagainst the Ethiopic indicates that

the Ehas blurred a faithful Greek rendering of its Aramaic archetype (see93:3,textual note b).

2.5. A Syriac Excerpt from the Book of the Watchers

A Syriac text of 1 Enoch6:16is found in Chronicle1.4 of the twelfth-century Jacobite patriarch Michael

the Syrian, where it is ascribed to the chronographer Annianus (see2.2.1.2). Its text often agrees with G

against GE(see textual notes to6:16). Brock argues that Michael took the extract either from a Syriac

translation of Annianus or a Syriac chronicle that drew on Annianus.

2.6. The Ethiopic Version of 1 Enoch

The corpus that we know as 1 Enoch (chaps.1108)is extant in its entirety only in an Ethiopic (Geez)

version that was translated from a Greek translation of the Aramaic original between the fourth and sixth

centuries. The translation was part of the larger project of translating the Old and New Testaments. Along

with theBook of Jubilees, theBook of Enochwas accorded canonical status in the Ethiopian Bible (see

6.3.7.12).

Postulating a Greek textual basis for the Ethiopic version of 1 Enoch requires somequalification. First, we have no Greek text or fragments for the Book of Parables (chaps.3771) andthe final appendix to the corpus (chap.108). Thus there is no hard evidence that the Ethiopic ofthese chapters was not translated directly from a Semitic text (Hebrew or Aramaic). Indeed,Ullendorff and Knibb have argued that the Ethiopic version knows both Aramaic and Greekversions of the text, although they leave open the question as to what extent the Ethiopic is

dependent on the Aramaic and the Greek. Was the text translated from Aramaic and revised againstthe Greek, or was it translated from Greek and revised against an Aramaic text? VanderKam hasargued, however, that the textual confusions between the Greek and the Ethiopic are moreeconomically explained as having taken place on the Greek than on the Ethiopic level. In thiscommentary I have postulated an Aramaic Greek Ethiopic chain of transmission, partly

because of the close correspondence in word order between the Greek and Ethiopic and alsobecause of readings in the Ethiopic that must have derived from a corrupt Greek text. In at least onecase it appears that a Greek scribe had access to either an Aramaic text or another Greek text thathad access to the Aramaic.

At this writing I am aware of forty-nine pre-1900 Ethiopic MSS. of 1 Enoch. The majority of these

MSS. contain other books of the Bible and place Enoch either with the Prophets or before Job. Table1 lists all MSS. cited in the editions of Charles, Knibb, Uhlig, and Tiller, as well as other pre-1900 MSS.in the Hill Monastic Manuscript Library collection.

As table 1 demonstrates, a thousand years separate the fourth- to sixth-century translation of 1Enoch from our earliest extant MSS. of the translation. Of the forty-nine MSS. listed, only six can be


8/14


dated to the sixteenth century or earlier (g/g,q,u,T9,1768,2080), and only six others to theseventeenth century (t,z,4437,6281, British & Foreign Bible Society, and Pontifical BiblicalInstitute).

Since the edition of the Ethiopic by Flemming (1902), which was based on twenty-six MSS.,

scholarly consensus has divided the MSS. into two groups, designated as I and II or and (Charlesand in this commentary). Manuscripts of the group include g,m,q,t,u,T9,1768,2080,6281, all ofwhich can be dated to the fifteenth, sixteenth, or seventeenth century. The MSS. of the second group,which date from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, are the product of scholarly recensionalactivity.

Uhlig summarizes the history of the text as follows. (1) At the end of the thirteenth century, thebiblical text was marked by lacunae, many substantial variants, and paraphrase with a tendencytoward simplification. Although no MS. of 1 Enoch derives from this period, T9does provide somewitness to it in variants that distinguish it from other MSS. of the group. (2) The MSS. of the groupderive from a series of recensions in the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries. MS. 2080 may reflect an

early recension, while the others are the product of fifteenth-century recension. Subgroupingswithin this group include: t,u,6281; u,2080; T9,q; and gmt. (3) The seventeenth- and eighteenth-century recensional process that produced the MSS. of the group emended difficult passages, filledomissions, and corrected grammatical mistakes.

Table 1

My Sigla Library/Number

Place Century Content Charles Knibb Uhlig Tiller

a BodleianOr. 531

Oxford 18 1105 a Bodl 4 Ox 1 a

b BodleianBruce 74

Oxford 18 198 b Bodl 5 Ox 2 b

c FrankfurtOrientRppell II1

Frankfurt 18 198 c FrankfurtMS.

Fr c


9/14


d Curzon55 =BLOr. 8822

London 18(?) 1102 d Curzon55

Lo1 d

e Curzon56 =BLOr. 8823

London 18(?) 1108 e Curzon56

Lo2 e

f BL Add.24185

London 19 1106 f BM Add.24185

Lo3 f

g BL Or.485 London 16 early 1108 g BM 485 Lo4 g

g BL Or.485a

London 16 early 97:6b108:10

,g BM 485a Lo4(2) -

h BL Or.484

London 18 1108 h BM 484 Lo5 h

i BL Or.486

London 18 60:13b108:15

i BM 486 Lo6 i

k BL Or.490

London 18 1107 k BM 490 Lo7 k

l BL Add.24990

London 18 1108 l BM Add.24990

Lo8 l


10/14


m BL Or.491

London 18 1108 m BM 491 Lo9 m

n BL Or.

492

London 18 187 n BM 492 Lo10 n

o BL Or.499

London 18 1106 o BM 499 Lo11 o

p RylandsLibrary

Eth. 23

Manchester

18 1108 p Ryl Ma p

q BerlinOrientPetermann II,Nachtrag29

Berlin 16 1108 q Berl Be q

r Abbadian16

Paris 19 177 r Abb 16 Pa1 -

s Abbadian30

Paris 18 1108 s Abb 30 Pa2 -

t Abbadian35

Paris 17 end 1108 t Abb 35 Pa3 t

u Abbadian Paris 1516 1108 u Abb 55 Pa4 u


11/14


55

v Abbadian99

Paris 19 1108 v Abb 99 Pa5 v

w Abbadian197

Paris 19 198 w Abb 197 Pa6 w

x Vaticantiop. 71

VaticanCity

18 1108 x Vat 71 Va1 x

y Munichthiop.30

Munich 18 1108 y Munich30

M y

z Paristhiop. 50(114)

Paris 17 1108 z Paris 114 Pa7 -

zb Paristhiop. 32(49)

Paris 18 1108 zb Paris 32 Pa8 -

a PrincetonEth. 2=GarrettColl. Dep.1468

Princeton 1819 1108 ,a GarrettMS.

Pr ,a

b Westenholz

Hamburg 18 1106 ,b WestenhoHa ,b


12/14


=Hamburg Orient271a

lz MS.

Ca Univ. Lib.Add.1570

Cambridge

158889 1108 - - Ca -

T9 LakeTana 9

Kebran 15 1108 - Tana 9 TS aa

Ull EdwardUllendorff 18 early 1108 - Ull Ull ab

Va2 Cerulli 75 VaticanCity

193132 1108 - - Va2 -

Va3 Cerulli110

VaticanCity

192122 1108 - - Va3 -

Va4 Cerulli131

VaticanCity

19 1108 - - Va4 -

EMML 36 (Collegeville)

1819

1768 EMML1768

ayq

Esifnos1516 1108 - - Co1 bk


13/14


2080 EMML2080

ayq

Esifnos1516 1108 - - Co2 bn

4437 EMML

4437

(Collegevi

lle)

1718 1108 - - Co3 bs

4750 EMML4750

(Collegeville)

18 1108 - - Co4 bt

6281 EMML6281

(Collegeville)

17 1108 - - Co5 bv

EMML6686

(Collegeville)

1718

EMML6706

(Collegeville)

18

EMML6930

(Collegeville)

18

6974 EMML6974

(Collegeville)

18 - - bw

EMML

7103

(Collegevi

lle)

18

7584 EMML7584

(Collegeville)

18 - - by


14/14


British &ForeignBible

Society

London 17(?) 1108 - - Lo12 -

PontificalBiblicalInst.Banco A2, II

Rome 1718 2:3108:15

- - Ro -

heiser 2 re nickelsburgtextsenoch

Documents