1 Enoch (Ethiopic Text)

Gˢ The Greek version preserved by the Byzantine chronicler George Syncellus in the list of the offices of the various angels. The additional elements in Gˢ here could not have been written by a Greek, for in every instance the office constitutes when translated into Aramaic a play on the name of the angel who discharges the office. Similarly in vi. 7 the order of the names of the angels is different and Gˢ is here preferable to Gᵍ The Greek version found at Gizeh (the Akhmim fragment) E The Ethiopic version.

Again, viii. 4 of Gˢ has preserved in all probability a more original text than Gᵍ E. For it is natural that the substance of the prayer of men as they were slain by the giants should be given when it is first referred to in viii. 4. Here, indeed, Gˢ presents a duplicate text, and both texts give the prayer in question. Gᵍ E, on the other hand, do not give the words of the prayer till ix. 3, when the angels are presenting it before God. Gˢ in Semitic fashion gives the prayer in full original: "in extenso" here also.¹ Again the additional clauses ("go," etc. original: "πορεύου κτλ.") in Gˢ x. 2, 4 belong most probably to the original work but have been lost in Gᵍ E, see p. 24, note 25. The same is true of the addition in Gˢ ix. 9 with its peculiar diction, as is clear from a comparison of x. 9, 15.

Finally Gˢ preserves several right readings over against Gᵍ E. Thus "bind" original: "δῆσον" in x. 11 where Gᵍ E corruptly read "show" original: "δήλωσον", "be condemned" original: "κατακριθῇ" in x. 14 where Gᵍ E read "be burned" original: "κατακαυσθῇ". Compare also x. 7.

(b) Relations of Gˢ and Gᵍ to E. Even the most superficial study makes it clear that E and Gᵍ are more closely related than E and Gˢ or Gˢ and Gᵍ. Indeed the evidence makes it clear that E was translated from a manuscript which was also the parent or ancestor of Gᵍ. This follows from the fact that the same corruptions appear in Gᵍ E over against true readings in Gˢ where this exists. Thus they both give impossible readings in x. 7 †"they smote" original: "ἐπάταξαν"; Gˢ reads "they said" (εἶπον); x. 11 "show" original: "δήλωσον"; Gˢ reads "bind" (δῆσον); x. 14 †"be burned" original: "κατακαυσθῇ"; Gˢ reads "be condemned" (κατακριθῇ); xiv. 8 †"they were troubled" original: "ἐθορύβαζον"; a mistranslation of the Aramaic original, †"they spread out" original: "ἐξεπέτασαν"; xiv. 18 †"mountain" original: "ορος"; corrupt for "vision" (ὅρασις)?; xv. 9 †"of the higher ones" original: "ἀνωτέρων"; Gˢ reads "of men" (ἀνθρώπων); xviii. 5 †"carrying in a cloud" original: "βαστάζοντας ἐν νεφελῇ"; xxii. 4 †"they made" original: "ἐποίησαν" for "they were made" original: "ἐποιήθησαν"; xxv. 5 †"into life" original: "εἰς ζωήν"; xxviii. 2 †"from the seeds" original: "ἀπὸ τῶν σπερμάτων". In ix. 6 all the authorities are corrupt, but Gᵍ E agree closely.

Furthermore, they add xv. 10 against Gˢ as well as the sense of the passage, and omit the same clause in x. 2, 4 against Gˢ. To the above facts we should add that E agrees with Gˢ in transposing vii. 3-5 from

¹ Hence I withdraw the suggestion that Gˢ vii. 2 is corrupt.