1 Enoch (Ethiopic Text)

the Book of Enoch.¹ Hence the genealogy of the above documents might be represented as follows:—

A genealogical tree diagram. From "Original Greek Translation from the Semitic", a vertical line descends to a horizontal cross-bar. To the right, the cross-bar connects to "Gˢ" Syncellus Greek text. To the left, a line descends to "x" An inferred intermediate source. From "x", a vertical line descends to another horizontal cross-bar, which connects to "Gᵍ" Gizeh Greek manuscript on the left and "E" Ethiopic version on the right.

§ 5. THE LATIN VERSION AND QUOTATIONS.

The Latin Fragment, which constitutes a very imperfect reproduction of chapter 106, verses 1–18, was discovered in 1893 in the British Museum by Dr. James, the present Provost of King's College, Cambridge, and most kindly placed at my service for publication in my edition of Enoch in 1893. In the same year he issued it in the Cambridge Texts and Studies II, No. 3, Apocrypha Anecdota original: "Apocrypha Anecdota", meaning "Unpublished Secret Writings", pp. 146–150. According to Dr. James this fragment is found in an eighth century manuscript (MS. 5, E xiii in Casley's Catalogue of the Royal MSS. now in the British Museum). In this manuscript the Enoch fragment is preceded by a penitential edict of Saint Boniface, and followed by an anonymous tract 'Concerning the Punishment of Sinners' original Latin: "De Vindictis Peccatorum". ²

The text has suffered from additions, omissions, and corruptions, and is very seldom a literal rendering of the original for many words together. Notwithstanding, it makes some contribution to the formation of a better text of chapter 106.

This manuscript further may point to a Latin translation, or at least to a partially completed Latin translation of Enoch; for (1) occurring in the midst of original Latin treatises it appears to have been found in Latin by the collector or scribe of these treatises. (2) It has suffered much

¹ This conclusion referring to the relationship between the Greek and Semitic versions hardly seems adequate to explain all the phenomena mentioned on pp. xiii-xiv. These postulate not only the occurrence of duplicate renderings in the Greek translation, but most probably also the occurrence of variants in the Hebrew original. See chapter 5, verse 9; chapter 10, verse 7 (note 6); chapter 9, verse 4 (note 20); chapter 14, verse 8 (see p. xxix); chapter 17, verse 7 (note 14: see also pp. xxix–xxx); chapter 46, verses 4, 6 (note 35); chapter 52, verse 9 (see p. xxxi); chapter 99, verse 6 (see p. xxxiii).

² In my edition of 1893 the description of the position of this fragment was both wrong and inconsistent. These errors were due not to Dr. James—the source of my information—but to inconceivable carelessness on my own part. When Dr. James rightly disclaimed responsibility in a review of my book, I wrongly maintained, in a rejoinder, his responsibility for the errors in question. I must either have replied without consulting the passage referred to, or else I consulted it but failed to observe its utter absurdity. I did not recognize it till much later.