The Book of Enoch

...however, not given much room, and it only comes to word in the notes.

What we gain in this way is, by and large, a readable text of the Book of Enoch as it was in circulation in Abyssinia in the 15th century. A millennium separates it from its archetype, and a millennium and a half lie between this form of the translation of a translation and the original writing of the author! But nevertheless, there is no reason to view the matter too pessimistically. We know that the Ethiopic translation of the biblical books is generally very faithful, that the text was handed down conscientiously, and that no major interventions were permitted. Nothing forces us to assume the opposite for the Book of Enoch. If the newly found Greek fragment really dates from the 8th century¹⁾—that is, it is at most 300 years older than the Ethiopic translation—and if this same fragment agrees tolerably well with the 700-year-younger Ethiopic text, then one will have to say to oneself that our text will hardly be miles apart from the archetype. But the Greek exemplar does not seem to have been in any special condition; otherwise, such confusions as metalla metals — met' auta after these, etc., and transpositions, as in Chap. 91 (Ten-Week Apocalypse), could not have occurred.

The Ethiopic text will be published in the archives accompanying this collection, the Texte und Untersuchungen Texts and Investigations.

The German translation presented in this volume is kept as literal as possible. From the critical apparatus, only those variants that are of importance for the meaning have been included; they are intended primarily to make the relationship between the two recensions and any differences among the representatives of Group I clear. Oversights and omissions have only been noted when it proved necessary for understanding. The treatment of proper names was somewhat difficult. Some have been included in the form familiar to us, such as Enoch and Noah; most have been traced back to the Greek form they are intended to reproduce, and only where that was not possible have I retained the Ethiopic word formations. Where, in my view, the text is not in order, I have always indicated this, but I am convinced that, especially in the astronomical parts, there would have been much more to object to. The citations have only a formal [relation] to the text...

T. 9, 1867 pp. 352—95. Some have proven untenable after the older manuscripts became known.

1. From the 8th—12th century according to Bouriant in Mémoires Memoirs etc. (see p. 13).