The Books of Enoch, Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4

En ]irm. With the expression *f ^31
]nx n compare ]in3» H x^T Kn n xsp DV ]aT ]nn^ n or is?
iaS7n*' in En« i xxii 2-3 (En. 22: 4). plX ''I, 'that (I God) I shall judge', for it is God
himself who is speaking here to the archangel Michael (En. 10: 11; cf. En^ i iv 8). On the
'great judgement' see further the note to En^ i iv 11. The author of the Book of Enoch makes
a distinction here, as elsewhere, between a temporary judgement and a temporary incarceration
which threaten the wicked angels and wicked men on the one hand and, on the other hand, the
final judgement with eternal confinement.
LI. 2-3 (En. 10: 15). On X*'*1TQD = oi KL^SrjXoi see the note to En^ i iv 5-6.
LI. 3-4 (En. 10: 16). L. 3. KS7nX *'D3X p with E: dird rrjs yrjs C.
L. 4. Xt32?1j?: between Waw and Sin a gap, owing to a defect in the skin, rather than to the
scraping of a letter. This term is translated by two synonymous words in C and E: DSUl
j? = TO (I>vt6v rrjs SiKaiocnjvrjs Kal r'qs aXrqOeias. Then in C an omission by homoeoarcton:
D^S? XDl&1p< . . XDB?1p> nnSl; E is fairly close to the original.
LI. 5-6 (En. 10: 17). L. 5. Read and restore ]*'D[^X] in line with xtAtaSa? in C, rather than
f 3p fj^X] in line with E.
L. 6. In En^ the transition from the 3rd person plural, used in the first hemistich, to the 2nd
person plural in the second hemistich, is abrupt and unexpected, but not without parallel in
the poetic texts of the Semites. C and E carry over the 3rd person into the second hemistich
also. The reading Kal rd ad^^ara avrcov in C (and in E) has already been explained correctly by '
Wellhausen {Skizzen und Vorarbetten, vi, 241, 260) as a mistranslation of ]innDfi? (DnSfi?
in Hebrew), 'their old age'. However, the full writing of our manuscript, ]1Dn!3''IZ?, does not
give rise to any confusion of the two words. The Aramaic archetype of the Greek version must
have had the defective form ]1Dn!3C? (or ]inD3H2^) or else the translator misread pDD!l*'B? as
]1DnaiB?which he understood as 'your sabbath'; cf. the forms and XHIlW '(the) sabbath'
in Judaeo-Aramaic, Christian Palestinian Aramaic, and Syriac. Forms of this kind point
to the transition from -a- to -0- or -M- when close to labials, a phonetic phenomenon which
was widespread in the Near East, as testified by Semitic and Greek inscriptions; see Milik,
Recherches, pp. 41, 83, 197, 329, etc.
L. 7 (En. 10: 18). E seems here to be closer to the original than C which replaces 'it (sc. the
earth) in its entirety (H^ID)' by iv avrfj, and the plural of ]*'2^''X by the singular BivSpov.
LI. 7-9 (En. 10: 19). The beginning of the verse, lines 7-8, is slightly abridged in E. In the
clause of C, Kal Trdvra rd SevSpa rrjs yfjs dyaXXidaovrac vr€v6'qG€ra(,, the first predicate is
certainly wrong ('the trees of joy' in E is only an approximate adaptation of it). I see in this a
mistranslation of ]1S7D''
'and all the trees of the earth which they (that is, the just) will
desire will be planted there'. The translator might have taken this form of nS7D as a defective
form of ]1S71D*', 'they will utter shouts of joy'; cf. dyaXXlaaai in Tob. 13: 13 (17) which
translates the Aramaic 4QTobaram* 2 iii 2.
L. 8. The Greek words dpLrriXovs and 17 dp^rreXos in C cannot be retranslated by ]*'X5nD and
since the predicate of the second clause is in the feminine: DSinD (active in C:
vr€VGcoGiv; the passive in E was probably introduced by the Ethiopic translator). Secondly,
these 'vineyards' yield not only wine but also other produce. The Aramaic original doubtless