The Books of Enoch, Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4

En«5ii THIRD COPY 211
The identification and the placing of the small fragments in lines 17 to 23 remain somewhat
hypothetical, particularly the placing of e, /, u Note in addition that the tiny fragments d, e, g, h
have suffered less from the shrinking and rucking of the skin than the other fragments, including
the large pieces a and b. Texts for comparison: CM and E; cf. Latin, etc. (above, on 5 i).
LI. 17-18 (En. 106: 13). The small fragment c is certainly to be placed at the beginning of the
lines of the same column as the large fragment 6. Besides, the verb 1*1
(which is palaeographically
preferable to nDS7) in the second line of fragment c can only be placed in En. 106: 13. If
this placing is accurate, it will be necessary to discover the meaning of the letters in line i of
fragment
where the only letters which are beyond doubt are the first two: ^D. Now, in CM
after the introduction to v. 13, TOTC direKpid-qv Xeywv, comes the word dvai followed by the verb
Kawlaci (rewritten from Kaivi^ct ?). This noun caused the editor of the papyrus a great deal of
trouble: *avaf (not in E) can scarcely be right. This poetic word continued to be used in verse
and in religious language down to Roman times; but it occurs neither in LXX nor in N.T., and
is disturbing here. Read dvaKatvlaei
(James).' I think that the Greek translator of the Book of
Enoch did not understand the exclamation ^D, well-known, especially in the Nabataean, Palmyrene,
and Hatraean inscriptions (cf. also Syriac bal, *sed, profecto'); negative ^3 perhaps in
iQGenAp ii 25: mn
^5*1, 'that thou shouldst not be angered'. He thought this was the
divine name BSl (an error, let it be said in passing, which even several modern epigraphists
make), and he translated it by avaf, drawing on the semantic use of the Aramaic synonym
be*L A subsequent copyist may have taken this poetic term as a Greek approximation of the
name of Enoch (cf. Avwxos in AJiS^)
and this was why he omitted iyw *Eva>Xy which should
have been placed immediately before or after direKpiOrjVy and is retained in E; cf. also HIK
*]13n in GenAp v 3 (ed. N. Avigad and Y. Yadin, 1956, p. 18). I restore what follows according
to CM, where Kai rov avrov rponov
should be corrected to Kara rov rponov ov, which corresponds
well to the Aramaic *'T *?Dlp'?D; then riKvov (add /xou) should be moved after aoi
or even left out (cf. superfluous riKvov in 107; 2 of CM).
Fragment d is placed at En. 106: 13-14 and not in En. 6: 6, on account of the Aleph which
follows 'Jared'; here we have as in En. 6: 6, of which ivrfjyevea in CM (= baUwUdu
in E) is an equivalent translation. This phrase of En. 106: 13 is repeated in GenAp iii 3:
••ax in^ '•ara nx (ed., loc. dt.).
LL 18-19 (En. 106^ 14). After rd eSos in CM, 'the law' in E, there is an omission in CM and
E: '[and] they have changed their [nature?]' (assuming, of course, that our identification of
fragment d is correct). I find a certain corroboration of the existence of this phrase, in an early
copy of the Greek Enoch, from the passage in Test. Napht. 3: 5: ol ^Eyp'qyopoi
iv-qXXa^av
rd^iv va€(x}s avrwv, ovs Karrjpdaaro (Karrjpyqcaro MSS. hi) Kvpios iirl rod KaraKXvapuov, 8t' ovs
dno KaroiKTjalas Kal aKapnov rd^as rrjv yrjv dolKrjrov. This is certainly an implicit and free
quotation of our passage. The author of the Testaments of XII Patriarchs (second century A.D.)
read a copy of the Epistle which had the phrase about changing their nature in verse 14 and
followed the same order of verses as that found in 4QEnc and in CM, namely 14, 17a, 15.
L. 19 (En. 106: 17a). According to CM (which preserves the order of the Aramaic
original) this phrase certainly follows verse 14, as Goldschmidt and Charles hinted. In the Greek
archetypes of E this passage was omitted, then added in the margin, and finally inserted in the
wrong part of the text.