11.02.2014 Views

The Books of Enoch, Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4

The Books of Enoch, Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4

The Books of Enoch, Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

246 THE BOOKS OF ENOCH<br />

similar. <strong>The</strong>re are no guide-lines, which explains the irregular length <strong>of</strong> the<br />

lines <strong>of</strong> the text, which indeed run on into the space between columns iv<br />

and V to the point <strong>of</strong> encroaching upon the text <strong>of</strong> column v. Ink very dark<br />

blue, which spreads easily and blurs.<br />

A beautiful semi-cursive script, dated by Cross to the years 50-1 B.c.^<br />

In my opinion the handwriting <strong>of</strong> En^ dates from the middle <strong>of</strong> the first<br />

century B.C. rather than from its end.<br />

<strong>The</strong> arrangement <strong>of</strong> the text is highly economical: the lines <strong>of</strong> writing are<br />

packed close together, with very small gaps between words and spaces<br />

between lines, without any blank spaces between the sections <strong>of</strong> the text.<br />

When he was copying column iv the scribe must have been very tired,<br />

to judge from numerous errors and corrections (see notes on the readings<br />

for I iv).<br />

<strong>The</strong> orthography <strong>of</strong> En^ is relatively archaic; the scribe was fairly discreet,<br />

though also inconsistent, in his modernization <strong>of</strong> the orthography <strong>of</strong> his<br />

exemplar. <strong>The</strong> relative pronoun 'T (corrected immediately to **!) in iii 25 and<br />

probably in v 17, and XDE^nS for XnunD ii 25 are very archaic. Archaic, too, is<br />

the defective orthography <strong>of</strong> several words which, however, alternates with full<br />

forms: ii 17, but ii 24, iv 16, etc.; H^D iv 20, but H^ID iv 21 and v 21,<br />

and likewise iii 22; Wlp v 16 and X'Wlp iii 21, but f and |''S7*'B?T<br />

iv 16; t3l&p iv 13, XD5?j? ii 18, iii 24, v 25, but t3Wp iv 15, 16, 17 and<br />

KDB?lp ii 20; ]''S7ai& iv 25, but iv 15, 19; *'S72?n iv 19, but TSn iv 15;<br />

n^DDI HDmX V 21, mt iv i8, mX iv 22 and n m x ii 18 and v 25, iv 14,<br />

nms V 22.<br />

<strong>The</strong> article is always marked by Aleph, whilst the final vowel -a <strong>of</strong> the<br />

feminine absolute, etc., is marked by He, but the -e by Aleph: XlDfl*' iv 18,<br />

X^in*' 19. <strong>The</strong> etymological77 is not retained: H/OD iii 21, mD3 iv 15, 19,<br />

''11!? iv 25. <strong>The</strong> dissimilation <strong>of</strong> the dentals is not consistent: iv 13, but<br />

^irvis.<br />

Personal pronoun <strong>of</strong> the 2nd person plural masculine ]inX ii 25; suffixes <strong>of</strong><br />

the 2nd and 3rd person plural masculine ]1D' and ]in^. Relative pronoun 1<br />

{prima manu), quoted above; ^1 before verbs, 1 before nouns {7]21 iv 15);<br />

interrogative pronoun v 17, 20, 22. <strong>The</strong> short imperfect <strong>of</strong> mn: ]in*7 iv 14.<br />

Aphel niriH iii 21.<br />

<strong>The</strong> scroll <strong>of</strong> 4QEn« contained, in all probability, only the Epistle <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Enoch</strong>, En. 91 to 105. Of the first column there remain only two letters;<br />

^ Table <strong>of</strong> this alphabet: Milik, DJD ii, p. 73, fig. 24, col. i, and Cross, loc. cit., p. 149, fig. 4,<br />

line 5.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!