1 Enoch Archives - Page 5 of 5

Translations of 1 Enoch

Dillman’s Ethiopic text of 1 Enoch

In 2022 I published First Enoch for Beginners. I have been asked several times where to get a copy of 1 Enoch to read. As with most books, there are free copies on the internet and expensive books only available in the reserve room at high quality university libraries. For the student looking to read the text, perhaps the free editions will suffice, but there are some problems with these older, free resources.

Richard Laurence published the first English translation of 1 Enoch in 1883, followed by R. H. Charles (Oxford, 1893, revised in 1913). Both are out of print and
widely available on the Internet (Pseudepigrapha.com; Sacred Texts). The 1893 edition of Charles’s translation is available in Google Books and 1 Enoch is also included in his two-volume Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913). The 1917 edition of 1 Enoch has an introduction to apocalyptic literature by W. O. E. Oesterley (available from Logos). Wipf & Stock sells a reprint of Charles’s 1912 translation and Dillman’s Ethiopic text of 1 Enoch.

The problem with these older, free resources is the limited manuscript evidence available to the translator. Since the Aramaic fragments of the book were not discovered and published until after 1948, Charles relies on limited Ethiopic and Greek witnesses to the text. An additional problem with these older resources is the tendency to affect a biblical tone similar to the KJV Bible.

More recently, the translation by E. Isaac (“1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1:5-89) is very readable translation although it is part of a much larger volume. Isaac states in his introduction there are forty Ethiopic manuscripts of the book, but his translation is based on a fifteenth century manuscript (Kebrān 9/II, Hammerschmidt).

George W. E. Nickelsburg’s commentary on 1 Enoch in the Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001) is essential for the study of the book. The first volume covers chapters 1–36 and 81–108. The second volume on chapters 37–82 was completed by James C. VanderKam in 2012. Since Hermeneia commentaries are expensive, it is not cost-effective to buy these two volumes just to read 1 Enoch, Fortress has published the translation in a separate paperback volume in 2012. If you are going to buy a translation of 1 Enoch, I highly recommend this inexpensive volume, In the introduction to this volume, the authors state they have consulted fifty of the ninety available manuscripts of 1 Enoch as well as the Greek, Aramaic, Coptic and Latin fragments of the book. Nickelsburg attempted to translate the “earliest recoverable text” favoring the Aramaic, then Greek, then Ethiopic manuscripts.

Loren Stuckenbruck has two translations of sections of 1 Enoch: The Book of Giants from Qumran (Text und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 63; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) and 1 Enoch 91-108 (Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature; de Gruyter, 2007). The latter is a major commentary on few chapters of the book. The translation in the commentary “departs significantly from the strategy adopted in the translation published by Nickelsburg” (18), focusing on the Ethiopic rather than an eclectic text. Stuckenbruck offers detailed textual notes after his translation and provides notes and commentary on the text. Unfortunately the book is expensive and will only be found in quality research libraries.

I will offer one verse of comparison, 1 Enoch 91:11. I chose this verse since the Ethiopic is longer and misplaced.

And after that the roots of unrighteousness shall be cut off, and the sinners shall be destroyed by the sword … shall be cut off from the blasphemers in every place, and those who plan violence and those who commit blasphemy shall perish by the sword. (R. H. Charles, Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 2:262).
…and through him the roots of oppression shall be cut off. Sinners shall be destroyed; by the sword they shall be cut off (together with) the blasphemers in every place; and those who design oppression and commit blasphemy shall perish by the knife. Isaac, OPT 1:72–73.
And they will uproot the foundations of violence, and the structure of deceit in it, to execute judgment. (Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 434).
And after that the roots of oppression will be cut off, and the sinners shall be destroyed by the sword; and from every place the blasphemers will be cut off, and those who plan oppression and those who commit blasphemy will be destroyed by the knife. (Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91-108, 118)

Nickelsburg adds a footnote, “Translation follows 4QEng 1 4:14 (Milik, Enoch, 265)” since he does not follow the longer Ethiopic text, but rather the shorter, Aramaic text from the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is a translation of the longer text in the footnote in his commentary, but not the shorter paperback translation. Isaac adds a footnote” “4QEn: “And they will have rooted out the foundations of violence and the structure of falsehood therein to execute [judgment].”

Conclusion: The “best value” translation is the Fortress Press reprint of Nickelsburg and VanderKam from the Hermeneia series. Although it has far less textual annotations, the inexpensive paperback format makes it an easy addition. I am sure there are other translations of 1 Enoch available, what did I miss?

When was 1 Enoch Written?

Of all the apocalyptic material in the Pseudepigrapha, 1 Enoch is probably the most important. According to John Collins, the publication of 1 Enoch in the early nineteenth century was the major motivation for the study of Second Temple period literature. The book was virtually unknown outside of Ethiopic Christianity until James Bruce brought three copies from Abyssinia in 1773. Although the first translation was made in 1821 by Richard Laurence (1760–1838), it was the 1913 translation by R. H. Charles which brought the book of 1 Enoch to the attention of biblical studies.

While the book is a composite of several smaller units, all five major sections are normally dated to the first or second century B.C. The entire collection is known only in Ethiopic, although Greek and Aramaic fragments have been found at Qumran. The earliest manuscripts is written in Ethiopic (Ge’ez) and date to the sixteenth century. There are a few Latin quotations (only 1:9 and 106:1–18) from the book as well as fragments in Coptic and Syriac.

The Book of Enoch in Greek in the Chester Beatty Papyri (P.Mich.inv. 5552)

Aramaic fragments from four of the five sections of the book are attested in the Qumran literature, about one-fifth of the Ethiopic book (4Q201-202, 204-212; The Book of Giants 1Q23-24, 2Q26, 4Q203, 530-533, 6Q8). This confirms a pre-Christian era date for those sections as well as implying a Judean origin. The only section not found at Qumran was the Book of Similitudes (chapters 37-71).

R. H. Charles, who published one of the first editions of 1 Enoch in English, argued for a date between 94 and 67 B.C.E. for the Similitudes based on 38:5. Charles interpreted “the shedding of righteous blood” as the persecution of Pharisees by the Hasmoneans and Sadducees, although few accept this suggestion today.

Józef Milik, who first published the Aramaic fragments found at Qumran, argued for an “Enoch Pentateuch” which did not include the Similitudes, but instead had a “Book of Giants.” The astronomical section was also longer in this hypothetical document. It was not until after C.E. 400 that the book came into the present form (Milik, Enoch, 96-98). As Isaac comments in his introduction, this theory lacks “any solid evidence and has been subjected to serious criticism” (“1 Enoch” in OTP 1:7).

In 1977 and 1978 the SNTS Pseudepigrapha Seminar discussed the Similitudes and came to the consensus that the unit was a Jewish work dated to the first century C.E. Collins points out an additional two sections in Similitudes which appear to refer to historical events (Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 178).1 Enoch 56:5-7 refers to the Parthians, possibly just after the Parthian invasion of Palestine in 40 B.C.E. 1 Enoch 67:5-13 mentions hot springs, which Collins argues is an allusion to Herod’s attempt to heal himself at the hot springs of Callirhoe (Antiq. 17.6.5, 171-173; War 1.22.5, 657-658). Collins concludes by speculating a date for Similitudes in the mid-first century C.E., before the beginning of the war in C.E. 66. Collins also states the Similitudes was written in Aramaic (Apocalyptic Imagination, 178). This date is of critical importance to New Testament studies since the Similitudes contain the “son of man” sayings.

The Enoch collection is therefore the earliest witness to Jewish apocalyptic literature.

Jewish or Christian Pseudepigrapha?

In the previous post I made a few comments on common problems confronting those who study the Pseudepigrapha. A serious problem is that even though a particular book originated among Jewish thinkers of the Second Temple period, most of this literature was preserved by Christians. It is therefore possible Christian scribes made additions or modifications as they copied to make them more appealing to Christians. One of the better examples of this is 4 Ezra, a Jewish apocalypse written at the end of the first century A.D. At some point an introduction and conclusion was added to the book (sometimes called 2 Ezra and 5 Ezra). These additions include Christian elements (the messiah figure places crowns on the heads of the resurrected martyrs is identified as “the Son of God, whom they confessed in the world.” (4 Ezra 2:47).

In a recent essay, Robert Kraft gives us reason to be cautious by asking “can we be sure we are able to separate the Jewish from the Christian?” (Robert A. Kraft, “Setting the Stage and Framing Some Central Questions,” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 32 [2001]:371-395). All this literature comes to us as preserved by Christians, therefore we have to assume it was of interest to Christians and is always subject to interpolation and adaptation.
We are often warned about using the Mishnah to develop a “background” for New Testament studies because we cannot be sure what elements date to the pre-70 A.D. period. Why not heed the same warning for using the Pseudepigrapha? It seems easy enough to remember this warning when reading the Apocalypse of Daniel, a book clearly written in the ninth century about current events of the ninth century, but should a book like 1 Enoch or 2 Baruch be read with as much caution? Scholars such as Kraft would think so.

It is not appropriate however to throw out anything that looks too “Christian” or create a false dichotomy of either Jewish or Christian literature. The earliest of this material comes from a theological environment when the categories were not quite fully developed. 1 Enoch and 2 Baruch have both Jewish and Christian elements which may be so intertwined that we can neither sort them out, nor should we try since the intertwining is a part of the environment in which they were written.

Perhaps it is best to think of these books in terms of a trajectory. We know the Old Testament is the foundation for all of the Jewish literature we will encounter in the Pseudepigrapha and is highly influential in the Christian material as well. From this starting point we can track how ideas moved from the Old Testament base through the early apocalyptic and Pseudepigraphal literature, then into the New Testament and the Christian pseudepigraphal material. Potentially we could continue to track development into the medieval period since there are any number of texts which are extensions on themes we begin reading in the Old Testament but come to us through hundreds of years of recycling and reapplying.

When approaching a text, we need to place the book in a historical context including both date and provenance, but also sources. In dealing with a book in the Ezra tradition, for example, we need to think about how the book used and re-used the early Ezra traditions. It is therefore possible even a late text from the medieval period still has useful materials for reconstructing the context of the New Testament despite being hundreds of years removed from the period. There is also the problem of diminishing returns studying the later texts. Because of the late date of the text, the value of the Apocalypse of Daniel for studying the New Testament is rather limited, for example.

Challenges for the Study of Pseudepigrapha

Since I intended to spend the summer reviewing the apocalyptic literature in the Pseudepigrapha, this would be a good time think about some of the challenges reading this material. I will be using the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited James Charlesworth (originally Doubleday, 1983; not Yale University Press). The OTP abbreviation OTP throughout this series refers to the 1983 print edition of these two volumes. It is important to point out the obvious: there was no collection of “Old Testament Pseudepigrapha” in the ancient world. Although a few were considered sacred by some elements of the early church, these books were never collected as an alternate canon nor were they suppressed by orthodox Christians. There was no grand conspiracy of women-hating priests who systematically suppressed the free-thinking writers of this material. That sort of wild-eyed story telling makes for a good Hollywood movie or a wacky conspiracy theory blog, but it is simply not the case.

There are two problems with using the Pseudepigrapha as a source for studying first century Judaism. The first is the problem of the date of the documents. Some texts come to us in translations dated centuries later than the period under investigation. For example, 2 Enoch (The Slavonic Apocalypse of Enoch) may date to the late first century A.D., but there are no manuscripts which date earlier than the fourteenth century and any “supposed Greek composition need not have been produced before A.D. 1000” (F. I. Anderson, “2 Enoch” in OTP, 1:94 ). Because of this, scholars date the original composition of 2 Enoch from pre-Christian times into the late medieval period. Given this ambiguity, it is probably best not to use 2 Enoch as the centerpiece of a description of first century theology or common second Temple period Jewish theology.

A second problem is that of influence on the theology of “common Judaism” of the first century. We may confidently date a book such as the Psalms of Solomon to “about 50 B.C.” and even posit a Pharisaical context for the book, but how we know with any measure of confidence the book was read in the first century widely enough to change the way people really thought? Or to put it another way, how do we know the book reflects a broad consensus of opinion of first century thinking? The book may have been written and circulated in among a very small community and was virtually unknown to readers outside of that community. Similarly, the book may have been the work of an individual maverick thinker who was out of touch with the rest of Judaism and received virtually no recognition until Christians began to use the text in the second or third centuries.

There are some methods to gauge the date and popularity of a text in the first century. If the text appears among the Dead Sea Scrolls we can at least know the Qumran community valued the text, especially if it appears in multiple copies. For example, Aramaic portions of First Enoch were present at Qumran. These fragments are not precisely the same text as the later Ethiopic version and some are too small to translate. The Dead Sea Scrolls at least confirm the book was known well before the first century and was popular enough to appear in the library of the Qumran community.

A second possible way to measure the potential influence of a text is by way of citation. If other first century works allude to a work there is at least an implication of influence. Using 1 Enoch as an example, we can find echoes of themes in other first century writings, not the least of which is the New Testament. The Epistle of Jude clearly alludes to 1 Enoch 60:8, confirming a date for at least that line to the late first century and a certain popularity in Jewish Christian circles.

The use of 1 Enoch in the book of Revelation is also possible. This evidence is potentially dangerous, since the New Testament reflects Christian popularity, but perhaps not Jewish popularity. In addition, the two sources just mentioned date to the post-70 period. The popularity of 1 Enoch may have increased after the fall of Jerusalem and not accurately reflect the pre-70 worldview.

An additional measure of popularity is the amount of additional material created based on an earlier text. 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra seem to have sparked a whole series of books which are based on the earlier versions (i.e., 2 Enoch, 3 Enoch the various other books of Ezra). That Enoch was being read and re-created to reflect a later historical context is a witness to the influence the book may have had in the first century. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs refers to 1 Enoch several times, indicating the influence of the apocalyptic text on later Jewish writings (T.Rub. 5:6, T.Sim 5:4, T.Levi 14:1, T.Jud 18:1, T. Dan 5:6, T.Naph 4:1, T.Ben 9:1).

It is also possible a source is dated post-70 A.D. but still reflects something of Jewish expectations before the watershed event of the fall of Jerusalem. 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra are examples of books normally dated at the end of the first century because they refer to the fall of Jerusalem as a past event. Can these books be useful for constructing Jewish expectations in the pre-70 period?

Possibly, but the evidence ought to be handled especially carefully. That some sort of messianic hope is reflected in these books is certain, but to what extent that same messianic hope was present in Palestine in the late 20’s is a more difficult problem. It is possible there was a messianic hope in the 20’s but it was entirely reworked after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra may be an example of this reworking. The difficulty, then, is sorting out the early material from the re-working.