Introduction (72:1–2)

From: 1 Enoch 2

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

VanderKamAA.indd 408 8/9/2011 7:23:29 PM 409 1 Albani, Astronomie und Schöpfungsglaube, 51. The Aramaic word ‫תרע‬ (“gate”) occurs fourteen times in the cave 4 fragments of the Astronomical Book, almost always with an ordinal (first–third, fifth– sixth are attested). Introduction The Book of the Luminaries begins with a chapter devoted almost entirely to the sun and its annual journey. There is nothing comparable preserved in the Aramaic fragments of Enoch from Qumran cave 4, but, as Albani has argued, the Astronomical Book would likely have contained such a section because the synchronistic system presupposes the arrangement of the sun’s course through the gates.1 n  1  The book: The composition beginning at this point is labeled a book (mas\h\af). The other major sections of 1 Enoch mark the beginning of a composition with a title or other kind of heading, and some divisions within booklets are also marked in this way, but only 108:1 also calls the following composition a “book” (note the “books” of 93:1). 1:1 The words of the blessing 37:1 [The second vision that he saw,] the vision of wisdom 83:1 And now, my son Methuselah, I will show you all the visions that I saw 91:1 And now, my son Methuselah, call to me all your brothers . . . that I may show to you everything that will happen to you forever 72 1 The book about the motion of the heavenly luminaries alla as they are in their kinds, theirb jurisdiction, their time, their name,c their origins, and their months which Uriel, the holy angel who was with me (and) who is their leader, showed me. The entire book about them, as it is, he showed me and how every year of the world will be forever, untild a new creatione lasting forever is made. The textual situation for 1 Enoch 72–82 differs in some ways from the other parts of the book. There is no extant Greek copy, not even a fragmentary one, unless Milik is correct about the small pieces he identified (see the Introduction to 1 Enoch 72–82); and for only a relatively small amount of the text is there any Aramaic evidence. As a result, the only basis for establishing the text in the vast majority of passages is the information from the Ethiopic copies.   Nickelsburg (1 Enoch 1, 19) has stated three textcritical principles regarding the Ethiopic manuscripts. 1.  Readings from the α group are to be preferred over those of the β group. 2.  Among the α mss., one should give due weight to the readings of the older mss. (T9 , 2080, g) and particularly note the coinciding testimony of several of them. 3. There are exceptions to these two principles: a.  u is notorious for omissions and should never be trusted in a short reading. b.  Although Nickelsburg says this in connection with the Epistle of Enoch, one should bear it in mind for the Book of the Luminaries as well: the coincidence of t, β should be taken seriously.   It should be added that 2080, a representative of the α group, often agrees with the β mss. The practice here has been to pay special attention to four mss.: g, 2080, T9 , and p. These copies regularly offer the oldest, best, and/or most representative readings. As appropriate, readings in other copies are also documented in the notes.   In the textual notes the many variant spellings of words are almost always ignored. Ethiopic manuscripts are notorious for their flexibility in spelling. As these almost never affect the meaning of the text, they have been omitted from consideration in the notes. Examples of other minor differences not recorded here are whether a manuscript uses numerals or writes numbers out and obvious mistakes. For a list of abbreviations for the copies, see p. 3. 72:1 a all] T9 prefixes lala, reinforcing the idea of “every one.” b their (jurisdiction)] pr. and T9 . c their name (lit. its name)] p actually reads “their name.” d until] pr. and 2080. e a new creation] g T9 place in the acc. case, as if the verb were active. VanderKamAA.indd 409 8/9/2011 7:23:29 PM 410 2 See VanderKam, “Enoch Traditions,” 311–15; Knibb, “Which Parts?” 255–58, 60; van Ruiten, “Literary Dependency,” 90–93; van Ruiten doubts that the passage in Jubilees permits one to say the writer was dependent on the text of 1 Enoch. It...