the-book-of-enoch-r-h-charles - Fallen Angels

Introduction xv
These studies are of course good, and several of this seholar^s
suggestions are excellent. In his comparison of the Ethiopic
and Greek Versions he had the benefit of having collations of
qtu before him. These gave him no inconsiderable advantage
in dealing with the problems before him, though his article takes
cognizance of only a limited number of readings where these
MSS. furnish a superior text.
Lodsj Le Livre d'Henoch, Fragments grecs decouverts a AMmim,
puhVies avec les variantes du texte 6tJuopien, tmduits et annates.
Paris, 1892. Lods' contribution is learnedj scholarly, and
judicious, but as he had the misfortune to base his work on
the corrupt text published by Dillmann in 1851, a large portion
of his conclusions was vitiated from the outset.
Charles, The Book of Enoch, pp. 318-370. Oxford, 1893.
In this work I attempted an exhaustive comparison of the Greek
and Ethiopic texts, and carried the criticism of the materials
several stages beyond previous scholars in this department.
Swete, The Old Testament in Greek, vol. HI.
Eadermacher, Das Buch Henoch, herausgegeben . . . von
J. Flemmitig und L. Baderm.acher, pp. 18-60, 113-114. Leipzig,
1901. This text, on the whole, is well edited and forms an
advance on preceding editions. But, unless I am greatly mis-
taken. Dr. Radermacher is not a Semitic scholar. This deficiency
in his equipment proved a sore handicap in the task he undertook.
How is a purely classical scholar to edit a Greek text which is
Greek in vocabulary, but largely Semitic in idiom ? To show
that our text is of this character it will be sufficient to adduce
the following passages : 22^ ov ri Trrjyri tov v&aros fv avTu
(13 .... ~iB'n) = ' in which there is the spring of water '.
17^ fv