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

Introduction xix
fiviTTrjpLov for fivpioiv in IS'^*; ms eiprjvalai for ets ireip^fay in 19^;
Aau for x^y in 20^ ; koLXoi for KaXot in 22'''' ^ Corruptions of
G8 will be found in the following passages : 1^' ^> ^' ^' ^ 5^ 6* 9*'
IQi' 131 146,8,13,15,18,19 3^58,9 iQ^
24= 26^ 31=.
3^73,7 18*, 7, 11 21"22=>"''' 23'''
(c) From the above facts it follows that G9 and E spring from
a commoti ancedor tvhich we may des'ujnate x, and thai this x and
(?* proceed ultimatelyfrom the same original, the first Greek transla-
tion of the Booh of Enoch?- Hence the genealogy of the above
docurrients might be represented as follows :
Original Greek Translation from the Semitic
Gt' E
§ 6. The Latik Version and Quotations.
G=
The Latin Fragment, which constitutes a very imperfect
reproduction of 106^^^*, was discovered in 1893 in the British
Museum by Dr. James, the present Provost of King's College,
Cambridge, and most kindly placed at my service for publication
in my edition of 1 Enoch in 1893. In the same year he issued
it in the Cambridge Texts and Studies IT, No. 3, Apocrypha
Anecdola, pp. 146-150.
The test has suffered from additions, omissions, and corruptions,
and is very seldom a literal rendering of the original for many
words together. Notwithstanding, it makes some contribution
to the formation of a better text of 106.
This MS. further may point to a Latin translation, or at
least to a partially completed Latin translation of Enoch; for
(1) occurring in the midst of original Latin treatises it appears
to have been found in Latin by the collector or scribe of these
^ This conclusion hardly seems adequate to explain all the phenomena mentioned
on pp. xvii-xix.
These postulate not only the occurrence of duplicate rendering.s
in the Greek translation, but most probably also the occurrence of variants in the
Hebrew original.
b2