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

Inf)V(hiction, Ivii
§ 15. OuiaiNAL Language of Chaptees VI-XXXVI—
AiiAMAir; OF I-V, XXXVII-CIV— Hebuew.
That 1 Enoch was originally written in a Semitic language is
now universally admitted. But what that language is is still,
as regards portions of the book, a question of dispute. In the
past, Murray, Jellinek, Hilgenfeld, Halevy, Goldschmidt, Charles
(formerly), Littmann, and Martin have advocated a Hebrew
original, while at various times an Aramaic original has been
maintained by De Saey, Levi, Eerdmans, Schmidt, Lietzmann,
Wellhausen, and Praetorius. Ewald, Dillraann, Lods, Elemming
could not come to a decision between Hebrew and Aramaic. But
of the above scholars only three have really grappled with the
subject, i. e. Halevy, Charles, and Schmidt, and three different
theses are advanced by them. While Halevy maintains a Hebrew
original, and Schmidt an Aramaic, the present writer, as a result
of his studies in editing the Ethiopic text and the translation and
commentary based upon it, is convinced that neither view can be
established, but that each appears to be true in part.i In other
words, like the Book of Daniel, part of 1 Enoch was written
originally in Aramaic and part in Hebrew. The proofs of this
thesis amount in certain Sections almost to demonstration : in
the case of others only to a high probability. The results of the
present study of this problem tend to show that chapters 6-36
were originally written in Aramaic, and 37-104, and probably
1—5, in Hebrew.
Chapters 1-5. Probably from a Hebretv oric/hial. These chapters,
as we have shown elsewhere, do not come from the same author or
period as 6-36.
P. In E the text = i^apat Travras tovs Trovrjpov'i whereas Gs has
i^apai iravTas tovi i)(6pov's. The former, as the context shows, as well
as Pss. Sol. 4'' (see note on p. 4 of the Commentary), is original, the
latter not. Now the former — Dijnn"^3, the latter = nnsn-ija, a
corruption of the former. The same corruption is found in the
LXX of Prov. 20^^. Since E and Gs are in the main derived from
the same Greek translation, this fact, unless due to a sheer blunder
^ Thia view was first advanced in my edition of 1;he Ethiopic text, pp. xxvii-xxxiii.