The book of Enoch : translated from Professor Dillmann's Ethiopic ...

Appendix C. 319
Before I enter on the criticism of the relative merits of
the Eth. and Gk. MSS. I wish to call attention to further
emendations of the text which are not followed in the Trans-
lation, but will be, should the present work reach a second
edition. These new renderings will be found in the following
Crit. Notes. They are preceded by the readings they are
intended to displace and are always printed in italics.
In my Introduction (pp. 3-5) I have dealt briefly with the
question of the Ethiopic text and the corrupt type of MSS. on
which Professor Dillmann's text is based. I called attention
to this fact in the Academy of Nov. 26, 1892, and as that
scholar has since amply admitted this fact (Sitzungsberichte d.
Kgl. Preuss. Ahad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin, 1892, li-liii. pp. 1039-
1054, 1 079- 1 09 2) it is not necessary to pursue this question
at any length. In these articles, Din. enters on the criticism
and emendation of the Eth. and Gk. texts, and bases many of
his new readings on two new MSS. These MSS., however,
appear to fail him in some crucial instances where G M or G
are more than satisfactory. I have read these articles with
great interest and found that our emendations in the main
agree : in a few instances I have adopted his suggestions with
due acknowledgements. In many points, however, I have felt
obliged to differ, and in many others, on which he has not
touched at all, the right solution, I think, is offered in the
following pages.
In the revision of this Appendix, I have also had before
me the excellent work of M. Lods. This is a most scholarly
and suggestive book, but M. Lods has throughout had the
great disadvantage of basing his criticism on a corrupt Eth.
text, i.e. Dln/s, and thus more than one-third of his book is
already antiquated. Besides, the undeniably inferior character
of this Eth. text as against the purer Giz. Gk. text has
naturally blinded M. Lods to undoubted excellencies of this
corrupt text, and to readings where it is clearly more ancient
and correct than the Giz. Gk.
In the Academy of Nov. 26 last year, just after the publication