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

324
The Book of Enoch.
5, 6, 8 ; vi. 8 ; viii. 3 \ ix. 4, 6 ; x. 7, 9 (ixaCqpeovs a much less
correct transliteration than that given by Eth.), 10, 11, 14, 19,
20; xi. I ; xii. », 6 ; xiii. 1, 10 ; xiv. 2, 6, 8, 13, 15, 18, 19, 23 ;
xv. 8, 9, 2 ; xvi. 3 ; xvii. 3, 6, 7 ; xviii. 3, 4, 5, 1 1 ; xx. 4, 5 (?)
xxi. 3, 7 (?); xxii. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 14; xxiii. 2 ; xxiv. 3, 4(?);
xxv. 3, 5; xxvi. 2 ;
xxvii. 3; xxviii. 2, 3; xxxi. 2, 3; xxxii. 2, 3.
There is another interesting class of corruptions character-
istic of the Giz. Gk. from which the Eth. is comparatively-
free : i. e. transpositions of the text. These are found in i. 2
vi. 8; x. 19; xii. 4; xiii. 1, 10; xiv. 15; xv. 12 ; xxv. 3, 5;
xxxii. 2. In the Eth. in ix. 8 ; xvii. 4 ; xix. 1 ; xxi. 9
xxviii. 3 ;
xxxi. 2.
I have remarked above that the corruptions in the Giz.
Gk. are very deep-seated. In fact, without the help of the
Eth. it would be impossible to retrieve the original text in
such passages as x. 19; xiv. 15; xvii. 3; xxviii. 2, 3 and
others. The Eth., on the other hand, is by no means in such
an evil strait. Hence the conclusion to which all the pre-
ceding facts point is that the Eth. preserves a more ancient and
trustworthy form of
text than the Giz. Gk. : that it has fewer
additions, fewer omissions, and fewer and less serious corruptions
than that text.
The results at which we have thus arrived are in perfect
harmony with the external history of the Giz. Gk. text and
the Eth. version. The former cannot be earlier than the
eighth century, and may be as late as the twelfth: It is
possible, therefore, that it is a descendant of the second
or third degree from x. This of itself would account for
some of the corruptions; but the real explanation of its
vicious orthography and syntax and of its very numerous
and serious corruptions is that the Book of Enoch was from
the fifth century onward practically a proscribed book and
under the ban of the Greek and Latin Churches. Accord-
ingly, it was copied without care, and the way was opened
for every kind of depravation of the text. The Eth. version
(circ. 500 A. d.), on the other hand, was, so far as we know,