1Enoch 106:1
A.Lukaszewski
all1 at st-and.ac.uk
Tue Jun 18 05:21:59 EDT 2002
Vincent is correct that there are Aramaic fragments of 1Enoch which were
found at Qumran. The following preserve parts of 1Enoch (categorized by
document number, document name, and references to 1Enoch):
4Q201 4QEn^a^ ar (1.1-6, 2.1-5.6, 6.4-8.1, 8.3-9.3, 10.3-4, 10.21-11.1)
4Q202 4QEn^b^ ar (5.9-6.4, 6.7-8.1, 8.2-9.4, 1-.8-12, 14.4-6)
4Q204 4QEn^c^ ar (1.9-5.1, 6.7, 10.13-19, 12.3, 13.6-14.16, 18.8-12,
30.1-32.1, 35 (poss.), 36.1-4, 89.31-36, 104.13-106.2, 106.13-107.2)
4Q205 4QEn^d^ ar (22.13-24.1, 25.7-27.1, 89.11-14, 89.29-31, 89.43-44)
4Q206 4QEn^e^ ar (22.3-7, 28.3-29.2, 31.2-32.3, 32.3-6, 33.3-34.1,
88.3-89.6, 89.7-16, 89.27-30)
4Q207 4QEn^f^ ar (86.1-3)
4Q212 4QEn^g^ ar (91.18-92.2, 92.5-93.4, 93.9-10, 91.11-17, 93.11-94.2)
Unfortunately, the Aramaic texts from Qumran which do shed light on this
passage are highly fragmented. 4Q204 5 i.26 has been restored to read
"[After a time, I, Enoch, took a woman for Methuselah, my son and she
bore him a son to whom I gave] the name Lame[ch]" (per Garcia Martinez'
_Deads Sea Scrolls Study Edition_, vol.1, p.421). It should be stressed
here that all we have to build on, according to _DSSSE_, is the form for
"his name" and the first two consonants of the name Lamech. Hence,
discerning any light from this text becomes very tricky.
On a gee-I-wish-we-had-that-part-of-the-text note, 1QapGen 2 tells of
Lamech's angst over the conception of Noah by his wife Batenosh.
However, it has been shown that the portions of 1QapGen which are extant
seem to have come in the latter half of the original scroll (Cf. *
Morgenstern, M. "A New Clue to the Original Length of the Genesis
Apocryphon." Journal of Jewish Studies 47.2 [1996]). Consequently, if
we had the original scroll, we would have another view on this moment in
the myth.
Yours,
Al Lukaszewski
University of St. Andrews (Scotland)
Vincent M. Setterholm wrote:
Maybe I am wrong and will have to insert foot in mouth, but I think it is
called "Ethiopian Enoch" not because it was originally Ethiopian but just
because the only COMPLETE copy we have is Ethiopic. The greek is a
translation from Aramaic, I believe (seems to me there are Qumran fragments
of 1 Enoch in Aramaic).
But I don't know any aramaic to attempt to provide light on the passage from
that angle.
Vincent Setterholm
-----Original Message-----
From: c stirling bartholomew [mailto:cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 5:01 PM
To: Biblical Greek
Subject: [b-greek] 1Enoch 106:1
1Enoch 106:1
META DE CRONON ELABON MAQOUSALEK TWi hUIWi MOU GUNAIKA
KAI ETEKEN hUION KAI EKALESEN TO hONOMA AUTOU LAMEC:
Don't read Ethiopic so I am curious about the idiom:
ELABON MAQOUSALEK TWi hUIWi MOU GUNAIKA
I assume the agent here is Enoch and the action is performed on behalf of
MAQOUSALEK TWi hUIWi MOU.
One of you Semitic specialists have any light to shed on the cultural
background?
thanks and greetings,
Clay
--
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [Vincents at minn.net]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [all1 at st-and.ac.uk]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list