Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:18:39.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

St Luke's Gospel and the Last Chapters of I Enoch

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

S. Aalen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

That there is some sort of positive relationship between St Luke's Gospel and the last chapters of I Enoch has been observed before. But nobody seems to have investigated the matter more closely. It must, in my opinion, be very seriously considered whether this relationship is not of a direct literary character. The affinities concern the ‘peculiar material’ of Luke only. They become manifest to their full extent only by using the Greek text of the section of Enoch concerned.1 The Ethiopic text is in my estimation in several points corrupt and in its present state often obscures the original meaning.2

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , October 1966 , pp. 1 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Ed. by Bonner, Campbell, The Last Chapters of Enoch in Greek (Studies and Documents, viii, 1987).Google Scholar

2 This judgement agrees with Bonner's conclusion; see op. cit. pp. 22f. A different view was expressed by Torrey, Charles C., ‘Notes on the Greek Text of Enoch’ (J.A.O.S. lxii, 1942), p. 58Google Scholar, in so far as he considers the Greek text used by the Ethiopic translator to be better than that of Bonner's fragment. This view is shared by Zuntz, G., ‘Enoch on the Last Judgement (ch. cii. 1–3)’ (J.T.S. xlv, 1944), pp. 162, 169.Google Scholar The Danish translation of I Enoch by Hammershaimb, E., Förste Enoksbog (De gammeltestamentlige Pseudepigrafer i oversættelse med indledning og noter, 2. hæfte, 1956)Google Scholar, usually gives preference to the Ethiopic version. Of course, there are several passages where this version offers a better reading than the extant Greek text; cf. Bonner, pp. 22f. But in my opinion this cannot change the general impression of the superiority of the Greek version, particularly as far as the meaning of the text is concerned. Ullendorff, E. argues that the Ethiop. Enoch has proceeded from a translation made directly from Aramaic; see An Aramaic ‘Vorlage’ of the Ethiopic text of Enoch? (Atti del convegno internazionale di studi etiopici, Roma 2–4 aprile 1959 = Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, ccclvi, 1960, pp. 259 ff).Google Scholar According to Ullendorff, a Greek text has only secondarily influenced the translation in some passages. He restricts himself, however, to the part of Enoch covered by the Greek Akhmim fragment (ch. 1–32. 6) and thus disregards the last chapters of the book, which alone concern us here.

3 Bonner's translation.

4 Beobachtungen zu ntl. Stellen an Hand des neugefund. griech. Henoch-Textes (Z.N.W. xxxviii, 1937), p. 117.Google Scholar

1 The reconstruction έαυτοúς is maintained, against Jeremias, also by Zuntz, G., ‘Notes on the Greek Enoch’ (J.B.L. lxi, 1942), p. 202.Google Scholar Zuntz refers to Jer. iii. II: = LXX ε̍δıκαíωσεντὴν ψυ✗ὴν αύ̇του̃ where a reflex. sense is intended; cf. the same Hebrew phrase in Job. xxxii. 2, where the LXX renders ὰπὲφηνεν ὲαυτòν δíκαıον.—Zuntz interprets, against Bonner, the persons ‘justifying themselves’ of the righteous, who are characterized by the ungodly as ‘those who affect righteousness’. Telling against this interpretation is that it unnecessarily weakens the analogy with Luke xvi. 15; X. 29. This question is, however, immaterial. Cf. below, p. 5, n. 2.

2 The missing words are added from Eth.; the Greek is here at the bottom of a page, where words and lines are lost.

3 See Liddell-Scott , Lexicon, s.v.,δıκíωμα, I d. I am not able to follow Jeremias when, without discussion, he states that δıκíωμα here means ‘Rechtstat’, that is, ‘act of right, righteous deed’, p. 121.

1 With the word καταψεύ̇́δομαı in Wisd. i. ii cf. Enoch 104. 9. The moralistic interpretation of Wisd. I. 10–11 underlying the translation found in The Apocrypha of the O.T., Rev. Stand. Version (The Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, 1965) is hardly convincing. The verb καταψεύ́δομαı is found in the LXX only in Wisd. i. 11, and it is reasonable to interpret it in the light of Enoch 104. 9.Google Scholar

2 Op.cit. p. 118.

3 So the text is to be read, instead of απολεıαοΘε; cf. Bonner.

4 Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the O.T.

5 See Bauer, W., Lexicon, s.v. ἁπó, VI.Google Scholar

6 Jastrow, M., Dictionary, i, 425Google Scholar, and Levy, J., Chald. Wörterb. über die Targ. p. 238Google Scholar, write Dalman, G., Aram.-neuhebr. Handwörterb. p. 137, has .Google Scholar

7 The Qumran-fragments of I Enoch are apparently all in Aram.; seeGoogle ScholarMilik, J. T., Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of, Judaea (1959), p. 33.Google Scholar According to Milik one MS from Cave IV covers the beginning of the section I Enoch 91–108. That seems to imply that the section ch. 91 ff. is only poorly represented in Qumran. There is one fragment containing the end of ch. 106f.; see Johannes Hempel, Die Texte von Qumran in der heutigen Forschung (Nachrichten der Akad. der Wiss. in Göttingen, I. Philolog.-histor. Kl., 1961), pp. 301 f. This section, however, though included in the Greek fragment, is independent of the parainetic section ch. 91 ff.—For the Semitic background of ὲπì μıα̃ς and ὰπò μıα̃ς, see also Black, M., An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts(2 1954), pp. 82 f.Google Scholar

8 So for instance II Sam. 23. 8; I Chron. II, II; see Chr. Fr. Dillmann, A., Lex. Aethiop. p. 206.Google Scholar

1 See, however, I Cor. 11. 30.

2 The Ethiopic has misunderstood the word ἁδıκíα and translates it ‘their sins’. This leads to the strange idea of a ‘downfall, or ruin, of their sins’. The Ethiopic word mudāq means ‘ruin’ and must reasonably refer to the failing of mammon (in spite of the explanation given by Hammershaimb, who thinks the idea is that of a building erected by means of sins; cf.94.6; 99.13). We have here an example of the superiority of the Greek text.

1 Cf. also Enoch 100. 7: ἑν πυρí, and in verse 9 the verb φλἑγομαı

2 The Ethiopic translator has understood the verse as referring to the righteous on, as they are looked upon by the ungodly. Zuntz (op. cit. p. 202) thinks that this is meant in the Greek text as well (cf. above, p. 2, n.1). But the author would probably not have used the word όδύνη of the lot of the righteous in Hades (although he does by no means deny that they too are in Hades after death, see verse 5). The Greek text shows that verse to deals already with the ungodly (cf. above, p. t); that is apparent also from the fact that the Greek reads δıκαıοσύνη in that verse, instead of Ethiopic ‘unrighteousness’, or ‘violence'. The Greek here offers a perfectly understandable text, whereas the Ethiopic is unclear.

1 The Greek fragment begins with 97. 6.

2 An exact parallel to the phrase of Enoch 94. 8 is found in the secondary reading of Mark x. 24.

3 Here there is no Greek text.

1 Some MSS have ‘ways’, others ‘way’. This is before the Greek text begins.

1 See, for instance, Charles, R. H., Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, note on Enoch 99. IIGoogle Scholar; Volz, Paul, Die Eschatologie der jüd Gemeinde (1934), p. 20Google Scholar; Russell, D. S., The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (1964), pp. 363f.Google Scholar

2 There is in the N.T. in fact nothing to indicate that the later common confusion of Hell and Hades had already taken place in primitive Christianity. See Jeremias, J., art. ᾂδης, T.W.B. i, 148Google Scholar, who distinguishes sharply between Hades and Gehenna.

3 Op. cit. pp. 18 ff.

4 I agree with this interpretation. True, in 99. II Sheol (not ‘Hölle’, as Beer in Kautzsch, Apokryphen u.Pseudepigraphen, translates) is conceived as the final place of sinners, but this verse is missing in the Greek, and must be regarded as secondary.

1 Translated from the German, p. 20.

2 Russell, Ibid., still bases his interpretation on the Ethiop. version and therefore comes to a similar view to Volz's. Glasson, T. Francis, Greek Influence in Jewish Eschatology (1961), p. 39, quotes the passage from Bonner's text, without, however, entering into details.Google Scholar

3 Ethiopic ‘long’.

4 There is no reason to assume a corruption of the Ethiopic text in the first part of this verse, as Volz is compelled to do, because he finds its description of the lot of the righteous unacceptable. Perhaps his judgement is influenced by Beer's translation, which includes some words which are in fact strange. The words belong, however, to an inferior Ethiopic text and are dropped by later translators; they are also missing in the Greek. The end of the verse is, however, corrupt in Ethiopic, but here also the text is perfectly understandable in the Greek version. The Ethiopic translator has probably bridled at the idea that the righteous have to go down to Hades. This idea was in his time unusual in the Church.

1 This was the view held in the Church till about A.D. 200; see for instance Iren., Haer. v,31. 2; Tert., C. Marc. iv, 34.Google Scholar

2 Also for IV Macc. it is possible to assume the notion of an intermediate state, in any case for the wicked; see the word ταμıεύ̀εταı in 12. 12. On the other hand, this Hellenistic-influenced text seems to share the view that the righteous reach full blessedness at once after death.—Another text using a similar phrase is perhaps Sir. 48. 11, where some authorities read: ‘Blessed are those who saw you (Elijah) (or, shall see you), and those who have died in love; for we also shall live by life (καì γάρ ήμεı̇ς зωη̃ зησόμεΘα). This is the text given preference by A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta. Be it the original one or not (the Hebr. is here corrupt), it testifies to a similar view to that of the texts referred to above.

3 After the above analysis it is unnecessary to assume a new section beginning with ch. 102. 4.

4 The text has ύμα̃ς ‘you’. The emendation was suggested by Bonner, and accepted by Zuntz (J.B.L. 1942, p. 201).Google Scholar

5 Usually one expects acc. c. part. (not inf.) after the verb όράω. But acc. c. inf. seems to be sufficiently instanced. Besides Thucyd. VIII, 60.3 (Liddell-Scott, s.v. όράω, II. I d) Zuntz, (J.B.L. 1942, p. 201Google Scholar, note 34) mentions Jos. B.J. III, 7.15 (= §193); Dion. Hal., Ant. xi, 16.5 (Kühner-Gerth, §484, 2); Dan. 2.45 LXX; II Macc. 4. 6.

1 See Bonner, p. 66, note.

2 True, we have to allow for the possibility that the Ethiopic word for ‘life’ is meant to render a Greek σωτηρíα in the meaning ‘salvation’; hĕywat can often take on this meaning. This observation does not, however, necessarily make our argument above invalid.

1 So Strack-Billerbeck, iv, 1026; Volz, op. cit. pp. 259f.; both with reference to IV Ezra. That writing is, however, not so isolated as these scholars think.Google Scholar