Difference between revisions of "Category:2 Enoch (text)"

From 4 Enoch: : The Online Encyclopedia of Second Temple Judaism, and Christian and Islamic Origins
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(11 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
*This page is authored and edited by [[Andrei A. Orlov]], Marquette University, United States of America
*[[:Category:Texts|BACK to the TEXTS--INDEX]]
*[[:Category:Enochic Studies|BACK to the ENOCHIC STUDIES--INDEX]]




'''2 Enoch''' is a Jewish writing, generally included in collections of [[Old Testament Pseudepigrapha]].
'''2 Enoch''' is a Jewish writing, generally included in collections of [[Old Testament Pseudepigrapha]].
< [[Enochic Studies]] -- [[1 Enoch]] -- [[2 Enoch]] -- [[3 Enoch]] >
*This page is authored and edited by [[Andrei A. Orlov]], Marquette University, United States of America


==Overview==
==Overview==
2 Enoch is a Jewish pseudepigraphon preserved in Slavonic and Coptic translations. The central theme of the text is the celestial ascent of the seventh antediluvian patriarch Enoch through the heavens, his luminous metamorphosis near the Throne of Glory, and his initiation into the heavenly mysteries. The book, which combines the features of an apocalypse and a testament, can be divided into three parts. The first part (chapters 1–38) describes Enoch’s heavenly journey that culminates in his encounter with the Deity revealing to the seer the secrets of creation. After the encounter Enoch returns to earth to instruct his children in the celestial knowledge received from God and the angels. The second part (chapters 39–67) begins with Enoch’s testamentary admonitions to his sons during his short visit to earth and ends with the second ascension of the patriarch. The third part of the book (chapters 68–73) describes the priestly functions of Enoch’s family and the miraculous birth of Melchisedek, and ends with the Flood.  
2 Enoch is a Jewish pseudepigraphon preserved in Slavonic and Coptic translations. The central theme of the text is the celestial ascent of the seventh antediluvian patriarch Enoch through the heavens, his luminous metamorphosis near the Throne of Glory, and his initiation into the heavenly mysteries. The book, which combines the features of an apocalypse and a testament, can be divided into three parts. The first part (chapters 1–38) describes Enoch’s heavenly journey that culminates in his encounter with the Deity revealing to the seer the secrets of creation. After the encounter Enoch returns to earth to instruct his children in the celestial knowledge received from God and the angels. The second part (chapters 39–67) begins with Enoch’s testamentary admonitions to his sons during his short visit to earth and ends with the second ascension of the patriarch. The third part of the book (chapters 68–73) describes the priestly functions of Enoch’s family and the miraculous birth of Melchisedek, and ends with the Flood.  


==Slavonic Manuscripts and Recensions==
==Slavonic Manuscripts and Recensions==
Besides recently discovered Coptic fragments, the main bulk of 2 Enoch has been preserved in more than twenty Slavonic manuscripts and fragments dated from the 14th to 18th centuries C.E. These Slavonic materials did not circulate independently but were included in collections that often rearranged, abbreviated, or expanded them.  Typically, Jewish pseudepigraphical texts in the Slavic milieus were transmitted as part of larger historiographical, moral, and liturgical codexes and compendiums where ideologically marginal and mainstream materials were mixed with each other. Only a small number of the manuscripts, namely A (0:1–72:10), U (0:1–72:10), B (0:1–72:10), and R (0:1–73:9), give a full account of the story leading up to the Flood. Manuscript J (0:1–71:4) goes to chapter 71. Manuscripts P (0:1–68:7), N (0:1–67:3), V (1:1–67:3), and B2 (1:1–67:3) contain only the first two parts of the book and end with Enoch’s second ascension. Manuscript L (0:1–33:8) goes to chapter 33. The rest of the manuscripts give only fragments of the different parts of the book: P2 (28:1–32:2), Tr (67:1; 70–72), Syn (71;72), Rum (71:1–73:1), G (65:1–4; 65:6–8), Chr (fragments from 11–58), Chr2 (11:1–15:3), K (71:1–72:10), I (70:22–72:9). A large group of the manuscripts (MPr, TSS 253, TSS 489, TSS 682) are copies of the compilation of rearranged materials from chs. 40–65 of 2 Enoch from a judicial codex the Just Balance (“Merilo Pravednoe”). Scholarly consensus holds that 2 Enoch exists in longer and shorter recensions, although some scholars proposed the existence of three or even four recensions.  [F. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch”, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; ed. J. H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1985 [1983]) 1.93]. The longer and shorter recensions of 2 Enoch differ not only in length but also in the character of the text, and both of them preserve original material. MSS R, J, and P are the manuscripts of the longer recension. MSS U, A, B, V, N, B2, and L represent the manuscripts of the shorter recension. P2, Tr, Syn, Rum, MPr, TSS 253, TSS 489, TSS 682, G, Chr, Chr2, I, and K represent fragments of the longer or shorter recensions. Although several stemmas of the relationships between the manuscripts were offered, they can be considered only as provisional until the critical editions of the major manuscripts become available. [Andersen, “2 Enoch,” 1.93].
Besides recently discovered Coptic fragments, the main bulk of 2 Enoch has been preserved in more than twenty Slavonic manuscripts and fragments dated from the 14th to 18th centuries C.E. These Slavonic materials did not circulate independently but were included in collections that often rearranged, abbreviated, or expanded them.  Typically, Jewish pseudepigraphical texts in the Slavic milieus were transmitted as part of larger historiographical, moral, and liturgical codexes and compendiums where ideologically marginal and mainstream materials were mixed with each other. Only a small number of the manuscripts, namely A (0:1–72:10), U (0:1–72:10), B (0:1–72:10), and R (0:1–73:9), give a full account of the story leading up to the Flood. Manuscript J (0:1–71:4) goes to chapter 71. Manuscripts P (0:1–68:7), N (0:1–67:3), V (1:1–67:3), and B2 (1:1–67:3) contain only the first two parts of the book and end with Enoch’s second ascension. Manuscript L (0:1–33:8) goes to chapter 33. The rest of the manuscripts give only fragments of the different parts of the book: P2 (28:1–32:2), Tr (67:1; 70–72), Syn (71;72), Rum (71:1–73:1), G (65:1–4; 65:6–8), Chr (fragments from 11–58), Chr2 (11:1–15:3), K (71:1–72:10), I (70:22–72:9). A large group of the manuscripts (MPr, TSS 253, TSS 489, TSS 682) are copies of the compilation of rearranged materials from chs. 40–65 of 2 Enoch from a judicial codex the Just Balance (“Merilo Pravednoe”). Scholarly consensus holds that 2 Enoch exists in longer and shorter recensions, although some scholars proposed the existence of three or even four recensions.  [F. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch”, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; ed. J. H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1985 [1983]) 1.93]. The longer and shorter recensions of 2 Enoch differ not only in length but also in the character of the text, and both of them preserve original material. MSS R, J, and P are the manuscripts of the longer recension. MSS U, A, B, V, N, B2, and L represent the manuscripts of the shorter recension. P2, Tr, Syn, Rum, MPr, TSS 253, TSS 489, TSS 682, G, Chr, Chr2, I, and K represent fragments of the longer or shorter recensions. Although several stemmas of the relationships between the manuscripts were offered, they can be considered only as provisional until the critical editions of the major manuscripts become available. [Andersen, “2 Enoch,” 1.93].


==Original Language==
==Original Language==
Most scholars believe that the Slavonic and Coptic versions were translated from Greek, since the text attests to some traditions that make sense only in the Greek language, for example a tradition found in 2 Enoch 30 that derives Adam’s name from the Greek designations of the four corners of the earth.  The Semitisms, such as the words Ophanim, Raqia Arabot, and others found in various parts of the text, point to the possibility of the Semitic Vorlage behind the Greek version. Nevertheless, some scholars warn that the Semitisms might be “due to the cultivation of a biblical style in the Greek original.” [Andersen, “2 Enoch,” 1.94]. The hypothesis about the possibility of direct translation from Hebrew into Slavonic was also proposed. [N. Meshcherskij, “К вопросу об источниках славянской Книги Еноха,” Краткие Сообщения Института Народов Азии 86 (1965) 72–78]. Yet this suggestion met strong criticism from experts who “find it thoroughly unlikely that translations from Hebrew into any sort of written Slavic were made in any region of Slavdom before the middle of the fifteenth century.” [H.G. Lunt and M. Taube, “Early East Slavic Translations from Hebrew?” Russian Linguistics 12 (1988) 147–187, at 160].
Most scholars believe that the Slavonic and Coptic versions were translated from Greek, since the text attests to some traditions that make sense only in the Greek language, for example a tradition found in 2 Enoch 30 that derives Adam’s name from the Greek designations of the four corners of the earth.  The Semitisms, such as the words Ophanim, Raqia Arabot, and others found in various parts of the text, point to the possibility of the Semitic Vorlage behind the Greek version. Nevertheless, some scholars warn that the Semitisms might be “due to the cultivation of a biblical style in the Greek original.” [Andersen, “2 Enoch,” 1.94]. The hypothesis about the possibility of direct translation from Hebrew into Slavonic was also proposed. [N. Meshcherskij, “К вопросу об источниках славянской Книги Еноха,” Краткие Сообщения Института Народов Азии 86 (1965) 72–78]. Yet this suggestion met strong criticism from experts who “find it thoroughly unlikely that translations from Hebrew into any sort of written Slavic were made in any region of Slavdom before the middle of the fifteenth century.” [H.G. Lunt and M. Taube, “Early East Slavic Translations from Hebrew?” Russian Linguistics 12 (1988) 147–187, at 160].


==Date==


==Date==
The date of the text can be deduced solely on the basis of the internal evidence since the book has survived only in the medieval manuscripts. It is noteworthy that the overwhelming majority of the crucial arguments for the early dating of the text have been linked to the themes of the Jerusalem Temple and its ongoing practices and customs. The vast majority of scholarly efforts have been, in this respect, directed toward finding possible hints that might indicate that the Sanctuary was still standing when the original text was composed. These discussions are not new, since already in his first systematic exploration of the text published in 1896, R. H. Charles used references to the Temple practices found in 2 Enoch as main proofs for his hypothesis of the early date of the apocalypse which he placed in the first century C.E. before the destruction of the Second Temple. [R. H. Charles, and W. R. Morfill, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896) xxvi]. Charles and scholars after him noted that the text gives no indication that the catastrophe of the destruction of the Temple had already occurred at the time of the book’s composition. Critical readers of the pseudepigraphon would have some difficulties finding any explicit expression of feelings of sadness or mourning about the loss of the sanctuary.  Affirmations of the value of animal sacrifice and Enoch’s halakhic instructions found in 2 Enoch 59 also appear to be fashioned not in the “preservationist,” mishnaic-like mode but rather as if they reflected sacrificial practices that still existed when the author was writing his book. There is also an intensive and consistent effort on the part of the author to legitimize the central place of worship, which through the reference to the place Achuzan—a cryptic name for the temple mountain in Jerusalem—is explicitly connected in 2 Enoch with the Jerusalem Temple. Scholars have also previously noted in the text some indications of the ongoing practice of pilgrimage to the central place of worship. These indications could be expected in a text written in the Alexandrian Diaspora. [Böttrich, Das slavische Henochbuch, 813]. Thus in his instructions to the children, Enoch repeatedly encourages them to bring the gifts before the face of God for the remission of sins, a practice which appears to recall well-known sacrificial customs widespread in the Second Temple period. [Böttrich, Das slavische Henochbuch, 813]. Further, 2 Enoch also contains a direct command to visit the Temple three times a day, an advice that would be difficult to fulfill if the sanctuary had been already destroyed.
The date of the text can be deduced solely on the basis of the internal evidence since the book has survived only in the medieval manuscripts. It is noteworthy that the overwhelming majority of the crucial arguments for the early dating of the text have been linked to the themes of the Jerusalem Temple and its ongoing practices and customs. The vast majority of scholarly efforts have been, in this respect, directed toward finding possible hints that might indicate that the Sanctuary was still standing when the original text was composed. These discussions are not new, since already in his first systematic exploration of the text published in 1896, R. H. Charles used references to the Temple practices found in 2 Enoch as main proofs for his hypothesis of the early date of the apocalypse which he placed in the first century C.E. before the destruction of the Second Temple. [R. H. Charles, and W. R. Morfill, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896) xxvi]. Charles and scholars after him noted that the text gives no indication that the catastrophe of the destruction of the Temple had already occurred at the time of the book’s composition. Critical readers of the pseudepigraphon would have some difficulties finding any explicit expression of feelings of sadness or mourning about the loss of the sanctuary.  Affirmations of the value of animal sacrifice and Enoch’s halakhic instructions found in 2 Enoch 59 also appear to be fashioned not in the “preservationist,” mishnaic-like mode but rather as if they reflected sacrificial practices that still existed when the author was writing his book. There is also an intensive and consistent effort on the part of the author to legitimize the central place of worship, which through the reference to the place Achuzan—a cryptic name for the temple mountain in Jerusalem—is explicitly connected in 2 Enoch with the Jerusalem Temple. Scholars have also previously noted in the text some indications of the ongoing practice of pilgrimage to the central place of worship. These indications could be expected in a text written in the Alexandrian Diaspora. [Böttrich, Das slavische Henochbuch, 813]. Thus in his instructions to the children, Enoch repeatedly encourages them to bring the gifts before the face of God for the remission of sins, a practice which appears to recall well-known sacrificial customs widespread in the Second Temple period. [Böttrich, Das slavische Henochbuch, 813]. Further, 2 Enoch also contains a direct command to visit the Temple three times a day, an advice that would be difficult to fulfill if the sanctuary had been already destroyed.
   
   
==Authorship==
==Authorship==
Although several hypotheses about Christian authorship of the book were proposed, none of them was able to withstand scholarly criticism. Besides the early hypothesis about the Bogomil provenance of the work [see A. S. D. Maunder, “The Date and Place of Writing of the Slavonic Book of Enoch,” The Observatory 41 (1918) 309-316]. that was met with skepticism, the most consistent effort of justifying the Christian provenance of the work was offered by the French Slavist André Vaillant. [Vaillant, Le livre des secrets d’Hénoch, x]. His position was later supported by Josef Milik who argued that the apocalypse was written by a Byzantine monk in the ninth century C.E. [J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976) 114]. Both Vaillant’s and Milik’s positions generated substantial critical responses since the vast majority of readers of 2 Enoch had been arguing for the Jewish provenance of the original core of the text.
Although several hypotheses about Christian authorship of the book were proposed, none of them was able to withstand scholarly criticism. Besides the early hypothesis about the Bogomil provenance of the work [see A. S. D. Maunder, “The Date and Place of Writing of the Slavonic Book of Enoch,” The Observatory 41 (1918) 309-316]. that was met with skepticism, the most consistent effort of justifying the Christian provenance of the work was offered by the French Slavist André Vaillant. [Vaillant, Le livre des secrets d’Hénoch, x]. His position was later supported by Josef Milik who argued that the apocalypse was written by a Byzantine monk in the ninth century C.E. [J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976) 114]. Both Vaillant’s and Milik’s positions generated substantial critical responses since the vast majority of readers of 2 Enoch had been arguing for the Jewish provenance of the original core of the text.


==Geographical Provenance==
==Geographical Provenance==
Since the pioneering work of R. H. Charles the hypothesis about the Alexandrian provenance of the apocalypse has dominated the landscape of scholarly discussion. Charles proposed that the apocalypse was written by a Hellenized Jew in Alexandria.  The text appears to attest to some themes that were distinctive of the Alexandrian environment. One such cluster of motifs deals with the Adamic tradition that is salient in 2 Enoch. Thus in 2 Enoch 30:13 the Lord tells Enoch that he created Adam out of the seven components and assigned to Adam a name from the four components: from East – (A), from West – (D), from North – (A), and from South – (M). The early testimony to this tradition about the anagram of Adam’s name can be found in the third book of Sibylline Oracles, a composition probably written in Egypt around 160–50 B.C.E. Another reference also comes from the Egyptian milieu and is found in the writings of the Hermetic author Zosimos of Panopolis who lived in Alexandria in the late third or early fourth century C.E. [C. Böttrich, Adam als Mikrokosmos: eine Untersuchung zum slavischen Henochbuch (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1995) 23-27]. Some other Adamic motifs found in 2 Enoch, such as the tradition about Adam’s role as the governor of the earth, also seem to stem from Alexandrian milieu, exhibiting similarities to the developments found in Philo (Opif.  88; 148).  The description of phoenixes and chalkydras, the mythical creatures whom Enoch encounters during his celestial tour, might also point to Egypt. Already Charles was arguing about the Egyptian provenance of this imagery. [R. H. Charles, and W. R. Morfill, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896) xvii]. Van den Broek’s study of the phoenix traditions confirms Charles’ hypothesis, proposing that the symbolism found in 2 Enoch stems from the Egyptian syncretism of Roman times. [R. Van den Broek, The Myth of the Phoenix according to Classical and Early Christian Traditions (EPRO, 24; Leiden: Brill, 1971) 260]. The recently discovered Coptic fragments give additional support to the hypothesis of Alexandrian provenance.
Since the pioneering work of R. H. Charles the hypothesis about the Alexandrian provenance of the apocalypse has dominated the landscape of scholarly discussion. Charles proposed that the apocalypse was written by a Hellenized Jew in Alexandria.  The text appears to attest to some themes that were distinctive of the Alexandrian environment. One such cluster of motifs deals with the Adamic tradition that is salient in 2 Enoch. Thus in 2 Enoch 30:13 the Lord tells Enoch that he created Adam out of the seven components and assigned to Adam a name from the four components: from East – (A), from West – (D), from North – (A), and from South – (M). The early testimony to this tradition about the anagram of Adam’s name can be found in the third book of Sibylline Oracles, a composition probably written in Egypt around 160–50 B.C.E. Another reference also comes from the Egyptian milieu and is found in the writings of the Hermetic author Zosimos of Panopolis who lived in Alexandria in the late third or early fourth century C.E. [C. Böttrich, Adam als Mikrokosmos: eine Untersuchung zum slavischen Henochbuch (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1995) 23-27]. Some other Adamic motifs found in 2 Enoch, such as the tradition about Adam’s role as the governor of the earth, also seem to stem from Alexandrian milieu, exhibiting similarities to the developments found in Philo (Opif.  88; 148).  The description of phoenixes and chalkydras, the mythical creatures whom Enoch encounters during his celestial tour, might also point to Egypt. Already Charles was arguing about the Egyptian provenance of this imagery. [R. H. Charles, and W. R. Morfill, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896) xvii]. Van den Broek’s study of the phoenix traditions confirms Charles’ hypothesis, proposing that the symbolism found in 2 Enoch stems from the Egyptian syncretism of Roman times. [R. Van den Broek, The Myth of the Phoenix according to Classical and Early Christian Traditions (EPRO, 24; Leiden: Brill, 1971) 260]. The recently discovered Coptic fragments give additional support to the hypothesis of Alexandrian provenance.


==Theology==
==Theology==
The theological universe of the 2 Enoch is deeply rooted in the Enochic mold of the Jewish apocalypticism of the Second Temple period. Yet along with appropriations of ancient traditions about the seventh antediluvian hero, the text attempts to reshape them by adding a new mystical dimension to the familiar apocalyptic imagery.  The figure of Enoch portrayed in the various sections of 2 Enoch appears to be more elaborate than in the early Second Temple Enochic tractates of 1 Enoch.  For the first time, the Enochic tradition seeks to depict Enoch, not simply as a human taken to heaven and transformed into an angel, but as a celestial being exalted above the angelic world. In this attempt, one may find the origins of another image of Enoch, very different from the early Enochic literature, that was developed much later in rabbinic Merkabah and Hekhalot mysticism–the image of the supreme angel Metatron, “the Prince of the Presence.” The titles of the patriarch found in 2 Enoch appear to be different from those attested in early Enochic writings and demonstrate a close resemblance to the titles of Metatron as they appear in some Hekhalot sources. [H. Odeberg, 3 Enoch or the Hebrew Book of Enoch (New York: KTAV, 1973) 52–63]. These developments demonstrate that 2 Enoch represents a bridge between the early apocalyptic Enochic accounts and the later mystical rabbinic and Hekhalot traditions.  
The theological universe of the 2 Enoch is deeply rooted in the Enochic mold of the Jewish apocalypticism of the Second Temple period. Yet along with appropriations of ancient traditions about the seventh antediluvian hero, the text attempts to reshape them by adding a new mystical dimension to the familiar apocalyptic imagery.  The figure of Enoch portrayed in the various sections of 2 Enoch appears to be more elaborate than in the early Second Temple Enochic tractates of 1 Enoch.  For the first time, the Enochic tradition seeks to depict Enoch, not simply as a human taken to heaven and transformed into an angel, but as a celestial being exalted above the angelic world. In this attempt, one may find the origins of another image of Enoch, very different from the early Enochic literature, that was developed much later in rabbinic Merkabah and Hekhalot mysticism–the image of the supreme angel Metatron, “the Prince of the Presence.” The titles of the patriarch found in 2 Enoch appear to be different from those attested in early Enochic writings and demonstrate a close resemblance to the titles of Metatron as they appear in some Hekhalot sources. [H. Odeberg, 3 Enoch or the Hebrew Book of Enoch (New York: KTAV, 1973) 52–63]. These developments demonstrate that 2 Enoch represents a bridge between the early apocalyptic Enochic accounts and the later mystical rabbinic and Hekhalot traditions.  


==Discovery of Coptic Fragments of 2 Enoch==
==Discovery of Coptic Fragments of 2 Enoch==
During his work preparing the publication of Coptic manuscripts from Qasr Ibrim in Egyptian Nubia, Joost Hagen, doctoral student at Leiden University, The Netherlands, very recently came across some fragments he could identify as part of the text of  2 Enoch, the first time a non-Slavonic manuscript of this intriguing text has been found. The fragments were discovered at Qasr Ibrim, one of the capital cities of Christian-period Nubia (southern Egypt, northern Sudan, 5th-15th cent. AD), during excavations by the British Egypt Exploration Society (EES) which started in 1963 and have brought to light an astonishing number of finds, textual and other. Joost Hagen has been entrusted by the EES with the edition of the manuscript material in Coptic, the language of Christian Egypt and one of the literary languages used in the Christian kingdoms of Nubia. The ‘Slavonic Enoch’ fragments, found in 1972, are four in number, most probably remnants of four consecutive leaves of a parchment codex. The fourth fragment is rather small and not yet placed with certainty, also because there is as yet no photograph of it available, only the transcription of its text by one of the excavators. For the other three fragments, both this transcription and two sets of photographs are available. The present location of the pieces themselves is not known, but most probably they are in one of the museums or magazines of the Antiquities Organization in Egypt. The fragments contain chapters 36-42 of 2 Enoch, probably one of the most interesting parts of the work one could wish for, with the transition between two of its three main parts: Enoch’s heavenly tour and his brief return to earth before the assuming of his task back in heaven. Moreover, they clearly represent a text of the short recension, with chapter 38 and some other parts of the long recension ‘missing’ and chapters 37 and 39 in the order 39 then 37. On top of that, it contains the ‘extra’ material at the end of chapter 36 that is present only in the oldest Slavonic manuscript of the work, U (15th cent.), and in manuscript A (16th cent.), which is closely related to U. For most Coptic texts, a translation from a Greek original is taken for granted and the existence of this Coptic version might well confirm the idea of an original of the Book of the Secrets of Enoch in Greek from Egypt, probably Alexandria.  Archeologically it seems likely that the Coptic manuscript is part of the remains of a church library from before the year 1172, possibly even from before 969, two important dates in the history of Qasr Ibrim; a tentative first look at palaeographical criterea seems to suggest a date in the eighth to ninth, maybe tenth centuries, during Nubia’s early medieval period. This would mean that the fragments predate the accepted date of the translation of 2 Enoch into Slavonic (11th, 12th cent.) and that they are some several hunderd years older than the earliest Slavonic witness, a text with extracts of the ethical passages (14th cent.). Although this Coptic manuscript is fragmentary, it proved to be possible to reconstruct part of the missing text using (translations of) the Slavonic versions, and several theories formulated about the book of 2 Enoch by Slavists and theologians have already been confirmed or proven wrong. Recently, the priority of the longer recension has been advocated (again). But the discovery of this first non-Slavonic witness, at the same time the oldest manuscript known so far, calls for renewed discussion about this matter. Unless the two recensions had indeed already split up in Greek, the short recension, and the oldest Slavonic manuscript U, have to be taken more seriously from now on.
During his work preparing the publication of Coptic manuscripts from Qasr Ibrim in Egyptian Nubia, Joost Hagen, doctoral student at Leiden University, The Netherlands, very recently came across some fragments he could identify as part of the text of  2 Enoch, the first time a non-Slavonic manuscript of this intriguing text has been found. The fragments were discovered at Qasr Ibrim, one of the capital cities of Christian-period Nubia (southern Egypt, northern Sudan, 5th-15th cent. AD), during excavations by the British Egypt Exploration Society (EES) which started in 1963 and have brought to light an astonishing number of finds, textual and other. Joost Hagen has been entrusted by the EES with the edition of the manuscript material in Coptic, the language of Christian Egypt and one of the literary languages used in the Christian kingdoms of Nubia. The ‘Slavonic Enoch’ fragments, found in 1972, are four in number, most probably remnants of four consecutive leaves of a parchment codex. The fourth fragment is rather small and not yet placed with certainty, also because there is as yet no photograph of it available, only the transcription of its text by one of the excavators. For the other three fragments, both this transcription and two sets of photographs are available. The present location of the pieces themselves is not known, but most probably they are in one of the museums or magazines of the Antiquities Organization in Egypt. The fragments contain chapters 36-42 of 2 Enoch, probably one of the most interesting parts of the work one could wish for, with the transition between two of its three main parts: Enoch’s heavenly tour and his brief return to earth before the assuming of his task back in heaven. Moreover, they clearly represent a text of the short recension, with chapter 38 and some other parts of the long recension ‘missing’ and chapters 37 and 39 in the order 39 then 37. On top of that, it contains the ‘extra’ material at the end of chapter 36 that is present only in the oldest Slavonic manuscript of the work, U (15th cent.), and in manuscript A (16th cent.), which is closely related to U. For most Coptic texts, a translation from a Greek original is taken for granted and the existence of this Coptic version might well confirm the idea of an original of the Book of the Secrets of Enoch in Greek from Egypt, probably Alexandria.  Archeologically it seems likely that the Coptic manuscript is part of the remains of a church library from before the year 1172, possibly even from before 969, two important dates in the history of Qasr Ibrim; a tentative first look at palaeographical criterea seems to suggest a date in the eighth to ninth, maybe tenth centuries, during Nubia’s early medieval period. This would mean that the fragments predate the accepted date of the translation of 2 Enoch into Slavonic (11th, 12th cent.) and that they are some several hunderd years older than the earliest Slavonic witness, a text with extracts of the ethical passages (14th cent.). Although this Coptic manuscript is fragmentary, it proved to be possible to reconstruct part of the missing text using (translations of) the Slavonic versions, and several theories formulated about the book of 2 Enoch by Slavists and theologians have already been confirmed or proven wrong. Recently, the priority of the longer recension has been advocated (again). But the discovery of this first non-Slavonic witness, at the same time the oldest manuscript known so far, calls for renewed discussion about this matter. Unless the two recensions had indeed already split up in Greek, the short recension, and the oldest Slavonic manuscript U, have to be taken more seriously from now on.


==Related categories==
==Related categories==
*[[Enoch]]  
*[[Enoch]]  
==References==
*'''Enoch, Slavonic Apocalypse of (2 Enoch) ''' / [[Andrei A. Orlov]] / In: [[The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (2010 Collins / Harlow), dictionary]], 587-590
*''' ''' / [[]] / In: [[The Anchor Bible Dictionary (1992 Freedman), dictionary]],


==External links==
==External links==
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Enoch Wikipedia] -- [http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/2enoch.html Early Jewish Writings]
*[http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/2enoch.html]


====Online translations====
====Online translations====
*[http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/morfill.pdf], by W. R. Morfill <English>
*[http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/morfill.pdf], by W. R. Morfill <English>


====Introductions====
==Selected Bibliography==
*[http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/2enoch.html]
 
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Enoch Wikipedia]
*See [http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/2enochbibliography.pdf]
 
====Modern Translations====
 
*[[F.I. Andersen]], 2(Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch, in [[James H. Charlesworth]], [[The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha]], 1 (1983) 91-221 - English translation
*[[Henok könyvei (2009 Froehlich/Dobos), edited volume]], 191-230 - Hungarian translation
 
====1970====
* ''' Eschatology and the Concept of Time in the Slavonic Book of Enoch ''' / [[Shlomo Pines]] / Types of Redemption (1970) 72-87
 
====1980====
 
* ''' The Apocalypse of Zostrianos (Nag Hammadi VIII11) and the Book of the Secrets of Enoch ''' / [[M. Scopello]] / [[Vigiliae Christianae]] 34.4 (1980) 376-385
 
====1991====
 
* ''' Recent studies in the Slavonic Book of Enoch ''' / [[Christfried Böttrich]] / [[Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha]] 9 (1991) 35-42
 
====1994====
 
* ''' Protologia e femminino in "1 Enoc", "2 Enoc", "Apocalisse di Mosè", "Vita di Adamo ed Eva" / [[Maria Vittoria
Cerutti]] / Ricerche Storico Bibliche 6.1-2 (1994) 119-139
 
====1997====
 
* ''' The different functions of a similar Melchizedek tradition in 2 Enoch and the Epistle to the Hebrews ''' / [[Charles A. Gieschen]] / Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel (1997) 364-379
 
====1998====
 
* ''' Titles of Enoch-Metatron in 2 Enoch''' / [[Andrei A. Orlov]] / [[Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha]] 18 (1998) 71-86
 
====2000====
 
* ''' "Noah's younger brother" : the anti-Noachic polemics in 2 Enoch ''' / [[Andrei A. Orlov]] / [[Henoch]] 22.2-3 (2000) 207-221
 
* ''' The origin of the name "Metatron" and the text of 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch ''' / [[Andrei A. Orlov]] / [[Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha]] 21 (2000) 19-26
 
* ''' Melchizedek's birth narrative in 2 Enoch 68-73 : Christian correlations ''' [[Beverly A. Bow]] / For a Later Generation (2000) 33-41
 
====2007====
* ''' The heir of righteousness and the king of righteousness : the priestly Noachic polemics in 2 Enoch and the Epistle to the Hebrews ''' / [[Andrei A. Orlov]] / Journal of Theological Studies 58,1 (2007) 45-65
 
*  From Apocalypticism to Merkabah Mysticism (2007)
** ''' Resurrection of Adam's body : the redeeming role of Enoch-Metatron in 2 (Slavonic) Enoch ''' / [[Andrei A. Orlov]] / 231-236
** ''' The heirs of the Enochic lore : "men of faith" in 2Enoch 35:2 and "Sefer Hekhalot" 48D:10 ''' / [[Andrei A. Orlov]] / 345-358
 
====2008====
* ''' The pillar of the world : the eschatological role of the seventh antediluvian hero in 2 ("Slavonic") "Enoch" ''' / [[Andrei A. Orlov]] / [[Henoch]] 30,1 (2008) 119-135
 
====2009====
 
* ''' The Watchers of Satanail : the fallen angels traditions in "2 (Slavonic) Enoch" ''' / [[Andrei A. Orlov]] / Selected Studies in the Slavonic Pseudepigrapha (2009) 133-164
 
====2010====
 
* ''' The creation of man in 2 (Slavonic) Enoch and in Christian tradition ''' / [[Grant Macaskill]] / Vetus Testamentum Supplements 133 (2010) 399-422
 
====2011====
 
* [[Henoch]] 33.1 (2011)
** ''' 2 Enoch and the messianic Son of Man : a triangular reading between The Book of the Parables of Enoch, The Testament of Abraham and 2 Enoch ''' / [[Luca Arcari]] / 88-93
** ''' One "hapax legomenon" and the date of 2 Enoch : promitaya - *prwmṭy(') - prwṭmy - προηομή ''' / [[Basil Lourie]] / 94-96
** ''' The provenance of 2 Enoch 69-73 : Jewish or Christian? ''' / [[Pieter Willem van der Horst]] / 97-101
** ''' Afterlife of the 2 Enoch calendar : major Christian feasts on the sixth day ''' / [[Basil Lourie]] / 102-107
** ''' Noah as eschatological mediator transposed : from 2 Enoch 71-72 to the Christological echoes of 1 Enoch 106:3 in the Qur'an '''  / [[Carlos A. Segovia]] / 129-144
 
* ''' Personal salvation and rigorous obedience : the soteriology of 2 Enoch ''' / [[Grant Macaskill]] / This World and the World to Come (2011) 127-142


==References==
* ''' The heirs of the Enochic lore : "Men of Faith" in 2 "Enoch" 35:2 and "Sefer Hekhalot" 48d:10 ''' / [[Andrei A. Orlov]] / The Old Testament Apocrypha in the Slavonic Tradition (2011) 337-351


*''' ''' / [[]] / In: [[The Anchor Bible Dictionary (1992 Freedman), dictionary]],
====2012====


*'''Enoch, Slavonic Apocalypse of (2 Enoch) ''' / [[Andrei A. Orlov]] / In: [[The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (2010 Collins / Harlow), dictionary]], 587-590
* New Perspectives on 2 Enoch (2012)
** ''' No longer "Slavonic" only : 2 Enoch attested in Coptic from Nubia ''' / [[Joost L. Hagen]] / 7-34
** ''' The "Book of the Secrets of Enoch" (2 En) : between Jewish origin and Christian transmission - an overview ''' / [[Christfried Böttrich]], [[Liudmila Navtanovich]] / 37-67
** ''' 2 Enoch : manuscripts, recensions, and original language ''' / [[Grant Macaskill]] / 83-101
** ''' The sacerdotal traditions of 2 Enoch and the date of the text / [[Andrei A. Orlov]], [[David W. Suter]] / 103-116
** ''' 2 Enoch and the new perspective on apocalyptic'''  / [[Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis]] / 127-148
** ''' The watchers of Satanail : the fallen angels traditions in 2 Enoch ''' / [[Andrei A. Orlov]] / 149-180
** ''' Patriarch, prophet, author, angelic rival : exploring the relationship of 1 Enoch to 2 Enoch in light of the figure of Enoch ''' / [[Kelley Coblentz Bautch]], [[Daniel Assefa]] / 181-189
** ''' Calendrical elements in 2 Enoch ''' / [[Basil Lourie]] / New Perspectives on 2 Enoch (2012) 191-219
** ''' 2 Enoch and Halakhah ''' / [[Lawrence H. Schiffman]] / New Perspectives on 2 Enoch (2012) 221-228
** ''' Halakhah, calendars and the provenances of 2 Enoch ''' / [[Daniel Stökl ben Ezra]] / 229-242
** ''' Adamic traditions in 2 Enoch and in the books of Adam and Eve / [[Johannes Magliano-Tromp]] / 283-304
** ''' Enoch and Melchizedek : the concern for supra-human priestly mediators in 2 Enoch ''' / [[Charles A. Gieschen]] / 369-385
** ''' Melchizedek in some early Christian texts and 2 Enoch ''' / [[Harold W. Attridge]] / 388-410
** ''' Bibliography on 2 Enoch ''' / [[Andrei A. Orlov]] / 455-471


====Bibliographies====
====2013====
*[http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/2enochbibliography.pdf]


====Editions====
* ''' The angel of Tartarus and the supposed Coptic fragments of 2 Enoch ''' / [[Christfried Böttrich]] / Early Christianity 4.4 (2013) 509-521


====Modern Translations====
====2014====
*[[F.I. Andersen]], 2(Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch, in [[James H. Charlesworth]], [[The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha]], 1 (1983) 91-221 - English translation


====Studies====
* ''' Primordial lights : the logos and adoil in the Johannine Prologue and 2 Enoch ''' / [[Andrei A. Orlov]] / Revealed Wisdom (2014) 99-115


* ''' "2 Enoch" and the trajectories of Jewish cosmology : from Mesopotamian astronomy to Greco-Egyptian philosophy in Roman Egypt ''' / [[Annette Yoshiko Reed]] / [[Journal of Jewish Thought & Philosophy]] 22.1 (2014) 1-24


[[Category:Old Testament Pseudepigrapha|Enoch 2]]
====2016====
[[Category:Enoch (subject)| ]]


[[Category:Texts|Enoch2]]
* '''Glorification through fear in 2 Enoch''' / [[Andrei A. Orlov]] / [[Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha]] 25.3 (2016) 171-188
[[Category:Index (database)]]
[[Category:Texts (database)]]

Latest revision as of 07:27, 13 May 2016


2 Enoch is a Jewish writing, generally included in collections of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha.

< Enochic Studies -- 1 Enoch -- 2 Enoch -- 3 Enoch >

  • This page is authored and edited by Andrei A. Orlov, Marquette University, United States of America


Overview

2 Enoch is a Jewish pseudepigraphon preserved in Slavonic and Coptic translations. The central theme of the text is the celestial ascent of the seventh antediluvian patriarch Enoch through the heavens, his luminous metamorphosis near the Throne of Glory, and his initiation into the heavenly mysteries. The book, which combines the features of an apocalypse and a testament, can be divided into three parts. The first part (chapters 1–38) describes Enoch’s heavenly journey that culminates in his encounter with the Deity revealing to the seer the secrets of creation. After the encounter Enoch returns to earth to instruct his children in the celestial knowledge received from God and the angels. The second part (chapters 39–67) begins with Enoch’s testamentary admonitions to his sons during his short visit to earth and ends with the second ascension of the patriarch. The third part of the book (chapters 68–73) describes the priestly functions of Enoch’s family and the miraculous birth of Melchisedek, and ends with the Flood.

Slavonic Manuscripts and Recensions

Besides recently discovered Coptic fragments, the main bulk of 2 Enoch has been preserved in more than twenty Slavonic manuscripts and fragments dated from the 14th to 18th centuries C.E. These Slavonic materials did not circulate independently but were included in collections that often rearranged, abbreviated, or expanded them. Typically, Jewish pseudepigraphical texts in the Slavic milieus were transmitted as part of larger historiographical, moral, and liturgical codexes and compendiums where ideologically marginal and mainstream materials were mixed with each other. Only a small number of the manuscripts, namely A (0:1–72:10), U (0:1–72:10), B (0:1–72:10), and R (0:1–73:9), give a full account of the story leading up to the Flood. Manuscript J (0:1–71:4) goes to chapter 71. Manuscripts P (0:1–68:7), N (0:1–67:3), V (1:1–67:3), and B2 (1:1–67:3) contain only the first two parts of the book and end with Enoch’s second ascension. Manuscript L (0:1–33:8) goes to chapter 33. The rest of the manuscripts give only fragments of the different parts of the book: P2 (28:1–32:2), Tr (67:1; 70–72), Syn (71;72), Rum (71:1–73:1), G (65:1–4; 65:6–8), Chr (fragments from 11–58), Chr2 (11:1–15:3), K (71:1–72:10), I (70:22–72:9). A large group of the manuscripts (MPr, TSS 253, TSS 489, TSS 682) are copies of the compilation of rearranged materials from chs. 40–65 of 2 Enoch from a judicial codex the Just Balance (“Merilo Pravednoe”). Scholarly consensus holds that 2 Enoch exists in longer and shorter recensions, although some scholars proposed the existence of three or even four recensions. [F. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch”, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; ed. J. H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1985 [1983]) 1.93]. The longer and shorter recensions of 2 Enoch differ not only in length but also in the character of the text, and both of them preserve original material. MSS R, J, and P are the manuscripts of the longer recension. MSS U, A, B, V, N, B2, and L represent the manuscripts of the shorter recension. P2, Tr, Syn, Rum, MPr, TSS 253, TSS 489, TSS 682, G, Chr, Chr2, I, and K represent fragments of the longer or shorter recensions. Although several stemmas of the relationships between the manuscripts were offered, they can be considered only as provisional until the critical editions of the major manuscripts become available. [Andersen, “2 Enoch,” 1.93].

Original Language

Most scholars believe that the Slavonic and Coptic versions were translated from Greek, since the text attests to some traditions that make sense only in the Greek language, for example a tradition found in 2 Enoch 30 that derives Adam’s name from the Greek designations of the four corners of the earth. The Semitisms, such as the words Ophanim, Raqia Arabot, and others found in various parts of the text, point to the possibility of the Semitic Vorlage behind the Greek version. Nevertheless, some scholars warn that the Semitisms might be “due to the cultivation of a biblical style in the Greek original.” [Andersen, “2 Enoch,” 1.94]. The hypothesis about the possibility of direct translation from Hebrew into Slavonic was also proposed. [N. Meshcherskij, “К вопросу об источниках славянской Книги Еноха,” Краткие Сообщения Института Народов Азии 86 (1965) 72–78]. Yet this suggestion met strong criticism from experts who “find it thoroughly unlikely that translations from Hebrew into any sort of written Slavic were made in any region of Slavdom before the middle of the fifteenth century.” [H.G. Lunt and M. Taube, “Early East Slavic Translations from Hebrew?” Russian Linguistics 12 (1988) 147–187, at 160].

Date

The date of the text can be deduced solely on the basis of the internal evidence since the book has survived only in the medieval manuscripts. It is noteworthy that the overwhelming majority of the crucial arguments for the early dating of the text have been linked to the themes of the Jerusalem Temple and its ongoing practices and customs. The vast majority of scholarly efforts have been, in this respect, directed toward finding possible hints that might indicate that the Sanctuary was still standing when the original text was composed. These discussions are not new, since already in his first systematic exploration of the text published in 1896, R. H. Charles used references to the Temple practices found in 2 Enoch as main proofs for his hypothesis of the early date of the apocalypse which he placed in the first century C.E. before the destruction of the Second Temple. [R. H. Charles, and W. R. Morfill, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896) xxvi]. Charles and scholars after him noted that the text gives no indication that the catastrophe of the destruction of the Temple had already occurred at the time of the book’s composition. Critical readers of the pseudepigraphon would have some difficulties finding any explicit expression of feelings of sadness or mourning about the loss of the sanctuary. Affirmations of the value of animal sacrifice and Enoch’s halakhic instructions found in 2 Enoch 59 also appear to be fashioned not in the “preservationist,” mishnaic-like mode but rather as if they reflected sacrificial practices that still existed when the author was writing his book. There is also an intensive and consistent effort on the part of the author to legitimize the central place of worship, which through the reference to the place Achuzan—a cryptic name for the temple mountain in Jerusalem—is explicitly connected in 2 Enoch with the Jerusalem Temple. Scholars have also previously noted in the text some indications of the ongoing practice of pilgrimage to the central place of worship. These indications could be expected in a text written in the Alexandrian Diaspora. [Böttrich, Das slavische Henochbuch, 813]. Thus in his instructions to the children, Enoch repeatedly encourages them to bring the gifts before the face of God for the remission of sins, a practice which appears to recall well-known sacrificial customs widespread in the Second Temple period. [Böttrich, Das slavische Henochbuch, 813]. Further, 2 Enoch also contains a direct command to visit the Temple three times a day, an advice that would be difficult to fulfill if the sanctuary had been already destroyed.

Authorship

Although several hypotheses about Christian authorship of the book were proposed, none of them was able to withstand scholarly criticism. Besides the early hypothesis about the Bogomil provenance of the work [see A. S. D. Maunder, “The Date and Place of Writing of the Slavonic Book of Enoch,” The Observatory 41 (1918) 309-316]. that was met with skepticism, the most consistent effort of justifying the Christian provenance of the work was offered by the French Slavist André Vaillant. [Vaillant, Le livre des secrets d’Hénoch, x]. His position was later supported by Josef Milik who argued that the apocalypse was written by a Byzantine monk in the ninth century C.E. [J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976) 114]. Both Vaillant’s and Milik’s positions generated substantial critical responses since the vast majority of readers of 2 Enoch had been arguing for the Jewish provenance of the original core of the text.

Geographical Provenance

Since the pioneering work of R. H. Charles the hypothesis about the Alexandrian provenance of the apocalypse has dominated the landscape of scholarly discussion. Charles proposed that the apocalypse was written by a Hellenized Jew in Alexandria. The text appears to attest to some themes that were distinctive of the Alexandrian environment. One such cluster of motifs deals with the Adamic tradition that is salient in 2 Enoch. Thus in 2 Enoch 30:13 the Lord tells Enoch that he created Adam out of the seven components and assigned to Adam a name from the four components: from East – (A), from West – (D), from North – (A), and from South – (M). The early testimony to this tradition about the anagram of Adam’s name can be found in the third book of Sibylline Oracles, a composition probably written in Egypt around 160–50 B.C.E. Another reference also comes from the Egyptian milieu and is found in the writings of the Hermetic author Zosimos of Panopolis who lived in Alexandria in the late third or early fourth century C.E. [C. Böttrich, Adam als Mikrokosmos: eine Untersuchung zum slavischen Henochbuch (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1995) 23-27]. Some other Adamic motifs found in 2 Enoch, such as the tradition about Adam’s role as the governor of the earth, also seem to stem from Alexandrian milieu, exhibiting similarities to the developments found in Philo (Opif. 88; 148). The description of phoenixes and chalkydras, the mythical creatures whom Enoch encounters during his celestial tour, might also point to Egypt. Already Charles was arguing about the Egyptian provenance of this imagery. [R. H. Charles, and W. R. Morfill, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896) xvii]. Van den Broek’s study of the phoenix traditions confirms Charles’ hypothesis, proposing that the symbolism found in 2 Enoch stems from the Egyptian syncretism of Roman times. [R. Van den Broek, The Myth of the Phoenix according to Classical and Early Christian Traditions (EPRO, 24; Leiden: Brill, 1971) 260]. The recently discovered Coptic fragments give additional support to the hypothesis of Alexandrian provenance.

Theology

The theological universe of the 2 Enoch is deeply rooted in the Enochic mold of the Jewish apocalypticism of the Second Temple period. Yet along with appropriations of ancient traditions about the seventh antediluvian hero, the text attempts to reshape them by adding a new mystical dimension to the familiar apocalyptic imagery. The figure of Enoch portrayed in the various sections of 2 Enoch appears to be more elaborate than in the early Second Temple Enochic tractates of 1 Enoch. For the first time, the Enochic tradition seeks to depict Enoch, not simply as a human taken to heaven and transformed into an angel, but as a celestial being exalted above the angelic world. In this attempt, one may find the origins of another image of Enoch, very different from the early Enochic literature, that was developed much later in rabbinic Merkabah and Hekhalot mysticism–the image of the supreme angel Metatron, “the Prince of the Presence.” The titles of the patriarch found in 2 Enoch appear to be different from those attested in early Enochic writings and demonstrate a close resemblance to the titles of Metatron as they appear in some Hekhalot sources. [H. Odeberg, 3 Enoch or the Hebrew Book of Enoch (New York: KTAV, 1973) 52–63]. These developments demonstrate that 2 Enoch represents a bridge between the early apocalyptic Enochic accounts and the later mystical rabbinic and Hekhalot traditions.

Discovery of Coptic Fragments of 2 Enoch

During his work preparing the publication of Coptic manuscripts from Qasr Ibrim in Egyptian Nubia, Joost Hagen, doctoral student at Leiden University, The Netherlands, very recently came across some fragments he could identify as part of the text of 2 Enoch, the first time a non-Slavonic manuscript of this intriguing text has been found. The fragments were discovered at Qasr Ibrim, one of the capital cities of Christian-period Nubia (southern Egypt, northern Sudan, 5th-15th cent. AD), during excavations by the British Egypt Exploration Society (EES) which started in 1963 and have brought to light an astonishing number of finds, textual and other. Joost Hagen has been entrusted by the EES with the edition of the manuscript material in Coptic, the language of Christian Egypt and one of the literary languages used in the Christian kingdoms of Nubia. The ‘Slavonic Enoch’ fragments, found in 1972, are four in number, most probably remnants of four consecutive leaves of a parchment codex. The fourth fragment is rather small and not yet placed with certainty, also because there is as yet no photograph of it available, only the transcription of its text by one of the excavators. For the other three fragments, both this transcription and two sets of photographs are available. The present location of the pieces themselves is not known, but most probably they are in one of the museums or magazines of the Antiquities Organization in Egypt. The fragments contain chapters 36-42 of 2 Enoch, probably one of the most interesting parts of the work one could wish for, with the transition between two of its three main parts: Enoch’s heavenly tour and his brief return to earth before the assuming of his task back in heaven. Moreover, they clearly represent a text of the short recension, with chapter 38 and some other parts of the long recension ‘missing’ and chapters 37 and 39 in the order 39 then 37. On top of that, it contains the ‘extra’ material at the end of chapter 36 that is present only in the oldest Slavonic manuscript of the work, U (15th cent.), and in manuscript A (16th cent.), which is closely related to U. For most Coptic texts, a translation from a Greek original is taken for granted and the existence of this Coptic version might well confirm the idea of an original of the Book of the Secrets of Enoch in Greek from Egypt, probably Alexandria. Archeologically it seems likely that the Coptic manuscript is part of the remains of a church library from before the year 1172, possibly even from before 969, two important dates in the history of Qasr Ibrim; a tentative first look at palaeographical criterea seems to suggest a date in the eighth to ninth, maybe tenth centuries, during Nubia’s early medieval period. This would mean that the fragments predate the accepted date of the translation of 2 Enoch into Slavonic (11th, 12th cent.) and that they are some several hunderd years older than the earliest Slavonic witness, a text with extracts of the ethical passages (14th cent.). Although this Coptic manuscript is fragmentary, it proved to be possible to reconstruct part of the missing text using (translations of) the Slavonic versions, and several theories formulated about the book of 2 Enoch by Slavists and theologians have already been confirmed or proven wrong. Recently, the priority of the longer recension has been advocated (again). But the discovery of this first non-Slavonic witness, at the same time the oldest manuscript known so far, calls for renewed discussion about this matter. Unless the two recensions had indeed already split up in Greek, the short recension, and the oldest Slavonic manuscript U, have to be taken more seriously from now on.

Related categories

References

External links

Online translations

  • [2], by W. R. Morfill <English>

Selected Bibliography

Modern Translations

1970

  • Eschatology and the Concept of Time in the Slavonic Book of Enoch / Shlomo Pines / Types of Redemption (1970) 72-87

1980

1991

1994

  • Protologia e femminino in "1 Enoc", "2 Enoc", "Apocalisse di Mosè", "Vita di Adamo ed Eva" / [[Maria Vittoria

Cerutti]] / Ricerche Storico Bibliche 6.1-2 (1994) 119-139

1997

  • The different functions of a similar Melchizedek tradition in 2 Enoch and the Epistle to the Hebrews / Charles A. Gieschen / Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel (1997) 364-379

1998

2000

  • "Noah's younger brother" : the anti-Noachic polemics in 2 Enoch / Andrei A. Orlov / Henoch 22.2-3 (2000) 207-221
  • Melchizedek's birth narrative in 2 Enoch 68-73 : Christian correlations Beverly A. Bow / For a Later Generation (2000) 33-41

2007

  • The heir of righteousness and the king of righteousness : the priestly Noachic polemics in 2 Enoch and the Epistle to the Hebrews / Andrei A. Orlov / Journal of Theological Studies 58,1 (2007) 45-65
  • From Apocalypticism to Merkabah Mysticism (2007)
    • Resurrection of Adam's body : the redeeming role of Enoch-Metatron in 2 (Slavonic) Enoch / Andrei A. Orlov / 231-236
    • The heirs of the Enochic lore : "men of faith" in 2Enoch 35:2 and "Sefer Hekhalot" 48D:10 / Andrei A. Orlov / 345-358

2008

  • The pillar of the world : the eschatological role of the seventh antediluvian hero in 2 ("Slavonic") "Enoch" / Andrei A. Orlov / Henoch 30,1 (2008) 119-135

2009

  • The Watchers of Satanail : the fallen angels traditions in "2 (Slavonic) Enoch" / Andrei A. Orlov / Selected Studies in the Slavonic Pseudepigrapha (2009) 133-164

2010

  • The creation of man in 2 (Slavonic) Enoch and in Christian tradition / Grant Macaskill / Vetus Testamentum Supplements 133 (2010) 399-422

2011

  • Henoch 33.1 (2011)
    • 2 Enoch and the messianic Son of Man : a triangular reading between The Book of the Parables of Enoch, The Testament of Abraham and 2 Enoch / Luca Arcari / 88-93
    • One "hapax legomenon" and the date of 2 Enoch : promitaya - *prwmṭy(') - prwṭmy - προηομή / Basil Lourie / 94-96
    • The provenance of 2 Enoch 69-73 : Jewish or Christian? / Pieter Willem van der Horst / 97-101
    • Afterlife of the 2 Enoch calendar : major Christian feasts on the sixth day / Basil Lourie / 102-107
    • Noah as eschatological mediator transposed : from 2 Enoch 71-72 to the Christological echoes of 1 Enoch 106:3 in the Qur'an / Carlos A. Segovia / 129-144
  • Personal salvation and rigorous obedience : the soteriology of 2 Enoch / Grant Macaskill / This World and the World to Come (2011) 127-142
  • The heirs of the Enochic lore : "Men of Faith" in 2 "Enoch" 35:2 and "Sefer Hekhalot" 48d:10 / Andrei A. Orlov / The Old Testament Apocrypha in the Slavonic Tradition (2011) 337-351

2012

2013

  • The angel of Tartarus and the supposed Coptic fragments of 2 Enoch / Christfried Böttrich / Early Christianity 4.4 (2013) 509-521

2014

  • Primordial lights : the logos and adoil in the Johannine Prologue and 2 Enoch / Andrei A. Orlov / Revealed Wisdom (2014) 99-115

2016

Pages in category "2 Enoch (text)"

The following 30 pages are in this category, out of 30 total.

1

2

Media in category "2 Enoch (text)"

The following 2 files are in this category, out of 2 total.

Retrieved from "https://4enoch.org/wiki5/index.php?title=Category:2_Enoch_(text)&oldid=209112"