Category:Enochic Studies

BACK to the MAIN PAGE

Overview

Enochic Studies / Research in the Enochic Literature is a field of research in Second Temple Judaism, that specializes in the study of Enoch and the literature attributed to him (1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, and 3 Enoch).

For a list of international specialists in the field, see Enochic Scholars.

History of research

The "Lost" Book and the Fragments of Syncellus (9th-18th cent.)

For many centuries the Book of Enoch was considered to be "lost" in the West. But its memory remained vivid in the Church and some important portions of the ancient Greek version resurfaced in the World Chronicle written by George Syncellus at the turn of the 9th century. These Greek fragments were first published by Joseph Justus Scaliger in 1606 and discussed by Johannes Drusius in 1612. Jacques Goar translated them into Latin in 1652, when he published the editio princeps of Syncellus' Chronography.

Until the end of 18th century the interest of scholars remained focused on these fragments, which provided the only textual evidence for 1 Enoch. Pompeo Sarnelli authored the first commentary on the surviving portions of the Book the Watchers (1710). Johann Albert Fabricius included the Greek fragments in his collection of the OT Pseudepigrapha (1713). Nicolas Antoine Boulanger and Paul-Henri Thiry d'Holbach used them in their dissertation on Enoch (1762).

The Rediscovery of the whole Ethiopic Text of 1 Enoch (1773-1892)

In 1773 the explorer James Bruce finally reached Ethiopia and brought back in 1773 three copies of the Ethiopic version of the whole 1 Enoch. Silvestre de Salcy translated parts of them into Latin (1800), French (1800) and German (1801), and Daniele Manin into Italian (1820).

Eventually, Richard Laurence published in 1821 the first English translation of the whole 1 Enoch, followed by the editio princeps of the Ethiopic text in 1838.

The Critical Study of 1 Enoch (1893-1950)

At the turn of the century, new editions of the Ethiopic text (the real first critical editions by Flemming 1901, and Charles 1906) as well as new translations (Charles 1893, 1912, and 1913 [English]; Beer 1900 [German]; Flemming 1901 [German]; Martin 1906 [French]; Riessler 1928 [German]) marked the affirmation of 1 Enoch in the field of Judaic Studies.

The pre-Christian date of the entire document (including the Parables) seemed to be solidly established and accepted (Gry 1909; Frey 1928)

1 Enoch in Limbo (1951-1975)

In 1951 a dramatic announcement shook the world of Enochic Studies. Josef Milik confirmed the presence at Qumran of Aramaic fragments from all Enoch booklets except the Parables. The rediscovery of significant portions of the original text was the beginning of a new chapter in the history of research even though in the immediate it resulted into a major setback. Waiting for the actual publication of the fragments was necessary—it was simply a matter of good sense. The problem was that twenty-five years passed from that dramatic announcement to the actual publication of the Aramaic Enoch fragments. For all those years, 1 Enoch was in limbo.

The Publication of the Aramaic Fragments by Milik (1976-2000)

The edition of the Qumran fragments by Joseph Milik in 1976 reopened the research on 1 Enoch. In 1978 MIlik published of a new edition of the Ethiopic text, which for the first time compare it with the newly founded fragments (Knibb 1978). In the 1980s numerous translations (Fusella 1981 [Italian]; Corrente/Piñero 1982 [Spanish]; Isaac 1983 [English]; Knibb (1984) [English]; Uhlig 1984 [German]; Black (1985) [English]; Caquot (1987) [French]) laid the foundation for a reevaluation of the importance of 1 Enoch within Second Temple Jewish literature.

The Enoch Seminar and the Hermeneia commentaries (2001-present)

The year 2001 marks a turning point in Enochic Studies. In the Summer 2001 the main American and European specialists in 1 Enoch gathered in Florence, Italy for the first meeting of the Enoch Seminar, and in the fall the first volume of the Hermenaia commentary was published by George W.E. Nickelsburg.