The Book of Enoch Its Reception in Secon

E
ar
ly
C
hr
is
ti
1 Apokalyptik und das Neue Testament
Loren T. Stuckenbruck
Volume 4
The Book of Enoch: Its Reception in Second
2013 Temple Jewish and in Christian Tradition 7–
40
Albert Hogeterp
Immaterial wealth in Luke between
wisdom and apocalypticism: Luke’s
Jesus tradition in light of
4QInstruction 41–63
Benjamin E. Reynolds
Apocalypticism in the Gospel of John’s
Written Revelation of Heavenly Things 64–
95
Robert Mucha und Stephan Witetschek

Das Buch ohne Siegel. Zur
zeitgeschichtlichen Referentialität der
Johannesapokalypse 96–125
New Discoveries
Hans-Gebhard Bethge, Ein neu bekannt
gewordener Papyrus-Codex mit Texten aus
Paulus-Briefen.
Ein Werkstattbericht 129–138
New Books
Georg Schelbert, ABBA Vater. Der
literarische Befund vom Altaramäischen bis
zu den späten Midrasch- und Haggada-
Werken in Auseinandersetzung mit den
Thesen von Joachim Jeremias (Ursula
Schattner- Rieser) 141–147
Tobias Nicklas/Korinna Zamfir (Hg.),
Theologies of Creation in Early Judaism
4 and Ancient Christianity (Karl-Heinrich
Ostmeyer) 148–153
1 Mohr
Siebeck
Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlages
Early Christianity
Herausgegeben von Jörg Frey, Clare K. Rothschild, Jens Schröter
und Francis Watson
Manuskripte, redaktionelle Anfragen und Rezensionsangebote

werden an die Redaktion erbeten:
Humboldt-Universität zu
Berlin Theologische
Fakultät Redaktion Early
Christianity Prof. Dr. Jens
Schröter Burgstraße 26
D-10178 Berlin
Germany
E-Mail: early-christianity@hu-berlin.de
Die Annahme zur Veröffentlichung erfolgt schriftlich und unter
dem Vorbe- halt, dass das Manuskript nicht anderweitig zur
Veröffentlichung angeboten wurde. Mit der Annahme zur
Veröffentlichung überträgt der Autor dem Verlag das
ausschließliche Verlagsrecht. Das Verlagsrecht endet mit dem
Ablauf der gesetzli-
chen Urheberschutzfrist. Der Autor behält das Recht, ein Jahr nach
der Veröffent- lichung einem anderen Verlag eine einfache
Abdruckgenehmigung zu erteilen. Be- standteil des Verlagsrechts
ist das Recht, den Beitrag fotomechanisch zu vervielfälti- gen und
zu verbreiten, sowie das Recht, die Daten des Beitrags zu
speichern und auf Datenträgern oder im Onlineverfahren zu
verbreiten.
Artikel sollten nicht länger als 9.000 Wörter oder 60.000 Zeichen
sein, inkl. Fuß- noten und Leerzeichen. Die Herausgeber haben
das Recht, bei Artikeln Änderun- gen zu verlangen.
Die Richtlinien zur Einreichung von Manuskripten finden Sie unter:
http://www.mohr.de/ec
Online-Volltext
Im Abonnement für Institutionen und Privatpersonen ist der freie
Zugang zum On- line-Volltext enthalten. Institutionen mit mehr als
20.000 Nutzern bitten wir um Einholung eines Preisangebots
direkt beim Verlag. Kontakt: sandra.witt@mohr.de. Um den Online-
Zugang für Institutionen/Bibliotheken einzurichten, gehen Sie bitte
zur Seite: www.ingentaconnect.com/register/institutional. Um den
Online-Zugang für Privatpersonen einzurichten, gehen Sie bitte zur
Seite: www.ingentaconnect.com/register/personal
Verlag: Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG, Postfach 2040, 72010
Tübingen
Vertrieb: erfolgt über den Buchhandel.
Dieser Ausgabe der EC ist ein Prospekt unseres Verlages beigelegt.
© 2013 Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG, Tübingen
Die Zeitschrift und alle in ihr enthaltenen einzelnen Beiträge und
Abbildungen sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung
außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Ur- heberrechtsgesetzes ist
ohne Zustimmung des Verlags unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt
insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen,
Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in
elektronischen Systemen.
Printed in Germany.
Satz: Konrad Triltsch GmbH, Ochsenfurt.
Druck: Gulde-Druck, Tübingen.
ISSN 1868-7032 (Gedruckte
Ausgabe) ISSN 1868-8020
(Online-Ausgabe)

The Book of Enoch: Its Reception in Second

Temple Jewish and in Christian Tradition1
Das äthiopische Henochbuch ist ein Sammelwerk, das aus zumindest neunzehn
un- terscheidbaren schriftlichen Überlieferungen (vom 4. Jh. v. Chr. bis zum 1. Jh.
v. Chr.) enstanden ist. Während es in den ersten vier Jh. im Westen zunehmend
kontrovers beurteilt wurde, nimmt das Henochbuch in seinem heutigen Umfang
von 108 Kapi- teln einen wichtigen Platz im biblischen Kanon der äthiopisch-
orthodoxen Kirche ein. Erst im 15. Jh. wurde der kanonische Wert allgemein in
Äthiopien bestätigt, vor allem im Kontext der theologischen
Auseinandersetzungen vor und während der Herrschaft des Kaisers Zär’a Ya’
qob (1434–1468). Dieser Aufsatz soll einen kriti- schen Überblick über die
spannende Rezeptionsgeschichte des Henochbuches in der frühjüdischen Antike,
im Frühchristentum, und insbesondere der äthiopisch-orthodoxen Kirche liefern.
Keywords: 1 Enoch, Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church Bible, biblical canon,
15th century Ethiopia, Second Temple Judaism, Early Christianity
I. Introduction
The book of 108 chapters, often casually entitled 1 Enoch, is not in itself
a single book, but is rather a collection of works. Based on the Ethiopic
form of the book, the collection is usually described as including 5 major
books (Book of Watchers chs. 1–36, Book of Parables chs. 37–71,
Astronomical Book chs. 72–82, Book of Dreams chs. 83–90, and
Epistle of Enoch chs. 91–105), followed by two appendices called
the Birth of Noah
1 The present article is based on lectures given at the University of Zürich (22 January
2012) and the University of Göttingen (5 November 2012) at the invitations,
respectively, of Prof. Jörg Frey and Prof. Reinhard Kratz. I am grateful to them and
their colleagues (especially Prof. Annette Steudel) for valuable discussions. In
particular, this article has benefited from corrections and ongoing conversations
with Ted M. Erho at Ludwig- Maximilians-Universität München, as well as from
correspondence with Abba Dr. Dan- iel Assefa (Director of Research at the
Capuchin Institute of Philosophy and Theology, Addis Abeba) and Dr. Leslie
Baynes (Missouri State University).
Early Christianity 4 (2013), 7–40 ISSN 1868-7032

DDiiggiittaalleerr SSoonnddeerrddrruucckk ddeess AAuuttoorrss
mmiitt GGeenneehhmmiigguunngg ddeess VVeerrllaaggeess
DOI 9001
10.1628/186870313X1362478372 © 2013 Mohr Siebeck
DDiiggiittaalleerr SSoonnddeerrddrruucckk ddeess AAuuttoorrss

mmiitt GGeenneehhmmiigguunngg ddeess VVeerrllaaggeess
8 Loren T. Stuckenbruck
(chs. 106–107) and the Eschatological Admonition (ch. 108).2 The situa-
tion is, in fact, more complicated : at least nineteen distinct literary tradi-
tions can be identified within 1 Enoch, with most relating to the figure of
Enoch, others to Noah, and some which reflect no attempt to affiliate
with a particular patriarch.3 Thus, in the first instance, we have to do
with a work produced by ancient scribes who (a) took upon
themselves the “mask” of Enoch, (b) wrote in the name of Noah, or (c)
composed anon- ymously. Then, in the second instance, we have to do
with a work whose present shape is due to the activities of many editors
and authors who, feel- ing loyalty to the Enochic voice, gathered and
reworked some of the traditions to ensure their preservation for future
generations.4
That 1 Enoch is often discussed and treated by Hebrew Bible and New
Testament scholars as a single book has to do with its preservation in
many Ge’ z (Classical Ethiopic) manuscripts, which simply refer to it in
this way (i. e. as “the Book of Enoch”, Mäshafä Henok). However, the
complicated
˙ ˙
path from the variously smaller a n d larger literary units to the
composite
collection of 108 chapters is not easy to trace.5 As this process may have
extended up to a period of 700 years, a reconstruction of what the
materials looked like at critical moments of their development leaves us
with a num-
2 Most of the Ethiopic manuscripts preserving larger portions of the text sustain
this di- vision of five major sections plus two appendices.
3 These distinguishable traditions may be listed as follows: (1) chs. 1–5 ; (2) 6–
11 – itself a blend of 2–3 traditions; (3) 12–16; (4) 17–19; (5) 21–36; (6) 37–71,
into which (7) a number of Noah traditions are interspersed; (8) 72–80; (9) 81–
82.4a; (10) 82.4b-20; (11) 83–84; (12) 85–90; (13) 90.1–10, 18–19; (14) 93.1–10
+ 91.11–17; (15) 92.1–5 +
93.11–94.6 and 104.9–105.2; (16) 94.7–104.8; (17) 106.1–12 + 106.18–107.3 ; (18)
106.13–17; and (19) 108. An early form of this collection may also have included the
Enoch-related Book of Giants, if 4Q203 and 4Q204 originally belonged to the same
manuscript; for this view, see J.T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments
from Qum- rân Cave 4 (Oxford 1976) 22, 178 f, 181f, 310. However, despite the
Book of Giants’ Eno- chic character and similar scribal habits in these manuscript
numbers, the inclusion of this work in an early Enochic collection of works should
not be taken for granted; see the largely genre-related considerations by D. Dimant,
“The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch”, VT 33 (1983) 14–29 (esp. 16 n.
8); J. Reeves, Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony. Studies in the Book of Giants
Traditions (Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 14 ; Cincinnati 1992) 55; and
L.T. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants (TSAJ 63 ; Tübingen 1997) 25f.
4 It is not clear whether those who initially gathered the originally distinct
traditions were also authors of some of the texts.
5 Although the number “108” is conventionally used to designate the extent of
the Ethiopic
Mäshafä Henok, it should be noted that not all Ge’ z manuscripts preserve the work
in its ent˙ir˙ety and, moreover, many of the early manuscripts of the tradition do not
organize
the text into units that can be distinguished along the lines of the chapters as they are
conventionally received now.
The Book of Enoch 9
ber of unanswered questions, especially as the materials were often

not composed, edited or collected at the same time. Who were the
authors of the earliest Enoch traditions ; to what extent did their
activity emerge from the same social group or setting ; at what stages
were these traditions being brought together ; and what factors led to
the formation of 1 Enoch as we now know it through the Ethiopic
tradition ?
In what follows, I would like to offer an overview of the reception of
1 Enoch in both ancient Jewish and Christian tradition. Given the
duration of the growth of the Ethiopic Mäshafä Henok, the question of
its reception
˙ ˙
involves more than the study of th e book’s use as it was performed,
heard
and read. Clues for reception and, indeed, for the formation process are
first to be found in the manuscripts themselves, as here we can already
ob- serve traditions in a received state.6 Thus the manuscript finds
contribute to the story of reception and, towards the later stages of
development, vice- versa.
II. Reception of Early Enoch Tradition in Second Temple

Jewish Writings
If we consider the Jewish vantage point, the reception of 1 Enoch is

insep- arable, at least initially, with what one can say about fragmentary
manuscripts of it preserved among the Dead Sea documents, most of
which are Aramaic. The parts corresponding to 1 Enoch extant in these
manuscripts, some of which already offer evidence for the collecting of
different Eno- chic compositions, are as follows : Book of Watchers
(1Q19 frgs. 1–2 Heb. ,7 4Q201–202 and 4Q204–206,8 XQEnoch and
XQpapEnocha9),
6 There is no reason to assume that any of the extant materials to 1 Enoch,

including the fragments recovered from the Qumran caves, preserve for us anything
approaching an “original”.
bis
The 1Q19 and 19 fragments (21 in number) have been assigned to either a now lost
“Book of Noah” or, in part (frgs. 1–2), to the Book of Watchers. J.T. Milik, who initially
published them in Qumran Cave 1 (DJD 1; Oxford 1955) 84–87 and 152 (Plates XVI-
XVII), initially assigned them to the Book of Noah, noting esp. the resemblance of detail
between frg. 3 and 1 En. 106.10, 12 and between frg. 8 and 106.1, 4, 8. Cf. further J.T.
Milik, “Ecrits préesseniens de Qumrân: d’Hénoch à Amram”, in Qumrân. Sa piété, sa
théologie et son milieu (ed. by M. Delcor; BETL 46 ; Paris-Gembloux/Leuven 1979)
91–106 (here 94f), followed by F. García Martínez, “4QMess Ar and the Book of
Noah”, in id., Qumran and Apocalyptic. Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran
(STDJ 9; Leiden 1992) 1–44 (esp. 42). However, in The Books of Enoch, 59f, Milik con-
siders the possibility that 1Q19, in particular frgs. 1–2, might be a Hebrew translation
relating to 1 En. 6–11; this is the view adopted by Klaus Beyer, who incorporated
readings from 1Q19 1-2 into his running text of the Book of Watchers; see K. Beyer, Die
ara- mäischen Texte vom Toten Meer (Göttingen 1984) 229 and n. 1 and id., Die
aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer. Ergänzungsband (Göttingen 1994, rev. ed. 2004)
153.10 Loren T. Stuckenbruck
Book of Parables (none), Astronomical Book (4Q208–20910 and 4Q209,

11
4Q210–211 ), Book of Dreams (4Q204–206), Epistle of Enoch (4Q204,
4Q212 ), Birth of Noah (1Q19 Frg. 3, 4Q204, XQpapEnochb13), and the
12
Eschatological Admonition (none). On the Christian side of the equation,

we have to do with very small fragments in Syriac (to 1 En. 6.1–6)14 and
15
Coptic (to 93.3b-4a, 5ab, 6c-7a, 8cd), a couple of quotations and an ab-
breviating text in Latin (respectively, to chs. 1.9;16 99.6–7;17 and
18
106.1–18 ), more extensive fragmentary materials in Greek (to
chs. 1.1–32.6a ;19 77.7–78.1 and 78.8 ; 85.10–86.2 and 87.1–
3;20
from 1Q19 1–2 into his running text of the Book of Watchers; see K. Beyer, Die ara-
mäischen Texte vom Toten Meer (Göttingen 1984) 229 and n. 1 and id., Die aramäischen
Texte vom Toten Meer. Ergänzungsband (Göttingen 1994, rev. ed. 2004) 153.
8 For an overview of these five manuscripts, see L.T. Stuckenbruck, “The Early
Traditions Related to 1 Enoch from the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Overview and
Assessment”, in The Early Enoch Literature (ed. by G. Boccaccini and J.J. Collins;
JSJ Supplements 121; Lei- den and Boston 2007) 41–63.
9 From the Schøyen Collection these materials (and XQpapEnochb mentioned below)
are being prepared for publication by Esther Eshel in a forthcoming volume edited by
Tor- leif Elgvin, Gleanings from the Caves (LSTS 71; London 2013). On XQpapEnocha,
see already E. Eshel and H. Eshel, “A New Fragment of the Book of Watchers from
Qumran
(XQpapEnoch)”, Tarbiz 73 (2004) 171–179 (mod. Heb.) and “New Fragments from
f b
Qumran: 4QGen , 4QIsa , 4Q226, 8QGen, and XQpapEnoch”, DSD 12 (2005) 134–157.
10 See the publication by E.J.C. Tigchelaar and F. García Martínez, “4Q208–209.
4QAstro- nomical Enocha-b ar : Introduction”, “208. 4QAstronomical Enocha ar”,
and “209. 4QAstronomical Enochb ar”, in Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1.
Qumran Cave 4, XXVI (ed. by E. Tov ; DJD 36; Oxford 2000) 95–103, 104–131,
132–171 (and Plates III-VII).
11 Published by Milik, The Books of Enoch (see n. 3), 274, 287f, and 292 (Plates XXIII
and
c d
XXX) for 4QEnastr (4Q210) and 274 and 296 f (Plate XXIX) for 4QEnastr (4Q211).
12 Milik, The Books of Enoch (see n. 3), 245–272 (Plates XXI-XXIV).
13 See n. 9 above.
14 S.P. Brock, “A Fragment of Enoch in Syriac”, JTS 19 (1968) 626–631.
15 S. Donadoni, “Un frammento della versione copta del ‘Libro di Enoch’”, Acta Orientalia
25 (1960) 197–202.
16 Pseudo-Cyprian, Ad Novatianum 16 ; see the text in R.H. Charles, The Book of
Enoch (Oxford 1912) 275. On the text being a quotation of 1 Enoch rather than a
Latin translation of Jude 15, see G.W.E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1 (Minneapolis 2001)
89f.
17 In Tertullian, De Idolotria 4; for the text, see J.H. Waszink and J.C.M. van Winden,
Ter- tullianus De Idololatria (Supplements to VC 1; Leiden 1987).
18 Published initially by M.R. James, Apocrypha Anecdota. A Collection of Thirteen
Apo- cryphal Books and Fragments (TS II/3; Cambridge 1893) 146–150 and 186.
19 Material from these chs. is found in the following manuscripts: (a) Codex
Panopoli- tanus, also frequently called the Gizeh Papyrus or Akhmim Manuscript,
published by U. Bouriant, “Fragments grecs du livre d’Énoch”, in Mémoires publiés
par les members de la Mission archéologique française au Caire (vol. 9 fasc. 1; Paris
1892) 91–147; with plates and corrections by A. Lods, in “L’Évangile et
l’Apocalypse de Pierre, publiés pour la 1re fois, d’après les photographes de Gizéh,
avec un appendice sur les rectifica- tions à apporter au texte grec du Livre d’Énoch
(publié par M. Bouriant)”, in Mémoires publiés par les members de la Mission
archéologique française au Caire (vol. 9 fasc. 3;
The Book of Enoch 11
89.42–49 ;21 and 97.6–107.322), and of course many manuscripts in the

23
Ethiopic tradition which contain most, if not all of the 108 chapters.
These materials, whether they go back to the Second Temple or early
Byz- antine periods, attest to the ongoing vitality of the oldest Enochic
traditions. In particular, the Book of Watchers provided language that
the ad- ditional early Enoch compositions (except for the
Astronomical Book) adapted, reconfigured, and sometimes even
contradicted as they attempted to address new socio-political and
religious contexts.24
Not only the Enochic manuscripts themselves, but also materials
among the Dead Sea Scrolls that belong to other documents, attest to
the influence of the Enochic tradition. If one excludes the Book of Giants
(on which see n. 3 above), more obvious instances among the Aramaic
Paris 1893) 217–235 (and Plates XI-XXXIII). The manuscript, which also contains an
abbreviated doublet to 1 En. 19.3–21.9, is conveniently accessible in M. Black (ed.),
Apocalypsis Henochi Graece (PVTG 4; Leiden 1970) 5–36. (b) Three fragments in quo-
tations to 1 En. 6.1–11.4, 8.4–10.14, and 15.8–16.1 in Georgius Syncellus’s Chronogra-
th
phy (ea. 9 cent.), presented in A.A. Mosshammer, Georgii Syncelli Ecloga
chronograph- ica (Leipzig 1984) and W. Adler and P. Tuffin, The Chronography of
George Synkellos : A Byzantine Chronicle of Universal History from the Creation,
Translated with Introduc- tion and Notes (Oxford 2002).
20 See the publication in A.S. Hunt, “2069. Apocalyptic Fragment”, in
The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Part 17 (London 1927) 6–8; cf. additionally, R.D.
Chesnutt, “Oxyrhynchus Pa- pyrus 2069 and the Compositional History of 1
Enoch”, JBL 129 (2010) 485–505.
21 M. Gitlbauer, Die Überreste griechiescher Tachygraphie im Codex
Vaticanus Graecus 1809 (fasc. 1; Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der
Wissenschaften philoso- phisch-historische Klasse 28/2; Vienna 1878) 16, 32,
55–57, 92 f (and Plate XI).
22 For the edition see C. Bonner, with H.C. Youtie, The Last Chapters
of Enoch in Greek (Darmstadt 1968, repr. from 1937) and plates published in
F.G. Kenyon, The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri: Descriptions and Texts of
Twelve Manuscripts on Papyrus of the Greek Bible, fasc. 8, Enoch and Melito
(London 1941). For a still significant discussion of the text see G.W.E.
Nickelsburg, “Enoch 97–104: A Study of the Greek and Ethi- opic Texts”, in
Armenian and Biblical Studies (ed. by M.E. Stone; Jerusalem 1976) 90–156.
23 At present count, my assistant, Ted Erho, and I have found a
number of Ge’ z Enoch manuscripts beyond those noted in previously
published lists, bringing the total to at least 120. For a preliminary account,
see L.T. Stuckenbruck and T.M. Erho, “The Book of Enoch and the Ethiopian
Manuscript Tradition: New Data”, in ‘Go Out and Study the Land’ (Judges
18:2): Archaeological, Historical and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel
(ed. by A.M. Maeir, J. Magness and L.H. Schiffman ; JSJ Supplements 148;
Leiden/Boston 2011) 257–267.
24 So esp. the Book of Giants, the Book of Dreams, and Birth of Noah.
The enormous influence of the Book of Watchers even holds true for the
Epistle of Enoch, despite its de- partures from the Book of Watchers on many
points. See L.T. Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108 (CEJL ; Berlin 2007) 206–211.
On the significance of the Book of Watchers for the Book of Parables, see
G.W.E. Nickelsburg, “Discerning the Structure(s) in the Eno- chic Book of
Parables” and M.A. Knibb, “The Structure and Composition of the Parables of
Enoch”, in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man : Revisiting the Book of
Parables (ed. by G. Boccaccini; Grand Rapids 2007) 23–47 and 48–64
respectively.
manuscripts may be argued for in the works that have been designated
25 26
Ar- amaic Levi Document, 4QTestament of Qahat, 4QPseudo-
27
Daniel, 1QGenesis Apocryphon, and possibly Words of Michael.29 If
28
one excludes the materials from 1Q19 and 1Q19 bis as preserving parts
of the Book of Watchers and Birth of Noah, the influence of the early
Enoch tradition among the Hebrew works extends to at least the
following : 4QPesher on the Periods,30 4QPesher on the Apocalypse of
32 33
Weeks,31 4QExhortation on the Flood, 11QApocryphal Psalms,
34 35
4QSongs of the Maskil, and the Book of Jubilees.
It is worth reflecting briefly on the possible influence of Aramaic
literature on Hebrew documents. In Jubilees, to which at least 14
Hebrew manuscripts have been recovered from the Dead Sea
36
caves, the author(s) could not draw on the Enoch tradition to
support its thoroughgoing emphasis onTorah piety; after all, in only
very minor portions of 1 Enoch does the Torah play much of a
conceptual role.37 One might think the addition
25 For analyses of the Aramaic and related materials, see J.C. Greenfield, M.E.
Stone, and E. Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document (SVTP 19 ; Leiden 2004) and H.
Drawnel, An Ara- maic Wisdom Text from Qumran : A New Interpretation of the Levi
Document (JSJS 86 ; Leiden 2004).
26 É. Puech, “542. Testament de Qahat ar”, in Qumran Grotte 4. XXII: Textes
araméens ; première partie (ed. id.; DJD XXXI ; Oxford 2001) 257–288 (Plate XV).
a-c
27 J.J. Collins and P.W. Flint, “243–243. 4QPseudo-Daniel ar”, in Qumran Cave 4.
XVII : Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (ed. by G.J. Brooke et al.; DJD XXII ; Oxford 1996)
95–164
(Plates VII-X).
28 Cf. the most recent major treatment of 1QapGen (1Q20) by D. Machiela,
Dead Sea Gen- esis Apocryphon: A New Text and Translation with Introduction
and Special Treatment of Columns 13–17 (STDJ 79 ; Leiden 2009).
29 As argued by É. Puech, “529. 4QParoles Michel ar”, in DJD XXXI, 1–8.
30 D. Dimant, “The ‘Pesher on the Periods’ (4Q180 and 4Q181)”, IOS 9 (1977) 77–
102.
31 M. Broshi, “247. 4QPesher on the Apocalypse of Weeks”, in Cryptic Texts and
Miscel- lanea, Part 1 (ed. by S.J. Pfann et al. ; DJD XXXVI ; Oxford 2000) 187–191.
32 C.A. Newsom, “370. 4QAdmonition Based on the Flood”, in Qumran Cave
4.XIV: Para- biblical Texts, Part 2 (ed. by M. Broshi et al.; DJD XIX; Oxford
1995) 85–97.
33 F. García Martínez, E. Tigchelaar, and A. Van Der Woude (eds.), Qumran Cave
11, II (11Q2–18, 11Q20–31) (DJD XXIII; Oxford 1998) 181–205.
34 Ed. M. Baillet, “510. Cantiques du Sage (i)” and “511. Cantiques du Sage (ii)”, in
Qumran Grotte 4, Part III (4Q482–520) (DJD VII; Oxford 1982) 215–219 (Plate LV)
and 219–262 (Plates LVI-LXII), respectively.
35 On the relationship between Jubilees and the early Enochic tradition, see the
essays in G. Boccaccini and G. Ibba (eds.), Enoch and the Mosaic Torah (Grand
Rapids 2009).
36 For a convenient summary, see J.C. Vanderkam, “The Manuscript Tradition of
Jubi- lees”, in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah (see n. 35), 3–21.
37 Only in the Apocalypse of Weeks (at 1 En. 93.6) is there an explicit reference
to the Torah given at Sinai ; cf. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1 (see n. 16), 446 and
Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108 (see n. 24), 102–108. This point should not be
pressed too hard since, on the other hand, there are references to the Sinai event
(which do not mention the
of an emphasis on Torah in Jubilees implies that it was critical of the

Enoch tradition with which it was acquainted. Such a conclusion,
however, is misleading. Despite its different interests, there were two
areas of tradition that Enoch could supply that Jubilees could not ignore.
The first is the Eno- chic tradition that locates the giving of divine
revelation about the cosmos and history during the time before the
Great Flood. The text appeals to Enoch as a recipient of revelation
who functions as a calendrical sage (Jub. 4.17 f; cf. the Astronomical
Book), as one who foretells what will hap- pen to humanity until the
final judgment (4.19; cf. Apocalypse of Weeks or Animal Apocalypse),
and as one who testified against the wicked of humanity (4.19 ; cf. the
Epistle of Enoch). The second is the Enochic tradition that relates to the
rebellious angels myth. Jub. 5.1–11 and 7.21–25, as well as 10.1–6, 7–
14, draw on some details regarding the ante-diluvian wick- edness and
its consequences that can be explained better through the Book of
Watchers (1 En. 6.1–9.3 ; 15.3–16.1) than through the Genesis narrative
itself.38 Enochic tradition thus supplied Jubilees with a theological frame-
work through which to place evils suffered by human beings, beginning
with the time of Noah, into perspective. Jubilees regards malevolent
beings in a way that is analogous to the rebellious angels in the Book of
Watchers (at 1 En. 11–16). Though they lead astray and cause humans to
suffer, Mas- tema (the chief of demonic powers) and his minions (1/10ths
of the spirits of the dead giants) are already defeated powers which
operate only under divine permission and whose final annihilation is
guaranteed. In other words, Jubilees may have added the Mosaic Torah
to the equation, but pre- supposes a world of traditions in which
Enochic writings formed a con- stituent part.39 Beyond Jubilees, it is
likely that the nomenclature for the
rebellious angels (“angels of destruction”, ml’’ky hbl: 1QS˙ iv 12; CD ii
6 ; 1QM
40
xiii 12; 4Q473 2.7 ?; 4Q495 2.4 ; 4Q510 1.5 ; cf. 4Q511
43.6)
and the demonic spirits of the dead giants (“bastard spirits”, rwhy
˙
law; cf. 1 En. 1.3b-4 and 89.28–35) and several parts of 1 En. draw on tradition associ-
ated with books (esp. Gen, Deut) that comprised the Pentateuch: e.g. Book of
Watchers at 1 En. 6–10 on Gen 6–9, and the Epistle of Enoch at 1 En. 103.9–15 on
Deut 28; on the latter, see L.T. Stuckenbruck, “The Epistle of Enoch : Genre and
Authorial Presenta- tion”, DSD 17 (2010) 387–417.
38 Cf. L.T. Stuckenbruck, “The Book of Jubilees and the Origin of Evil”, in Enoch
and the Mosaic Torah (see n. 35), 284–308.
39 See e.g. A. Yoshiko Reed, “Enochic and Mosaic Traditions in Jubilees: The
Evidence of Angelology and Demonology”, in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah (see n.
35), 353–368.
40 For this identification, see P. Alexander, “The Demonology of the Dead Sea
Scrolls”, in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years : A Comprehensive Assessment (ed.
by P.W. Flint and J.C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; Leiden 1998–1999) II.331–353. The point
is disputed by
W.J. Lyons (with A.M. Reimer), “The Demonic Virus and Qumran Studies: Some Pre-
ventative Measures”, DSD 5 (1998) 16–32.
mmzrym: 4Q510 1 i 5 ; 4Q511 35.7, 48–51 ii 3 ?, 182.1?; 4Q444 1–5.8 ?; cf. 1

En. 10.9) reflects the ongoing influence of early Enochic tradition.
When it comes to literature that can be more clearly related to the
Yahad, however, the world of Enoch tradition, alongside some of the
˙
ear ly “pseudepigraphal” writings among the Aramaic manuscripts,
is
left behind. The growing disuse of the Enochic texts among some of the
so-called “sectarian” Hebrew literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls does not
mean there was a general decline of the use of Enoch tradition in other
Jewish circles. For example, the earliest series of literary parallels with
material in the Enochic tradition is found in the Wisdom of Solomon,
composed in Greek during the 1st century BCE. In Wis 2 :1–4 :9 the
deliberative argument about the fate of the righteous dead follows very
closely that of the Epistle of Enoch at 1 En. 102.6–103.15. The singling
out of the figure of Enoch in Wis 4:10–15 as an example for someone
who was exalted on account of his pious standing before God suggests
a more than passing interest in the patriarch. It is possible, then, that at
least the Epistle already existed in a Greek translation produced by a
Jew, a translation which in turn shaped Wisdom’s ideology and
presentation of the post-mortem world. In addition, Philo’s treatment
of Gen 6 :1–4 suggests an awareness of the Enochic tradition, though
no direct allusions are made to either Enoch as an ideal figure or to
any part of 1 Enoch. However, Philo, like the later Greek text of
Codex Alexandrinus, conceives of “the sons of God” as “angels” in
line with the Book of Watchers, Epistle of Enoch, and Birth of Noah
(cf. 1 En. 6.2 ; 19.2 ; 21.10 ; 100.4; 106.5, 12).41 Also, it is plausible that
Philo’s explanation of Gen 6 in relation to the entrance of souls into the
bodies of human beings is an adaptation of the theological anthropology
developed in the Book of Watchers at 1 En. 15.3–16.1 (cf. 4Q531
19.2–4). According to the Book of Watchers the giants are the source
of spirits or souls who, once separated from their original form of
existence within physical bodies, seek to re-embody themselves in
human beings (cf. Philo, Gig. 2–4 ; QG 1.92). Again, as in Wisdom of
41 D. Martin, “When Did Angels Become Demons ?”, JBL 129 (2010) 657–677
has argued persuasively that, “for most Jews and Christians before the second and
third centuries” (677), the Greek term accekoi was withheld from referring to
rebellious angels or demonic beings. The Greek evidence should not, however, be
confused with the broader application of the term A=?4@B ; cf. the discussion
above and L.T. Stuckenbruck, “De- monic Beings and the Dead Sea Scrolls”, in
Explaining Evil. Volume 1: Definitions and Development (ed. by J. Harold Ellens;
Santa Barbara, CA 2011) 121–144.
Solomon, if there is any relationship with the Enoch tradition here,42

then the Book of Watchers has probably been received by Philo
through a Greek translation or summary prepared within a Jewish
setting.
III. Reception of 1 Enoch in the New Testament and

Early Christianity
The reception of tradition from 1 Enoch among writings collected into

the New Testament is a major topic that I have discussed in other studies
that have either appeared or are forthcoming. If we limit ourselves to a
possible background in the Book of Watchers, the Synoptic Gospels
share a perspective that considers malevolent beings as responsible for
wielding de- structive forces against humans while, at the same time,
operating out of an already defeated state of being. In addition, Pauline
(1 Cor 11:10)43 and Petrine (1 Pet 3 :18–22 ;44 2 Pet 2 :4f) tradition, as
well as the epistle of Jude
45
(6, 14–15) and Apocalypse of John (4:1; 12:8), are interacting with the
Enoch tradition. As is well known, Jude actually quotes a Greek
translation of the Book of Watchers (cf. 1 En. 1.9), doing so in a form
that treats Enoch as an inspired figure who predicts divine judgment by
“the Lord” and de- scribes him as “the seventh from Adam”. If we may
consider the writings of the New Testament alongside Wisdom of
Solomon and Philo as sources that drew on or interacted with the early
Enoch tradition, then we have evidence for the early and wide
circulation of the Book of Watchers in Greek. Now the Jude quotation
of 1 En. 1.9 takes on added significance in the above mentioned
designation for Enoch as “the seventh from Adam”. As the only
other extant such description of Enoch occurs in the Book of Parables
(so 1 En. 60.8 ; cf. 37.1), we may ask whether this de-
42 For a discussion of this question, see L.T. Stuckenbruck, “To What Extent Did
Philo’s Treatment of Enoch and the Giants Presuppose a Knowledge of the Enochic
and Other Sources Preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls?”, Studia Philonica Annual
19 (2007) 131–142.
43 For a critical treatment, see L.T. Stuckenbruck, “Why Should Women Cover
Their Heads Because of the Angels?”, Stone-Campbell Journal 4 (2001) 205–234.
44 Cf. C. Pierce, Spirits and the Proclamation of Christ: 1 Peter 3:18–22 in Light of
Sin and Punishment Traditions in Early Jewish and Christian Literature (WUNT
II/305; Tübin- gen 2011).
45 For a thoroughgoing evaluation of the possible use of Enoch tradition in
Revelation, see
L.T. Stuckenbruck and M.D. Mathews, “The Apocalypse of John, 1 Enoch, and the
Question of Influence”, in Die Apokalypse : Kontexte – Konzepte – Wirkungen (ed.
by
J. Frey, J. Kelhoffer and F. Tóth; WUNT 287; Tübingen 2012) 191–235.
tail can be explained on the basis of a count of the generations in Gen 5

or, more directly, on the basis of tradition coming from the Book of
Parables itself. If the latter, then Jude 14 may also point towards the
circulation of the Book of Parables (or floating tradition from it) in
Greek. If the Book of Parables is behind the designation for Enoch at all,
we are in a position at least to consider whether a simultaneous reception
of the Book of Watch- ers and Book of Parables suggests these Enochic
writings were being transmitted in close proximity to one another.
Beyond the first century it is no longer clear to what degree traditions
in 1 Enoch continued to circulate and wield an influence within a non-
Chris- tian Jewish context. This uncertainty is illustrated by the
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, which draw on Second Temple
Jewish traditions and, before they were taken hold of by Jewish
Christian and non-Jewish Chris- tian editors, reached their form as a
collection sometime during the late 1st or 2nd century CE. In the context of
the present discussion, it is significant that the Testaments make a
number of appeals to Enoch tradition. On seven occasions the
Testaments appeal to the authority of “the writing (or words) of
Enoch” (T. Sim. 5.4 ; T. Levi 10.5 ; 14.1; T. Jud. 18.1; T. Dan. 5.6 ; T.
Naph. 4.1; T. Ben. 9.1) and once, in a textually contested place, to
“the writing of the law of Enoch” (T. Zeb. 3.4).46 Despite these appeals
to Enochic tradition, which is made to predict sins to be commit- ted by
Jacob’s sons, no specific detail can be linked with any part of 1 Enoch or
with any other known text. On the other hand, it is true on a more gen-
eral level that the patriarch predicts future sin in the Book of Watchers,
Astronomical Book, Animal Apocalypse, Apocalypse of Weeks, and the
Epistle of Enoch. With the exception of the Jude quotation and
Jub. 4.19, the function of predicting wrongdoing among descendants is
nowhere else attributed to Enoch in the ancient literature that refers to
him. The usage in the Testaments suggests that not only does Enoch’s
profile match that in the early Enoch literature, but also that the Enoch
writings, whether in reality fictive or not, are assumed to carry
authoritative weight among the audience through the mere mention of
the patriarch’s name. Here we may have to do with an awareness of
Enoch as an ideal author and, therefore, as one to whom important
ideas can be profitably at- tached (analogous to the way Jubilees
attributes traditions to Enoch in
46 Since the passage is drawing on Deut 25:5–10 in support of levirate marriage,

it is not clear whether Mosaic tradition is being attributed to Enoch or Enoch
should be emend- ed to read “Moses”. On the problem, see H.W. Hollander and M.
de Jonge, The Testa- ments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (SVTP 8;
nd
Leiden 1985) 68; J.J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination (2 ed.; Grand Rapids
1998) 152.
Jub. 4.16–26). This idea is strengthened if we consider that, apart from

the open appeals to Enoch’s words and writings, the text seems aware of
Enoch tradition in two places. The first is the account in T. Reub. 5.1–6
that re- counts the angels’sexual relations with women on earth, while
holding the women responsible for having seduced them.47 Another
passage in T. Naph. 3.1–5 refers to the rebellious angels’ breach of
the natural order (v. 4 ; cf. 1 En. 15.3–10). Even more could be said
about the possible use of specific details found in the Enoch tradition in
the Pseudo-Clementines, in both the Greek Homilies and the Latin
Recognitions (both 4th cent. , though relying on earlier traditions that
nd
may go back to the 2 cent.), according to which the angels and giants
serve as an explanation for the origin of demons. Unlike the
Testaments, however, no explicit mention is made of Enoch, and many
of the details are shared with other literature, both Jewish (Jub. 4.15 ;
5.1–6 ; and 10.1–10) and Christian, make it difficult to maintain a direct
use of 1 Enoch. Nonetheless, similar to the Testaments and the New
Testament texts mentioned above (except for the quotation in Jude 14
f), the allusions to the Enoch tradition do not take the form of direct
quotations of a known text.
Analogous to the large-scale use of Greek translation traditions of the
Jewish scriptures in early Christian communities,48 it seems that the writ-
ings associated with 1 Enoch were mostly being transmitted in Christian
49
or Jewish-Christian circles. We cannot survey all the remaining
evidence for the early Christian use and estimation of the early Enoch
tradition,50 except to mention briefly a few of the highlights. The Epistle
of Barnabas, composed during the late 130s CE, cites the patriarch Enoch
as “scripture” twice in 16.5 f when reviewing material from the Animal
Apocalypse (1 En. 89.56, 60, and 66f) and the Apocalypse of Weeks
(1 En. 91.13 –
47 See K. Coblentz Bautch, “Decoration, Destruction, and Debauchery:

b
Reflections on 1 Enoch 8 in Light of 4QEn ”, DSD 15 (2008) 79–95, who rightly
points out the develop- ing tradition, even within the Book of Watchers (cf. 19.1–
3), that blames the women. However, it is questionable whether this motif, in
particular the longer Syncellus text to 1 En. 8.1 was original to the text ; cf. L.T.
Stuckenbruck, “The Myth of Rebellious An- gels: Ethics and Theological
Anthropology”, in Anthropologie und Ethik. Frühjüdische Literatur und Neues
Testament – Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen (ed. by M. Konradt; Tübingen
forthcoming) n. 8.
48 We do not know how long the early Enochic writings continued to be
transmitted in Aramaic (or Hebrew) beyond the Second Temple period.
49 With appropriate caution, see the important thesis by A. Edrei and D.
Mendels, Zur Spaltung der antiken jüdischen Welt (trans. by M. Dewey; Göttingen
2010).
50 For a more comprehensive overview, see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1 (see n. 16),
87–95 and esp. the important study by A. Yoshiko Reed, The Fallen Angels and the
History of Juda- ism and Christianity : The Reception of Enochic Literature
(Cambridge 2005).
which is taken as a prediction of an eschatological temple). Also, similar

to the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (see the previous paragraph),
the Epistle of Barnabas attributes to Enoch a text that has no precise
counter- part in 1 Enoch while, however, citing it as authoritative. Also
similar to the Testaments, however, the content of the passage, which has
Enoch predict difficult times prior to the eschatological judgment,
corresponds generally to the Epistle of Enoch at 1 En. 100.1–3. Justin
Martyr, in the mid-2nd century, may show direct acquaintance with the
early Enoch tradition in his Second Apology at 5.2 ; however, Justin’s
emphasis on the angels’ turning away from their assigned task (cf. 1 En.
12.4 ; 15.3 f) may equally reflect a reliance on Jub. 4.15 and 5.6,
according to which the angels were sent by God to earth to teach
humanity before being distracted by the beauty of the women.
Athenagoras (Plea for the Christians), around 177 CE, echoes material
from the Book of Watchers (1 En. 15.11–16.2) when he identifies the
“souls” of the giants, which “wander” over the earth to bring trouble for
51
humans, as “demons”. Irenaeus refers on a number of occasions to the
rebellious angels’ sin, though he does so in such general terms that no
part of 1 Enoch can specifically be said to be in play. His statement in
Adv. Haer. 4.16.2, however, that Enoch was sent to denounce the
watchers – this is briefly mentioned in Jub. 4.2 – seems to reflect the
more extensive storyline found in the Book of Watchers at 1 En. 12.4–5,
13.4–7, and 15.2. Moreover, the general information about the angels’
rebellion is treated as a tradition that was “announced through the
prophets” by the Holy Spirit (so Adv. Haer. 1.10.1). Much in line with
this, Tertullian and then Origen made considerable use of Enoch
tradition in their works. Both, however, were aware of those who did
not value it to the same degree as they. In particular, Tertullian, who
offers quotes from the Book of Watchers and the Epistle of Enoch
together in De Idolatria 4 (cf. 1 En. 19.1 and
99.6 f), was aware of the view that an ante-diluvian origin of the
book was difficult to reconcile with any claim that it was genuine
(so De Cult. Fem. 1.3). In response to such doubt, Tertullian
appealed to the quotation of Enoch in the Epistle of Jude. His
argument was that if Jude belongs to sacred Christian tradition, it
would surely not be wrong in attrib- uting the quoted text (and the
writing that goes along with it) to the patriarch himself. More so
than Tertullian, Origen participated in the growing concern to
regard genuine authorship as a mark of the writing’s authority
(Comm. Jo. 6 par. 217 on John 1:14, 28 ; Num. Hom. 28.2.1,
51 The link between the giants and demons here demonstrates that Athenagoras
is not merely alluding to Luke 11:24–26.
“not recognized among the Hebrews”) ; though he regarded the

works attributed to Enoch as coming from the patriarch himself and
could cite Enochic tradition to support his argumentation (De Princ.
1.3.3 ; 4.4.8), he did not make any written attempt to defend its
authority.
Over a century later, Augustine’s use of the Enoch tradition was less
positive than that of Origen. Augustine may have been familiar with
some of it through his previous association with Manichaeism (a
tradition in which the Book of Giants, if not broader streams of Enochic
tradition, is held in high esteem).52 He could draw on the Enoch
literature to support some of his arguments (cf. De Civ. Dei 15.23 and
18.38). At the same time, however, he went to great lengths to insist,
despite the quotation in Jude, that Enoch’s writings should not be
regarded as canonical and, instead, belong to the “apocrypha”.53 Jude
may allow one to acknowledge that Enoch left “some divine writings”
and, as other “apocryphal writings”, contains “some truth”; however,
together with the “apocrypha” the writings attributed to Enoch possess
“no canonical authority”. Augustine’s reasoning for rejecting Enoch’s
canonicity included the following points : (a) as other apocryphal
writings, it has “false statements”54 and (b) its purported an-
52 Three Manichean sources draw on early Enoch tradition: (1) The Mani Codex,
in its citation of the Book of Parables at 1 En. 58.7–60.12 at a point that has
parallels with the Slavonic or 2 Enoch at 1.3–10. (2) The Manichean Book of Giants
– a number of fragments from this work are preserved in Middle Persian,
th
Sogdian, Uyghur, and Coptic – surfaced in the 20 cent. through excavations at
Turfan (northwest China) and, in the case of the Coptic fragments, from Medinet
Madi in Egypt; among the many article- length studies of the Enochic materials
among these fragments, see esp. W.B. Henning, “The Book of Giants”, BSOAS 11
(1943) 52–74. In compiling his Book of Giants, Mani not only obviously used the
Jewish Book of Giants (fragments of which are preserved among ten manuscripts
from the Dead Sea Scrolls) but perhaps also materials related to 1 Enoch as well.
(3) The Manichean book Kephalaia, which appears to know a number of motifs
preserved primarily through the Book of Watchers (92.12–93.32 and 117.1–9). For
a still useful review of the evidence as it relates to the Enochic tradition, taking the
Book of Giants as the point of departure, see Reeves, Jewish Lore in Manichaean
Cosmog- ony (see n. 3), 9–49. It is likely that the substantive use of the Enoch
tradition among the Manicheans strengthened doubts about its authority among
patristic writers; on this cf. esp. Jerome, Breviarium Psalmos Homily 45 (on LXX
Ps 132 :3).
53 For a brief treatment of how the term “apocrypha” came to denote
pseudepigraphal writings, see L.T. Stuckenbruck, “‘Apocrypha’ and
‘Pseudepigrapha’”, in Dictionary of Early Judaism (ed. by J.J. Collins and D.C.
Harlow; Grand Rapids 2010) 143–162. In relation to the Book of Watchers
specifically, see Yoshiko Reed, The Fallen Angels (see n. 50), 233–272.
54 For example, Augustine argued that “the sons of God” and the giants in Gen
6:1–4 are human and that, therefore, 1 Enoch’s view that they were angels and
demons, respectively, was wrong. See, however, De Genesi ad litteram 3.0 and
Quaestionum in Hepta- teuchum 1.3, in which the sinful angels are compared with
”demons”. I am grateful to Dr. Alexandra Parvan for drawing my attention to these
texts.
tiquity to the time before the Great Flood cannot be taken seriously as
the work could not have been transmitted from that time through an
unbro- ken process of transmission.
55
As George W. E. Nickelsburg has noted, after the time of Augustine
there is very little evidence in the West for an explicit interest in the Eno-
chic tradition. Nevertheless, the Greek manuscripts and traditions show
that it was circulating in Egypt (4th cent. Chester Beatty-Michigan Papy-
th th
rus; 4 cent. Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 2069; and 5 cent. Codex Panopoli-
tanus), while the Book of Watchers and, possibly, the Book of Giants
th
were known to Georgius Syncellus of Constantinople in the 9 century,
though he only referred to the Book of Watchers with regard to the giants
56
as the origin of demons.
There are many other traditions that refer to the figure of “Enoch”
57
pos- itively. However, it is one thing to refer to Enoch and another to be
com- menting on the written tradition with which his name is
associated. Fur- thermore, it is possible to refer to a written tradition
with high esteem without regarding that tradition as “scripture” in a
more formal sense. Still, the abundant use of Enochic tradition
immediately or indirectly related to 1 Enoch in the Greek world,
attested by early Jewish and then
55 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1 (see n. 16), 94.

56 Syncellus cites Enoch tradition four times. In three instances, the texts are
quotations from the Book of Watchers: (1) 1 En. 6.1–11.4 (Synca), (2) 8.4–10.14
(Syncb), and (3) 15.8–16.1 (Syncc). The fourth passage is likewise attributed to the
Book of Watchers, but the quotation has no parallel to any known part of this
work, let alone 1 Enoch. Milik has plausibly suggested that this citation is in fact
based on the Book of Giants (Milik, The Books of Enoch [see n. 3], 317–320, with
text and translation on 318). The argument for this is two-fold: (1) the passage,
though attributed by Syncellus to “the book of Enoch concerning the watchers”,
does not have any textual correspond- ences to any extant part (Aram., Greek,
Ethiopic) of the Book of Watchers, and (2) it announces a great judgment against
Mount Hermon for being the place where the watchers swore not to retreat from
their plan and it announces to the watchers that not only to the watchers (called
“sons of men”!) that their sons (i. e. the giants) “will be annihilated … and die from
the whole earth”. Milik’s identification of this fragment is uncertain. However, it is
consistent with the denunciation of the watchers found in the Book of Giants at
4Q203 8 i 3–15 and with the detail in 4Q203 11 which Milik suggests
“should perhaps be placed below fr. 8, in other words 11 i = 7 ii, and 8 + 11 ii = 7
iii” (p. 317). The portion of text below the denunciation of the watchers of 4Q203 8
contains the
words “and dew and fro[st?” which, if read correctly, correspond to what the
Syncellus fragment relates about Mt. Hermon: “There will descend on it neither
cold, nor snow, nor frost, nor dew, unless they descend on it as a curse, until the
great day of judgment.”
57 For a brief overview, see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1 (see n. 16), 82–100. In the
above discussion I have not included several of the more questionable allusions
among patristic writers (ibid. , 92–95) and the Gnostic (ibid. , 98 f), and several
pseudepigraphal texts (ibid. , 96f), as they at most only allude to tradition found in
1 Enoch.
Christian texts and manuscripts produced and found Egypt is suggestive.

Whatever the importance the early Enochic tradition may have enjoyed
among some Jewish and Christian writers (Wis, Philo, Jude, Barn.,
Test. 12 Patr. , Athenagorus, Tertullian, Origen ; cf. also the Manichean
tradition) and however disputed it may have been by others (esp. Jerome,
Augustine), the fact remains that in the East, the “Book of Enoch” (Mä-
shafä Henok) would eventually come to occupy – along with another
˙ ˙
w ork preserved among the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jubilees (in the Ethiopic
tra-
dition called Kufale) – an important place within the sacred Ethiopian
Christian tradition. It is appropriate for us, therefore, to review some
of
the evidence for the reception of the Mäshafä˙ ˙Henok in Ethiopia, not
least because it is only in the Ethiopic manu s cript tradition that the
entire-
ty of the book survives intact.
IV. Reception of Mäshafä Henok in Ethiopia

˙˙
The inclusion of Mäshafä Henok ˙ ˙ in the Ethiopian scriptures did not
clearly emerge until the 15th c ent. CE. Before this time the precise
status of the book
within the Ethiopian Church is not known and therefore subject to a va-
riety of opinions. For example, some reckon that it had only enjoyed
standing among non-canonical “apocryphal” or “pseudepigraphal”
works,58 and others presuppose that it was seen as a significant
(canonical) writing from the very time it was translated into Ge’ z
(sometime during the 4th to 6th cents. CE).59 The early position of 1 Enoch
in Ethiopian Chris- tianity is in any case to be distinguished from how it
functioned in the later period. Two factors are important to note in
relation to its early reception. First, 1 Enoch was received at a time
before interest in the book had entirely waned, even though it was
already being questioned in some circles. In
58 This seems to be the view of A. Dillmann, “Ueber den umfang des

Bibelcanons der Abyssinischen kirche”, in Jahrbücher der Biblischen wissenschaft.
Fünftes Jahrbuch: 1852–1853 (ed. by H. Ewald; Göttingen 1853) 144–151 (here
145) who, presupposing an existing distinction between canonical and non-
canonical writings, maintains that the Ethiopic practice of including “non-
canonical” alongside “canonical” texts in manuscripts was but a continuation of
the same that had occurred in the earlier Greek manuscript tradition; cf. further A.
Baumstark, “Der äthiopische Bibelkanon”, Oriens Chris- tianus 5 (1905) 162–173;
and R. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testa- ment Church and its
Background in Early Judaism (London 1985) 479.
59 So e. g. I. Guidi, Storia della Letteratura Etiopica (Rome 1932) 15; S. Uhlig, Das
äthiopi- sche Henochbuch (JSHRZ V/6; Gütersloh 1984) 470; notably Nickelsburg, 1
Enoch 1 (see n. 16), 106–108.
other words, it is possible to contemplate an early reception of the book

th
within 4 century Ethiopia that had not come under the influence of crit-
icisms and concerns raised in other areas of the Mediterranean world.
Sec- ond, and closely related to this point, is Ethiopian Christianity’s
close ties with Egypt, where sufficient evidence of continuing use of
Enochic tradition survives from the 4th century and later. For this
reason, the debate that would emerge in the 15th century about the
canonicity of 1 Enoch presup- poses that, though contested, it had been
valued for a long time in Ethiopia and, therefore, had not only recently
th
emerged as significant. As we shall discuss below, the 15 century
debate not only secured the high valuing of the book in Ethiopia, it
raised it to a level that had apparently not yet ob- tained. Since in a
number of places the Ethiopic can be easily, though to different degrees,
be retroverted into Greek,60 and given the interest in Enoch in the
Greek-speaking world along with Greek manuscripts of Egyptian
provenance, we may infer that early high esteem was transmitted from
elsewhere to Ethiopia and that the work was translated from Greek into
Ethiopic.61 My own view is that the translation of Enoch did not hap- pen
in isolation from the translation of other biblical writings preserved in
Greek into Ge’ z. In addition, an Egyptian setting for the authorization
and execution of a translation is plausible since it is from there that A-
thanasius is said to have appointed Frumentius as bishop to Ethiopia,
60 This point is largely assumed by Nickelsburg (1 Enoch 1 [see n. 16], 18 f) and

myself (1 Enoch 91–108 [see n. 24], passim). See further the following note.
61 E. Ullendorff, “An Aramaic ‘Vorlage’ of the Ethiopic Text of Enoch?”, in Atti del
con- vegna internazionale di Studi Etiopici (Roma 2 – 4 aprile 1959) (Roma 1960)
259–267, and id., Ethiopia and the Bible: The Schweich Lectures of the British
Academy 1967 (Ox- ford 1968) 61f, argued for the translation of the entirety of 1
Enoch directly from an Aramaic Vorlage; cf. further the discussion by M.A. Knibb,
The Ethiopic Book of Enoch (2 vols.; Oxford 1978) II.37–46 (with further
bibliography on 38 n. 2). Though Ullendorff ’s argument that the whole of 1 Enoch
was rendered into Ge’ z as one project rather than having been translated in discrete
stages is plausible, his particular view regarding the Vorlage of the Ethiopic version is
difficult to sustain, in particular, that both Aramaic and Greek versions contributed to
the original translation of 1 Enoch into Ethi- opic; on this, see Knibb, e.g. in The
Ethiopic Book of Enoch, II.44–46 and the stemma of versions proposed by Uhlig, Das
äthiopische Henochbuch (see n. 59), 490 f. It is difficult, however, to imagine under
what conditions both Aramaic and Greek versions would have been equally
th
available to an Ethiopic translator in the 4 cent. CE. It seems to me that a Greek
version did serve as the base for the book and that where the Ethiopic does not match
evidence for the text preserved in the Greek materials, one may surmise that another
Greek text – not preserved for us – served as the Vorlage. For a discussion of one area
in which Greek surely functioned as a Vorlage, see e.g. L.T. Stuckenbruck, “The
Parables of Enoch according to George Nickelsburg and Michael Knibb: A Summary
and Discussion of Some Remaining Questions”, in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man:
Revisiting the Book of Parables (ed. by G. Boccaccini; Grand Rapids 2007) 65–71.
just prior to the middle of the 4th century. The traditions about Frumentius
and the conversion of the Ethiopian emperor Ezana, however doubtful
they might be in some details, relate to Alexandria and so are consistent
with the geographical region from which the early Greek manuscript ev-
idence comes. As basis for the early translation, we may posit a now lost
Greek codex or another collection of books both large and small that in-
cluded Enoch. Such a translation would have been made soon after
Chris- tianity was officially introduced to Ethiopia, though once made, it
would not necessarily have continued to be copied alongside other
writings likewise translated into Ge’ z.62
The question about the formal inclusion of “the Book of Enoch”
among the Ethiopian scriptures revolves around several issues: (1)
whether or not it is included among the “81 books” (on which see below)
63
in collections of “biblical” writings and texts that list the biblical books;
(2) the question of
62 One of the crucial questions in need of explanation is the disparity between

the hypo- thesis of one original transition and the instability of the earliest
Ethiopian witnesses to the text (recension I). It is well known that the period
between the Aksumite kingdom and the 15th cent. was one of political instability
which, in turn, would have posed a threat to a continuous transmission of some
early materials. The weakening of the Aksumite kingdom in the 7th cent. CE through
Arab invasion as well as the subsequent rise in the area of smaller states often under
decidedly non-Christian rule would have left places where manuscripts had been
kept and copied vulnerable to attack. One period for this would have been
activities attributed to the leadership of a certain queen sato (known also under the
names Gudit, Judith, Esther, T rd a’ Gäbäz) who, during the early 10th cent.,
conquered Aksum and endeavored to destroy Christianity, including monasteries
and churches ; cf. S. Kaplan, The Beta Israel in Ethiopia from Earliest Times to the
Twentieth Century (New York 1994) 44–47, K. Tage Andersen, “The Queen of the
Habasha in Ethiopian History, Tradition and Chronology”, BSOAS 63 (2000) 31–
63, and further bibliography in S. Kaplan, “ sato”, in Encyclopaedia Aethi- opica
(ed. by S. Uhlig; 4 vols.; Wiesbaden 2003-present) II.377. On the basis of such a
context over time, the main questions to ask regarding the instability of recension I
to 1 Enoch are two-fold : (1) the extent to which the large number of textual
variants among the manuscripts was due to political fragmentation that allowed
transmission traditions to develop in isolation from one another and (2) whether or
not, in the absence of a text, new source materials were found and a secondary
translation (from Greek or a cognate
Semitic language) was produced.
63 The term “biblical” as a description of manuscripts is imprecise. Since so very
few manuscripts exist that attempted to bring all the scriptures together in one book,
inclusion or, in particular, exclusion of a given writing from “incomplete” manuscripts
(especially if they focused on one part or disparate parts of the canon) is no indicator
of what was assigned to the Bible, either by the copyist himself or more generally in
that copyist’s environment. Only two Ethiopic codices are known to include all the Old
and New Tes- tament books, both of which seem, however, to contain 1 Enoch and
Jubilees; cf. E. Cer- ulli, Inventario dei manoscritti Cerulli etiopici (Studi e Testi 420 ;
Città del Vaticano 2004) 65–67 (on Cerulli, see no. 75) and A. Bausi, “Su alcuni
manoscritti presso comunità
its use in “liturgical” settings; (3) evidence for commentary on and use of
the work in theological and mystical texts ; and (4) what one might be
able to learn about this from the manuscripts themselves. Since even
today,
though Mäshafä˙ ˙ Henok is prized in most of if not throughout the Ethio-
pian Ortho d ox Tewahedo Church, ambivalence is occasionally
expressed
about its value, it is important to become more aware of developments
relating to its status within a formative phase of this ecclesiastical
tradition. First, we look at the literature that lists the books to be
“counted”. Here, the contemporary evidence for Mäshafä Henok as
scripture is initially not
˙˙
so clear. Many Bibles printed in E thiopia today do not include
Enoch,
though in most cases this exclusion may stem from the direct
involvement, through a combination of scholarly and financial resources,
of foreigners, especially Protestants, in the production of these
editions.64 For instance, recent Protestant projects such as the Biblica
translation – in which the New Testament was completed in 1988 and
the Old Testament in 2001
th
– have been limited to 66 books. Likewise, Bibles printed in the 19
and 20th centuries in Tigrinya and Tigre translations in northeast Ethiopia
and Eritrea have not, due to the Protestant sponsorship (predominantly in
this case Swedish Lutherans), included any writings beyond these texts.65
While tending more strongly in the direction of inclusion of the so-called
“apocrypha”, printed editions commissioned by the Ethiopian Orthodox
Tewahedo Church do not represent a uniform picture in this area. In 1961
the New Haile Selassie I Bible, an Amharic translation of the entire Bible
in four volumes, was published.66 Although this edition includes both
Kufale and Mäshafä Henok, as well as the other books in the so-called
“narrower”
˙ ˙
scriptur e s (including the Roman Catholic “deuterocanonical”
writings),
they were printed separately in a volume of their own.67 Later printings
monastiche dell’Eritrea. Parte seconda”, Rassegna di Studi Etiopici 39 (1997) 25–48, here
34–39.
64 The picture is muddied by the rapid rise of a number of Protestant
denominations within Ethiopia during the past several decades; their acceptance of
only 66 books in the biblical canon led to the creation of several printed Bibles in
modern Ethiopic vernac- ulars for use within these communities.
65 See e.g. R. Voigt, “Bible translation into T gre,” in Encyclopaedia Aethiopica 1,
577 and id., “Bible translation into T gr nna”, in Encyclopaedia Aethiopica 1, 577 f.
66 K. Stoffregen-Pedersen, “Bible translation into Amharic”, in Encyclopaedia
Aethiopica 1, 574–575: “In 1961 a new translation of the whole Bible (with
Apocrypha) appeared, printed by the Royal Press, Addis Abäba. It was prepared by a
joint committee appoint-
ed by ase Haylä S´ llase and the BFBS…. The same version, without the Apocrypha,
was subseq˙uen˘tly published by the BFBS” (575).
67 A copy of this volume in the possession of the Patriarchal Library of the
Ethiopian Or- thodox Tewahedo Church has been microfilmed as EMML 673. See W.F.
Macomber, A Catalogue of Ethiopian Manuscripts: microfilmed for the Ethiopian
Manuscript Micro-
of this Bible, however, omitted the contents of that volume altogether,

thereby reducing the books contained to those within the Protestant
canon. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church also published the en-
tire scriptures, including Kufale and Mäshafä
˙ ˙ Henok, in 1986, with a re-
printing in 2007. For apparently practic a l reasons, the Bible Society
of
Ethiopia, which includes among its partner churches the Ethiopian
Or- thodox Tewahedo Church, the Ethiopian Catholic Church, and
the Evan- gelical Churches Fellowship of Ethiopia, has produced
Bibles with and without Mäshafä Henok. Its 1988 translation of the
Bible, later revised
˙ ˙
in 2005, inc lu ded only the 66 books of the Protestant canon.
Similarly,
in 1992–1993 the Society reprinted the New Haile Selassie I Bible of
1961 without the “apocrypha”. Conversely, the most recent publication
of the Bible by the Bible Society of Ethiopia contains all 81 books,
including Jubilees and 1 Enoch.
The diverse profile of these publications of the Bible and the reasons
behind the differences among them will require more research than has
been done even until now.68 The inconsistency of context is, nonetheless,
not only due to Protestant missionary influence but also has its back-
ground in the complex debates within the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox
th th
Church itself that go back to the formative period of the 14 and 15 cen-
turies, as the early lists of scriptural books stemming from this time di-
verge as well. The two main documents in question are (1) the Senodos
(Mäshafä Senodos) a collection of canons that claims to transmit
˙ ˙
materials, som e times of a liturgical nature, derived from the apostles
and the early
church councils69 and (2) the Fetha Nägä´st (or “The Law of the Kings”),
˙
film Library, Addis Ababa, and for the Monastic Manuscript Microfilm Library, College-
ville (10 vols.; Collegeville, MN 1975-) ad loc. It is noteworthy that, with the
exception of the sections of Esther found only in the LXX version, the segregation
of the so-called apocrypha was carefully carried through, even to the point of the
additions to Daniel being separated.
68 Despite the discussions by R.W. Cowley, “The Biblical Canon of the
Ethiopian Ortho- dox Church Today”, Ostkirchliche Studien 23 (1974) 318–323;
Beckwith, The Old Tes- tament Canon of the New Testament Church (see n. 58),
478–505 (acknowledging his debt to discussions with Roger Cowley, 501 n. 9); G.-
A. Mikre-Selassie, “The Bible and Its Canon in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church”,
The Bible Translator 44 (1993) 111–123; P. Brandt, “Geflecht aus 81 Büchern. Zur
variantenreichen Gestalt des äthio- pischen Bibelkanons”, Aethiopica 3 (2000) 79–
115; and especially the important con- tribution by L. Baynes, “Enoch and Jubilees
in the Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church”, in A Teacher for All Generations:
Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam (ed. by E.F. Mason; 2 vols.; JSJ Supp
153 ; Leiden and Boston 2011) II.799–818.
69 For an edition of this complicated collection of canons, see A. Bausi, Il S¯enodos
etiopico. Canonici pseudoapostolici: Canoni Dopo l’Ascensione, Canoni Di Simone
Cananeo, Can- oni Apostolici, Lettera Di Pietro Aeth. (2 vols.; CSCOSAe 101–102;
Leuven 1995). In particular, the Senodos manuscripts not only reflect a translation
from a Coptic-Arabic
originally composed by a Coptic Christian in Arabic during the 13th cen-

tury. The discussion below looks at these writings in reverse order.
The Fetha Nägä´st, originally a 13th century Christian Arabic
˙
composition (frequ ently referred to as Nomocanon) from in Egypt, is
thought in
the Ethiopian tradition to have been translated into Ge’ z in the 15th cen-
tury during the reign of Emperor Zär’a Ya’ qob (1434–1468), though it
probably did not in fact emerge until the 16th century.70 Up until now
th
its earliest known manuscript is from the 17 century, and it was used
well into the 20 century as a basic code of law.71 The work refers to an
th
72
authoritative list of 81 books. What did these 81 books include ? The an-
swer depends in part on how these books are counted. Roger Cowley ar-
gued that the number is more a matter of principle than a matter of actual
counting ;73 for example, much would depend on whether one counts the
Pentateuch as one or five books or 1–2 and 3–4 Kings as two or four.
Gebre-Ammanuel Mike-Selassie, however, has tried to be more precise,
arguing that the number of books listed is actually 73, 46 of which belong
original made during the 13th–14th cent., but further textual evidence suggests the
preservation of more ancient related material in Ge’ z that stems from the
Aksumite kingdom of the 4th–5th cent. which, in turn, may have been served by a
Greek Vorlage. Cf. further A. Bausi, “New Egyptian texts in Ethiopia”, Adamantius
8 (2002) 146–151 and id., “The Aksumite Background of the Ethiopic ‘Corpus
Canonum’”, in Proceedings of the XVth International Conference of Ethiopian Studies,
Hamburg 20–25 July 2003 (ed. by
S. Uhlig; Wiesbaden 2006) 532–541; id. , “Collezione aksumita canonico-liturgica”,
Ad- amantius 12 (2006) 43–70; id., “The so-called Traditio apostolica : preliminary
observations on the new Ethiopic evidence”, in Volksglaube im antiken
Christentum. Prof. Dr. Theofried Baumeister OFM zur Emeritierung (ed. by H.
Grieser and A. Merkt; Darmstadt 2009) 291–321, esp. 291f ; and id. , “La ‘nuova’
versione etiopica della Tradi- tio apostolica: edizione e traduzione preliminare”, in
Christianity in Egypt : literary production and intellectual trends (ed. by P. Buzi and
A. Camplani; Studia Ephemeridis Au- gustianum 125 ; Roma 2011) 19–69. For a more
general orientation, see A. Bausi, “Se- nodos”, in Encyclopaedia Aethiopica 4, 623–
625.
70 Cf. Guidi, Storia della Letteratura Etiopica (see n. 59), 78 f. For the text and
translation see I. Guidi, Il Fetha Nagast o la Legislazione dei Re codice ecclesiastico e
civile di Abissinia (Pubblicazioni scientifiche del R. Instituto Orientale di Napoli;
Rome 1897 and 1899, respectively).
71 On this continued use, see P. Tzadua, “F tha nägä´st”, in Encyclopaedia
Aethiopica 2, 534f (here p. 535) and id., “The ancient law o˙f the kings – the Fetha
Nagast – in the actual
practices of the established Ethiopian Orthodox Church”, in Kanon: Jahrbuch der Ge-
sellschaft für das Recht der Ost-Kirchen. Acta Congressus 1971, Band 1 (ed. by W.M.
Plöchl and R. Potz; Freiburg 1973) 112–145.
72 Beckwith claims that the number 81 has its origin in the Coptic Arabic
Octateuch and that this number for canonical books existed in the Syriac tradition;
cf. id., The Old Tes- tament Canon of the New Testament Church (see n. 58), 486–
493 (see the comparative charts on 488f and esp. 493).
73 Cowley, “The Biblical Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox ChurchToday” (see n.
68), 318.
to the Old Testament while 27 are assigned to the New.74 In neither case
are
either Mäshafä Henok or Kufale mentioned. Whatever the actual
˙ ˙
count- able numb e r in Fetha Nägä´st itself, the Amharic
˙
commentary (Andemta) on the work, publi shed in 1965–1966
(Ethiopian calendar, 1958), insists
that both books do, in fact, count among the notional “81”.75 The
76
argument given for Enoch is as follows :
“If one asks, why does the Fetha Nagast leave out the Book of Enoch from the list:
Enoch fell near Paradise and stayed for six years, where, reaching perfection, he had
revelation on the exit of winds, on the movement of stars and on the atmosphere. Had
the apostles included the Book of Enoch in the list of sacred books, philosophers
would have said: ‘The apostles have not criticized our wisdom; it is for this reason
that they have included the Book of Enoch in the list. Yet, in order to show that the
Book of Enoch is an important book, the Apostle has confessed on its account by
saying, ‘It was with them in mind that Enoch, the seventh patriarch from Adam, made
his prophecy …’ [Jude 14]. Paul also said, ‘Enoch was taken up’ [Heb 11:5]. If the
Books of Kings are counted as two [instead of four77], then it is possible to include
Kufale and the Book of Enoch [in the 81].”
According to Cowley, a very similar rationale appears in the Andemta to

78
the Book of Enoch. This Andemta, which was only published in 2008
by Abune Paulos (d. August 17th 2012), puts together several traditions
of oral
79
interpretation regarding Mäshafä Henok. The introduction, which is
˙˙
probably shaped by the view taken in the Fetha Nägä´st, states,
˙
“When the apostles delivered the books to Clement, t hey counted the
book of
Enoch in their hearts, but did not mention it aloud. The reason for this
is as follows. In the time of the apostles, some Greeks knew through
74 Mikre-Selassie, “The Bible and Its Canon in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church”
(see n. 68). In this case, however, the addition of 8 books attributed to Clement (the
so-called Octateuch of Clement), as found in some lists, would complete the list at 81;
cf. e.g. R.W. Cowley, “The Identification of the Ethiopian Octateuch of Clement, and
its Relation- ship to the Other Christian Literature”, Ostkirchliche Studien 27 (1978)
37–45, and Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (see n.
66), 490–493 and 497.
75 Cowley, “The Biblical Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church Today” (see n.
68), 321 and n. 4, refers to the work as Fetha Nägäst, nebabenna tergwamew
(Addis Ababa: photo-offset, 1958 E.C.).
76 The translation from the Amharic below is that of Daniel Assefa and is cited
from Bay- nes, “Enoch and Jubilees in the Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox
Church” (see n. 68), 805. The citations in this paragraph are translations by Assefa
as cited by Baynes.
77 The Fetha Nägä´st in fact counts the two books of the Kings as four.
78 See R.W˙. Cowley, “Old Testament Introduction”, JES 12 (1974) 133–175
(here 139).
79 Interview in Addis Ababa with Daniel Seife-Michael, Patriarchal Librarian and
initiator of the publication of this volume in honor of His Holiness Abune Paulos I,
April 6, 2012. A translation of the entire Amharic text of this work is at present
being prepared by Ralph Lee and Daniel Assefa. A translation by Ralph Lee of the
commentary for 1 En. 6–16 will be published early 2013 in the Journal for the Study
of the Pseudepigrapha.
their philosophy, and because of this the apostles put the book outside
their number so that the Greeks should not boast that their wisdom
had not been rejected. What demonstrates that the apostles counted it
in their hearts is that Jude spoke of it, saying, ‘As Enoch
prophesied, who was seventh from Adam [cf. Jude 14f].’”80 So,
whereas the Fetha Nä-
˙
gä´st contained a narrower canon, the commentary traditions to bo th
the
Fetha Nägä´st and Mäshafä Henok advocate, by counting differently, a
˙ ˙˙
larger n umber of books among the Bible that include both
Jubilees and 1
Enoch.
Senodos was used by the Fetha Nägä´st. Several parts of the work
˙
entitled “Apostolic Canons” contain four canon lists found the “56
Canons”
(no. 55) and “81 Canons” (no. 81; Abtelis, rec. 1 no. 81, rec. 2 no. 80).81
˙
Two of these lists include Kufale (“ 56 Canons” no. 5582 and Abtelis,
˙
rec. 1 no. 81) while none of them make any reference to Mäs hafä
Henok. Much the same list of books is kept intact and preserved
˙˙
am ong
83
a number of texts influenced by Senodos. These lists reflect the growing
th
importance of Jubilees during the 15 century, due largely to the sponsor-
ship and influence of the emperor Zär’a Ya‘ qob. Several reasons can
be given for this.84 First, Kufale was read to support the observance of
the Sab- bath (i. e. that one not only rest on Sunday, but also on Saturday
85
as well). This function of the book reflects Zär’a’s acceptance of
teaching from the
movement led by Ewostatewos (1273–1352) that had initially suffered
per-
80 Translation from the Amharic (Fetha Nägäst, nebabenna tergwamew, 41–44)

by Daniel Assefa cited in Baynes, “Enoch and Jubilees in the Canon of the
Ethiopian Orthodox Church” (see n. 68), 806.
81 For the lists, see Bausi, Il Se¯nodos (see n. 69), vol. 101; vol. 102, pp. 60, 71 f,
88f, 107f, see the texts in vol. 101, pp. 144f (“56 Canons” no. 55), 177–179 (“81
Canons” no. 81), 228–232 (Rec. 1 of Abtelis), and 278–281 (Rec. 2 of Abtelis). On the
complicated rela-
tionship between thes˙e recensions, see A. Bausi, “Alcu˙ne considerazione sul
Se¯nodos
etiopico”, Rassegna di Studi Etiopici 34 (1992) 5–73.
82 The text refers to “the books of Jubilees” while Abtelis only refers to the book in
the sin-
gular. ˙
th
83 So, for example, EMML 8519, a 18 cent. ms. accessible and examined at the
National Archives Library of Ethiopia in Addis Ababa.
84 Except for the third point below, the wider literary context is discussed by
Baynes, “Enoch and Jubilees in the Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church”
(see n. 68), 807–812.
85 E. Hammerschmidt, Stellung und Bedeutung des Sabbats in Äthiopien (Studia
Delitz- schiana 7; Stuttgart 1963) 19–35; T. Tamrat, Church and State in Ethiopia
1270–1527
(Oxford 1972) 209–213; E. Isaac, A New Text-Critical Introduction to Mashafa Berha¯n
with a Translation of Book 1 (Leiden 1973) 53–79; and G. Fiaccadori, “Ewo˙s˙tatewos”,
in
Encyclopaedia Aethiopica 2, 469–472 (here 469). ˙
secution at the beginning of the 14th century.86 Second, Kufale was

consid- ered an important witness to the existence of the Trinity in the
Old Tes- tament. In particular the text of Jub. 2.18 f could be read as
evidence for Christology, so that the Angel of the Presence, who
dictated the book to Moses at Mt. Sinai, is seen as none other than
Christ himself, while the Angel of Sanctification in the book (cf. 1.27)
was identified with the Holy Spirit.87 Third, one may infer that the
emphasis on circumcision in Kufale fit well with the widespread
practice of circumcision insofar as it was closely bound up with
observance of the Sabbath.88
Second, we consider the question of the use of Mäshafä ˙ ˙ Henok in
liturgical settings. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo C h urch uses
14 “Ana-
89
phoras” (or “liturgical services” related to the eucharist). Of these 14,
three refer to the figure of Enoch : the Anaphoras (i) of Mary, (ii) of St.
Cyril, and (iii) of the 300. However, none of the references to Enoch
indicate a direct use of any part of 1 Enoch and it seems that the
understanding of Enoch here, as for example, in the Anaphora of the
300, is shaped by Jub. 4.25.90
Above I have referred to the fact that it is one thing to mention Enoch
as a character and another to ascertain that the Book of Enoch is in view.
Since this data does not tell us anything about the use of the Book of
Enoch itself, Leslie Baynes concludes that neither Jubilees nor 1 Enoch
are found in the liturgy and goes on to argue that, “None of the Old
Testament is read in the
86 G. Fiaccadori, “Etiopia, Cipro e Armenia: la ‘Vita’ di ‘Ewost’âtêwos”, Corsi di

cultura sull’arte ravennate e bizantina 32 (1985) 73–78 and Felix Ravenna 127–
128 (1984–1985) 217–239. More generally, see A. Hastings, The Church in Africa
1450–1950 (Oxford 1996) 28–34.
87 The Mäshafä B rhan (“The Book of Light”), which engages in a strong
polemic against Jews and˙˙is ascribed to the authorship of Zär’a Ya‘ qob, adopts
this reading of Jub. 2.18f.
Cf. Hammerschmidt, Stellung und Bedeutung des Sabbats in Äthiopien (see n.
85), 206–247 and Baynes, “Enoch and Jubilees in the Canon of the Ethiopian
Orthodox Church” (see n. 68), 809 f. For translation of only book 1, see Isaac, A
New Text-Critical Introduction to Mashafa (see n. 85), though Isaac offers notes on
the work as a whole on
53–79. ˙˙
88 This point shall require further attention in future studies.
89 For translations of these Anaphoras, see J.M. Harden, Anaphoras in the
Ethiopian Lit- urgy (TCL III, Liturgical Texts; London 1928); cf. E. Hammerschmidt,
Studies in the Ethiopic Anaphoras (ÄthFor 25 ; Stuttgart 1987).
90 See the discussion in Baynes, “Enoch and Jubilees in the Canon of the Ethiopic
Ortho- dox Church” (see n. 68), 812 f. While from a perspective limited to the
anaphoras such a statement is true, its validity depends on a restrictive meaning of
“liturgy”; if a broader definition is allowed, one could adduce to the contrary, for
instance, the texts recited every year during Passion Week (G brä H mamat), among
which are numerous Old
Testament passages. ˘
liturgy of the Ethiopian Orthodox church.”91 If we are talking about the

14 Anaphoras themselves, then Baynes’ conclusion is correct. However,
evidence for the liturgical use of Mäshafä Henok emerges from a nearly
com-
˙ ˙ 92
plete and unstudied manuscript fr om Daga Estifanos on Lake Tana.
The
˙
beginning of the text, which belongs to a bund le of quires appended
to a
th
homiliary in honour of the angel Gabriel (of an 18 cent. hand), is copied
in a beautiful, fairly clean scribal hand that on palaeographical grounds
93
may be dated to ca. 1400. Especially interesting for our purposes in re-
lation to this early copy of Mäshafä Henok is that in five places notations
˙˙
are added in the upper right ma r gins that indicate liturgical use.
These no-
tations, written later and by someone who was not a trained scribe,
consist of the following: w dasse bä-sänuy, w dasse bä-sälus, w dasse
bä-rabu’, w dasse bä-hämus, and w dasse bä-’ärb – translated,
these markers
˘
refer to a “ liturgical (reading) on the second/third/fourth/fifth/sixth
(day of the week).” The time indicators are placed, respectfully, above
the beginning of the Book of Watchers (the title plus 1 En. 1.1), above
the beginning of the Book of Parables (37.1), above the beginning of
the Book of the Heavenly Luminaries (72.1), above a description of the
“chiefs” over the four seasons still in the Book of the Heavenly
Luminaries (beginning at 82.12), and above the beginning of the
Epistle of Enoch (92.1).94 While the use of Enoch in this manuscript
shows no direct link to the Anaphora, it at least provides evidence that
Enoch was being appro- priated within a potential cycle of readings.
Several settings present themselves : reading during prayers, reading
during mealtime, reading during and in relation to one of the major
festivals, or a reading on one of the commemoration days for saints.
One compilation of stories of saints used for reading on such days was
the Mäshafä S nkesar or Synaxarium (translated
th ˙˙ th
in the 14 cent. and revised in the 16 cent.). On the sixth day found
in this
work, the figure of Enoch is simply mentioned without further detail ; on
91 Baynes, “Enoch and Jubilees in the Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church”
(see n. 68), 812.
92 My comments on this manuscript are based on my viewing of the manuscript
at the library of Daga Estifanos in June 2011 and again in March 2012. The
manuscript is com-
plete, except for th˙e last several chapters of 1 Enoch, pages of which have gone missing.
The last page is marked in pencil as “EMML 8400”, for which, however, the
microfilm reel is currently missing at the National Archives Library of Ethiopia. A
copy of the reel was seen in the Patriarchal Library in Addis Ababa, though the
microfilm reader there is defunct.
93 Thus the manuscript constitutes a secondary binding of documents copied
separately and in very different periods.
94 The liturgical notation thus considers 1 En. 92 (i.e. not ch. 91) as the
beginning of the Epistle of Enoch. Cf. Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108 (see n. 24),
156.
another day, Enoch’s ascension is referred to; and in yet another of the
commemoration readings (on 27 T rr, i. e. 4 February) there are citations
from and allusions to the Book of Watchers,95 the Book of Parables,96 per-
97 98
haps the Astronomical Book, and the Animal Apocalypse. The
citations are made not only in order to strengthen claims about
Christology, the church, and believers, as the brief interpretations of
them show, but also cover a variety of themes found throughout the
book itself while ad- hering to the sequence of the visions as they
occur.99 The week of liturgical readings in the Daga Estifanos
manuscript, however, would extend be-
˙
yond a single commemo ration day, so that a more sustained setting, per-
haps in relation to a festival, underlies the notations. While sustained use
of Mäshafä˙˙ Henok is confirmed for at least one context, we are not yet in
a positio n to know which liturgical setting this may have been.
Third, the Book of Enoch is employed in several theological works :100
Mäshafä M ´stir (“The Book of Mystery”), Mäshafä Milad (“The Book
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙˙
of the N ativity”) , and M stirä Sämay Wämedr (“T he Book of the
˙
Mystery of Heaven and Earth”),101 documents produced during the 14th
and 15th cen-
102
turies. These documents each merit brief discussion in turn.
Mäshafä M ´stir, a work structured around a series of polemical theo-
˙ ˙ ˙
logical a rgumen ts in 30 chapters, was composed by Giyorgis of Sägla
(per-
95 The certain quotations and allusions are the following: 1 En. 1.3f (Enoch’s
advocacy for the righteous and announcement of one coming from God’s
heavenly dwelling); 13.7f (Enoch’s reception of revelation in Dan); 14.8, 10, 15 f,
18 (Enoch’s vision of the divine throne room); and 24.2f (Enoch’s vision of the
seven mountains).
96 1 En. 37.1 (Enoch’s lineage back to Adam); 46.1f (Enoch’s vision of the Son
of Man and the Head of Days); and 48.4 (the Son of Man as a staff for the
righteous).
97 1 En. 70.2 (the doors of heaven).
98 1 En. 85.3 (Adam and Eve) ; 90.28 f (vision of the new house in heaven) ;
90.32f, 34, 37 f (the white sheep and the gathering of the wild beasts and birds
into the house).
99 See E.A. Wallis Budge, The Book of the Saints of The Ethiopian Orthodox
Tewahedo Church (4 vols.; Cambridge 1928) II.548–557 (555–557 on Enoch).
100 The documents to be discussed below are by no means the only evidence for
the reception of Mäshafä Henok during the 14th and 15th cents. Further works of
importance
in this regard˙w˙ ould include e.g. L datu Lähenok, Mäshafä Kidan, Mäshafä B
rhan, K brä Nägä´st, and condensed versions of the book in the˙˙Falasha
tradition˙˙. In addition,
Daniel Assefa informs me (correspondence 12 November 2012) of the need to
explore some of the hagiographical works for the influence of the Enoch tradition.
101 What Baynes treats as Mäshafä M ´stir is in fact, as she knows, Mäshafä M
´stirä Sämay Wämedr; what results, ho˙w˙ ever, is ˙a discussion of only the
latter˙˙along wi˙th the Mä-
shafä Milad, while the former is omitted. Regarding the latter two, see Baynes, “Enoch
˙a˙nd Jubilees in the Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church” (see n. 68), 813–
818.
102 As above, the discussion immediately below aims to focus on verifiable literary
usage of
Mäshafä Henok, and will not take into account mere references in the texts to
Enoch’s nam˙˙e.
haps to be identified with ˇ ˇ

103 Giyorgis of Gas c c a) during the reign of Y
shaq in the year 1424. At least three passages can be said to cite 1
˘
Enoch. In o ne
passage, the author, who regards the angelic rebellion in the Book of
Watchers as a descent from the holy mountain of the sons of Seth, refers
to the angels’ activities while alluding to 1 En. 8.2–4 and 9.1:
“From Adam until Noah the offspring of Adam dwelt near the Garden (of Eden). But
the children of humanity corrupted their nature through rebellion against the
commands of God when they helped the Watchers of heaven, who had sexual
intercourse with the daughters of humanity and taught the cutting of roots, how to
cast spells, and interpret stars (8.3). And the earth was full of violence, oppression,
godlessness, fornication (8.2), killing (8.4), and the shedding of blood (9.1).”104
Notable here is that the allusions to the Book of Watchers adhere to the
sequence of the received text. In another passage the writer refers to
the roundness of the sun, and then quotes 1 Enoch: “As Enoch says,
‘Its roundness is as the roundness of the sky’”105 (1 En. 14.18 and
18.4 : the roundness of the divine throne is compared to that of the
sun). Although the citation does not exactly correspond with the
Enochic text, the citation itself has its closest correspondence in the
Book of Watchers. A third instance takes the form of an allusion, again
to the Book of Watchers at 1 En. 18.13 (cf. 21.3): “In the presence of
God, however, there is a conflagration as the mountains of fire, which
Enoch saw in his dream vision.”106 The text refers four times more to
107
the patriarch, though without citing any part of Mäshafä Henok.
˙ ˙
The Mäshafä M ´stirä Sämay Wämedr was composed b e fore the reign
˙˙ ˙ th
of Zär’a Ya‘ qob, poss ibly as early as the late 14 century. It purports to
be
written by a monk named Y shaq as he recorded revelations, organized
˙
103 On the discussion of the author and date, as well as general information on the
book’s contents, see A. Bausi, “Mäshafä m ´stir”, in Encyclopaedia Aethiopica 3,
944f. The text
is published and translate˙d˙ in Y. ˙Beyene, Giyorgis di Sagla¯. Il Libro del
Mistero
(CSCOSAe 89–90, 97–98; Leuven 1990 and 1993, respectively).
104 The translation is based on the Beyene, CSCOSAe 89 (see n. 103), 304 lines
8–14. I am grateful to Merigeta Haddis Tikuneh for initially introducing me to this
work through a paper presented at the Workshop organised by Prof. Shiferaw
Bekele on the Ethiopic Book of Enoch held at Addis Abeba University on May 27,
2011. All translations are my own unless otherwise indicated.
105 Text in Beyene, CSCOSAe 97 (see n. 103), 79, lines 16–18.
106 Text in Beyene, CSCOSAe 97 (see n. 103), 103, lines 3–5.
107 Beyene, CSCOSAe 89 (see n. 103), 83, lines 11 f (actually an allusion to Jub.
4.20); CSCOSAe 89 (see n. 103), 299, line 21 (as with Elijah he ascended into
heaven) and
p. 300, lines 2f (a citation of Sir 44:16); and CSCOSAe 97 (see n. 103), 234, lines
19f (“Come, Enoch, to celebrate the feast with us”, with reference to the Feast of
the Ascension).
into four treatises that had been given to his mentor Bäsälotä Mika’ l.108
˙
The book’s relation to the Enochic tradition has recently been the
subject
of analysis in an article by Daniel Assefa.109 From the very beginning of
its coming to the West, this work’s association with Enoch tradition was
recognized. However, it was initially mistaken as Mäshafä Henok itself
since
˙ ˙
its discovery had been the result of a request to fin d the Book of Enoch
by
the French collector and scholar, Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc
(1580–1637). The Ge’ z manuscript, received in 1633, contained a
number of references to Enoch tradition and was not translated until later,
so that Peiresc, until his death, remained unaware of the book’s actual
110
identity. The revelations attributed to Bäsälotä Mika’ l quote or allude
to a num-
˙
ber of sections within 1 Enoch. Th ese relate to the following : the Book
of
Watchers, six possibly seven times (1 En. 3.1 – vision of fourteen trees
111
that do not cast off their leaves ; 6.6f – a listing of 38 names for the
rebellious angels ; 16.3 ? ; 18.13, cf. 21.3 ;114 20.1–8;115 and 22.2 f116)
112 113
; the Book of
108 On the work generally, see G. Lusini and G. Fiaccadori, “Mestirä sämay wäm dr”,
in
Encyclopaedia Aethiopica 3, 945 f. ˙
109 D. Assefa, “Le Livre d’Hénoch commenté par le Livre des Mysteres du Ciel et la
Terre”, in Les églises d’Ethiopie. Cultures et échanges culturels. Actes du Colloque de
l’Institut Supérieur d’Etudes Oecuméniques du 21–22 octobre 2010 à Paris (ed. by
J.-N. Pérès and U. Schattner-Rieser; JECS 63 ; Leuven 2012) 29–39. Thanks are due
to Abba Assefa for making available a pre-publication version of the paper.
110 It was Hiob Ludolf who in 1684 made the first positive identification of the
manuscript. The first treatise of the text, based on ms. no. 117 at the Bibliothéque
Nationale in Paris, was edited and translated by Jules Perruchon (in consultation
with I. Guidi), Le Livre des Mystères du Ciel et de la Terre (PO I/1; Paris 1903) 1–
91 (text and translation) while the following three treatises were published in text
and translation by S. Grébaut, Les trois derniers traits du Livre des Mystères du
Ciel et de la Terre (PO VI/3; Paris 1911) 126–199 (text and translation). An
English translation of the Peiresc manuscript was published by E.A. Wallis Budge,
The Book of Mysteries of the Heavens and the Earth, and other Works of Bakhayla
Mîkâ’êl (Zôsîmâs) (London 1935).
111 Perruchon, PO I/1 (see n. 110), 27: after a citation of 1 En. 3.1, Bäsälotä
Mika’ l asks about the meaning of the 14 trees; the Holy Spirit then says that th˙ey
signify “the ten
words of the law, the covenant with Noah, the circumcision of the patriarchs, the
priesthood of Melchizedek, and the baptism of John”.
112 Perruchon, PO I/1 (see n. 110), 21–23. None of these names correspond to
any of the angels’ names found in either the Book of Watchers (6.7) or the Book
of Parables (69.1–13).
113 Cf. Perruchon, PO I/1 (see n. 110), 21: “We pass on to the story of the people
of the Flood. During that time, watchers descended from heaven, and after this
they clothed themselves with the flesh of humanity ; the destruction of sin seized
them, and they were excluded from the mysteries which they had seen in heaven”
(my translation). The association of the rebellious angels with “mysteries”
implies knowledge of 1 En. 16.3, even though the latter qualifies the angels’
knowledge as only pertaining to “rejected mysteries”; cf. Assefa, “Le Livre
d’Hénoch commenté par le Livre des Mysteres du Ciel et la Terre” (see n. 109),
32 f.
Parables, four times (1 En. 60.5 ;117 60.6,118 7119 ; 69.8 – the angel’s
121
name120); commentary, twice on the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 85.3 ;
122
89.11 ); commentary, three times on the Apocalypse of Weeks, with
123
passage a continuous interpretation of most of the text (93.2 ;
124 125
93.3–10 and 91.11–15 ; 93.12 ) ; and possibly the Epistle of
Enoch, once
114 Perruchon, PO I/1 (see n. 110), 30 : “the seven mountains of light which
Enoch son of Yared saw, because he heard the word of the angels, and so the
angels instructed him”.
115 Perruchon, PO I/1 (see n. 110), 81: an allusion to 1 En. 20 through the
description of
archangels and their functions. The allusion follows the Mäshafä Henok which, at 1
En. 20, only lists six ; to reach the number seven, the text suppli˙e˙s the angel’s name
Ura’el a
second time.
116 Perruchon, PO I/1 (see n. 110), 80: “As Enoch said, ‘I saw souls in four
places…’”.
117 Perruchon, PO I/1 (see n. 110), 13: “And Enoch said, ‘There will be a day, and
(until then) he (God) was merciful and longsuffering’”; in addition to citation of 1 En.
60.5 (on which, see Uhlig, Das äthiopische Henochbuch [see n. 59], 606 n. c to 60.5),
the italicized words are used to describe the angel Michael in the Book of Parables
at 1 En. 40.9.
118 Perruchon, PO I/1 (see n. 110), 13: “That day will be a covenant for the elect
and an examination for the sinners.”
119 Perruchon, PO I/1 (see n. 110), 13 : the separation of “the two great monsters
(Levia- than and Behemoth)” on the day of judgment.
120 Perruchon, PO I/1 (see n. 110), 22 : Penemus; 1 En. 69.8 spells Penemu’; cf.
Baynes, “Enoch and Jubilees in the Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church” (see n.
68), 814.
121 Perruchon, PO I/1 (see n. 110), 33 : “As Enoch said, ‘A white bull came out, and
on his side there came out a heifer’”; cf. Uhlig, Das äthiopische Henochbuch (see n.
59), 679 n. d to 85.3.
122 Grébaut, PO VI/3 (see n. 110), 137: “As Enoch said, ‘From a cow in the
desert was born a bull’”. In addition, the passage attributes to Enoch “the prophet”
the use of animal names to designate various peoples of the earth (p. 137),
emphasizing that Enoch fore- told events (in the Animal Apocalypse) that had not
yet happened.
123 Perruchon, PO I/1 (see n. 110), 30. This possible allusion (however, cf. also
Jub. 4.21) is twinned with the one to 1 En. 18.13 (cf. n. 114 above). On the motif
of Enoch being instructed by angels, see Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108 (see n.
24), 81f.
124 Grébaut, PO VI/3 (see n. 110), 172–175. This is a running commentary on
weeks one through ten. The interpretations of events in the week are given as
follows: (1) birth of Enoch (1 En. 93.3; p. 172; specified on p. 175 as the 7th day
of Hedâr); (2) rescue of
Noah from the Flood (93.4; p. 173) ; (3) Abraham as the pla˙nt of righteousness
(93.5; pp. 173f); (4) the time of Moses (93.6; p. 174) ; (5) the era of the
prophets (93.7; p. 174); (6) Christ is the one who ascends on the cross (93.8; p.
174); (7) the per- verse generation is the heresy of Rome, “the Quatrinitarians who
designate as God the humanity of our Lord” and “Arius who denied the
incarnation of the Son”, and “a sword” refers to the word of the Lord (93.9f and
91.11; pp. 174f); (8) the Council of Nicaea as the era of the 318 orthodox, and the
building of a house for the great kingdom is the churches built during the era of
Constantine (91.12 f; p. 175) ; (9) refers to the era of the heretics (93.14; p. 175);
and (10) the era of the false Messiah, i.e. the end of the world (p. 175). As with the
Animal Apocalypse (cf. n. 122 above), the text empha- sizes that Enoch foresaw
all these events before they happened (p. 175).
125 Perruchon, PO I/1 (see n. 110), 55 : the eighth week of the Apocalypse of
Weeks (91.12) is related to the teaching of the incarnation, “the coming down of
the Son”. The loca- tion of the incarnation in the eighth week is in tension with the
longer commentary on
(cf. 100.1–3126). The extensive use of Mäshafä Henok alongside other

˙ ˙
writings is based on the view that Enoch wa s “a prophet” (näbiy) who
was the
first of all the prophets to foretell the events recounted in his book.127
Of the three works reviewed here, the Mäshafä Milad contains the
˙ ˙
most citations of and allusions to Mäshafä Henok .1 28 Authored during
th ˙˙
the middle of the 15 century, its autho r ship is confidently attributed
to the Em-
peror Zär’a Ya‘ qob himself.129 The work begins and ends with citations
from Mäshafä Henok ˙ ˙ and so, in its structure, exhibits a particular
concern to draw a t tention to the book. The Book of Parables is,
among the cita-
130
tions, the most frequently appealed to part of the book (26 times )
and, on account of its frequent references to the heavenly Son of Man,
primarily functions in support of Christology. The following passages
are all cited verbatim : 1 En. 46.1–4 (Son of Man) ; 50.3–51.3
(eschatological judgment); 62.3–16 (eschatological judgment); 63.1–12
(eschatological judgment and the Son of Man); 69.26–70.3
(eschatological judgment and the Son of Man); and 71.12–17 (Son of
Man).131 A corollary to the author’s
the eighth week (Grébaut, PO VI/3 [see n. 110], 174; cf. previous n.), but is followed by
Mäshafä Milad (cf. below and n. 139).
126 The˙˙description of conditions before the Flood as involving conflict between
fathers
and sons (Perruchon, PO I/1 [see n. 110], 23) may allude to the violent conflict
between fathers and sons before the eschatological judgment (1 En. 100.2).
127 So, in Perruchon, PO I/1 (see n. 110), 55 and Grébaut, PO VI/3 (see n. 110),
137 and 175.
128 Indeed, except for Genesis, Mäshafä Henok features more than any other biblical
work (42 times) ; cf. K. Wendt, Das ˙M˙ ashafa Milâd (Liber Nativitatis) und
Mashafa S´ela¯s¯e (Liber Trinitatis) des Kaisers Zar’a˙Y˙ a¯‘qob (CSCOSAe 221–
222 and 235–2˙3˙6; Leuven
1962–1963), here CSCOSAe 236, 93–97 (esp. 95). In addition, the name Enoch is men-
tioned more than any other biblical figure (50 times).
129 For a brief orientation to the book, see G. Haile, “Milad: Mäshafä milad”, in
Encyclo- paedia Aethiopica 3, 964 f. The critical edition and translation ˙w˙as
published by Wendt,
Das Mashafa Milâd (Liber Nativitatis) und Mashafa S´ela¯se¯ (Liber Trinitatis) des Kaisers
Zar’a Ya¯˙‘˙qob (see n. 128). ˙˙
130 These instances may be listed as follows, based on Wendt’s translation of the Ge’
z text (in which the page numbers of the translation are different); 1 En. 39.3 (or
14.8; CSCOSAe 222 [see n. 128], 2, 39, 47); 46.1 (CSCOSAe 222, 2, 51, 73, 97;
CSCOSAe 236, 2, 57, 59, 64) ; 46.1–3 (CSCOSAe 222, 48 f, 52); 46.2–4
(CSCOSAe 222, 52) ; 46.4–48.1 (CSCOSAe 222, 49) ; 48.1–10 (CSCOSAe 222, 50);
48.10–50.3 (CSCOSAe 222, 51); 50.3–51.3 (CSCOSAe 222, 51); 51.4 (CSCOSAe
222, 51) ; 60.8 (CSCOSAe 222, 58) ; 60.20–22 (CSCOSAe 236, 69); 61.6–8
(CSCOSAe 222, 108); 61.7 (CSCOSAe 222, 108); 62.1f (CSCOSAe 222, 52) ; 62.3–
16 (CSCOSAe 222, 54) ; 62.5f (CSCOSAe 222, 97); 63.1–12 (CSCOSAe 222, 54) ;
69.26–70.3 (CSCOSAe 222, 54) ; 71.12–17 (CSCOSAe 222, 55).
131 The respective locations of these passages are listed in the previous n. The
overview on the use 1 Enoch in Mäshafä Milad is indebted to Baynes, “Enoch and
Jubilees in the
Canon of the Ethiopia˙n˙ Orthodox Church” (see n. 68), 815–818. However, the
use
of Mäshafä Henok in Mäshafä Milad merits a much more detailed analysis in future
study.˙˙ ˙˙
interpretation of the Son of Man as Jesus in the Book of Parables is the

emphasis on Enoch’s status as the very first prophet who announced
Christ’s coming, even before the time of the Flood. Thus the Son of
Man’s first mention of the Book of Parables near the beginning of the
work, of 1 Enoch 46, takes on significance. In dealing with this text,
the Mäshafä
Milad declares its purpose to focus on “the birth of God” who is
˙ ˙
iden ti fied
as the Son of Man figure as described in 46.4 ; this identification of God,
as well as the function of the Son of Man is expressly attributed to the
teaching of Enoch, “who was taken up in the whirlwind (1 En. 39.3 ;
cf. 14.8), who observed the gate of the sun as well as the rising of the
moon and the stars (1 En. 72–75; cf. 75.6), who saw the light and who
announced
the times, years, months, days, hours, and weeks.”132 The use of
Mäs˙hafä Henok performs an apologetic function over against Jews who
˙
rejec t the
divinity of Christ. The prophecy of God’s (i. e. Christ’s) birth in the Book
of Parables, the first mention of which also alludes to the Astronomical
Book, is made to function as an argument directly addressed to a Jew
(’äyhu- dawi): “Hear, O Jew (’äyhudawi), not from us, but from Enoch
… who else of creation goes with the head of days … whose
appearance looks human? … One of the holy angels or [one] of the
human children of Adam, or the son, Jesus Christ…?” Elsewhere in
Mäshafä Milad, the As-
˙˙
tronomical Book is formally cited another fou r times (72.33 f;133
134 135
78.15–17; 82.7 ), while the Book of Watchers is cited three times:
twice at 1 En.1.9, that is, the announcement of the judgment of God
136
with myriads of angelic beings in attendance (cf. Jude 14f) and at
19.3–20.1, which is cited to underscore the special character of Enoch’s
137
revelation. Furthermore, the Animal Apocalypse is cited once at 1
En. 90.9, in which the “horn that grew” from the ram is identified as
138
Christ. Finally, six passages are cited from the Apocalypse of Weeks,
which, as in Mäshafä M ´stirä Sämay Wämedr, also plays an
important
˙ ˙ 139 ˙
role for the write r .
132 Text in Wendt, CSCOSAe 222 (see n. 128), 2.

133 Wendt, CSCOSAe 222 (see n. 128), 56.
135 Wendt, CSCOSAe 222 (see n. 128), 97 and CSCOSAe 235 (see n. 128), 89.
136 Wendt, CSCOSAe 222 (see n. 128), 58, 108.
139 Wendt, CSCOSAe 222 (see n. 128), 12 f (91.12 – Christ’s birth i.e. incarnation is
placed in the eighth week ; cf. nn. 124 and 125 above), 31 and 47 (91.12f, full
citation; eighth week is the time of Christ’s birth), 47 (91.15 – the seventh part of the
tenth week, when eschatological judgment will take place, in accordance with the
calculation of each
Both Mäshafä M ´stirä Sämay Wämedr and Mäshafä Milad hold

˙˙ ˙ ˙˙
Mä- shafä Henok in very hi gh regard and treat it as scrip t ure without
differen-
˙ ˙
ti ation from other biblical writings. However, whereas Mäshafä M
´stirä Sämay Wämedr takes the book’s status as a given, Zär’a Ya‘ ˙q˙ob
˙
uses M ä-
shafä Milad to engage in a polemic against anyone who would question its
˙˙
r ightful standing among the 81 books. The writer reacts vigorously
against
those who do not accept his Christology ; since Mäshafä Henok
˙ ˙ serves as
a primary basis for his view, he defends the work’s c a nonicity. He
declares,
for example, as follows :
“Hear, O one who denies, whether (you are) a Christian or Jew, without the Book of
Enoch you cannot be anything; you cannot be a Christian or a Jew! How is it that
you can know (the time of) your Easter, your Passover, the beginning of your month,
your feasts and years, your weeks and all the signs of the heaven? How can you know
them without the Book of Enoch? Listen, O one who denies, you cannot dispute
Enoch! The law and the prophets honoured Enoch. Even the prophets describe his
honor in that they copy from his book. Also, his book has been taken up in the Book
of Jubilees, which was written by the Angel of the Presence.”140
The writer is advocating the importance of Mäshafä Henok

˙ ˙ in the face of
both Christian and Jewish opposition. Enoch’s p rophecies – in
coordina-
tion with those of Daniel and 4 Ezra, and Jubilees – are crucial for both
the incarnation event (Apocalypse of Weeks) and the status and
eschatological judgment, which Christ will inaugurate (Book of
Parables, Apocalypse of Weeks). In addition, as the passage cited makes
clear, the writer appeals to Enoch’s calendar as a guide for when to
celebrate feasts such as Easter (for the Christians) and Passover (for the
Jews). The presentation of time in Mäshafä Henok thus not only draws
on the Apocalypse of Weeks, but
˙˙
also an d especially on the Astronomical Book. Significantly, the
Mäshafä
Milad reads these two books together in order to strengthen
˙˙
calcula t ions
that regulate the yearly calendar, which in turn leads to the end of the
world when Christ will come in judgment (at the end of 7980 years).141
week at 700 years), 48 (91.13 – the eternal house is “the holy Church”), and 56
(91.15–17 – citation of the text on the tenth week to support the calculation of each
week at 700 years ; the prophecies of Enoch are linked, in principle, with those of
Daniel
– cf. also CSCOSAe 222 [see n. 128], 13, 31, 39, 41, 45, passim).
140 Wendt, CSCOSAe 222 (see n. 128), 59f. See also Wendt, CSCOSAe 222 (see n.
128), 31: A Christian should rejoice since, “you are not like the Jews, so that you have
no set time. The Jews … have neglected the time set by Enoch and Daniel, who
announced and determined it for them; they did not listen to their promises and did
not believe them.”
141 More study is needed to determine with precision how the numerical
calculations in
Mäshafä Milad based on 1 Enoch have been incorporated into the traditional
reckon- ing˙s˙of eras taught in the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church.
Perhaps more than any other work, the Mäshafä Milad contributed
˙ ˙
to establishing Mäshafä Henok’s uncontested pla c ed in the biblical
˙ ˙
canon. The function of E noch as a prophet is referred to time and
again; he is
in fact a prophet par excellence, being the first of all the prophets to
an- nounce the coming of Christ in the incarnation. Near the end of
the work, after a lengthy use of Mäshafä Henok to establish the
correct observ-
˙˙
ance of the Sabbath and festiv als, the writer closes with an encomium
:
“The Book of Enoch is certainly like the sun. The one on whom the sun of the world
does not shine, his entire path is darkness. The same applies to each person who dies
not walk in the prophecy and instruction of Enoch: it was for his sake that Eden, the
garden of God, was rescued from the wrathful Flood of the Most High. However,
may our Lord make us protected through the prayer of Enoch, from eternity to
eternity. Amen and amen, so be it, for the sake of Christ’s flesh and blood, so be it, so
be it.”142
In both Mäshafä M ´stirä Sämay Wämedr and Mäshafä Milad,

˙˙ ˙ ˙˙
Enoch’s functions as prophet (who predicts the advent o f Christ)
and scribe
(who furnishes calendrical calculations) are brought together. This dual
role is perhaps illustrated by the Gundä Gunde manuscript (no. 151)
from the 15th century that preserves a copy of Mäshafä Henok.143 On
˙ ˙
the recto side of the first page (1r), a beautifully colour e d illumination
dis-
plays the prophet Elijah above Elisha on the left and, on the same
horizon- tal levels to the right, Enoch the scribe above Ezra the
scribe. Enoch not only correlates to Ezra the scribe, but also to
Elijah the prophet with whom he shares prominence above the
successors. Since the manuscript
only contains the Mäshafä Henok, it is the position of Enoch in the
˙ ˙
illumination that provid e s the visual context for how the
following text
may be interpreted. This double interpretation of Enoch is reinforced
by the illumination in a further manuscript from Gundä Gunde
(no. 40, 16r), in which Enoch, designated as “the scribe”, is presented
first among the images of “holy fathers and prophets” (Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob, Job, Moses, Aaron, and Joshua).
Fourth, we consider briefly manuscripts in only a preliminary way.
Here it should be said that whereas Nickelsburg and VanderKam, in
their 2-volume Hermeneia commentary on 1 Enoch refer to only 50 man-
uscripts and offer sustained use of about half that number, my assistant
Ted Erho and I, since 2009, have been able to verify the existence of
142 Wendt, CSCOSAe 236 (see n. 128), 89–91 (here 90 f).

143 Although inaccessible until recently, this manuscript was been long known to
scholars as ms. no. 29 in the handlist published by A. Mordini, “Il convento di Gunde
Gundiè”, Rassegna di Studi Etiopici 12 (1954) 29–63 (with a note of L. Ricci, 64 –
70).
over 120 manuscripts. We are currently in the process of getting access to

many of these for study, either through on-site examination (in various
parts of Ethiopia) and, as possible, through the acquisition of photo-
144
graphs. Since a number of the “new” manuscripts are among the very
oldest (a number go back to the 15th and 16th centuries, augmenting the
number of early recension manuscripts from 12, as known to Nickelsburg
and Vanderkam, to at least 25), we can expect some implications for es-
tablishing the text in the future. In addition, we are beginning, within
the context of studying Ethiopian Old Testament manuscripts as a
whole, to draw observations regarding the place of Mäshafä Henok ˙˙
within the arrangements of texts.145 These manuscripts attest t he
growing prom-
th th
inence that the Book of Enoch acquired during from the 16 and 17 cen-
turies, once Zär’a Ya‘eqob’s advocacy for the it could take hold, during
which time the older, more varied recension began to be streamlined
for use through the production of a second recension that serves as the
basis for the text of the book in printed bibles today.
V. Conclusion
Beyond the sources I have mentioned here, there are a number of others,
146
which, out of the Ethiopian tradition, need to come to our attention. I
have tried not to paint an ideal status of the place of the Book of Enoch in
the Ethiopian tradition ; though a good case could be made for such,
based largely on the antiquity of its translation from Greek into Ge’ z
alongside other scriptures, it is important to be as honest as we can,
since there are specialists in Ethiopian studies today in the West who
insist in general terms that the Ethiopic tradition is entirely consistent
on the matter. In addition, we have seen somewhat that the fate of the
Book of Enoch should not be confused with the fate of Jubilees,
especially as these books were sub- jected to use in the context of 14th
and 15th century theological controver- sies and debates. This applies
also to the Dead Sea Scrolls, among which the Book of Jubilees seems to
have been less controversial than 1 Enoch.
144 Now underway at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in München, this work is

leading to the production of a new text-critical edition for 1 Enoch that can be
expected to have implications for securing both the most ancient as well as early
Ethiopic forms of the text.
145 For initial results of such observations, see Stuckenbruck and Erho, “The
Book of Enoch and the Ethiopian Manuscript Tradition : New Data” (see n. 23),
257–267.
146 Cf. n. 100 above.
This circumstance is largely due to (a) the nature of 1 Enoch as a

growing collection in the earlier period while Jubilees, whether or not it
was subject to editing, was produced in mostly its present form during
a much narrower period of time. In addition, (b) 1 Enoch was open to
more suspicion, especially during the 2nd to the 4th centuries CE, given
the antiquity of its purported authorship. The frequent appeals to the
Jude quotation of 1 Enoch was not enough in the West to protect it
from doubt, while in the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church’s
tradition the citation has played a significant, if not crucial role.
There are many in Ethiopia today who insist that Enoch is one of the
most important books in the church’s tradition. However, when pressed
to say concrete things about its contents or what it means, answers are
often vague. From antiquity (the Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts) all the
way to the present, there is much to learn about the reception of the
Enoch tradition. Scholars, especially Ethiopians, are beginning to discuss
the reception of Enoch with an eye towards informing the Western world
what might be learned about the book’s development and significance
within their tradition. Alongside a more thorough study of many more
manuscripts, their contributions may, in time may help us to understand
better several points : (a) the book’s constructive theological value
during the early centuries CE, especially in the North African context; (b)
why it came to be valued less than other works ; (c) why Protestants,
Catholics, and Orthodox Christians should not assume the correctness
of their biblical canons without being willing to look sympathetically
at developments that took place in other traditions ; and (d) given its
now time-honoured role in a segment of Christian tradition, the potential
it has to inform theological reflections, whether or not it is labelled
“scripture” in some way.
While so much scholarly attention has focused on the Enoch tradition
in recent years, it is increasingly through the growing numbers of manu-
scripts and reception of 1 Enoch that a new momentum for study and
analysis will be found.
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Evangelisch-
Theologische Fakultät Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1
80539 München
Germany
loren.stuckenbruck@evtheol.uni-muenchen.de
Early Christianity
Edited by Jörg Frey, Clare K. Rothschild, Jens Schröter and
Francis Watson Please send manuscripts, editorial inquiries
and all book review proposals to: Humboldt-Universität zu
Berlin
Theologische Fakultät
Redaktion Early
Christianity Prof. Dr. Jens
Schröter Burgstraße 26
D-10178 Berlin
Germany
E-Mail: early-christianity@hu-berlin.de
Acceptance for publication will be given in writing, provided that

the manuscript has not been offered for publication elsewhere.
Upon acceptance, the author will transfer to the publisher the
exclusive copyright for his/her work. This right to publish and sell
the work expires with the termination of the duration of copyright
stipulated by law. The author retains the right to grant another
publishing company permission to reprint the work one year after
the original publication. The right of publication comprises the
right to reproduce the work photomechanically and the right to
store the data in a retrieval system and to transmit it in online
processing. Articles should be submitted in anonymized form, and
should conform to the stylistic guidelines set out in the SBL
Handbook of Style, available at the SBL website. The editors
reserve the right to specify revisions.
Please find instructions to authors as a pdf-
file on: http://www.mohr.de/ec
Full Text Online

Free access to the full text online is included in a subscription. We
ask institutions with more than 20.000 users to obtain a price
quote directly from the publisher. Contact: sandra.witt@mohr.de.
In order to set up Online access for institutions/lib- raries, please
go to: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/register/institutional. In
order to set up Online access for private persons, please go to:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/register/personal
Publisher: Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG, Postfach 2040,

72010 Tübingen Can be purchased at bookstores.
© 2013 Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG, Tübingen

The journal and all the individual articles and illustrations
contained in it are protected by copyright. Any utilization beyond
the narrow confines of copyright law without the publisher‘s
consent is punishable by law. This applies in particular to
copying, translations, microfilming and storage and processing in
electronic systems.
Printed in Germany.
Typeset by Konrad Triltsch GmbH,
Ochsenfurt. Printed by Gulde-Druck,
Tübingen.
ISSN 1868-7032 (Print

Edition) ISSN 1868-8020
(Online Edition)
volume 4 (2013), no. 1
“The new journal is concerned with early Christianity as

a historical phenomenon. Uncontroversial though that
may sound, its editors share a quite specific
understanding of this broad field of research. In seeking
to further the study of early Christianity as a historical
phenomenon, we aim to overcome certain limitations
which – in our view – have hindered the development of
the discipline. To identify a limitation is already to have
seen the possibility of moving beyond it …”
From the Editorial Manifesto
Herausge Jörg Frey, Zürich

ber/ Clare K. Rothschild,
Editors Chicago Jens Schröter,
Berlin
Francis Watson, Durham, UK
Mohr Siebeck www.mohr.de


The Book of Enoch Its Reception in Secon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Book of Enoch Its Reception in Secon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

E

1 Apokalyptik und das Neue Testament

Robert Mucha und Stephan Witetschek

Manuskripte, redaktionelle Anfragen und Rezensionsangebote

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlages

The Book of Enoch: Its Reception in Second

Early Christianity 4 (2013), 7–40 ISSN 1868-7032

DDiiggiittaalleerr SSoonnddeerrddrruucckk ddeess AAuuttoorrss

ber of unanswered questions, especially as the materials were often

II. Reception of Early Enoch Tradition in Second Temple

If we consider the Jewish vantage point, the reception of 1 Enoch is

6 There is no reason to assume that any of the extant materials to 1 Enoch,

Book of Parables (none), Astronomical Book (4Q208–20910 and 4Q209,

Eschatological Admonition (none). On the Christian side of the equation,

89.42–49 ;21 and 97.6–107.322), and of course many manuscripts in the

of an emphasis on Torah in Jubilees implies that it was critical of the

mmzrym: 4Q510 1 i 5 ; 4Q511 35.7, 48–51 ii 3 ?, 182.1?; 4Q444 1–5.8 ?; cf. 1

Solomon, if there is any relationship with the Enoch tradition here,42

III. Reception of 1 Enoch in the New Testament and

The reception of tradition from 1 Enoch among writings collected into

tail can be explained on the basis of a count of the generations in Gen 5

46 Since the passage is drawing on Deut 25:5–10 in support of levirate marriage,

Jub. 4.16–26). This idea is strengthened if we consider that, apart from

47 See K. Coblentz Bautch, “Decoration, Destruction, and Debauchery:

which is taken as a prediction of an eschatological temple). Also, similar

“not recognized among the Hebrews”) ; though he regarded the

55 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1 (see n. 16), 94.

Christian texts and manuscripts produced and found Egypt is suggestive.

IV. Reception of Mäshafä Henok in Ethiopia

58 This seems to be the view of A. Dillmann, “Ueber den umfang des

other words, it is possible to contemplate an early reception of the book

60 This point is largely assumed by Nickelsburg (1 Enoch 1 [see n. 16], 18 f) and

62 One of the crucial questions in need of explanation is the disparity between

of this Bible, however, omitted the contents of that volume altogether,

originally composed by a Coptic Christian in Arabic during the 13th cen-

According to Cowley, a very similar rationale appears in the Andemta to

80 Translation from the Amharic (Fetha Nägäst, nebabenna tergwamew, 41–44)

secution at the beginning of the 14th century.86 Second, Kufale was

86 G. Fiaccadori, “Etiopia, Cipro e Armenia: la ‘Vita’ di ‘Ewost’âtêwos”, Corsi di

liturgy of the Ethiopian Orthodox church.”91 If we are talking about the

haps to be identified with ˇ ˇ

(cf. 100.1–3126). The extensive use of Mäshafä Henok alongside other

interpretation of the Son of Man as Jesus in the Book of Parables is the

132 Text in Wendt, CSCOSAe 222 (see n. 128), 2.

Both Mäshafä M ´stirä Sämay Wämedr and Mäshafä Milad hold

The writer is advocating the importance of Mäshafä Henok

In both Mäshafä M ´stirä Sämay Wämedr and Mäshafä Milad,

142 Wendt, CSCOSAe 236 (see n. 128), 89–91 (here 90 f).

over 120 manuscripts. We are currently in the process of getting access to

144 Now underway at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in München, this work is

This circumstance is largely due to (a) the nature of 1 Enoch as a

Francis Watson Please send manuscripts, editorial inquiries

and all book review proposals to: Humboldt-Universität zu

Acceptance for publication will be given in writing, provided that

Full Text Online

Publisher: Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG, Postfach 2040,

© 2013 Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG, Tübingen

ISSN 1868-7032 (Print

“The new journal is concerned with early Christianity as

Herausge Jörg Frey, Zürich

Mohr Siebeck www.mohr.de

You might also like