Skip to main content

Full text of "The Recent Translations and the Ethiopic Text of the Book of Enoch. I"

See other formats


STOP 



Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 
purposes. 

Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early- 
journal-content . 



JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 
contact support@jstor.org. 



Critical Notices. 325 

(7.) The selling of Joseph (Gen. xxxvii.). — This chapter is one of 
the best to illustrate the success of the analytical process, and is very 
carefully done in all three books. The argument seems to reach 
demonstration here. 

In Exodus and the following books we part company with F. and 
B., though for the story of the plagues we have B.'s excellent mono- 
graph in the Journal of Biblical Literature (1890). And we must 
express our regret that A. does not seem to have seen this, and only 
echoes the verdict of most critics that the two sources are so fused as 
to be indistinguishable. On the contrary, when the right clues are 
followed, they fall apart with startling clearness, and lea^e two narra- 
tives marked respectively by abundant features of individuality. 

And so throughout the rest of the Hexateuch we do not find Mr. 
Addis venturing upon any new suggestion for fresh analysis ; in leed 
he rather shrinks from a decision where the great G-eruaan and Dutch 
critics are at variance amongst themselves. Usually, however, the 
materials for a judgment are briefly given in a note. In Joshua he is 
as modest in his conclusions as elsewhere, but he has made good use of 
previous work, finding the essay of Albers (Quelkn-bericht in Jos. 
i.-xii., 1890) particularly serviceable. As regards the difficult problem 
of the Sinaitic legislation, it may be interesting to note that this 
latest enquirer is a fresh upholder of Kuenen's view that the " Book 
of the Covenant " originally occupied the place of Deuterouomy, and 
was only put back to its present position to make way for the intruded 
Deuteronomic legislation. 

G. Harford-Battersby. 



The Recent Translations and the Ethiopic Text of the Book 

of Enoch. 



The recent translations which we propose to review briefly here are 
to be found in Dillmann's Das Buch Henoch iibersetzt und erklirt, 
1853; Schodde's The Book of Enoch translated from the Ethiopic, with 
Introduction and Notes, 1882 ; and Goldschmidt's Das Buch Henoch 
aus dem Aethiopischen in die ursprunglich hebrdische Abfassungssprache 
zwruckubersetzt ; mit einer Einleitung und Noten versehen, 1892. 

These translations are all professedly founded on the Ethiopic text 
of Enoch, published by Dillmann iu 1851. To the criticism of this 
text we hope to address ourselves in the next number of the 
Quarterly. 

In the present review we must limit our consideration to the 



326 The Jewish Quarterly Review. 

translations, and ignore as far as possible the introductions and notes 
which accompany them. 

The first of these translations, i.e., that of Professor Dillmann, is a 
masterly piece of interpretation, such as might reasonably be ex- 
pected from the foremost Ethiopic scholar of the age. As a matter 
of course it at once superseded the translations of Lawrence and 
Hoffmann, corrected their many ungrammatical renderings, and 
furnished an exact and trustworthy translation of the Ethiopic text 
which he had edited two years previously, based on five MSS. This 
translation, however, is by no means free from blemishes and imper- 
fections — a fact which no one would be more ready to acknowledge 
than Dillmann himself ; for it is manifest from his Ethiopic Lexicon, 
published twelve years later, that he has revised and corrected his 
German translation in many places. Compare, for instance, his 
translation of Enoch viii. 1 with his Lexicon, Col. 823 ; of Eaoch 
xxxvii. 2, 5, with his Lexicon, Col. 637 ; of xxxviii. 2 with his Lexi- 
con, Col. 351, etc. In xcix. 5 the sense is altered materially. Instead 
of " wird die Frucht des Mutterleibes abgehen," we should, as Dill- 
mann (Lex., Col. 1286, 1332) points out, translate, " those who are 
destitute will go forth." Again, in xli. 5, he returns (Lex., Col. 528) 
to the translation of Lawrence and Hoffmann, which he had con- 
demned in his Commentary (p. 150) as unmeaning and impossible ; 
and in lx. 6 he goes back (Lex., Col. 156) to the rendering of his two 
predecessors, which he criticises in his commentary (page 188) as im- 
probable. 

This does not exhaust, however, the list of passages which call 
for correction in Dillmann's translation. Of these we will give the 
two most remarkable. The second, in cvi. 13, is clearly an over- 
sight. He there renders wadd*M mareiM, " ich weiss und habe 
gesehen," as if the first word were jaddaku (= 'njTP). But this 
latter form is not found, and, moreover, the text as it stands presents 
us with a familiar Ethiopic idiom = " I have already seen." The 
other, in Ixxxix. 7, is a more serious mistake. He renders neqata 
rnedr araja, "die Quellen der Erde versiegten." "We have here a 
twofold mistranslation : neqata is confounded with anqHa, and a 
meaning has been forced on araja which it cannot bear. We should 
translate, " the chasms of the earth were levelled up," i.e., filled or 
closed. 

It is thus clear that this translation is by no means a faultless one ; 
yet, despite every defect, it will maintain a unique position in the 
Enoch literature, and likewise serve as a guide to future translators. 

The next translation with which we have to deal is that of Dr. 
Schodde. It does not lie within our province to review here the very 



Critical Nelices. 327 

helpful bibliography and useful introduction and notes which ac- 
company this translation. To the latter only we must direct our 
attention. 

The result of a thorough examination of Dr. Schodde's version is, 
we fear, far from satisfactory. This translation is made professedly 
f ipva Dillmann's Ethiopic text, but, as a matter of fact, such is not 
always the case ; for the translator has but too often put aside the 
Ethiopic version, and turned to the more easy (though more perilous) 
task of rendering Dillmann's German into English. This is clear and 
undeniable, from the fact that Schodde is guilty of certain mistakes 
which are explicable only as renderings of Dillmann's German trans- 
lation, and that, further, he has repeated nearly all the slips and 
inaccuracies in that translation, even those which were afterwards 
corrected in his Ethiopic lexicon. To the slips and inaccuracies of 
Dillmann, Schodde has added a goodly list of his own. la xxxvi. 3 
we have " every evening," instead of '' towards the west," the former 
being no doubt due to Dillmann's " gegen abend,'' which might loosely 
be translated either way. In lii. 8 we have " zinc will not be beaten 
out," instead of "zinewdl not be esteemed." As the Ethiopic verb 
has not the remotest connection with the meaning here assigned by 
Schodde, the explanation will be found in his misreading Dill- 
mann's "Zinn wird nicht arageschlagen werden" as " awsgeschlagen 
werden." 

In lxxxvi. 10, " After these northerly winds from the seventh 
portal," instead of, "After these the north winds : from the seventh 
portal," etc. 

But the most extraordinary misconception of all is to be found in 
lxii. 4, where we read " when the son enters the mouth of the mother," 
instead of " when the child enters the mouth of the womb." Here 
again Dillmann's " Wann sein Sohn in den Muttermund tritt," ex- 
plains this curious instance of blameworthy carelessness. 

In the face of such a list as the above — and it is far from exhaustive 
— it is hard to congratulate Dr. Schodde, for he has been most repre- 
hensibly careless and inexact ; and yet as students of Apocryphal 
literature we are grateful to him for re-introducing the knowledge of 
Enoch to the English speaking world. 

The third translation — that of Goldschmidt — is really an attempt 
to reproduce Enoch in Hebrew, the language in which it was originally 
written. 

This retranslation is the work of a very young scholar, and being 
so, it is a praiseworthy performance, and full of promise as to 
his future. But though we must regard this young writer, who is 
barely more th in twenty-one, as worthy of all encouragement, we 



328 The Jewish Quarterly Review. 

must deal with his work on its own merits, and assign it its position 
accordingly. 

A translator of the Book of Enoch into Hebrew may have one of 
two aims : either he seeks to produce a readable and intelligible 
version of the book for Jewish readers mainly, or else he may aim 
at a scientific reconstruction of the original Hebrew text — an achieve- 
ment which, if at all adequately realised, would prove an invaluable 
gift to students of Apocalyptic literature. In the former case minute 
accuracy and extensive knowledge of this class of literature are not 
absolutely necessary ; in the latter both of these are absolutely indis- 
pensable. The latter, therefore, demands a breadth of knowledge, a 
largeness of experience, and a fineness of linguistic perception which 
we cannot expect to find in so young a scholar as our author, be he 
never so brilliant and able. 

Herr Goldschmidt's book belongs in the main to the former class ; 
and, judged from the standpoint of that class, it is a commendable 
and interesting work. It is possible, indeed, that this writer was 
ambitious of having his work ranked in the latter class, as one would 
naturally conclude from the learned character of many of his notes. 
Now, though it is hardly fair so to classify this book, we shall 
proceed to deal with it as a work of severe and exact scholarship. 

We might remark at the outset that Goldschmidt has occasionally 
had recourse to later Hebrew where perfectly adequate expression was 
possible in Biblical Hebrew. 

Goldschmidt's retranslation is professedly from the Ethiopic text 
of Dillmann, yet, like Schodde, he translates at times directly from 
the German. Thus he falls into the same mistake as Schodde, 
in xxxvi. 3 (see above). He reproduces Dillmann's inaccuracies 
in xxxvii. 2 ; xxxviii. 2 ; Ixxxix. 7 ; xcix. 5 ; cvi. 13 ; though three 
of them are corrected in Dillmann's Lexicon. In xli. 5, he adduces 
Dillmann's authority for translating beul by yup ; but, as we 
have shown above, Dillmann has abandoned this rendering of the 
word in his Lexicon. Still more strangely, in lx. 6 he justifies, 
against Lawrence and Hoffmann, his translation of Mahald by an 
appeal to Dillmann's Commentary and Lexicon. The Commentary, 
indeed, supports him, but the Lexicon sets aside the view advocated 
in the Commentary. 

Let us now turn to another class of inaccuracies, for which this 
writer is sohly responsible. In xxxii. 2, bdhra ertra cannot be ren- 
dered by "IID'C ?n;n, but by spO'D' ; ertra is only a transliteration 
of ipvBpa ; in xxx. 1, qvdldtd should be rendered by JWM and 
not nWIJ; in xxviii. 3, 1TV should be 1?JP, the opposite ; in xxvi. 1, 
fUtf'Xn should be 3tfD, as a rendering of jenaber : in xxii. 12, INI 



Critical Notices. 329 

should be 1K"in ; in xviii. 2, HIBJf should be y*p~\, as a rendering of 
tsena=<rrtpea>iia ; in x. 18 K?DT1 should be nayn (tetgabar) "wird 
bebaut werden " ; in x. 13, it is most misleading to render the place 
of the fallen watchers' imprisonment 71XS\ 

la verses xv. 11 — xvi. 1, the Hebrew is not a rendering of the 
Ethiopic text. This text is, it is true, corrupt, but that is not enough 
to justify the addition of some words, and the change of others into 
exactly the opposite meaning, unless we are duly notified of such 
additions and changes. 

Again we have noticed among others the omission of the following 
phrases " all the children of men " (x. 7), " will make war" (xv. 11), 
"on which they shall be judged" (xix. 1), "to the end of it" 
(xxvi. 2), " which he saw " (xxxvii. 1). 

Again in xiv. 5 ; xvii. 3 ; xxvi. 4, 5 ; xxxiv. 3, there are needless 
transpositions of words and clauses. "We have remarked many 
errata ; one appears even on the illuminated title page in the Ethiopic. 

Finally, conjecture is introduced in xvii. 7 without any attempted 
justification in the notes. The Ethiopic gives " the mountains of the 
darkness (or dark clouds) of winter," which this translator gratuitously 
changes into *ay Wan, from Job xxxvii. 16. 

The Ethiopic no doubt is corrupt, but this change is not one for 
the better. 

Our author tries to emend the well-known passage in xc. 38. He 
thinks the text originally stood n?on \T1 H7D TV>T\ DH3 pt5>X"im 
r6nj nvh Sinn, but that n^O got corrupted into r&D; but Gold, 
scbmidt has failed to see that only in the preceding verse the Messiah 
is symbolised by a white bull, and could hardly, therefore, be spoken 
of in this verse as a lamb. 

On the other hand he very rightly regards the words " the Son of 
the woman," lxii. 5, as a late corruption. 

Though the above errors — and the list is far from complete — 
would constitute an unanswerable indictment against this Hebrew 
retranslation if regarded as a scientific reproduction of the 
text, they do not seriously affect its value if it claims to be 
merely the book of Enoch in a Hebrew dress for Jewish and 
other readers, who, like the present reviewer, are interested in this 
literature, and therefore welcome the appearance of Herr Gold- 
schmidt's work. But the scientific reconstruction of the Hebrew 
text is still a desideratum. Hence we look forward with growing 
interest to the long-promised work of M. Halevi. 

R. H. Charles.