¹ Milik, J. T., “Problèmes de la littérature hénochique à la lumière des fragments araméens de Qumrân,” HTR 64 (1971) 333–78.Google Scholar

² Milik, J. T., “Turfan et Qumran, Livre des Géants juif et manichéen,” in Jeremias, G., Kuhn, H.-W., and Stegemann, H., eds.. Tradition und Glaube: Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt (K. G. Kuhn Festschrift; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971) 117–27.Google Scholar

³ Henning, W. B., “The Book of Giants,”BSOAS 11 (1943) 52–74.Google Scholar

⁴ Dimant, D., “The Fallen Angels” in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphic Books Related to them (diss., Hebrew University, 1974 [in Hebrew]) 20Google Scholar, calculated that The Book of the Luminaries, even if twice as long as its preserved Ethiopic form, is still shorter than the Similitudes. However, in view of the length of scrolls like lQIsa^a and the new Temple Scroll, one may ask whether it is impossible to conceive of a large Qumran scroll containing all the Enochic writings known there.

⁵ HTR 64 (1971) 336–37.Google Scholar

⁶ 4QHenGiants^a was copied by the same scribe as 4QHen^a but it seems to be a different manuscript; see Milik, “Géants,” 124.

⁷ HTR 64 (1971) 334–35.Google Scholar Milik adduces no evidence for this, and it seems most likely that the situation presented in the Table is the one that actually existed in the manuscripts.

⁸ Ibid., 373–74.

⁹ Dimant, Fallen Angels, 20.

¹⁰ Personal communication by John Strugnell.

¹¹ The Temple Scroll may also formally prove to be in this category, and still further Mosaic apocrypha may yet be identified. If Jubilees be maintained to be an angelic revelation (chap. 2) and not a Mosaic one (chap. 1), the pseudo- Mosaic character of 4QDibrêMošê is in no doubt. With it perhaps certain other 4Q documents should be associated (oral communication of J. Strugnell).

¹² Dimant, Fallen Angels, 20. This does not indicate decisively that they did not belong to a Pentateuch. There are also more copies of Deuteronomy than of Leviticus.

¹³ “The Enochic Pentateuch,”JTS 27 (1926) 29–42.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Milik's substitution of The. Book of the Giants for the Similitudes and his rearrangement of the constituent parts of the “Enochic Pentateuch” would render Dix's theory obsolete, although it would be true, were there not other objections to it, for Ethiopic.

¹⁵ Dix, , JTS 27 (1926) 31–32.Google Scholar

¹⁶ The new scrolls, of course, demand at least a drastic revision of Dix's theories on the literary composition of Enoch.

¹⁷ Milik, , HTR 64 (1971) 373–78.Google ScholarCoppens, J. (“Le Fils d'Homme dans le Judaisme de l'époque néotestamentaire,”OLP 6/7 [1975–1976] 65–68)Google Scholar has examined Milik's views on the date of the Similitudes. He points out particularly that the pattern of usage of the Enochic literature at Qumran indicates a loss of interest in it from the Herodian period on. This would make Qumranite manipulation of the Enochic corpus, i.e., the introduction into it of the Similitudes, unlikely. This seems plausible, although one fails to see in what measure this refutation responds to Milik's argument. It rather seems to indicate the currency of the Enochic literature in non-Qumran circles. Coppens doubts the weight of early Christian usage as an argument and denies the validity of Milik's supposed historical references.

¹⁸ Cf. for details Denis, A.-M., Introduction aux pseudépigraphes grecs d'Ancien Testament (SVTP 1; Leiden: Brill, 1970) 21–22.Google Scholar For Pseudo- Eupolemus see Eusebius, Praep. ev. ix.17. 419 d (= Jacobi 724 F 1) and the remarks of Wacholder, B. Z., HUCA 34 (1963) 97–99Google Scholar and idem, Eupolemus. A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature (Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 3; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion, 1974) 74–77.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Not to speak of the appearance of Enoch in non-Essene works found at Qumran like 1 QapGen 2:22–26 or in later pseudepigrapha such as the Testament of Abraham, recension B, chap. 9. On the Mani Codex, see below, section V.

²⁰ Cf. for this and the following, Greenfield, J. C., “Prolegomenon” to the reprint of H. Odeberg, 3 Enoch (New York: Ktav, 1973) xvii–xviii.Google Scholar

²¹ See Stone, Michael E., “The Concept of the Messiah in IV Ezra,” Religions in Antiquity: E. R. Goodenough Memorial Volume (ed. Neusner, J.; Leiden: Brill, 1968) 303–10.Google Scholar

²² See the discussion in detail in his Der Menschensohn im äthiopischen Henochbuch (Lund: Gleerup, 1946).Google Scholar See, too, Widengren, G., “Iran and Israel in Parthian Times with Special Regard to the Ethiopic Book of Enoch,”Temenos 2 (1966) 139–77.Google Scholar

²³ Hindley, J. C., “Toward a Date for the Similitudes of Enoch, an Historical Approach,”NTS 14 (1968) 551–65.Google Scholar

²⁴ The Ethiopic word māʿ qafa in 56:7a is unclear. It is rendered “hindrance” by Charles; Ch. Rabin has suggested “stumbling block” to the writers; MS Q, of the sixteenth century, reads mawāqěfa, “standing place.” None of these permits the drawing of precise historical conclusions as to what happened or did not happen to the Parthians in Jerusalem.

²⁵ Milik, , HTR 64 (1971) 377.Google Scholar

²⁶ To judge by y. Terumot 8,10 (46b) Zenobia was far from friendly to the Jews. It should be remembered that the oldest text which refers to Zenobia and her Jewish sympathies is that of Athanasius, Historia arianorum ad monachos = PG 25. 777 B, and that his purpose is to condemn Paul of Samosata; cf. Downey, G., A History of Antioch in Syria (Princeton: Princeton University, 1961) 262–71, 312.Google Scholar

²⁷ See Schalit, A., König Herodes (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969) 640, n. 200.Google Scholar

²⁸ See Schmidt, N., “The Original Language of the Parables of Enoch,” Old Testament and Semitic Studies in Memory of W. R. Harper (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1908), 2. 329–49.Google ScholarCharles, R. H., The Book of Enoch (Oxford: Oxford University, 1912) lxi–lxviiiGoogle Scholar, made a feeble attempt in this direction. He argued for a Hebrew original. Ullendorff, E., “An Aramaic ‘Vorlage’ of the Ethiopic Text of Enoch?” was published in Atti del convegno internazionale di Studi Etiopici (Rome: 1960) 259–67.Google Scholar

²⁹ Black, M., “The Fragments of the Aramaic Enoch from Qumran,” La littérature juive entre Tenach et Mischna (ed. van Unnik, W. C.; Leiden: Brill, 1974) 15–28.Google Scholar

³⁰ The first report on this important document was given by Henrichs, A. and Koenen, L., “Ein griechischer Mani-Codex,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 5 (1970) 97–216.Google Scholar The first part of the edition has now been published by them in the same journal, 19 (1975) 1–85. We are grateful to Professor Henrichs for making this text available to us early in the process of publication.

³¹ Professor Ephraim Isaac informs us that MS Kebrān 9 of Ethiopic Enoch from Lake Tānā (see Hammerschmidt, E., Äthiopische Handschriften vom Tānāsee [Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1973] 107)Google Scholar of the early fifteenth century reads “chariot” or “vehicle of wind” at Enoch 52:1, resembling Charles's MS 9x q at this point. The other features of the work referred to in the Mani Codex are not to be found, however, in this new manuscript of Ethiopic Enoch.

³² Henning, W., “Ein manichäisches Henochbuch,”SPAW, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 1934, 5. 2–11.Google Scholar The series of names matches that in the Mani Codex: Adam (49), Sethel (50), Enos (52), Sem (54), and Enoch (57), to each of whom apocalypses are attributed. It is instructive to compare these verses with Ben Sira 49:14, 16: there Enoch, Shem, Seth, and Enosh are mentioned, culminating in Adam.

³³ Cf. the reference to Enoch in Barnabas 4:3, also unknown in any extant Enoch work. For some reflexes of The Book of the Giants in Jewish tradition, see Greenfield, J. C., “Notes on some Aramaic and Mandaic Magic Bowls,” JANESCU 5 (1973; T. H. Gaster Festschrift) 150–54.Google Scholar