'Enoch and the Son of Man' Revisited: Further Reflections on the Text and Translation of 1 Enoch 70.1-2
This article is a response to criticism of the author's 1998 article, 'Enoch and the Son of Man in the Epilogue of the Parables' (JSP 18:27-38). The author here concedes to his critics that the proper textual basis for 1 En. 70.1-2 cannot be determined by manuscript evidence alone, an...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
2009
|
| In: |
Journal for the study of the pseudepigrapha
Year: 2009, Volume: 18, Issue: 3, Pages: 233-240 |
| Further subjects: | B
Parables
B Translation B Knibb B Son of Man B Olson B Coptic apocryphon B Enoch B Ethiopic |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | This article is a response to criticism of the author's 1998 article, 'Enoch and the Son of Man in the Epilogue of the Parables' (JSP 18:27-38). The author here concedes to his critics that the proper textual basis for 1 En. 70.1-2 cannot be determined by manuscript evidence alone, and he is willing to modify slightly his translation of the passage. Otherwise, this article defends the author's original translation of these verses against such critics as Michael Knibb and against alternate translations such as that of George Nickelsburg and James VanderKam. New evidence is brought into the discussion (a Coptic Enoch apocryphon) and several fresh literary and linguistic arguments are presented in defense of the author's original translation. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1745-5286 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal for the study of the pseudepigrapha
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1177/0951820709103186 |
