{ "schemaVersion": 1, "version": "1.2.0", "scope": "book-of-enoch-woh", "description": "Per-translation glossary overlay for the WoH Translation of 1 Enoch (Ethiopic Enoch). Contains composition-specific entries: the Aramaic/Greek/Ge'ez per-verse layered-witness convention, the Aramaic-onomastics-preservation convention, the Greek-to-Ge'ez witness-transition convention, the Watchers English-rendering convention, the Aramaic 4 vs Greek 7 archangels textual-variant convention, the 300 vs 3000 cubits giant-height variant convention, and other composition-specific conventions; v1.2.0 (2026-06-05) adds Ship B Astronomical Book conventions: no-Greek-witness, Aramaic-fuller-than-Ge'ez lunar tables, 18-vs-22-part day-ratio scholarly crux, corrupted-Ge'ez sun-moon names preservation, and 364-day-solar-calendar rendering. May be promoted to central via standard overlay→central promotion pattern when entries acquire cross-corpus reach.", "sourceLanguages": [ "arc", "grc", "gez" ], "entries": [ { "id": "per-verse-layered-witness-aramaic-greek-geez-convention", "source": "Aramaic Dead Sea Scroll fragments (4Q201/4Q202/4Q204/4Q205/4Q206/4Q207); Greek Akhmim Panopolitanus (6th c. CE codex); Ge'ez (Ethiopic) medieval manuscripts", "translit": "(see appliesTo refIds for paragraph-level source-text)", "lemma": "the per-verse layered-witness convention — the WoH translation reconstruction practice across the three principal witnesses", "partOfSpeech": "Translation-program methodological convention: the per-verse layered-witness reconstruction practice that selects, for each verse, the Aramaic Dead Sea Scroll fragment reading where preserved (PRIMARY witness — the OLDEST surviving Enoch material, late 3rd c. BCE through 1st c. BCE); the Greek Akhmim Panopolitanus reading where the Aramaic is not preserved (SECONDARY witness — 6th c. CE codex, chs 1-32 substantially complete); the Ge'ez (Ethiopic) reading where neither Aramaic nor Greek preserves (TERTIARY witness and fallback — the only complete witness to 1 Enoch, but the most-removed-in-time and -language from the original Aramaic composition)", "literal": "primary Aramaic / secondary Greek / tertiary Ge'ez", "standardEnglish": "the standard scholarly text-critical practice (Nickelsburg 2001; Milik 1976; Black 1985; Knibb 1978; Charles 1912 — all preserve the layered-witness framework, though differing in editorial-decisions on individual verses)", "wohChoice": "preserve the layered-witness framework explicitly in the per-verse text_lang field: 'arc' (Aramaic) where the verse is reconstructed from Aramaic DSS fragments; 'grc' (Greek) where reconstructed from the Greek Akhmim; 'gez' (Ge'ez) where reconstructed from the Ethiopic; the per-verse witness-selection follows the chronological-witness-preference framework (Aramaic > Greek > Ge'ez)", "claim_type": "direct", "rationale": "**The per-verse layered-witness convention is the foundational textual-critical methodology of the WoH translation of 1 Enoch.** The convention reflects the manuscript-witness situation:\n\n(i) **The Aramaic Dead Sea Scroll fragments** (4Q201/4Q202/4Q204/4Q205/4Q206/4Q207) preserve significant portions of the Book of the Watchers and other 1 Enoch sections in the original Aramaic composition-language. The fragments date from the late 3rd c. BCE through the 1st c. BCE, making them the OLDEST surviving Enoch material. The Aramaic is therefore the **primary witness** to the original composition where it survives.\n\n(ii) **The Greek Akhmim Panopolitanus codex** (6th c. CE) preserves 1 Enoch 1-32 substantially complete in Greek translation. The Greek translation was made early (probably 1st-2nd c. CE) and is independent of the Ge'ez tradition. Where the Aramaic does not preserve, the Greek is the **secondary witness**.\n\n(iii) **The Ge'ez (Ethiopic) manuscripts** (medieval, primarily 15th-19th c. CE manuscripts) preserve the complete 1 Enoch corpus (the only complete witness). The Ge'ez tradition was translated from Greek (probably in the 4th-6th c. CE during the Ethiopian Christianization). Where neither Aramaic nor Greek preserves, the Ge'ez is the **tertiary witness and fallback**.\n\nThe per-verse layered-witness convention preserves the witness-chain explicitly in the verse-level text_lang field, making the textual-witness layering visible to the reader. The methodology follows the established scholarly practice of Nickelsburg 2001 (Hermeneia commentary), Milik 1976 (foundational Aramaic publication), Black 1985 (Greek edition with commentary), Knibb 1978 (Ethiopic critical edition), and Charles 1912 (the classic Ge'ez critical edition). The convention is distinctive to 1 Enoch because of the three-language layered-witness situation; other Second-Temple-Jewish texts may have similar conventions but with different witness-configurations.", "appliesTo": [ "ENO-WOH:all" ] }, { "id": "aramaic-onomastics-preservation-convention", "source": "Aramaic 4Q201/4Q202/4Q204/4Q206 onomastics — the Watcher-names and archangel-names", "translit": "Šemiḥazah, ʿAśāʾēl, ʿArtaqof, Rāmʾēl, Kōkabʾēl, ʾArmaros, Bărāqʾēl, Anānʾēl, Zaqʾēl, Šamšiʾēl, Sariʾēl, Tūrʾēl, Yomyaʾēl, Sahriʾēl (the Watcher chiefs); Mikhāʾēl, Sariʾēl, Raphāʾēl, Gabriʾēl, ʿŪrʾēl, Raguʾēl, Remʾēl (the archangels)", "lemma": "the Aramaic onomastics preservation convention — the WoH translation practice of preserving the Aramaic vocalization of Watcher-and-archangel names where the Aramaic is the witness", "partOfSpeech": "Translation-program methodological convention: the preservation of Aramaic onomastics for proper-names (Watcher-chiefs, archangels, places) where the Aramaic Dead Sea Scroll fragments are the witness; the practice contrasts with the Charles 1912 + Knibb 1978 practice of using assimilated Hellenistic-or-Ethiopic vocalizations throughout", "literal": "Aramaic vocalization preserved where the Aramaic is the witness", "standardEnglish": "scholarly practice variations: Nickelsburg 2001 + Milik 1976 preserve the Aramaic onomastics; Black 1985 + Knibb 1978 use mixed vocalizations; Charles 1912 uses the Ge'ez-mediated forms", "wohChoice": "preserve the Aramaic vocalization (Šemiḥazah, ʿAśāʾēl, Bărāqʾēl, Kōkabʾēl, etc.) where the Aramaic is the witness for the verse; transition to Greek vocalization (Semyaza, Asael/Azazel) where the Greek Akhmim is the witness; transition to Ge'ez vocalization (Semyaza, Azazel, etc.) where the Ge'ez is the witness; the witness-transition flagged at chapter-and-verse boundaries", "claim_type": "direct", "rationale": "**The Aramaic onomastics preservation convention reflects the layered-witness methodology of the WoH translation.** The convention: where the Aramaic Dead Sea Scroll fragments are the witness for a given verse, the Aramaic vocalization of proper-names is preserved (e.g., ʿAśāʾēl, Šemiḥazah, Bărāqʾēl). Where the Greek Akhmim or Ge'ez is the witness, the corresponding vocalization is used. The convention is distinctive to 1 Enoch because the proper-names of the Watchers and archangels have undergone significant transformation across the witness-chain (Aramaic → Greek → Ge'ez), with the Aramaic vocalization being the closest to the original composition and the most-philologically-meaningful (the theophoric -ʾēl endings, the Aramaic-Semitic morphology). Nickelsburg 2001 and Milik 1976 both follow this convention; Knibb 1978 mixes the conventions; Charles 1912 uses primarily the Ge'ez-mediated forms throughout. The WoH convention follows Nickelsburg-Milik in preserving the Aramaic where it survives.", "appliesTo": [ "ENO-WOH-6:7", "ENO-WOH-8:3", "ENO-WOH-9:1", "ENO-WOH-10:1", "ENO-WOH-10:4", "ENO-WOH-10:11", "ENO-WOH-20:1" ] }, { "id": "greek-to-geez-witness-transition-convention-mid-chapter-32", "source": "Greek Akhmim Panopolitanus codex breaks off mid-chapter 32; chs 33-36 preserved only in Ge'ez (with fragmentary Aramaic supplements)", "translit": "(see appliesTo refIds — affects all of chs 33-36)", "lemma": "the Greek-to-Ge'ez witness-transition convention — the WoH translation practice of marking the mid-ch-32 transition from the substantial Greek-witness to the Ge'ez-only-witness for chs 33-36", "partOfSpeech": "Translation-program methodological convention: the witness-transition convention at the mid-chapter-32 boundary where the Greek Akhmim Panopolitanus codex breaks off, with chs 33-36 preserved only in Ge'ez (with fragmentary Aramaic 4Q205/4Q206/4Q207 supplements where they survive); the convention requires explicit acknowledgment of the witness-transition in the per-translation apparatus", "literal": "mid-ch-32: Greek Akhmim ends; Ge'ez becomes only-witness for chs 33-36", "standardEnglish": "standard textual-critical recognition (Nickelsburg 2001; Black 1985; Milik 1976; Knibb 1978; Charles 1912)", "wohChoice": "preserve the Greek-witness for chs 1-32 (with the Aramaic as primary where preserved); transition to Ge'ez-only-witness for chs 33-36 (with the fragmentary Aramaic supplements where they survive); the witness-transition flagged in chapter-32 and chapter-33 commentaries", "claim_type": "direct", "rationale": "**The Greek-to-Ge'ez witness-transition convention reflects the manuscript-witness situation at the mid-chapter-32 boundary.** The Greek Akhmim Panopolitanus codex (6th c. CE; the principal Greek witness to 1 Enoch 1-32) breaks off mid-chapter 32. Beyond this point, the Ge'ez (Ethiopic) tradition is the **only complete witness** to chs 33-36 (and to the rest of 1 Enoch 36-108). The Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls preserve some material from chs 33-36 in fragmentary form (4Q205, 4Q206, 4Q207) but not in the substantial-readable form preserved for chs 1-32. The witness-transition has implications for translation-confidence: the chs 33-36 readings depend more heavily on the Ge'ez tradition (which is removed in time, language, and culture from the original Aramaic composition); the Aramaic-to-Greek-to-Ge'ez transmission-chain is shorter for chs 33-36 because the Greek-intermediate is absent. The WoH convention flags this transition explicitly so that the reader is aware of the differential witness-confidence between chs 1-32 and chs 33-36.", "appliesTo": [ "ENO-WOH-33:1", "ENO-WOH-33:2", "ENO-WOH-33:3", "ENO-WOH-33:4", "ENO-WOH-34:1", "ENO-WOH-34:2", "ENO-WOH-34:3", "ENO-WOH-35:1", "ENO-WOH-36:1", "ENO-WOH-36:2", "ENO-WOH-36:3" ] }, { "id": "watchers-english-rendering-convention", "source": "Aramaic ʿīrīn / Greek egrēgoroi / Ge'ez teguh", "translit": "ʿīrīn (Aramaic) / egrēgoroi (Greek) / teguh (Ge'ez)", "lemma": "the Watchers English-rendering convention — the WoH translation practice of consistently rendering the Aramaic ʿīrīn / Greek egrēgoroi / Ge'ez teguh as 'Watchers' rather than as 'Holy Ones' or 'angels'", "partOfSpeech": "Translation-program lexical-rendering convention: the consistent rendering of the angelic-class noun ʿīrīn / egrēgoroi / teguh as 'Watchers' throughout the WoH translation; contrasts with Charles 1912's occasional 'Holy Ones' rendering and with various popular translations' flattening to 'angels'", "literal": "Watchers (English standard)", "standardEnglish": "the Watchers (Nickelsburg 2001; Black 1985; Knibb 1978 — uniform); 'Holy Ones' (Charles 1912 occasional); 'angels' (Ge'ez interpretive-flattening, common in popular renderings)", "wohChoice": "render 'Watchers' consistently for ʿīrīn / egrēgoroi / teguh; preserve the technical class-distinction; this is the standard English scholarly rendering and the WoH adopts it; see central entry `watchers-1-enoch-6-11-bnei-elohim-cross-corpus` for the broader treatment", "claim_type": "direct", "rationale": "**The Watchers English-rendering convention preserves the technical angelic-class distinction.** The Aramaic ʿīrīn / Greek egrēgoroi / Ge'ez teguh all denote the same angelic class — the wakeful/vigilant ones, the angelic-order whose function is unceasing cosmic-vigilance. Charles 1912 occasionally renders 'Holy Ones' (mixing with the parallel-coupling qaddīšīn); various popular renderings flatten to 'angels' (collapsing the class-distinction). The modern scholarly convention is uniform: render 'Watchers' to preserve the class-distinction. The WoH adopts this convention.", "appliesTo": [ "ENO-WOH-1:2", "ENO-WOH-1:5", "ENO-WOH-6:2", "ENO-WOH-10:7", "ENO-WOH-10:11", "ENO-WOH-12:2", "ENO-WOH-12:4", "ENO-WOH-13:10", "ENO-WOH-14:1", "ENO-WOH-14:3", "ENO-WOH-15:2", "ENO-WOH-15:9", "ENO-WOH-16:2", "ENO-WOH-19:1" ] }, { "id": "aramaic-4-vs-greek-7-archangels-textual-variant-convention", "source": "Aramaic 4Q201 / 4Q202 / 4Q204 at 1 En 9:1 (four archangels: Michael, Sariel, Raphael, Gabriel); Greek Akhmim + Ge'ez at 1 En 20:1-8 (seven archangels: Uriel, Raphael, Raguel, Michael, Sariel/Saraqael, Gabriel, Remeiel)", "translit": "(see appliesTo refIds)", "lemma": "the Aramaic 4 vs Greek 7 archangels textual-variant convention — the WoH translation practice of preserving the Aramaic 4-archangel list at 1 En 9:1 and the Greek 7-archangel list at 1 En 20", "partOfSpeech": "Translation-program textual-variant convention: the preservation of both the Aramaic 4-archangel list (Michael, Sariel, Raphael, Gabriel at 1 En 9:1) and the Greek 7-archangel list (Uriel, Raphael, Raguel, Michael, Sariel/Saraqael, Gabriel, Remeiel at 1 En 20:1-8) — preserving the witness-variant rather than harmonizing", "literal": "Aramaic 4 vs Greek 7 — preserve both", "standardEnglish": "scholarly recognition of the variant (Milik 1976; Nickelsburg 2001; Black 1985)", "wohChoice": "preserve the 4-archangel list at 1 En 9:1 (per the Aramaic witness); preserve the 7-archangel list at 1 En 20:1-8 (per the Greek Akhmim witness); the variant is the witness-variant in the layered-witness framework; see central entry `seven-archangels-list-1-enoch-20-tob-12-rev-8-cross-corpus`", "claim_type": "direct", "rationale": "**The Aramaic 4-archangel vs Greek 7-archangel variant is one of the most-discussed textual-variants in the 1 Enoch corpus.** The earlier Aramaic tradition (4Q201/4Q202/4Q204) at 1 En 9:1 names FOUR archangels: Michael, Sariel, Raphael, Gabriel — the four who hear the cries of humanity and bring the matter before the throne. The expanded 7-name list at 1 En 20:1-8 is the later developed form preserved in the Greek Akhmim and Ge'ez. The textual-critical question — whether the four-archangel list is the original tradition with the seven-archangel list a later development, or whether the seven-archangel list is original with chapter 9 preserving only the four most-relevant — is genuinely contested. The WoH convention preserves both the four-archangel list at 1 En 9:1 and the seven-archangel list at 1 En 20:1-8, with the witness-variant preserved rather than harmonized.", "appliesTo": [ "ENO-WOH-9:1", "ENO-WOH-20:1", "ENO-WOH-20:2", "ENO-WOH-20:3", "ENO-WOH-20:4", "ENO-WOH-20:5", "ENO-WOH-20:6", "ENO-WOH-20:7", "ENO-WOH-20:8" ] }, { "id": "300-vs-3000-cubits-giant-height-variant-1-enoch-7-2-witness-variant", "source": "1 Enoch 7:2 — Aramaic 4Q201 fragment (300 cubits) vs Greek Akhmim (3000 cubits) vs Ge'ez (3000 cubits)", "translit": "300 cubits vs 3000 cubits", "lemma": "the 300 vs 3000 cubits giant-height variant at 1 En 7:2 — the WoH translation practice of preserving the witness-variant rather than harmonizing", "partOfSpeech": "Translation-program textual-variant convention: the preservation of the 300-cubits (Aramaic 4Q201 fragment) vs 3000-cubits (Greek Akhmim + Ge'ez) stature-variant at 1 En 7:2; the variant is one of the most-discussed textual-variants in the giant-narrative", "literal": "300 cubits (Aramaic) vs 3000 cubits (Greek + Ge'ez)", "standardEnglish": "scholarly recognition of the variant (Milik 1976; Nickelsburg 2001; Black 1985)", "wohChoice": "preserve the witness-reading: 300 cubits where the Aramaic 4Q201 is reconstructable as the witness; 3000 cubits where the Greek Akhmim or Ge'ez is the witness; the variant flagged in commentary", "claim_type": "direct", "rationale": "**The 300-vs-3000-cubits variant at 1 En 7:2 is one of the most-discussed textual-variants in the Book of the Watchers.** The Aramaic 4Q201 fragment (where reconstructable) appears to read **300 cubits**; the Greek Akhmim Panopolitanus reads **3000 cubits**; the Ge'ez tradition follows the Greek with **3000 cubits**. The 10-fold difference is significant: 300 cubits (~135m at the standard 0.45m cubit) is already cosmically-implausible but within the apocalyptic-narrative register; 3000 cubits (~1.35km) is in the mountain-scale range. Milik 1976 takes the 300-cubits reading as original (with the 3000-cubits reading being a later scribal-amplification, perhaps influenced by the 3000-pace = parasang Persian measurement-tradition); Nickelsburg 2001 documents the dispute. The WoH preserves the witness-variant.", "appliesTo": [ "ENO-WOH-7:2" ] }, { "id": "holy-great-one-great-glory-divine-circumlocution-titles-convention", "source": "Greek 1 En 1:3 ho hagios mou ho megas 'the Holy Great One'; Greek 1 En 14:20 hē megalē doxa 'the Great Glory'", "translit": "ho hagios mou ho megas (1 En 1:3) / hē megalē doxa (1 En 14:20)", "lemma": "the Holy Great One + the Great Glory divine-circumlocution titles convention — the WoH translation practice of preserving the apophatic-circumlocution titles", "partOfSpeech": "Translation-program lexical-rendering convention: the consistent preservation of the divine-circumlocution titles ho hagios mou ho megas 'the Holy Great One' (1 En 1:3) and hē megalē doxa 'the Great Glory' (1 En 14:20) — the two principal apophatic-circumlocution titles of the 1 Enoch corpus, used in preference to direct YHWH / Elohim naming", "literal": "the Holy Great One / the Great Glory", "standardEnglish": "the Holy Great One + the Great Glory (Nickelsburg 2001; Black 1985 — uniform recognition as the apophatic-circumlocution titles)", "wohChoice": "preserve 'the Holy Great One' at 1 En 1:3 (with optional 'my' to reflect the Greek possessive); preserve 'the Great Glory' at 1 En 14:20 (the throne-figure designation); the apophatic-circumlocution practice is characteristic of Second-Temple-period Jewish apocalyptic literature and reflects the developing reluctance to name the divine directly", "claim_type": "direct", "rationale": "**The Holy Great One + Great Glory divine-circumlocution titles are characteristic of 1 Enoch's apocalyptic-narrative register.** The apophatic-circumlocution practice — naming the divine indirectly through paraphrastic titles rather than through the direct YHWH / Elohim / kyrios names — is one of the most-distinctive features of Second-Temple-period Jewish apocalyptic literature. The 1 Enoch corpus deploys multiple such circumlocution titles: 'the Holy Great One' (1 En 1:3), 'the Great Glory' (1 En 14:20), 'the Lord of Spirits' (frequent in the Parables, 1 En 37-71), 'the Eternal King' (1 En 25), 'the Most High' (frequent). The WoH preserves these titles consistently across the translation. See central entry `enoch-as-scribe-mediator-figure-12-jub-4-metatron-cross-corpus` for the broader treatment of 1 Enoch's divine-circumlocution practice.", "appliesTo": [ "ENO-WOH-1:3", "ENO-WOH-14:20", "ENO-WOH-25:3", "ENO-WOH-25:5" ] }, { "id": "astronomical-book-no-greek-witness-aramaic-geez-only-convention", "source": "1 Enoch 72-82 (the Astronomical Book) — Aramaic 4Q208-4Q211 DSS fragments (PRIMARY where preserved) + Ge'ez complete-witness (TERTIARY and fallback); NO Greek witness exists (the Greek Akhmim Panopolitanus codex ends mid-ch 32 and does not extend into the Astronomical Book; the Syncellus excerpts cover only Book-of-the-Watchers chapters and not the Astronomical Book)", "translit": "(see appliesTo refIds — affects all of chs 72-82)", "lemma": "the no-Greek-witness convention for the Astronomical Book — the WoH translation practice of explicitly flagging the absence of a Greek witness for chs 72-82", "partOfSpeech": "Translation-program textual-witness convention: the WoH translation explicitly flags the absence of a Greek witness for the Astronomical Book chs 72-82; the witness-layering reduces to a two-witness situation (Aramaic 4Q208-4Q211 PRIMARY where preserved; Ge'ez TERTIARY and fallback) without the intermediate Greek-witness layer that characterizes chs 1-32", "literal": "no Greek witness: Aramaic 4Q208-4Q211 fragments PRIMARY where preserved + Ge'ez complete-witness TERTIARY and fallback", "standardEnglish": "standard textual-critical recognition of the no-Greek-witness situation for chs 72-82 (Nickelsburg-VanderKam 2012 Hermeneia vol 2; Black 1985 with Neugebauer 1981 appendix; Milik 1976; Knibb 1978; Charles 1912; Drawnel 2011 specialized treatment)", "wohChoice": "explicitly flag the no-Greek-witness situation in chapter-level commentary or in the per-translation overlay where relevant; preserve the two-witness situation (Aramaic-PRIMARY where preserved + Ge'ez-TERTIARY-and-fallback) in the per-verse text_lang attribution; the no-Greek-witness convention is the foundational textual-witness situation of the Astronomical Book", "claim_type": "direct", "rationale": "**The no-Greek-witness convention is the foundational textual-witness situation of the 1 Enoch Astronomical Book.** The Greek Akhmim Panopolitanus codex — the principal Greek witness to 1 Enoch — preserves chs 1-32 substantially complete and breaks off mid-chapter 32. The Greek Syncellus excerpts (preserved in Georgius Syncellus' Chronographia, 9th c. CE) cover 1 En 6-10, 8:1-8, 9:1-11, 10:1-15, 15:8-16:1, 18:6-19:3 — all from the Book of the Watchers, none from the Astronomical Book. The Vatican fragments (Codex Vaticanus 1809) preserve a fragmentary Greek witness for 1 En 89:42-49 (the Animal Apocalypse) but not the Astronomical Book.\n\nThe Astronomical Book chs 72-82 is therefore transmitted EXCLUSIVELY through:\n- **Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls fragments** (4Q208 Astronomical Enoch-a, 4Q209 Astronomical Enoch-b, 4Q210 Astronomical Enoch-c, 4Q211 Astronomical Enoch-d) — PRIMARY witness where preserved; the OLDEST Enoch material overall (late 3rd c. BCE).\n- **Ge'ez (Ethiopic) complete-witness** — TERTIARY witness and fallback; the only complete witness; translated from Greek (probably 4th-6th c. CE during Ethiopian Christianization) — but the Greek intermediate witness for chs 72-82 is itself lost.\n\nThe witness-layering for chs 72-82 is therefore distinctively two-witness (Aramaic-PRIMARY + Ge'ez-TERTIARY) rather than the three-witness situation (Aramaic-PRIMARY + Greek-SECONDARY + Ge'ez-TERTIARY) that characterizes chs 1-32. The translation-confidence implications: the Astronomical Book readings depend more heavily on the Ge'ez tradition where the Aramaic does not preserve; the Aramaic-to-Greek-to-Ge'ez transmission-chain is shorter for chs 72-82 because the Greek-intermediate is absent.\n\nThe WoH convention is to explicitly flag the no-Greek-witness situation in the per-translation apparatus so that the reader is aware of the differential witness-confidence between chs 1-32 (three-witness) and chs 72-82 (two-witness).", "appliesTo": [ "ENO-WOH-72:1", "ENO-WOH-73:1", "ENO-WOH-74:1", "ENO-WOH-75:1", "ENO-WOH-76:1", "ENO-WOH-77:1", "ENO-WOH-78:1", "ENO-WOH-79:1", "ENO-WOH-80:1", "ENO-WOH-81:1", "ENO-WOH-82:1" ] }, { "id": "aramaic-fuller-than-geez-lunar-tables-4q208-convention", "source": "1 Enoch 73-74 (the moon's circuit + the monthly lunar-disk-fraction tables); Aramaic 4Q208 + 4Q209 preserve detailed lunar tables that the Ge'ez tradition has heavily abbreviated", "translit": "(see appliesTo refIds — affects all of chs 73-74)", "lemma": "the Aramaic-fuller-than-Ge'ez convention for the Astronomical Book lunar tables — the WoH translation practice of flagging the witness-fullness-inversion at chs 73-74 (the Aramaic preserves a much-fuller text than the Ge'ez)", "partOfSpeech": "Translation-program textual-witness convention: the WoH translation flags the distinctive witness-fullness-inversion at chs 73-74 where the Aramaic 4Q208 + 4Q209 DSS fragments preserve detailed monthly lunar-disk-fraction tables (calculating the visible fraction of the lunar disk for each day of each month across the synodic cycle) that the Ge'ez tradition has heavily abbreviated — the witness-fullness inversion is unusual within the 1 Enoch corpus (where typically the Ge'ez preserves a fuller text than the surviving Aramaic-or-Greek)", "literal": "Aramaic fuller than Ge'ez at chs 73-74 — the Aramaic preserves detailed monthly lunar tables that the Ge'ez has heavily abbreviated", "standardEnglish": "scholarly recognition of the witness-fullness inversion (Milik 1976; Drawnel 2011 — the specialized treatment; Nickelsburg-VanderKam 2012 Hermeneia vol 2; Tigchelaar-García Martínez DJD XXXVI 2000)", "wohChoice": "preserve the Ge'ez compressed-summary at chs 73-74 as the surface text of the WoH translation (the Aramaic detailed lunar tables are highly technical computational-data that does not translate naturally into the WoH narrative-translation register); flag the Aramaic-fuller-than-Ge'ez witness-situation in the per-translation overlay and in chapter-level commentary; acknowledge in commentary that the original Aramaic Astronomical Book was substantially longer than what the Ge'ez preserves (perhaps two or three times the surviving Ge'ez length)", "claim_type": "direct", "rationale": "**The Aramaic-fuller-than-Ge'ez convention reflects the distinctive textual-witness situation at chs 73-74.** The Aramaic 4Q208 (Astronomical Enoch-a) + 4Q209 (Astronomical Enoch-b) DSS fragments preserve detailed month-by-month lunar-disk-fraction tables. The tables calculate the visible fraction of the lunar disk (in fractions of the whole disk; in 7-part divisions) for each day of each month across the synodic cycle (the ~29.5-day cycle of lunar phases from new-moon to new-moon). The Aramaic preserves the full computational-data for what is the lunar-tables-treatise of the Astronomical Book.\n\nThe Ge'ez tradition preserves only a compressed-summary of these tables — the chs 73-74 Ge'ez text describes the general principle of the lunar-disk-fraction-cycle and gives some representative-data, but does not preserve the full computational-table for every day of every month. The witness-fullness inversion (Aramaic preserves more than Ge'ez) is unusual within the 1 Enoch corpus: typically the Ge'ez preserves the most-complete text and the Aramaic-or-Greek witnesses preserve only fragmentary portions. For the Astronomical Book, the inversion suggests that the original Aramaic Astronomical Book was substantially longer than what the Ge'ez has transmitted — perhaps two or three times the surviving Ge'ez length.\n\nThe foundational scholarly treatment is **H. Drawnel *The Aramaic Astronomical Book (4Q208-4Q211) from Qumran: Text, Translation, and Commentary* (Oxford 2011)** — Drawnel provides the systematic edition, translation, and commentary on the Aramaic Astronomical Book lunar tables, documenting the witness-fullness inversion and reconstructing the computational-mathematical-system that underlies the tables. The Drawnel reconstruction shows that the Aramaic tables operated on a sophisticated computational-mathematical system (with parallels in Babylonian astronomical-tabular-data) that the Ge'ez transmission has lost.\n\nThe WoH convention is to preserve the Ge'ez compressed-summary as the surface text (the Aramaic detailed lunar tables are highly technical computational-data that does not translate naturally into the WoH narrative-translation register); flag the witness-situation in the per-translation overlay; and acknowledge in chapter-level commentary that the original Aramaic Astronomical Book was substantially longer than what the Ge'ez preserves.", "appliesTo": [ "ENO-WOH-73:1", "ENO-WOH-73:2", "ENO-WOH-73:3", "ENO-WOH-73:4", "ENO-WOH-73:5", "ENO-WOH-73:6", "ENO-WOH-73:7", "ENO-WOH-73:8", "ENO-WOH-74:1", "ENO-WOH-74:2", "ENO-WOH-74:3", "ENO-WOH-74:4", "ENO-WOH-74:5", "ENO-WOH-74:6", "ENO-WOH-74:7", "ENO-WOH-74:8", "ENO-WOH-74:9", "ENO-WOH-74:10", "ENO-WOH-74:11", "ENO-WOH-74:12" ] }, { "id": "18-vs-22-part-day-ratio-scholarly-crux-1-enoch-72-7-no-harmonization-convention", "source": "1 Enoch 72:7-31 — the day-length ratios across the year exhibit two parallel systems: a 22-part system (12+10, 13+9, 11+11 — the equinoctial range) coexisting with an 18-part system at the solstices (12+6, 12+6 — the solstice extremes)", "translit": "(see appliesTo refIds — affects all of ch 72:7-31)", "lemma": "the 18-vs-22-part day-ratio scholarly crux at 1 Enoch 72 — the WoH translation practice of preserving the source-internal inconsistency without harmonization", "partOfSpeech": "Translation-program textual-internal-inconsistency convention: the 1 En 72 day-length ratios across the year exhibit two parallel systems — a 22-part system at the equinoxes-and-mid-seasons (12+10, 13+9, 11+11, with 22 parts as the day-and-night total) coexisting with an 18-part system at the solstices (12+6 / 6+12, with 18 parts as the day-and-night total); the inconsistency is one of the most-discussed astronomical-textual-cruxes of the Astronomical Book (Neugebauer 1981 on the dual-system problem)", "literal": "18-vs-22-part day-ratio — two parallel systems for measuring the day-and-night ratio coexisting in 1 En 72", "standardEnglish": "scholarly recognition of the dual-system inconsistency (Neugebauer 1981 — the foundational treatment; Nickelsburg-VanderKam 2012 Hermeneia vol 2; Black 1985 with Neugebauer appendix; Drawnel 2011)", "wohChoice": "preserve the source-internal inconsistency at 1 En 72:7-31 without harmonization (the WoH translation preserves the verbatim ratios as the Ge'ez witness presents them, even though they are internally-inconsistent); document the scholarly crux in this overlay entry and in chapter-level commentary; acknowledge multiple proposed harmonization-strategies (different units of measurement; mixed schematic-vs-empirical-ratios; ideal-vs-observational-data) without adopting any particular harmonization", "claim_type": "direct", "rationale": "**The 18-vs-22-part day-ratio inconsistency at 1 En 72:7-31 is one of the most-discussed astronomical-textual-cruxes of the Astronomical Book.** The chapter narrates the sun's annual circuit through the six eastern + six western gates of heaven, with the day-and-night ratios stated at each gate-transition. The ratios are stated using a 'parts' framework — the day-and-night together divides into a certain number of parts:\n- **Equinoctial range — 22 parts total.** At gate 4 (the equinox-gate): 'the day amounts to twelve parts and the night to ten parts' (v. 7 — 12+10 = 22 parts). At gate 5: 'the day amounts to thirteen parts, and the night to nine parts' (v. 9 — 13+9 = 22 parts). At gate 3 (equinox): 'the day becomes equal to the night, and they encompass one another; the day amounts to eleven parts and the night to eleven parts' (v. 15 — 11+11 = 22 parts).\n- **Solstice extreme — 18 parts total.** At gate 6 (the summer-solstice gate): 'on that day the day becomes twice as long as the night, and the day amounts to twelve parts, and the night is shortened and amounts to six parts' (v. 11 — 12+6 = 18 parts). At gate 1 (winter-solstice gate): 'the night grows longer and becomes twice as long as the day: the night amounts to twelve parts and the day to six parts' (v. 21 — 12+6 = 18 parts).\n\nThe two parallel systems coexist within the same chapter without explicit harmonization. The 22-part system corresponds to the equinoctial-range (where day and night are roughly equal); the 18-part system corresponds to the solstice-extreme (where day and night are at maximum asymmetry).\n\n**Multiple proposed harmonization-strategies.** Several harmonization-strategies have been proposed:\n- (i) **Different units of measurement.** The 22-part system uses one unit (perhaps half-hours or some equivalent); the 18-part system uses a different unit. The two units happen to coincide in some way.\n- (ii) **Mixed schematic-vs-empirical-ratios.** The 22-part system is the schematic-ideal-ratio; the 18-part system is an empirical-observational-ratio. The two are kept separate within the same chapter.\n- (iii) **Ideal-vs-observational-data.** The 22-part system gives the ideal-mathematical-ratio for the equinoctial-range; the 18-part system gives the actual-observational-ratio at the solstice-extremes.\n- (iv) **Latitude-difference correction.** The 22-part system corresponds to one geographic-latitude (the equinoctial-circle); the 18-part system corresponds to a different latitude (where the day-night asymmetry is greater).\n- (v) **Text-critical: scribal-error.** One of the systems is original; the other is a scribal-corruption that has been preserved alongside the original.\n\n**The Neugebauer treatment.** O. Neugebauer *The Astronomical Chapters of the Ethiopic Book of Enoch (72-82)* (Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab 40:10, Copenhagen 1981; reprinted as appendix to Black 1985) is the foundational treatment of the dual-system problem. Neugebauer demonstrates the mathematical-internal-consistency of each system on its own terms but does NOT propose a harmonization; he holds that the dual-system situation is the original-source-text feature, not a scribal-corruption to be emended. Drawnel 2011 follows Neugebauer's approach and does not propose harmonization. The Nickelsburg-VanderKam 2012 Hermeneia commentary discusses the dual-system problem at length without adopting a particular harmonization.\n\nThe WoH convention follows the scholarly mainstream: preserve the source-internal inconsistency at 1 En 72:7-31 without harmonization; document the scholarly crux in this overlay entry and in chapter-level commentary; acknowledge multiple proposed harmonization-strategies without adopting any particular harmonization. The source-internal inconsistency is one of the most-distinctive features of the Astronomical Book — and is preserved by the WoH translation.", "appliesTo": [ "ENO-WOH-72:7", "ENO-WOH-72:9", "ENO-WOH-72:11", "ENO-WOH-72:13", "ENO-WOH-72:15", "ENO-WOH-72:17", "ENO-WOH-72:19", "ENO-WOH-72:21", "ENO-WOH-72:23", "ENO-WOH-72:25", "ENO-WOH-72:27", "ENO-WOH-72:30", "ENO-WOH-72:31" ] }, { "id": "corrupted-geez-sun-moon-names-78-1-2-preserve-verbatim-no-emendation-convention", "source": "1 Enoch 78:1-2 — the corrupted-Ge'ez sun-and-moon names ('Oryares', 'Tomases', 'Asonja' and the four moon-names) that the Ge'ez transmission has preserved in unrecognizable-corrupted form", "translit": "(see appliesTo refIds — affects ch 78:1-2)", "lemma": "the corrupted-Ge'ez sun-and-moon names at 1 En 78:1-2 — the WoH translation practice of preserving the Ge'ez verbatim without emendation", "partOfSpeech": "Translation-program textual-corruption convention: the WoH translation preserves the corrupted-Ge'ez sun-and-moon names at 1 En 78:1-2 verbatim without emendation; the Ge'ez transmission has preserved names ('Oryares', 'Tomases', 'Asonja' for the sun; four-different-names for the moon) that do not correspond to known Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek astronomical-naming-systems; the names appear to be scribal-corruptions of unknown Aramaic-or-Greek originals; the WoH convention preserves the verbatim Ge'ez forms in transliteration without proposing emendations", "literal": "corrupted-Ge'ez sun-and-moon names — preserve verbatim without emendation", "standardEnglish": "scholarly recognition of the corrupted-Ge'ez names (Nickelsburg-VanderKam 2012 Hermeneia vol 2; Black 1985 with Neugebauer 1981 appendix; Charles 1912 noted the corruption; Knibb 1978; Drawnel 2011)", "wohChoice": "preserve the corrupted-Ge'ez sun-and-moon names at 1 En 78:1-2 verbatim in transliteration without proposing emendations; flag the textual-corruption status in this overlay entry and in chapter-level commentary", "claim_type": "direct", "rationale": "**The 1 Enoch 78:1-2 sun-and-moon names are preserved in the Ge'ez tradition in unrecognizable-corrupted forms.** The Ge'ez text gives three names for the sun ('Oryares', 'Tomases', 'Asonja' — depending on the manuscript-recension and the transliteration-convention) and four names for the moon. The names do not correspond to known Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek astronomical-naming-systems:\n- The Hebrew traditional astronomical-naming uses *shemesh* (sun), *yareach* (moon), and the cardinal-direction-and-season-leader names.\n- The Aramaic Astronomical Book (4Q208-4Q211) does not preserve this section of ch 78 (the Aramaic fragments do not include 78:1-2 in readable form).\n- The Greek astronomical-naming-tradition (Hellenistic-Babylonian astronomical-systems) does not use these names.\n\nThe names appear to be scribal-corruptions of unknown Aramaic-or-Greek originals. The Ge'ez transmission has preserved the unrecognizable-corrupted forms; the original Aramaic or Greek names are lost. Charles 1912 noted the corruption and attempted some speculative emendations (none accepted by subsequent scholarship); Knibb 1978 preserves the Ge'ez verbatim; the Nickelsburg-VanderKam 2012 Hermeneia treatment documents the corruption without proposing emendations.\n\nThe WoH convention is to preserve the corrupted-Ge'ez sun-and-moon names verbatim in transliteration without proposing emendations. The corrupted names are part of the source-text-historical-witness situation; emendation would require speculation about lost-original-forms that current scholarship does not warrant. The WoH preserves the verbatim Ge'ez forms; the textual-corruption status is flagged in this overlay entry and in chapter-level commentary.", "appliesTo": [ "ENO-WOH-78:1", "ENO-WOH-78:2", "ENO-WOH-78:3" ] }, { "id": "364-day-solar-calendar-rendering-convention", "source": "1 Enoch 72:32 + 82:4-6 + 74:11-12 — the explicit statements of the 364-day solar year; the WoH translation rendering convention", "translit": "(see appliesTo refIds — affects all of chs 72, 74, 75, 82 calendrical-passages)", "lemma": "the 364-day solar calendar rendering convention — the WoH translation practice of rendering the 364-day year explicitly without harmonization to the 365.25-day tropical year", "partOfSpeech": "Translation-program calendrical-rendering convention: the WoH translation renders the 364-day solar year explicitly at 1 En 72:32 + 82:4-6 + 74:11-12 (and related calendrical-passages) without harmonization to the 365.25-day tropical year; the 364-day calendar is the calendrical-identity-keystone of the Qumran-Enochic-Jubilees corpus and is preserved as the source-text calendar without modernization", "literal": "364 days — three hundred and sixty-four days; the source-text calendar preserved without harmonization", "standardEnglish": "scholarly recognition of the 364-day calendar as the source-text framework (VanderKam 1998; Glessmer 1999; Beckwith 1996; Nickelsburg-VanderKam 2012 Hermeneia vol 2; Stern 2001; Ben-Dov 2008)", "wohChoice": "render '364 days' / 'three hundred and sixty-four days' literally at 1 En 72:32 + 82:4-6 + related passages; do not modernize to the 365.25-day tropical year; do not adopt any specific intercalation-system harmonization; document the 364-day-vs-365.25-day discrepancy in chapter-level commentary; cross-reference to the central entry `qumran-364-day-solar-calendar-polemic-1-enoch-72-82-jubilees-cross-corpus` for the systematic treatment", "claim_type": "direct", "rationale": "**The 364-day solar calendar is the calendrical-framework of the Astronomical Book and the calendrical-identity-keystone of the Qumran-Enochic-Jubilees corpus.** The WoH translation renders the 364-day year explicitly at the foundational-statement passages (1 En 72:32 + 82:4-6 + 74:11-12) without harmonization. The source-text-historical situation: the 364-day year is internally-consistent within the Astronomical Book framework (52 weeks × 7 days = 364 days; four seasons × 91 days each = 364 days) but is empirically-short against the actual tropical year (~365.25 days) by 1.25 days per year. The discrepancy accumulates over time: 10 days over 8 years; 30 days over 24 years.\n\nMultiple scholarly-treatments have proposed reconstruction of intercalation-systems to bring the 364-day calendar into long-term consistency with the tropical year (Glessmer 1999; Beckwith 1996); other treatments hold that the 364-day calendar was a schematic-ideal that the Qumran community held alongside an observational-empirical practical calendar without harmonization (Stern 2001); the WoH translation does not adjudicate between these scholarly positions.\n\nThe WoH convention is to render the 364-day year explicitly as the source-text presents it, without modernization. The rendering preserves the source-text-historical situation: the 364-day calendar is the framework of the Astronomical Book and the Qumran-Enochic-Jubilees corpus; the discrepancy with the tropical year is documented in chapter-level commentary; the cross-reference to the central entry `qumran-364-day-solar-calendar-polemic-1-enoch-72-82-jubilees-cross-corpus` provides the systematic treatment of the calendrical-identity-keystone status.", "appliesTo": [ "ENO-WOH-72:32", "ENO-WOH-74:10", "ENO-WOH-74:11", "ENO-WOH-74:12", "ENO-WOH-75:1", "ENO-WOH-75:2", "ENO-WOH-75:3", "ENO-WOH-82:4", "ENO-WOH-82:5", "ENO-WOH-82:6" ] } ] }