John's christology and the Dead Sea Scrolls

[Vouthon]

In order to make The Book of John compatible with Judaism, there would need to be a Jewish source claiming that there is only 1 way to approach G-d. And I don't think it exists.

I think that's a justifiable point of view, however in the Qumran self-glorification hymn and in the Similtudes of Enoch, I do think we find 'divine agents' who are qualified as being uniquely exalted and as being incomparable / unparalleled mediators (i.e. with no equal). The SGH speaker declares of himself: "[the other gods/angels] shall not be like my glory (kevodi), and none shall be exalted save me. And who shall measure the flow of my speech, and who shall be my equal, and be like (me) in my judgment?"

In my judgement (pun intended ) - and in the judgement also of a dead sea scholar like James Charlesworth - these sources bear a similarity to the theology in John, not least in in that both texts portrary their respective deified figure as being 'without equal' / the only one so exalted. As I noted with reference to the scholar Fletcher-Louis earlier on:


All the Glory of Adam

"The hymnist declares himself exalted and enthroned in the heavenly realm with an incomparable Glory...The speaker claims that he is now with the gods and that he is incomparable in a way which reminds us of Biblical language for Israel's God (Exodus 15:11: "Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods?")..."
​

In the Sefer Hekhalot we are told that: "Any angel or any prince who has anything to say in my Presence should go before him [Enoch-Metatron] and speak to him", which implies that Metatron has been appointed the conduit / way to the divine throne for any prince or angel who wishes to say anything in the divine Presence.

In John, I think similarly, we find these words attributed to Jesus: "In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places/rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?...I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6).

Is that not passingly similar to Metatron's role in the Sefer Hekhalot and the deified person in the Qumranite SGH?

In fact, I think this association is strengthened by the fact that when Jesus in the above chapter of John (chapter 14) refers to himself as being the 'way' to "My father’s house" where there are "many rooms prepared", scholars such as Adele Reinhartz have written of this: "There may be an allusion here to the Jewish “Hekhalot” (“palaces”) tradition, involving stories in which a seer visits the heavenly realm and explores its different rooms (based on the chariot vision in Ezek 1, and in such works as 1 En. 17, 18)."

So Jesus appears to have been invoking for himself a mediatorial function akin to that exercised by Metatron in the later Hekhalot literature, and indeed Paul arguably testifies to a merkabah vision too, as other Jewish scholars - Alan Segal and Boyarin himself - have noted in relation to his letters:


Merkabah mysticism - Wikipedia

According to Timo Eskola, early Christian theology and discourse was influenced by the Jewish Merkabah tradition.[22] Similarly, Alan Segal and Daniel Boyarin regard Paul the Apostle's accounts of his conversion experience and his ascent to the heavens (2 Corinthians 12:2–4) as the earliest first person accounts we have of a Merkabah mystic in Jewish or Christian literature.
​

However, I concede that you may be right that "exclusivism" (in terms of Jesus mediation) may be the true substantive difference between early Johannine Christianity and the rest of Second Temple Judaism, as opposed to his description as pre-existent divine mediator (which is attested elsewhere among other Jewish sects, including in the context of a heavenly saviour figure at Qumran, such as Melchizedek or indeed the later Enoch-Metatron in the Hekhalot as a mystical intermediary of the Divine Presence).

 

[dybmh]

I think that's a justifiable point of view, however in the Qumran self-glorification hymn and in the Similtudes of Enoch, I do think we find 'divine agents' who are qualified as being uniquely exalted and as being incomparable / unparalleled mediators (i.e. with no equal). The SGH speaker declares of himself: "[the other gods/angels] shall not be like my glory (kevodi), and none shall be exalted save me. And who shall measure the flow of my speech, and who shall be my equal, and be like (me) in my judgment?"

Divine agents... plural... that's not "I am the only way". Glory is a middah... one of many divine attributes. It's just not a good example.

In my judgement (pun intended ) - and in the judgement also of a dead sea scholar like James Charlesworth - these sources bear a similarity to the theology in John, in that bothtexts portrary their respective deified figure as being 'without equal' / the only one so exalted. As I noted with reference to the scholar Fletcher-Louis earlier on:


All the Glory of Adam


"The hymnist declares himself exalted and enthroned in the heavenly realm with an incomparable Glory...The speaker claims that he is now with the gods and that he is incomparable in a way which reminds us of Biblical language for Israel's God (Exodus 15:11: "Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods?")..."

Yes, I remember seeing this earlier on on the thread, i disregarded it immediately because it's talking about Glory ( Kavod ) which is just one aspect, and has nothing to do with being a gate between G-d andpeople. It's a context mismatch. Whether or not a being is most exalted has nothing to do with being a gate. Much less justifying a single gate and no others.

In the Sefer Hekhalot we are told that: "Any angel or any prince who has anything to say in my Presence should go before him [Enoch-Metatron] and speak to him", which implies that Metatron has been appointed the conduit / way to the divine throne for any prince or angel who wishes to say anything in the divine Presence.

In John, I think similarly, we find these words attributed to Jesus: "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6).

Sefer Hekhalot is describing a process of climbing a metaphysical ladder. Jesus is describing a gate. Combining the two doesn't fit. You would have a a ladder with only 1 rung. Merkabah Mystism is a process with many steps. Jesus is describing a process with only 1 step. They are not comparable. They are not similar at all. They are opposites.

Is that not passingly similar to Metatron's role in the Sefer Hekhalot and the deified person in the Qumranite SGH?

In fact, I think this association is strengthened by the fact that when Jesus in the above chapter of John (chapter 14) refers to himself as being the 'way' to "My father’s house" where there are "any rooms prepared", scholars such as Adele Reinhartz have written of this: "There may be an allusion here to the Jewish “Hekhalot” (“palaces”) tradition, involving stories in which a seer visits the heavenly realm and explores its different rooms (based on the chariot vision in Ezek 1, and in such works as 1 En. 17, 18)."

Yes, but how a person gets to the palace chambers is elaborate, what Jesus is describing is simple. They are not similar at all. Also, what was Jesus' purpose for the gate? It was salvation? That's not the purpose for making a Merkabah. They are not comparable.

So Jesus appears to have been invoking for himself a mediatorial function akin to that exercised by Metatron in the later Hekhalot literature.

The idea of linking himself to this particular angel seems to me more about placing Jesus in the stories of the Torah as a primordial timeless being who was involved in all the great memorable moments and stories in the Torah. These legends have nothing to do with being a gate. Question, have you researched the vast number of legends and miraculous feats attributed to him? If not, I highly recommend it, it puts a lot of this in perspective.

 

[dybmh]

However, I concede that you may be right that "exclusivism" (in terms of Jesus mediation) may be the true substantive difference between early Christianity and the rest of Second Temple Judaism, as opposed to his description as pre-existent divine mediator (which is attested elsewhere, including in the context of a heavenly saviour figure at Qumran, such as Melchizedek or indeed Enoch-Metatron in the Hekhalot).

Do you concede that it violates the Ten Commandments? Just kidding.

But seriously, why put qualifiers on it? you said it may be a substantive difference between "early Christianity" and "Second Temple Judaism." Why not just agree with me that Jesus as the *only* gate ( Aka "Christianity" where they say "In Jesus name we pray" ) is not compatible with Judaism ( period )?

 

[dybmh]

@Vouthon ,

Perhaps it's helpful to step back out of the clouds and look a modern mainstream example of how Judaism approaches the concept of an intermediary who elevates our prayers to G-d.

It's the Chazan, or the Shilach Tzibur... in english is "The cantor". In Judaism, the cantor is an intermediary in the same manner that your sources are describing, but not as an angel, of course. It's a more down to earth example.

See below:

"The chazzan’s repetition holds great spiritual power, and enables our individual prayers, which we recite quietly on our own, to reach even greater spiritual heights. Although the Kabbalistic reason is beyond the scope of this article, suffice it to say that it explains why our quiet prayers may be recited even without a minyan, but the repetition of the Amidah may be recited only in the presence of a minyan, and why it is recited out loud."

The source for this is the Chabad website, ( link ) , but they site the following sources for this:

• Shaar ha-Kavanot, Shaar Chazarat ha-Amidah 1;
  
• Pri Eitz Chaim, Shaar Chazarat ha-Amidah 1–2.
  
• Reishis Chochmah, Shaar ha-Kedushah 14;
  
• Siddur of R. Yaakov Emden, Hanhagot Chazarat ha-Shatz;
  
• Kaf ha-Chaim 124:2;
  
• Ben Ish Chai, Terumah 1:2;
  
• Maaseh Rav ha-Shalem 43, quoting the Gaon of Vilna.

I list these out to show that this idea of an intermediary is legit according to many diverse Jewish sources, this isn't an outlandish concept. But claiming that there is only one intermediator between Jewish people and G-d is as ridiculous as saying there is only 1 cantor in the entire Jewish nation. And we never pray *through* the chazan. The chazan prays to G-d, the congregation prays to G-d, and the entire group's prayer is swept up together, in theory.

Does this make sense? Is it helping at all?

( eta: here's some info on the Shliach Tzibur: Shaliach Tzibur - Halachipedia )

 

[Vouthon]

Divine agents... plural... that's not "I am the only way". Glory is a middah... one of many divine attributes. It's just not a good example.

The glorification language is similarly essential to John's prologue and the rest of the Gospel, so I do not think it can be excluded as an influence. Glory in the Greek of the New Testament is “doxa”, the normative LXX term for the Hebrew “kavod,” which in Exodus 16:10 is the visible manifestation of the divine presence: "And as Aaron spoke to the whole congregation of the Israelites, they looked toward the wilderness, and the glory of the Lord appeared in the cloud."

To this end, the speaker in the SGH is claiming that for himself.

In every example I've cited - Melchizedek, the SGH figure, Enoch-Metatron - the divine agent in question is exalted above the other divine beings as God's uniquely exalted manifestation ("your Elohim", "lesser YHWH").

The speaker in the SGH asks explicitly, “Who is like me among the divine beings?” (mi kamoni ba-’elim). As every scholar of the text - from Fletcher-Louis to James Charlesworth and Peter Schafer - has noted in turn, "this clearly alludes to Exodus 15:11, where the question refers to God: “Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods/angels?” (mi kamokha ba-’ elim YHWH)", in other words the speaker is claiming (though only a human) to share in God's uniqueness through his exaltation and glorification to the heavenly throne.

He thus becomes a mediator in an incomparable way for the sect in question, just like Jesus became for the early Christians - indeed both he and Jesus assume the position of God in relation to the other angelic beings and humans.

Likewise the Qumranites exalting Melchizedek in that other text were not exalting any other figure to a position equivalent to him, just as the SGH was not exalting any other figure to that level except the glorified person.

Sefer Hekhalot is describing a process of climbing a metaphysical ladder. Jesus is describing a gate. Combining the two doesn't fit.

The word used in John 14:6 is hodos - which means "way, path". No gate is mentioned in this verse. If you are referring to John 10:7 where Jesus figuratively refers to himself as the "gate for the sheep", the sheep are his disciples - so all he is intimating here is that he is the 'pathway' for his disciples to ascend to the merkabah (divine throne). That particular verse doesn't exclude that other entities - angels or exalted humans - might also be so (albeit in a lesser way) for other people.

In terms of ladder, this is actually inferred by Jesus later in chapter 1 of the gospel:

"Jesus answered, “Do you believe because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree? You will see greater things than these.” 51 And he said to him, “Very truly, I tell you, you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.” (John 1:50-51).

In her commentary upon this verse, the scholar I cited either - Adele Reinhartz - notes: "Angels … ascending and descending, an allusion to Jacob’s dream (Gen 28.12), implying that Jesus is the ladder connecting heaven and earth."

Compare with:

"And he dreamed that there was a ladder set up on the earth, the top of it reaching to heaven; and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it." (Genesis 28:12)

I would dispute that Jesus is here describing a ladder with 'one rung' - rather he is describing himself as the ladder, which has many rungs (i.e. other angelic beings 'ascending and descending' acting as his intermediaries for a start).

The idea of linking himself to this particular angel seems to me more about placing Jesus in the stories of the Torah as a primordial timeless being who was involved in all the great memorable moments and stories in the Torah. These legends have nothing to do with being a gate.

In terms of his being the 'way' to the heavenly throne (as Metatron became in the Hekhalot) for the other angels ascending and descending the ladder and the human beings desiring to 'ascend', I think it does actually relate to this 'theophanic' role that your describing - and with which I agree - that John is trying to associate Jesus with the eternal Memra/Wisdom through whom God created the cosmos in the beginning.

i.e. The Book of Sirach (200 to 175 BCE), for example, describes divine 'wisdom' (chokmah) as God's eternal agent who pre-existed with Him before the creation of the world (enthroned in a cloud in heaven) and through whom He created the world and revealed himself to the prophets:

"(24:3) I came forth from the mouth of the Most High,
and covered the earth like a mist.
(4) I dwelt in the highest heavens,
and my throne was in a pillar of cloud.
(5) Alone I compassed the vault of heaven
and traversed the depths of the abyss.
(6) Over waves of the sea, over all the earth,
and over every people and nation I have held sway

(24:8) Then the Creator of all things gave me a command,
and my Creator chose the place for my tent.
He said, “Make your dwelling in Jacob,
and in Israel receive your inheritance.”


You'll note that in the prologue - namely verse 14: "And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory", the Koine greek literally means that the Word “tabernacled” among us - which is an allusion to Wisdom as described by Sirach (pitching her tent among the people of Israel in Zion) and the Hebrew “shekhinah”, which in some texts (like Targum Onkelos and Deuteronomy 12.5) is a technical term for God’s presence among His people.

I would thus agree with you that the Johannine author is implying that Jesus claimed to be that entity/agent.

 

[Vouthon]

Do you concede that it violates the Ten Commandments? Just kidding.

But seriously, why put qualifiers on it? you said it may be a substantive difference between "early Christianity" and "Second Temple Judaism." Why not just agree with me that Jesus as the *only* gate ( Aka "Christianity" where they say "In Jesus name we pray" ) is not compatible with Judaism ( period )?

I'm willing to concede that this may be the case (it certainly is the case for orthodox Rabbinic Judaism, including the Pharisaic form that existed at the time of Jesus) but Second Temple Judaism encompassed a much wider span of sects and some of these strains (a few of their texts noted by me in the preceding), I'm not so sure I would be willing to agree (yet, I need to think about this more carefully and study the relevant texts again in greater depth).

For one, I remain unconvinced that it is the only text from the Second Temple era where an agent is being touted as the unique manifestation of the divine presence - in a manner utterly incomparable to any other, such that the 'others' effectively go through this divine being's agency (in fact a glorified human as in the SGH, because he's the historical human Enoch as well), because the agent in question is uniquely associated with God.

The Similtudes of Enoch clearly say that the Son of Man/Enoch is to be worshipped and in doing so, the author is not deeming himself to have violated Exodus because Enoch has been subsumed into the identity of God (as his 'manifestation'). It actually uses the word 'worship' on numerous occassions.

Professor Larry Hurtado, a scholar of early Christianity, has explained the same in relation to the early Christians' worship of Jesus:

"...The earliest believers treated the risen/exalted Jesus as they did only because they felt required to do so by God. Note that the typical way that reverence of Jesus is justified in various New Testament texts is to invoke God’s action of exalting him and requiring that he be reverenced: E.g., Philippians 2:9-11; 1 Corinthians 15:20-28; Hebrews 1:1-4; Acts 2:36; John 5:22-23, et alia)...The key point is that earliest believers seem to have come quickly to the conviction that Jesus had been exalted to a unique heavenly status, had been given to share in the divine name and glory, and must now be reverenced in obedience to God....

NT texts clearly ascribe to Jesus a status and role that goes beyond that of a human: e.g., as the agent of creation (e.g., 1 Cor 8:4-6), and as bearing “the form of God” (Philip 2:6)...In short, from Jesus’ resurrection onward, “God” in some profound way now includes a glorified human. Jesus is portrayed as included within discourse about God, and is included within the worship offered to God, and as sharing/given divine glory and throne.

We have evidence from ancient Jewish sources (especially apocalyptic texts such as 1 Enoch) that the “preexistence” of eschatological figures was a Jewish theological trope. This evidence suggests that Jesus’ preexistence could well have been an almost immediate corollary of the conviction that God had exalted him uniquely to heavenly/divine glory"​

 

[Vouthon]

@Vouthon ,

Perhaps it's helpful to step back out of the clouds and look a modern mainstream example of how Judaism approaches the concept of an intermediary who elevates our prayers to G-d.

It's the Chazan, or the Shilach Tzibur... in english is "The cantor". In Judaism, the cantor is an intermediary in the same manner that your sources are describing, but not as an angel, of course. It's a more down to earth example.

I'm not persuaded that's a great analogy here, because the cantor is not - as you admit - in any sense a divine being equivalent with the one God (like the Qumranites claimed for Melchizedek, like the SGH personage claimed for himself or like the Merkabah mystics claimed for Enoch-Metatron) or a human glorified into being revealed as a pre-existent divine being.

The claims made for the eschatological or mystical 'mediators' in these texts, is that they are "your Elohim," a "lesser YHWH" and an actual manifestation of the divine presence, with the Similtudes of Enoch actually affording the Son of Man-Metatron 'worship'.

As such, I think there's an 'ontological' difference here between the figure your describing and the 'heavenly mediators' these ancient texts are talking about that renders this particular analogy inappropriate to the context.

What you describe with reference to the cantor is more akin to the Catholic concept of the intercession of saints - a human being interceding for other human beings by praying on their behalf. That form of 'intercession' is quite distinct from the 'mediation' that these texts are describing or indeed that the New Testament literature attributed to Jesus.

 

[Vouthon]

Do you concede that it violates the Ten Commandments? Just kidding.

If I answered 'yes' to that question I'd be a Noahide rather than a Christian

 

[dybmh]

The Similtudes of Enoch clearly say that the Son of Man - Metatron is to be worshipped and in doing so,

Before I reply to the rest... I just finished reading Similtudes of Enoch. It's not in there. It does not say any angel or Son of Man is to be worshiped. The worship is clearly described as being to the "Lord of Hosts".

 

[Vouthon]

Before I reply to the rest... I just finished reading Similtudes of Enoch. It's not in there. It does not say any angel or Son of Man is to be worshiped.

From the text itself:


(1 Enoch 48:2) And in that hour that son of man was
named in the presence of the Lord of Spirits,
and his name, before the Head of Days [God].
(3) Even before the sun and the constellations [of the
zodiac] were created,
[and] before the stars of heaven were made,
his name was named before the Lord of Spirits.
(4) He will be a staff for the righteous,
that they may lean on him and not fall;
He will be the light of the nations,
and he will be a hope for those who grieve in their hearts.
(5) All who dwell on the earth will fall down and worship
before him


Schafer comments: "the Son of Man was with God in heaven, virtually godlike. Second, even more dramatically, all human beings fall down before him (v. 5), which apparently means that they worship him."

Later, the text explicitly says:


(9) And all the kings and the mighty and the exalted and
those who rule the land will fall on their faces in his
presence;
and they will worship and set their hope on the Son of Man,
and they will supplicate and petition for mercy from him.

Again from Schafer's commentary:

"Here the Son of Man is enthroned as the eschatological judge on
the “throne of his glory.” Both the enthronement on the throne
of glory and carrying out of the judgment are attributes that are
otherwise reserved for God alone. He was at first hidden by God
and is not revealed until he assumes his function as judge, not
only of the chosen ones, but of all humanity. When those wielding
power on earth see him in all his glory and power, they will
not only praise him but also fall down before him and worship
him."


The Son of Man, I should note, is Enoch in this text:


(1 Enoch 71:13) And that Head of Days came with Michael
and Raphael and Gabriel and Phanuel,
and thousands and tens of thousands of angels without
number.
(14) And he [the angel Michael] came to me and greeted
me with his voice and said to me,
“You [Enoch] are that Son of Man who was born for
righteousness,
and righteousness dwells on you,
and the righteousness of the Head of Days will not forsake
you.”

 

[Harel13]

and he will be a hope for those who grieve in their hearts.
(5) All who dwell on the earth will fall down and worship
before him


Schafer comments: "the Son of Man was with God in heaven, virtually godlike. Second, even more dramatically, all human beings fall down before him (v. 5), which apparently means that they worship him."

Shouldn't the text then say "worship him" instead of "worship before him"?

 

[Vouthon]

Shouldn't the text then say "worship him" instead of "worship before him"?

The implication of the verse, if read in the light of subsequent verses where the Son of Man (Enoch glorified by his ascension into a divine being that manifests God's presence as His agent) is the focus of worship and hope, is that worshipping before him is also worshipping God through him.

Consider the later verse I quoted above: "and they will worship and set their hope on the Son of Man, and they will supplicate and petition for mercy from him."

I would say that it is unquestionably Enoch in this case (as Son of Man) who is the one being offered 'worship'.

 

[Rival]

I can't find a reliable date for the 'Similitudes', but it seems it could be either before or after the NT.

 

[Vouthon]

I can't find a reliable date for the 'Similitudes', but it seems it could be either before or after the NT.

According to the scholars I've read (quoting Schafer here), "The Similitudes are dated by most scholars at around the turn of the first century BCE to the first century CE."

It certainly doesn't seem to be later than the NT (like the Sefer Hekhalot or the other Hekhalot literature of the Rabbinic era).

 

[Vouthon]

John Joseph Collins (Yale Divinity scholar) dates the Similtudes to the late first century BCE or very early first century, noting the most "explicit historical allusions in the text to the Parthians and Medes in 56:5-7" in his The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature.

We know it was written by a Jewish author, because Enoch is the glorified Son of Man worshipped (i.e. not Jesus) which would have been blasphemous for Christians (i.e. Enoch is just a human for Christians, only Jesus is the divine 'son of man') and Collins notes that "the Son of Man passages in the gospels seem to depend on the Similtudes" citing another study in German by J. Theisohn from 1975. He also notes that given subsequent widespread and infamous use of the term 'son of man' by Christians, it is exceedingly unlikely that a Jewish author would have used it after the New Testament era - indeed, I don't believe we find it anywhere in the later Rabbinic era Hekhalot literature (but Enoch-Metatron is still there and remains the "Lesser YHWH" but no 'son of man' term, given it by then becoming synonymous with Christians).

Most other scholars I've read have concured with these conclusions and thus dated it first century BCE - early first century.

 

[dybmh]

(1 Enoch 48:2) And in that hour that son of man was
named in the presence of the Lord of Spirits,
and his name, before the Head of Days [God].
(3) Even before the sun and the constellations [of the
zodiac] were created,
[and] before the stars of heaven were made,
his name was named before the Lord of Spirits.
(4) He will be a staff for the righteous,
that they may lean on him and not fall;
He will be the light of the nations,
and he will be a hope for those who grieve in their hearts.
(5) All who dwell on the earth will fall down and worship
before him

Before him is not in the translation I am looking at. ( edit to add: the word psalms is missing in your translation ).

 

[Harel13]

Before him is not in the translation I am looking at.

Where'd you find this?
I found this version, which is the same as Vouthon's:
First Enoch - Chapter XLVIII / Chapter 48 - Book of 1 Enoch, Parallel 1912 Charles & 1883 Laurence, Pseudepigrapha Online Parallel Bible Study

 

[Vouthon]

Before him is not in the translation I am looking at.

What about the later verse, how does it render 1 Enoch 62:9?

Schafer did note in his commentary (2020, latest scholarly treatment of this text):

"Second, even more dramatically, all human beings fall down before him (v. 5), which apparently means that they worship him. Evidently in order to avoid precisely this consequence, the German translation by Emil Kautzsch moves the aspect of worship down to the second half of the verse, where it refers only to God: all human beings fall down before the Son of Man, but they only worship, glorify, and sing hymns to the Lord of Spirits that is, God. A distinction is thus made between the veneration of the Son of Man and worship of God. The English translation is bolder here, as we can see above, where “worship” also refers to the Son of Man.3

Since the original text is no longer extant, it is difficult to come to a conclusive judgment, but the thrust of the content more likely suggests the bolder version: falling down and worshipping as a statement about the Son of Man in the first half of the verse belong together just as much as glorifying (or perhaps exalting), blessing, and singing hymns as a statement about God in the second half of the verse"

Perhaps your translation is based on the German one? I'm mighty curious to learn how it renders that second verse.

I'm using the English translation in Schafer's study.

 

[Vouthon]

I found this version, which is the same as Vouthon's:
First Enoch - Chapter XLVIII / Chapter 48 - Book of 1 Enoch, Parallel 1912 Charles & 1883 Laurence, Pseudepigrapha Online Parallel Bible Study

I'm thinking dybmh's translation must be based upon the German translation described by Schafer (himself German).

It would interest me to know how it translates that later verse I cited.

 

[dybmh]

Where'd you find this?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjABegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw1B_rOdUrTAq6FGL1bwUVb_