Since the publication of the Aramaic Enochic manuscript fragments by J.T. Milik in 1976, the secondary Greek and Ethiopic versions have played a key role in how the Enochic fragments have been reconstructed and restored. In the case of the Enochic theophany (1 Enoch 1:1–9) in 4QEna (4Q201), the edges of the fragments are often retrospectively reconstructed and restored in dialogue with the Greek text-type preserved in Codex Panopolitanus and the Ethiopic text-types preserved in the manuscripts of Ethiopic Enoch. This study demonstrates the need for renewed reflection on how the Aramaic Enochic theophany in 4QEna is reconstructed and restored in modern editions of the fragments, and highlights the methodological dangers inherent in the application of a retrospective text-critical and reconstructive method.

中文翻译：

---

文本碎片和碎片文本传统

自 JT Milik 于 1976 年出版阿拉姆语以诺书手稿片段以来，希腊语和埃塞俄比亚语的二次版本在以诺书片段的重建和修复过程中发挥了关键作用。以 4QEn 中的以诺神显（以诺一书 1：1-9）为例A(4Q201)，碎片的边缘经常通过与 Codex Panopolitanus 中保存的希腊文本类型和埃塞俄比亚以诺手稿中保存的埃塞俄比亚文本类型的对话进行回顾性重建和恢复。这项研究表明需要重新反思 4QEn 中的阿拉姆语以诺神显A在现代版本的片段中被重建和恢复，并强调了应用回顾性文本批判和重建方法所固有的方法论危险。