The contents of Fr. Puech's article include:

     The English text of the summary that appears in Revue de Qumran #70 at the beginning of this article reads as follows:

     To begin with, Fr. Puech refers to his earlier article and reasserts the position he articulated in it: that the pair of fragments known as 7Q4,1&2 are not part of I Timothy but part of I Enoch. He goes on to state that he plans to build upon the observations of G. W. Nebe and Ernest A. Muro, Jr. in order to demonstrate that fragments 7Q8, and 7Q11-14 are also parts of I Enoch. He makes reference to some of the details of the debate that he has had with C. P. Thiede and in a footnote he writes: "It is the object of this note to clarify the debate once and for all."
     In the remainder of his introduction Fr. Puech firmly reiterates his rejection of the hypothesis of Fr. O'Callaghan which has been "obstinately defended" by C. P. Thiede. He emphasizes that fragment 7Q8 is not part of James 1:23-24 and explains why this is so.

3. Fragments: 7Q4,1; 7Q8; 7Q12; and 7Q14 as parts of I Enoch 103:3-8

     Although this is the largest portion of his article, Fr. Puech does not deal with fragment 7Q4,2; since his opinion regarding the identification of this fragment has been clearly set forth in his earlier article. In that article he maintains that this fragment is part of I Enoch 105:1 and not part of 98:11 as had been originally suggested by Nebe. In spite of this difference, along with some minor changes to the reconstruction of the text, Fr. Puech is substantially in agreement with Nebe.
     At this point Fr. Puech introduces some of the details of my observations regarding the physical ensemble of fragments: 7Q4,1; 7Q8; and 7Q12. He then observes that fragment 7Q14 is not directly connected to this ensemble but that it is to the left of 7Q12 in verse 103:4. In spite of some minor difficulties with stichometry and with the letter "n" at the bottom of 7Q8; it is evident that he is certain that these four fragments are part of I Enoch 103:3-8.
     In analyzing fragment 7Q8, Fr. Puech mentions that he has observed traces of ink at the top of the fragment. He maintains that this trace of ink is part of the letter "k" and he regards this as part of the uppermost line of five lines of text that are preserved on the fragment. In reconstructing the text of this fragment he endeavors to resolve the difficulty presented by the fact that the space between the "lh..." of line 4 and the "n..." of line 5 is greater than that of the spaces between the other lines. This he does by "supposing" that the scribe who wrote this scroll made a mistake in copying the text and then corrected himself by squeezing in an extra line of text to include the words that he had inadvertently omitted. This omission was due to the fact that the Greek word for "and" is kai and it occurs five times in verses 7 and 8 of I Enoch 103. While the scribe was copying these verses, he got confused as to which words followed each occurrence of kai. This is a scribal error known as "homeoarchon." Because the scribe became aware of his mistake, he corrected it by inserting the extra line of text after line 4 before he wrote line 5. This reconstruction of the text is clarified with the aid of a full-scale diagram and with transcriptions of the Greek text.

     With the aid of a diagram and a transcription Fr. Puech proposes that fragment 7Q11 is part of verse 12 in chapter 100 of I Enoch. He remarks that this identification employs a stichometry that is consistent with that of the other fragments. The reconstruction of the text of this fragment includes the same letters that are suggested by the editors of the editio princeps.

     In a manner similar to that of fragment 7Q11, Fr. Puech suggests that 7Q13 is part of I Enoch 103:15. In analyzing the fragment, he observes the letters "nbi" at the top with the letters "ntw" beneath. The editio princeps, however, has the letters "nto" in this bottom line and no discernable letters in the upper line.

     In his conclusion Fr. Puech mentions that these identifications in themselves are not surprising because Aramaic fragments of I Enoch have also been found in cave 4. Consequently, the identified fragments from Qumran cave 7 are clearly similar in nature to the literary contents of the other caves. Furthermore, the attempts to identify fragments 7Q4,1&2 and 7Q8 as part of the New Testament are simply not convincing and can also be dismissed on paleographical grounds.
     In closing Fr. Puech goes on to say that fragment 7Q5 is not a part of the New Testament and that the task of identifying it should proceed calmly and without controversy.