There is no eta

     One of the apparently substantive objections raised against the identification of Qumran fragment 7Q4,1 with 1 Enoch has to do with mistaken premise that there is a first line of text that contains the letter eta. Instead of finding traces of the word taiV as in the Greek text of 1 Enoch 103:3, it has been pointed out that the trace of an eta at the right terminus of this line poses an insurmountable obstacle to the enochian identification of 7Q4,1. This is because it is unlikely for a scribe to truncate a short word like thV by having the final sigma continue in the subsequent line of text. Furthermore, it has been stressed that it is highly unlikely in Greek literary papyri for the article thV to precede yucaiV, which has a different grammatical ending.
     If one were to evaluate this objection by looking for the eta in question, he would not find it; nor would he find any first line of text at all. The account of how this eta came into existence was described by Maurice Baillet in his response to Jose O'Callaghan that he published in Biblica in 1973. In essence, this eta can be attributed to the shadows caused by holes in the papyrus that appeared in the photograph used for the editio princeps. Baillet adds that these holes are in a small scrap that is barely attached to the fragment. The first photograph of this fragment, (PAM 42.358), was taken in 1957. It shows a faint left half of an eta that is rotated about 45 degrees clockwise. In 1958 Baillet repositioned this scrap by turning it over and positioning it vertically as close as possible to its original location on 7Q4,1. In 1959 a new photograph, (PAM 42.961), was taken, which now showed the right half an eta instead of the left half. This second photograph was trimmed and used for plate XXX in the editio princeps. Because the printer did not trim or remove all of the shadows, this dubious eta "appeared" in print and thus became an integral part of the controversy regarding the Qumran Cave 7 fragments.
     Furthermore, if one were to examine the excellent photograph of 7Q4 taken by David Rubinger in 1972, he would find no eta or dark spots at all in the area in question. Nor would he find any traces of a first line of text on both the right and left sides of the long horizontal portion of papyrus, even where such is expected to be seen in the area to the right of the dark rectangle over the column of text in 7Q8, which was originally contiguous with 7Q4,1 along its lower right edge.
     The pertinent portions of Baillet's article, along with an English translation, are provided below. This includes a copy of the illustration provided by Baillet, which is unusual in that it is based on PAM 42.358, which is the earlier photograph that shows the papyrus scrap in its lopsided position prior to repositioning. Following this is a series of five images, arranged in chronological order, taken from the photographs in question. Each image is accompanied with a diagram beneath it showing the position of the tiny scrap, which is shaded in gray. The holes in the papyrus that have been mistaken for the letter eta are highlighted in red. The fifth image, at the far right, shows my conjectural repositioning of the scrap by moving it downward about 1 mm. in order to have the horizontal papyrus fibers align properly.
     The image at the very bottom of this page shows the 7QEnoch ensemble, consisting of fragments 7Q4,1, 7Q8, and 7Q12. It has been modified by marking in red the location of the holes that have been mistaken for the eta. The gray bars along both vertical edges represent the regular spacing between the lines of text. On either the right or left hand sides of the ensemble, no traces of ink are discernable for the top three horizontal gray bars, including the ones marked with the numeral "1." In all likelihood, the original upper line of text is actually line two.
     It is interesting to add that the dimension given in the editio princeps for the top margin of 7Q4,1 is 4 cm., which extends to the top of the twn in line 2 instead of an eta in line 1! I have provided alongside the illustration in Baillet's article a copy of the centimeter scale placed alongside 7Q4,1 in order to point out this discrepancy.
     To sum it up, there is no "shadow of a doubt" that these fragments are part of the 103rd. Chapter of 1 Enoch. In due time I will add footnotes, reorganize, and complete this web page - Ernest Muro.

Excerpts from the French text of an article by Maurice Baillet
that was published in Biblica, Volume 54, Fascicle 3. (1973)

Les manuscrits de la Grotte 7 de Qumrân
et le Nouveau Testament

Maurice Baillet

(Text: Pages 340-342)

(p. 340) Entre janvier et mars 1958, j'ai moi-même manipulé ces morceaux de papyrus. Il y en a que j'ai nettoyés et restaurés de mes mains. Je les ai tous examinés au moyen de puissantes loupes, tantôt à la lumière du jour, tantôt à la lumière électrique. C'est moi qui les ai classés, mis entre des plaques de verre et préparés pour la conservation. (p. 341) J'ai enfin rédigé et signé seul leur édition princeps (1). Je crois donc utile de faire connaitre une fois de plus ma réaction. Outre mes notes personnelles, je suis en possession de deux photographies faites autrefois au Musée Archéologique de Palestine (PAM 42.358 et 42.961). La seconde de ces photos a servi d'original à la planche XXX de l'édition (2); un découpage de la première illustrera cet article...
F. 1, l. 1: l'ëta, nous dit-on, n'est pas clair sur la planche. C'est tout à fait vrai, et je trouve même qu'il n'est pas clair sur les photographies. (p. 342) Sur PAM 42.358 on croit le lire. Sa forme apparait alors sur un lambeau de papyrus détaché en partie du bord, replié sous lui et incliné d'environ 45°. C'est dans cet état que le fragment m'a été confié. J'ai ensuite remis moi-même le morceau à peu près en place, et sur PAM 42.961 on voit de nouveau l'ëta, mais sur l'autre face, et il se trouve encore trop haut, si l'on tient compte de l'espacement régulier des ll. 2-5. La lettre ressort donc des deux côtés et, notons-le, en traits pâles. Pourquoi? C'est que, autant qu'il m'en souvienne, il ne s'agit pas de traits d'encre, mais de lacunes dans les fibres, qui peuvent avoir été produites par de l'encre ayant rongé le papyrus. Ce n'est qu'une hypothèse, qui demanderait à être contrôlèe. Mais rien ne presse, puisque J. O'Callaghan trouve cet ëta acceptable (1).

Baillet's Footnotes

     (Page 341, #1) M. BAILLET, dans Les 'Petites Grottes' de Qumrân (DJD III, Oxford 1962) 144-145 et pl. XXX. J. T. MILIK, R. DEVAUX et H. W. BAKER ont rédigé d'autres parties du même ouvrage.
     (Page 341, #2) C'est cette même photographie qui a été reproduite, apres découpage, par P. Benoit dans RB 79 (1972) pl. XVII A, ainsi que par J. O'Callaghan dans Studia Papyrologica 11 (1972), face à la p. 86, et dans Bib 53 (1972), entre les pp. 520 et 521. Les fragments n'ont pas été détourés, et c'etait préférable. Je déplore que l'imprimeur de DJD III ait fait lui-même cette opération. Il a cru bon de supprimer les ombres, mais tantôt il en a laissé en restant trop loin de bord, tantôt il a mordu sur ce bord et a supprimé des traces.
     (Page 342, #1) J'invite J. O'Callaghan à faire plus attention lorsqu'il regarde les originaux. A droite de la l. 1, il y a un rectangle plus sombre, qu'il a pris pour un morceau de papyrus collé sur le fragment. C'est en réalitè une pièce de scotch qu'un de mes prédecesseurs a mise pour consolider le fragment. Point n'etait besoin d'une loupe pour s'en apercevoir.

English Translation by Ernest Muro

The Manuscripts from Qumran Cave 7
and the New Testament

Maurice Baillet

(Text: Pages 340-342)

(page 340) Between January and March of 1958, I personally handled these papyrus fragments, having cleaned and restored them with my own hands. I examined all of them using strong magnification, sometimes in daylight and at other times under electric light. It is I who had sorted them, placed them between plates of glass and prepared them for conservation. (page 341) Lastly, I alone wrote and signed the description of them that appeared in the editio princeps (1). I therefore believe it is useful to once again make known my reaction. In addition to my personal notes, I am in possession of two photographs taken earlier at the Palestine Archaeological Museum (PAM 42.358 and 42.961). The second of these photographs was used as the source for plate XXX of the editio princeps (2); and portions cut out from the first are used in the illustration that follows in this article...
Fragment 1, Line 1: The eta, we are told, is not clear on the plate. This is quite true, and I likewise find that it is not clear on the photographs. (page 342) On PAM 42.358 it seems to be legible, for at that time its shape was apparent on a scrap of papyrus that was partly detached from the edge, bent under it and rotated approximately 45 degrees. It was in this state when the fragment was entrusted to me. I then repositioned the scrap near its original location, and on PAM 42.961 a new eta becomes visible, but from the other side; and it is still too high, if one takes into account the regular spacing of lines 2-5. The letter thus arises from both sides and, I point out, in faint traces. Why? Such is the case because, as best as I can remember, it is not a matter of traces of ink, but of gaps within the fibers, which might have been produced by ink having eaten through the papyrus. It is only a hypothesis, which needs to be verified. But there is no hurry, since J. O' Callaghan finds this eta acceptable (1).

Baillet's Footnotes

     (Page 341, # 1) M. Baillet, in Les 'Petits Grottes' de Qumran (DJD III, Oxford 1962) 144-145 and plate XXX. The other sections of this book were written by: J. T. Milik, R. DeVaux, and H. W. Baker.
     (Page 341, # 2) Portions of this same photograph were cut out and reproduced by P. Benoit in Revue Biblique 79 (1972) plate XVII A; likewise by J. O' Callaghan in Studia Papyrologica 11 (1972), facing page 86; and in Biblica 53 (1972), between pages 520 and 521. The fragments have not been trimmed in these photos so as to make them stand out, and this is preferable. I regret that the printer of DJD III did perform such a procedure. He believed that it was good to eliminate the shadows, but sometimes he left too much remaining around the edges, and at other times he cut in too far and removed traces of the edges.
     (Page 342, # 1) I invite J. O' Callaghan has to pay more attention while he is looking at the originals. To the right of line 1, there is a slightly darker rectangle, which he took for a piece of papyrus that was stuck to the fragment. It is in reality a piece of adhesive tape that one of my predecessors affixed in order to consolidate the fragment. There is clearly no need for a magnifying glass in order to see it.

Baillet's illustration facing
page 342 of Biblica 54.
This illustration consists
of portions cut out from
PAM photograph 42.358.

Fragment 7Q4,1 and scale
from illustration at left.
Area outlined in red shows
papyrus scrap before
repositioning by Baillet.

baillet1.jpg (29186 bytes)

baillet2.jpg (17614 bytes)