Which parts of the Book of Enoch are preserved only in Ethiopic and not among the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Executive summary
The scholarly consensus from the available sources is that substantial portions of 1 Enoch (the Ethiopic Apocalypse of Enoch) survive only in the Ethiopic (Geʽez) tradition and are not represented among the Dead Sea Scrolls; most notably the so‑called “Similitudes” or Book of Parables (chapters ~37–71) is unattested at Qumran and thus preserved only in Ethiopic manuscripts [1] [2]. At the same time, earlier sections of 1 Enoch were recovered at Qumran in Aramaic fragments, so the picture is partial: some Enochic material existed in Second Temple Judaism outside Ethiopia, but key doctrinal and messianic passages appear uniquely in the Ethiopic corpus [1] [3].
1. The textual landscape: Ethiopic as the full surviving corpus and Qumran fragments as partial witnesses
The complete recension of what scholars call 1 Enoch survives only in Ethiopic, and the Ethiopic tradition provides the full five‑part structure familiar to modern readers—material that in antiquity circulated in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek forms before becoming fixed in Geʽez [3] [4]. Discoveries at Qumran yielded Aramaic fragments of several earlier sections of 1 Enoch, demonstrating that parts of the work were widely read in Palestine during the Second Temple period, but those Qumran finds represent only portions of the book and do not match every Ethiopic chapter [1] [3].
2. The Book of Parables (Similitudes): the chief Enochic material missing from the Scrolls
Scholars repeatedly note that the Similitudes, sometimes called the Book of Parables (roughly 1 Enoch 37–71), are not attested among the Dead Sea Scrolls and thus survive only in the Ethiopic manuscripts; major arguments about Enoch’s messianic “Son of Man” figure therefore rest on Ethiopic witnesses rather than Qumran Aramaic fragments [1] [2]. Secondary evidence — such as later Greek citations preserved by Byzantine authors — supplies limited echoes, but no Qumran Aramaic copy of the Similitudes has been found, making the Ethiopic the primary source for that section [1].
3. What Qumran did preserve and what it left out
The Qumran corpus includes Aramaic fragments identified with earlier sections of 1 Enoch (for example material corresponding to what editors call the Astronomical Book, the Book of the Watchers and other earlier strata), confirming a multilingual and composite origin for the Enochic corpus, but several distinct units in the Ethiopic recension—most prominently the Similitudes and certain appended or editorial materials—do not have Qumran parallels [1] [2]. Some fragments discovered at Qumran (e.g., 4Q211, 4Q212) are difficult to align perfectly with the Ethiopic chapters and even include texts (like parts of the Book of Giants) that intersect with but are not identical to the Ethiopic content [1].
4. Scholarly caveats: composition, transmission and dating complicate a simple ‘only in Ethiopic’ claim
Because 1 Enoch is a composite work assembled from independent pieces in different languages and eras, absence from the Dead Sea finds does not prove late composition nor inventiveness of the Ethiopic text by itself; some editors argue the Similitudes may postdate the Qumran library or circulated in regions whose archives were not preserved at Qumran, while others point to later Greek echoes and medieval manuscript evidence that complicate binary claims [5] [1]. The surviving Ethiopic text therefore functions as the principal witness for several sections that lack Qumran Aramaic corroboration, but historians remain cautious about using absence of fragments as a definitive chronological marker [3].
5. Bottom line and limits of the evidence
The decisive empirical statement supported by the cited sources is straightforward: the Similitudes/Book of Parables (1 Enoch ~37–71) are unattested at Qumran and thus are preserved only in Ethiopic manuscripts, and several editorial or appended portions of the Ethiopic recension likewise lack Dead Sea counterparts; however, earlier parts of 1 Enoch are attested among the Scrolls, so the Enochic tradition at Qumran is partial rather than total [1] [2] [3]. Where sources do not provide granular chapter‑by‑chapter Qumran correspondences, this report does not invent them; it limits claims to what the cited scholarship records about the distribution of Enochic material [1] [2].