[SonOfDarkSkies]

Thank you so much, Alamo-Girl, for your thoughtful response. I also appreciate your recommendation of Charlesworth's Pseudepigrapha. I will order both volumes shortly.

I would also like to ask your opinion of the R.H. Charles translation of I Enoch. That is the translation I have used so far. Do you approve?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your encouragements, dear SonOfDarkSkies!

I would also like to ask your opinion of the R.H. Charles translation of I Enoch. That is the translation I have used so far. Do you approve?

The R.H. Charles translation precedes the Isaac translation in Charlesworth's Pseudepigrapha by a century. The latter includes exhaustive commentary and comparisons between the manuscripts.

So, IMHO, you'd be missing a lot by using only the Charles translation. That said, I have not yet read the 2004 translations. They may be even better than Isaac's but the great advantage of Charlesworth's is that Enoch is set in context with many other ancient manuscripts which were informative in their day. Among these are Enoch II and Enoch III.