REGARDING THE NEW ENOCH PAPYRUS FRAGMENT, Stephen Goranson asked on the g-Megillot list, "In any of the descriptions of the photos of perhaps an Enoch scroll said to be seen by John Strugnell, did he describe it as skin or papyrus?" Matthew Hamilton of Moore Theological College Library in Australia sent Goranson and me this e-mail in response:

My few references to Strugnells' Enoch MSS don't mention if on skin or papyrus, but there may be other references out there that I am not aware of.

P. Ross in Scientific American, vol.263 no 5 (Nov. 1990) refers to "a nearly compete scroll", but doesn't state if it is of Enoch or another book
A. Katzman in Biblical Archeology Review, vol.XVII no.1 (Jan.-Feb. 1991), p.64,70 mentions a "complete copy of the Book of Enoch"
H. Shanks interviewing Strugnell in Biblical Archaeology Review, vol.20 no.4 (July-Aug. 1994), p.46-47 mentions "the complete book of Enoch" on microfilm and in a rather mixed up conversation also mentions Cave 11.
N. Silberman in The Hidden Scrolls: Christianity, Judaism & the War for the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Putnam and Sons, 1994), p.162 mentions "a complete manuscript of the book of Enoch"
Pfann in a web article, The Visions of Yeshua Ben Padiah Scroll, (1999) mentions a "rather well preserved scroll ... resembling the book of Enoch". It is not clear if this is the same MS as the other Enoch MS which is mentioned by Shanks as being seen by Strugnell on microfilm, rather than the actual MS.

If the above is representative of Strugnell's Enoch scroll, it is unlikely to be the same as the papyrus fragment of Enoch to be published by the Eshels, as Strugnell's Enoch is complete or nearly compete. [However --- what if the photograph provided to the Eshel's is just a sample, perhaps provided by a seller/vendor to test the market or create anticipation so as to inflate the market? This is of course, just my speculation.].

Prior to seeing the post in PaleoJudaica, I had not heard of this papyrus fragment.

It was new to me too.

As for the last reference, follow the link for Stephen Pfann's website on the Ben Padiah (Angel) Scroll. Five years after the partial transcript surfaced, this document - if it exists at all - has not been published or, as far as I know, even shown to a specialist. The mention of the rumor about an Enoch scroll is near the beginning of the "Background" section of the web page.

UPDATE (19 October): Seth Sanders reminds me that he e-mailed the following a few days ago, referring to the same text:

I assume you recall the excitement over the last "other Qumran manuscript of Enoch" the so-called "Angel Scroll" story of 1999. Like this putative Enoch fragment, it was not presented to scholars to examine. Of course, in that case it was even more dubious because there was not even a photograph.

See here for Stephen Pfann's assessment:
http://www.csec.ac.uk/benpadia.html

We have not heard anything further about this text.

The problem, as you know, is that you or I or any other linguistically trained scholar of Second Temple Judaism could produce such a scroll, given enough Chutzpah and the help of a competent manuscript forger.

It could certainly be proven to be genuine (and I hope it is!), but I think the burden of proof is on those arguing for its authenticity.

I blog, you decide. As usual with these things, the authenticity question really needs to be sorted out in the peer-review journals.

As for forging a scroll fragment like this, it would not be easy to come up with something that would stand up to C-14 dating. But perhaps it could be done.