суть доказательства в том, что берется некая (лингвистически нестрогая, а лишь некако вероятная) этимология славянского hapax legomenon памовус(а) и накладывается на некие астрономические и календарные данные (из элефантинских папирусов), с которыми получается резонанс.
текст пока черновой, но суть ясна.
1.5. Pamovus(a) and the origin of the calendar
One of the crucial problems of the 2 Enoch chronology is the meaning of the word Pamovus(a) that one of the manuscripts (R) has in the same places where the others have Tsivan (= Siwan). This question is not especially important for understanding the calendrical scheme as such, but it is quite important in search of the Sitz im Leben of the calendar. It is especially important to appreciate the possible gap between the origin of the calendar used in 2 Enoch and the origin of the book itself. Indeed, unlike 1 Enoch, the book does not contain indication that its goal is to introduce a new calendar. Quite contrary, it is limited to the events covering only four months of an already existing calendar.
Andersen stated that the name Pamovus(a) is an Egyptian equivalent of Siwan , while with no proof. Other scholars (Vaillant, van Goudoever, Böttrich) identify it with Tammuz , considering Tsivan of the rest of manuscripts as an error . Both parts use the same method, trying to find out an appropriate calendrical meaning for either Siwan or Tammuz. Nobody says anything on the etymology of Pamovus(a).
The crux interpretum is here 48:2 (existing in the longer recension only): “From the month Tsivan [= Siwan], from the 17th day, he [sun] descends until the month Theved [= Tebet]; and from the 17th day of Theved he ascends.” It is clear that the verse means solstices, and Tebet 17 (17.X) is a non-problematic date for the winter solstice. But the 17th day of Pamovus(a)/siwan is a very problematic date for the summer solstice.
If the winter solstice is 17.X, then, the month of the summer solstice is IV, not III, that is, Tammuz, not Siwan . Therefore, it is certainly that 48:2 contains some error.
There are several theoretical possibilities how such error can occur. To be able to choose anyone of them, we need some additional historical data, and, in our case, such data do exist.
Andersen does not explain while he thinks that the name Pamovus(a) is Egyptian, but we can suppose that he meant the name of the month φαμενῶθ, Coptic Paremhotep, Old Egyptian p-n-jmnḥtp (“[month] of Amenḥotep”). There is no more, at least, relatively similar month name in Egyptian calendars in any of the languages of Egypt (that is, Greek, Coptic, and Old Egyptian). However, Coptic Paremhotep is roughly Julian March that is scarcely the month of summer solstice. The moth of summer solstice should be roughly Julian June. It is possible for the 3rd month, Siwan, in some calendars of Minor Asia (this is why, in Syriac, the month name Siwan is an equivalent of Julian “June”) where the name of the first month of the Babylonian calendar, Nisan, has been identified with April and its equivalents, not with March. However, this is of no help in the case of φαμενῶθ.
However, there is a known historical situation where Egyptian p-n-jmnḥtp, Semitic siwan and the month of summer solstice roughly corresponding to Julian June meet together. This is the calendar of the Jewish community in Elephantine in Egypt, in the 5th century BC. This calendar is neither Jewish nor Egyptian but Babylonian . The month names of this calendar are Babylonic, but well-known in Hebrew and Aramaic texts, too. The Elephantine papyri are written in Aramaic, but the dates given according to the Elephantine calendar are translated into the contemporary Old Egyptian calendar with its movable Sothic year. Siwan in the Elephantine Papyri occurs five times , where it is always rendered in Egyptian as pmnḥtp (the word unknown elsewhere in the documents in Hebrew or Aramaic).
All these five dates belong to Julian June that corresponds to the Sothic year in the 5th century BC. The later correspondence between φαμενῶθ and March reflects the situation in the time of the calendaric reform in about 30 BC when the Sothic year has been abrogated and the calendar of Alexandria has been transformed into a variation of the Julian one.
Therefore, the situation where a month called Siwan is equal to Old Egyptian p-n-jmnḥtp and roughly to June would correspond to the calendar of some Jewish community in Egypt about 400 BC.
Now we are prepared to pose another question, whether the Slavonic hapax legomenon Pamovus(a) could reflect Old Egyptian p-n-jmnḥtp. This question is already a bit simplified: not exactly p-n-jmnḥtp, but its known Semitic (Aramaic) rendering pmnḥtp.
From the Greek correspondence (of course, much later than 400 BC), φαμενῶθ we know that the final p disappeared and the pharyngeal ḥ became voiceless leading to the prolongation of the vowel ō. Moreover, there was no phonological difference, in neither Old Egyptian/Coptic nor Egyptian Greek, between aspirated and non-aspirated consonants, including p and f (this is why the initial p became φ in φαμενῶθ).
Therefore, Aramaic pmnḥtp could be pronounced, especially in a later epoch, somewhat as *pamenōt(h) (two first short vowels are reconstructed tentatively, the aspiration of the final consonant is not phonological). Such a pronunciation corresponds, in Hebrew and Aramaic writing systems, to *pmnwt .
Being transliterated in another writing system, such as the Greek one, *pmnwt could easily result in *παμoυουτ /pamowut/ with subsequent simplification of orthography into *παμοβουτ: w could be read as ū as easy as ō, and the consonants n and w could be easily confounded, being quite similar in the Aramaic and Hebrew writing systems of the Second Temple period (both were written as almost right strokes ).
The only problem remains the final t(h): I do not see how it could be transformed into the Slavonic letter slovo (s), neither through a Greek intermediary, nor otherwise.
Be that as it may, our etymology for Pamovus(a) seems to be not improbable:
Pamovus(a) < *παμοβουτ < *παμoυουτ < *pmnwt < pmnḥtp < p-n-jmnḥtp
And, what is the most important, our etymology explains why Pamovus(a), being an Egyptian month name, is equated with Siwan but, in the same time, is the month of the summer solstice, that is, roughly June.
As it is seen from my linguistic reconstruction, I do not consider the available Slavonic form as a direct reflection of the older Aramaic form pmnḥtp. Pamovus(a) should reflect (through Greek) an Aramaic form existing in the time of composition of 2 Enoch, probably *pmnwt. Nevertheless, the calendar itself could be as early as about 400 BC, of the about same date as the calendar of the 1 Enoch. Such is the conclusion from the comparison of the 2 Enoch calendar with the Old Egyptian one: our calendar brings a mark of the period when the Egyptian Sothic year presupposed coincidence of p-n-jmnḥtp with June and (Elephantine Babylonian) Siwan.
Such a remote date is, nevertheless, quite probable, even if it is earlier than that of the astronomic chapters of 1 Enoch (3rd cent. BC). As Matthias Albani demonstrated , the calendar of 1 Enoch is, from the astronomical point of view, the calendar of the Babylonian treatise MUL.APIN (“Polar Star”), 7th century BC. There is, thus, an about four-century room to invent another Jewish modification of the MUL.APIN calendar than that known through 1 Enoch.
Francis Andersen once said that the Semitic originals of 1 Enoch and 2 Enoch might be “even of comparable antiquity” . It is unlikely in literal sense but seems to be quite right in respect of their calendars.