Enoch, Book of
Enoch, Book Of one of the most important remains of early apocalyptic literature. The interest that once attached to it has now partly subsided; yet a document quoted, as is generally believed, by an inspired apostle (Jude verses 14, 15), can never be wholly devoid of importance or utility in sacred literature. From its vigorous style and wide range of speculation, the book is well worthy of the attention which it' received in the first ages, and recent investigations have still left many points for further inquiry.
I. History of the Book. — The first trace of its existence is generally found in the epistle of Jude verses 14, 15; (comp. Enoch, 1:9), but the words of the apostle leave it uncertain whether he derived his quotation from tradition (Hoffmann, Schriftbeweis, 1:420) or from writing (ἐπροφήτευσεν ... . Ε᾿νὼχ λέγων), though the wide spread of the book in the 2d century seems almost decisive in favor of the latter supposition. In several of the fathers mention is made of Enoch as the author, not only of a prophetic writing, but of various productions. Some such work appears to have been known to Justin (Apol. 2:5), Irenaeus (adv. Haer. 4:16, 2), and Anatolius (Eusel. H.E. 7:32). Clement of Alexandria (Eclog. page 801) and Origen (yet comp. c, Cels. 5, page 267, ed. Spenc.) both make. use of it, and nu. merous references occulr to the "writing," books, and "words" of Enoch in the Testament of the XII Patriarchs (q.v.) — a document which Nitzsch has shown to belong to the latter part of the 1st century or the beginning of the second, and which presents more or less resemblance to passages in the present book (Fabricii Cod. Pseudep. V.T. 1:161 sq.; Gfrorer, Proph. Pseudep. 273 sq.). Tertullian (De cultu faem. 1:3; compare De Idol. 4) expressly quotes the book as one which was "not received by some, nor admitted into the Jewish canon" (in armarium Judaicum), but defends it on account of its reference to Christ ("legimus omnem scripturam sedificationi habilem divinitus inspirari"). Augustine (De Civ. 15:23, 4) and an anonymous writer, whose work is printed with Jerome's (Brev. in Psalm. 132:2; compare Hil. ad Psalm. 1.c.), were both acquainted with it; but from their time till the revival of letters it was known in the Western Church only by the quotation in Jude (Dillmann, Einl. 46). In the Eastern Church it was known some centuries later. In the 8th century, Georgius Syncellus, in a work entitled Chronographia, that reaches from Adam to Diocletian, made various extracts from "the first book of Enoch." In the 9th century, Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople, at the conclusion of his Chronographice Compendium, in his list of canonical and uncanonical books, refers to the book of Enoch, and assigns 4800 στίχοι as the extent of it. After this time little or no mention appears to have been made of the production until Scaliger printed the fragments of Syncellus regarding it, which he inserted in his notes to the Chronicus Canon of Eusebius. In consequence of such extracts, the book of Enoch excited much attention and awakened great curiosity. At the beginning of the 17th century an idea prevailed that it existed in an Ethiopic translation. A Capuchin monk from Egypt assured Peiresc that he had seen the book in Ethiopic, a circumstance which excited the ardor of the scholar of Pisa so much that he never rested until he obtained the tract. But when Job Ludolph went afterwards to Paris to the Royal Library, he found it to be a fabulous and silly production. In consequence of this disappointment, the idea of recovering it in Ethiopic was abandoned. At length, in 1773, Bruce brought home three copies of the book of Enoch from Abyssinia in MSS., containing the Ethiopic translation complete. "Amongst the articles," he states, "I consigned to the library at Paris was a very beautiful and magnificent copy of the prophecies of Enoch in large quarto. Another is amongst the books of Scripture which I brought home, standing immediately before the book of Job, which is its proper place in the Abyssinian Canon; and a third copy I have presented to the Bodleian Library at Oxford by the hands of Dr. Douglas, bishop of Carlisle." As soon as it was known in England that such a present had been made to the Royal Library at Paris, Dr.Woide, librarian of the British Museum, set out for France with letters from the secretary of state to the ambassador at that court, desiring him to assist the learned bearer in procuring access to the work. Dr. Woide accordingly transcribed it, and brought back with him the copy to England. The Parisian MS. was first publicly noticed by the eminent Orientalist De Sacy in 1800, who translated into Latin chapters 1, 2, 3, 4-15; also 22 and 31. These he also published in the Magasin Encyclopedique (VI, 1:382 sq.). Mr. Murray, editor of Bruce's Travels, gave some account of the book from the traveler's own MS. The Ethiopic text, however, was not published till the edition of archbishop Laurence from the Bodleian MS. in 1838 (Libri Enoch versio Ethiopica ... Oxon.). But in the interval Laurence published an English translation, with an introduction and notes, which passed through three editions (The Book of Enoch, etc., by R. Laurence; Oxford, 1821, 1833, 1838). The translation of Laurence formed the basis of the German edition of Hoffmann (Das Buch Henoch ... A. E. Hoffmann, Jena, 1833-38); and Gfrorer, in 1840, gave a Latin translation constructed from the translations of Laurence and Hoffmann (Prophetae veteres Pseudepigraphi ... ed. A. F. Gfrorer, Stuttgartiae, 1840). According to Angelo Mai, there is a MS. copy of the book of Enoch among the Ethiopic codices of the Vatican, which must have been brought into Europe earlier than Bruce's MSS. In 1834 Dr. Riippell procured another MS. of Enoch from Abyssinia, from which Hoffmann made the second part of his German version. All these editions were superseded by those of Dillmann, who edited the AEthiopic text from five MSS. (Liber Henoch, LEthiopice, Lipsiae, 1851), and afterwards gave a German translation of the book with a good introduction and commentary (Das Buch Henoch ... von Dr. A. Dillmann, Leipzig, 1853). The work of Dillmann gave a fresh impulse to the study of the book. Among the essays which were called out by it, the most important were those of Ewald (Ueber des Ethiopischen Buches Henoch Entstehung, etc., Gottingen, 1856) and Hilgenfeld (D. Juidische Apokalyptik, Jena, 1857). The older literature on the subject is reviewed by Fabricius (Cod. Pseudep. V.T. 1:199 sq.).
The Greek translation, in which it was known to the fathers, appears to be irrecoverably lost. There is no trace of it after the 8th century. The last remnant of it is preserved by Syncellus.
II. Identity of the extant Forms. — There can be no doubt that the Ethiopic translation exhibits the identical book which, as most believe, Jude quoted, and which is also mentioned or cited by many of the fathers. The fragment preserved by Syncellus (reprinted by Laurence and Hoffmann) is obviously the same as chapter 7, etc., the deviations being of little importance (though one considerable passage quoted by George Syncellus is wanting in the present book, Dillm. page 85), and probably accidental. It is manifest, also, to any one who will compare the quotations made by the fathers with the Ethiopic version, that both point to the same original. The extracts in question could not have been interpolations, as they are essential to the connections in which they are found. The mention of books of Enoch in the Testament of Judah, in the Testament of Benjamin, in Origen (c. Cels. and Homil. in Num.), and of the "first book" of Enoch in the fragments preserved by Syncellus, consist with the idea that the whole was then, as now, divided into different books. Tertullian leads us to believe that it was of the same extent in the Greek text then existing as it is in the present Ethiopic.
III. Canonicity. — Notwithstanding the quotation in Jude, and the wide circulation of the book itself, the apocalypse of Enoch was uniformly and distinctly separated from the canonical Scriptures. Tertullian alone maintained its authority, while he admitted that it was not received by the Jews: his arguments, however, are exceedingly puerile (De cultu foeminarum, 1:3). Origen, on the other hand (c. Cels. 5:267, ed. Spenc.), and Augustine (De Civ. 15:23, 4), definitively mark it as apocryphal, and it is reckoned among the apocryphal books in the Apostolic Constitutions (6:16), and in the catalogues of the Synops. S. Scripturce, Nicephorus (Credner, Zur Gesch. d. Kan. page 145), and Montfaucon (Bibl. Coislin. page 193).
IV. Original Language. — The book of Zohar, in which are various allusions to Enoch, seems to speak of it as an important Hebrew production which, have been handed down from generation to generation. The Cabbalists, whose opinions are embodied in Zobar, thought that Enoch was really the author, a sentiment quite at variance with any other hypothesis' than that of a Hebrew original. At all events, a Hebrew book of Enoch was known and used by Jewish writers till the 13th century (Dillmann, Einl. 47). One of the earliest references to the book occurs in the Hebrew Book of Jubilees (Dillmann, in Ewald's Jahrb. 1850, page 90). The careful reader soon sees that the work was composed at first in Hebrew, or rather Hebrew-Aramaan. This was long ago perceived by Joseph Scaliger, though he had before him nothing but the Greek fragments preserved by Syncellus. Hottinger, however, observed, in opposition to Scaliger, that a Hebraizing style is no sure proof of a Hebrew original. Hoffmann adduces the Hebrew-Aramaean etymology of names, especially the names of angels, as an evidence of the Aramsean original — an argument which is more pertinent; and Laurence infers from the book of Zohar that Hebrew was its primitive language. The writer's thorough acquaintance with the canonical Scriptures of the Jews in the tongue in which they were composed; their use of them in the original, not the Greek translation of the Septuagint; their Hebrew etymologies of names, especially the appellations of angels and archangels; the fact that all words and phrases can easily be rendered back into Hebrew and Aramaean, and the many Hebrew idioms and terms that occur, prove that neither Greek nor Ethiopic was the original language, but the later Palestinian Hebrew. Thus Tamiel (8:7) is compounded of תם and אל, the upright of God; Samyaza of שׁם and עזא, the name of the strong. The same conclusion follows from the term Ophanin (60:13), which is evidently identical with the Hebrew אפנין. It is remarkable; also, that as Ophanin occurs in connection with, the Cherubim, so the Hebrew term אפנין is found in the same association (1Ki 7:30; Eze 1:15-16,19-21; Eze 10:2,6,9,1, etc.; Murray's Enoch Restitutus, page 33 sq.). The names of the sun are Oryares: and Tomas (77:1), from אוֹר חֶרֶס and תִּמָּה. In 77:1, 2, we read that "the first wind is called the eastern, because it is the first," which can only be explained by the Hebrew קֶדֶם, קִדמוֹנִי; "the second is called the south, because the Most High there descends," i.e., דָּרוֹם, from יָּרִד רָם (Dillmann, Das Buch Henoch, pages 235, 236). The names of the conductors of the month are also Hebrew (82:13), as Murray (page 46) and Hoffmann (page 690) remark. See Joseph hal-Lewi, in the Journal Asiatique, 1867, page 352 sq.
At what time the Greek version was made from the original can only be conjectured. It could not have been long after the final redaction of the whole, probably about the time of Philo. Having appeared in Greek, it soon became widely circulated. The Ethiopic version was made from the Greek probably about the same time as the Ethiopic translation of the other parts of the Bible with which it was afterwards conrnected, or, in other words, towards the middle or close of the 4th century. SEE ETHIOPIC VERSIONS.
V. Contents. — The book of Enoch is divided in the Ethiopic MSS. into twenty sections, which are subdivided into 108 chapters; but copies differ in their specification of chapters. Dillmann has properly departed from the MSS., and endeavored to make divisions of sections, chapters, and verses which may represent the text pretty nearly as it is preserved among the Abyssinians.
In its present shape the book consists of a series of revelations supposed to have been given to Enoch and Noah, which extend to the most varied aspects of nature and life, and are designed to offer a comprehensive vindication of the action of Providence. SEE ENOCH. It is divided into five parts. The first part (chapters 1-36, Dillm.), after a general introduction (characterizing the book to which it belongs as a revelation of Enoch the seer respecting the future judgment of the world, and its results both towards the righteous and rebellious sinners, written to console the pious in the times of final tribulation), contains an account of the fall of the angels (Ge 6:1), and of the judgment to come upon them and upon the giants, their offspring (6-16); and this is followed by the description of the journey of Enoch through the earth and lower heaven in company with an angel, who showed to him many of the great mysteries of nature, the treasure-houses of the storms, and winds, and fires of heaven, the prison of the fallen, and the land of the blessed (17-26). The second part (37-71) is styled "a vision of wisdom," and consists of three "parables," in which Enoch relates the revelations of the higher secrets of heaven and of the spiritual world which were given to him. The first parable (38-44) gives chiefly a picture of the future blessings and manifestation of the righteous, with further details as to the heavenly bodies; the second (45-57) describes in splendid imagery the coming of Messiah, and the results which it should work among "the elect" and the gainsayers; the third (58-69) draws out at further length the blessedness of "the elect and holy," and the confusion and wretchedness of the sinful rulers of the world. The third part (72-82) is styled "the book of the course of the lights of heaven," and deals with the motions of the sun and moon, and the changes of the seasons; and with this the narrative of the journey of Enoch closes. The fourth part (83-91) is not distinguished by any special name, but contains the record of a dream which was granted to Enoch in his youth, in which he saw the history of the kingdoms of God and of the world up to the final establishment of the throne of Messiah. The fifth part (92-110) contains the last addresses of Enoch to his children, in which the teaching of the former chapters is made the groundwork of earnest exhortation. 'The signs which attended the birth of Noah are next noticed (111-112); and another short "writing of Enoch" (113) forms the close to the whole book (comp. Dillmann, Einl. 1 sq.; Licke, Versuch einer vollstand. Einl. 1:93 sq.).
VI. Design. — The leading object of the writer, who was manifestly imbued with deep piety, was to comfort and strengthen his contemporaries. He lived in times of distress and persecution, when the enemies of religion oppressed the righteous. The outward circumstances of the godly were such as to excite doubts of the divine equity in their minds, or, at least, to prevent it from having that hold on their faith which was necessary to sustain them in the hour of trial. In accordance with this, the writer exhibits the reward of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked. To give greater authority to his affirmations, he puts them into the mouths of Enoch and Noah. Thus they have all the weight belonging to the character of an eminent prophet and saint. Various digressions are not without their bearing on the author's main purpose. The narrative of the fallen angels and their punishment, as also of the flood, exemplifies the retributive justice of Jehovah; while the Jewish history, continued down to a late period, exhibits the final triumph of His people, notwithstanding all their vicissitudes. Doubtless the author lived amid a season of fiery trial. and, looking abroad over the desolation, sought to cheer the sufferers by the consideration that they should be recompensed in the Messianic kingdom. As for their wicked oppressors, they were to experience terrible judgments. The writer occasionally delights in uttering dire anathemas against the wicked. It is plain that the book grew out of the times and circumstances by which he was surrounded. It gives us a glimpse not only of the religious opinions, but also of the general features which characterized the whole period. The book belongs to the apocalyptic literature of the period between the close of the O.T. canon and the advent of Messiah. It is therefore of the same class of composition as the fourth book of Esdras and the Jewish Sibyllines. The principal interest attaching to it arises from its contributing to our knowledge of the development of Jewish Messianic ideas subsequently to the writings of inspired prophets. In tracing the gradual unfolding and growth of those ideas among the Jewish people, we are the better prepared for the revelation of the N.T.
VII. Doctrines. — In doctrine the Book of Enoch exhibits a great advance of thought within the limits of revelation in each of the great divisions of knowledge. The teaching on nature is a curious attempt to reduce the scattered images of the O.T. to a physical system. The view of society and man, of the temporary triumph and final discomfiture of the oppressors of God's people, carries out into elaborate detail the pregnant images of Daniel. The figure of the Messiah is invested with majestic dignity as "the Son of God" (105:2 only), "whose name was named before the sun was made" (48:3), and who existed "aforetime in the presence of God" (62:6; comp. Laurence, Prel. Diss. 51 sq.). At the same time, his human attributes as "the son of man," "the son of woman" (62:5 only), "the elect one," "the righteous one," "the anointed," are brought into conspicuous notice. The mysteries of the spiritual world, the connection of angels and men, the classes and ministries of the hosts of heaven, the power of Satan (40:7; 65:6), and the legions of darkness, the doctrines of resurrection, retribution, and eternal punishment (22; comp. Dillm. page 19), are dwelt upon with growing earnestness as the horizon of speculation was extended by intercourse with Greece. But the message of the book is emphatically one of "faith and truth" (comp. Dillm. page 32), and while the writer combines and repeats the thoughts of Scripture, he adds no new element to the teaching of the prophets. His errors spring from an undisciplined attempt to explain their words, and from a proud exultation in present success. For the great characteristic by which the book is distinguished from the later apocalypse of Ezra, SEE ESDRAS, 2D BOOK, is the tone of triumphant expectation by which it is pervaded. It seems to repeat in every form the great principle that the world, natural, moral, and spiritual, is under the immediate government of God. Hence it follows that there is a terrible retribution reserved for sinners, and a glorious kingdom prepared for the righteous, and Messiah is regarded as the divine mediator of this double issue (90, 91). Nor is it without a striking fitness that a patriarch translated from earth, and admitted to look upon the divine majesty, is chosen as "the herald of wisdom, righteousness, and judgment to a people who, even in suffering, saw in their tyrants only the victims of a coming vengeance." As in the canonical prophecies of the O.T., so here, the final establishment of the Messianic kingdom is preceded by wars and desolations. In the eighth ofthe ten weeks into which the world's history is divided, the sword executes judgment upon the wicked, at the end of which God's people have built a new temple, in which they are gathered together. The tenth week closes with the eternal judgment upon angels (90, 91).
With respect to the doctrine of a general resurrection, it is certainly implied in the work. But the mode of the resurrection of the wicked and the righteous is differently presented. The spirits of the former are taken out of Shed and thrown into the place of torment (98:3; 103:8; 108:2-5); whereas the spirits of the righteous raised again will be reunited to their bodies, and share the blessedness of Messiah's kingdom on earth (61:5; 91:10; 92:3; 100:5). The reunion of their bodies with their spirits appears a thing reserved for the righteous.
As various sects in Jerusalem were tolerably developed at the time of some of the writers, it has been a subject of inquiry whether the peculiar doctrines of any appear in the work. According to Jellinek (Zeitschrift der deutsch. morgenlind Gesellschaft, 7:249), the work originated in the sphere of Essenism. We learn from Josephus that the Essenes preserved as sacred the names of the angels; and put up certain prayers before sunrise, as if they made supplication for that phenomenon (War, 2:8). Now there is a very developed angel-doctrine in the work before us, and we also find the following passage: "When I went out from below and saw the heaven, and the sun rise in the east, and the moon go down in the west, a few stars, and everything as he has known it from the beginning, I praised the Lord of judgment and magnified him, because he has made the sun go forth from the windows of the east," etc., 83:11). This certainly reminds one of Essenism showing its influence on the mind of the writer. The 108th chapter is more plainly Essenic. The pious, whom God rewards with blessings, are described as having lived a life of purity, self-denial, and asceticism like to that of the Essenes. Yet Dillmann appears disinclined to find any reflection of Essenism in 83:11, or elsewhere (Das Buch Henoch, Allgemeine Einleitung, page 53). We admit that the other parts of the bookare free from it. It is obvious that the writer did not belong to the school of the Pharisees. He was tolerably free from the sects of his people; rising above the narrow confines of their distinctive peculiarities, which were not then fully developed.
VIII. Style. — It is obvious that the author was a poet of no mean order. His inspiration was high, his ideas elevated and pure. He had a creative fancy which could body forth new forms and shapes. Speaking out of the midst of his own time, he could throw himself back into the past, and mould it suitably to his purpose. His language, too, has the living freshaess of a master. He was well acquainted with the book of Daniel, as is obvious from the spirit of his production. Not that he was an imitator of that bookfar from it; his mind was too powerful and independent. It is characteristic of him that he calls Jehovah Lord of Spirits, that he specifies as the seven spiritual beings that stand before God the four highest angels, Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, Phanuel; and the three highest hosts, the Cherubim, Seraphim, and Ophanim; that he speaks of the Elect by way of eminence, the Son of Man, i.e., the Messiah. The charm of the writer's descriptions is irresistible, transporting the reader into the highest regions of the spiritual world. With a genuine glow of feeling, and the elevation of purest hope, he carries us away, till we are lost in wonder at the poetic inspiration of one living at a period comparatively so late. His work must have crested a new branch of writing at the time, leading to numerous imitations.
IX. Authorship. — The general unity which the book possesses in its present form marks it, in the main, as the work of one man. The several parts, while they are complete in themselves, are still connected by the development of a common purpose. But internal coincidence shows with equal clearness that different fragments were incorporated by the author into his work, and some additions have been probably made afterwards. Different "books" are mentioned in early times, and variations in style and language are discernible in the present book. To distinguish the original elements and later interpolations is the great problem which still remains to be solved, for the different theories which have been proposed are barely plausible. In each case the critic seems to start with preconceived notions as to what was to be expected at a particular time, and forms his conclusions to suit his prejudices. Hoffmann and Weisse place the composition of the whole work after the Christian aera, because the one thinks that Jude could not have quoted an apocryphal book (Hoffmann, Schriftbeweis, 1:420 sq.), and the other seeks to detach Christianity altogether from a Jewish foundation (Weisse, Evangelienfrage, page 214 sq.). Stuart (Am. Bibl. Repos. 1840) so far anticipated the argument of Weisse as to regard the Christology of the book as a clear sign of its post- Christian origin. Ewald, according to his usual custom, picks out the different elements with a daring confidence, and leaves a result so complicated that no one can accept it in its details, while it is characterized in its great features by masterly judgment and sagacity. He places the composition of the groundwork of the book at various intervals between B.C. 144 and B.C. cir. 120, and supposes that the whole assumed its present form in the first half of the century before Christ. Licke (2d ed.) distinguishes two great parts, an older part including chapteres 1-36, and 72-105, which he dates from the beginning of the Maccabaean struggle, and a later, chapters 37-71, which he assigns to the period of the rise of Herod the Great (B.C. 141, etc.). He supposes, however, that later interpolations were made without attempting to ascertain their date. Dillmann at first (ut sup.) upheld more decidedly the unity of the book, and assigned the chief part of it to an Aramean writer of the time of John Hyrcanus (B.C. cir. 110). To this, according to him, "historical" and "Noachian additions" were made, probably in the Greek translation (Einl. 52). Latterly, however (in Herzog's Encyklop. 12:309), he has greatly modified this opinion. Kostlin (in Zeller's Jahrb. 1856, page 240 sq., 370 sq.) assigns chapters 1-16, 21-36, 72-05 to about B.C. 110; chapters 37-71 to B.C. cir. 100-64; and the "Noachian additions" and chapter 108 to the time of Herod the Great. Hilgenfeld himself places the original book (chapters 1-16, 20-36, 72-90, 91:1-19; 93:105) about the beginning of the first century before Christ (vt sup. page 145 n.). This book he supposes to have passed through the hands of a Christian writer who lived between the times "of Saturninus and Marcion" (page 181), who added the chief remaining portions, including the great Messianic section, chapters 37, 71. In the face of these conflicting theories it is evidently impossible to dogmatize, and the evidence is insufficient for conclusive reasoning. The interpretation of the Apocalyptic histories (chapters 76, 77, 85-90), on which the chief stress is laid for fixing the date of the book, involves necessarily minute criticism of details, which belongs rather to a commentary than to a general Introduction; but, notwithstanding the arguments of Hilgenfeld and Jost (Gesch. Jud. 2:218 n.), the whole book appears to be distinctly of Jewish origin. Some inconsiderable interpolations may have been made in successive translations, and large fragments of a much earlier date were undoubtedly incorporated into the work, but, as a whole, it may be regarded as describing an important phase of Jewish opinion shortly before the coming of Christ. That the entire production appeared before the Christian aera is clearly deducible from the fact that the Roman empire never appears as a power dangerous to Israel. Volkmar, however,-contends (in the Zeitschr. der morg. Gesellsch. 1860, page 87 sq.) that it was written by a disciple of Akiba to encourage the Jewish revolt under Bar-Cocheba; a view which is ably controverted by Hilgenfeld (Ib. page 111 sq.).
Stuart has laid considerable stress on the Christology of the book as indicative of an acquaintance on the authors' part with the N.T., especially the Apocalypse. But the Christological portions do not possess sufficient distinctness to imply a knowledge of the N.T. The name JESUS never occurs. Neither are the appellations Lord, Lord Jesus, Jesus Christ, or even Christ employed. The words faith, lelievers, God and his anointed, deny, etc., can hardly be claimed as Christian terms, because they occur in the Ethiopic O.T. as the representatives of Hebrew-Greek ones. All that can be truly deduced from the Christology is that it is highly developed, and very elevated in tone, yet fairly derivable from the O.T. in all its essential and individual features. Nor is there anything in the eschatology or angelology to necessitate a Christian origin. We allow that the Messiah is spoken of in very exalted terms. His dignity, character, and acts surpass the descriptions presented in other Jewish books. But they are alike in the main, colored by the highly poetical imagination of the writers, in conformity with the sublimity and animation of their creations. We must therefore reject Stuart's opinion of a JewishChristian origin. All the arguments adduced on its behalf are easily dissipated, since Dillman's edition and Ewald's criticisms have led to a better acquaintance with the text of the work itself. Nor is Hilgenfeld's attempt to show that the so- called first Enoch book (37-71) proceeded from Christian Gnostics more successful, as Dillmann has remarked (Pseudepigraphen des A.T. in Herzog's EEncyklopaidie, 12:309, 310). Equally futile is Hoffmann's endeavor to show that the work did not appear till after the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century, when both Jude's epistle and the Apocalypse had been written (Zeitschr. d. morgenl. Gesellschaft, 6:87 sq.). Not very dissimilar is Bdttcher's view, that the book, like the Sybilline oracles, was made up in the first and second centuries after Christ of pieces belonging to different times (De Inferis, 1, § 505). Nothing is more certain than that the work belongs to an ante-Christian world; and therefore the only problem is how to distribute the different books incorporated, and when to date them separately and collectively. After Laurence, Hoffmann and Gfrorer had erred in placing the whole under Herod the Great; Krieger and Lucke assigned different portions to different times, putting chaps. ixxxvi and lxxii-cviii to the early years of the Maccabaean struggle, and xxxvii-lxxi to B.C. 38-34. How far this apportionment is correct will be seen from the preceding statements (see Krieger's Beitrage z. Kritik und Exegese, 1845, and Licke's Versuch einer vollstandigen Einleitung in die Ojfenbarung des Johannes, § 11).
X. The Place where it was written. — The place where the author lived and wrote is Palestine. This alone seems to suit the circumstances implied in the work, which is largely pervaded by the spirit of persons whose power, religion, and independence had been overborne by foreign interference. Laurence, however, endeavors to show from the 72d chapter (71st Laurence), where the length of the days at various periods of the year is given, that the locality must have been between the 45th and 49th degrees of north latitude, in the northern districts of the Caspian and Euxine seas. Hence he conjectures that the writer was one of the Jews who had been carried away by Shalmaneser and did not return. Krieger supposes (Beitrage, page 53) that Enoch, the imaginary writer, drew from the astronomical traditions or writings of northern Asia, regardless of the difference of Palestine's geographical position. Murray has shown (page 63 sq.) that one passage favors the idea that the author lived in Abyssinia; whence he infers that the production proceeded from various persons belonging to countries removed from one another. But De Sacy has remarked that as the authors' astronomical system is partly imaginary, their geography may also be visionary. Neither Egypt, nor Chaldaea, nor Palestine, suits the astronomy of the book. The scientific knowledge of the Israelites was imperfect. It is therefore idle to look for accuracy in geography or astronomy. The writer or writers systematized such knowledge as they had of natural phenomena after their own fashion, as appears from the fact that to every third month thirty-one days are assigned. The allusions to the Oriental theosophy and the opinions of Zoroaster do not necessarily commend a Chaldaean origin, at least of the astronomical part, since the images of fire, radiance, light, and other Oriental symbols may be satisfactorily accounted for by the Jews' intercourse with other nations, and their residence there for a time. The Oriental philosophy of Middle Asia was evidently not unknown to the authors. Zoroastrian doctrines are embodied in the work because Persian influences had been felt by the Israelites since the Babylonian captivity.
XI. Did Jude really quote the Book of Enoch? — A simple comparison of the language of the apostle and that found in the corresponding passage of the extant book seems to settle this question conclusively in the affirmative, especially as the Scripture citation is prefaced with the direct acknowledgment of quotation: "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying," etc. The following are the words respectively:
EPISTLE OF JUDE, verses Jude 1:14-15; Authorized Version.
"Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."
BOOK OF ENOCH, chapter 2;
"Behold, he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all the carnal for everything which the sinful and ungodly have done, and committed against him." Some, however, are most unwilling to believe that an inspired writer could cite an apocryphal production. Such an opinion destroys, in their view, the character of his writing, and reduces it to the level of an ordinary composition. But this is preposterous. The apostle Paul quotes several of the heathen poets, yet who ever supposed that by such references he sanctions the productions from which his citations are made, or renders them of greater value? All that can be reasonably inferred from such a fact is, that if the inspired writer cites a particular sentiment with approbation, it must be»regarded as just and right, irrespective of the remainder of the book in which it is found. The apostle's sanction extends no farther than the passage to which he alludes. Other portions of the original document may exhibit the most absurd and superstitious notions. It has always been the current opinion that Jude quoted the book of Enoch, and there is nothing to disprove it. It is true that there is some variation between the quotation and its original, but this is usual even with the N.T. writers in citing the Old.
Others, as Cave, Simon, Witsius, etc., suppose that Jude quoted a traditional prophecy or saying of Enoch, and we see no improbability in the assumption. Others, again, believe that the words apparently cited by Jude were suggested to him by the Holy Spirit. But surely this hypothesis is unnecessary. Until it can be shown that the book of Enoch did not exist in the time of Jude, or that his quoting it is unworthy of him, or that such knowledge was not handed down traditionally so as to be within his reach, we abide by the opinion that Jude really quoted the book. While there are probable grounds for believing that he might have become acquainted with the circumstance independently of inspiration, we ought not to have recourse to the hypothesis of immediate suggestion. On the whole, it is most likely that the book of Enoch existed before the time of Jude, and that the latter really quoted it in accordance with the current tradition. Whether the prophecy ascribed to Enoch was truly ascribed to him is a question of no importance in this connection. SEE JUDE.
XII. Literature. — Bange, De libro Henochi (in his Caelum Orientis, Hafn. 1657, 4to, pages 16-19; and Exercitationes, Cracow, 1691, 4to); Bruce, Travels, 2, 8vo; Butt, Genuineness of Enoch (Lond. 1827, 8vo); Dillmann, Liber Henoch AEthiopiae (Lpz. 1851, 8vo); Id., Das Buch Henoch ubersetzt und erklart (Leipz. 1853, 8vo); Id., Pseudepigraphen des A.T. (in Herzog's Encyklopadie, 12:308 sq.); Dorsche, De prophetia Henochi (in his Auctarium Pentadecadis, diss. 1, page 555 sq.); Drusius, De propheta Henoch (Franec. 1615, 4to; also in the Critici Sacri, 1:373); Ewald, Abh. uib. d. Ethiopishen Buches Henoch (Gotting. 1854, 4to); Fabricius, Cod. Pseudepigraphus V.T. 1:160-224; Firnhabir, De Henocho quaestiones (Wittemberg, 1716, 4to); Gfrorer, in the Tuib. Zeitschr. f. Theologie, 1837, 4:120 sq.; Id. Das Jahrhundert des Heils, 1:93 sq.; Hilgenfeld, Die Jiidische Apokalyptik (Jen. 1857, 8vo); Hoffmann, Das Buch Henoch (Jen. 1833, 1838, 8vo); Hottinger, De prophetia Henochi (in his Ennead. Diss. Heidelb. 16..., 4to); Kostlin, in Baur and Zeller's Jahrbuch, 1856, 2, 3; Laurence, The Book of Enoch (3d edit. Oxford, 1838, 8vo); Lucke, Einleitung in die Offenbarung Johannis (Bonn, 1848, 8vo, § 11, 2d ed.); Von Meyer, in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1841, 3:63 sq.; Murray, Enoch Restitutus (London, 1836, 8vo); Pfeiffer, De Henocho (Wittemb. 1670, 8vo; also in his Opera Philol. Tr. ad Rh. 1704, 8vo, page 519); De Sacy, in the Magasin Encyclopedique (VI, 1:382; transl. into Germ. by Rink, Konigsb. 1801, 8vo); and in the Journal des Savans, October 1822; Stuart, in the Am. Bibl. Repository, January and July 1840; Volkmar, in Zeitschr. d. deutschen morgenl. Gesellschaft, 1860, 1; and in the Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theologie, 1862, 2; Wieseler, Apokalypt. Litteratur des A. u. N.T. 1:162 sq.; Id., Die 70 Wochen des Daniel (Gott.
1839); Philippi, D.B. Henoch, sein Zeitalter u. Verhaltnisse zum Judasbriefe (Stuttg. 1868).