Page Content (OCR)
from which the Ethiopian made his translation, hence a comparison could produce but few positive results. From the evidences, then, that can be regarded as valid we are, from analogy, allowed to expect that the Ethiopic translation of Enoch will, on the whole, be a faithful one, although occasional mistakes and omissions may occur. This opinion is confirmed by an examination of the remaining fragments of the Greek text. Comparing our text with that of Syncellus it is at once apparent that they do not always agree. But this does not impeach the veracity of the Ethiopic, for Syncellus furnishes his own evidence that he did not quote literally, but ina free manner. Chap. 8:4 to chap. 9:4 he gives twice, and the two quotations are far from being alike, thus showing that Syncellus, in his extracts from Enoch, as he was accustomed to do when citing other works, does not pretend to quote literally, but simply to give the sense. Certainly Syncellus has occasionally, as in 6:6, the better text, but in other places the Ethiopic wording, as the notes show, is decidedly to be preferred. This comparison, then, in no manner injures the claim of the trustworthy character of the version before us. Gebhardt! has attempted to draw capital from the Greek fragment of 89:42-49, and on the basis of these few verses has reached a very pessimistic conclusion on the Ethiopic text of Enoch, especially chap. 89 and 90. But here there is really but one verse where the Greek presents a better reading,” and this verse is of little 1 . . oc 1 1 Cf. Merx, Archiv fiir wissenschaftl. Erforschung des A. T., ii. 2, p. 242 sq. 2 Cf. Notes. Tideman, l.c. p. 282 sqq., reaches the same conclusion. 10 conclusion that we have in Enoch, as translated by the early Ethiopic church, a faithful copy of the Greek. Consequently we can proceed to the examination of the book itself with but little hesitancy. § 1. The book of Enoch is an apocryphal work. Etymologically the word apocrypha does not, and originally did not, possess the sensus in malam partem in which it is now generally used. GTR was, in contradistinction from GTR, i.e. read openly in a congregation, employed either to designate a book that was hidden, used only in private circles, or it signified a book of which not only the origin was hidden or unknown, but whose contents were also, i.e. veiled in the language of allegory, symbolism, and other figurative speech.! Canonical and apocryphal are then not in themselves contradictory terms, and a book could be both at the same time. Hence, too, we can easily understand how Epiphanius can call the Revelation an GTR without thereby casting the least reflection on its apostolic origin and canonical authority.? Although the Old Testament books now called apocrypha were received with some suspicion by the early Fathers, practically they were regarded as of equal authority with the canonical writings. Only Jerome, in his Prologus Galeatus to Samuel, assumes an opposing position, and calls them apocrypha; but the merit of making this 1 Cf. Schiirer in Herzog, R. E. (2d ed.), vol. I. p. 484. 2. Cf. Volkmar, Das vierte Buch Esra und apokal. Geheimnisse tiberhaupt. p. 2. 12 word synonymous with non-canonical remained for Carlstadt, who seized on Jerome’s idea and developed it in his tract, De canonicis scripturis libellus, 1520. Since that time the Protestant church has used this word in this latter sense.! In the English Bible the word Apocrypha was not used for these books until the second edition of Cranmer’s Bible in 1549, while in the first edition, in 1539, and Matthew’s translation, 1537, they importance, and can in no wise affect the SPECIAL INTRODUCTION.