Page Content (OCR)
WITTICHEN? revives to a great extent Dillmann’s old opinions, considering the main body of the book as the work of one author, but written by him at different times. The oldest portion, 83-91, was produced about 166-161 B.C. Later interpolations are 6-16; 93 and 91:12-17; 106-107. A second interpolator, in the first pre-Christian century, added 20; 54:7-55:2; 60; 65-69:25; 70; 82:9-20; and 108 is a later independent addition, also written before Christ. GEBHARDT does not analyze the book, but gives a minute and telling criticism on the different views expressed on the seventy shepherds in chap. 89 and 90. His conclusions are of a negative character, claiming that unless ' De apocryphi libri Henochi origine et argumento, 1867. 2 Das Buch Henoch, sein Zeitalter und sein Verhdltniss zum Judasbrief, 1868. 3 Die Idee des Menschen, 1868, and Die Idee des Reiches Gottes, 1872. Merx, Archiv f. wissensch. Erforschung des Alt. Test., 1872, Vol. ii. Heft 2, pp. 163-246. 24 a better text is discovered it will be impossible to find the true interpretation of the author’s idea. SCHURER (p. 529 sqq.) considers as settled that there are, at least, three distinct parts in the book: (1) The groundwork, 1-37 and 72-105; (2) The Parables, 37-71, with the exception of (3) the Noachic portions 54:7-55:2; 60; 65-69:25, and probably 106-107. The last chap. 108 is an independent and late addition. The groundwork was written in the last third of the second century before Christ, as the “great horn” is John Hyrcanus; the Parables, during the reign of Herod the Great, as the invasion of the Parthians is presupposed as an historical event in chap. 56, while the Noachic additions are of uncertain date. Schiirer adopts Hofmann’s interpretation of shepherds as angels.! VERNES? regards the Messiah of the Parables as a Christian one, and hence (pp. 264 and 269) claims the end of the first Christian century as the time when they were written. As 90:9 refers to John Hyrcanus, the groundwork was written in his days. He does not settle the time of the Noachic additions. TIDEMAN: claims that 83-91 do not belong to the original book, but were inserted afterwards, probably a few years later by an Essenic writer. He claims that the dream-visions interrupt the connection. His conclusions are: The oldest book contains 1-16; 20-36; 72-82; 93; 91:12-19; 92; 94-105, and was written by a Pharisee between 153 and 135 B.C. The second book, 83- ! Castelli’s work: Il Messia secondo gli Ebrei, Firenze, 1874, could not be consulted. 2 Histoire des Idées Messianiques depuis Alexandre jusqu’a l’empereur Hadrien, Paris, 1874, pp. 69-117 and 264-270. 3 De Apokalypse van Henoch en het Essenisme, in the Theologisch Tijdschrift, Mei, 1875, pp. 261-269. 25 91, is by an Essene between 134 and 106 B.C., and thirdly the Apocalypse of Noah, 17-19; 41:3-9; 43:1,2; 44; 54:7-55:2; 59; 60; 65-69:25; 70; 106; 107, written after 80 A.D. by a person versed in Jewish Gnosticism and the Cabala. The Parables are by a Christian of the days of Domitian or Trajan, 90-100 A.D. The final redactor, the author too of 108, was a Christian Gnostic of the tendency of Saturninus, after 125 A.D. DRUMMOND's! chief contribution to the understanding of Enoch is his peculiar view of the Messiah in the Parables. He thinks the Messiah must be a Christian one, but at the same time will not give up the Jewish source of the Parables, and therefore regards the Messianic passages in the second part as Christian interpolations, and explains the absence of the then expected references to the historical Christ by saying, rather unsatisfactorily (p. 61), that “an interpolator would be careful not to depart too widely from the character of the book in which he made his insertions.” As the great horn is John Hyrcanus, the time in which the original book was written is “the latter half of the second century before Christ” (p. 43). The