Page Content (OCR)
original book embraces the chapters that are ascribed to it by Tideman (p. 37). In the Noachic fragments he seems to admit a post-Christian influence in 67:4 sq. (pp. 57, 58). He adopts Hofmann’s and Schiirer’s view of the shepherds (p. 40). The majority of critics deny that the book, as we have it now, is the work of one author, and Philippi stands absolutely alone in his refusal to acknowledge later additions or interpolations to a more ancient groundwork. In fact, this point can be regarded as settled, and the 26 question that remains to be discussed is the number of component parts and the chapters that belong to each part. As we are in this examination restricted to inner evidences alone, to the harmony or disharmony in style and sentiment, it will be necessary to inquire what evidences the book itself furnishes for the solution of this problem. It is important to notice that certain portions claim to be revelations not of Enoch, but of Noah, and this fact alone is sufficient to force the acceptance of a different author, The book pretends to be a revelation given to Enoch, and as it contains revelations given to Noah after the death of Enoch, we must conclude that these latter are parts foreign to the original work. Here we have first the whole of chap. 60 given “in the year five hundred of the life of Noah,”! concerning the flood, as the most important event in the life of that patriarch. The difference in style and sentiment, such as the masculine and feminine water, the Behemoth and Leviathan, and others,” are so characteristic that it would be impossible for the same mind to have conceived this chapter and the groundwork of the book. With these indices, authorship, time, and sentiment on hand, it will be seen that 54:7-55:2, which verses there form an unexpected interruption of the connection, and the whole connected account in 65-69:25 form with 60 a separate element, that has very properly been called, The Noachic additions or fragments. In addition, to make certainty more certain, the Parables, i.e. 37-71, are expressly quoted in 68:1. To these additions undoubtedly must be reckoned also 106-107, as the 2 Cf. notes. 27 similarity of subject-matter and of style point to this fact. They are intended to give an account of the bearer of revelation in these additions, and describe his worthiness for this office. Not to these additions belongs chap. 108. It is introduced with the words: “This is another writing of Enoch,” as an independent tract. It is a later, undoubtedly the last, portion of the book. The object is clear; it is a renewed exhortation to fidelity and hope to those disappointed ones who might lose confidence in the prophecies of the old book. We are, then, justified in separating at least 54:7-55:2; 60; 65-69:25; 106-108 from the original book. wre 1 wa . 1 1 1 1 1 anna ted 1 With equal, yes with greater, certainty can this same thing be done with 37-71, which are not only distinguished in a marked manner from the Noachic fragments, but from 1-36 and 72-105 also. A mere perusal of this certainly most beautiful part of the whole work shows that it forms by itself a complete whole, is introduced as a separate tract, divides itselfinto three Parables, treats of a different subject-matter, and this not simply as a complement to the other part. It is directed against peculiar enemies, and has the distinguishing feature of peculiar standard names for God, and differs in its angelology and demonology, in its eschatology and Messianic idea. We will here speak only of the different names of God and of angelology, as therein both parts can more easily be considered together, and at the same time sufficiently justify a separate examination of the Parables. The discussions of the other characteristics of the groundwork and of ! The Jewish Messiah, from the rise of the Maccabees to the closing of the Talmud. London, 1877, pp. 17-73. ! That it must be Noah, and not Enoch, as the Ethiopic text reads, is proved in the notes on this chapter.