Page Content (OCR)
time formidable, and thus the author in seeking for the last enemies, who in apocryphal systems occupy a place of prominence, selects these. The possibility, however, that the author does refer to this historical fact cannot be denied, as other things point to the composition of the Parables about the time of Herod. The author’s complaints of the untheocratic and impious character of the rulers and the aristocratic class of his day can best be explained from his period. It is a well-known fact that Herod, as an alien and not a true Jew, was a thorn in the eyes of the true Israelites, while his introduction and encouragement not only of Hellenistic culture, but even of strange gods, and his alliance with the free-thinking wealthy class of the Sadducees, made him perfectly detestable. His government, in the eyes of all the faithful, was justly considered one that was the exact opposite of what it should be according to the Old Testament idea of royalty, and consequently it was endured with murmurings that found expression in conspiracy.! From such a historical basis, the origin of the Parables as well as the peculiar eschatological prophecies in them, especially the character of the Messiah, finds a suitable explanation, and it would probably not be far from the truth to say that they were written some time during his or his immediate successor’s reign. This conclusion must of course be regarded as a probable one only, since it is simply impossible to come to anything like a certainty as long as we have no better indices of the time of writing than are at our disposal at present. d. Language. —The object, character, and readers of the Parables make it probable that they are a Hebrew or Aramaic production written in Palestine. Their Semitic original is also vouched for by the Noachic fragments. These, themselves written in 59 Hebrew or Aramaic, have used the Parables extensively, something that would not have been done if 37-71 had been written in Greek. § 6. THE NOACHIC FRAGMENTS, 54:7-55:2; 60; 65-69:25; 106-107. The object which these additions ave is clear from their contents. In the rest of the book the final judgment had been sufficiently dwelt upon; but the first, that of the flood, had simply been prophesied, but not recorded. To supply this deficiency these ragments were added. And as Noah was the chief person in this judgment, he is made the medium of revelation, an office he holds by virtue of his piety, Gen. vi. 1 sqq. In addition to the account of the flood and matters related to it, the author dwells on the various secrets of nature, and by his cabalistic manner and anciful explanations! forms a strange contrast to the rest of the book. He evidently seeks to imitate the author of the Parables, as the use of such expressions as “Ancient of Days,” “Satans,” “Angels of punishment,” “Son of man” (used of Noah, 60:10), the special citation of the Parables, 68:1, and other things sufficiently show. As to the time of composition nothing definite can be said, only that it is a Jewish work, without the east indication of a post-Christian origin, not even in 67:7 sqq.? The language is, as the names of the angels, 69:2 sqq. and the different etymologies of the name Noah in 106-107 show, either Hebrew or Aramaic. As to a precise determination of the time when these different parts were united into one book of Enoch, no one could come to a decision, as this would have only the merit of a conjecture. ' Cf. Notes. 2 Cf. Notes. 60 1 Cf Joseph. Antiqg. xv. 8 3-4