Page Content (OCR)
third was kept by Bruce. Since that time other copies have been brought from Abyssinia. Strange to say, no use was made of these important documents until the year 1800, when Silvestre de Sacy, in his Notice sur le livre d’ Enoch, in the Magazin Encyclopédique, an vi., tome I. p. 382, gave as specimens of the book the extracts and Latin translation of chap. 1 and 2, chap. 5-16, and chap. 22 and 32, from which then, in 1801, a German translation was made by Rink. There again the matter rested until 1821, when Prof. Laurence, afterwards Archbishop of Cashel, published an English translation from the MS. in the Bodleian, with the title: “The Book of Enoch, the Prophet: an apocryphal production, supposed to have been lost for ages; but discovered at the close of the last century in Abyssinia; now first translated from an Ethiopic MS. in the Bodleian Library. Oxford, 1821.” The second edition of this work 1 Cf. Ludolf, Commentarius in Hist. Aethiop., p. 347. 2 Cf. Bruce, Travels, vol. ii. p. 422 sq. appeared in 1833, the third in 1838. In the same year in which the third edition appeared, Laurence edited the Ethiopic text as: “Libri Enoch Prophetae Versio Aethiopica.” Both text and translation are unreliable, and must now be regarded as entirely antiquated.! Laurence’s text is divided into one hundred and five chapters, which division was accepted by investigators down to Dillmann. He very properly made the division into one hundred and eight chapters. Prof. A. G. Hoffmann, of Jena, issued a full translation of Enoch with copious notes, in two parts, as: Das Buch Henoch in vollstaindiger Uebersetzung, mit fortlaufendem Commentar, ausfiihrlicher Einleitung und erléuternden Excursen. For Part I., chap. 1-57, issued 1833, Hoffmann could use only Laurence’s text and translation, but for Part II., chap. 58-108, he, in addition to these aids, consulted a MS. copy brought by Dr. Riippell from Abyssinia and deposited in Frankfurt am Main. In the second part many of Laurence’s mistakes are corrected, but not all by any means. With these aids at his disposal, Gfrorer made his Latin translation of the book in 1840, as: “Prophetae veteres Pseudepigraphi, partim ex Abyssinico vel Hebraico sermonibus Latine versi”; but this was again unsatisfactory. The book of Rev. Edward Murray, “Enoch Restitutus, or an Attempt,” etc., London, 1836, must be regarded as a total failure.? All these sins were atoned for when the master-hand of A. Dillmann issued the Ethiopic text in 1851, as: “Liber Henoch, Aethiopice, ad quinque codicum fidem editus, cum variis lectionibus.”? Two years later the same 1 Cf. the severe judgment on Laurence by Dillmann, Das Buch Henoch, p. lvii. ? Cf. Hoffmann, Zweiter Excurs, pp. 917-965. > From this edition our translation has been made. author published his accurate translation of the book, with reliable notes, as: Das Buch Henoch, tibersetzt und erklért, a work of singular acumen and vast learning, which is the standard translation of Enoch to this day. The publication of these two works inaugurated a series of happy studies by Liicke, Ewald, Késtlin, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, Langen, Gebhardt, Tideman, and others, who have all sought to give solutions of the many difficulties presented by this most mysterious book, but with very different results.! Before proceeding to the special examination and analysis of the book before us, it is highly important that the question of the trustworthy or untrustworthy character of the Ethiopic translation be discussed. Is the Ethiopic translation a reliable version of the Greek Enoch? For it is evident that the translation belongs to the early period of Ethiopic literature, when the literature in the Greek language was copied and translated by the Abyssinian theologians, before the introduction of Arabic influence and models. Enoch is, then, like all of the best specimens of literature in Abyssinia,—the Bible, the Book of the Jubilees, the fourth Book of Ezra, Ascensio Isaiae, and Pastor Hermae,—translated from the Greek. Whether the Greek is the original