《《The book of Enoch》（以诺书）》狱蛇

6、Special Introduction 3

　　§ 3. ANALYSIS

　　The varied contents of the book, its many apparently incongruous elements, its obscure language and symbolical figures, together with the total lack of all outer evidences respecting author or authors, time of composition, and object of writing, have occasioned much perplexity to investigators, and given rise to a vast number of different opinions on the questions suggested by a perusal of Enoch. Neither combination or integrity, nor author or time or language, has been settled to the satisfaction of all, as scarcely two of those that have examined the book agree on all these points. This is not surprising in a book that seeks by all means to hide its authorship and period of composition, and in the nature of the case a full agreement on these topics can scarcely ever be expected, especially as preconceived notions concerning the New Testament canon, principally concerning the Epistle of Jude, have unfortunately influenced the interpretation in both orthodox and liberal investigators. The results of an analysis will, then, in every case bear only the stamp of a possibility, or at best, a probability; absolute and convincing certainty will only be realized if some new outer aids, e.g. a new reliable Greek text, or earnest investigation in ancient Rabbinical and Talmudic lore, should throw light on the subject. Before proceeding to a further examination of the composition and compilation of the book, it will be well to survey the opinions of those who have devoted learning and critical acumen to this topic.[1]

　　Both Laurence and Hofmann, in their translations and notes, had complained of a want of unity and connection in the book. They therefore resorted to a transposition of different parts to more harmonizing places, but not to the satisfaction of later critics, as the necessary inner harmony and connection was not thereby restored. That plan was then dropped, and the idea that the book consisted of several independent parts, written by different authors at different times, became an almost universal conviction.

　　LüCKE[2]analyzes the book as follows: The present book of Enoch consists first of an older portion, embracing chap. 1-36 and 72-108, and secondly of a younger portion, contained in chap. 37-71, in which, however, are some later interpolations. The former was written in the beginning of the Maccabaean contest, 166-160 B.C., as the “great horn,” 90: 9, is Judas Maccabi, the later during the first years of the reign of Herod the Great. No date can be assigned to the interpolations. In his “Nachträge,” however, p. 1072, he holds that the older portion was written during the reign of John Hyrcanus, 135-105 B.C., adopting Ewald’s view.

　　J. CHR. K. VON HOFMANN[3] claims that the main body of the work was written by one and the same Christian author in the second century after Christ. For him the small lambs in 89-90 are not the heroes of the Maccabaean struggle, but the early Christians. The quotation in Jude is, then, not from Enoch, but was the occasion of the production of this apocryphal writing. Later interpolations are found in 59-71; 82: 4-20; 92; 106-108. Hofmann has the honor of being the first to discover the correct interpretation of the seventy shepherds in 89 and 90.

　　DILLMANN[4] also claimed one author for the main body of the work, but did not deny later additions and interpolations. These are: (1) the historical 6-16, 93 and 91: 12-17; 106-107.
　　(2) the Noachic 54: 7-55: 2; 60; 65-69: 25.(3) then chap. 20, 70, 75: 5; 82: 9-20; 108. The book was written about 110 B.C., as the “great horn” in 90: 9 is John Hyrcanus. The additions,however, were made in the first century before the Christian era. Later[5] he admits that, irrespective of the interpolations, the book must be regarded as a compilation of two, or even three, different works. He, with Ewald, regards 37-71 as the older portion, and places it in the first years of the Asmoneans, while the union of the different parts was probably effected about the middle of the first century B.C.

　　EWALD [6] discovers the following parts in the book: (1) The groundwork, 37-71, written about 144 B.C.(2) The second Henókh book, 1-5; 91-105, and other fragments, in the beginning of the reign of John Hyrcanus.(3) The third Henókh, book of which remnants have been preserved in 8; 20-36; 72-90; 106-108, written about 128 B.C.(4) The Noah book,
　　found in 6: 3-8; 17-19; 54: 7-55: 2; 65-69: 1, somewhat younger than the preceding.(5) The present complete Henókh, whose editor added considerable in 6-16, and wrote about the middle of the first pre-Christian century.

　　KÖST LIN[7]divides thus: (1) The groundwork, embracing 1-16; 21-36; 72-105, and written about 110 B.C.(2) The Parables, 37-71 (with the exception of the Noachic fragments), written between 100 and 64 B.C. The same author wrote 17-19.(3) The Noachic fragments 54: 7-55: 2; 60; 65-69: 25, possibly 20 and 82: 9-20, and probably 106-107, and also some things in 6-8.(4) Chap. 108, an Essenic addition about the time of Herod the Great or his successors.

　　HILGENFELD[8] considers 1-16; 20-36; 72-105 the groundwork, written in the first years of Alexander Jannai. Later additions are found in 17-19; 37-71; 106-108, and these later portions are all the work of a Christian adherent of Gnosticism about the time between Saturninus and Marcion. Hilgenfeld lays special stress on a pretended Christian character of the Messiah in 37-71. He declines to separate Noachic fragments. Later he modified his idea concerning the first part by claiming that it was written about 98 B.C. This result is reached by interpreting the periods of the seventy shepherds as each of seven years, so that 7 X 70 or 490 years from 588 B.C., as the acknowledged commencement of the reign of these shepherds, would establish the period of writing.

　　VOLKMAR[9]claims that the periods of the shepherds each embrace terms of ten years, so that the whole period of this rule would be 70, or rather 72, according to his idea, times 10,i.e. 720 years, and counting from 588 B.C. this would indicate 132 A.D. as the year in which the book was written. It is claimed to be the first connected account of the commencement of the insurrection of Bar-cochebas, and was written by a disciple of Akiba. He rejoices in this conclusion exceedingly, and later[10] characterizes the book of Enoch as “a warlike zelotic announcement of the final victory of Bar-cochebas after the defeat of Hadrian 132 A.D.”!

　　LANGEN[11]admits that in its present shape the book is the work of different authors, but claims that the internal harmony is such that a great difference of time cannot exist. As he interprets the “great horn” as Judas Maccabi, he places the composition of the groundwork at about 160 B.C.

　　SIEFFERT[12]considers 1-16; 20-36; 72-81; 91-105 as the oldest portion, written about the time of Jonathan, 165-160 B.C., and interprets the seventy shepherds in 82-90, which he regards as a separate addition, in Hilgenfeld’s style, but begins the rule of these shepherds already 598 B.C., and thus makes the book ten years older than Hilgenfeld, i.e. it was written about 108 A.D. Chap. 17-19; 37-71; 106-108 were written by an Essene, and before the invasions of the Parthians in 64 B.C.

　　PHILIPPI[13] defends the absolute integrity of the book. With Hofmann he regards the small lambs as Christians, and interprets the period of the shepherds like Volkmar, but assumes only seventy shepherds and, counting either from 606 or 588 B.C., considers the book as one of a Christian origin, and written about 100 A.D.

　　WITTICHEN[14] 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[15] 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 a better text is discovered it will be impossible to find the true interpretation of the author’s idea.

　　SCHüRER (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. Schürer adopts Hofmann’s interpretation of shepherds as angels.[16]

　　VERNES[17] 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[18] 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, 83-91, 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[19] 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 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 Schürer’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 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,”[20] 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,[21] 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 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.

　　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 itself into 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 Parables will be best given in the separate examinations of both.

　　The two appellations of God peculiar to 37-71 are “Lord of the spirits” and “the Ancient of days,” the latter of these, of course, being taken from the book of Daniel (cf. note on 46:1). The classical name in the Parables, however, is “the Lord of the spirits” (cf. note on 37:1sq.), and is an appellation that nicely harmonizes with the general spiritual and trans-mundane character of this part, although there may be some doubt as to the exact idea which the author intended to convey in it. Again, the Parables lack at least one name of God characteristic of 1-37 and 72-105, i.e. The Holy and Great one (cf. note on 1: 3). Certainly this exclusive use of different names in different parts would, if it were the only reason, scarcely justify a separation of the book into two or more portions, but taken in connection with the other indices it has considerable weight.

　　A better reason for such a separation we find in the angelology and demonology of the Parables over against the statements in this respect in the other parts. In accordance with the more systematical character of the Parables in general, the classification of the angels is a stricter one than in the first part. In 71: 7 those that guard the throne of God are classified a Cherubim, Seraphim, and Ophanim; and 61: 10, the whole host of heaven are divided as Cherubim, Seraphim, Ophanim, angels of power and of government. A certain class, of which Michael, 71: 3, 8, 13, is one, are called archangels, and are probably the same as the four angels before the throne of God in chap. 40. The angel of peace (cf. note on 40: 8) is peculiar to this part, and in general it will be observed that its angelology is of a higher, almost more philosophical, character than in the other portions. This is apparent from the fact that the functions assigned them are all of an ethical character (cf. notes on 39: 13; 40: 1 sqq., 47: 4, etc.), regulated entirely by the relation they sustain to the development of the Messianic kingdom, and hence their connection with the physical world is not dwelt upon to any extent. Whether 1-37 and 72-105 have a distinct classification of angels is more than doubtful. Aside from chap. 20, which being of doubtful authenticity cannot be used as evidence, the author seems only to know a class called Cherubim, 14: 11, and the number of a peculiar class given differently in 87: 2; 90: 21-31 do not admit of any conclusion. Yet the greatest difference exists on the subject of evil spirits. The first part claims, 15: 8, that the spirits of the giants, the sons of the fallen angels and of the women, are demons, who work violent destruction, and afterwards become the objects of false worship, 99: 7. A different account is given in the Parables. Here we meet with satans, 40: 7, of whom one, the Satan, is chief, 53: 3; 54: 6. The fall of the angels consisted in becoming subjects of Satan, 54: 6, in whose service, 53: 3, are the angels of punishment so frequently mentioned (cf. note on 53: 3), whose work it is to punish the kings and the powerful after the final judgment. The idea of placing over against the kingdom of God an opposing kingdom of Satan, with a retinue of servants such as God has in the angels, can be traced back to the general plan of the author. His polemics are directed against the kings of the earth, hence he not only emphasizes the royalty of the Messiah as the future conqueror of these kings, but sees even in their future tormentors the emissaries of a prince called Satan. As the archangels are the chosen instruments for the special punishment of the fallen beings of their own kind, on account of the terribleness of their crimes, chap. 54, thus the kings, as special sinners, shall have their special tormentors. The kingdom of Satan, although opposed to God, still seems in some way dependent upon his will. The idea has a great similarity with that of Satan presented in the

　　book of Job. This is but one of the many differences existing between 1-36 and 72-105, but is sufficient to prove that the same man did not pen both, that consequently the Parables are from a different author. How this conclusion is strengthened and verified will be seen presently in the separate examination of each part.

　　But is the rest of the book, i.e. 1-37 and 72-105, from one hand? Here the following chapters are probably interpolations: 20; 70; 75: 5; 82: 9-20, for the reasons assigned in the notes.Whether the account of the world-weeks, 93 and 91: 12-17, is altogether an interpola- tion, or only the account of the last three weeks, may be doubtful. That the account 91: 12-17, at least, is such, is manifest from the fact that it makes no mention whatever of a Messiah, which we have a right to expect if it were written by the author of 90: 9. But as the whole account is a connected one, it is best to regard it as an addition made by some admirer of Daniel, and in imitation of him. The question as to the authenticity of 105 is difficult, as it is simply impossible to decide what idea the author desired to express with the “my son.” We have no right to see it in a oμoouafα nor to see in it the one who is(闪族语) the chief one of those who are the children of God, as Israel is frequently called, e.g. 2 Sam. vii. 14. If the latter is the case, it can easily be understood from the author’s Messianic idea, for here the Messiah grows out as a prominent one from among the faithful in Israel, and has nothing of the supernatural that characterizes him in the Parables.

　　We can see no reasons for making any more separations from the book. There can scarcely be a cause for doubting that 72-105 are from the author of 1-37, nor for considering the dream visions 83 sqq.(Tideman) out of connection (cf. notes).

　　The conclusions, then, on the probable division of the work are these: In addition to the Noachic fragments 54: 7-55: 2, 60; 65-69: 25 (106-107) and the Parables 37-71 (with the exception of the interpolations), which are parts most certainly foreign to the original groundwork, 108 is clearly an independent addition, and 20; 70; 75: 5; 82: 9-20; 93 and 91: 12-17 are, in all probability, later interpolations. In 105 not even a probability pro or con can be decided upon.

　　References:
　　[1]These opinions have been mostly collected from the original sources themselves, and where this source failed the deficiency was supplied by Schürer, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, Leipzig, 1874, p. 521 sqq.
　　[2] Eluleit. in die Offenb. Johannes, 1852, pp. 89-144.
　　[3]Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländ. Gesellschaft, vol. vi. 1852, p. 87-91, and Schriftbeweis (2d ed.), vol. i. pp. 420-423.
　　[4]Das Buch Henoch, 1853, p. v sqq.
　　[5] Herzog, R. E.(1st ed.), vol. xii. pp. 308-310, and Schenkel’s Bibel Lexikon, vol. iii. pp. 10-13.
　　[6] Abhandlung über des Aethiop. Buches Henókh Entstehung, Sinn und Zusammensetzung, 1855.
　　[7] Theol. Jahrbücher, 1856, pp. 240-279; 370, 386.
　　[8]Die jüd. Apokalyptik, 1857, pp. 91-184, and Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol. iii. pp. 319-334; iv. pp. 212-222; v. pp. 216-221; xv. pp. 584-587.
　　[9]Zeitschriftd. Deutschen Morgenländ. Gesellschaft, xiv. pp. 87-134, 296; Zeitschrift f. wissensch. Theol.
　　iv. pp. 111-136, 422 sqq.; v. p. 46 sqq., and Eine neutest. Entdeckung, etc. Zürich, 1862.
　　[10] Das vierte Buch Esra ... als ältester Commentar zum N.T. Tübingen, 1863, p.408
　　[11] Das Judenthum in Palästina, 1866, pp. 35-64.
　　[12]De apocryphi libri Henochi origine et argumento, 1867.
　　[13] Das Buch Henoch, sein Zeitalter und sein Verhältniss zum Judasbrief, 1868.
　　[14]Die Idee des Menschen, 1868, and Die Idee des Reiches Gottes, 1872.
　　[15]Merx, Archiv f. wissensch. Erforschung des Alt. Test., 1872, Vol. ii. Heft 2, pp. 163-246.
　　[16]Castelli’s work: Il Messia secondo gli Ebrei, Firenze, 1874, could not be consulted.
　　[17]Histoire des Idées Messianiques depuis Alexandre jusqu’à l’empereur Hadrien, Paris, 1874, pp. 69-117 and 264-270.
　　[18]De Apokalypse van Henoch en het Essenisme, in the Theologisch Tijdschrift, Mei, 1875, pp. 261-269.
　　[19]The Jewish Messiah, from the rise of the Maccabees to the closing of the Talmud. London, 1877, pp. 17-73.
　　[20]That it must be Noah, and not Enoch, as the Ethiopic text reads, is proved in the notes on this chapter.
　　[21] Cf. notes.