《《The book of Enoch》（以诺书）》狱蛇

7、Special Introduction 4

　　§ 4. THE GROUNDWORK

　　1-36 and 72-105. a. Object. —The author writes out of his time and for his time, and hence, before learning what his object is, we must discover the characteristics of his period, the grievances and wants of his people, and then what solutions he has for the problems that were suggested by the condition of affairs. In the pursuit of this effort the parenetic chapters 94-105 furnish us with the best material, and here again it is especially the address in 103: 9-15 that gives us the clearest idea.

　　The author is one of the faithful in Israel, one of the Chasidim, and his work is written principally for them. He finds them a disappointed and despondent party. God’s promises given of old to those that would adhere to his law were clear and defined. Although these did not distinctly remove the veil from eternity and offer retribution and reward beyond the grave, they had opened up to the just all the glories and wealth that this world afforded. The retribution taught by the Old Testament (at least as it was conceived by the Jews) was a purely terrestrial one, and the degree of happiness on earth was made the index to moral worth and fidelity to God. Externa advantages, fruitful harvests, victory over enemies, quiet possession of the land, long life, numerous descendants, were what the faithful had a right to expect. For his faithfulness it “should be well with him in the land that the Lord his God had given him.” But how different was his condition at the time the author writes! In 103: 11 the faithful complain, “We hoped to be the head, and became the tail, and the unrighteous have made their yoke heavy for us.” They are subjected to the will of their enemies, for ver. 12 laments that their haters had become their rulers, and they are the objects of the rapine, injustice, and persecution of the sinners.

　　The Chasidim are a persecuted race; yes, they are often killed, and must descend into Sheol in sorrow, 102: 5. No charge is more frequently made than that of persecution and oppression of the righteous by the unrighteous 94: 6; 95: 7; 96: 7, 8; 97: 6; 99: 13, etc., and the undercurrent of thought is this, that at the time of the author the just were as a minority under the tyranny of the sinners as the dominant party. It is important to notice this fact, not only because it explains why the period of the sword, the time of vengeance on the unrighteous, is so horribly pictured, but because it will give an important hint as to the time when the author wrote. In other respects the righteous do not possess what had been promised, for in addition to the political power all the honor and wealth of the earth belong to the unrighteous, so that they appear as the just, 96: 4, i.e. they are in possession of that which God had promised to the righteous. To their crimes of sin against the faithful is added the great one against God, that of reviling him; in fact “sinners” and “revilers” are almost constantly spoken of in the same breath (cf. 5: 4; 81: 8; 91: 7, 11; 94: 9; 96: 7; 97: 6; 98: 11 sq.(15); 99: 1; 100: 9, etc.), and they go so far as to betray the “inheritance of the fathers,” 99: 14, i.e. the God of Israel. With these data on hand it becomes clear what the writer wanted. Under the heavyyoke of the supremacy and persecution of the sinners, and seeing these “eat the marrow of the wheat and drink the root of the fountain,” 96: 5, they are beginning to doubt the promises of God, to question the truth of God’s justice and his faithfulness in carrying out what had been prophesied by Moses and the prophets. That such doubt was beginning to grow in the hearts of the cruelly wronged band is only too certain from 103: 9-15. To wipe this out, to defend the truth of the revealed promises, and to vindicate the justice of Jehovah, that is the chief aim of the author. His object is, then, primarily an apologetically biblical one, but this only as the groundwork of the practical, exhortative one of admonishing them faithfully and patiently to endure for the present. His answer to the questions of his suffering friends consists in directing them from the trials and tribulations of the（闪族语） to the triumphs of the（闪族语）and therefore his admonitions centre in the words “hope” (96: 1; 104: 2, 4) and “believe” (97: 1), for the day of Jehovah would surely come. It is inaugurated by “the period of the sword,” of the destruction of the sinners by the righteous; and the vividness with which this period is pictured in 99 and 100, especially 100: 3, shows how important it was for the author. He is a Jew, writes for Jews, and his standard of retribution is the Jewish one of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” The character of the sin shall determine the character of the punishment, and this terrible scene of carnage inflicted by the righteous on the unrighteous in the day of vengeance, 95: 3; 90: 19; 91: 11, 12; 94: 7, 9; 95: 3; 98: 12, etc., can only be regarded as the development from the sufferings of the righteous in the time of the author.

　　It should be noticed here that the Parables, which do not presuppose a condition of persecution for the faithful, say little or nothing concerning the period of the sword. But this feature of the author’s eschatological hopes are like his Messianic idea, developments out of the immediate wants and longings of his times. Here he meets an objection. The sinners say that God does not regard their actions, 104: 7. The author knows better than this, for these acts are known in heaven, 98: 6, 7, 8; 104: 7, written on the tablets of heaven (cf. note on 81: 1), and are even remembered and related by the powers of nature, 100: 10; 104: 8. This peculiar method of polemics is prompted by the manner in which he received his revelations as recorded chap. 12 sqq., and his intimate knowledge of the divine course of nature. An objection, however, more subtitle yet meets the author here that he must refute. The fulfilment of his prophecies rests on the assumption that there is a retribution after death, and this the sinners deny. They claim that death ends all, and no righting of the wrongs of life can be expected after death. It must be especially noticed that the author nowhere presupposes the objection that there is no life after death, but only that there is no retribution then. Thus, 102: 6-11, the sinners do not boast that the souls die with the bodies, but only that the fate of all is similar after death, and that the darkness of Sheol will receive both good and bad. The same idea lies in 103: 5, 6. Therefore, too, in his exalted tone, the author emphasizes the fact, 103: 1 sqq., that after death the good will receive their reward, and the evil their punishment, 103: 7, sqq. The simple existence of the soul after death and the resurrection of the departed are never mentioned in a polemical spirit, but always as acknowledged facts; but for the defense of a retribution after death the author brings in all his power of persuasion. He seems to appreciate the fact that he has the letter of the old covenant against him, that he must take a step beyond the Old Testament, and therefore, with a powerful appeal to the greatness of God 103: 1, he assures his readers of the truth of what he says. In this way, then, he has removed the difficulties and cleared the way for the description of the manner in which this future retribution shall take place; he can now proceed to what is his main intention—to a description of the world to come, to his peculiar eschatology. Historically, his object and its origin can be easily understood. It is a well-known fact that ever since the time when Alexander and his successors attempted to establish Greek culture in the East, there had been two parties in Palestine also, the Hellenistic, or friends of progress, and the Chasidim, or those that clung to the law and to all Jewish peculiarities, and bore within their hearts all the hopes and promises of Israel. It is equally well known that this class of faithful ones were generally in the minority and subject to the persecution of the opposite party. Especially was this the case in the ever memorable conflict between the tyrannical and singular Antiochus (IV.) Epiphanes and the Maccabean party. That in this long struggle between the conservative and advanced elements the defeat and sufferings of the former, who knew that God had given them the promises, should excite doubts in their hearts such as the author meets is natural. To encourage them in their tortured condition, to defend the promises given them, to predict the downfall of their enemies and the enemies of God, this was the object and aim the author had in writing. It might be called a proclamation or manifesto to the Chasidim, exhorting them to steadfastness, announcing that the long-delayed retribution would surely and speedily come.

　　b. Contents.—As the author seeks to direct his readers from the tribulations of their times to the glories of the future, his description will naturally be chiefly an eschatological one, embracing the topics of the period of the sword, the judgment, the punishment of the wicked, Sheol, hell, the reward of the righteous, and the Messiah with his kingdom. These topics are, in fact, the objects of his prophecies. During his trip with the angel, Enoch, by a historical lapsus, sees Sheol already inhabited. It is the place of departed spirits both good and bad, for the righteous descend there also, 102: 5. Although Sheol is but a temporary abode, to serve till the time of the final judgment, the fate of its inhabitants is already foreshadowed by their condition while there. In chap. 22, which is devoted to its description, we learn that it has four apartments: one for those righteous who died at the hands of sinners, the second for the other saints, the third for the sinners who were not punished on earth, the fourth for those whose retribution was at least partially given them before death.[1]The last class, however, shall remain here, and not be subjected to a farther condemnation, ver. 13. This peculiar division well reflects the author’s time. Only one that had seen with his own eyes the numerous persecutions of the righteous could think of making for them a special apartment in Sheol with the prototype of martyrs, Abel, where they have the special privilege of continuing their cry for vengeance. The inhabitants of three apartments shall rise again, the unrighteous for punishment, the righteous to take part in the glories of the Messianic kingdom. It should be noticed here that the author presupposes in this connection the resurrection of the wicked, although in other places he mentions only the rising of the saints, cf. 91: 10; 92: 3; 100: 5; 103: 4. Preceding the judgment of the living and dead, and also the period of the sword, there will come the signs of the last times, of which we have a graphic description in chap. 80. Before the judgment, as 90: 19 compared with sqq. shows, there will be the terrible period of the sword of which we have already spoken. Then comes the judgment in which God himself judges, 1: 9; 90: 20; 91: 7; 100: 4. Although the judgment is stated to be universal, embracing the just also, 1: 7, it is evident that it is restricted to those who took active part in the conflict between the faithful and the unrighteous, either as foes or friends, and is thus not universal in an absolute sense. Were it such, it would be impossible to conceive how the author can speak of an increase of the Messianic kingdom after the judgment through the arrival of the hitherto neutral heathen nations. The place of judgment is Palestine, or rather Jerusalem, 90: 20. The order is, first the fallen angels and the seventy shepherds 90: 20 sqq., and then the renegades in Israel. The condemnation of the sinners is eternal, 5: 5, 6; 10: 12; 12: 4, 5; 22: 11, sqq., and consists of burning, 10: 14, in a pool of fire,10: 6; 90: 24, etc., or fiery abyss, 10: 13; 90: 25, etc., or in prison, 10: 13, or in a fiery oven, 98: 3, or in hell, 99: 11. There are two places of punishment, one for the fallen angels, who are temporarily bound under the hills, 10: 4 sqq., which is found “on the ends of the earth,” 18: 14 and chap. 21. It is the same place that is described in 90: 24, 25, where again no geographical locality is assigned to it. The place of torture for the theocratic sinners is better outlined. Going out from the Old Testament idea he places it in the valley of Hinnom, chapters 26, 27, 90: 26. After the removal, 1: 1, and destruction, 1: 9; 97: 1; 94: 10, of the sinners, the happy period of the rule of the righteous is inaugurated. His description is in accordance with his ethics and dogmatics. What the faithful lacked before they shall then abundantly possess. These are both physical and moral blessings. They shall enjoy the good of the land, 10: 18, 19, the temple shall be built anew and the old one removed, 90: 28, 29, and around it then will be gathered all the saints, 90: 33, they shall eat of the tree of life, 24: 4, 5, which has been transplanted to the north, i.e. to Jerusalem, 25: 5, they will have wisdom, 5: 8; 91: 10, there will be absolute moral perfection without sin, 5: 8; 92: 5, and this state shall be eternal, 91: 17; 92: 4; 105: 2, and in these glories the risen just shall take part, 103: 4; 91: 10; 92: 3; 100: 5. The centre of the kingdom is in Jerusalem. But all this so far without a Messiah. He does not establish the kingdom, but grows out from among the faithful after the establishment. We hear of him only 90: 37, 38. For the author, this Messiah is one who is especially prominent by his fidelity religiously, for he is born a bullock while the others are sheep, and by his strength, as he has large horns. The description does not transcend the human, and thus forms a decided contrast to the Messiah of the Parables. Both Messiah and the Messianic kingdom are capable of development, for he grows, and they grow with him. He becomes strong, so that the nations who have hitherto been mere lookers-on fear him, and all come and take part in his kingdom. This chief characteristic of the Messiah, as that of a military hero who will protect the just and establish their rule over all the nations, was suggested to the author as the fitting counterpart to the subjection of the righteous to the supremacy of the sinners in his days.

　　Not a small portion of the author’s work is devoted to a tedious account of nature and its laws. Besides notices here and there, he devotes the whole section 72-82 to this topic. The sun, moon, stars, the phenomena of nature, such as lightning, thunder, rain, dew, etc., are the objects of his wisdom. For him these all have a moral purpose; they demonstrate the power and wisdom of God, and in their relation to him are an example of how men should conduct themselves, 5: 3, 4; 101: 1 sqq.[2]

　　b.Age. —The terminus ad quem is the Epistle of Jude, written in the first century after Christ, probably before the destruction of the second temple. This letter not only quotes the book of Enoch, 1: 9, directly in ver. 14 and 15, but evidently uses it also in ver. 6. Hofmann and Philippi, indeed, claim that an inspired writer could not have cited an apocryphal work, and Jerome says that many regarded Jude as unauthentic, or placed it among the Antilegomena, for the same reason. Accordingly Hofmann and Philippi regard the words in Jude as the incitement that occasioned the writing of the apocryphal work. But if Paul could quote from the Gentile poets, it is certainly hard to understand why Jude could not cite a work that was evidently in high standing among the faithful. As, however, Jude quotes the book as a well-known work, its composition must fall quite a number of years before he wrote; but just when it was composed can only be determined by internal evidences. In chap. 90 the author finishes his survey of the world’s history, reaching his own time in 8-13, and passing over prophetically in 14 sqq. It has been shown in the notes that in all probability the “great horn” is not John Hyrcanus, but Judas Maccabi, and that according to the historical account there the book would be written before the death of Judas, in other words, in the midst of the Maccabean struggle. It remains now to be seen whether the other internal evidence, the spirit of the book, best harmonizes with the historical foundation furnished by the events of Judas’s time or by those of the reign of John Hyrcanus. It has been shown that the struggle between the conservative and orthodox party of the faithful and the new friends of advanced ideas had reached a certain decided point, in which the latter are masters and the former are under their dominion. The Chasidim throughout appear as a persecuted and abased band, while the sinners enjoy the political power and possess all the wealth and blessings of the land. In seeking to fix this to the history of the famous struggle Josephus (Antiqq. xii. 5 sqq.) gives a fitting and appropriate answer. It is the time of the terrible persecutions under the reign of Antiochus (IV.) Epiphanes and the uprising of the faithful under the Maccabees. And while the history presupposed in the book entirely suits this period, it does not at all that of John Hyrcanus. Here the historical facts were entirely the reverse of what is here demanded. His reign, an eminently peaceful one, and not “full of war and rumors of war,” as 90: 8-13 demands, was one characterized by the rule of the Chasidim over the sinners. It is a well-known fact that in no period in the history of Israel, from the exile on, the party that is represented here as the persecuted, enjoyed such absolute control and such perfect political and religious freedom as just in this reign, and therefore the guess at John Hyrcanus is the most unlucky that could be made. Schürer (p. 117) closes his review of this reign with the significant words that since the days of David and Solomon no period had been so glorious and grand. We can, then, have no hesitancy in saying that a book prophesying to the faithful what they really then possessed would be without meaning and purpose, while making it a product of the Maccabean struggle, a word of encouragement to the little band of the faithful amidst their trials, can alone explain its origin, object, and peculiar contents. Just at what time in this period it was written cannot be decided, but certainly, as chap. 90 shows, before the death of Judas, and after his first victories.

　　This statement cannot be overthrown with the remark that it would bring its composition too near that of Daniel. Even accepting, what is by no means an absolutely certain result of investigation, that the Book of Daniel was written during the struggle of the Maccabees, this itself does not exclude the composition of Enoch during the same period. This part of the book now under discussion does not, as the Parables so evidently do, show any positively certain dependence on Daniel, not even in the account of the seventy shepherds. There is not one passage of which we can say, as we can of many in 37-71, with a certainty, or even probability, that it has been taken from Daniel. In some respects indeed the general train of thought is the same, as might be expected from two authors writing about the same time and with almost the same object, but the discrepancies and differences are equally apparent.

　　We are, then, forced to the conclusion that this part of the book was written before the death of Judas in 160 B.C., as from the historical data of that period alone the original character of the work can be intelligently understood, while the pre-eminently peaceful reign of John Hyrcanus, and the prosperity of the faithful during that time, excludes the idea of putting its origin in his days.

　　b.Language.—It is almost universally acknowledged that the book was originally written in a Semitic tongue, either in Hebrew or Aramaic; Volkmar and Philippi alone from their false stand-points maintaining a Greek original. That the generally accepted opinion is the correct one admits scarcely of any doubt. Time, object, and character speak emphatically for its correctness, while the names of the angels, that is of the non-biblical ones, and the Semitic etymology of the names of the winds in 77 and of the names in 78: 1, 2 put the Hebrew or Aramaic original beyond all rational doubt. The book must, then, be regarded as the Hebrew or Aramaic production of a Palestine Jew, written before the year 160 B.C.

　　References:
　　[1]We simply give here and in the following the results reached in the notes.
　　[2] Cf. notes, and Dillmann, p. xv sqq.