《《The book of Enoch》（以诺书）》狱蛇

8、Special Introduction 5

　　§ 5. THE PARABLES

　　37-71 (with the exception of the interpolations). a. Object.—The intimate connection between the Parables and the Book of Daniel is apparent at a glance, and admits of no rational doubt. The fundamental idea of the canonical writer, who sees in the rulers of his own times the radically opposites of the realized idea of theocratic kings, who must therefore give way to the God-pleasing and predicted Messianic kingdom, is copied throughout by his imitator in the Parables. The enemies this writer must oppose and the sins he must reprove are entirely different from those in the first part. Hence his aim is a different one, although his ultimate object, the prediction of the speedy arrival of the long-promised kingdom, is the same as that of apocryphal writers in general, and of the author of the first part also. His polemics are no longer directed against the class of sinners in general, but are particularly directed against the kings and the powerful, 38: 4, 5; 46: 4; 48: 8; 53: 5; 55: 4; 62:1, 3, 6, 9; 63: 1, 12, etc. Occasionally, indeed, they are accused of injustice and actual persecution, 46: 7; 47: 4; but this state of affairs has by no means the prominence that it occupies in the first part. This, too, will explain the fact that in the judgment to come over the sinners the period of the sword is not only not emphasized, as in the first part, but there is even some doubt whether the author teaches such a period at all. The passages that might be interpreted in this direction, 38: 5; 39: 2; 48: 9; 46: 4 sq.; 50: 2, could all be well understood as referring in general to the overthrow and destruction of the sinners in the last judgment. The crimes of the author’s enemies are of a bloodless character and centre in the great one of atheism; not in a sin against the children of God, which is the basis of the first part, but rather in a sin against God himself. For they deny the Lord of the spirits, 38: 2; 41: 2; 45: 1, 2; 46: 7; 48: 10 (cf. 43: 4; 63: 4-8), and a heavenly world, 45: 1, and the Messiah, 48: 10 (and the Spirit of God, 67: 10, and the just judgment, 60: 6). Hence, too, they rely on their wealth and are idolaters, 46: 7; and in their confession, 63: 1 sqq., they acknowledge that their cardinal sin and the ground of their condemnation was their failure to acknowledge God as their King and Lord, that they had placed their hope in their own power, and had not admitted that this power was from God. The author then directs his words against the doings of the aristocratic class among his people, who have deserted the God of the fathers and departed from the hope of Israel. The connection between the author’s ideas and the Old Testament idea of royalty, especially as laid down in the books since the days of David and Solomon, is apparent. The kings of Israel were not to be merely political figure-heads but were, as theocratical rulers, the instruments and deputies of God, ruling the people in his name and in his spirit. They had, then, a religious as well as a political aim to follow, and they, consequently, above all others, were called upon to aid in the development of Israel to that ultimate aim, the realization of the promises given it in the glorious kingdom of the Messiah.[1] In the fulfilment of this theocratic object, the rulers, in the author’s days, had signally failed; instead of being the leaders of the faith and hope of Israel, the royalty and aristocracy had become the home of rationalism and infidelity. The perception of this fact, that there was “corruption in high places,” will explain the peculiar apology of the writer, the judgment, the pre-eminently royal and judicial character of the Messiah, and the final punishment of the sinners. Historically, the status here presupposed is easily understood. The Asmoneans, although originally faithful adherents of the religion of Jehovah, soon after the assumption of royalty departed from the path of the Maccabean heroes. With the single exception of Alexandra (78-69 B.C.) all the rulers from Aristobulus I.(105-104 B.C.) were wicked and godless, by no means realizing what an earnest Jew might expect from theocratic rulers. This, too, makes clear the author’s object. Over against the infidel rulers and the unjust rule of his day he maintains the speedy coming of the chosen ruler of God, （闪族语）the Messiah and his rule of justice and peace. He predicts the downfall of false royalty and its unbelieving adherents, and the establishment of the true God-pleasing royalty through the Messiah as the head of the congregation of saints.

　　b. The Messiah.—The contents centre in the Messiah, as the proper theocratic counterpart of a false royalty, and the Parables could well be called the book of the Messiah. The chief interest of the book lies in his person and object. It has been a constant dispute among investigators whether the Messiah here is a Christian or a Jewish one, the latter position being generally held by older investigators, the former by the later ones. The first glance may speak with some probability for a Christian origin, but a closer examination necessitates the acceptance of a Jewish source. This conclusion is already made probable by the general character of the Messiah as the embodiment of the true theocratic idea of the Old Testament royalty, and he is thus to be the realization of a pre-eminently Jewish hope. The positive statements of the book make this probability a certainty. The most important remark concerning the person of the Messiah is found 48: 3, where it is stated that before the sun and the signs and the stars were made his name had been called before the Lord of the spirits; and, 48: 6, it is said that he was chosen and hidden before the world was created, and was hidden, 62: 6, 7, but preserved and revealed to the just, 48: 7; 62: 7. It is further stated that he “had arisen,” 49: 2; 51: 5, or “appeared,” 52: 9; 38: 2, and was “revealed,” 69: 26. The author here does not teach simply a predestination, but a pre-existence, or rather a pre-mundane existence, of the Messiah. For by his words “before the world” and “before the creation of the sun” the author shows that he does not teach a pre-existence from eternity in an absolute and metaphysical sense, without a beginning or origin, but only in the sense in which（闪族语) is used in Hebrew, from a time the limit of which is for the writer objectively beyond the horizon of his vision.[2]The writer, who manifestly does not desire to give an exhaustive treatise on the person of the Messiah, has a special object in emphasizing the pre-existence. By stating that the author of the glorious times to come is now already prepared, and has been so before the creation of the world, he does not desire simply to vindicate the certainty of the fulfilment of his prophecy, but rather, by ascribing this supernatural character to the Messiah, lays stress on the fact that he will be able to judge and condemn even the powerful kings. That the ability of the Messiah to carry out what is here stated of him is a thesis that the author must establish beyond all doubt, is only too manifest from 55: 4. In thus ascribing pre-existence to the Messiah, the author does nothing more than is done in other respects by apocryphal writers in general. These frequently, in order to emphasize the religious importance of a person, or even of a thing, ascribe to him or it a pre-existence or an archetype in heaven. Thus Assumptio Mosis, i. 14, Moses speaks of himself qui ab initio orbis terrarum praeparatus sum, and Baruch, Apoc. iv. speaks of Jerusalem as having been shown to Adam before he sinned, and the book of the Jubilees remarks that the Sabbath was kept by the angels before it was revealed to man, and Assumptio Mosis, i. 17, speaks of the temple as a place quem fecit ab initio creaturae orbis terrarum. A reflex of this idea is found in early Christian literature, where pre-existence is ascribed to the church in Hermae Pastor, Vis. ii. 4, 2 Clem. 14.[3] Yet it is not even necessary to go to the post-biblical literature of the Jews for the development of the idea of pre-existence. The kernel,yes, the idea itself, we find already in one canonical book that has been extensively used by our author. In Prov. viii. 22-31, the personified wisdom speaks of itself as pre-existent and is thus conceived in En. 42. It is even probable that the different expressions with which the pre-existence of the Messiah is described are imitations of those in Prov. viii. The statement that the Messiah was before the sun and stars were made finds its parallel in Prov. viii. 27, where wisdom is said to have been there “when he prepared the heavens;” and the words that the Messiah was before the creation of the world find their parallel in Prov. viii. 22-26. The connection between the pre-existent Messiah of Enoch and the pre-existent Wisdom of Proverbs is strengthened by the fact that it is stated of him that he has the spirit of wisdom, 49: 3, and in his days the fountains of wisdom shall flow and the just drink from them, 48: 1; 49: 1, as well as by the use of the word (闪族语) unctus sum,[4] in Prov. viii. 23, which corresponds to one of the classical appellations of this supernatural being, i.e. the name Messiah.[5] But if the occurrence of pre-existence can cause no surprise when found in a work like the Parables, which are based upon close exegetical study of the Old Testament, and if the author possibly received some of the embellishments of the idea from Prov. viii., the idea itself he did not get there. If it can be stated as a fact that the Parables in general are closely connected with the Book of Daniel, this can be said to be especially true concerning the Messianic idea. Whatever may be the final conviction of critics concerning the one “who was like a Son of man,” Dan. vii. 13, whether, on the basis of ver. 18, 22, 27, he is to be regarded as the embodiment of the ideal Israel, or to be considered as the personal Messiah, so much is absolutely certain that for our author, as 46: 1 sqq. shows beyond all doubt, he was the personal Messiah. With this established, the source of the idea of pre-existence is given; it is a development from Dan. vii.13. The sudden appearance there indicated an existence before that time, and the coming in the clouds with the Ancient of days pointed to a supernatural being, and thus the author’s exegesis on that passage finds expression in ascribing pre-existence to the Messiah, and is a legitimate conclusion from the premises there given. And then our author bases his description of the Messiah, to a great extent, on Isaiah and Micah, the two prophets who,more than others, emphasize the personality of the Messiah and allow their descriptions to go beyond that which is terrestrial in both his person and his work. For that the(闪族语)of Isa. xl.-lxvi. is for the author of the Parables, probably, no one else but the personal Messiah seems to be clear from many passages.[6]And as eternal existence in the future is frequently ascribed to the Messiah and his kingdom in the Old Testament, the step to eternity in the past is easily made. The eternity a parte post easily suggests the pre-existence a parte ante, and is a process actually gone through in En. 49: 2, where his glory from eternity is placed in juxtaposition with his power to all generations, and the two are placed on a level. And should there still be any doubt that the author stands on Old Testament ground this will be dispelled by a reference to Micah v. 1 (Heb.), where it is said of the Messiah that his going forth is from of old, from everlasting. Certainly the word there used,(闪族语)is rather priscus (with which it corresponds etymologically) than antiquus,[7] but being placed parallel here, as in other passages, with(闪族语) it is evident in what sense the author understood it. As to the supernatural character of the Messiah, it is, then, not only not necessary to go to the New Testament and Christianity for an explanation, but it is even unlawful to do so, as the idea was developed from Dan. vii. 13, and is justified by an exegesis of other passages in the Old Testament.

　　Although the nature of the Messiah is thus of a supernatural character, and transcends that which is purely human, he is far from being equal to God. The author is very particular to state that he holds his office and performs his functions under the command and authority of God and in his name. He has been chosen by God for this special work, and is his deputy; cf. 45: 4; 46: 3; 48: 6; 49: 4; 51: 3; 55: 4; 61: 8; 69: 27; 71: 17, etc., and is thus in reality a “servant of God” (Isa. xl.-lxvi.) In him, then, the theocratic idea of royalty, that the true king of Israel is ambassador and vicegerent of God— an idea which the regents of the author’s days, through their selfishness and impiety, had deserted— shall be realized. In no passage is divine honor bestowed on him. In 40: 5 he is indeed praised by an angel, but as the chosen ones are there placed in the same category with the Chosen One, it is evident that nothing but the glorification of the Messianic kingdom, in head and members, is there meant; and in one passage where the sinners are arraigned for not glorifying the Chosen One we must find a parallel to the passage where they deny the Anointed, 48: 10, i.e. both passages indicate one phase in the general unbelief in the world to come.

　　The Messiah appears under different names, some of which are taken from the Old Testament, and the rest owe their origin to the special work assigned to him in the Parables. He is called the Just or Righteous One, 38: 2; 53: 6; the Chosen One, the title most frequently used (cf. note on 40: 5); Son of man, 46: 2, 3, etc.; the Anointed, 48: 10; 52: 4; and once the Son of the woman, 62: 5. None of these, when considered as coming from a Jewish source, occasion any difficulty, with the exception of the last. It is claimed that the union of the divine and the human here presupposed could not have been made by any one before the coming of Christ into the flesh, that consequently this name proves a Christian origin.[8] The objection would be valid if we had a right to suppose the author understood a(闪族语)or a （闪族语） by this term. But the case is different; it is manifestly a name that is to be regarded as a parallel to the frequently-used appellation, Son of man, which the author, as 46: 1-3 conclusively shows, has taken from Dan. vii. 13. If the expression “Son of the woman” proves a Christian origin, we have a right to claim the same thing of the expression “Son of man” in Daniel—a conclusion that would certainly be most uncritical. The case is very similar to Micah v. 1, where it is said of the Messiah that, although being from everlasting, he shall nevertheless come forth, i.e. be born in Bethlehem. The pre-existent being is still to be earth-born. And if Daniel’s and Micah’s expressions can be regarded as within the bounds of the Old Testament, it is difficult to see why a post-canonical writer should not be able to use the same or similar expressions.

　　This supernatural Messiah shall appear and inaugurate the long-expected kingdom of glory. It had already been revealed, i.e. by the prophets to the righteous, 48: 7; 62: 6, 7, and was their hope, 48: 4, and they believed in him. They shall form the congregation of the holy, 38: 3; 39: 1; 53: 6; 62: 8. It is held by many that in the Old Testament Messianic prophecies the chief interest does not centre in the person of the Messiah, but in the Messianic kingdom, and this idea may be correct. That it should be so is easily understood from the character of the Israelites, who knew themselves to be the children of God and the bearers of his promises. In this respect our author is a true Jew; his main object is the same that apocryphal writers in general have—the announcement of the speedy realization of the promises given of old; and the Messiah’s importance lies in the fact that he is to be the medium through which this realization shall take place, and after that shall be the prince and ruler of the established new kingdom. And as this establishment is in the first place of such prime importance, the person of its medium is dwelt so largely upon. But that the kingdom itself, the time when Israel shall rule in glory, is the chief object of the writer seems to be clear from the first Parable, which shows that the first and great news the author has to announce is the appearance of the congregation of the holy. This appearance is simultaneous with the appearance of the Messiah, and is so intimately connected with him and his work that an account of these is also virtually a record of the fate of the former. The congregation of the holy is represented as already existing in heaven, like its head, the Messiah, and both shall appear in the proper time. The author assures his readers that both the kingdom and its head are already realities, and their appearance is only a question of time. This spiritualistic view evinces a mind of speculative tendencies, and is a product of the continued disappointed hope of Israel, and a strong apology for the promises of God. Just when this kingdom and king shall appear the author nowhere definitely states; but it is evident from the fact that the rulers against whom he speaks shall be surprised by their coming, that the immediate future is the time. This is also clear from the statements that the saints contemporaneous with the author shall see them coming. But when the prophecy is realized, the first work of the Messiah shall be to exercise a just judgment. He is(闪族语), judge. This fact has induced some, and among them Holtzmann, to claim a Christian origin for the Messiah here taught, as the Old Testament nowhere, while repeatedly attributing royal and even priestly and prophetic attributes to the Messiah, ever represents him as judge, whereas this is one of the chief offices of Christ in the New Testament. The difficulty is, however, more seeming than real. The Messiah is the realized ideal of a theocratic king, and as the royal and judicial power were united in the Old Testament, and are to this day in the Semitic nations of the Orient, the Messiah could easily be conceived as a judge. The emphasis laid on this peculiar trait is explained by the fact that it was a matter of importance to the author to show that, above all things, the wicked and godless kings, as the chief obstruction to the development of the Messianic kingdom, should be judged and condemned. The state of affairs in his days necessitated the attributing pre-eminently of the office of judge to the Messiah. The hearts of the faithful longed for a punishment of the wicked rulers, and this longing finds expression in the judicial character of the Coming One. The judgment that shall come is to be held in a purely forensic spirit. It is universal, embracing both righteous and unrighteous, 62: 3, and even the dead shall rise for this purpose, 51: 1. That, however, this universality is not an absolute one, but restricted to those who took part, either as friends or foes, in the affairs of Israel, is not only clear from the general character of the book, whose horizon in this respect does not go beyond the pale of Israel on earth, but also from the fact that after the establishment of the kingdom it shall grow and increase by the addition of the hitherto neutral nationalities around, 52: 4 sqq.; 57: 1 sqq. The same idea underlies 50: 2, where some of the sinners, on the basis of repentance, shall be received. The criterion according to which the Messiah will judge is the deeds done in the flesh, for the deeds of all are weighed, 41: 1; 61: 8. The first to be judged are the fallen angels, 55: 3, 4, and then the sinners. Both shall be condemned to be destroyed by fire, 48: 9. But, unlike the first part, the place of condemnation (for there is but one) is certainly not Gehenna. The sinners are to be destroyed, 53: 5; 56: 4, and expelled, 38: 1, removed from the face of the earth, 45: 6, and will be neither in heaven nor on earth, 45: 2, 5; 53: 2, and darkness and worms will be their dwelling-place, 46: 6. Geographically, this place of torture, called a burning valley, 54: 1, 2, or an oven of fire, 54: 6, is not located, but seems to correspond to the place for the fallen angels in the first part. After the removal of the wicked rulers by the angels of punishment (cf. above p. 30), a period of peace shall be inaugurated, 53: 7, and the new kingdom shall centre in Jerusalem, 56: 6, 7, and it shall repel the last assault of the enemies, 56: 1 sqq. The moral character of the kingdom is strictly such as could be expected from an Old Testament basis. The ruler is endowed with all the characteristics desirable in a theocratic king, whose rule is, if anything, a just one; and the ruled shall partake of great blessings, 39: 4, 7; 51: 5; 48: 1; 58: 1 sqq., etc., which shall be both physical, 45: 4, 5, and ethical. The angels shall dwell with them, 39: 1, also the Chosen One, 62: 14, and the risen righteous shall take part, 51: 2 sqq. The kingdom shall become powerful, 52: 4, and all the nations shall take part in it, 57: 3, and its members shall be clothed with the garments of (eternal) life, 62: 16, and there shall be nothing perishable in it, 69: 29, and hence the kingdom is eternal, 71: 17, etc. That the above picture of the Messiah and his kingdom can be perfectly well understood from Old Testament premises, in fact, has been drawn from them exclusively, is our earnest conviction, and in this opinion we stand with Ewald, Dillmann, Anger, Langen, Schürer, and others, while Hilgenfeld, Kuenen, Tideman, Vernes, and Drummond claim a Christian origin. But this latter is encumbered with the greatest of difficulties. Schürer has very correctly drawn attention to the fact that a Christian would certainly not have passed over the person of the historical Christ without mentioning his death or resurrection. Drummond has felt the full weight of this difficulty, and therefore invents his curious theory of a Christian interpolation. He sees very well that the whole idea and contents of the Parables place it beyond doubt that they are a Jewish production, but he is unwilling to sacrifice his idea of a Christian Messiah. But here the same difficulties meet him; a Christian interpolator would certainly, as little as a Christian author, have avoided the references to Christ which we have a right, from the nature of the case and from the analogy of other interpolators, to expect. When he tries (p. 61) to excuse this by saying “that an interpolator would be careful not to depart too widely from the character of the book in which he made his insertions,” this must be regarded as entirely too flat. His foundation of sand will not bear the superstructure of theory he has built on it. Interpolators are not so delicate concerning their insertions, as many interpolations, e.g. the Christian ones in the Sibylla and the Ascensio Isaiae, conclusively show.

　　The idea, too, of the kingdom is so peculiarly Jewish that it excludes every notion of a Christian source. The Messiah comes but once, and then to judge, and before that time he was hidden. But a Christian, who knew of the historical Christ, could not ignore his first coming, and say that Christ was hidden until he should come to judge. Even had he been a Chiliast, knowing that Christ had once come, an event of prime importance to all Christians, whether orthodox or heterodox, he could not have passed over in silence the first coming. But our author, like all Jewish writers, knows only of one coming of the Messiah, and that in glory. Everything before that time belongs to（闪族语）while his coming shall inaugurate the（闪族语）but for a Christian this latter period had already commenced with the first coming into the flesh. Then it must not be overlooked that the question concerning the relation between God and the Messiah, as to the nature of the latter, is treated in no place whatever in the Parables, while in the early church that was the question around which all interest centred. There is no phase of orthodoxy or heterodoxy in the early Christian church in which we could find a place for the Messiah of the Parables.

　　The conclusion, then, is that it is not only improbable but even impossible to give a rational explanation of the Messianic idea here developed by accepting a Christian source, while it is perfectly intelligible from a Jewish origin, and must be attributed to such.

　　c.Age.—In trying to determine when the Parables were written we are again restricted to internal evidences alone. The only place where an historical event could be regarded as having been before the eyes of the writer is the prophesied invasion of the Parthians and Medes in 56: 5 sqq. It has been argued that the author here had in his mind the invasion of Parthians, 40-38 B.C., that consequently the book was not written until soon after that time, and that the time of composition would then fall somewhere in the reign of Herod the Great, 37-4 B.C. But the allusion here is so vague that it does not necessarily rest on an armed invasion into Palestine, but seems rather to be developed from a general idea that these nations were at that 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.[9] 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.

　　c.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 Hebrew or Aramaic, have used the Parables extensively, something that would not have been done if 37-71 had been written in Greek.

　　References:
　　[1] Cf. on this subject, on which we cannot enter more minutely here, the article of Diestel, in Jahrbücher
　　f.Deutsche Theol., viii. 3, pp. 536-587.
　　[2] Cf. Orelli, Heb. Synonyma der Zeit und Ewigkeit, p. 69 sqq.
　　[3]On this whole matter cf. Harnack’s notes on these two passages in the new edition of the Patres Apostolici.
　　[4]Cf. Gesenius, Thes., p. 890.
　　[5]The pre-existence of wisdom is also spoken of in a weakened sense in Sirach i. 4; xxiv. 9. Cf. also Mal.
　　iii. 1; Isa. vi. 1; Bertholdt, Christol. p. 131.
　　[6]Cf. e.g. note on 48: 4.
　　[7]Cf. Orelli, l.c., p. 76.
　　[8]The last to use this objection was Drummond, p. 60.
　　[9]Cf Joseph. Antiqq. xv. 8 3-4