vru_ I. — di
of all that the sinners and ungodly have wrought and ungodly committed against Him.' It is clear that Jude* quotes loosely and abbreviates, but it will be noticed that (1) in ISou Jude agrees with Novat. Eth. against Gr. ; (2) in iXiy^ai he coincides with Novat. alone, as possibly (for the tense of to'?!«7 is ambiguous) in ffxde. On the importance of the citation in nd Novat. and its independence of Jude (contrast Westcott, Canon, p. 374), see Harnack, op. fit. p. 57, and especially Zahn, Uesch. des Nf.nt. Katwns, ii. p. 797 11'. It may be added that Jude's quotation from Enoch was regarded (a) by Tertul- lian, De Cult. Fern. i. 3, as upholding Enocli ; (j3) by some referred to by Jerome, De Vir. Illust. 4, at condemning Jude.
4. A very common Patristic opinion, found as early as Tert. Do A nima, 50 ; Hippol. De A ntichr. 43 (cf. Bonwetsch, Texte u. Untersuch. xvi. 2, p. 48), identified 'the two witne.sses ' of Rev 11 with Enoch r.nd Elijah (see the references in Speaker's Com- \ncntary, p. 651). F. H. Chasb.
ENOCH, (ETHIOPIC) BOOK OF—
I. Short Account of the Book. — In Gn 5" it is said of Enoch that he walked with God. This expres.sion was taken in later times to mean that he enjoyed superhuman privileges, by means of which he received special revelations as to the origin of evil, the relations of men and angels in the past, their future destinies, and particularly the ultimate triumph of righteousness. It was not unnatural, therefore, that an ajiocalyptic literature began to circulate under his name in the centuries when such literature became current. In the Hook of Enoch, translated from the Etliiopic, we have large fragments of such a literature proceeding from a variety of Pharisaic writers in Palestine, and in the Book of the Secrets of Enoch (see next art.), translated from the Slavonic, we have additional portions of this literature. The latter book was written for the most part by Hellenistic Jews in Efjypt.
The Ethiopic Book of Enoch was written in the second and first centuries li.C. It was well known to the writers of NT, and to some extent influenced alike their thought and diction. Thus it is quoted as a genuine work of Enoch by Jude ('■''•). Phrases, and at times entire clauses, belonging to it are reproduced in NT, but without acknowle<lgiiient of their source. Barnabas {Ep. iv. 3, xvi. 5) ([uotes it as Scripture. It was much used by the .Jewish authors of the Book of the Secrets of h. and of the Book of Jubilees ■ in tlie Testaments of the XII Patriarchs its citations are treated as Scripture, and in the later apocalypses of Barucli and 4 Ezra there are many tokens of its inlluence. Thus during the 1st cent, of the Christian era it jios.sessed, alike with Jew and Christian, the authority of adeutero- canonical book. In the 2nd cent, of our era it was rejected by the Jews, as were also many other .Jewish Messianic writings that had been tr^ into Greek and well receiveil in the Christian Church But witli the earlier Fathers and apologists of Christianity it preserved its high position till aliout the close of the 3rd cent. Henceforth it gradually fell into discredit, and finally was banned by the chief teachers of the Church. Thus the hook cea-sed to circulate in all but the Church of Aby.ssinia, where it was rediscovered in 1773 by Bruce. This traveller brought home two MSS of this book, and from one of these Lawrence made the first modern translation of Enoch in 1H'21.
II. OrioiNAI. LANOUAitE. — Apocalyptic scliolare • In the text of Judo tlifre are Boino iniportiint variiuita, ilia
cliicf beiiitc the«y : (1) in v.K K cur.^ tiiili. ami. rfu<i i» tuipmfn
aiyinn «»I/An (cf. .Vouat.); (2) 111 V.IB K O&h. fOr w. rmt irtSu>
rLMul Cera* ^-^x^'*.
706 ENOCH, (ETHIOPIC) BOOK OF
ENOCH, (ETHIOPIC) BOOK OF
are now practicallj' a^eed tliat E. was derived from a Sem. orij,'inal. The only question at issue now is : Was the orijjinal in Heb. or Aramaic ? Halevy, in the Journal Asintique, 1867, pp. 352-395, decides in favour of the former ; and, so far as our present materials i;o, this view may be regarded as valid. Some Dutch and German scholars, it is true, think that it is po.ssible to prove an Aram, original by means of tne Aram, forms preserved in the Gizeh Greek fragment, i.e. ^ouxa in 18', fiaySo^apa in 28', and pa^Sripa in 29'. The first is undoubtedly an Aram, form of ~'3, and the two latter of "ij"!?. But it is over-hasty to conclude from the presence of these two Aramaisms upon an Aram, original : for exactly on the same grounds we should be obliged to conclude to an Aram, original of Neh 2", where the Aram, form Alvi is found in the LXX as a, transliteration of ]•]!. In the Eth. VS also of Jos 5', 1 K 5" [En". "], and Ezk 1'* there are trans- literations of Heb. words in Aram, forms.
III. Versions. — Greek, Latin, and Ethiopic. — The Heb. original was translated into Greek, and the Greek in turn into Ethiopic and Latin. Of the Gr. VS chs. 6-9* 8*-10'* 15-16' have been pre- served in the Chronography of George Syncellus (c. A.D. 800) ; 89^-« in a Vatican MS published by Mai in the Patrum Nova Bibliotheca, vol. ii. ; and 1-32 in the Gizeh MS discovered only a few years ago, and published in 1892. A critical edition of this last fragment by M. Lods appeared shortly afterwards, and in 1893 it was edited by the present writer with an exhaustive comparison of the Eth. and Gr. VSS of 1-32 as an appendix to his work on Enoch. This study led to the foUomng con- clusions : — ' The Eth. VS preserves a more ancient and trustworthy form of text than the Gizeh Greek MS ; it has fewer additions, fewer omissions, and fewer and less seriou>> corruptions of the text ' (Charles, Book of Enoch, p. 324). The other two Gr. fra":ments will be found in the same work.